10-24-2006, 11:10 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Oct 23 2006, 06:07 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Oct 23 2006, 06:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Rammohon Roy, he was the first post-islamic Indian who saw the socio-cultural-religious mess that india was in the 1800's (not very different from Europe in the "dark ages") for what it was and tried to lift the darkness. Its precisely the parts of india which have not in the least been influenced by european enlightment where we still find astronomical population growth, dowry, witch/dalit burning, child marriage and other mediaval crap.
I had started a thread long back here called "what does india owe to the west" and had concluded there that their sole legacy was to pull us out of Islamic darkness (on social, cultural, scientific, political and other fronts) - all that at the cost of being reduced to utter poverty by colonialisation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right Right and it's the states with the most "englightenment influence" that will be part of Mughalistan in the coming years while in the backward bride burning states (which again is an indirect contribution of the enlightened British through the Dowry system) Hindus will atleast have some land to squat on.
By the way I can say the same thing about Bengal, that it's nowhere compared to Gujarat which has a much higher population growth and where the Hindus are more traditional, population growth being reduced is seen as progressive in leftist circles but watch what will happen in Kerala, Assam and WB in the coming years. Last I heard many of the border areas have been cleansed of Bengali Hindus, watch your Bangla brothers take over the remaining Bengal and Bengali Hindus will end up like Sindhis or KP's.
[right][snapback]59560[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
see you answer your point yourself.
if bengal is the first to fall to mughalistan its cos of immigration, cos of 1971 genocide and cos of 150 years of all out colonialisation resulting in famines. the "bride burning" states are not bordered by any muslim country, nor had to go through partition.
greater population groiwth indicates nothing, certainly not progress. had that been true then south east asia would be more progressive than western europe.
as for the reduced population growth in bengal, that was badly needed. our small state supports the hindu population of bengal as well as bangladesh and million more muslims and illegals. i think we are the most densely populated state. that would happen to any state remember - what if all the hindus of uttarpradesh were shoved into uttaranchal?
i want evidence that british introcuded dowry system. and if they did - how come there is no dowry in the state that should have it most (supposing it was the british).
you know, sitting as you do (protected from islamic hounds) on the other end of india and also not having suffered a cent of the colonisation or famines that bengal had to go through, its easy for you to laugh at the problems others have thanks to their islamic/colonial history.
i am the one who keeps uses the "sati" and "bride burning" bit most often - but having travelled the length and breath of the so called "bimaru belt" and knowing a bit of (hindu) indian history, i know better than most, that its the same "backward states" which were once the best in india. uttar pradesh, like it or not, was and still is the cradle of hinduism. both bihar and madhya pradesh were states which produced the vast majority of hindu astronomy and academics. they were the ones most hammered by islam and also least "pulled out" by westernisation. if afghanistan was located in sri lanka then bihar would not be so backward. similar is the case with bengal - it was very prosperous and then some, even during the muslim nabab days. you can check this out yourself - bengal being both a coastal/sea-trading state and sitting on the most fertile piece of land in the planet (the only soil that can produce 3 crops a year), always had a high degree of prosperity. but then the same land got the brunt of the colonial hammer and suffered famines of astronomical proportions and then a genocide second to only the jewish holocaust in the last century and thus now struggles to make ends meet. historical and geographical circumstance can play havoc.
btw, we are the third biggest economy in india (w.b. govt is bankrupt though, but not the state), ahead of all but tamil nadu and maharashtra. go figure.
I had started a thread long back here called "what does india owe to the west" and had concluded there that their sole legacy was to pull us out of Islamic darkness (on social, cultural, scientific, political and other fronts) - all that at the cost of being reduced to utter poverty by colonialisation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right Right and it's the states with the most "englightenment influence" that will be part of Mughalistan in the coming years while in the backward bride burning states (which again is an indirect contribution of the enlightened British through the Dowry system) Hindus will atleast have some land to squat on.
By the way I can say the same thing about Bengal, that it's nowhere compared to Gujarat which has a much higher population growth and where the Hindus are more traditional, population growth being reduced is seen as progressive in leftist circles but watch what will happen in Kerala, Assam and WB in the coming years. Last I heard many of the border areas have been cleansed of Bengali Hindus, watch your Bangla brothers take over the remaining Bengal and Bengali Hindus will end up like Sindhis or KP's.
[right][snapback]59560[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
see you answer your point yourself.
if bengal is the first to fall to mughalistan its cos of immigration, cos of 1971 genocide and cos of 150 years of all out colonialisation resulting in famines. the "bride burning" states are not bordered by any muslim country, nor had to go through partition.
greater population groiwth indicates nothing, certainly not progress. had that been true then south east asia would be more progressive than western europe.
as for the reduced population growth in bengal, that was badly needed. our small state supports the hindu population of bengal as well as bangladesh and million more muslims and illegals. i think we are the most densely populated state. that would happen to any state remember - what if all the hindus of uttarpradesh were shoved into uttaranchal?
i want evidence that british introcuded dowry system. and if they did - how come there is no dowry in the state that should have it most (supposing it was the british).
you know, sitting as you do (protected from islamic hounds) on the other end of india and also not having suffered a cent of the colonisation or famines that bengal had to go through, its easy for you to laugh at the problems others have thanks to their islamic/colonial history.
i am the one who keeps uses the "sati" and "bride burning" bit most often - but having travelled the length and breath of the so called "bimaru belt" and knowing a bit of (hindu) indian history, i know better than most, that its the same "backward states" which were once the best in india. uttar pradesh, like it or not, was and still is the cradle of hinduism. both bihar and madhya pradesh were states which produced the vast majority of hindu astronomy and academics. they were the ones most hammered by islam and also least "pulled out" by westernisation. if afghanistan was located in sri lanka then bihar would not be so backward. similar is the case with bengal - it was very prosperous and then some, even during the muslim nabab days. you can check this out yourself - bengal being both a coastal/sea-trading state and sitting on the most fertile piece of land in the planet (the only soil that can produce 3 crops a year), always had a high degree of prosperity. but then the same land got the brunt of the colonial hammer and suffered famines of astronomical proportions and then a genocide second to only the jewish holocaust in the last century and thus now struggles to make ends meet. historical and geographical circumstance can play havoc.
btw, we are the third biggest economy in india (w.b. govt is bankrupt though, but not the state), ahead of all but tamil nadu and maharashtra. go figure.