by TKiel » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:52 am
em,
I think I took your statement too figuratively, as the only way it made sense to me was to be taken as a statement that India doesn't do what outside influences want, that it won't change, it does it's own thing, etc..., so one has to work around that. And that I related to the country's eventual independence from the UK. Then, I related that to the fact that anybody who referred to that, must have a UK connection. And in making that assumption I showed my own ignorance in that the only way someone would refer to India was as a former colonial state of the UK, when they could have done it for a myriad of other reasons (chagrined look on face).
Having read many of your other posts (I seem to vaguely recall one similar to that to which ab referred) I'm glad we have not "come to grief on the fraught field of a post colonial identity crisis" (over here we call that having a beef) as I feel myself to be entirely out-gunned if it came to a battle of the spoken word. In fact, it was the impression left on me by your previous posts that someone as erudite, witty, worldly and sophisicated as yourself (feeble attempt at sucking up) could only have come from a small, non-nuclear country, with a world view that precludes making assumptions about others. So, when I saw your statement I was a little shocked at what appeared to be an opening salvo.
So will somebody please explain what 'pom' means?
Tracy