Greetings/Questions from Germany

[Phenom]

OT,

Interesting Chart, one sad thing to note is the difference between India and China, it has never been a big as it is today, iirc today the Chinese economy is 4 times ours.

 

[Rahul M]

OT in reply to OT point.

you are correct PRC economy is a little less than 4 times that of India's. although it is 2.5 times if you take PPP.

there are however some major caveats
a) GoI under-reports India's economic size, the real size is 25-75% larger (depending on whom you believe).
this is due to continued use of a mid 90's year as base, along with the product composition that was in vogue back then.
see for example
KV Kamath says economy growing at 11% - The Times of India
so just by changing our accounting practices we can change our GDP on paper. china did in fact did the same thing sometime around 2005, you may notice a spike in their GDP figures around that time.

b) another thing that many miss in the china story is the economic strength of china's neighbours, japan, south korea, taiwan and the ASEAN. not to mention resource rich russia to the north. the contribution of these economies to the china growth story is immense.
by contrast, we have pakistan (!), bangladesh (!) (both regular rank holders in failed state index) nepal, sri lanka etc. only bhutan and sri lanka and thailand a little further away are half decent and have any potential.

c) china's growth will slow (although I do not, as some do believe it will crash ) because of structural problems. the growth is fueled by exports and mindless infrastructure boom without any economic viability. the world economy is saturated and there is no one left to buy the next increment in production of chinese goods.
unless, they finally start creating a domestic demand driven economy like we have in India. that however will take time and will not allow china to grow as fast as they did.

d) if you compare GDP data, you will see that we started 13 years after china (1978 to 1991) but Indian economy is now where china was ten years ago. so we are making good progress.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I do not believe we are in a race with china, it is not a zero sum game. I accept them as a benchmark to judge our development but no more.
as long as all Indians are able to lead a decent life with reasonable affluence, security and access to opportunities, I will be happy. china doesn't have to fall behind for Indians to be happy. for 3 millenia of co-existence we have had hostile relations only for the last 60 years or so. it is the nature of communist/extremist ideologies to be confrontational and expansionist. this too shall pass. India will still be around when that happens.

 

[Blackwater]

Hi, let my introduce myself first. My Name is Daniel, I'm a german student living in a small town in the south of it. I will soon give a GFS (some kind of presentation) about how the British Raj changed India, also in Fact to the indian self-conception. And I guess it would be really really great to have some of your oponions. So if you want, just answer to the following questions, you would do me a big favor :thumb: :

1.) Wich is/are the most important change/s the British brought to India, you can still notice today , and is it positive or negative in your opinion ?

Answer= Railways, road network and important building which still stand today without repair for 200 yrs.

2.) Do you wished the British Raj never existed ?

No, we glad it existed

3.) How do you think about Great Britian today ?

Nothing great, another Punjab and land of 5 million iligal immigrants.


4.)What do you think is the main reason, many indians emigrate to great britian and how do you think about immigration/emmigration generally ?

Home away from home, birth right to live in UK

Yes I know these questions arent really military but I hope in the "Introductions & Greetings" part it's ok .
I would be really happy about many replys and of course you can ask me also questions back about germans and germany, in this domain I can also answer the military ones

Please be sorry for my english, Im just a student im still learning

hope u enjoy my answers. any other Q pls ask

 

[sandeepdg]

Welcome to DFI, Daniel !

 

[Arunpillai]

please, speak for yourself, don't bring the rest of educated Indians into the debate.

if you think the british brought "modern thought and education" to India, it says more about your knowledge than anything else.

so what do you think british brought to india that changed us? Railways? Roads? Posts? It was british education and thought that led many nationalist of the day like Rammohan roy, Dadabhai nauroji, all early congresmen to wake up, look around them, and see the sorry state they were in. This lead to the reformation movement in india. Till 18 century, india was as similiar as any western country. After industrial revolutions, french revolution, the west was never the same.. That thought process borrowed from west of the books of Voltaire, Rousseau, Engels, and others laid the foundation of our freedom struggle.

 

[Adux]

Yes We were uncivilized numbnuts, who needed British influence to underrstand the concept of freedom. /sarcasm off,

Daniel,

India as an idea and physical entity existed from a long time. It is the Mauryan Empire. It is the most important part of our identity.

 

[Rahul M]

so what do you think british brought to india that changed us? Railways? Roads? Posts? It was british education and thought that led many nationalist of the day like Rammohan roy, Dadabhai nauroji, all early congresmen to wake up, look around them, and see the sorry state they were in. This lead to the reformation movement in india. Till 18 century, india was as similiar as any western country. After industrial revolutions, french revolution, the west was never the same.. That thought process borrowed from west of the books of Voltaire, Rousseau, Engels, and others laid the foundation of our freedom struggle.

please forgive me for the rambling post that follows.

the thing the british brought that changed us was a ruling system that had absolutely no morals, no regard for the locals, an utterly hypocritical attitude towards human rights and whose sole raison d'etre was to loot.
exposure to a system like that would 'change' anybody.
even the central asian marauders that came to India mostly became a part of India and kept the wealth inside India for the most part. they had an interest in the well being of the country that provided them with wealth because they lived here. the british had no such compunction.

roads ?? the british brought roads to India ?
one of the first continental highways in world history was made by chandragupta maurya way back in 3rd century BC. ***
running from tamralipti port (modern town of tamluk) in bengal to the east to purushpur (peshawar) in the west, the uttarpath or north-road as it was called was more than 2000 km in length and remained one of the longest highways in the world till modern era. this was the same road that was rebuilt about 2000 years later by sher shah suri. and then again by the british who called it the grand trunk road and get credited by you for 'bringing roads to India'. (GT road, heard of it ?)
nor was it the only one, there was a similar road connecting the south of the county called dakshin-path and numerous other smaller ones.

*** in case you were interested, the britons at the time were half-naked tribes who fought with each other wearing blue body-paint made from plants and little else. in a few decades they would be occupied and 'civilized' by the romans. the british tried to push the same story here (which is basically what you are repeating). unfortunately for them the similarity ends at 'romans occupied britain' and 'britain occupied India'. India was already a civilization for more than 3000 years by the time something approaching 'civilization' was developed in britain.
gandhiji had an interesting comment on this

on a visit to england, someone asked him
"Mr Gandhi, what is your opinion on the british civilization"

G : "It would be a good idea !"

I really don't understand why people keep shouting "railways ! english !" when talking of the british raj.

is it to somehow convince us that railways and english could not be used by Indians if the british did not colonise and exploit our people ? I don't get this theory ?
by that logic, what should we do now ?
get colonised by the americans and offer a few million of our people for slaughter so that we can get the 'gifts' of space travel, C++ and computers ?? oh ! I forgot, we already have those and guess what, it didn't require the deaths of a few million Indians and shipping all our wealth to US to achieve that.

tell me this, why couldn't we do the same for railways or english ? the railway was after all made by Indian labour (who also built the railways in africa) with Indian money, why could an Indian govt just not 'buy' a railway system ?

in any case, the railways were built to ship Indian raw materials and resources almost free of cost to UK, not for the upliftment of people or any similar philanthrophic motive. a map of the historical rail system will tell you that. the routes connected the raw material producing areas in the interior to the ports from where the shipping would take over.
net net, the railways was probably the biggest instrument of exploitation of India.

let's take a hypothetical example, on your way back from work a goon comes and beats you senseless with a hockeystick, takes all your money and leaves you on the street to die from bleeding, hockey-stick at your side. in the process he also managed to burst an irritating boil.
would you,
a) thank the goon for bursting the boil and for leaving you the hockey-stick
OR
b) report the case to the nearest police station and hope he gets thrown to jail ?

Indians praising the brits for railways is like option (a) above.

It was british education and thought that led many nationalist of the day like Rammohan roy, Dadabhai nauroji, all early congresmen to wake up, look around them, and see the sorry state they were in. This lead to the reformation movement in india. Till 18 century, india was as similiar as any western country. After industrial revolutions, french revolution, the west was never the same.. That thought process borrowed from west of the books of Voltaire, Rousseau, Engels, and others laid the foundation of our freedom struggle.

boss, french revolution was a product of the oppressive environment created by the bourbon kings just as the Indian social movements were a product of the oppression by the british raj.
did 1857 require the introduction of british education for the realisation that people needed to throw off the brits ? did the indigo revolt ? the pune revolt ? or the sanyassi rebellion much earlier in history ?

if british education was a necessity how did ishwarchandra vidyasagar, a man educated completely in a traditional sanskrit school become an even more influential social reformer than rammohan roy ?

the effect of british education, if any, was at best incidental, it was the reformers themselves that deserve the credit. the british education system was after all created to produce a class of lowly office staff to run the colonial administration and the majority of those who came out of that system were british loyalists to their bones. the reformers were the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Rahul M]

Daniel,

India as an idea and physical entity existed from a long time. It is the Mauryan Empire. It is the most important part of our identity.

good point, this is another nonsense myth that just doesn't go away.

reproducing a post made elsewhere.

you are confusing between a nation and a state. modern India, the state, as in an unified political entity is 60 years old as you correctly mentioned. but the idea of India as a nation is far older than that. the term India itself is an exonym, much like Japan but India has been variously known as aryavarta, bharatvarsha etc to its people, even though they were usually living under different kings. another way to understand this is to understand how the various warring states conducted their warfare. unlike in inter-nation warfare, battles among Indian kingdoms were never fought people vs people, the commoners were not harmed even while the kings and their armies fought for supremacy.

any national identity crystallizes by defining itself wrt 'the other', the outsider. IOW, it is during contact with external cultures, especially hostile ones that national identity manifests itself (or not).
in India's case, you'll find this happening during the bactrian and kushan invasions (Alexander's invasion itself was a minor irritant and completely ignored in Indian literature) and repeated during the white hun invasion etc. this feeling of 'us, Indians' and 'them, outsiders' is evident from numerous texts of this period.
again, at numerous times in late ancient and early middle ages we have instances of almost all major Indian kingdoms, otherwise hostile, joining forces against external aggression from arab and turk forces.

lastly, if it is the existence of a political state that creates national identity by your theory, that happened for the first time about 2300 years ago, during the reign of the Mauryas, whose empire was larger than that of the Mughals and included modern day pakistan and Afghanistan. following them, more than one dynasty ruled empires spanning almost the whole sub-continent from the ancient age(Gupta, Pala, Pratihara etc) right up to the modern pre-british era (Mughal, Maratha).

what I find particularly amusing is the assertion that India was 'first unified under the British' (someone forgot to tell Emperor Asoka, poor fellow, 2300 years too early)
even if we discount the fact that the British left India with 500 independent kingdoms (some unification, that ! ) the stalwarts of the British 'India Office', those masters and champions of divide and rule would be turning in their graves to know that they had actually unified the country while trying to achieve the opposite in every conceivable way. isn't it much more likely that the national identity was already present and the presence of the British merely crystallized it (again, it's the outsider that acts as the catalyst ). in fact, if we go through the history of India's independence movement, 1857 onwards, it's quite easy to see that is true.

what intrigues me is why this argument 'India was not a country' is never applied to any other country although they have similar histories in this regard, I don't hear that Germany is not a country because it was unified in 1870 (or arguably even later, in 1990 !). I don't hear France is not a country because modern France is in existence only from 1945 and so on. In fact, similar arguments can be made about virtually any country, it just sounds silly to draw a particular conclusion about only one of those. I wonder what is the reason.

 

[tarunraju]

Hi2u.

1.) Wich is/are the most important change/s the British brought to India, you can still notice today , and is it positive or negative in your opinion ?

• Homogenized India, caused political integration of all kingdoms in India which paved the way for nationalism
• Centralised administration, established the rule of law with modern institutions,
• Gave us the gift of English language, which went a long way in integrating the Aryan (North, West, and Central India), Dravidian (South India), and Mongoloid (North East) regions of India.

2.) Do you wished the British Raj never existed ?

No.

3.) How do you think about Great Britian today ?

Contributes to Science and Technology, fairly neutral in world-affairs.

4.)What do you think is the main reason, many indians emigrate to great britian...

Natural tendencies of migration to the developed world, coupled with the fact that we're comfortable with the local language. If not UK, it's USA or other countries in the English Commonwealth.

...and how do you think about immigration/emmigration generally ?

Emigration drains intellect, but then people deserve the chance to make the most out of their skills and intellect. With developing local economy, emigration is coming down, and more people are applying their skills to the development of India.

The bottomline is that India needs all the brains it can afford, but then it's fair for people to migrate to other places.

 

[Arunpillai]

@rahul m.. Ur forgiven for the ramblings.. Lol..
However you seem to believe that india of 18th century was a land of milk and honey.. Equality everywhere.. Peace reigns.. No poverty, all highly educated people.. Lol..
I suggest you read you history books properly..
Certainly, british came to india to loot the wealth of india. No arguments there.. But the thread is about what have we gained through their rule.. Exposure to western ideas and education gave rise to Hindu awakening and our subsequent rise as seen today..
P.S. Samudragupta laid an 6 lane express highway that later came to be known as grand trunk road.. Lol.

 

[Rahul M]

. But the thread is about what have we gained through their rule..

no arun, in your haste to bat for the british raj you have forgotten to read the thread.

this is the question that was asked by the OP

1.) Wich is/are the most important change/s the British brought to India, you can still notice today , and is it positive or negative in your opinion ?

it is you who is insisting on giving a positive spin to the british raj.
it is like asking the families of yesterday's terror attack victims "what did you gain from it ?"
or asking a rape victim what she gained from the rape. the question itself is repulsive.
and it says a lot about you that you do not find it so.

However you seem to believe that india of 18th century was a land of milk and honey.. Equality everywhere.. Peace reigns.. No poverty, all highly educated people.. Lol..

confused about dates ? how could it be ?? the brits were already here and made India a living hell.
(in any case I didn't say anything about India being an ideal society did I ? )

I suggest you read you history books properly..

how about following your own advice. that way you won't get confused about historical dates.

P.S. Samudragupta laid an 6 lane express highway that later came to be known as grand trunk road.. Lol.

rather sad that for a self professed 'educated Indian', you have to resort to mocking the history of your own country in order to hide your obvious ignorance, not realizing that you are insulting yourself in the process. so much so that you even confuse between chandragupta maurya and samudragupta, who came 600 years later.

 

[Rahul M]

btw, I request all readers to kindly go through this article, whether you think (as I do) that the british raj was one of the most vilest institutions to be ever created, or whether you think (like some self-professed 'educated Indians' do) it was the best thing since sliced bread.
it is from an american magazine from 1908. so don't worry, it is not written by an yet-to-be civilized Indian or even an western educated (and hence barely civilized) Indian but a 'proper western civilized' chap.

The New Nationalist Movement in India - Magazine - The Atlantic

In order to find answers to these questions we must first of all get clearly in mind the fact that India is a subject land. She is a dependency of Great Britain, not a colony. Britain has both colonies and dependencies. Many persons suppose them to be identical; but they are not. Britain's free colonies, like Canada and Australia, though nominally governed by the mother country, are really self-ruling in everything except their relations to foreign powers. Not so with dependencies like India. These are granted no self-government, no representation; they are ruled absolutely by Great Britain, which is not their "mother" country, but their conqueror and master.

Arrived at Calcutta we hear it called the City of Palaces; nor do we wonder at the name. Who owns the steamship line by which we came to India? The British. Who built that splendid railway station in Bombay? The British. Who built the railway on which we rode to Calcutta? The British.

To whom do these palatial buildings belong? Mostly to the British. We find that Calcutta and Bombay have a large commerce. To whom does it belong? Mainly to the British. We find that the Indian Government, that is, British rule in India, has directly or indirectly built in the land some 29,000 miles of railway; has created good postal and telegraph systems, reaching nearly everywhere; has established or assisted in establishing many schools, colleges, hospitals, and other institutions of public benefit; has promoted sanitation, founded law courts after the English pattern, and done much else to bring India into line with the civilization of Europe. It is not strange if we soon begin to exclaim, "How much are the British doing for India! How great a benefit to the Indian people is British rule!" And in an important degree we are right in what we say. British rule has done much for India, and much for which India itself is profoundly grateful.

But have we seen all? Is there no other side? Have we discovered the deepest and most important that exists? If there are signs of prosperity, is it the prosperity of the Indian people, or only of their English masters? If the English are living in ease and luxury, how are the people of the land living? If there are railways and splendid buildings, who pay for them? and who get profits out of them? Have we been away from the beaten tracks of travel ? Have we been out among the Indian people themselves, in country as well as in city? Nearly nine-tenths of the people are ryots, or small farmers, who derive their sustenance directly from the land. Have we found out how they live? Do we know whether they are growing better off, or poorer? Especially have we looked into the causes of those famines, the most terrible known to the modern world, which have swept like a besom of death over the land year after year, and which drag after them another scourge scarcely less dreadful, the plague, their black shadow, their hideous child? Here is a side of India which we must acquaint ourselves with, as well as the other, if we would understand the real Indian situation.

Here is a picture from a recent book, written by a distinguished British civilian who has had long service in India and knows the Indian situation from the inside. Since he is an Englishman we may safely count upon his prejudices, if he has any, being not upon the side of the Indian people, but upon that of his own countrymen. Mr. W. S. Lilly, in his India and Its Problems,writes as follows:—

"During the first eighty years of the nineteenth century, 18,000,000 of people perished of famine. In one year alone—the year when her late Majesty assumed the title of Empress—5,000,000 of the people in Southern India were starved to death. In the District of Bellary, with which I am personally acquainted,—a region twice the size of Wales,—one-fourth of the population perished in the famine of 1816-77. I shall never forget my own famine experiences: how, as I rode out on horseback, morning after morning, I passed crowds of wandering skeletons, and saw human corpses by the roadside, unburied, uncared for, and half devoured by dogs and vultures; how, sadder sight still, children, 'the joy of the world,' as the old Greeks deemed, had become its ineffable sorrow, and were forsaken by the very women who had borne them, wolfish hunger killing even the maternal instinct. Those children, their bright eyes shining from hollow sockets, their nesh utterly wasted away, and only gristle and sinew and cold shivering skin remaining, their heads mere skulls, their puny frames full of loathsome diseases, engendered by the starvation in which they had been conceived and born and nurtured—they haunt me still." Every one who has gone much about India in famine times knows how true to life is this picture.
Mr. Lilly estimates the number of deaths in the first eight decades of the last century at 18,000,000. This is nothing less than appalling,—within a little more than two generations as many persons perishing by starvation in a single country as the whole population of Canada, New England, and the city and state of New York, or nearly half as many as the total population of France!

But the most startling aspect of the case appears in the fact that the famines increased in number and severity as the century went on. Suppose we divide the past century into quarters, or periods of twenty-five years each. In the first quarter there were five famines, with an estimated loss of life of 1,000,000. During the second quarter of the century there were two famines, with an estimated mortality of 500,000. During the third quarter there were six famines, with a recorded loss of life of 5,000,000. During the last quarter of the century, what? Eighteen famines, with an estimated mortality reaching the awful totals of from 15,000,000 to 26,000,000. And this does not include the many more millions (over 6,000,000 in a single year) barely kept alive by government doles.

Why then have people starved? Not because there was lack of food. Not because there was lack of food in the famine areas, brought by railways or otherwise within easy reach of all. There has always been plenty of food, even in the worst famine years, for those who have had money to buy it with, and generally food at moderate prices. Why, then, have all these millions of people perished? Because they were so indescribably poor. All candid and thorough investigation into the causes of the famines of India has shown that the chief and fundamental cause has been and is the poverty of the people,—a poverty so severe and terrible that it keeps the majority of the entire population on the very verge of starvation even in years of greatest plenty,

And the people are growing poorer and poorer. The late Mr. William Digby, of London, long an Indian resident, in his recent book entitled "Prosperous" India,shows from official estimates and Parliamentary and Indian Blue Books, that, whereas the average daily income of the people of India in the year 1850 was estimated as four cents per person (a pittance on which one wonders that any human being can live), in 1882 it had fallen to three cents per person, and in 1900 actually to less than two cents per person. Is it any wonder that people reduced to such extremities as this can lay up nothing? Is it any wonder that when the rains do not come, and the crops of a single season fail, they are lost? And where is this to end? If the impoverishment of the people is to go on, what is there before them but growing hardship, multiplying famines, and increasing loss of life?

One cause of India's impoverishment is heavy taxation. Taxation in England and Scotland is high, so high that Englishmen and Scotchmen complain bitterly. But the people of India are taxed more than twice as heavily as the people of England and three times as heavily as those of Scotland. According to the latest statistics at hand, those of 1905, the annual average income per person in India is about $6.00, and the annual tax per person about $2.00.

and that, gentlemen is how you create railways and 'buildings that do not require repairs after 200 years.'

and so it goes on. read it, if you care. 'modern educated Indians' do not. they are very happy that a few million of their countrymen died in abject poverty so that the british could build a showpiece railway network and a handful of schools and colleges, enough to churn out a few thousand servile clerks every year.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Hi, let my introduce myself first. My Name is Daniel, I'm a german student living in a small town in the south of it. I will soon give a GFS (some kind of presentation) about how the British Raj changed India, also in Fact to the indian self-conception. And I guess it would be really really great to have some of your oponions. So if you want, just answer to the following questions, you would do me a big favor :thumb: :

1.) Wich is/are the most important change/s the British brought to India, you can still notice today , and is it positive or negative in your opinion ?
2.) Do you wished the British Raj never existed ?
3.) How do you think about Great Britian today ?
4.)What do you think is the main reason, many indians emigrate to great britian and how do you think about immigration/emmigration generally ?

Yes I know these questions arent really military but I hope in the "Introductions & Greetings" part it's ok .
I would be really happy about many replys and of course you can ask me also questions back about germans and germany, in this domain I can also answer the military ones

Please be sorry for my english, Im just a student im still learning

1)The Japanese, Thai or even Germany was not ruled by Britain or any foreign power, would you give credit to your hard work to some country that was kicked out? So why should we give credit to some country that ditched us 65years ago? We would have built everything with or without the British here. If a small country like Thailand, Nepal etc., can do it why cant India? If you want to prove that only a foreign country can contribute to a nation then neither Germany or Taiwan could have done anything by itself.

2)Yes, I wished the British or in other words the Christian and Islamic culture never existed which is the reason so many people had their land stolen and we would have lot less misery, population, pollution, weapons or anger and hate in the world. People here may all say superficially that the British Raj was ok or good but inside all of them have an sense of being humiliated because of the History. I would not have bothered if the British Settled down here and called themselves Indian but it is insulting to call us a former colony.

3) Would do better if they became closer without humiliating us with words like former colony etc., Britian was a former colony of Italy(Rome),Vikings etc., what sense would it make if others called them a former colony?

4) Birds and Cattle flock to greener pastures, do we ask them why? Nationalities are just glorified tribalism and it is become stringent after the birth of Christian and Islam which makes clear distinction of outsiders more so than in the past, if we imposed Passports on Birds or flora and fauna in general the planet will wither away and die but man lacks common sense and courage to see that.

Thank you for comeing over and welcome to DFI. I am not a Hippie but a rationalist.

P.S. All this is said i dont hate or harbor any misgivings towards British or anyone.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The British to me were probably the most ungrateful people to have invaded India. The British came in the guise of traders and they setup their colony thru a simple policy of divide and conquer. Divide the kingdoms and make them fight then ally with one or conquer both later,and divide the masses thru religion. This religious division taught the ordinary Indians hatred for their fellow Indians. The British were the first to teach the Indians this division and hatred. This division and hatred is a very important point because the repercussions of this still exist today this is what led to the the division of the subcontinent and the creation of Pakistan. The division was also continously supported by british by keeping separatist movements like the Kashmir issue alive. Getting to the point of the ungratefulness 5 million Indian soldiers fought for the British in ww1 and ww2 no recognition is ever given to them or compensation. The Indians helped the allies win on both fronts in ww2. After ww1 the Indians were the ones who kept the British economy out of a great depression. The ungratefullness was most clearly demonstrated in the division of the subcontinent. The Punjabis and Bengalis were the most loyal to the British and they both were rewarded by being divided,part of Punjab became west Pakistan and part of Bengal became East Pakistan or Bangladesh today. Before the British invaded India, Indian GDP was 25% of the world GDP today it is less than 2% of world GDP this is a direct result of the British invasion.

 

[Adux]

It is funny , that Indians believe that without British help India wouldnt have attained the current physical structure? If Mauryan Empire can do it, You think 18th century Indians cant? Sikhs and Maratha's were in the process of doing it. British and Islamic Hordes took advantage of a very delicate situation in India at that point of time. If anything, if they werent there, India would have grown faster since all its wealth would be in India itself. India missed out on the Industrial Revolution, So did a lot of Eastern empires, they survived? You think we wouldnt?

The Idea of India is so very deep in the real pshyce of Indians, that it would have all got together one day or the other. I find it hilarious if Indians in the BC era can do it, modern Indians cant ?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Just like we dont remember who ruled who 3,000 years ago the British would be forgotten. They are already History and going to dilute inside the bigger European Union.

 

[Oracle]

Welcome to DFI Daniel. Do you like Rammstein & Scorpions?

 

[A.V.]

welcome to defence forum india
see you around more