Texy Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 She seems to be little nervous while speaking thats why she is coming across as not having the look. Her eyes are killer and that aspect was coming very prominently in when she was looking on at Shashi Tharoor from other angle. 7/10 would still bang. :cantstop: That sexy British accent Look at all the white old farts staring at those legs...bet they would be happy to give her some reparations.
ravishingravi Posted July 26, 2015 Author Posted July 26, 2015 Depressing but resounding proof that Indians are sentimental fools who are easily swayed by something as trivial as an orchestrated speech. Where is question of being swayed ? It is not as if Indian are on the fence on this issue.
ravishingravi Posted July 26, 2015 Author Posted July 26, 2015 Sure Shashi Tharoor would be happy to see being eyed by this woman. Has been sometime for him. Yes Raghav. She is beautiful allright. But I have feeling it will go downhill once she opens her mouth. But then again she doesn't have to.
Yoda-esque Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 Brits are cool, they created the other country. People who want to be ruled will always be ruled,whether the money stays in the Mughal coffers or the British treasury.
zen Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 f7CW7S0zxv4 Man ! This was sheer brilliance in content and delivery. Brilliant!
Crookbond Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 The higher order bit of the speech was good but he got one detail wrong - "India's share of the economy of the world was 23% before British arrived". This isn't true and one of those "facts" shared incessantly on Facebook, WhatsApp like "NASA uses Sanskrit", "Macaulay education quote" etc. Btw, this motion for the debate got voted against. Also, this isn't the first time he's making this same speech. He made one in the Supreme Court, London few months back. W8c7XuDS4cs Anyways, Tharoor is indeed a very good orator.
ravishingravi Posted July 26, 2015 Author Posted July 26, 2015 http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/dear-shashi-tharoor-the-fault-was-not-in-the-raj-but-in-ourselves/ Yup. Aakar Patel does it again.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/dear-shashi-tharoor-the-fault-was-not-in-the-raj-but-in-ourselves/ Yup. Aakar Patel does it again. That really was one of the worst articles I have ever read.
goose Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 Pretty sure the Nazis would have done plenty that was good also if allowed to rule for 200 years. If British rule was a force for good then why does Britain want to try Tony Blair for war crimes? Wasn't Saddam's removal a force for good? Or is it because the British public don't enjoy being lied to? Could it be something to do with a country's sovereignty?
ravishingravi Posted July 27, 2015 Author Posted July 27, 2015 Pretty sure the Nazis would have done plenty that was good also if allowed to rule for 200 years. If British rule was a force for good then why does Britain want to try Tony Blair for war crimes? Wasn't Saddam's removal a force for good? Or is it because the British public don't enjoy being lied to? Could it be something to do with a country's sovereignty? Problem is. Too many such people going around calling themselves secular liberal etc.
amiret Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 " The British didn’t come to conquer India; it was a creeping takeover facilitated and encouraged by Indians. " For me, whether the Raj was good or bad is not as important as whether it was better than what went before it. Of course it was. The British didn’t come to conquer India; it was a creeping takeover facilitated and encouraged by Indians. Gujarat was relieved when the British finally protected them from the excesses of the Marathas (who still squat on Baroda) and the incompetence of the Mughal rump. It was the Oswal Jains who financed and executed Robert Clive’s win at Plassey. They did so because the Mughal governors there were in power but incapable of leading them, even if they were not foreign. He is right about clive's win at Plassey . :haha: Tharoor touches upon the Indian contribution to the world wars as an instance where Britain owes us. The Indian sacrifices at Gallipoli, Monte Cassino and all the rest of it. I am frankly bored by the great stories of these noble contributions. The fact is that the Indian army has historically been an army of mercenaries that became a national army overnight on August 15, 1947. It has zero history of fighting for national causes, only ever for money. Herodotus describes the clothing and weaponry of an Indian contingent in Greece hired by the Persians against the Athenians at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. A century later Alexander fought and massacred mercenaries in Punjab, according to Arrian. The Jats and Marathas rode to battle for whoever paid them, as did the Rajputs. And why go back that far? General Dyer only ordered the firing at Jallianwala Bagh. Aim was taken and triggers pulled by the Gurkha Rifles and the Baloch Regiment. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/dear-shashi-tharoor-the-fault-was-not-in-the-raj-but-in-ourselves/
amiret Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 From AAkar patel's blog : Britain is to be blamed for India's population explosion : Under the British, India’s population quadrupled for the first time in the 19th century (having only doubled each century before that according to the economist Angus Maddison). That is in my opinion purely down to Pax Britannica, the peace ensured by the Raj’s monopoly over violence. ... Mother India was weeping and wounded when she went into the arms of Victoria. :haha: Interesting thought ; India's population quadrupled due to the ensuing peace after British takeover So we would have slaughtered ourselves to reasonable population levels if the Brits had not colonized India ? :hmmm:
Precambrian Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I find it a bit disturbing that Taroor didn't quote sources. Most of the criticism directed at him is that he has not bothered to provide references.
moniker Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 The higher order bit of the speech was good but he got one detail wrong - "India's share of the economy of the world was 23% before British arrived". This isn't true and one of those "facts" shared incessantly on Facebook, WhatsApp like "NASA uses Sanskrit", "Macaulay education quote" etc. Btw, this motion for the debate got voted against. Also, this isn't the first time he's making this same speech. He made one in the Supreme Court, London few months back. W8c7XuDS4cs Anyways, Tharoor is indeed a very good orator. How do you know that this isn't true? It was the British economist Angus Maddison who claimed this in his book "Contours of the world economy". Do you know of any other economic historian who has conducted research and come up with new information to refute the claim?
Sachin=GOD Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 Talking of Shashi Tharoor, here's something absolutely worth watching. Tharoor vs Hitchens - https://youtu.be/jw3dDbc1BHE
Recommended Posts