France is still above India, wooo I was afraid at first

France is still above India, wooo I was afraid at first.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_politicians_of_Indian_descent
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Who isn't above India?

>ignores purchasing power

Quality products in India is low. See this pic also

Well yeah, you've got like 20 times our population

this pic

well yeah, you had ~150 years of jump start in self-rule.

India would unironically be one of the best countries in the world right now if gandhi had failed

Yet they still worship that weedy little faggot

>Quality products
What does that mean wrt GDP?

maybe if durkas didn't invade us consistently for 500 years, starting 1100s.

It's a warning for the rest of you faggots in Europe.

It's the purchasing power, it's big because prices are low but your quality (food, house etc) for now is very shit.

You needed British leadership to civilise your """people""" and you rejected it

Avoid your crushing poverty you smelly darkie

india was a mistake

>Avoid your crushing poverty
It's not we want to be poor, kiwibro.

>it's big because prices are low but your quality (food, house etc) for now is very shit.
It's not. There's a wide variety of products available for different user base.

muslim genocide when?

india wouldn't have been a single unified country if it wasn't for the british. you'd just be a bunch of smaller countries. so knock off "we would be superpower if muslims/british/whoever the fuck dared to step a foot on your land, had invaded us!!!"

yes, letting you faggots trade unfettered (since 1500s) was a mistake

>Denmark
>calling other small country.

pls reply after you have earned any relevance in world geopolitics.

>india wouldn't have been a single unified country
But is this even a good thing? It's a huge blob.

How is the life in the most polluted city in the world, New Delhi ?

umm sweetie
in all seriousness though, a country smaller than modern india is a smaller country than modern india - what is there not to understand?

homogeneous countries tend to perform better

Native indians can only succeed under the rulership of foreigners. This has been true whether during the reign of Turkics, Iranics or Europeans over the Indian subcontinent. Indians are naturally beta, subservile, docile, incompetent natured as a people, without strong leadership they fail.

t. sandnigger

>the only reason India is relevant

>Indians are naturally beta, subservile, docile, incompetent natured as a people
perfectly explains why Indians are among the only ethnicity who has largest politicians in foreign countries.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_politicians_of_Indian_descent

Yea. there's a reason why everytime India's been united before it sooner or collapsed.

The only country that's maintained a heterogeneous population for a long time is China. But that's because they have a authoritarian government/mandate of heaven, not memocracy.

I think the current will form will collapse eventually. They should just cut it in half to fix it desu.

First for Balkanizing the Indian subcontinent

non sequeter

>This has been true whether during the reign of Turkics, Iranics or Europeans
Iranics in India?
He's actually an Afghan. He posts this all the time desu.

It's the same for sandniggers lol

at the very least they poo in loo thugh

>Yea. there's a reason why everytime India's been united before it sooner or collapsed.
again wrong. Empires have an average life span of 300 years. India was united for roughly 300 years in each one of such empires, only to disintegrate when the empire collapsed. read a bit more about what Hegel wrote about Empires.

The subcontinent is already balkanized into 5 countries.

Well, that tends to happen when all the smartest people are leaving your country for opportunities elsewhere

>non sequeter
presumption: beta
==> cannot lead people

fact: ==> can lead people

contraction, hence presumption disproved.

Is this too much mental gymnastics for an average canadian?

I'm not afghan. Afghans like the other subhuman sandniggers and pooniggers also cannot be ruled other than by whites basically.

None of those people mentioned in the wiki were first generation migrants. They were sons and daughters of indentured laborers circa 1800s.

Explain why india's history has mostly been being ruled by foreigners? Even other sandniggers at least led themselves for varying periods of time, but it seems to me that indians only ever ruled themselves under the mauryans and ashoka.

Hell... even the native hindu religion comes from whites.

see

proving my point, india's been ruled by foreigners by the majority of it's history

under native hindu rule it's just poo not in loo

sikhs parsis and jains are the only redeemable groups in india

>Explain why india's history has mostly been being ruled by foreigners
What are you on about?

from 2000 BCE to 1400 CE, India was ruled by native rulers, and see Indian percentage in global GDP.

>muh gdp
KEK

europpe during the black plague was far more livable than india now

god the arrogance and lack of self introspection from poos astounds me

>europpe during the black plague was far more livable than india now
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Well India would obviously have a higher GDP historically as it was the link between China and the West, so trade went through it, rather than because of it. This is similar to how the Middle East had a fair share of world GDP before the Mongols came and raped them.

Are you excited for India's future of an overcrowded shithole?

This is sad

>Middle East had a fair share of world GDP
doesn't even feature in the plot.


>link between China and the West
no. it wasn't. The Silk road was through central asia.

Doesn’t ignore pooping power though

Get on the UNSC or a higher GDP than your former master before talking about relevance.

denmark has contributed more to humanity and science in the past 200 years than india in all its history

Trade happens on the sea believe it or not

Do they even teach History to you idiots? We are talking about a time when you faggots considered Earth to be flat. Europeans would dare not travel far in sea from the fear of falling off the earth.

Maritime trade between China and India has occurred since at least 300bc.

Sorry Pajeet, I assumed you would be capable of using Google on your own.

I'm talking about European trading with Asia.

...

50bc at the earliest

India contributed zero, that's more than anything Denmark has ever added to humanity

India, with 1.4 billion people, has a smaller GDP than France, with 67 million people.

These are estimates baguette, official numbers for 2018 have not been released yet.

Vasco de Gama reached India, thus discovering a sea route to India only in 1497.

Before that no one in Europe knew how to reach India via sea.

You can't really compare contributions to humanity pre and post industrial revolution.
I don't think anyone would talk China or Persia down for not inventing as much in the past few hundred years either, despite both affecting civilization considerably more than Danes beforehand.