There are 25 replies in this Thread. The last Post () by Carlos.

  • Welcome to this forum, Mr Meetdilip. I think I am the only argentinean of this forum.

    Bt the way, I have a student which was born in Pondichery, an old colony of France in India.

    He told me many interesting things of your country. He is French, as you may imagine, but he knows a lot of India.

  • Dear Mr Meetdilip:

    I am going to ask you a political question. Being from a neutral point of view ( remember that I am argentinean), Do you think that the long period of colonialism that India has suffered since the XVII Century from England, France and Portugal had left some benefits or much evils to your country?

    If the question is too personal, please abstain to respond. I will understand that.

  • No problem with the question. I will have to state some history before I can actually comment about it


    Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci actually wanted to find India in early 1400s. Because India was the richest those days. Mostly like what US is today. Indians used to trade mainly with Arabs ( spices were a hot commodity then ).


    Columbus set out to find Indians and found red Indians instead. He never knew that he discovered America. His idea of going around the globe misfired on him badly. But the fact is, Europeans were very keen to bypass Arabs as middlemen for everything they collect from India and sell in Europe.


    By the time India gained freedom from Britain in 1947, there was nothing much great left about the country. Nobody was very keen to be friends with India or buy things from here. French and the Portuguese had very little presence in India by the time of Independence. India was mostly British.


    After the fall of USSR, India was forced to open its market in 90s. Incidentally, it did a lot of good. A lot of funds came to India for its huge population and cheap labour. Now for a manufacturing centre, it is either China or India

  • Thank you for your response.


    In Argentina, the western powers gave us what we lacked. Since 1816 we were independents, but the country did not entered into the industrial revolution until 1880.

    The UK made most of our extense network of railways, also they introduced special races of cows and we produced better meat products, and many other industrial devices, as the windmill which was able to get water from the soil of our wide, great plains, at that time void and unpopulated.

    Other western countries like France, Italy and Germany imported their products and also inmgration with high standards of work ethics.

    All summed up, the Western Civilization brought us many valuable things. Of course, we were coming from another form of colonial system, the Spaniard, which gave us the language, religion and culture as well.

    I understand the important clash of cultures between the traditional India and the Western culture. That may have produce many misunderstandings and the sense that you Indians were overruled, invaded by the West.

  • India has a very strong culture. There were empires which ruled as far as Iran and beyond at the time of emperor Ashoka. Alexander the Great invaded India and was beaten soundly by the Mauryas. It is said that Europeans were stunned to see jaggery, because at that time, the only form of sweetener known to them was honey. All these was between AD 00 and AD 1000. Indian culture dates back to at least 4000 years from now. China too had a rich experience during the same time. I hope you are heard of the famous silk route.


    If were are to talk about good things, Indian just surpassed France to become the 6th biggest economy in the world.

  • That is because there is no will to do the hard things. Now the government is looking for the next elections and the "adjustement" has to be delayed to keep the votes.

    I think that a 4 year term is too short to do the right things. We must return to the former 6 years period.

  • That is because there is no will to do the hard things. Now the government is looking for the next elections and the "adjustement" has to be delayed to keep the votes.

    I think that a 4 year term is too short to do the right things. We must return to the former 6 years period.

    But if the former administration had had 6 year terms, the damage could have been even greater than it was ....

  • But if the former administration had had 6 year terms, the damage could have been even greater than it was ....

    It also assumes a single term; the incumbent was ineligible for re-election.


    Carlos, I don’t remember: could a former president run again after an intervening term, or was it one term in a lifetime?