|
Re: India is the un-China, says Time
de mbl* 06/24/2006 07:00
kyaa nawaab bun gaye hoe ("what a nawaab you have become"). I like
that!
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> The term "nawaab" is also used to describe a temperamental and conceited
> man. Actually that's the definition of a "prima donna" as applied to a
> female. So in Hindustani, not pure Hindi, a use is: "kyaa nawaab bun
> gaye hoe" ("what a nawaab you have become").
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
>
> In article <1151152186.281897.287190@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "mbl*" <mbplee@gmail.com> posted:
> >
> > peeks wrote:
> >
> > > Nawabs are those who identify, criticise and debate on all that India
> > > lacks and what Indians should feel horrible about and not believe in
> > > what we have and what makes us tick as a unique nation....
> >
> > I find it a bit confusing. Perhaps you are using a parochial definition
> > of a Nawab? I am not from the sub-continent! Because this is what I
> > have googled,
> >
> > "Muslim rulers almost all used the title "Nawab" (originally the title
> > of an amovable governor under real Mughal rule, but soon tending to
> > hereditary succession whenever Delhi/Agra lost effective control over
> > the province) with the prominent exceptions of the Nizam of Hyderabad &
> > Berar, the Wali/Khan of Kalat, and the Wali of Swat. Other less usual
> > titles included Darbar Sahib, Dewan, Jam, Mehtar (unique to Chitral)
> > and Mir (from Emir).
> >
> > Nawab (Urdu: =D9=86=D9=88=D8=A7=D8=A8 ) was originally the subadar (provinc=
> > ial
> > governor) or viceroy of a subah (province) or region of the Mughal
> > empire.
> >
> > The term is Urdu, derived from the Arabic word naib, meaning deputy. In
> > some areas, especially Bengal, the term is pronounced Nabob. This later
> > variation has entered the English and other foreign languages, see
> > below.
> >
> > Since most of the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent had -like most
> > otherwise titled Hindu (maha)radjas and other princely states- accepted
> > the authority of the Mughals at the height of this empire the term
> > Nawab is often used to refer to any Muslim ruler in the subcontinent.
> > This is technically imprecise, as it was also awarded to others and not
> > applied to every Muslim ruler. With the decline of that empire, the
> > title and the powers that went with it became hereditary in the ruling
> > families in the various provinces.
> >
> > Many Nawabs later accepted British rule. Under later British rule,
> > Muslim Nawabs continued to rule various princely states of Awadh,
> > Bahawalpur, Baoni, Banganapalle, Bhopal, Cambay, Jaora, Junagadh,
> > Kalabagh, Kurnool, Kurwai, Palanpur (Pakistan), Pataudi, Rampur,
> > Sachin, and Tonk. Other former rulers bearing the title, such as the
> > Nawabs of Bengal, had been dispossessed by the British or others by the
> > time the Mughal dynasty finally ended in 1857.
> >
> > The style for a Nawab dynasty's queen(s) (usually his consort, and
> > Islam is polygamous) is Begum (not specific). Most of the Nawab
> > dynasties were male primogenitures, although several ruling Begums of
> > Bhopal were a notable exception.
> >
> > Before the incorporation of India into the British Empire, Nawabs ruled
> > the kingdoms of Awadh (or Oudh, encouraged by the British to shed the
> > Mughal suzereignty and assume the imperial style of Badshah), Bengal,
> > Arcot and Bhopal.
> >
> > A few of the Muslim rulers who were tributary to the Mughal emperors
> > used other titles; the first Nizam of Hyderabad was given the
> > alternative title Nizam ul Mulk, usually translated as Governor of the
> > [Mughal] Kingdom."
> >
> >
> > > mbl* wrote:
> > >
> > > > peeks wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, foreign investment is not coming to India upon a due diligence =
> > on
> > > > > its infrastructure and maderb day facility...it is coming because its
> > > > > people are growing higher than anywhere else in the world and so is i=
> > ts
> > > > > people's wealth - more rapidly than anywhere else. so its obvious that
> > > > > there will be more takers for products here than anywhere else. Did
> > > > > Unilever not find its way to the remotest Indian village to sell its
> > > > > soaps and shampoo pouches,, are the MBA clad sales people of Unilever
> > > > > not servising these territories because they are ill-equipped in terms
> > > > > of roads, telephonnes and buses....and Unilever has been doing it for
> > > > > 100 years. The americans and the europeans compromise on everything
> > > > > when they smell dollar...not like us, nawabs of india
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peeks, Please do tell us about the "Nawabs of India". Are they really
> > > > people of principle?
> > > > > d12s34f56@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> > > > > > > If "India is going down", as you claim, it would be
> > > > > > > mainly because of corrupt politicians demanding big
> > > > > > > bribes as they try to play the middleman in outsourcing
> > > > > > > deals. And the "lack of real talent" claim may become
> > > > > > > valid after the mediocre graduates as the result of
> > > > > > > "reservation quotas" (akin to "affirmative action" in the
> > > > > > > US) hit the job market in a few years.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jai Maharaj
> > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
> > > > > > > http://www.mantra.com/jai
> > > > > > > Om Shanti
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <beOlg.101096$H71.27860@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > > > > "Murphy" <xoxoxo@nine.ten> posted:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As usual, time magazine is far behind the curve. India hit its=
> > climax last
> > > > > > > > year and is only going down. Backsourcing of jobs to the U.S. =
> > and the lack
> > > > > > > > of real talent in India are the biggest reasons and it's going =
> > to put
> > > > > > > > India's economy in a depression. This also means that Dr Shith=
> > ead Sahib
> > > > > > > > will have to get a real job scooping shit instead of posting hi=
> > s spam shit
> > > > > > > > here all day.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Dr.Sahib.Pandit.Shri.Shri.Rainam Ji Maharaj Ji Ustad"
> > > > > > > > <praina246898@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:1150789721.972649.132010@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1724081,00050002.htm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A "breathtaking shift" in US policy towards India - declaring=
> > it a
> > > > > > > > > strategic partner and offering it a bilateral deal to share n=
> > uclear
> > > > > > > > > know how - can be explained, according to Time magazine, simp=
> > ly by one
> > > > > > > > > phrase: India is the un-China.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Washington's new approach to India is so explained by the Ame=
> > rican news
> > > > > > > > > magazine in its latest issue hitting the news stands on Monda=
> > y with its
> > > > > > > > > cover story "INDIA INC - Why the World's Biggest Democracy is=
> > the Next
> > > > > > > > > Great Economic Superpower- and What it Means for America."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > India's infrastructure is plain awful, you can not expect to contin=
> > ue
> > > > > > getting foreign investment if the quality of road, power, and
> > > > > > telecommunications contrasts so sharply with the next door competit=
> > or,
> > > > > > sooner or later, India will hit the bottleneck if only because the =
> > bad
> > > > > > transport system.
> >