Jump to content
sarcastic

Queen Elizabeth II passes away

Recommended Posts

Truly end of an era.

 

She was the person we all grew up knowing as the Queen of United Kingdom. 
Now, she is no more. 


She is known to be a very good person who personally responded to every letter she received from anyone in the kingdom.

A lot of ICFers are citizens (or at least residents) of her realms including Canada/Australia/New Zealand along with the UK. I think this is relevant to most of us here.


Rest In Peace, Queen Elizabeth~

Edited by sarcastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LordPrabhzy said:

Rest in Peace Raani Sahiba 

 

Great woman- great sense of duty yo her nation who she served faithfully for 70 years

Her two sons were very good friends with paedophiles Epstein and Jimmy Saville. Don't tell me she didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LordPrabhzy said:

Rest in Peace Raani Sahiba 

 

Great woman- great sense of duty yo her nation who she served faithfully for 70 years


Why would an Indian even wish that ? Considering all the bad things happened to Indians and India because of British rule ?

Edited by gattaca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

Her two sons were very good friends with paedophiles Epstein and Jimmy Saville. Don't tell me she didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. 

 

31 minutes ago, gattaca said:


Why would an Indian even wish that ? Considering all the bad things happened to Indians and India because of British rule ?

 

you both seriously need to get a life.

 

Her reign was post India's independence and she was never even meant to be on the throne, only due to her uncles abdication her future changed. What she did as a queen was be the best monarch for her people. I am an Indian yes but also a British citizen, so not going to give hate to a 96 year old woman who only did her dharma as per her monarchy and the constitution. Britain has allowed Indians to thrive and flourish in the UK and build better lives so we owe that much to be atleast respectful at her passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LordPrabhzy said:

 

 

you both seriously need to get a life.

 

Her reign was post India's independence and she was never even meant to be on the throne, only due to her uncles abdication her future changed. What she did as a queen was be the best monarch for her people. I am an Indian yes but also a British citizen, so not going to give hate to a 96 year old woman who only did her dharma as per her monarchy and the constitution. Britain has allowed Indians to thrive and flourish in the UK and build better lives so we owe that much to be atleast respectful at her passing.

Very well put.

Most of the Indians are unfortunately brainwashed by Indian movies/media thinking everything wrong in India is due to British rule.

No wonder they cannot differentiate the imperial British empire and today's Britain which is the KarmaBhoomi of so many Indians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LordPrabhzy said:

 

 

you both seriously need to get a life.

 

Her reign was post India's independence and she was never even meant to be on the throne, only due to her uncles abdication her future changed. What she did as a queen was be the best monarch for her people. I am an Indian yes but also a British citizen, so not going to give hate to a 96 year old woman who only did her dharma as per her monarchy and the constitution. Britain has allowed Indians to thrive and flourish in the UK and build better lives so we owe that much to be atleast respectful at her passing.

Get a life? What about all of the poor children whose lives were ruined by Saville and Epstein. Both of whom were close friends with Charles and Andrew respectively.

 

What do you have to say about that? Or do you want to just brush it under the carpet? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

Get a life? What about all of the poor children whose lives were ruined by Saville and Epstein. Both of whom were close friends with Charles and Andrew respectively.

 

What do you have to say about that? Or do you want to just brush it under the carpet? 

 

Did I say that? The royal family like any political class has skeletons ion their closet which they try to hide.

 

I personally wish Charles *ss off to a retirement home and William is made king.. him and Kate are much loved and have stayed out of any controversies. If you dont like her then feel free to stay off this thread? no one has invited you here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LordPrabhzy said:

 

Did I say that? The royal family like any political class has skeletons ion their closet which they try to hide.

 

I personally wish Charles *ss off to a retirement home and William is made king.. him and Kate are much loved and have stayed out of any controversies. If you dont like her then feel free to stay off this thread? no one has invited you here

Look she's not the angel that she's being portrayed as. She also recently knighted the war criminal Tony Blair. 

 

And those are some serious skeletons, people trafficking, paedophilia. Andrew was her favourite and she knew what he was doing. 

 

Is the truth too much for you to handle? Carry on burying your head in the sand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

Look she's not the angel that she's being portrayed as. She also recently knighted the war criminal Tony Blair. 

 

And those are some serious skeletons, people trafficking, paedophilia. Andrew was her favourite and she knew what he was doing. 

 

Is the truth too much for you to handle? Carry on burying your head in the sand. 

At the end of the day, she was someone’s mother, a grandmother.

 

Have some respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LordPrabhzy said:

 

 

you both seriously need to get a life.

 

Her reign was post India's independence and she was never even meant to be on the throne, only due to her uncles abdication her future changed. What she did as a queen was be the best monarch for her people. I am an Indian yes but also a British citizen, so not going to give hate to a 96 year old woman who only did her dharma as per her monarchy and the constitution. Britain has allowed Indians to thrive and flourish in the UK and build better lives so we owe that much to be atleast respectful at her passing.

No one said give hate but since you are British citizen she was your queen can understand your love. She at least could have given the things that were stolen back. Still believe Indians have no relationship to her and should be indifferent.

Edited by gattaca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gattaca said:

No one said give hate but since you are British citizen she was your queen can understand your love. She at least could have given the things that were stolen back. Still believe Indians have no relationship to her and should be indifferent.


england owes india 145 Trillion in Raj loot.. so you think they will give anything back? Time to move on for Indians and stop living in the past Atleast for the British Raj.. Islamic invaders also pillaged and caused much more mental trauma to Indians.. why are you still living with their progeny in india?

 

There is a time and place to be pragmatic but it’s not the right  time now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LordPrabhzy said:


england owes india 145 Trillion in Raj loot.. so you think they will give anything back?

Good point.  If we went back in time long enough, every group of people probably owes every other group something.  Historically, the amount of looting that has occurred in the name of glory and conquer - by all royalty, including the ones who originated in our own birth-nation - is unfathomable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Good point.  If we went back in time long enough, every group of people probably owes every other group something.  Historically, the amount of looting that has occurred in the name of glory and conquer - by all royalty, including the ones who originated in our own birth-nation - is unfathomable.

Recent injustices count for such arguments of reparations. Why bring medieval history into this argument? It is a fact that Indian economic engine funded the British industrial revolution. Post-colonialism and subaltern narrative getting mainstreamed is one of impacts of such arguments. There are voices against the west now who are curbing developing nations on climate change measures, when they are the reasons who caused the climate change with rampant industrialization . We don’t go back to Chinese and Japanese times of 10th century to see how they impacted climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 6:07 AM, coffee_rules said:

Recent injustices count for such arguments of reparations. Why bring medieval history into this argument? It is a fact that Indian economic engine funded the British industrial revolution. Post-colonialism and subaltern narrative getting mainstreamed is one of impacts of such arguments. There are voices against the west now who are curbing developing nations on climate change measures, when they are the reasons who caused the climate change with rampant industrialization . We don’t go back to Chinese and Japanese times of 10th century to see how they impacted climate change. 

While I do see the case for demanding for reparations, I think you miss the point the other poster is making. There is no arguing the fact that British colonial empire exploited material and human resources. This is known by everyone and no one is denying it.

But my issue is how the Indian media/movies will not miss a single opportunity to push anything bad in India is due to British colonial exploitation/injustice, they shrink from doing the same about the Indian rulers themselves, a vast majority of them being extremely corrupt and inept. 

 

And your point about `Why bring medieval history into this argument?`: I will not even go to medieval times but just the 20th century up to 1948 when Nizam of Hyderabad the autocratic ruler of Hyderabad State (the largest princely state in India). I think people under his rule were much more backward than those that are in the British India. No wonder people of Telangana could not co-exist with the coastal Andhra (who were under British India) and wanted their own state as the other people were taking their jobs. So, I don't even see the point that our princely states were better rulers and India would have been better off if British did not colonize. Today on September 17, Telangana people are celebrating their 74th anniversary of freedom from the Nizam rule. (Mind you, Britishers hardly had any control over the region.)

 

My point is, if you (i.e. Media/movie makers) say Britishers were villains, have the same guts for the rulers of India and especially also Islamic invaders who looted India much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 10:54 AM, sarcastic said:



But my issue is how the Indian media/movies will not miss a single opportunity to push anything bad in India is due to British colonial exploitation/injustice, they shrink from doing the same about the Indian rulers themselves, a vast majority of them being extremely corrupt and inept. 

 

And your point about `Why bring medieval history into this argument?`: I will not even go to medieval times but just the 20th century up to 1948 when Nizam of Hyderabad the autocratic ruler of Hyderabad State (the largest princely state in India). I think people under his rule were much more backward than those that are in the British India. No wonder people of Telangana could not co-exist with the coastal Andhra (who were under British India) and wanted their own state as the other people were taking their jobs. So, I don't even see the point that our princely states were better rulers and India would have been better off if British did not colonize. Today on September 17, Telangana people are celebrating their 74th anniversary of freedom from the Nizam rule. (Mind you, Britishers hardly had any control over the region.)

 

My point is, if you (i.e. Media/movie makers) say Britishers were villains, have the same guts for the rulers of India and especially also Islamic invaders who looted India much more.


No question about Nizam rule , but the argument about the atrocities of colonialism being as bad as the expansionist attitudes of our kings before the Brits invaded India is plain wrong. They were internal conflicts of kingdoms that their armies fought and rarely impacted regular common citizens. Taxation has always been there for 5000 years, so you can’t single out medieval  kings for taxing people. They rarely meddled with temples and promoted local culture and education. Even during Islamic invasions, their kings were more interested in temple loot and iconoclasm, but our civilization still survived with education in gurukuls and promotion of local culture still thrived at least in southern India. What the British colonialists did was far worse. They looted India and funded western industrialization. Read about Iron, Tin and zinc exported (looted) from India. They meddled with our education, taught us McCaulayfied education, killed our languages and produced generations of clerks and paper pushers. Plus with Congress the transfer of power gave us a constitution devoid of any civilizational connect. Don’t even compare the two as the same. They left India divided, in utter poverty, promoted famines to fund their wars, with life expectancy of 23 years! Bloody bloodsuckers!

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Even during Islamic invasions, their kings were more interested in temple loot and iconoclasm, but our civilization still survived with education in gurukuls and promotion of local culture still thrived at least in southern India.

I will argue that the education in gurukuls survived inspite of the efforts of islamic invaders. The reason south India was less effected is because the invaders came from North west India and North India itself was a huge chunk to swallow and keep intact. So in a way South India got lucky with Islamic invaders and not because they were not interested in doing it.

Quote

What the British colonialists did was far worse. They looted India and funded western industrialization. Read about Iron, Tin and zinc exported (looted) from India.

I fully agree about the looting of India and everything here. I just don't think it was far worse than Islamic invaders but I can accept it as a contrarian point of view.

 

Quote

They meddled with our education, taught us McCaulayfied education, killed our languages and produced generations of clerks and paper pushers.

Cannot agree with this. Not sure what you mean by "killed our languages". Most people of India were still speaking their vernacular languages and relatively very few knew how to read and write English in 1947.
If you tell me that English became the official language of communication in India, that is because we did not have a single language that all people could communicate. And already we are not succeeding with Hindi after 75 years. If not for English language education, people like you (and me) would have not so easily emigrated to Anglosphere and made careers out.  

 

Quote

Plus with Congress the transfer of power gave us a constitution devoid of any civilizational connect. Don’t even compare the two as the same.

Common, now. Whom should they leave the power to then. Just leave it for Indians to fight themselves to have a king or fall under communist regime or whatever.
Tell me what you think should have been done then.

 

Quote

They left India divided,

I do blame them how they did it but I don't blame them for the division of India itself.
It is the Muslim League (or Muslims themselves who wanted a separate state) or the rift between Muslim League and Congress which led to the division itself. 

So, again my question is what should have been done? Should they leave the Muslims and Hindus just fight among themselves in this new independent India and just leave.
Imagine India like another Sri Lanka (where the ethnic majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils were fighting until few years ago). It would have been horrible.

In my opinion, partition was a good thing to happen to both the parties but British administration did mess it up in the way they executed it causing lot of life loss on both the sides of the newly created border.
 

Edited by sarcastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sarcastic said:

 

 

Cannot agree with this. Not sure what you mean by "killed our languages". Most people of India were still speaking their vernacular languages and relatively very few knew how to read and write English in 1947.
If you tell me that English became the official language of communication in India, that is because we did not have a single language that all people could communicate. And already we are not succeeding with Hindi after 75 years. If not for English language education, people like you (and me) would have not so easily emigrated to Anglosphere and made careers out.  
 

We had schools that taught mathematics, from trigonometry to calculus architecture and we learned st all that to English education. Today we have lost all that knowledge. Listen to prof C.K Raju on how much of Indian mathematics helped the west. Sanskrit was the link language for a 1000 years, how do you think Adi Shankara and Vivekanand travelled all over India without knowing local language. Because of influence of Moghuls, Sanskritized Hindi paved way for. Kitsch called Hindustani. We killed our languages because of English. Look at our schools, do you see any other medium of education flourishing other than English?

 

4 hours ago, sarcastic said:

 

Common, now. Whom should they leave the power to then. Just leave it for Indians to fight themselves to have a king or fall under communist regime or whatever.
Tell me what you think should have been done then

 

Too sad Congress was filled with European educated socialists that killed our country. The constitution is nothing but the British India act of 1935. 
 

4 hours ago, sarcastic said:

 

.

 

I do blame them how they did it but I don't blame them for the division of India itself.
It is the Muslim League (or Muslims themselves who wanted a separate state) or the rift between Muslim League and Congress which led to the division itself. 

So, again my question is what should have been done? Should they leave the Muslims and Hindus just fight among themselves in this new independent India and just leave.
Imagine India like another Sri Lanka (where the ethnic majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils were fighting until few years ago). It would have been horrible.

In my opinion, partition was a good thing to happen to both the parties but British administration did mess it up in the way they executed it causing lot of life loss on both the sides of the newly created border.
 

 

They are responsible for sowing the seeds of 2-nation theory into Muslims and encouraged them . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...