Indo-UK: News & Discussion

[AnimeshP]

I have to say that any honest evaluation of British rule in India requires Indians to face up the "traitor" problem.

Simply put, the effects of British rule in India were so bad because so many affluent Indians willingly collaborated with them. In many cases, their inhumanity and callousness exceeded the foreign rulers. Given that Indians had both the money and opportunity to learn and compete against the British, but instead chose to exploit people who looked liked them is detestable.

It is also disturbing to note that descendants of these traitors are still among the influential classes in India, indeed many of them are still elected by a popular majority.

At the risk of going OT ... one should watch the movie "Shatranj ke Khiladi" (based on Munshi Premchand's novel) to see how the British expanded on empire in India and the reaction of the Indian elite to this ....

[Stan_Savljevic]

Radicalisation of U.K. campuses ---- Hasan Suroor
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/column ... e75624.ece

[Virupaksha]

Why should modern day descendants bear the blame for what their distant ancestors (allegedly) did ? Such an attitude will only descend into a veiled witchhunt. One could ascribe ill-gotten gains to most 'old money' entities in the world.

Suraj,

The only problem is they are still enjoying the same riches plundered from here.

I will try to give an analogy. X and Y exist. X robs Y and builds a castle from the money he robbed and throws out Y from his house. They both die. Now x and y are their grandchildren respectively. x lives in the same castle built by X and y is right now only able to build a small flat.

Should y harbor ill feelings towards x? its a loaded philosophical question, but one thing is for sure. I wouldnt be seeing y in too much bad light if he holds a grudge towards x.

To think that actions taken by you does not affect your grandchild in one way or other is foolishness.

[sum]

Radicalisation of U.K. campuses ---- Hasan Suroor
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/column ... e75624.ece

Decent article but dont understand the last sentence.

Increasingly, however, sane voices such as those of Prof. Sutherland’s are being drowned by shrill calls for a “crackdown” and there is a real danger that campuses could soon turn into “cantonments.” All it will take is one more HuT/al-Qaeda-inspired atrocity with a London connection.

What does Suroor suggest to be done if not a "crackdown" since person after person is turning up from UK and blowing himself up somewhere?

[Viv S]

Had the British quit after the first world war, they might have left better memories of the Raj in India.

In any case, if there is one thing that has to be conceded. The British were the ones who laid the foundation for modern India. Its entirely possible if not probable, that had they not established their rule, India today may well have been 20 different nations(city-states perhaps) ruled by a variety of governments ranging from democracies and communist regimes to autocracies and monarchies. Or (more likely) we'd all have been talking French and criticizing France for their colonial past.

[Viv S]

Should x harbor ill feelings towards y? its a loaded philosophical question, but one thing is for sure. I wouldnt be seeing x in too much bad light if he holds a grudge towards y.

To think that actions taken by you does not affect your grandchild in one way or other is foolishness.

True but should x be held responsible for something X did?

Should the German people be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis?

[shyam]

The British were the ones who laid the foundation for modern India.

You rape a woman, and she gives birth to a child who proves that he/she can become a great person. Then you can say that it is you who laid the foundation of that great child.

[shyam]

Should the German people be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis?

Yes, if Germans do not regret, feel ashamed and apologized for those actions.

[Virupaksha]

True but should x be held responsible for something X did?

Should the German people be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis?

is x living in the same castle built by the robbery of X?

Are the germans keeping the gold and artifacts looted? Was there an honest attempt to return the looted money or are they being passed on to the looter's heirs?

Its a loaded and philosphical question. I can see both the extreme positions which y can take.

He will have my sympathies for any philosophical position he takes.

[somnath]

^^^ A discussion on British colonialism's culpability in India's destitution/decline is quite irrelevant IMHO..Regardless of what the British did or didnt, we havent really "shone" in our "post-independence" performance either..Economically, our share of both global GDP and global trade are significantly lesser than the numbers in 1947...And we were virtually untouched by the second world war, unlike most of Asia and Europe..

A discussion on our lapses is a lot more important than one on the British (or "Unbritish, as Dadabhoy Naoroji put it) rule in India..IMO, our dark ages were really between 1960 and 1991, unfortunately precisely the time when the rest of Asia really took off, and Europe rebounded..

[Hari Seldon]

Subtle Brit humor on display. Piskological analysis of the UK stani psyche when compared with that of the boorish yankistanis.

Our American friends

Recommended read, folks.

P.S.
IMO, as a nation we can do better than to bear grudges. I'd rather we bear the Brits no ill-will as blind hate harms us more than anyone else. A look at congenital TSpian love for Yindia proves the point. But but but its terribly important to not fail to talk truth about the past and to not fail to learn bitter lessons of history. Certainly, there's zero need to bear the Brits any misplaced goodwill for the Raj or its aftermath.

[Virupaksha]

Somnath,

In the Indian economy thread what you said is true. However this is Indo-UK thread, which includes how one should perceive each other- which should be placed in the correct context.

[Virupaksha]

Certainly, there's zero need to bear the Brits any misplaced goodwill for the Raj or its aftermath.

Unfortunately or fortunately the PM of India has other views

[Sanku]

Suraj,
That is why the deep and serious study of history and most specifically antropology is important. In the evolution of human history going back tens of thousands of years, one thing we learn is that time is a great equalizer.
I will give you several most recent example.

To this you might add the example of A'stan:

it was the teror of india, Afhgans came over the Khyber as and when they pleased every winter & took gold, women & booty. They ruled large parts of India. Converted many of the "inferiors" including their neighboring cowardly Punjabis, who then became the current day Pakjabis, to their faith. Destroyed India, its heritage, its society at will.

Then fate came.

First they lost out to the kaafir Sikhs, loosing their winter capital of Peshawar, large tracts of lands forever (current day NWFP). Then they had superpowers of the modern era have bombed it (USSR & USA) it mercilessly. The country is thoroughly destoryed, it has the largest number of people in all areas of statistics which it shouldn't (largest number of invalids, largest number of those woudned by mines, largest number of IDP's, largest number of refugees). It has no government, no currency worth its name, no army, no police, no central bank, no university, no nothing. What is even more galling is that an "inferior" Pakjabis, whom they held with contempt in the past, rule them & be a decider of their fates. They have to take baksheesh from the Indians. The saga shows no signs of bottoming out.

Great insights folks, never looked at the world in that term.

To the above examples, we can add Rome as well. Rome went out and conquered, however the Anglo-Saxon tribes returned and with such vengeance that the native Roman tribes were almost annihilated and the racial composition of Italy completely changed.

Fascinating.

Apologies for OT.

[Murugan]

In any case, if there is one thing that has to be conceded. The British were the ones who laid the foundation for modern India. Its entirely possible if not probable, that had they not established their rule, India today may well have been 20 different nations(city-states perhaps) ruled by a variety of governments ranging from democracies and communist regimes to autocracies and monarchies. Or (more likely) we'd all have been talking French and criticizing France for their colonial past.

India was consisting of 600 different states within a state at the time of british. apart from few convention states there were many feudatory(sic) states. the british were powerful in their presidency areas - madras, calcutta and bombay presidencies and misruled from these presidencies.

the feudatory states ran their affairs that included policing, postal services and currencies till the british left. these states paid ransom to british for policing their state borders and protecting their interests against other princely states in addition to protecting the western boundaries since brits were in constant war with afghans.

there were no welfare activities carried out by brits and there was no rule as such other than rules for collecting taxes. all the stupid rules were taken for granted by indian public. world famous dandi march was such an example. non-coperation movement was another example to defy all kinds of misrule.

the discussion here is not about blaming brits about the ills of india but to make people aware about the true motives of brits here and...

and... never to eulogize dishonest (to the core), violent, rowdy bunch of cruel killers. to stop unnecessary thanks giving falsely believing that they were founder of modern india.

always remember that founders of modern india were nehrus, gandhi, sardar, birla, tata, swami vivekanand, Kasturbhai lalbhai, dr radhakrishnan, homi bhabha, ambedkar and many known and unknown freedom fighters. various maharajas, rajas and princes of india who gave away their claims on their states to Republic of India. Remember that icons of modern india IISc and IITs were J N Tata who established IISc after getting inspiration from swami vivekanand and J C Ghosh who started first IIT at Kharagpur in late 30s. the list is very long where no brit appears by chance other than signing the approval letters after doing everything to block such endeavours.

the brits were not at all interested in modern india, this is was more pronounced when wicked and immoral pm of britain said:

"this new (modern) india will disintegrate within a decade"

compare india at the time of brits consisting of 600 states many of them having their own currency, postage, police and administration with modern independent india with 30 states one currency, one postal and police administration, one election commission, one railway service, one ruler, one parliament, one flag and one national anthem...

[Viv S]

Should the German people be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis?

Yes, if Germans do not regret, feel ashamed and apologized for those actions.

They're mostly dead. German people today have nothing to be ashamed of, or apologize for.

is x living in the same castle built by the robbery of X?

That's debatable. Its hard to put a figure on it.

Are the germans keeping the gold and artifacts looted? Was there an honest attempt to return the looted money or are they being passed on to the looter's heirs?

The Raj(as well as the Nazi rule) is seventy years old. Its time to relegate these issues to history books.

[Viv S]

India was consisting of 600 different states within a state at the time of british. apart from few convention states there were many feudatory(sic) states. the british were powerful in their presidency areas - madras, calcutta and bombay presidencies and misruled from these presidencies.

Nominally independent/autonomous states, but the country(after a long time) existed as a single tangible entity.

the feudatory states ran their affairs that included policing, postal services and currencies till the british left. these states paid ransom to british for policing their state borders and protecting their interests against other princely states in addition to protecting the western boundaries since brits were in constant war with afghans.

I don't think that's entirely accurate or it would absolve the British of much of the institutional discrimination against Indians, since statistically speaking the level of taxation didn't increase during the colonial period.

the discussion here is not about blaming brits about the ills of india but to make people aware about the true motives of brits here and...

and... never to eulogize dishonest (to the core), violent, rowdy bunch of cruel killers. to stop unnecessary thanks giving falsely believing that they were founder of modern india.

No one's thanking the British. They weren't here to do any favours to India and as far as I'm concerned they weren't any different from any other invader or most rulers of the period for that matter. All the same I like the idea of a united India and was one of the positive fallouts of the Raj(and ofcourse credit goes to Sardar Patel).

compare india at the time of brits consisting of 600 states many of them having their own currency, postage, police and administration with modern independent india with 30 states one currency, one postal and police administration, one election commission, one railway service, one ruler, one parliament, one flag and one national anthem...

From a historical/academic viewpoint its interesting to contemplate what would have resulted had the British lost at Plassey and pulled out of India.

[surinder]

India was consisting of 600 different states within a state at the time of british. apart from few convention states there were many feudatory(sic) states.

This figure of 600 itself is somewhat of a british creation. These were really really tiny artificial states, kingdoms, cities. They were more like local Rajahs & Zamindars under a bigger Maharaja or Shehenshah. They really were local governers, not independent states. This is how India was ruled under the Mughals, Marathas & the Sikhs. In a policy of divide-and-rule they were coopted by UK, given a pecking order and they in turn pledged eternal loyalty to the British because these were never self-sustaining states to begin with.

We don't have to guess what India would have looked like had the British not shown up. We already know know what happened when they took over. There were two dominant powers in India. India was practically divided among the two. They were the Marathas & the Sikhs. Had the British not shown up, these two would have absorbed the smallers ones with little difficulty. These are the two from which India was taken by war by the British. That India of that time included extended from present day Bangladesh to Khyber pass and down to Sindh.

Why thank the UK when there is nothing to thank them (on this count at least). The 600 states thingie is a latter day attempt to threaten to blow India to smithrens.

[surinder]

The Raj was a partnership that enriched Indians in the upper and middle classes, even as it impoverished those at the bottom. ... The people with capital and social power in India were rewarded for not rocking the boat.
...
The colonisation of India was joint project that involved not only the wealthy land owners and traders, but the emerging middle class as well.

Johann the elite you mention "wealthy land owners and traders" , or the "emerging middle class" were not a static group with whom the British partnered to conquer & rule India. This statements is disarmingly false in the sense that the British created the elite & the middle classes to facilitate their rule. British use of violence in wars & peace ensured that the elite that was there before the British arrived on the scene was brtually liquidated, their life & property destroyed, their prestige & sustence taken away. The *ONLY* elite that survived the British onsloaght were those that meekly pledged eternal loyalty.

You would be hard pressed to give one example of an elite group/family which was anti-British & yet continued to be elite and were spared the liquidation. This is an important fact that needs to be repeated: British created a new elite and a new middle class that was passive, non-confrontational, weak, meek, and loyal to them. This elite was created both by carrots of money, power, position, and also by the stick of violent repression. It was created for the purpose of facilitating British rule on India.

This goes to to the heart of the damage that British did to India. They destroyed the old elite that was non-compromising & rooted in India, and replaced it by a weak ineffectual treasonous elite. The new British created elite still rules India.

[Hari Seldon]

This is an important fact that needs to be repeated: British created a new elite and a new middle class that was passive, non-confrontational, weak, meek, and loyal to them. This elite was created both by carrots of money, power, position, and also by the stick of violent repression. It was created for the purpose of facilitating British rule on India.

Classic divide and rule, baba. Nothing new or profound here.

Ask yourself what is common between the Sinhala-Tamil clash, the shia-sunni split in Iraq and in the Kandha-Pana conflict that flared up in Odisha recently? The former were a sppressed majority and the latter a propped up elite under UK-stani dominion.

IOW, the Brits propped up an ethnic/religious minority as regional elite simply because the said minority now becomes UK-stan's beetch.

Point of these discussions should be to enlighten and share with fellow Indians, impressionable young minds etc about hard past truths (and reconciliation, that follows such sombre truth).

The current DIE ruling Yindia largely descends from a socioeconomic class in the past that has been a beneficiary of Brit rule in 1 way or another. Hence, their interest in projecting Brit rule as benevolent to Yindia at large, I guess. Such BS must be resisted. Strictly IMHO, of course.

[JwalaMukhi]

Classic divide and rule, baba. Nothing new or profound here.

Ask yourself what is common between the Sinhala-Tamil clash, the shia-sunni split in Iraq and in the Kandha-Pana conflict that flared up in Odisha recently? The former were a sppressed majority and the latter a propped up elite under UK-stani dominion.

IOW, the Brits propped up an ethnic/religious minority as regional elite simply because the said minority now becomes UK-stan's beetch.

Point of these discussions should be to enlighten and share with fellow Indians, impressionable young minds etc about hard past truths (and reconciliation, that follows such sombre truth).

The current DIE ruling Yindia largely descends from a socioeconomic class in the past that has been a beneficiary of Brit rule in 1 way or another. Hence, their interest in projecting Brit rule as benevolent to Yindia at large, I guess. Such BS must be resisted. Strictly IMHO, of course.

All good points. The DIE also realize that the benefits that they have accrued and continue to accrue largely depends on holding brief to the incorrect projections. It also displays lack of confidence that they could accrue wealth and build equitable sharing of resources in a just manner, which would require truth to be told and held sacred. Lacking the spine for such an excercise, desperation has set in to whitewash, portray things in sanitized manner to tide over the situation. How long can such burying the head in sand help in competitively facing the world at large. Ephemeral accumulation of power, position, prestige and wealth are fleeting at best.

[sanjaykumar]

just in case someone needs the cobwebs cleared from politically pristine minds.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... selves-510

[Sanjay M]

BBC

MPs urge '70m population cap' in party manifestos

Immigration could become a prominent election issue

A cross-party group of MPs and peers have called on the main parties to make a manifesto pledge not to allow the UK's population to exceed 70 million.

This is interesting. I think it's a long overdue step - before Britain gets Islamized.
I'm sure the Pak logh will scream 'racism' and demand the right to bring in their quota of 7 wives from back home. Maybe Britain can then look at how to shrink their numbers by expelling undesirables.

[vera_k]

^^^

That report mostly speaks of restrictions on labour looking to move to the UK. Wives and family would be excluded from those. In any case reading this thread suggests there's not much difference between the UK and Pakistan from an Indian POV.

[Malayappan]

A Conservative Vision for British Foreign Policy By NILE GARDINER, WSJ, January 4, 2010

[Murugan]

List of Princely States of India, their flags etc

currency and postage

[Murugan]

These were really really tiny artificial states, kingdoms, cities.

all were not that tiny and not artificial,

Gwalior = 64,856 km² (25,041 square miles), slightly smaller than today's ireland and size of latvia

Hyderabad = 214186.836 km² = little < than UKstan (244,820 km2)

Mysore = 76259.609 km² = little < than Czech Republic (78,866)

Baroda = 20976.313 km² = > slovania (20,273)

Jammu & Kashmir = 209530.038 km² = Belarus (207,600)

(rajputana and gujarat were having around 120 states which can be called realy tiny and probably artificial but still associated with the larger states mentioned above.)

Though the states were not artificial, read ahead:

(quote)
Vagueness concerning the limits of power is likely to be helpful to those who exercise it. The British Government studiously avoided precision in defining paramountcy, the exercise of power over princely states.1 Its meaning derived from a wide variety of treaties concluded with different princes and a system of case law and precedent whose interpretation lay with the paramount power. The Butler Commission concisely summarized the deliberate ambiguity of paramountcy in 1928 when, in response to a request from the princes to define the concept, it merely stated: "Paramountcy must remain paramount."2 Paramountcy implied that the governor-general of India would exercise power in the field of foreign affairs, defense, communications, and coinage on behalf of the princely states.3 It left the states internally autonomous while guaranteeing the rulers protection against enemies foreign and domestic. The guarantee against domestic enemies brought with it unsystematic intervention in domestic affairs to insure that there would not be too many of them. An agent or a resident drawn from the special administrative cadre known as the political service represented the governor-general in the state and exercised these powers.

The influence of the British on the states depended on the overall policy espoused by the governor-general and the respective qualities of the political agents and the princes.4 A hands-off policy toward the princely states followed the rebellion of 1857, which frightened the British government away from strong interventionism. This policy ended at the turn of the twentieth century when Lord Curzon began to impress the princes with their responsibilities. The example of Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner, who in 1899 sharply protested against the political agent's desire to review the dismissal of two petty state officials, was not exceptional in the Curzon era. "Nothing is further from my mind [the agent wrote] than interference with your orders, and I trust there will never be any greater need than there is now for contemplating such interference. It is, however, the duty of every political agent to satisfy himself that the state with which he is, is well and justly governed, or how it is governed, and he can only do this by occasionally asking for reports on selected petitions."5 Lord Minto's easy-going policy eased the pressures for reform and intervention that Curzon had applied, but Lord Linlithgow's viceroyalty in the 1930's once again brought an emphasis on administrative modernization and reform, and hence greater intervention.

...


Minority rule provided the occasion for strong, often creative, intervention and laid the basis for subsequent influence.7 At the end of a twenty-year minority administration exercised on behalf of Maharaja Umed Singh of Kotah by the political agent to that state, he offered the following "advice" to the newly invested ruler: "Your Highness will in all important matters consult the political agent, be guided by his advice, and obtain his concurrence before introducing any important change in the measures carried out during your minority."8 Similar "advice" was given at Bikaner at the same time, although in later years the maharaja of that state became notoriously independent.9

...

The emergence of nationalism in British India had a curious effect on both the British attitude toward the princes and on the princes themselves. To the extent that the princes were a bulwark of British power, particularly when it began to be challenged in British India, the Government of India was inclined to treat them generously. To the princes, generosity meant being left alone. Yet the need for internal improvements became more apparent as nationalism and reformist sentiment grew. Improvement meant interference.

The chamber of princes was established on a permanent basis in 1921,14 the year after Gandhi turned the nationalist movement in British India in a popular direction. The chamber provided a forum in which princes could protest against efforts by the government to intervene and hurry them along and a context in which they became more conscious of one another and of the requirements that accompanied being a "modern ruler". ..

..

But the channels of British influence were too irregular and undefined to exploit consistently the available opportunities. Imperial policy, which varied with the outlook of the viceroy, his agents, and the developments in British India, never achieved the direction or firmness necessary to make it otherwise.


- Rajputana Under British Paramountcy The Failure of Indirect Rule

[Murugan]

Hari,

Good Points to ponder

This tells more about how the people showed middle finger to the 'paramountcy'

[Aditya_V]

When comparing the size of Uk stan, please remember that Scotland is 110K sqKm and is mostly inhabitable. thier Pop is only 5m. England and wales are around 130K sqkm. I think Britain to strive to have the popoulation density of UP and Bihar with the help of Paki imports. The more exposed the US and British populations are to Pakis, the lesser can the geopolitics game be carried on by thier politicians.

[surinder]

You can mention a few Kingdoms which were physically comparable to some countries. But physical size is hardly a criteria. Few, if any, had a history of being a nation, few had any history being self-sufficient or being sufficiently different to be called a separate nation on its own right.

Jammy & Kashmir was an artificial construct, it was given to Gulab Singh Dogra on an apparent sale of 75 Lakhs. That sale was a pretense; it was an award to Gulab Singh for his services to the British & his treasons to his own nation. As expected, his dynasty proved to be completely loyal to the British, right down until 1947. The J&K kingdom had disparate regions cobbled together: Laddakh, Jammy, Gilgit, Baltistan tetherred to the Vale of Kashmir. Hardly a nation in any sense of the word. No history of being together as a unit. Prior to the formation of this "Kingdom", it was under the Sikhs for 30-40 years, and under prior to that it was a Afghan province for 800 years. Where is the history to show that it was indeed a common unit with some feeling of commanlity & uniqueness?

Talk about Junagarh, and the famous Rampur. Rampur is the name of every Kingdom in Hindi films. Did they have a long history of being a separate nation? The idea that Kapurthalla, or Nabha, or Jind in the Punjab were separate independent nations. What is the difference between between say Nabha or Kapurthalla or rest of Punjab? Nill, nada, zilch.

What were the so-called Kings of Pataudi or Maharaja Ranji Singh doing? Playing cricket for England, of course. The independence of these kingdoms was a fiction. King of Sweden does not play in English cricket team, nor does he study in English teachers.

These are more or less Bantulands that were independent entities only the eyes of the British & the respective rulers. No nation would recognize them. The remind us of the various Bantulands that South Africa presented to the world to fool it of its apatheid policy.

[Murugan]

if above is the case, is the accession of the artificial consturct sold-out state to India is legal?

No history of being together as a unit.

Many states do not have a history of being together as a unit india. does this fact make india artificial?

But kashmir did have a long ancient tradition of having cultural unity with rest of india, and history just do not start with gulab singh per se:

(from wiki)
Kashmir was one of the major centre of Sanskrit scholars. According to the Mahabharata, [1] the Kambojas ruled Kashmir during the epic period with a Republican system of government [2] from the capital city of Karna-Rajapuram-gatva-Kambojah-nirjitastava.[3][4], shortened to Rajapura,[5][6][7][8] which has been identified with modern Rajauri.[9] Later, the Panchalas are stated to have established their sway. The name Peer Panjal, which is a part of modern Kashmir, is a witness to this fact. Panjal is simply a distorted form of the Sanskritic tribal term Panchala. The Muslims prefixed the word peer to it in memory of Siddha Faqir and the name thereafter is said to have changed into Peer Panjal.[10] The Mauryan emperor Ashoka is often credited with having founded the city of Srinagar.

Kashmir was once a Buddhist seat of learning, perhaps with the Sarvāstivādan school dominating. East and Central Asian Buddhist monks are recorded as having visited the kingdom. In the late 4th century AD, the famous Kuchanese monk Kumārajīva, born to an Indian noble family, studied Dīrghāgama and Madhyāgama in Kashmir under Bandhudatta. He later becoming a prolific translator who helped take Buddhism to China. His mother Jīva is thought to have retired to Kashmir. Vimalāka, a Sarvāstivādan Buddhist monk, travelled from Kashmir to Kucha and there instructed Kumārajīva in the Vinayapitaka.

= J&K = no artificial state if we believe unity in diversity.

[Murugan]

You can mention a few Kingdoms which were physically comparable to some countries. But physical size is hardly a criteria. Few, if any, had a history of being a nation, few had any history being self-sufficient or being sufficiently different to be called a separate nation on its own right.

i have only mentioned about princely states majority were 'feudatory' and some were convention state to british 'paramountcy' as apparent in the link provided above.

there is no mention about separate nation -only the size of many princely states were comparable to modern nations.

Hardly a nation in any sense of the word. No history of being together as a unit. Prior to the formation of this "Kingdom", it was under the Sikhs for 30-40 years, and under prior to that it was a Afghan province for 800 years.

???

the afghan rules was hardly from 1752 - 1819 that does not even count 100 years - is '800 years' a typo?

In the beginning of 14th century a ferocious Mongol, Dulucha invaded the valley through its northern side Zojila Pass, with an army of 60,000 men. Like Taimur in the Punjab and Delhi, Dulucha carried sword and fire, destroyed towns and villages and slaughtered thousands. His savage attack practically ended the Hindu rule in Kashmir. A weak and worthless man Raja Sahadev was the ruler then. It was during his reign that three adventurers, Shah Mir from Swat ( Tribal) territory on the borders of Afganistan, Rinchin from Ladhak, and Lankar Chak from Dard territory near Gilgit came to Kashmir, and played a notable role in subsequentive political history of the valley. All the three men were granted Jagirs by the King. Rinchin for 3 years became the ruler of Kashmir, Shah Mir was the first rular of Shah Miri-dynasty, and the decendants of Lankar Chak established Chak rule in the Kashmir.

The last Hindu ruler of Kashmir was Udyan Dev. It was his chief Queen Kota Rani, who practically governed the state. She was a very brave lady, shrewd and an able ruler. Though she tried her best to save her Kingdom, odds were too heavy for her. The valley was again invaded by a Mongal and Turk invader Achalla, but the Queen defeated him, and drove away all the foreign troops. In the confusion Rinchin, the Ladhaki prince, whom the Hindu religious leaders of the time refused to admit into their fold, organised an internal rising and seized the throne. Before his death, he embraced Islam. Finally another rising was led by Shah Mir, who defeated the queen at Jayapur (modern Sumbal). The defeat upset her and seeing the indifference of the Hindu grandees and general public, she stabbed herself to death, because Shah Mir wanted to marry her. Her death in 1339 paved the way tor the establishment of Muslim rule in Kashmir.

And under Mughal - after akbar annexed kashmir in late 15th century to 1752 - where is the period of afghan rules of 800 years?

http://koausa.org/Crown/history.html

[sunnyP]

"London has become a fertile field in the jihadi playground, along with Yemen, pakistan and Somalia. Our great friend has allowed herself to become a strategic resource to our common enemies and a liability in the struggle against terrorism."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/04/l ... index.html

[Chinmayanand]

^^^ From the above link :

The danger from Britain has its source in nearly every institution in British society: a Parliament that cannot pass counterterrorism legislation, police that do not arrest because evidence is not strong enough to convince a British court, security agencies that do not disclose to the media information about suspects, Islamic organizations that tell Muslims that such silence proves that the suspects have been falsely accused, a press that allows the public to believe such claims, jurors who then hold prosecutors to impossible standards and a once-glorious culture of tolerance that has lost its bearings.

[Malayappan]

British Radicalization Studies by Douglas Murray in WSJ

He prefaces with a provocative

The U.K.'s universities offer the most conducive environment an Islamic extremist could inhabit outside Waziristan.

Despite already having been known to be spiritual mentor to two of the 9/11 hijackers, he (Awlaki) has been advertised as the "distinguished guest" speaker at the U.K.'s Federation of Student Islamic Societies' (FOSIS) annual dinner in 2003, and at Westminster University in 2006

These horrifying opinions rightly shocked the newspaper-reading public. But the response from government and the university authorities was not to tackle the problem, but rather to attack the messengers.

students at a vulnerable stage of their development are routinely subjected to views that most people, including many British Muslims, would find hair-raising. On campus, such views are normalized and excused.

[Chinmayanand]

Indian students to face extra scrutiny in Britain

[Rony]

For some reason , the brits are obsessed with Indian space programme and link it to their "aid" !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks0159BSYW8

[Akshut]

^ Creeping similarity to pakiness.

On the other side...

India retains its position as the second highest foreign employer in the UK, after the US, according to the 2009 UK inward FDI official data. This year, Indian inward investors created 4,149 new jobs, with 108 new projects, up 44 per cent from last year.

http://www.ibef.org/economy/indianinves ... broad.aspx

[Chinmayanand]

U.K. Bans Islamist Group That Planned Protest in Memorial Town

[svinayak]

For some reason , the brits are obsessed with Indian space programme and link it to their "aid" !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks0159BSYW8

There is a huge ego problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB_irje0vPc