Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (77874)	2/26/2003 5:25:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Using the same analogy as before, there is no language knows as "Indian". Indians are indistiguishable from Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc. Until after the Brits left, there was never a land called India governed by Indians. One slight difference, kumar. Correct me if I'm wrong, kumar, but I don't believe that the Indians teach their children or proclaim through their officials that India was an autonomous country inhabited by the Indian people from the dawn of time until the British conquered it.

To: kumar who wrote (77874)	2/26/2003 5:52:57 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

India should not exist, because it never existed as an autonomous entity until the Brits came in.... there is no language knows as "Indian". Indians are indistiguishable from Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc Ahhh, if the Brits had only stayed home! :>)