Indian economy registers a weaker growth at 4.4%

[Shadow_Hunter]

Say goodbye to Rafale deal.

Pakistanis and chinese have been worried sick since Rafale deal has been announced.

 

[Splurgenxs]

India was part of the British empire for 200 years, even today, British heritage lives on. Gandhi earned his degree in the UK, do you see British claiming him as one of their own?
Why is it that whenever comes to India, the logic of reasoning does not apply?

WHat!!??
u my friend are a certified Idoit , how does it counter or provide any form of rebuttal ,
British empire ,Gandhi???!


i would like to graciously ask another clear minded Chinese to decipher this goblygook and point to me how this has any correlation to my earlier statement on heritage and automatic civilizational associations.

 

[Fattyacids]

dynasty is a rule like a kingdom not a country so by that logic so did the Gupta dynasty

Dynasty is a subset of an empire. Your Congress party is a dynastic entity, but India is the kingdom/country.

Like Maurya, when Gupta disintegrated, there was not political lineage that carries on. In fact, you even lost your land to the Muslims.

 

[Echo_419]

We will be back in action once this govt is kicked out till then
We should hope this govt can even maintain a 5% growth rate by approving Infra projects on a fast track mode & do some reforms

 

[Yeti]

Dynasty is a subset of an empire. Your Congress party is a dynastic entity, but India is the kingdom/country.

Like Maurya, when Gupta disintegrated, there was not political lineage that carries on. In fact, you even lost your land to the Muslims.

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.

hence why the Gupta empire is one

The founder was Chandra Gupta I, who was succeeded by his son, the celebrated Samudra Gupta

 

[Fattyacids]

WHat!!??
u my friend are a certified Idoit , how does it counter or provide any form of rebuttal ,
British empire ,Gandhi???!


i would like to graciously ask another clear minded Chinese to decipher this goblygook and point to me how this has any correlation to my earlier statement on heritage and automatic civilizational associations.

Nepal shares cultural heritage with India, but Buddha was born in Nepal, not India. So what if he attained enlightenment in India? It still doesn't qualify him to be an Indian. If I were to apply your logic, then british can claims Gandhi as their own. Gandhi got his education in the UK. Indian share many british heritage too, even English is made one of your national languages.

 

[faithfulguy]

http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/exhibit/guptas/guptas.html


I can refer to it by dynasty or empire or is China only allowed that privilege?

Nope, a dynasty indicate that the later dynasty succeeded as ruler of the same country from the former country. But an empire would destroy another empire and over take its land. In India, its always an empire conquering another empire. Not a dynastic succession. Besides China, good example of dynasty is ancient Egypt and Roman empire dynasty such as Julian dynasty or Flavian dynasty.

 

[Fattyacids]

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.

hence why the Gupta empire is one

The founder was Chandra Gupta I, who was succeeded by his son, the celebrated Samudra Gupta

Have you not passed reading and comprehension test? I said "after Gupta empire disintegrated" = the empire is gone. What was the political entity/dynasty that officially took over from Gupta? None.

 

[faithfulguy]

Gupta dynasty (Indian dynasty) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Gupta dynasty, rulers of the Magadha (now Bihar) state in northeastern India. They maintained an empire over northern and parts of central and western India from the early 4th to the late 6th century ce. The founder was Chandra Gupta I, who was succeeded by his son, the celebrated Samudra Gupta. The Gupta era produced the decimal system of notation and great Sanskrit epics and Hindu art and contributed to the sciences of astronomy, mathematics, and metallurgy.

As I stated above, India do not have dynasties. However, some historians try to change history by renaming empires in Indian subcontinent as "dynasties" to try to deceive people from the fact that India was not a country until created by the British

 

[Splurgenxs]

Nepal shares cultural heritage with India, but Buddha was born in Nepal, not India. So what if he attained enlightenment in India? It still doesn't qualify him to be an Indian. If I were to apply your logic, then british can claims Gandhi as their own. Gandhi got his education in the UK. Indian share many british heritage too, even English is made one of your national languages.

Well then u fail to understand the basic premise of my argument.

Culture,Tradition ,Genetics and Religion these are the dominating factors of any Associations based on heritage.DO u agree?
have i chewed it enough for u to digest it?
Nepales are predominantly Hindu and share equal genetics.and so did Buddha.

Ur comparing this with what?! Getting a formal education?
This is why ur rational baffles me.

 

[Yeti]

Have you not passed reading and comprehension test? I said "after Gupta empire disintegrated" = the empire is gone. What was the political entity/dynasty that officially took over from Gupta? None.

Do you understand what the word dynasty means? lol

 

[Fattyacids]

cheenia can't fathom that Lord Buddha was a prince in an Indian kingdom. Nepal is nothing more than an Indian kingdom that survived into the modern era giving it the right to claim nation-state status like Sikkim or Bhutan.

Indians just love to steal others cultural icon. 2500 years ago, there was neither a Nepal nor India. India was a British creation in 1947.

 

[faithfulguy]

Have you not passed reading and comprehension test? I said "after Gupta empire disintegrated" = the empire is gone. What was the political entity/dynasty that officially took over from Gupta? None.

India subcontinents clearly made up of various empires that existed in the same land through out history. But they are not dynastic successions as the later never claimed to be succession of former, such as between Julian and Flavian dynasty of Roman empire.

So here is the difference, the empire is Roman empire. Roman empire started with Julian, and than Flavian and etc...
Andother example is that Chinese empire started with Qin and then Han dynasties and then so forth.

Do you understand what the word dynasty means? lol

apparently, you don't. You can refer to my previous post for some examples.

 

[Yeti]

India subcontinents clearly made up of various empires that existed in the same land through out history. But they are not dynastic successions as the later never claimed to be succession of former, such as between Julian and Flavian dynasty of Roman empire.

So here is the difference, the empire is Roman empire. Roman empire started with Julian, and than Flavian and etc...
Andother example is that Chinese empire started with Qin and then Han dynasties and then so forth.



apparently, you don't. You can refer to my previous post for some examples.

Oh I do that's why I referred to it as one lol

 

[Punjabbi Munda]

And a lot of Indian members here tell me that they are still the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world.

A lot of chinese say that about china..now looking at it..china isnt even in top 5