Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Pakistan Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: If it hadnt been for Quaid and Gandhi
bruce Lee    9/6/2006 2:13:12 PM
This land would have become a DEVEloped Country mind you i have alot of respect for these great leaders. Seeing India become the next Aussie and Paki with impressive economic progress i think it would have definetly happened.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
olive greens       9/6/2006 4:57:07 PM

Well, Mahatma Gandhi was dead within a year of Independence (1948), so it seems kind o unfair to place the blamce completely on him. I believe Jinnah wasnt alive too long either.

Mahatma Gandhi was certainly somewhat of a brake on Indian "development" in the Western sense because he was all for "village life" and stuff, and it permeated many sections of the society. But seeing his very early death, and Pandit Nehru's prompt move to industrialize and achieve self-sufficiency... I dont think his ideas took effect in policy-making. From what little I know of Jinnah, he was always pro-industrialization.


PS: I might have completely misunderstood your question. If you meant that by achieving Independence India/Pak lost out on being "hand held" into development by UK like Oz, then you are completely wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

chupooey    does it make any sense   9/7/2006 3:35:09 AM
Had british not been in sub continent, mughal empire would have been the ideal kindgom in the world.
 
Quote    Reply

Jawan       9/7/2006 5:16:03 AM

Had british not been in sub continent, mughal empire would have been the ideal kindgom in the world.


Mughal empire was in its decline after Aurganzeb, 1707, I think. Not much imagination to know where the Mughals were going, RIGHT DOWN SOUTH. Marathas and Sikhs was consolidating their empires, and so was OUDH. British took them all!!! No big deal.

They brought some good things, but stabbed the subcontinent while leaving in 47.
 
Quote    Reply

chupooey    mughals   9/7/2006 8:54:13 AM
well one should not  expect each mughal emperor to be babar. he was exceptional in his own right. so even if mughals started fading so early as 1700 what were these marathas and sikh doing for 150 years to come, i guess just waiting for the british Raj to liberate them. and you say they brought some good things. namely ??????? Every thing that make india make feel  proud of, was made by mughals. and have you ever seen any king leaving his occupied territory on positive outlook. they left knowing for sure that even after getting independence these people would remain under their influence for years to come.
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens       9/7/2006 12:38:56 PM

so even if mughals started fading so early as 1700 what were these marathas and sikh doing for 150 years to come
 Liberating India from the clutches of Turkic barbarians and their traitor cronies???

<img src="http://img.search.com/8/87/300px-India1760_1905.jpg">


 
Quote    Reply

olive greens       9/7/2006 1:02:00 PM

Of course count on a Paki to sing the highest praises of the masters who ruled them with the tightest leash. Tell me what exactly do they teach about even Pakjabi resistance to the Mughals in your mutant country? Surely you must have heard of the Bhattis' (and I mean just the converts) resistance to the Mughal tyranny? Or read some of Kushal Khan Khattak's poem's bemoaning the dishonor of Pashtun life and persecution of its people?

Okay, skrew that: Even Indian textbooks are retarded enough to term Akbar "the Great", cant hardly expect you neanderthals to know otherwise (BTW: if you ever get around to it, ask about the 6 foot long pyramids of Pashtun patriots' heads marking every mile of Grand Trunk Road from Peshawar to Lahaore -- a fitting memorial to the last semi-decent Muslim King of Delhi who undertook the GTR project for the public good instead of personal aggrandizment, Sher Shah Suri - a Pathan).

Let me set the goals reallllly low: If the Mughal power was non-existent by 1700s, please explain how Nadir Shah of Persia sacked Delhi in 1750s? Or explain how Ahmed Shah Abdali (Durrani, if you prefer) raided Delhi 17 times if the Mughals were in full control? Or explain why the Mughal King commissioned a Maratha Army to fend of the 18th raid? Or explain who won Peshawar from the Afghans (now under Abdali's grandson) for you ungrateful wretches - the Sikhs, the Mughals or the British in 1820s?
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens       9/7/2006 1:29:42 PM

It never ceases to amaze me - the pride you Pakjabis show in high-lighting your exploited and undistinguished past by praising the very exploiters and tyrants at every given opportunity. In all the 400 years of Mughal history there is just ONE instance of a Punjabi Muslim attaining a princely rank of Mirza in the court of the Turks! As a benchmark know that every friggin alley in Lucknow seems to have had its own "Mirza" at one point of time or another (you can confirm it with the nearest Mohajir).

Oh, and where do you think the Mughals got the revenues to spend their wasteful lives in the pre-Indsustrial Age? From the deserts of Rajasthan? From the mountains of Maharashtra? From the ever rebellious Jats of Ganga valley? OR is it possible that it was it from the fertile plains of Punjab?

I am sure Turks like Ghaznavi, Khilji and Babar, as well as Pathans like Ghuri and Abdali will feel extremely gratified that their favorite milking cow and whipping boy continues to honor them by naming all their missiles after them in the most childish, knwwjerk reaction.

 
Quote    Reply

bruce Lee       9/7/2006 2:05:50 PM
Hey why the hell you are talking about Mughal power in  operational in 1700s  I simply asked that is my opinion of Sub-Continent being the next Australia had their been no independence is correct
 
Quote    Reply

Jawan       9/8/2006 3:26:03 AM

Hey why the hell you are talking about Mughal power in  operational in 1700s  I simply asked that is my opinion of Sub-Continent being the next Australia had their been no independence is correct


India as an economy is bigger and better and has more potential than Australia. Your opininon about the subcontinent being an Australia had their been no independence is '"looney" to the say the least. Australia was a dumping land for all the undesirables from Britain and later for all the losers in Britain who wanted to start afresh. India is/was way too big before and after independence!!! and most importantly Indians wanted to kick out the FIRANGS, period. Firangs stabbed India in the back by sowing the seeds of Partition. See where that led too 60 years down the line. Pakis trained in Terrorist state of pakistan blowing up trains in London.

What u sow is what u reap!!!
 
Quote    Reply

bruce Lee       9/8/2006 9:44:51 AM
Jawan i think you said that India is better then AUSTRALIA i think u should have say for some million people living below poverty line that Australia is like a God for them.
Remember Australia is a developed country while India is a third world country
Now look at the cities of Darwin , Sydney ,Camberra and Hobart closely and compare it with Dehli,Mumbai Bangalore and Karachi
I think you will get the idea
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics