BOMB found under boxing ring in Pakistan at Boxing Tournament Amir Khan is attending.

if it was a joke fair enough, but there's nothing there that I said that was bollocks. India was trying to industrialize right from the start, but we put a stop to it because it was a threat to the business interests of the big textiles manufacturers in manchester.

If you're really that arsed I'll dig up some sources. Off the top of my head Eric Hobsbawn in the Age of Revolutions definitely goes into some detail on this.

 

Yeah, the day before. Quite Literally.

But... it seems most people posting on here have little to no clue... Im not of Pakistani origin but of another country.. and if you have roots/relatives/ancestry in another country its perfectly natural to have some sort of bond to it and visit it more than just the once. In the same way you see many prominent Indians going to back to India for various activities, Pakistan is no different. Anyone who as any clue, would know the country while having never been perfect, where is? Has had much better days, with safety, peace, and security. Shame really, if you've seen some of the places of natural beauty in that country, you'd be amazed.

 

Nah I did about all that period at University. Really do not want to read about it again. I prefer the military and political side of things rather than industrial.

Too many different opinions on the subject for me to be bothered getting an headache about it all again.

 

If the East India Company had never driven the French out it would have been a wasteland as like all French colonies, we never really went out to conquer but to administer & TRADE which was always a welcome thing with the regional Indian rulers. there never really was a country called India, it was a sub-continant made of of various wealthy powerful states who had everything that the Europeons wanted in the form of trade goods.

We went over they with out proxy mercenary army also in the quest to get the french out of the far east & to stop then having ports where there fleets could destroy our shipping & control the shipping lanes through to China. In effect in the 16th it was the first Global conflict & a fight to the death between Britain & France i.e Britains very survival & existence. If we had'nt succeded back in the 16th century the world would have been speaking French as it's International language.

Just look at the infrustructure that we built in India, like the railways for example at incredible cost & just handed over & back in the 19th century there was always a good possibility that the Russians would have taken over if the indian mutiny had succeded which was Russian financed. This is why Britain was always involved in Afganistan as it was to block any invading Russian forcr heading south towards the Kyber Pass which was the gate way to India.

All through India's history it has always been ruled at the top by outsiders/invaders & India has always been at the centre of Global politics between the Europeon powers, thats why it was termed the "Great game" our nations very survival depended on holding India & with local Indian Co-operation it could never have been possible for any invader to rule.

The Indian's hav'nt done so bad out of the british connection as compared to if the French/Russian had taken control.

Went on a bit there, sorry:smoke

 

Hope they are fine mate :good

And hope some sort of stability comes to Pakistan as soon as possible.

 

---^ I like most of that post. **** the one above that. God sakes saturday kid..**** I agree with the one above too.

 

Gives us a break, i've just got up, late night & it was the 1st think that came into me head, must have been the curry i had at 4am

 

Only some words. Like Shampoo Bungalow. But that came from Hindi. English primarily is the result of Germanic dialects meshed with Latin French and Greek. Matter of fact English in my eyes is a good as dialect as its certainly not a classical language like French or Greek.

 

They did bring a few things to the subcontinent, but on a larger scale they did a lot more damage.

Mazallan - if you studied history, you may also be aware that India was the richest country in the world for the first 1000 years AD and in fact, India and China were the top two richest civilisations for the first 1700 years AD. Guess when things started to change? When the British arrived, by the time British left, they had totally ****ed everything, India became one of the poorest countries in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29

If the British didn't come to India, it would have developed on it's own and would probably be far more developed than it is now.

- I'm sure railways would have come along at a later stage
- The English language would have come at a later stage. Anyway, India survived successfully without the English language for millenias.
- This talk of divide by people is just bull****, it wasn't as bad as it was made out, the British Raj stirred things up big time

My conclusion
The modern day India/Pakistan region got held back and froze it's development by 200 years because of the British Raj. It wasn't a third world country by the standards back then. Pakistan right now is in a bad way, but India is beginning to get powerful again. Anyway, it's the British who started the Gaza strip problems, which in turn influenced these Al Quaida type groups, which in turn spread around the Islamic world.

But even if the British didn't do anything, humans would just find something else to moan about and bomb each other about.

 

Don't worry he had already decided to vacate.

 

:huh There was no Pakistan before the break up of the Raj

 

Just a bunch of guys that hated each other is all I meant.

 

Yep because no had war or killed the **** out of each other before the British arrived. I am not defending Britain or saying Britain did not do some terrible things or leave places in a bad way but WE DID'NT START THE FIRE...IT WAS ALWAYS BURNING...SINCE THE WORLDS BEEN TURNING...

 

Its a fair point that you're making, and I wont dispute it, but if the very best you can say about British rule in India is that it's possibly better than French rule then doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?

And as for the infastructure, well, yeah we did build infastructure, but we build the infastructure to make it a more effective COLONY. We didn't build infastructure that would help the Indians compete as an independent industrial nation, infact we deliberately held that back to promote our own business interests.

Everyone goes on about the railways, and yes it was a stunning a achievement, but a nation is not built on railways alone. We had no problem building them infastructure as long as infastructure was to help them be a more effective subordinate to England, but we also prevented them from opening their own cotton factories, we destroyed iron mines, we we deliberately held them back. After all, why go to the lengths of colonizing a country if you're just going to make it stronger than the mother country? This is the perverse logic of imperialism, you can develop a country, but only in so far as it helps strengthen the mother country.