Indian player in France team

[Chetan Parekh]

Vikash Dhorasoo

Vikash Dhorasoo is in the France squad – but haven’t got a chance to play any match in Worldcup so far. Only hope is the final match.

Hope he will get a change to play in final.

[Daniel Bauer]

He's French, not Indian.

He did play in the World Cup - he came on as a substitute in one of the group games and missed a good chance.

[David O'Meara]

There are several Australian-born in the Crotian team and vice versa. It's nice when people are allowed to move to different countries.

[Daniel Bauer]

There is a Canadian playing for England, a Brazilan playing for Portugal and an Englishman playing for Italy. I find it strange that FIFA allow players to play for other countries even if they were not born there. I think it depends on the birth place of ones parents.

[Chetan Parekh]

Originally posted by Daniel Bauer:
He's French, not Indian.

True, he is French. But he has roots in India.

[David O'Meara]

Anyone know what the actual rules are? I think once you play for a country you cannot compete for another in the World Cup, but is that the same for all World Cup competitions?

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Chetan Parekh:


True, he is French. But he has roots in India.

For all you know he may have different views on the above statement.
He is a French national, and turning out for his home country.

[Pradeep bhatt]

Originally posted by Chetan Parekh:


True, he is French. But he has roots in India.

He has never visited India. TOI newspaper always tries to bring up Indian linkage whether is it football or space exploration.

[Paul Sturrock]

Originally posted by David O'Meara:
Anyone know what the actual rules are? I think once you play for a country you cannot compete for another in the World Cup, but is that the same for all World Cup competitions?

As I understand it once you've been given a full cap for one country you can't appear in any FIFA sanctioned tournament for another. I think UEFA etc. all have to inherit the same rules for their competitions. So you do get the odd situation where someone has played under-21 football for one country then turned out for another, but mostly once they appear on the field for one country thats it.

[Arjunkumar Shastry]

I think TOI did the same for some American politician Bobby Jindal.It described Bobby Jindal as 'Punjab da puttar'(son of Indian state ,Punjab).Later it was revealed that he was just born here,thats all.and never visited Punjab at all.
Recently TOI again gave the news of "Shiva Brent Sharma",online credit card theirf with great pride as "Indian behind online hacking'.Later it revealed that Sharma's last two generations were from Trinidad.

[Daniel Bauer]

Originally posted by Chetan Parekh:


True, he is French. But he has roots in India.

I beg to differ - he was born and bred as a French national - his first language is probably French, not Hindi. If he went to India, he probably wouldn't have the same rights as an Indian national (e.g. voting in elections). If India ever played France (unlikely, but what the hell), where would his roots lie?

[Amit Batra]

Hes actually from mauritius who moved to France and is a french citizen. They left decades ago and it would be a fallacy to call them indian. Indians tend to claim anyone as indian if he or she looks or has an indian sounding name. they have absolutely nothing to do with India. If youre going to claim him, you have to claim the Romanis as Indias who left hundreds of years ago and are now living in far flung countries as Argentina and have since converted to Christianity and Islam not to mention intermingled with the locals. If Vikash is Indian then so is 50% of the population of Guyana, and trinidad among other countries where Indians were brought as labour. even the native Indians supposedly walked over to the new world from the region which is now Assam (northwestern India).

[Amit Batra]

Sorry I meant northeastern

[Pradeep bhatt]

Lot of WestIndies cricket player have Indian names (thier ancestors were Indian) but they played very well against India.

[Aj Mathia]

Originally posted by Daniel Bauer:
There is a Canadian playing for England, a Brazilan playing for Portugal and an Englishman playing for Italy. I find it strange that FIFA allow players to play for other countries even if they were not born there. I think it depends on the birth place of ones parents.

Overlook my ignorance but do you mean there is a Canadian playing for England or an ex-Canadian playing for England or a person who does not have a british passport playing for England, And the likes for the other mentioned players.

[Dave Lenton]

The player is Owen Hargreaves. He is Canadian, but was eligible to play for the Canada, Germany or England. In the end he chose England.

FIFA rules allow a person to play for a country if they have not already played for another country (as mentioned before), but also if they, their parents, or their grandparents hold nationality in that country. Hargreaves' family come from the UK, allowing him to play for England. He could also have played for Germany as he had lived there long enough to qualify for a German passport.

[R K Parulekar]

Originally posted by Daniel Bauer:


I beg to differ - he was born and bred as a French national - his first language is probably French, not Hindi.

Even in India many Indians don't speak Hindi even if it is their mother tongue. Many bollywood actors acts as if they are English. Many Indians have complex, for them English is superior than their own languages and feels low when speak their own mother tongue. Sad but true.

[Ramesh Choudhary]

his first language is probably French, not Hindi.

I beg to differ. Hindi is not the mother tongue of all the Indians. Majority of Native South Indians are comfortable speaking in English than Hindi. Above opinion is a misnomer, courtesy Bollywood, which calls itself the only representative of 'Indian Cinema' and paints a picture that hindi is as much used in India, as French in France or German in Germany.
[ July 09, 2006: Message edited by: Ramesh Choudhary ]

[stara szkapa]

Two best German strikers Miroslaw Klose and Lukas Podolski are born in Poland.

[R K Parulekar]

Originally posted by Pradip Bhat:
Lot of WestIndies cricket player have Indian names (thier ancestors were Indian) but they played very well against India.

Yeah, they have roots in Bihar(one of the North Indian state), including sarawan and chanderpaul .Many of them can sing Bhojpuri songs, celebrates Diwali , but can not speak Hindi or Bhojpuri properly. Even name "Trinidad" is of Sanskrit origin.

[Amit Batra]

What do you mean by roots exactly? those roots were uprooted more than 300+ years ago, their roots are in their own countries now. what they do have are ancestors that Had origins in India. But thats about it. These guys are 4th and 5th generation trinidadians. And a common belief is that they all speak bhojpuri which they dont, only a small minority of surinamese do. And the name trinidad is not of sanscrit origin, Christopher Columbus named it after the holy trinity(trinidad in spanish means trinity) which he named on sighting three peaks when he first discovered trinidad.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Paul Sturrock:


As I understand it once you've been given a full cap for one country you can't appear in any FIFA sanctioned tournament for another. I think UEFA etc. all have to inherit the same rules for their competitions. So you do get the odd situation where someone has played under-21 football for one country then turned out for another, but mostly once they appear on the field for one country thats it.

The question were often the youth selections. There are Fifa tournaments for selections with age from 15-17 and maybe even younger. Lately they lightened the rules a bit. There are a lot of people in Europe with African or Asian (especially turkish) roots who are very good at football, grew up in central or northern Europe and have strong emotional ties to the country where there fathers or Grandparents came from. For example there is excelent turkish player Sahin from Borussia Dortmund who plays fur Turkey, even if he speaks german more fluently than turkish. The father of german player Assamoah (who did not play much in the World Cup) wanted that he plays for Ghana (I think), but Gerald opted for Germany.
Of course, the national associations tried to pressure very young players in their youth selections. For that reason, Fifa lightened the rules for youth selections. Now such persons with a migrant background can decide later for which country they want to play and thats fair.
[ July 10, 2006: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Bujji Gadu]

Amitabha Batranab

What do you mean by roots exactly? those roots were uprooted more than 300+ years ago, ........ when he first discovered trinidad.

Well said... completely agree.

[Stefan Wagner]

agree, and add:
Sometimes nations are tired of existance, and stop working.
They split to multiple nations, and therefore you 'll find players who played for Jugoslawia in former times, and Serbia-Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegowina, Croatia and Slowenia later.
Similiar for USSR.

[R K Parulekar]

Originally posted by Amitabha Batranab:
What do you mean by roots exactly? those roots were uprooted more than 300+ years ago, their roots are in their own countries now. what they do have are ancestors that Had origins in India. But thats about it. These guys are 4th and 5th generation trinidadians. And a common belief is that they all speak bhojpuri which they dont, only a small minority of surinamese do.

That was what Sarwan and Chandrapaul said on TV interview when WI were on tour of India last season (sometimes around Diwali).

My view:

If the person
Speaks Indian language (Hindi/Bhojpuri in this particular case)
Listen Indian music (Hindi/Bhojpuri in this particular case)
Watches Indian movies (Hindi movies in this particular case)
Celebrates Indian festivals (Diwali, in this particular case)
Etc.

Then
More than 90% chanses, He / She could be have Indian roots.

And the name trinidad is not of sanscrit origin, Christopher Columbus named it after the holy trinity(trinidad in spanish means trinity) which he named on sighting three peaks when he first discovered trinidad.

In schools, I�d read Napoleon�s theory about �Naming� (and claiming ) standard of various cities and places, I don�t believe.

[Arjunkumar Shastry]

Temporarily we can compromise saying that tri in Latin is same as tri(pronounced as tree)in Sanskrit.Thats three.

[Jim Yingst]

Yeah, sure. We know that most European languages (and many Asian languages) come from the Indo-European family of languages. Which includes Sanskrit, a very old example of this category. Not actually a source of Latin and Spanish though as far as I know. Just another branch, admittedly much closer to the branch point. Claiming "Trinidad" in particular as evidence of Indian "roots" is fairly preposterous, I think. Might as well include most of Europe at that point.
[ July 11, 2006: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Devesh H Rao]

Vedas mention that in ancient times there was a son of Manu [first male human in Hindu mythology] born who had three legs at birth and was the father to 1000 sons and daughters [the percentage split between them was 50:50 to avoid any equality debates].

He wanted another kid and hence was thrown out by his wife, which led him to give up all he had and set sail for a far away land.

He landed up on an island which he promptly named after himself as Three � Knee � Dad. Sometime down the ages, explorer Christopher Columbus somehow managed to rename the island to Trinidad due to his inaptitude in pronouncing Three � Knee � Dad.

Its all there in the scriptures, believe me�

[Amit Batra]

My view:

If the person
Speaks Indian language (Hindi/Bhojpuri in this particular case)
Listen Indian music (Hindi/Bhojpuri in this particular case)
Watches Indian movies (Hindi movies in this particular case)
Celebrates Indian festivals (Diwali, in this particular case)
Etc.

Then
More than 90% chanses, He / She could be have Indian roots.

Whoaaa Big flaw in your argument mate. lets see
I speak the English language, I also speak a bit of french
I listen to English music and sometimes spanish/french also
I watch English movies and rarely on occasions french films as well.
I celebrate christmas also
Well what do you kow.... I have English and French Roots. I cant wait to claim ancestory now.

Then
More than 90% chanses, He / She could be have Indian roots

Why 90%? on what grounds do you deduct 10%? The pakistanis, the bangladeshis, the sri lankans, the nepalis etc. all do the above are they Indian now?

And what happens to people who live in this country are Indian citizens but dont watch Indian movies or say listen to Indian music does that percentage then go down to say 60%? to think this way is a proverbial crime against logic. You could not possibly define concretely what exactly indian language/movies/festivals are. Is an indian movie for example a movie with indian Actors? or a movie where the characters speak in Hindi? Or is it one that is made in India? because for each case of yes there can be instances which would suggest otherwise. the same holds true for Indian music.
Another thing there is a reason Eropean languages are called Indo European, and going by that logic every word in the english dictionary could be claimed as having roots in sanscrit. Where is to stop? We invented the zero are we to claim calculus/physics and chemistry as Indian inventions as well? heck lets claim the nuclear weapon as an Indian Invention. Bottom line is this in this world we all have pasts and identities that stem from disparate places and circumstances. We all use things that have been concieved of or made possible by thoughts and idea of minds around the globe. We should accept it at that and not lay claim to things we shldnt by bringing up impossible and childish mythological examples and stories that are obviously unobvious.

[R K Parulekar]

We will take it case by case.

Chanderpaul and Saravan case:
Pls. read my previous reply.
Chanderpaul and Saravan had said in TV interview that they celebrates Diwali (and Diwali in India is special for them) , listens Bhojpuri songs and have Indian roots.
Now, if they claims that they have Indian roots, what do I do ? You better, talk to them, why do they claim Indian roots when they don't have one.

Whoaaa Big flaw in your argument mate. lets see
I speak the English language, I also speak a bit of french
I listen to English music and sometimes spanish/french also
I watch English movies and rarely on occasions french films as well.
I celebrate christmas also
Well what do you kow.... I have English and French Roots. I cant wait to claim ancestory now.

My view:
I guess, you are an Indian (90%. or 9 out of 10) as your name suggest. (but as per your "naming" logic as in case of "Vikash" , I could be wrong. )

Reason:
Everybody, in India can speak English, watches English movies and listen English songs.
Every nook and corner in India, you will see the coaching classes for French, Spanish, Japanese, etc. however, same is not applied to Bhojpuri etc. in abroad.

Why 90%? on what grounds do you deduct 10%?

The percentage, I derived, is from my day to day observations in various parts of the world with various communities, however, I have not done any specific research on this subject.

The pakistanis, the bangladeshis, the sri lankans, the nepalis etc. all do the above are they Indian now?

Yes, in Europe/America they are identified as an "Indian subcontinent". (But they are not Indian by nationality, same is the case with Chanderpaul etc. )
Even the restaurants owned by Pakistani is identified as an Indian restaurant.

You could not possibly define concretely what exactly Indian language/movies/festivals are.

Easy buddy, quick google search will help you knowing what exactly Indian language/movies/festivals/foods are.

And what happens to people who live in this country are Indian citizens but dont watch Indian movies or say listen to Indian music does that percentage then go down to say 60%?

What is the percentage of the Indian citizens AND residents , who does not speak Indain language AND does not listen Indian music AND does not eat Indian food AND deas not watch Indain movies?

Will not be more than 3% ,my guess. Isn't it? So they are exceptions.

Another thing there is a reason Eropean languages are called Indo European, and going by that logic every word in the english dictionary could be claimed as having roots in sanscrit.

I don't want to claim "every word " in English dictionary to have Sanskrit origin; But, yes, I do claim that there are "innumerable" words in English , have Sanskrit origin.
(Again, quick internet search will reveal that.)

Where is to stop? We invented the zero are we to claim calculus/physics and chemistry as Indian inventions as well? heck lets claim the nuclear weapon as an Indian Invention. Bottom line is this in this world we all have pasts and identities that stem from disparate places and circumstances. We all use things that have been concieved of or made possible by thoughts and idea of minds around the globe. We should accept it at that and not lay claim to things we shldnt by bringing up impossible and childish mythological examples and stories that are obviously unobvious.

Again, we can not claim each and every thing as an Indian. We can not really generalize the claims. But, if we take case by case, we could claim certain things, Indian.


Awaiting reply from others as well.

[Kuvempu Puttappa]

Confusion has occured over and and or
I recommend a short course on Set Theory to everybody.

[Jim Yingst]

[Ravi]: But, yes, I do claim that there are "innumerable" words in English , have Sanskrit origin.
(Again, quick internet search will reveal that.)

Most sources I can find indicate that Indo-European languages have common origins, and presumably Sanskrit is much closer to those common origins. But saying that the words originated in Sanskrit is missing the point, I think.

There probably are some English words which came more directly from Sanskrit - but I think it's much, much more common to find words which sound similar because both languages derived from the same source, further back in the timeline. the fact that Sanskrit occurred much earlier does not automatically make it the source.

[Amitabha]: The pakistanis, the bangladeshis, the sri lankans, the nepalis etc. all do the above are they Indian now?

[Ravi]: Yes, in Europe/America they are identified as an "Indian subcontinent".

No, the fact that people say "Indian subcontinent" does not mean everyone on the subcontinent is considered Indian. It's just a name, somewhat oversimplified, but easier than saying "the Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi-Sri Lankan-Nepalese-Bhutanese-Tibetan-and-maybe-a-few-other-regions' subcontinent". Don't read too much into it.
[ July 12, 2006: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[Ravi]: But, yes, I do claim that there are "innumerable" words in English , have Sanskrit origin.
(Again, quick internet search will reveal that.)

Most sources I can find indicate that Indo-European languages have common origins, and presumably Sanskrit is much closer to those common origins. But saying that the words originated in Sanskrit is missing the point, I think.

There probably are some English words which came more directly from Sanskrit - but I think it's much, much more common to find words which sound similar because both languages derived from the same source, further back in the timeline. the fact that Sanskrit occurred much earlier does not automatically make it the source.

[Amitabha]: The pakistanis, the bangladeshis, the sri lankans, the nepalis etc. all do the above are they Indian now?

[Ravi]: Yes, in Europe/America they are identified as an "Indian subcontinent".

No, the fact that people say "Indian subcontinent" does not mean everyone on the subcontinent is considered Indian. It's just a name, somewhat oversimplified, but easier than saying "the Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi-Sri Lankan-Nepalese-Bhutanese-Tibetan-and-maybe-a-few-other-regions' subcontinent". Don't read too much into it.

[ July 12, 2006: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

In fact Prakrit is much earlier than Sanskrit and classical sanskrit derives it's nuances from it.

[Dave Lenton]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
No, the fact that people say "Indian subcontinent" does not mean everyone on the subcontinent is considered Indian.

Indeed. Not everyone who lives in the Americas would consider themselves to be "American". Besides, I far more often hear it referred to as "The Subcontinent" rather then "The Indian Subcontinent.

[Amit Batra]

Now, if they claims that they have Indian roots, what do I do ? You better, talk to them, why do they claim Indian roots when they don't have one.

I was never disputing their claims, This argument started in the first place because of this stated by you:

Yeah, they have roots in Bihar(one of the North Indian state), including sarawan and chanderpaul .Many of them can sing Bhojpuri songs, celebrates Diwali , but can not speak Hindi or Bhojpuri properly. Even name "Trinidad" is of Sanskrit origin.

What you did there was not to make an claim but an affirmation or a statement of truth regarding their Indian roots and an even bigger absurd affirmation of trinidad's naming origins which was ridiculous to say the least. Anyone can claim to be anything no matter how crazy, but if people choose to echo the same sentiment of the person they must use words like "he claims" or "he says". Or in your case you have faith that the name trinidad is of sanscrit origin, and you are going to believe that no matter what.

I guess, you are an Indian (90%. or 9 out of 10) as your name suggest. (but as per your "naming" logic as in case of "Vikash" , I could be wrong. )

I dont understand this. what have u just said here? 90% of indianness is constituted if an Indian link suggested by his or her name or have you just said that you are wrong?

Reason:
Everybody, in India can speak English, watches English movies and listen English songs.
Every nook and corner in India, you will see the coaching classes for French, Spanish, Japanese, etc. however, same is not applied to Bhojpuri etc. in abroad.

.
what exactly are you trying to say here? Why is Bhojpuri not spoken in every nook and corner of India? Or is it that bhojpuri films run to empty houses? or is it that people dont learn bhojpuri?. This is a inane claim and of absolutely no consequence whatsoever to this argument. Infact it is an attempt to add confusion to the debate or steer attention away.

The percentage, I derived, is from my day to day observations in various parts of the world with various communities, however, I have not done any specific research on this subject.

this is once again a totally subjective observation, you are trying to legitimize it or give it a scientific touch by using numbers. Once again a device used to confuse and mislead the reader, lets just stick to facts here

Yes, in Europe/America they are identified as an "Indian subcontinent". (But they are not Indian by nationality, same is the case with Chanderpaul etc. )
Even the restaurants owned by Pakistani is identified as an Indian restaurant.

This once again is an empty statement. have you just accepted the pakistanis, the bangladeshis, the nepalis etc. as Indian then? doesnt this fit the whole 90% criteria? And what exactly do restaurants have to do with this? Indian food will sell better this is a marketing gimmick. again intended to mislead and introduce new irrelevent facts intented to confuse.

Easy buddy, quick google search will help you knowing what exactly Indian language/movies/festivals/foods are.

This is once again false. What constitutes indian music and its belongings such as influnces instruments, style used etc. are all things of subjective nature. Are indian musicians who live in india sing in english use western instruments make music etc etc. to be considered Indian or western? these are all things of subjective nature. If you have facts on this then please enlighten us all. google would only helop where objective facts are involved.

What is the percentage of the Indian citizens AND residents , who does not speak Indain language AND does not listen Indian music AND does not eat Indian food AND deas not watch Indain movies?
Will not be more than 3% ,my guess. Isn't it

Really??? once again you try to give a scientific twist to your completely subjective analysis. And even if we go by your argument, you have just set yourself a trap because you didnt exactly find out what 3% of over a billion people comes out to be. you just termed more than 30,000,000 living in india, working here paying their taxes (hopefully), holders of Indian citizenships as Non indians. If you had been an authority of indianess and what makes an indian actually Indian, you could have made cliams like that, even so it wouldve been of little use to anyone as it is of little consequence.

I don't want to claim "every word " in English dictionary to have Sanskrit origin; But, yes, I do claim that there are "innumerable" words in English , have Sanskrit origin.
(Again, quick internet search will reveal that.)

I never disputed that what I did dispute was laying claim to the word trinidad as sanscrit origin. You seem to be a big fan of google searches, here a small challenge, find me three sites that support your claim of it having indian origins with facts that sound feasible, and for every three that you can find I will find 4 that support my argument that it is feasible that the name trinidad is indeed spanish.

Again, we can not claim each and every thing as an Indian. We can not really generalize the claims. But, if we take case by case, we could claim certain things, Indian.

So could other countries and cultures and religions. I have no probablem once again with people CLAIMING things, I have a problem of not providing reasonable evidence that sits well with logic and/or resorting to mythological tales that try to replace hard intellectual reasoning with childish nonsense trying to give an already baseless argument an illicit adavantage.

In schools, I�d read Napoleon�s theory about �Naming� (and claiming ) standard of various cities and places, I don�t believe.

No one is compelling you to believe. facts will continue to persist with perpetuity whether you belive in them or dont. In any case my challenge stands, copy past some link here to support your claim with reasonable facts that can establish that what you say can be feasible. I will go first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_and_Tobago

[Amit Batra]

Just wanted to say the Above was my last contribution to this debate. I have been spending far tooooo much time refuting arguments when I shld be studying for the SCJP.


take care, be back in a few days.