India changing its name ? India or Bharat? G20 invitations throw up question dating back centuries

[herfiehandbag]

2 hours ago, captpkapoor said:

You think India RECEIVES foreign aid? India GIVES foreign aid, just google the figures. To Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives. You're living in the previous century, buddy!

£33.4 million in 2022/2023, due to rise to £57 million in 2024/2025.

 

British government figures.

 

Buddy.

[captpkapoor]

15 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

£33.4 million in 2022/2023, due to rise to £57 million in 2024/2025.

 

British government figures.

 

Buddy.

Please do read below:-

https://lifemathmoney.com/the-truth-about-uk-foreign-aid-to-india/#:~:text=UK aid is a very,our GDP of 1 year.

[captpkapoor]

15 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

£33.4 million in 2022/2023, due to rise to £57 million in 2024/2025.

 

British government figures.

 

Buddy.

India just landed a lander and a rover on the south pole of the moon under it’s third lunar exploration mission Chandrayaan-3. The only other countries who’ve successfully landed on the moon are USA, USSR, and China.

This is a big accomplishment for us.

This has lead to some weird comments from British influencers and politicians who think “India has been begging them for aid”.

I am going to set the record straight.

This is not just meant to destroy the illusions of our former colonial masters, but more-so to show Indians that we don’t actually get any “aid” from the UK.

1) UK Foreign Aid does not go to the Indian Government

Some of you seem to think the British government just writes India a check for a few hundred million dollars each year.

Foreign aid does not go to the Indian government. The British give it to their own for profit businesses and banks and shady NGOs and organizations to promote their interests.

As a UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) spokesperson said:

“Since 2015 the UK has given no financial aid to the government of India. Most of our funding now is focused on business investments which help create new markets and jobs for the UK, as well as India. UK investments are also helping tackle shared challenges such as climate change.”

The “aid” is literally for the benefit of the UK and creating jobs there, and “helping tackle shared challenges such as climate change” basically means funding protests to stop development work here.

The rest of the money goes to missionaries to convert poor people to Christians.

2) UK Foreign Aid does not benefit India

Like I said earlier, the UK foreign aid does not go to our government.

Aside from sending the money to for profit British businesses to create “new markets and jobs for the UK” (which isn’t really aid), it goes to shady NGOs which typically use the money on anti-India activities like:

• Converting people to Christianity
• Protesting development projects in the name of “climate change”
• Influencing government decisions and politics by pushing UK propaganda

We do not want this aid. Very little of the money actually benefits Indians in any way – most of it hurts India’s interests. In fact, Indian politicians have been asking for years that this aid be stopped.

Stop acting like you’re doing us some kind of favor.

3) India is actually trying to BAN foreign aid from the UK

Since all this aid money is being used for anti-India activities, India is trying to ban it from coming here.

We are revoking the foreign aid licenses for a lot of these “charities” and asking the British to stop sending their money here.

It’s completely ridiculous for the British to say “stop coming to us with your hands open” because we literally are not asking them for aid – we are trying to stop them from sending it here.

Christian “charity” KICKED OUT of our country.
Full piece here.

UK Politicians are BEGGING India to let them send “aid” here after India banned many “charities” from getting UK aid. Full piece here.

4) India has been asking for the Aid be stopped for YEARS

For example, India’s finance minster dismissing UK’s aid.

India has repeatedly declined foreign aid.

The UK still keeps finding ways to fund these shady NGOs that do anti-India activities.

This is not India “going out with its hands open” to the UK, this is the UK forcefully sending it’s poison money here and then telling its public that they’re helping “the poor”.

The UK has this weird superiority complex going on that does not reflect modern realities.

5) The UK aid money is actually peanuts

UK aid is a very small portion of the Indian economy.

In the 5 years from 2016 to 2021, the UK forcefully sent India a total of 2.3 billion pounds.

To compare, India’s annual GDP is about $3.5 TRILLION. This means the total of 5 years of UK “aid” is about 0.066% of our GDP of 1 year.

To compare India spends 3% of its GDP just on fertilizer subsidies to poor farmers – so yeah, your money is literally nothing to us.

The UK politicians like to lie to their public to make the British people feel like they are still a relevant power in the world. It fuels this weird superiority complex the British have over “poor countries” despite having a smaller economy than India.

You are not contributing large sums of money to the Indian economy. You are not our savior in any way, shape, or form. If you think your aid is relevant to India – you’re on that copium.

You’re sending peanuts and those peanuts are being sent to hurt Indian interests, not promote them. Do not be under the illusion that Indians somehow are supposed to be grateful for this.

If you’re a UK politician, here is our message to you: Your own people are struggling to afford heating, so use this poison money on them. Stop sending it here.

6) We’re often a net giver of aid

So much for being a “poor country”.

7) We are becoming a world superpower

In all fairness, it’s probably best if the foreigners continue to think of India as “poor country”.

If the enemy deems that you are no longer a threat, they will underestimate you or dismiss you as an opponent. This arrogance creates the perfect environment for you to successfully attack them. – Sun Tzu

As a country, we are progressing REALLY fast. 30 years ago India was dead broke. Today we have modern cities, infrastructure, almost every kid is going to school, cheap internet access, and much more entrepreneurship – more unicorns are coming from India than ever before.

We are on the trajectory of becoming a world superpower and it is very good to be underestimated. Less sabotage.

[Jingthing]

India is a great country but they have a perfectly good name.

I didn't mind the change from Turkey to Turkiye as that made sense. Too many bird jokes.

How about India (no pow-wow) Sorry for the cringe. 

[captpkapoor]

On 1/25/2024 at 12:37 PM, Jingthing said:

India is a great country but they have a perfectly good name.

I didn't mind the change from Turkey to Turkiye as that made sense. Too many bird jokes.

How about India (no pow-wow) Sorry for the cringe. 

There IS no name change. It's been called Bharat (in Hindi and Sanskrit) for centuries. The passport says on top, in Hindi, "Bharat Ganrajya" (means republic) and below, in English, it says "Republic of India". Ask a German, does he call his country Germany, or Deutschland? Ask an Egyptian, does he call his country Egypt, or Masr? Innumerable examples like this. 

[Jingthing]

37 minutes ago, captpkapoor said:

There IS no name change. It's been called Bharat (in Hindi and Sanskrit) for centuries. The passport says on top, in Hindi, "Bharat Ganrajya" (means republic) and below, in English, it says "Republic of India". Ask a German, does he call his country Germany, or Deutschland? Ask an Egyptian, does he call his country Egypt, or Masr? Innumerable examples like this. 

 -- I didn't say there was a name change.

-- The article is about chatter that India may make Bharat the OFFICIAL name internationally, dropping India. (Like Burma to Myanmar.) 

-- Of course I am well aware that internationally used names are often different than local ones. --- Germany for example if they wanted to could push use of Deutschland internationally. But they don't. 

-- Perhaps just perhaps India will be doing that with Bharat

-- Personally I hope they don't, but that's up to them of course.

-- As far as Thailand for example, I wish they had kept Siam as it sounds much cooler, but I understand there were political reasons for the change, so again, their choice.

[zhounan]

Actually they have problems more important than the name.

[tonbridgebrit]

 If India today was still a British Empire country, would the people of India be better off ?
What about Hong Kong ? Would Hong Kong be better off today, if it was still a British Empire place ?

But the important one is, is America. In my opinion, the Americans today would be better off if they had of kept on being part of Britain.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 If India today was still a British Empire country, would the people of India be better off ?
What about Hong Kong ? Would Hong Kong be better off today, if it was still a British Empire place ?

But the important one is, is America. In my opinion, the Americans today would be better off if they had of kept on being part of Britain.

 

Nah, you just want EVERYONE to be part of the Empire of China.

[Nick Carter icp]

On 9/9/2023 at 9:40 AM, BritManToo said:

Time the UK stopped giving them foreign aid then.

Or maybe they should be proud enough to refuse it (fat chance)!

 

   India doesn't want "aid" from the U.K and India has asked the U.K to stop sending so called aid .

Its thing like money to build hospitals and the condition that the hospital buys all its supplies from the U.K company.

   Its business deals and not rally aid 

 

 

 

India tells Britain: We don't want your aid

India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9061844/India-tells-Britain-We-dont-want-your-aid.html

 

[captpkapoor]

On 1/27/2024 at 12:18 PM, zhounan said:

Actually they have problems more important than the name.

Probably lesser than what China is heading for!

 

Oh wait - isn't China PART of the problem?

[captpkapoor]

On 1/28/2024 at 9:09 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

 If India today was still a British Empire country, would the people of India be better off ?
What about Hong Kong ? Would Hong Kong be better off today, if it was still a British Empire place ?

But the important one is, is America. In my opinion, the Americans today would be better off if they had of kept on being part of Britain.

Dunno about Hong Kong or the US being better or worse off if they had stayed British colonies, but the rapacious plunder of India's wealth by the British colonizers has no parallel in history. 

Despite that, the ordinary Indian, as far as I can gauge, doesn't really bear any rancour towards the British. It's just part of history and so much water under the bridge. 

[candide]

On 1/27/2024 at 10:18 AM, zhounan said:

Actually they have problems more important than the name.

And that's exactly the reason why the current government is diverting attention from it by changing name and other nationalism-related  issues.

[captpkapoor]

8 hours ago, candide said:

And that's exactly the reason why the current government is diverting attention from it by changing name and other nationalism-related  issues.

Your country would be happy to have the kind of problems India has.

Wouldn't it be great if your nation, whichever it is, was the fastest growing major economy, and tipped to remain so for the next 3 years? Becoming the third largest economy after the US and China? 

This is going to be India's century, all going well, as far as my reding of various respected international journals goes. 

[candide]

9 hours ago, captpkapoor said:

Your country would be happy to have the kind of problems India has.

Wouldn't it be great if your nation, whichever it is, was the fastest growing major economy, and tipped to remain so for the next 3 years? Becoming the third largest economy after the US and China? 

This is going to be India's century, all going well, as far as my reding of various respected international journals goes. 

I am not particularly criticizing India. I am criticizing its government.

[Arindos]

On 1/30/2024 at 11:59 AM, candide said:

And that's exactly the reason why the current government is diverting attention from it by changing name and other nationalism-related  issues.

 

I think it's good that India is undergoing nationaism. The majority of the regressive stuff like homophobia and religious politics tend to come from the left-wing, whereas the right-wing tends to be focused on restoring native Indian culture. I think the country does need to be more aggressive against the Middle East and reassert itself. 

[candide]

24 minutes ago, Arindos said:

 

I think it's good that India is undergoing nationaism. The majority of the regressive stuff like homophobia and religious politics tend to come from the left-wing, whereas the right-wing tends to be focused on restoring native Indian culture. I think the country does need to be mo:re aggressive against the Middle East and reassert itself. 

I don't remember India ever been non-nationalist. Maybe not enough?

[Arindos]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

I don't remember India ever been non-nationalist. Maybe not enough?

 

India has been ruled by the left-wing since independence until the 2000s, and it's only since around 2016 that the right wing has been in power. Virtually all of the British Indian institutions were transformed into tools for the left wing to rule as a single party.

 

In particular I hope that the right wing puts to end this silly craze of trying to improve relations with the Middle East. Build a wall along the border of Pakistan and watch the Middle East descend into chaos instead. India should have absolutely nothing to do with the Middle East and India needs to assert itself against those who wish to do so.

[candide]

20 minutes ago, Arindos said:

 

India has been ruled by the left-wing since independence until the 2000s, and it's only since around 2016 that the right wing has been in power. Virtually all of the British Indian institutions were transformed into tools for the left wing to rule as a single party.

 

In particular I hope that the right wing puts to end this silly craze of trying to improve relations with the Middle East. Build a wall along the border of Pakistan and watch the Middle East descend into chaos instead. India should have absolutely nothing to do with the Middle East and India needs to assert itself against those who wish to do so.

For an outsider like me, these relations seem to be beneficial for both India and the ME.  What's the negative side of it?

[Arindos]

21 hours ago, candide said:

For an outsider like me, these relations seem to be beneficial for both India and the ME.  What's the negative side of it?

 

How are there any benefits? India wastes billions on buying oil from the Middle East, and most immigrant workers there are treated worse than dirt.

[Morch]

On 2/1/2024 at 3:46 PM, Arindos said:

 

I think it's good that India is undergoing nationaism. The majority of the regressive stuff like homophobia and religious politics tend to come from the left-wing, whereas the right-wing tends to be focused on restoring native Indian culture. I think the country does need to be more aggressive against the Middle East and reassert itself. 

 

Who championed the Ram Mandir thing?

Which states are more repressive when it comes to gays?

 

 

[Arindos]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Who championed the Ram Mandir thing?

Which states are more repressive when it comes to gays?

 

 

 

The Ram Mandir was a grassroots movement that began around the time the BJP was being formed.

 

I find that the left wing communities tend to be more homophobic than right wing communities, in part because most of the people who would be considered "progressive" in western countries are on the right wing in India. The left wing has more negative associations such as religion, corruption, caste, etc...

 

I'm not sure if a particular state is less homophobic than other states. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Arindos said:

 

The Ram Mandir was a grassroots movement that began around the time the BJP was being formed.

 

I find that the left wing communities tend to be more homophobic than right wing communities, in part because most of the people who would be considered "progressive" in western countries are on the right wing in India. The left wing has more negative associations such as religion, corruption, caste, etc...

 

I'm not sure if a particular state is less homophobic than other states. 

 

Spin it as much as you like, the Ram Mandir is not a left-wing thing. Grassroots is a cute word. RSS, Shiv Sena....not lefties.

 

Your comment on Homophobia doesn't really say much, nor supports your previous comment, just repeats it.

[Arindos]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Spin it as much as you like, the Ram Mandir is not a left-wing thing. Grassroots is a cute word. RSS, Shiv Sena....not lefties.

 

Your comment on Homophobia doesn't really say much, nor supports your previous comment, just repeats it.

 

I never said the Ram Mandir was a left wing thing. I support it.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Arindos said:

 

I never said the Ram Mandir was a left wing thing. I support it.

 

Here's what you posted:

 

Quote

he majority of the regressive stuff like homophobia and religious politics tend to come from the left-wing, whereas the right-wing tends to be focused on restoring native Indian culture.

 

Attempts to spin the Ram Mandir issue as not being 'religious' or as coming from the 'left-wing' would be interesting to watch.

[Arindos]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Here's what you posted:

 

 

Attempts to spin the Ram Mandir issue as not being 'religious' or as coming from the 'left-wing' would be interesting to watch.

 

How? It's the left wing that's harping on about the "rights" of religious minorities (i.e. Muslims). The Ram Mandir is just Non-Muslim Indian culture.

 

[Morch]

Just now, Arindos said:

 

How? It's the left wing that's harping on about the "rights" of religious minorities (i.e. Muslims). The Ram Mandir is just Non-Muslim Indian culture.

 

 

Oh, I see.

It's only 'religious' when they do it.

Gotcha.

 

 

[Arindos]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, I see.

It's only 'religious' when they do it.

Gotcha.

 

 

 

So you're saying that Muslims aren't religion but an ethnicity and culture?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Arindos said:

 

So you're saying that Muslims aren't religion but an ethnicity and culture?

 

I obviously have not said anything of the sort.

Any other lame deflection attempts?