[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Ah! You got me on the wrote foot. Well, I didn't consult the all knowing google before writing that, I just wrote from memory. I stand corrected. However, I am not entirely incorrect.

At that time portuguese were known as the greatest explorers of the sea and were actively exploring the route to India via Africa. This is exactly the reason why portuguese refused to finance Columbus, they didn't believe in his east via west concept. The spanish however were desparate to find a route to India, they didn't really know whether portuguese had found it or not, those days knowledge of sea routes were heavily guarded. Which is why Spanish finally decided to fund Columbus besides his revolutionary idea. Finally it was the portuguese who the route to India in 15th century, not spanish. I didn't exactly remember the year, nor did I check it.

his idea may have been wrong but he did sail out first.and i did not get this from google but from my worldbook collection.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

his idea may have been wrong but he did sail out first.and i did not get this from google but from my worldbook collection.

Hey, I never even mentioned vasco da gama. Portuguese had been trying to find the India route for most of the 15th century, I didn't remember when they succeeded. They had a pretty good idea how to go to India once cape of good hope was discovered, much later it took vasco da gama to finally succeed.

There was a time when I could remember historical dates quite well, however my memory is not that sharp anymore.

[RX135]

Time and again I avoided myself from posting in this thread. But pathetic ignorance displayed by some posts is brining me back here...

I am sure, my post was pretty ignorant and pathetic, but let me understand how pathetic it was. I wanted to know for last few days, but my work kept me away from it.

I would like to remind you about nalanda (though this one is slightly pre-historic)... and then regarding calculus and gravitational laws... well they didn’t exist in that name, but sure these subjects have been dealt in detail when those north Atlantic regions were filled with barbarians (forgive me for this).

Oh yes, we even had Takshashila and before that, there were vedas, "charak sanhita", kautilya's "arthshastra". Since, we were so advanced 2000 years back, we must be much more advanced now than those european barbarians. How ignorant was I! I am enlightened.

Remember, most the things that ur hear “as first discovered by Europeans” (like earth is a speriacal etc...) where not first time known to human kind. Its the first time these Europeans came to know about it. Asia, mostly china and india, knew all these things much before them. Its just that ur school text books are derived from these european "discoveries and inventions" and not, unfortunately, from our sanskrit texts

.
Oh yes, we had known all that, we had even atom bombs in form of Bramhastra and hydrogen bomb in form of "Parjanyaastra". We had invented "Puspak Viman", when these barbarians did not have any clue about anything flying in air. We did not institutionalize that because all of us already knew it, as simple as that. It is because of these invading europeans we lost all our knowledge, otherwise we knew it all. That damn Max Muller was a European trying to steal our intellectual property in vedas.

Regarding this crossing water and conquering world... i know atleast one example where this ur stmt is wrong. There was atleast one south indian kingdom called "chola" who have gone over and conquered most of the south east asia. Read some where that these countries like thailand and indonesia still have "garuda" as the national emblem. Subcontinents cultural domination over south east asia, and china to some extent, is pretty significant. One example is buddhism... all these couldn’t have been achieved with out crossing over that water.

Right, I must be clearly wrong. But then why does my ignorant memory keep reminding me that Dr. Anadi Joshi (first indian lady doctor) was boycotted only 100 years back for crossing oceans?

One reason why indian never ventured out might be because, most of the other nations (except for may be china, persia...), there was nothing much inviting for them there to go and plunder upon.

Oh sure. We always have richest of natural resources with us, while those Europeans have barren lands. All their growth is due to money looted from us and all their scientific/mathematical discoveries are only due to this money.

One thing for sure, our educational system sure requires a revamp. And because of this education I could be ignorant too... correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, replace all the science books with Vedas, medicine with Ayurveda and before anything else, replace cars with charriots.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by Aditya

If the British didn't come here, someone else would - maybe the Germans maybe the Spanish or the Dutch and they too would not treat Indians in any better / worse way. It was up to our ancestors to unite and put up a fight and that unfortunately, didn't happen.

If we were under German rule, we'd never have any chance. Gandhi, Nehru, Mangal Pandey and all those guys would've been dead much before. They wouldn't tolerate any nonsense from the Indians. Whoever would've revolt against them would be thrown into the concentration camps. The British were definitely not the type. They'd imprison you, judge you according to their laws, and then leave you depending on the judge's statement. We were better off with the British.

One things true no matter how much anyone argues or complains, if they'd never come here, we'd have been a much much backward country with a lot of illiterate people.

If I'm not mistaken, the freedom fighters did not win independence by "throwing" out the British. The British themselves left, because the pressure of handling these freedom fighters was too much and they had to recover from a recent war situation. In fact, they could've left the country easily, but they didn't. They wanted to make a base, prepare and install a Government to hand over power to the Indians, but we didn't co-operate. There were two parties, the Muslim League and the Congress, that opposed each other in every way. WE fought among ourselves by rioting and killing each other. It was obvious that partition is the only option. No Indian made plans for the partition, instead the the British viceroy and governor-general made plans for it, to let us live in peace. But we never stopped. We continued rioting and killing, and this continues till today. Only after attempts to make a decent Goverment and border-lines for both countries, did the British leave.

I seriously don't think ANY other country would have been bothered about India. Living and ruling here for such a long time, developed a relationship between India and Britain. They didn't "TORTURE" us all the time like they portray in movies. Yes they did to a large extent, but then it kept decreasing thanks to the freedom fighters struggle. Should appreciate the movement by the freedom fighters.

[merve_extreme]

one must not forget that europeans developed the system of democracy.it is their way of life that today the common man can go and argue with the governent and demand his rights.

i want to put it this way.if the europeans had never come to India,india may have still have had much of its wealth in resources and jwells,
but the common man like us would still be living in mud houses with tached roofs.

this is still the truth for most african countries.

[SMG]

True. We could have never gotton Freedom by Gandhiji's way. Main reasons why Brits walk away are:

1> WWII : although UK won that war the damage was beyond any measure.
in that sense Adolf Hitler was one of the main architects for India's freedom.

2> Netaji Subhashchandra raised army and joined hands with japanese army and liberated major part of NE India.

3> Last straw on the camel's back was mutiny of Indian Navy and Army units in entire South India especially Mumbai units.

Bapu's Non violance tactices certainly not helped us to get freedom.

[RX135]

I am surprised to read that Gandhiji's role was not crucial in freedom struggle and even more surprised that it seems to be mutely accepted on this forum. For a country divided into castes, religions, languages and every other possible divisions, he was the leader to unite them and show the way. Even his worst critics could never dethrone his place in people's mind. He, alongwith Tilak, was the person to take freedom struggle out from councils and literate society to illiterate indian masses.

I didn't agree with everything he did/preached, and alongwith all his good virtues, he also was a shrewd politician, but fact remains that his tools were probably most suited for our circumstances and easily usable by our people.

It is very easy to sit back after 60 years of independence and say that, whatever Gandhiji did then, was inconsequential in Indian Freedom struggle.

[Shan2nu]

I'm sorry but the british never did anything for the natives of India.

It's easy to say........ "If the british weren't here, we wouldn't have had a railway network".

But then again, they never built it for our benefit.

Their so called contribution is nothing compared to the amount of damage they've caused to India.

And 2ndly, they didn't wake up one fine morning and say "Ok our work is done here, we've decided to leave India alone and let the Indians benefit from everything we're leavng behind". We had to bloody drive them away.

Anyway, what has happened has happened (it can't be changed). Lets leave the past as it is.......... and look towards the future.

Shan2nu

[gkrishn]

Originally Posted by SMG

True. We could have never gotton Freedom by Gandhiji's way. Main reasons why Brits walk away are:

1> WWII : although UK won that war the damage was beyond any measure.
in that sense Adolf Hitler was one of the main architects for India's freedom.

2> Netaji Subhashchandra raised army and joined hands with japanese army and liberated major part of NE India.

3> Last straw on the camel's back was mutiny of Indian Navy and Army units in entire South India especially Mumbai units.

Bapu's Non violance tactices certainly not helped us to get freedom.

I kind of 1/2 agree with that. MKG was not single reason for why they left, but can say that he was single largest contibutor to freedom.

I also kind of agree with the first point. Though dont want to get into hitler here... i feel that british were pretty weak after WWII. And UK kind of become a aged country after losing lot of young officers in that war. And subcontinent was becoming more of liability than of an asset to them. So all these reason added up and they decided to leave... sad that we never managed kick them out on our own

BTW i am a big fan patel than of gandhi. I think patel is one big reason(and not those brits as some one mentioned here...) why india stands as a union of so many states.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by RX135

I am surprised to read that Gandhiji's role was not crucial in freedom struggle and even more surprised that it seems to be mutely accepted on this forum.

Didn't really accept, just tired of arguing...

History is usually written by the victor, when India was lost to British piece by piece, they did a good job re-writing their version of history. When we read their version of History, we feel "Well, these guys were not really bad guys..."!

Sometimes back a member said I get my history from google, and his comes from World book. Well, my history doesn't come really from google, not directly. I don't trust any history unless I get the same or similar version from many different unbaised and unconnected sources, which is often very difficult to find.

For example, take my background. Until I was 30, I used to think I came from an agricultural community. Hence, my relatives used to chide my interest in martial arts since I was a teenager. About 6 years back I was researching something about Kalaripayattu and to my shock I found that my community had the same brackground. In fact Kerala Kalari experts used to come to my native district for advanced studies.

Reproduced in italics from a kerala travel website:

Contacts with Tulunad
The Ballads of North Malabar and several Teyyam Tottam songs make frequent references to the migration of combatants from Malabar for short periods to Tuluva, (present South Kanara district) for advanced training in the use of weaponry and physical flexibility. It is described in these primary sources that the eighteenth atavu or tactics based on throwing sand on the rival's eyes by the quick action of shield and feet known as poozhikkatakam was a major specialisation of Tulunad. Some of the Malabar heroes who had mastered this skill were Tacholi Othenan, Chandu and Matiloor Gurukkal.

Heroes like Koti and Chennayya, vividly described in the Tulupaddanas or heroic songs, who probably belonged to the first half of the seventeenth century, are still propitiated in the bhuta cult of the region. These worship centres were known by the term garadi which denoted a gymnastic centre as derived from Khaloorika, a Sanskrit term for such an institution. There are hundreds of such garadies in Udupi, Karkala and Belthangadi. An association has been recently organised by name, Tulunadu Garadi SamskritikaAdyayana. During the medieval period, the garadies were advanced centres of training in physical culture and weaponry. However after the British occupation of Kanara in 1799, the garadi as an institution, lost its significance. The garadi tradition and its cultural heritage were completely destroyed under the colonial system. Ajudgement in a civil litigation before the District Munsiffof Uduppi in 1892, states:

"This family has got in addition to the family house, a building calledgardi. It contains an image of Chandrika Parameshuari Ammaa goddess, in one room and that of Veerabhadra in the other room. These two rooms are said to be situated within a spacious hall which contains a small round pillar. It is said that the ancestors of this family exhibited their athletic performances here, and that the above mentioned pillar was used informer times for their gymnastic exercises." (Dyamu Shettithi and others Devappa Naneya, 0. S. 35811892, dt. 8.7.1893;from the collections of S.A. Krishniah, R.R. C.M G.M College, Uduppi).

The presence of idols made it into a shrine. Even the revival of the garadies did not restore them as centres of training in physical conditioning. Most of them are now owned by the Bunts, the Billavas, the Pujaries and the Vaidyas. When the region of Kerala had revived the Kalari system, its Tulu counterpart; the garadi, had lost its heritage as a centre of gymnastics. The cult of Koti and Chennayya is being popularised now, through the garadies. However, in the pre-colonial period, the Tuluva region had established its name and fame as an advanced centre of martial training. The northern parts of Kerala had established frequent contacts with the Tuluva region and the Malayala Chekons or fighters, created fear in the minds of opponents there.

This erasing of our cultural history was so complete, not even my grand mother remembers anything about our martial background, although one of her cousin's house is known as garadi, she didn't know why it was called so. However, I continued to talk to older relatives and one of them recalled some family story about somebody who died while practicing sword fight at home. Finally I was able to track down that detailed research study Tulunadu Garadigala Samskritika Adyayana from a Mangalore college and now I have complete photocopy of that document which explains so many things about my cultural background which is unknown to my older relatives. (Speedsatya, this may explain your aggressive trait... )

Therefore, reading some book and arguing about who was right is quite pointless. You only know one version of the history. Unless you can verify it many other unrelated and trusted sources, you'll never know what really happened.

Regarding the other habit I see there, the IF predictions, if British didn't come we would be living in poverty, etc. You know what, there is no way to know what would have happened. You can make some broad predictions about the time immediately after the IF, but I don't think you can predict the current situation based on a 250 years old IF.

IF British didn't come to India, they couldn't have defended against Napolean. They wouldn't have to tried to suppress the colonies in the America or ventured into Africa. However, I don't think any of us could make any further prediction about the effect of British staying home in 18th century on the 21st century.

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Sometimes back a member said I get my history from google, and his comes from World book. Well, my history doesn't come really from google, not directly. I don't trust any history unless I get the same or similar version from many different unbaised and unconnected sources, which is often very difficult to find.

why dont u say who said that.yes i did say that because u belive that all people on this forum use googling tools and u have another belif that elder people always have more knowledge.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/showth...479#post109479

Originally Posted by Samurai

Gurkha, Steeroid, you both fall in my age category and are talking from life experiences. However you should realize you are arguing with 20 years old youngster armed with google references, and it is possible to get references to back any kind of argument from the Internet.

there are many people on this forum who dont refer google.it is not that u know all history byheart so sometimes u find articles to support ur argument.
and why dont u provide refrence to prove the indian angle of freedom struggle.

Simply because history is written in English does not mean it is written by British

Originally Posted by Samurai

IF British didn't come to India, they couldn't have defended against Napolean. They wouldn't have to tried to suppress the colonies in the America or ventured into Africa. However, I don't think any of us could make any further prediction about the effect of British staying home in 18th century on the 21st century.

Napolean I(bonaparte) was born in 1769.the british by contrast reached india in the 1600's.the real british expansion in india started in the year 1757.

the french and the british were rivals in the indian subcontinent and at one point of time in the 1600's the french were more powerful than the british.it is not napolean they were afraid of.

also i am putting the worldbook pages here to prove my refrence,so that u stop ridiculing others.see next post.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

why dont u say who said that.yes i did say that because u belive that all people on this forum use googling tools and u have another belif that elder people always have more knowledge.

Even I use google lot of times, but I don't use it as absolute proof. Regarding knowledge, Yes. Usually older/experienced people do have more knowledge, maturity and understanding. And so far you don't appear to be an exception

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

there are many people on this forum who dont refer google.it is not that u know all history byheart so sometimes u find articles to support ur argument.

No disagreements there.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

why dont u provide refrence to prove the indian angle of freedom struggle.

I don't think I can convince you, so I won't bother.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

Simply because history is written in English does not mean it is written by British

I was saying British, not english langauge.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

Napolean I(bonaparte) was born in 1769.the british by contrast reached india in the 1600's.the real british expansion in india started in the year 1757.

Thanks for supporting my statement, so what is the disagreement?

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

also i am putting the worldbook pages here to prove my refrence,so that u stop ridiculing others.see next post.

You are arguing with me based on one book? How can one book cover everything about world history in such detail?

[RX135]

Whoa! Samurai and Merve, what are you fighting about right now, other than who uses google/worldbook and when did Napolean Bonapart invade england?

Let's debate facts/topics than getting personal about each other :-)

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I don't think I can convince you, so I won't bother.

how can someone be convinved without proof? or refrence.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Thanks for supporting my statement, so what is the disagreement?

British came to india even before Napolean was born.so they were not afraid of Napolean.

Originally Posted by Samurai

You are arguing with me based on one book? How can one book cover everything about world history in such detail?

so u dont know what worldbooks are.they are a collection of 21books each having more than 300 pages(some have 900).listing everthing from A-Z.it is all u need to have a very good idea of history and any GK.

www.worldbookonline.com/
this is its online refrence center.i dont use it as i have the books.





RX this is not a personal fight.Samurai and i have decided to fight.

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

Samurai and i have decided to fight.

this the biggest typing error i have made.it is actually that we have decided not to fight.

these are my world books