19th Annual Let'S Talk Turkey - Care Alliance Health Center: Fill & Download for Free

Let's say the Mexican government conducts a 100 meter race for all Mexicans annually. Let's assume that the US government doesn't let any Mexican other than the top ten thousand winners in that race to come into the US. If that happens, you would find every Mexican in the US to be a good athlete & might conclude that Mexico is somehow a place of great athletes.This is what happens in case of India - instead of athletic race, there is a race of grades that solely decides our admission into the US. The main reason why Hindus in the US earn at the top is because of self selection bias. Unlike other religious groups, there was never a way for Hindus to enter the US without professional qualifications [almost all the Hindus are from India - while other religious groups come from different regions].Unlike South East & West Asians they were never in war with the US nor had civil wars to qualify for refugee status. Unlike Europeans and Asians who entered easily in the 19th century, they have to go through a boatload of paperwork to get the visa, filtering out all but the most committed.Hindu-Americans Rank Top in Education, IncomeOther than self-selection, there are a few other reasons:Relentless focus on professional education: Many Indians back home make fun of the Indian parents' obsession for professional education - MS, MD & MBA. Beyond the stereotypes, the parents do that because they know that there is no other easy way out of abject poverty.Frugal culture: Most first generation immigrants are quite frugal as they know how hard it is to get to their dream land. Most of the Hindus in the US are first generation as there was a strong institutional barrier before 70s for us from entering the US. In other religious groups, there is a sizable second and later generations, some of whom might have already forgotten the frugal culture of their ancestors.More mobile: A big chunk of Hindus don't own homes [recent immigrants] and thus are very mobile. They can move between coasts or to any other city where there is opportunity. This career flexibility that predominantly maximizes earnings is often not found in other groups who invest in more fixed assets [homes, shops etc].Geographical disparity: More Hindus stay in expensive states in the coasts. In those regions, both the salaries and costs are high. This can skew the income statistics.Also see: Why are Asian American students usually more studious?

Absolutely not.Many people including Shashi Tharoor say that Savarkar put forth the two-nation theory and Jinnah followed it next. Some say that Savarkar presented it even before Sir Syed Ahmed Khan did.Firstly, let’s clear something. The difference between a nation and a country.A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture, and, in many cases, a shared territory. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group;[1][2] it has been described as "a fully mobilized or institutionalized ethnic group".[3] Some nations are equated with ethnic groups (see ethnic nationalism and nation state) and some are equated with an affiliation with a social and political constitution (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).[3] A nation has also been defined as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.[4] In international law nation is the term for a sovereign state.A country is a distinct territorial body or political entity. It is often referred to as the land of an individual's birth, residence or citizenship.Now, let’s see the facts.Allegation: Savarkar put forth the theory 6 years before Khan did.Fact:Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had presented the two-nation theory in 1888 in a speech at Meerut. He said that the Hindus and Muslims were two nations and they must be separated in order to dominate each other.[1]Savarkar was born in 1883.[2] Now six years before 1888 means 1882. How can Savarkar speak about creating Pakistan before he was even born? Also, he was a five year old kid in 1888. Who would listen to him, even if he speaks such a thing?Allegation: Savarkar put forth the two nation theory in 1936.Fact:This can be resolved from the above passage itself. Also, Allama Iqbal proposed it as the demand of the Muslim League on 29th December 1930. Morevoer, I don’t think 1930 comes after 1936.Allegation: Savarkar promoted the two nation theory.Fact: He always had a dream of Akhand Bharat (United India). Whether he supported the creation of Pakistan or not can be seen in Babasaheb Ambedkar’s book Pakistan or the partition of India. He writes:The stand taken by Hindu Mahasabha has been defined by Mr. V. D. Savarkar, the President of the Sabha, in his presidential addresses at the annual sessions of the Sabha. As defined by him, the Hindu Maha Sabha is against Pakistan and proposes to resist it by all means. What these means are we do not know. If they are force, coercion and resistance, they are only negative alternatives and Mr. Savarkar and the Hindu Maha Sabha alone can say how far these means will succeed.—Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live. Mr. Jinnah says India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar on the other hand insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus ; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political power between the two nations the rule of the game, which Mr. Savarkar prescribes, is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims,* such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population. Thus by confiscating its weightages, Mr. Savarkar would even strip the Muslim nation of all the political privileges it has secured so far.So he clearly states that Savarkar was against the partition. In short he agreed that Hindus and Muslims (most) are two nations, yet he wanted them to live in one country with co-ordination.Ambedkar however misinterpreted Savarkar's theory. He thought that Muslims would be handed over a second class citizenship. In the above paragraph, just after the part I have bolded, he writes:that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation.This is a misinterpretation. For supporting his analogy, he writes:That being the position assigned to the minorities, Mr. Savarkar concludes* that under his scheme of Swaraj:“The Moslem minority in India will have the right to be treated as equal citizens, enjoying equal protection and civic rights in proportion to their population. The Hindu majority will not encroach on the legitimate rights of any non-Hindu minority. But in no case can the Hindu majority resign its right which as a majority it is entitled to exercise under any democratic and legitimate constitution. The Moslem minority in particular has not obliged the Hindus by remaining in minority and therefore, they must remain satisfied with the status they occupy and with the legitimate share of civic and political rights that is their proportionate due. It would be simply preposterous to endow the Moslem minority with the right of exercising a practical veto on the legitimate rights and privileges of the majority and call it a “Swarajya”. The Hindus do not want a change of masters, are not going to struggle and fight and die only to replace an Edward by an Aurangazeb simply because the latter happens to be born within Indian borders, but they want henceforth to be masters themselves in their own house, in their own Land.”We can see that Savarkar advocated equal rights. He wanted equality and not equity. By the rest of the paragraph, he means that being minority should mean no extra privilege and being a majority should mean no penalty.In his book Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Savarkar writes:Let the Indian State be purely Indian. Let it not recognise any invidious distinctions whatsoever as regards the franchise, public services, offices, taxation on the grounds of religion and race. Let no cognizance be taken whatsoever of man's being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian State be treated according to their individual worth irrespective of their religious or racial percentage in the general population. Let that language and script be the national language and script of that Indian state which are understood by the overwhelming majorty of the people as happens in every other state in the world, i.e., in England or the United States of America and let no religious bias be allowed to tamper with that language and script with an enforced and perverse hybridism whatsoever. Let 'one man one vote' be the general rule irrespective of caste or creed, race or religion. If such an Indian State is kept in view the Hindu Sanghatanists will, in the interest of the Hindu Sanghatan itself, be the first to offer their wholehearted loyalty to it. I for one and thousands of the Mahasabhaites like me have set this ideal of an Indian State as our political goal ever since the beginning of our political career and shall continue to work for its consummation to the end of our life. Can any attitude towards an Indian State be more national than that?—Hindudom cannot advance or fulfil its lifemission unless and until our Motherland is set free and consolidated into an Indian State in which all our countrymen to whatever religion or sector race they belong are treated with perfect equality and none allowed to dominate others or is deprived of his just and equal rights of freecitizenship as long as everyone discharges the common obligations and duties which one owes to the Indian Nation as a whole.For integrating Muslims in his geographo-cultural concept of ‘Hindu’, he says:Ye, who by race, by blood, by culture, by nationality possess almost all the essentials of Hindutva and had been forcibly snatched out of our ancestral home by the hand of violence—ye, have only to render wholehearted love to our common Mother and recognize her not only as Fatherland (Pitribhu) but even as a Holyland (punyabhu); and ye would be most welcome to the Hindu fold.This is a choice which our countrymen and our old kith and kin, the Bohras, Khojas, Memons and other Mohammedan and Christian communities are free to make —a choice again which must be a choice of love.Savarkar, in ‘Essentials of Hindutva’A big hypocrisy I see from anti-Savarkarites is that they believe he was responsible for Pakistan, yet they also opine that Akhand Bharat (undivided India) was his ideology.The Indian activist and Hindu Mahasabah leader Vinayak Damodar Savarkar at the Hindu Mahasabha's 19th Annual Session in Ahmedabad in 1937 propounded the notion of an Akhand Bharat that "must remain one and indivisible" from "from Kashmir to Rameswaram, from Sindh to Assam." He said that "all citizens who owe undivided loyalty and allegiance to the Indian nation and to the Indian state shall be treated with perfect equality and shall share duties and obligations equally in common, irrespective of caste, creed or religion, and the representation also shall either be on the basis of one man one vote or in proportion to the population in case of separate electorates and public services shall go by merit alone."[3]It’ indeed true that Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha allied with the Muslim League but that was not for Pakistan.Let’s see the page:The Indian National Congress won a massive victory in the 1937 Indian provincial elections, decimating the Hindu Mahasabha. However, in 1939, the Congress ministries resigned in protest against Viceroy Lord Linlithgow's action of declaring India to be a belligerent in the Second World War without consulting the Indian people. This led to the Hindu Mahasabha joining hands with the Muslim League and other parties to form governments, in certain provinces. Such coalition governments were formed in Sindh, NWFP, and Bengal.In Sindh, Hindu Mahasabha members joined Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah's Muslim League government. In Savarkar's own words,"Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition government[26][27][28] In March 1943, Sindh Government became the first Provincial Assembly of the sub-continent to pass an official resolution in favour of the creation of Pakistan.[29] In spite of the Hindu Mahasabha's avowed public opposition to any political division of India, the Mahasabha Ministers of the Sindh government did not resign, rather they simply "contented themselves with a protest".[30]In the North West Frontier Province, Hindu Mahasabha members joined hands with Sardar Aurang Zeb Khan of the Muslim League to form a government in 1943. The Mahasabha member of the cabinet was Finance Minister Mehar Chand Khanna.[31][32]In Bengal, Hindu Mahasabha joined the Krishak Praja Party led Progressive Coalition ministry of Fazlul Haq in December, 1941.[33] Savarkar appreciated the successful functioning of the coalition government.[26][27]Everywhere here I can see the Hindu Mahasabha joining hands with the Muslim League in Sindh and Bengal only and that too for a coalition government. Congress had resigned from a protest which led to this happening. In 1943, the Islamic government of Sindh, passed a resolution for creating Pakistan. Even then the Mahasabha opposed it, even after being in an alliance.The best proof can be this video:The speech is in Marathi. It seems to be delivered after the partition. Here Savarkar condemns the creation of Pakistan, saying that the green colour from the two sides (Pakistan and former East Pakistan) will paint the whole subcontinent into green. He says that Hindus made a mistake by letting it happen. Now here I don’t see him being happy for Pakistan.It is also not right to blame all the Muslims for partition. There were many prominent Muslim bodies to oppose it. One such party I remember was Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.So, Savarkar was not responsible for splitting India.Footnotes[1] Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan's speech at Meerut, 16 March 1888[2] savarkar - Google Search[3] Savarkar wanted one god, one nation, one goal. Modi has fulfilled his dream with Kashmir move

The wealth that was looted by Britain from India in almost 200 years from 1757 to 1947 is the greatest theft of wealth in history of mankind. When British first arrives in India, It was one of the most richest nation in the world controlling about 50% of GDP of all world. But when they left India was one of the most poor nation in world. They looted everything India has. India was not only looted by money but also culturally.In late 17 century, Industrialisation started in Britain. This complete industrialisation was financed from money that they looted from India. Every historian is agreed upon this fact that had britishers not invaded India they would have never become developed. This all started after they won the battle of Plassey in 1757. Then they looted Bengal completely & India later.At an estimation in 2006, Britain received 635 billion pounds from abroad for the period of 1855 to 1947 or 6.9 billion pounds annually. if we estimate the money from India, we can say that almost 60–70% of this money was from India. It means over 400billion pounds. This money is estimated for only 90 years. The theft of wealth was even more than this in starting years from 1757 to 1857. The famous 105 carat Kohinoor Diamond biggest of that time was also taken away to Britain from India.Not only Britishers looted money from India, they also impose heavy duty on Indian items. That destroyed Indian economy in 19th century. Not only Britain but the money from India also helped America economically. During 19th century America levied heavy and stiff taxes on any item imported from Britain. Since entire money was coming from India, Britain never cared about high taxes. This all left India a poor nation.Roughly it is estimated that more than 1 trillion dollar of money was looted from India during British rule apart from the other materials like Gold, Diamond and other raw materials.Edit :- But let me make very clear this is history and we Indians have come over from this. We don’t have any hatred for our British friends now. But since the question was asked so it was necessary to answer it.But Yes, This must be the greatest theft of wealth in history.Thanks for reading.