Jump to content

Is India the unluckiest nation?


MechEng

Recommended Posts

I'm fed up (and sure most are) with constant violence since 1947 from neighbours. Even Israel has it relatively easy because Palestine is not a nuclear power. Also North Korea which gives US sleepless nights is at quite some distance separated by Pacific ocean, Pakistan is chipkofied like feviquick.

 

I wish we had Norway, Sweden, Austria, Poland, Finland or any other central European/Scandianvian countries as our neighbours instead of Pakistan and China. Life would have been way easier and we would have been a relaxed country. Worst case scenario would be some racist opinions from our white neighbours but it would stop at that, no 26/11, jihadi attacks and etc.

Edited by MechEng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What made you think that the worst case scenario would have been just a few "racist abuses from our white neighbours". 

 

We would have  been long gone if we were in Europe. The Vikings would have flushed us out from Scandinavia and  if they won't , the Romans would have anyway.  And even if the Romans were kind to us , the Byzantinnes would have ended us . And even  after all that, if we made it through, the Nazis would be waiting for us. 

 

One great thing our ancestors (Aryans)  did was to migrate from eastern Europe to India way back or else Hinduism would have long gone to dirt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Norman said:

What made you think that the worst case scenario would have been just a few "racist abuses from our white neighbours". 

 

We would have  been long gone if we were in Europe. The Vikings would have flushed us out from Scandinavia and  if they won't , the Romans would have anyway.  And even if the Romans were kind to us , the Byzantinnes would have ended us . And even  after all that, if we made it through, the Nazis would be waiting for us. 

 

One great thing our ancestors (Aryans)  did was to migrate from eastern Europe to India way back or else Hinduism would have long gone to dirt. 

Wrong. No such thing as Aryans. It is a Sanskrit term for nobility exploited by indologists with hypothetical theories.

 

Also my context is not from ancient history but the present one. That is having sane minded people as neighbours.

Thailand and Indonesia would have been amazing too. We wouldn't have had any issues as well. 

Edited by MechEng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't choose neighbors, one can certainly choose how to deal with them.

 

Israel had a much tougher neighborhood in it's initial decades. They punched way above their weight to defeat bigger neighbors twice. We merely preferred ceasefires and UN other than 71.

 

If we had put the western neighbor in its place early on and sustained pressure including military operations & covert assassinations, their nuclear umbrella could have been avoided, which is a major driver of their jihadi policy towards India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Clarke said:

One can't choose neighbors, one can certainly choose how to deal with them.

 

Israel had a much tougher neighborhood in it's initial decades. They punched way above their weight to defeat bigger neighbors twice. We merely preferred ceasefires and UN other than 71.

 

If we had put the western neighbor in its place early on and sustained pressure including military operations & covert assassinations, their nuclear umbrella could have been avoided, which is a major driver of their jihadi policy towards India.

Israel had full support from the west in it's earlier days too because Jerusalem is holy to both. Also no such pressure to be a secular country, they are proud to be God's chosen people. India is all by itself, except Russia providing us with tech we are alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Wrong. No such thing as Aryans. It is a Sanskrit term for nobility exploited by indologists with hypothetical theories.

 

Also my context is not from ancient history but the present one. That is having sane minded people as neighbours.

Thailand and Indonesia would have been amazing too. We wouldn't have had any issues as well. 

Dude ...... What?  No such thing as Aryans? Are you for real ? 

 

Anyways , there is no peaceful place on earth expect for maybe Northern Europe. 

Even the united states with all its power is facing problems with Mexicans down south . The same about Russia with Ukraine. There will always be issues with the neighbouring states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Norman said:

Dude ...... What?  No such thing as Aryans? Are you for real ? 

 

Anyways , there is no peaceful place on earth expect for maybe Northern Europe. 

Even the united states with all its power is facing problems with Mexicans down south . The same about Russia with Ukraine. There will always be issues with the neighbouring states.

@Tibarn enlighten him in case you have time.

 

And don't compare Mexicans and Ukraine with nuclear warhead loaded Pakistan. I'm down in Texas, know a lot about Mexicans.

Edited by MechEng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need to control the population, which is turning the country into garbage. Also it is the responsibility of each generation to protect the environment for the next .... Can’t even do the basis correctly to safeguard its own future  

 

Chalta hai attitude will not make a country lucky. Neither will blaming Pakistan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Israel had full support from the west in it's earlier days too because Jerusalem is holy to both. Also no such pressure to be a secular country, they are proud to be God's chosen people. India is all by itself, except Russia providing us with tech we are alone.

Both Israel-Arab wars were in the shadows of cold war. Arabs had full fledged Soviet support when Israel had American help. Ultimately the wars were fought by Israel, not US/NATO troops. 

 

We could have leveraged Soviet tech/diplomacy and we did that in 71. It's just that we didn't have the will in terms of enforcing our position for a better future. 

 

I had posted a link earlier which stated how USSR was fully with us if we wanted to march into Islamabad in 71/72 post fall of Dhaka  It was Indira's call to back off even though the cabinet was for the push. One can understand how bad other leaders were in terms of dealing with the neighborhood menace.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many countries have nuclear neighbours but have done relatively well for themselves: 

 

* South Korea has North Korea and China

* US and Russia are neighbours (see map) 

* France and UK are neighbours

* China has India, Pak, North Korea and Russia/former Soviet countries

* Japan has North Korea, China and Russia 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Norman said:

One great thing our ancestors (Aryans)  did was to migrate from eastern Europe to India way back or else Hinduism would have long gone to dirt. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude ...... What?  No such thing as Aryans? Are you for real ? 

 

Anyways , there is no peaceful place on earth expect for maybe Northern Europe. 

Even the united states with all its power is facing problems with Mexicans down south . The same about Russia with Ukraine. There will always be issues with the neighbouring states.

Quote

Wrong. No such thing as Aryans. It is a Sanskrit term for nobility exploited by indologists with hypothetical theories.

Longish, but worth looking at, IMO

Spoiler

It is like @MechEng says,  "Aryan" is more accurately "Arya"(Sanskrit) or "Ayya"(Prakrit). The latter is seen more in the "Dravidian" language-family. This terms refers to learned people mostly, as a term of respect, like "sir", but greater; it is more like "noble" or "noble sir" or "-ji" in Hindi. It is also generally used as an ethnic term(ethnonym) for Hindus. Sometimes Iranians(only a portion of Iranians are so-called "Aryans") and Hittites, refer to themselves as this, but we ourselves never really refer to the Iranians as such in our languages.  

 

The Germanics, Celts et al don't really have any solid evidence of referring to themselves as this or a derivative of this phrase, except in the last ~300 years, after they invented this "Aryan race" of theirs.  There is a hypothesis that some other groups, those in Europe, have derivatives of the word, ie "aire" in Irish supposedly meaning noble, but it is not well supported. The whole language of "Proto-Indo-European" is, as of now, a figment of Indologists' imagination. There is also hypotheses/research that suggests that Chinese e have used a derivative of this word Arya to refer to themselves, but that is tangential (Chinese Arya--> Harya --> Hoa --> Han). 

 

The concept of a racial "Aryans" was a colonial Indologist creation by several Europeans, mostly the British and the Germans, based on the similarity of North Indian languages and fuzzy interpretations of certain texts. This was done for a myriad of reasons, but most of it centers around a need for some ancient "European" identity to obfuscate the fact that "Europe"/"Europeans" is/are a recent creation. This didn't sit well with Europeans' egos as they realized that their ancestors were mostly barbarians, so they started to appropriate first Greco-Roman culture, and then Indian(Hindu) culture and sell it as the creation of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nordic master race. At one point some German, Julius Klaproth refereed to them as Indo-Germanics. :hysterical:  

 

Another aspect of this was that the Germans realized that they were following a Jewish religion, and wanted to create a distinction between Semitic (Jewish/Arabs) vs European, but they didn't want their pure White skin to be derived from dirty brown skinned Hindoos :(( 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pc/ch02.htm 

DHEITx3XcAAPOOK.jpg

The Orient of Europe

https://books.google.com/books?id=PQAMAQAAMAAJ&q=historic+ties+between+the+german+and+indian+peoples+hegel&dq=historic+ties+between+the+german+and+indian+peoples+hegel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj39_Xw7vLAhVDn4MKHWOZCDYQ6AEIIzAB

DHEJR_jW0AEvBRy.jpg

DHMmFChUAAIzGNB.jpg

 

There is zero solid evidence of that there were some of our ancestors in Eastern Europe.  One could argue that there were descendants of our ancestors in Eastern Europe eventually,  but not our ancestors themselves. In this case, our ancestors would have went into Eastern Europe later, but they didn't come from there themselves. The farthest our ancestors could've come from would be slightly west of Sindh or slightly north of Kashmir, both of which aren't exactly supported overwhelmingly. 

 

Of course the best mention of Aryas is from Medhatithi's commentaries:

aryavartantetatra puna punarudbhavantyakramyakramyapi na cira tatra mlecchah sthatarobhavanti

 

roughly = 

 

[It is known as] aryavarta where, again and again, the aryas spring up despite barbarians occupying it repeatedly. Not for long are barbarians able to reside in there. 

 

 :angel:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Wars are caused by undefended wealth - Ernest Hemingway.

  

Thats an appropriate line here. No matter where India was And who Indias neighbors were. India would have gone through all of this.

wealthy people after a few generations aren't mentally strong enough to be warriors.

e.g. US failed to eradicate Taliban as they could hardly go on ground after a while. Can't fight insurgencies by just airbombings.

US would have ran away from insurgencies like Kashmir or would have bombed the whole area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nordics" have to be the most overrated group on the internet. 

 

First used by insecure European "scientists" as some original "master race" stock. 

Then a bunch of overrated barbarians like the Vikings are passed off as some world-conquering warriors, despite the fact that they didn't expand to much territory, and that the territory they are from was anyway sparsely populated. 

 

Then we get random videogames or TV-series depicting them as some important figures in history. 

 

Nowadays their descendants's countries: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, are some of the most overrated. None of them are economic, military, or even technological superpowers, yet they are held as some standard for the rest of the world to follow. The combined population of those three countries is less than a third of Gujarat's, IIRC. :phehe:

 

All their glorification comes down to a made up stat like HDI :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the original post, but from a different angle: rather than being unfortunate from our neighbor, we are just generally unfortunate with regards to timing.

 

It seems like whenever things are finally turning around for the better, we always experience a key death at the most inopportune times. This is even the case in recent history, with regards to Gandhi's assassination. 

 

I agree that it is unfortunate to have Bakistan as a neighbor, but some of our misfortune with them is also our own incompetence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Number said:

wealthy people after a few generations aren't mentally strong enough to be warriors.

e.g. US failed to eradicate Taliban as they could hardly go on ground after a while. Can't fight insurgencies by just airbombings.

US would have ran away from insurgencies like Kashmir or would have bombed the whole area. 

Kashmir. Its a self created problem. Chief architect is Jawharlal Nehru and was continued by other leaders too. First up the whole state was to be taken back before china came into mix. After that in each of the wars India captured strategic points ( bulges) only to give it back. Fertile irrigatable land! As humanity is approaching peak food peak everything all around the world water and irrigatable land would be the greatest resources over which wars will be fought and India is squandering them in thousands of sq km since ww2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Number said:

wealthy people after a few generations aren't mentally strong enough to be warriors.

e.g. US failed to eradicate Taliban as they could hardly go on ground after a while. Can't fight insurgencies by just airbombings.

US would have ran away from insurgencies like Kashmir or would have bombed the whole area. 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Longish, but worth looking at, IMO

  Reveal hidden contents

It is like @MechEng says,  "Aryan" is more accurately "Arya"(Sanskrit) or "Ayya"(Prakrit). The latter is seen more in the "Dravidian" language-family. This terms refers to learned people mostly, as a term of respect, like "sir", but greater; it is more like "noble" or "noble sir" or "-ji" in Hindi. It is also generally used as an ethnic term(ethnonym) for Hindus. Sometimes Iranians(only a portion of Iranians are so-called "Aryans") and Hittites, refer to themselves as this, but we ourselves never really refer to the Iranians as such in our languages.  

 

The Germanics, Celts et al don't really have any solid evidence of referring to themselves as this or a derivative of this phrase, except in the last ~300 years, after they invented this "Aryan race" of theirs.  There is a hypothesis that some other groups, those in Europe, have derivatives of the word, ie "aire" in Irish supposedly meaning noble, but it is not well supported. The whole language of "Proto-Indo-European" is, as of now, a figment of Indologists' imagination. There is also hypotheses/research that suggests that Chinese e have used a derivative of this word Arya to refer to themselves, but that is tangential (Chinese Arya--> Harya --> Hoa --> Han). 

 

The concept of a racial "Aryans" was a colonial Indologist creation by several Europeans, mostly the British and the Germans, based on the similarity of North Indian languages and fuzzy interpretations of certain texts. This was done for a myriad of reasons, but most of it centers around a need for some ancient "European" identity to obfuscate the fact that "Europe"/"Europeans" is/are a recent creation. This didn't sit well with Europeans' egos as they realized that their ancestors were mostly barbarians, so they started to appropriate first Greco-Roman culture, and then Indian(Hindu) culture and sell it as the creation of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nordic master race. At one point some German, Julius Klaproth refereed to them as Indo-Germanics. :hysterical:  

 

Another aspect of this was that the Germans realized that they were following a Jewish religion, and wanted to create a distinction between Semitic (Jewish/Arabs) vs European, but they didn't want their pure White skin to be derived from dirty brown skinned Hindoos :(( 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pc/ch02.htm 

DHEITx3XcAAPOOK.jpg

The Orient of Europe

https://books.google.com/books?id=PQAMAQAAMAAJ&q=historic+ties+between+the+german+and+indian+peoples+hegel&dq=historic+ties+between+the+german+and+indian+peoples+hegel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj39_Xw7vLAhVDn4MKHWOZCDYQ6AEIIzAB

DHEJR_jW0AEvBRy.jpg

DHMmFChUAAIzGNB.jpg

 

There is zero solid evidence of that there were some of our ancestors in Eastern Europe.  One could argue that there were descendants of our ancestors in Eastern Europe eventually,  but not our ancestors themselves. In this case, our ancestors would have went into Eastern Europe later, but they didn't come from there themselves. The farthest our ancestors could've come from would be slightly west of Sindh or slightly north of Kashmir, both of which aren't exactly supported overwhelmingly. 

 

Of course the best mention of Aryas is from Medhatithi's commentaries:

aryavartantetatra puna punarudbhavantyakramyakramyapi na cira tatra mlecchah sthatarobhavanti

 

roughly = 

 

[It is known as] aryavarta where, again and again, the aryas spring up despite barbarians occupying it repeatedly. Not for long are barbarians able to reside in there. 

 

 :angel:

 

Thanks for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zen said:

So many countries have nuclear neighbours but have done relatively well for themselves: 

 

* South Korea has North Korea and China

* US and Russia are neighbours (see map) 

* France and UK are neighbours

* China has India, Pak, North Korea and Russia/former Soviet countries

* Japan has North Korea, China and Russia 

 

 

China is separated from Pak by a very narrow terrain, so tough to get inside. Also China is atheist, no possibility of a sleeper cell existence inside there which can be exploited.

 

Rest of the nations are not united by the jihad philosophy. Even North Korea actually cares about building itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...