Posted on 08/12/2007 6:22:02 AM PDT by Clive
“Gengis Khan”
You had your chance at controlling India but your Mongol horde was repelled by the Delhi sultanate.
“Care to provide some explanation?”
NO.
Why don’t they have Halloween in India?
They got rid of the Ghandi!
This is the correct spelling of the word in British/Australian/Indian/NZ etc., usage. Of course, some may find this spelling inappropriate here. From the internet:
benefited
Spelling: note the single t, which is because the syllable is unstressed.
© From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia(UK). Helicon Publishing LTD 2007. All rights reserved
Thanks. Obviously, I was not aware.
Asia pinglist ping.
There is still discrimination against Christians and Muslims, at least, and adherents of the religion of the majority still discriminate against fellow followers of their religion because they are from a 'lower caste.'
India still has a sort of 'non-aligned' stance to foreign relations--which isn't necessarily a bad thing for India.
The United States should take notice and not get entangled in the many mutual defense treaties the nation is currently member to.
Europe gained plenty of knowledge from other parts of the world without being made colonies by those more advanced nations (one of which resided in the land of modern day India and Pakistan). And as you've stated in this post, India took its legal system from other countries without those countries ruling over it.
The Partition of India was very violent, and as the Europeans did elsewhere in the world, their formation of new countries was made hastily, and didn't take much into consideration ethnicities and tribes in the countries (i.e. putting tribal enemies into one country or splitting an ethnicity among several states). Europe had many poor 'spin-offs' which are still causing conflicts today.
Or India could be subject to even more islamofascist attacks, and have a Muslim minority trying to impose Sharia law in at least some states if not the entire country. (only around 3-5% of India is Muslim today; with Pakistan and Bangladesh’s populations added in, the percentage would be even higher (still less than 10%—the estimate for France—but still larger).
Around 1/7 of the Indian population is supposed to be Muslim. So if Pakistan and Bangladesh were added, the population of Muslims would be huge—not close to a majority, but still very large, and over 10%.
Calling Mr. Gandhi.
I confess that I have absolutely no idea what the correct percentages are. But this leaves me confused.
One-seventh is about 14.3 percent. If over 14 percent of the current Indian population is Muslim, how will that percentage be reduced to "over 10%" if the largely Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the mix?
Also, in a previous post, you noted that "only around 3-5% of India is Muslim today"--far less than the 14-plus percent that would equal one-seventh.
And you state that even "with Pakistan and Bangladesh’s populations added in" the total percentage of Muslims would be "still less than 10%"--not "over 10%," as stated in the next post.
Again, I admit my own ignorance as to the correct numbers. But these numbers seem to contradict themselves.
Am I just reading this incorrectly, or is there a misprint somewhere?
This seems to be a fundamental difference between British and American spellings--sort of like the "-our" versus "-or" difference in so many words (neighbor, savior, flavor, etc.).
Compare, for instance, the British spelling of traveled, canceled, counseled, worshiped, labeled, leveled, and many other words. The typical American spelling is with a doubled consonant prior to the "-ed" (or "-ing") ending--although I have seen these words spelled the British way also, even in the US.
Two words: Indian students.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.