[monsterix]

> Indian Navy is even involved in protecting merchant shipping lanes off the Somalia coast.

Yes, it is true that Indian Navy/Coast Guard protects and also helpfully escorts maritime around that area [1].

It also protects the original untouched Sentinalese[2] tribes off the Andaman & Nicobar islands on the other side. Historically, our country has NEVER gone and attacked anyone in the past 3000 years. Sometimes because of our own resilience and other times because of our stupid prime minister.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7736885.stm

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island

> licence Raj, the paperwork kingdom, that ruins business opportunities all across India.

You're bang on this one. It's those 50-60 odd corrupt assholes on the top which make life hell for the rest of the population. Pretty similar to how things are here in the US, albeit the corruption part(?). Only magnified.

[gman99]

>>our country has NEVER gone and attacked anyone in the past 3000 years.

Well, our country didn't exist pre-1947, but we're arguing semantics now. Still, it's kindof bonkers to define the border of a fairly young "nation" over a period of 3000years. If you do that, then you need to consider the Mughal campaigns in Central Asia as they attacked Samarkhamd (Persia) as well as Kandahar (also persian held at the time). Or do you not consider them Indian?

OK then, consider that the Chola empire conquered sections of South East Asia. But perhaps you dismiss these conquests as exaggerations? (note that there is overwhelming evidence that atleast ports were raided even if there was no lasting presence -- it's still an "attack")

But if we are going to be pedantic, even post-Independence India declared war on Portugal and is considered the aggressor state when it "invaded" Goa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Goa

[monsterix]

Mmm, you're right w.r.t Goa and extricating out Bangladesh off Pakistan's. But there is much more prior to these controlled aggressions - for example "suspension of civil liberties" for those who lived under Portugese administration (see wikipedia). Let's also not forget that Goa was a colony of Portugal but originally it was a part of our land. Similarly sandwiching between Pakistan on left and Pakistan II on right wasn't a great experience either.

To get pedantic on this subject, even the Mughals aren't originally from India. Mughal campaigns in Central Asia was also about plundering and ruling India, it's not the other way round. In fact original Indians are not even Aryans (I am an Aryan) of European descendence for that matter. So my estimate of 3000 years stands corrected, it goes way further back than that.

Sentinals, for example in my prior comment, are aboriginal of the Indian peninsula. The other term used to represent aboriginal Hindus is the Dravidians. This land has chosen entropy over order, I can assure you.

[steve19]

Maybe it's a joke I do not understand, but your country has been a battleground for years, kingdoms attacking other kingdoms for 1000s of year and more recently every so often Indian troops fire accross the line of control killing Pakistan soldiers (sure, Pakistan does it at least as much if not more).

[steve19]

I love the downvotes for correcting some ridiculous nationalistic propaganda (that India has never attacked anyone in 3000 years). I guess that's what they are teaching in Indian schools today.

(Pre-colonial Indian history is currently a passion of mine.)

EDIT: and here come more downvotes.

[codegeek]

You might have a point to make but it is your tone that is getting you the downvotes. If Pre-colonial Indian history is your passion, the least you can do is to think and analyze before making generic comments like "battleground" without adding any relevant context. Besides, you talked about the India/Pak border "firing" issues which is so complicated even for the citizens of those countries to understand that relating it to "attacking" in general is not fair.

[wrongc0ntinent]

If it's the tone, fine (kinda doubt it). But his reaction to propagandistic bullshit like that is understandable and justified.

[jace]

You have my upvotes, Steve.

[swatkat]

>>>> Maybe it's a joke I do not understand, but your country has been a battleground for years, kingdoms attacking other kingdoms for 1000s of year

If you're referring to historical ages, then this pretty much applies to all other continents including Asia, Europe, America etc. Wasn't it pretty common for kingdoms to wage wars against each other?

>>>> and more recently every so often Indian troops fire accross the line of control killing Pakistan soldiers (sure, Pakistan does it at least as much if not more)

It doesn't take much to Google to get your facts right. It's actually Pakistan that often violates cease-fire.

[jff]

If you're referring to historical ages, then this pretty much applies to all other continents including Asia, Europe, America etc. Wasn't it pretty common for kingdoms to wage wars against each other?

The original poster said "3000 years", so I don't know why you'd get upset that someone started talking about history.

It doesn't take much to Google to get your facts right. It's actually Pakistan that often violates cease-fire.

We've always been at war with Eastasia

[wrongc0ntinent]

This is valid. Except for the joke part.

[praveer13]

> kingdoms attacking other kingdoms for 1000s of year

During that period in the history, the whole world was going through the same.

>more recently every so often Indian troops fire accross the line of control killing Pakistan soldiers

Pakistani army does it more often.

[wrongc0ntinent]

He didn't exclude the rest of the world. Also, he acknowledged the Pakistani side.

[praveer13]

ohh, sorry, I missed the original comment which claimed the 3000 years thing. In that yes, yes, it's a ridiculous claim as India didn't exist before 1947.

>Also, he acknowledged the Pakistani side.

He said that India does it as much as Pakistan, which is false, and can be found by a simple google research. Pakistan is more guilty of violating ceasefires and attacking.

relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_bor...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/01/india-and-paki...

[sateesh]

It is specious to say that India has not invaded anyone in past 3000 years are so. The idea of India as a country is a fairly recent one. May be with some liberty we can consider 1857, year of Sepoy Mutiny as the starting point for idea of India as a single country. Prior to that the vast territory was divided among kingdoms battling against each other (Cholas against Chalukyas, Vijayanagar Empire against Bahamni Kingdom, Tippu against Marathas and so on).

[cscurmudgeon]

The idea of India is not new. The idea that a country has to be politically united as a single country is new. If you read any significant Indian literature, you will notice there is a feeling of unity.

[aadvaark]

Invasions / raids have occurred in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Navy

[kamaal]

>>Pretty similar to how things are here in the US

Would like to know more about this. Are there same kind of bureaucratic hassles in US too?

I thought in some states like Delaware the taxes are too low and therefore makes sense to start up there. I've also heard similar things about Singapore.

I've never traveled outside India, and would love to know more about things in the US.

[saryant]

Companies are incorporated in Delaware because its corporate law and legal precedent are so well defined (and business friendly). Taxes aren't the sole concern, predictability is just as important.

[davidw]

> Would like to know more about this. Are there same kind of bureaucratic hassles in US too?

There is certainly bureaucracy in the US, but it would appear that it's worse in India:

http://doingbusiness.org/rankings

[polar]

> Historically, our country has NEVER gone and attacked anyone in the past 3000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rajendra_map_new.png

[prakashk]

> It's those 50-60 odd corrupt assholes on the top ...

Are you saying that corruption exists only among this limited group of individuals?