kumble_rocks Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Despite choices made by Nehru.... His choice saw that india eventually goes bankrupt Nehru's policy and his other choise is there for everyone to see in Kashmir.... His choice at least saw to it that you could graduate from IIT . Show some gratitude , mate ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 BS hsi choice saw that 100's others even idiots like CC cud have joined IIT which they didn't.. Bloody 5 IITs in 50 years and I sud be thankful to him.. He made sure scores of less fortunate ones cud not do it.. yes that was his decision.. Anyway i am talkng on behalf of my few cousins who cud not get into due to mere 2300 seats availability all over India.. how about this can I abuse him now :haha: Go have a look in any other decent country u will find in same period 100's of instiutiton of repute got establsiihed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 :hysterical::hysterical: That was gem BB.. Anyway as I mentioned KR I am talking on behalf of my cousins and he did screw it for them just 2300 for billion storong population, are u kidding me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 BS hsi choice saw that 100's others even idiots like CC cud have joined IIT which they didn't.. Bloody 5 IITs in 50 years and I sud be thankful to him.. He made sure scores of less fortunate ones cud not do it.. yes that was his decision.. Anyway i am talkng on behalf of my few cousins who cud not get into due to mere 2300 seats availability all over India.. how about this can I abuse him now :haha: Go have a look in any other decent country u will find in same period 100's of instiutiton of repute got establsiihed.. Again , are you discounting the fact that he was instrumental in starting IITs ! So , you expect him to start 100 's of IITians in the 60's . He got the process rolling , others should have completed it ? Aren't you being very miserly in commending his good works ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Thats like saying Hitler needs to be praised for having a public transport system that was cheap and efficient ... :D :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: That was witty , I must admit ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 His choice saw that india eventually goes bankrupt False allegation. Indian economic collapse in the late 50s/60s is due to the arab nations dropping the rupee, leading to hyper-inflation and subsequent devaluation of the rupee. This has been covered CATEGORICALLY by Amartya Sen- who you have ZERO authority to contradict. i suggest you eduate yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Same old crap accusing everybody under the sun excpet the one who was in charge.... So basically he was at the mercy of arab countries, and who said him to be such a fool and put all eggs in one basket.. thanks for endorsing my point.. Only doubt is on how and why it happened but it did happen under their watchy.. EOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Same old crap accusing everybody under the sun excpet the one who was in charge.... Nobody is accusing anybody except YOU accusing Nehru for India's economic collapse in the late 50s and 60s. Yet fact is, Indian economy collapsed when the arab countries stopped using the Indian rupees ( the arabs were using Indian rupees till mid-late 1950s) from the time of BRITISH RAJ ( the arabs were a british protectorate too!), leading to rampant inflation brought in control only by devaluing the rupee. This has been CATEGORICALLY established by a nobel lauriate like Amartya Sen, so you have no authority to challenge that. And nehru is not responsible for putting all the eggs in one basket or being at the mercy of the arabs- the arabs, who were a british protectorate since WWI were using the Indian Rupees as a currency since 1920. They dropped it in the mid 1950s and India paid the price for that- there is NOTHING Nehru or anybody could've done to prevent that. Yet another falsehood and idiotic notion by the hinduvtas dismissed. I tire of kicking all your collective a$$es. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 On a more serious note, I think the analysis carried out by Mr. Singhvi is a gross oversimplification of issues. To begin with, I would question his motive, for he starts off as an apologist for the congress party and their gross mis-management of the Indian economy. I found it amusing that he'd congratulate Nehruvian policies for us being talked about in the same breath as China. He conveniently forgets that India had a tremendous headstart against China in terms of economic strength, and yet, today we find ourselves playing catch up. Indians could choose to feel good if they have to by comparing themselves to sub-saharan countries (not sure if India fares too wll here either). The truth is that our policy choices, made during Nehru's era, were largely responsible for India's embarassingly under-performing economy. Such a shame that our leaders look better only when compared to pakistan's inept politicians. I further did not understand this whole co-relation between building institution and political systems. If pakistan failed to build institutions it could be proud of then surely it was not because it embraced free-enterprise (which i doubt it did). Neither does one need socialism to build lasting institutions and we do not need to look any further than US and UK itself. That article is a poor attempt at generalisation and over-simplification. HE has tried his best to put pieces in place for deification of Nehru who started sthg which resulted into eventual bankrupcy.. somehow siding with communazis of USSR was master-stroke don't ask me why.. yes charade of non-alignement was on no doubt .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandtest Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I think this is the time to revive that old thread --- "Know your Pakistan and Roots Pakistan of Pakistani brand of hatred"--:D...for educating our ever apologist folks. I will dig that out, once I get some time off work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 He conveniently forgets that India had a tremendous headstart against China in terms of economic strength Utterly false. China was STILL one of the richest countries in the world till 1920s. With the ensuing Japanese invasion, vast sums of Chinese capital was moved to the interior both by the Kuomintang and the Red Army. It is ridiculous to say that India 'started off' better than China - in the late 40s, China was the third most industrialized nation ( after USA and Japan), had a similar rating in terms of coiffeur value and large amounts of its industrial base intact. Yes, China had tremendous poverty during the 40s but that was due to infighting between Mao and Kuomintang as well as fighting the Japanese, resulting in serious bottle-neck effect in distribution of wealth, not a lack of it from their society. Infact, the bottleneck effect was in large part the reason why Mao's propaganda against the 'evil rich capitalists' worked wonders for the psyche of the Chinese population. The truth is that our policy choices, made during Nehru's era, were largely responsible for India's embarassingly under-performing economy. Utterly false again. Amartya Sen has categorically shown that Indian economic meltdown in the late 50s and early 60s was due to the collapse of the Rupee, over which India had little control. Since before independence, the Indian rupee was in circulation in Arab nations, Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan and Bangladesh- they all dumped the rupee for their own currency, leading to hyperinflation and the resulting devaluation of the rupee. This is basic economics- how do you think the US would fare today if most of the world dropped the US dollar as FER currency ? Remember, FER currency has LESS impact on the economies than circulating currency and Indian rupee was the circulating currency in those nations till the mid 50s. It is utter nonsense and 'blame Nehru coz he is congress' stupidity that leads to such idiotic conclusions when a NOBEL LAURIATE in economics has PROVEN it to be otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 In 1950, three years after India gained independence from Britain and less than a year after the Communists gained complete control of China, India’s per capita GDP was some 40% higher than China’s. Can i see some facts on this please ? In support of your argument you cite arguments allegedly advanced by Amartya Sen, nevermind the fact that his Nobel prize was awarded for his works on Bengal famine. LOL! So what if he was awarded the nobel prize for his analysis of the Bengal Famine ? Currency meltdowns are still very much an economic topic and Amartya Sen is still one of the very best economists there is. This is like saying 'nevermind that Einstien got his nobel for theory of relativity, his views on Thermodynamics is irrelevant' ? Eh ?!? let me remind you that this BoP crisis in 1957 that you've mentioned was forewarned by none other than our own desi economist BR Shenoy when he categorically stated that the attempt to maintain high investment rates through deficit financing would inevitably lead to a serious balance of payments problem. Balance of Payment is irrelevant to the equation, simply because when your currency devalues by 400% in a very short time due to foreign nations dumping it as their currency, your economy is fooked. Period. As i said, the situation is similar to if US Dollar was dumped by the middle east today as a currency- regardless of US BoP, economic investments, Federal Reserve, etc. US economy will be fooked. Same thing happened with Indian economy in the mid-late 50s. lastly, even if i accept your story regarding India's economic slide in 1950-60.....how do you explain the flat economic performance in the following decades 1.Largest part is Indian manufacturing sector losing its fixed assets due to currency meltdown related economic devaluation. 2. Naxalite movement in the eastern India destroyed the manufacturing base of (the-then) most industrialized state in India- West bengal, as well as significantly damaging the infrastructure of Bihar, Orissa and Assam. Remember, pre-1980s/1990s world had little or no service sector beyond tourism and hotel industry- service sector is almost exclusively a micro-chip created industry, so back then, we are talking about only two sectors- agricultural and industrial. 3. THREE major wars in less than a decade absolutely nullified investor's confidence- both internally and externally. Because of India's lack of defence industry ( which is largely true to THIS day), India didn't even have the ONLY industrial sector that shows gains during war period (defence). 4. India's protectionist policies to domestic industries discouraged foreign investment. But it can easily be argued (and it has been) that if India did not have a period of protectionist policies towards domestic industry, India wouldn't have a domestic industry and would be in a similar boat to Canada/Australia (where most of the domestic industrial scene is internationally/US owned). Tatas/Birlas etc. would have folded up like cheap cards had Ford/Volkswagen/etc. been allowed free enterprise in the 50s-80s period. The most clear-cut example of this is Pakistan- which allowed free enterprise basically since its independence and as a result has ZILCH to show for private sector domestic industries. Yes, it can be argued that congress protectionist policies went on for perhaps a decade too long but this is very much the minor piece in the equation, with the first three factors dominating the cause for India's economic stagnation in the late 60s-early 90s period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 In 1950, three years after India gained independence from Britain and less than a year after the Communists gained complete control of China, India’s per capita GDP was some 40% higher than China’s. I don't why people have to fabricate things which in this day and age of technology can be blown apart in seconds : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_195-economy-gdp-per-capita-1950 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 This is like saying 'nevermind that Einstien got his nobel for theory of relativity, his views on Thermodynamics is irrelevant' ? Eh ?!? Actually, he did not get it for relativity.:wink_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Actually' date=' he did not get it for relativity.:wink_smile:[/quote'] Blaargh! You party-pooper. My point still stands,however. :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I've seen you took some grand moral posturing on this harbhajan saga and how mike proctor's conduct was lamentable....but you are no different! accusing me of cheating without even askin me to tell my source! Good job, shwetabh!! You were asked the source. I did not know the answer, I googled it and came up with entirely different numbers. Now on to the link. I rely on academic papers which are published and quoted and cited by peers. If you want a copy, send me your mail ID and I'd email them to you. My email ID is Please let me know when you have read this post, so I can edit it out. And I am always happy and keen to increase my knowledge. I think you are one of those two bit programmers who think they are doing the most important job in the world and think google is be-all citing these dubious links. I am not a programmer. By degree I am an Astrophysicist and by employment, I am a Business Analyst. And I have never done and am not doing the most important job in the world. Next time you want to be taken seriously son, come up with something better than a website link or wikipedia (even 2nd grade kids are discouraged to cite em) Whenever, I, or all scientists quote a figure they mention the source. The onus was on you to quote it, and you missed it. In retort I posted a contradictory source with web links. Now if you can show me a more credible piece, I am more than willing to accept your assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Actually' date=' he did not get it for relativity.:wink_smile:[/quote'] Google master ko likhaned do jo ji mein aaye uske,:giggle: diturb nahin karen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Jais murgi waisa anda edict at work http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_bombing Ever heard anyone blowing people up in such a concerted and systematic manner with or without the instantaneous emotive issue. This was court they do not spare even Mosques, you won't find many sick people if any who blow up their own place of worship just to get one up across their adversary. No america no britain taught them thse things, this kind of sickness comes to them naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_bombing Ever heard anyone blowing people up in such a concerted and systematic manner with or without the instantaneous emotive issue. This was court they do not spare even Mosques, you won't find many sick people if any who blow up their own place of worship just to get one up across their adversary. No america no britain taught them thse things, this kind of sickness comes to them naturally. Then the question begs , is it fair to call it Islamic terrorism ? These guys are brain washed nut jobs who blow up even mosques like you pointed out.. surely they do not represent Islam .. Would you agree ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Your question starts with an assmption that they are brain-washed by sthg else what if the brain-washing is the handiwork of the ideology they seem to be attacking... ... Going by what trasnpired even in very early days just after great man's death I am fairly certain it's the ideology.. Even scientific analysis says they happen to be only group on face of earth so there has to be some correlation between their belief and the fruit it seems to be delivering.. I suggest reading on Yazid's mercenaris work and hasa hussain episode.. Beyond that I can't comment here for obvious gag policy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts