The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
by AnandK DRDO's HQ(?) Metcalfe House is named after the curmudgeonly resident of Delhi before the 1857 rebellion. He was apparently poisoned on Zinat Mahal's orders and died a quite lingering death. Anyway that last name is a bit of a burden if you consider that his young son, Thomas "Theo" Metcalfe Jr indiscriminately murdered perhaps thousands of Delhites, civilians at that, with his own band of Afghan auxiliaries when the British retook Delhi. Well, most of his family and friends perished when the rebels took Delhi originally and he himself escaped miraculously, but still he pursued unforgivable mass murder. The blood-lust did not end even days after the victory and the British authorities (who had given him and others like Nicholson a free hand when the campaign started) hurriedly shipped him back to Blighty.
shiv wrote:
No they did not. That is complete nonsense if someone has told you that. Hundreds of Europeans died of malaria. kala azar, cholera etc. The whole business of adding soda to whisky started with the idea that soda was somehow cleansing.
As regards natives dying from "European" diseases - it was allegedly smallpox that wiped out a lot of native south Americans - although I suspect that a lot of deaths caused by plain genocide was blamed on small pox and stories cooked up like the one you have related "Africans still run when they see white man". Not sure where you heard that story but that is a first for me in 17 years of BRF.
It was always puzzling to me, whenever I heard about how the population of the Americas was drastically culled by "European diseases, to which the natives had no immunity." That goes totally against the premise of H. G. Wells' "War of the Worlds," in which Martians invade the earth, and the earthlings have no defense against the superior Martian technology, but eventually it's the Martians who die out, because the viruses and bacteria of the earth kill them off. Likewise, the European settlers in the Americas and Australia had superior technology and inferior numbers, but the story here is that they carried diseases which destroyed the native populations!
The first (War of the Worlds) is certainly fiction, the second (European diseases against the natives) - most likely so. You're probably right, in that the Europeans ended up blaming diseases for killing off the natives, just to reduce their own guilt complex induced by their genocide.
The story about Africans running from white men - that's something I read somewhere long ago, and could well be cooked up also.
sudarshan wrote:
The story about Africans running from white men - that's something I read somewhere long ago, and could well be cooked up also.
It is definitely cooked up for the simple reason that works like this. You may meet me and several people in the course of a week after which you get a cold. Unless you already know that colds are cause by a virus that spreads from human to human and that I had that cold that you got, you will not automatically blame me.
Similarly Africans may have died from some disease. They would have no way of knowing it was a disease that came with humans who happened to be white. If they ran from white people it was because they were probably slavers or killers. So the buffoon who wrote that already knew about person to person spread of smallpox, made the Freudian error of assuming that 19th century Africans would somehow have figured that out and wrote that bit of fiction.
But let me make a general point about how childhood education has a role shaping the way we think. Like the rest of us here I am certain you read that "Africans used to run from whites because of the disease" stuff from some liar who had written that in an English language source. You probably read that and innocently internalized it, not needing the ask whether it could be a lie - it was a plausible story.
Part of the role of this thread would, I guess, be to demolish such plausible stories - essentially lies passed off as "history"
There's a Metcalfe house in Delhi civil lanes also. The resident had two houses, the one in mehrauli, the pic is of those ruins, and the one in civil lanes which is now occupied by the DRDO. Doesn't look like its the HQ but apparently houses a number of DRDO offices/departments like DESIDOC.
A very pertinent thread. Thanks for starting this.. The fact that the importance of freedom and price we had to pay for slavery, is slowly diminishing from the national consciousness is indeed a cause of concern..
I was in Budapest recently and it was a discovery for me how well they have preserved and projected the impact of communism on the nation..
The Holocaust museum in Budapest is not only prominent on the tourist map, whichever locals also I met had been to the place and recommended it..
The place essentially showcases the impact and life during the russian occupation & communist rule..
Two things here
1. The few thousand Hungarians lost to Russian concentration camps pales in comparison to the tragedy of British rule in India both in terms of magnitude, timeframe and the sheer cruelty. Yet, the importance given to projecting and not forgetting the same is also incomparable - unfortunately the other way.
Essentially indicates how much respect a nation has for human life of its own citizens
2. The place actually is successful because of the sheer effort in ensuring it is done up well.. separate sections for different periods n facets, movie clips from those times curated well to create impact, heart rending interviews of the survivors, dramatic sound and visual effects, besides the usual time memorabilia. All in all excellent presentation and aesthetic. Unfortunately anything put forth by our government is drab, boring and well... sarkari..
All I am saying here is that, for a nation to remember those hard lessons from history, it is very important to spend resources on not just curating, collecting and documenting the impact of British rule, but also putting it out there for the world, and more importantly, our own citizens in a manner which is powerful, in multiple places and presented in a way which attracts people to visit.
If the memorial plaque in Jallianwala Bagh could cause such consternation to Prince Philip, imagine what a Bengal Holocaust Exhibition or a Museum of Colonial Catastrophes would do to the Empire's new champions?
The thing is in other holocaust museums you could pin the blame on a regime that is pretty much uprooted (and usually violently at that) - such as the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, Imperial Japan, USSR commies etc. Otherwise a good level of antagonism must still persist - such as China vs Japan and Cuba/Vietnam vs US. In the Indian, American-Indian and Asian cases, the perpetrating "systems" are still around, albeit in a rather diluted form. Also, the relationships are rather civil. I mean, AFAIK in SE Asia there are no colonial horrors museum on Dutch, British or French crimes but there are a number of memorial halls on the Imperial Japanese horrors. The most famous memorial of them all is Tuol Sleng and that's on the Khmer Rouge. On that note I did not see explicit demonization of (British) Indian troops which pretty much gutted the Indonesian Republic Army in the Battle of Surabaya.
Mitsy wrote:All I am saying here is that, for a nation to remember those hard lessons from history, it is very important to spend resources on not just curating, collecting and documenting the impact of British rule, but also putting it out there for the world, and more importantly, our own citizens in a manner which is powerful, in multiple places and presented in a way which attracts people to visit.
Well said!
We need the Indian Holocaust Museum most to tell other Indians what happens when we lower our guard, when we forget the Kshatriya Dharma, when we are unable to match the deviousness and brutality of the enemy!
An "extinct" and "endangered" races list would be a good start, like extinct and endangered species. From what I read on the previous page - Native Haitians would fit the bill as an extinct race. So too would the Maoris. Native Americans, Incas, Mayans, Oz Aborigines are still endangered, heading for extinct. Great way to put the pontificating west on the defensive.
Next would be extinct and endangered cultures. African cultures currently being annihilated as we speak. Asia is the only remnant of native cultures. Europe sold her soul to the Asian ideal of Xtianity two millennia ago, forgetting her Zeus and Poseidon, Thor and Odin, Jupiter and Mars and Perun. N. and S. America and Oz too went that way. That leaves Asia alone. Funny thing - since Xtianity, Judaism, and Islam are all Asian cultures, it follows that in the current world order, all the way from Alaska to New South Wales, from Santiago to Tokyo, it is Asian norms and ideals which are overwhelmingly dominant. And the west still harbors a superiority complex. Hmm.
sudarshan wrote:Europe sold her soul to the Asian ideal of Xtianity two millennia ago, forgetting her Zeus and Poseidon, Thor and Odin, Jupiter and Mars and Perun.
Yes indeed. Asuragarh did not fall to the Frost Giants but to Christian Missionaries!
The Destruction of the Indian System of Education
Kum. B. Nivedita
(Adapted from a speech given under the auspices of
Vivekananda Study Circle, IIT-Madras in Jan 1998.)
Introduction
During the time of the East India Company and later, in the British rule, there seem to have been two motives working in the minds of the rulers: plundering the wealth of this land and the 'white man's burden ' of civilizing the natives (the term used by them to refer to all Indians). We shall see, how in order to achieve these ends, the British so cleverly played their cards that even after fifty years of independence we still continue to exist in a state of stupor, unable (and even unwilling!) to extricate ourselves from one of the greatest hypnoses woven over a whole nation.
Perhaps many of us do not know that India was the richest land till the British came here. Whereas Britain's share in world exports before was only 9% as against India's share of 19% today our share is only 0.5%. Most of the foreigners came to India in search of her fabulous wealth. Ernest Wood, in the book "A Foreigner defends Mother India" states, "In the middle of the eighteenth century, Phillimore wrote that 'the droppings of her soil fed distant regions'. No traveller found India poor until the nineteenth century, but foreign merchants and adventurers sought her shores for the almost fabulous wealth, which they could there obtain. 'To shake the pagoda tree' became a phrase, somewhat similar to our modern expression 'to strike oil'."
In India 35% to 50% of village lands were revenue free and that revenue was utilised for running schools, conducting temple festivals, producing medicines, feeding pilgrims, improving irrigation etc. The British in their greed brought down the revenue free lands down to 5%. When there was a protest they assured Indians that the government would create an irrigation department to take care of irrigation, an educational board to take care of education. etc. The initiative of the people was destroyed. But the rulers found to their chagrin, that though they had conquered this nation, it was still strongly rooted in its own culture. They found that as long as the nation was aware and even proud of its traditions, their 'white man's burden' remained as 'heavy and cumbersome as ever'! India had, at that time, a very well spread system of education and that system had to be made ineffective for their purposes. Now, most of us are taught to believe that the education was in the hands of the Brahmins and in Sanskrit medium and that the other castes had no education. But here are the facts about how the British destroyed the Indian educational system and made one of the most literate nations illiterate.
In the Round- table conference in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi in one of his speeches said, "The beautiful tree of education was cut down by you British. Therefore today India is far more illiterate than it was 100 years ago." Immediately, Philip Hartog, who was a parliamentarian stood up and said, "Mr.Gandhi, it is we who have educated the masses of India. And therefore you must take back your statement and apologise or prove it." Gandhiji said he would prove it. But the debate did not continue for lack of time. Later one of his followers, Shri Dharampal, went to the British museum and examined the reports and archives. He published a book "The Beautiful Tree" where this matter has been discussed in great detail. By 1820, the British had already destroyed the financial resources that supported our educational system- a destruction that they had been carrying out for nearly twenty years. But still the Indians persisted in continuing with their system of education. So, the British decided to find out the intricacies of this system. Therefore a survey was ordered in 1822 and was conducted by the British district collectors. In the survey it was found that the Bengal presidency had 1 lakh village schools, in Madras there was not a single village without a school, in Bombay, if the village population was near 100, the village had a school. Teachers as well as students of all castes were in these schools. The Brahmins accounted 7% to 48% of the teachers, and the rest of the teachers in any district, came from other castes. Further all children had their education in their mother tongue.
The equivalent of the present day primary education lasted 4 to 5 yrs. We all know that it is universal primary education that is important for taking the nation ahead, not just a few getting higher education. The British administrators admired the dedication and capacity of the Indian teachers. By the time the students came out of the schools they had acquired the capacity to be competitive, and to understand and have proper insight into their own culture. One Mr.Bell, a Christian missionary in Madras took the Indian system of education back to England, and introduced it there. Until then, only the children of the nobles were given education there and he started education for the masses in England. So, we gather that it is from India that the British adopted the system for educating the masses.
The Cause of Degradation: The Downward Filtration Method.
But what happened in India? Foreign Christian missionaries even resented the nominal amount of one lakh rupees kept aside for the education of Indians. The British cut down the financial resources and brought in several regulations one after the other- regulations like "there has to be a 'pucca' building etc. That was not the end. They invited T.B. Macaulay to decide how to divert the money, what should be the medium of instruction and the mode of educating the Indian. He made English the medium of instruction and diverted the money for English education. G.D.Trevelyan writes in "Life of Lord Macaulay"(vol 1 pg164) "A new India was born in 1835". What Alexander, Ashoka and the western missionaries had failed to do was accomplished by Macualay's educational minutes, decreeing that India was to receive through English education, the language of the West. "The very foundations of her ancient civilization began to rock and sway. Pillar after pillar in the edifice came crashing down." But Macaulay did a more harmful thing, which is not generally known. He adopted the "downward filtration method" for educating the Indians. What is this method? The problem facing Macaulay was that Indians were numerous and The British were a handful. How were they going to educate the Indians? How could this nation be weakened so that in self-forgetfulness it would support the British Raj?
The story goes that once when he was in Ooty, in his residence, he saw an Indian officer coming and touching the feet of a peon sitting outside his office (which was near his residence.) and was obviously surprised. Why was an officer touching the feet of a peon? He was told, "You don't know, this Indian society is a peculiar one. Here the Brahmins are respected and the peon belongs to that caste." The changes that Macaulay brought after this are well documented and authenticated in books. The downward filtration method was formulated according to which the forward caste (even this was much later) was given preference in schools. To put it in his own words," But it is impossible for us with our limited means to educate all in English. We must at present do our best to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour but English in tastes, in opinion, in morals, and in intellect.' To gauge how much he succeeded in his mission, we only need to look into the history of the Indian educated classes since that time onwards. The fact is that we have not tackled the Macaulayian issue even after Independence, and graver still, few realise that the problem exists at all. The system of giving preference to Brahmins in the govt. and missionary run schools went on for nearly hundred yrs. In the meantime other castes practicing any trade had lost their business due to the flooding of Indian markets with British goods and also due to the deliberate strangulation of their business by the British. Due to the land policy of the British, born out of their greed, the farmers had become landless labourers in their own lands, and the landlords the cruel stooges of the British. The systematic destruction of the Indian system of education deprived certain castes of education. Thus over a hundred years these castes had become impoverished and ignorant and the Brahmins who were supposed to lead the society became distorted in their understanding of things, due to foreign education.
sudarshan wrote:Why was it never the other way back then? Europeans had immunity to American, African, or Ozzie diseases, but not the other way round?
No they did not. That is complete nonsense if someone has told you that. Hundreds of Europeans died of malaria. kala azar, cholera etc. The whole business of adding soda to whisky started with the idea that soda was somehow cleansing.
As regards natives dying from "European" diseases - it was allegedly smallpox that wiped out a lot of native south Americans - although I suspect that a lot of deaths caused by plain genocide was blamed on small pox and stories cooked up like the one you have related "Africans still run when they see white man". Not sure where you heard that story but that is a first for me in 17 years of BRF.
In fact, there was serious discussion on "race degeneration" in Britain after the Boer wars in Africa because more white soldiers died due to illness than in combat. As a result, the govt lost and serious public health policies were taken.
Moreover, if you are deprived and you get sick, you are finished without adequate care. It doesn't have to be small pox, anything infectious would do. The fact that people were deprived of their land and wealth, pushed into various concentrated camps, which created even more unhealthy living conditions and facilitated further spread of infectious diseases is not widely spoken of! It is very easy to spot that the real cause is not any virus but the conditions created due to their policies.
I have never believed that American/European racism would die a quick death.
From naked racism to polished policy, it only changes form. The essence i.e. disrespect, will remain, at least until other countries & civilizations rise up again.
The "disease" argument obscures what happened to those aboriginal Indians, whether in North or South America, who did *not* die of disease. What was their fate, high respect and consideration? One of the reasons so many Amerindians died of disease is that they were already weakened by the European settlers' destruction or massive disruption of their food supply. It's pretty certain that after the initial contact, the European settlers knew that their diseases would kill off, had already killed off, large numbers of the natives. So they cannot escape culpability. In some cases, the diseases were deliberately spread with the idea of mass murder.
Varoon Shekhar wrote:The "disease" argument obscures what happened to those aboriginal Indians, whether in North or South America, who did *not* die of disease. What was their fate, high respect and consideration? One of the reasons so many Amerindians died of disease is that they were already weakened by the European settlers' destruction or massive disruption of their food supply. It's pretty certain that after the initial contact, the European settlers knew that their diseases would kill off, had already killed off, large numbers of the natives. So they cannot escape culpability. In some cases, the diseases were deliberately spread with the idea of mass murder.
You should read this book.
A People's History of the United States
by Howard Zinn (Author) (BTW..Howard Zinn and Fredric Nietzsche (book "The antichrist") are often quoted by the leftists like Arundati Roy and others...but they conveniently never mention what they have to say on Christianity.. Ha Ha!)
The first biological war committed by Andrew Jackson, a Christian pastor (the one on the $20 bill) ..then the governor of the state of Florda, who used a Small pox contaminated blanket to wipe out the Indians for their land.
RajeshA, Have we considered currency exchange rates as a modern form of perpetuating slavery and transfer of resources?
Totally inverts Ricardo's competitive exchange theory.
On Nov. 2, 1834, three dozen Indians labourers arrived in Mauritius, after a 48-days-long voyage onboard the Atlas from Kolkata. Bound by contracts for five years, they were to be paid Rs5 every month, while food and clothing would be provided by their employer, Hunter, Arbuthnot and Company.
1
But the biggest lure for these Indians to travel across the Indian Ocean to work was straightforward—six months’ pay in advance.
These 36 were the earliest of the Girmityas, the slave-like indentured Indian labourers numbering over a million who were taken to work across the colonies of the British Empire.
Although their names was derived from a corruption of the word “agreement”—the British turned to indentured labour after the slave trade was officially abolished in 1807—they were treated with little dignity. Forced to seek work after famines ravaged large parts of the subcontinent, they were often exploited and overworked, received little medical care and suffered from high mortality rates.
These Indians are today forgotten in the land of their origin. Even as Indian politicians turned Oct. 31 into a contest between celebrating the legacies of Indira Gandhi and Vallabhbhai Patel, few on the subcontinent remember the significance of Nov. 2.
Instead, Indian foreign minister Sushma Swaraj travelled to Mauritius for the 180th Apravasi Diwas—the day the first of the Girmityas arrived on a faraway island and began a wave of indentured emigration that lasted over eight decades.
Far and wide
It wasn’t just Mauritius. Indian labourers travelled across the British Empire to work—and many stayed back, building new families and communities in lands far removed from those they had left in search of employment.
“Up to 1870, 112,178 or 21% had returned, while in the decade after 1910, one emigrant returned for every two who embarked for the colonies,” writes historian Brij V. Lal in the footnotes of his 2012 work, Chalo Jahaji : on a journey through indenture in Fiji (PDF).
ramana wrote:RajeshA, Have we considered currency exchange rates as a modern form of perpetuating slavery and transfer of resources?
Totally inverts Ricardo's competitive exchange theory.
Even our modern "geniuses" like MMS have not explained the currency manipulation and Bretton Woods to Indians.
Some one here with knowledge of finance should write a few paras about the how this has impoverished us.
ramana wrote:RajeshA, Have we considered currency exchange rates as a modern form of perpetuating slavery and transfer of resources?
Totally inverts Ricardo's competitive exchange theory.
This has always struck me as something strange which I have not been able to explain adequately to myself. I wonder if the fundamental basis of exchange rates was to put the value of the same human work higher in the countries whose currency was valued. In other words - for a given job - a man gets paid 10 dollars in the US and 10 Rupees in India. The worth of the India is 60 times less than the American because of the exchange rate. Of course, I am told that a lot of other factors come into play like cost of living, but as far as I can see, it boils down to the same thing.
ramana wrote:RajeshA, Have we considered currency exchange rates as a modern form of perpetuating slavery and transfer of resources?
Totally inverts Ricardo's competitive exchange theory.
sudarshan wrote:
The story about Africans running from white men - that's something I read somewhere long ago, and could well be cooked up also.
It is definitely cooked up for the simple reason that works like this. You may meet me and several people in the course of a week after which you get a cold. Unless you already know that colds are cause by a virus that spreads from human to human and that I had that cold that you got, you will not automatically blame me.
Similarly Africans may have died from some disease. They would have no way of knowing it was a disease that came with humans who happened to be white. If they ran from white people it was because they were probably slavers or killers. So the buffoon who wrote that already knew about person to person spread of smallpox, made the Freudian error of assuming that 19th century Africans would somehow have figured that out and wrote that bit of fiction.
But let me make a general point about how childhood education has a role shaping the way we think. Like the rest of us here I am certain you read that "Africans used to run from whites because of the disease" stuff from some liar who had written that in an English language source. You probably read that and innocently internalized it, not needing the ask whether it could be a lie - it was a plausible story.
Part of the role of this thread would, I guess, be to demolish such plausible stories - essentially lies passed off as "history"
Shiv saar and Sudarshan saar,
the basic point is that the Europeans of medieval ages were very very very dirty. They just didn't bathe. They smelled very badly.
If Africans or Americans(originals ones) saw these Europeans, then how hard is it for them to connect the disease to these dirty Europeans?
Its quite natural to connect disease and dirtiness. This basic understanding is seen in most cultures. Only Europeans somehow decided that dirtiness was good.
The question is why did Europeans came to this strange conclusion.
The cold weather of Euope meant that people needed public bathings. Public baths were seen as promoting nudity and other perversions. So, church started putting restrains on public baths.
At some point, they started believing that the dirt is good and cleanliness is bad. Why and How?
I think the answer lies in the wrong understanding of the greek literature Iliad. Europeans of medieval ages were not educated much. They didn't read or write much. At the most, they would know some stories of Iliad.
The problem with such a situation is that one's understanding of the literature is wrong. In Iliad, there is a statement that the disease/plague is spread by Apollo through his rays because he was displeased. Apollo is understood as sun.
So, Europeans believed that the Sun spreads diseases through his rays. So, having layers of dirt protecting you from direct rays of sun was considered good. This seems to be the initial seed of thought.
Anyway, the end-result was that the Europeans were very very very dirty. Plagues were a regular feature in Europe during entire medieval ages.
johneeG wrote:It simply means that starting from Justinian plague and ending with London plague, Europe was continuously ravaged by the plague for 1000 years with the plague returning every generation. The black plague was the height of this phenomenon. The plague seems to have peaked once in a generation.
So, starting from the time Church became powerful, Europe experienced plagues until the church lost the power in 1600s. This is the simple and straightforward explanation.
These people had already some kind of immunity to these plagues yet the plagues killed the Europeans. On the other hand, the rest of the world did not have any immunity to these plagues.
Now, when these people went to America or Africa, the plagues killed all lots of Africans and Americans. This was the tilting point which helped the Europeans in defeating and enslaving and genociding the Africans and Americans. Otherwise, Europeans would not have succeeded in genociding and enslaving the Americans and Africans. I am not saying that Europeans did not genocide or enslave the Americans or Africans. I am saying that despite all the attempts by the Europeans, Americans and Africans would have rebuffed the Europeans if it were not for the plague.
Now, the question is why didn't the plague attack the Asians and rest of Africans.
I think the answer lies in temperature. The bacteria that causes these plagues seem to be most active between certain temperatures. If it becomes too cold, then the bacteria become dormant. If it becomes too hot, then the bacteria dies.
Only at right temperature, the bacteria becomes active. The cold of Arctic preserved the bacteria. Bacteria became dormant. The bacteria became when the sun came.
So, this is another reason for medieval Europeans believing that the Sun is the source of disease. I think the plagues ravaged Europe during Summers and in winters the bacteria became dormant. So, the Europeans connected this phenomenon and believed that sun is the source of the disease. But, the idiots could not understand a more simpler thing: their dirtiness was the real source of all the diseases.
This understanding was not lacking among Africans and Americans(original ones). So, Africans and Americans quickly understood that all the diseases were being caused by these dirty Europeans. So, they ran away as soon as they saw these dirty bacteria carriers.
Not linking here.
Wikipedia on Slavery has mention of Indian caste system at the very beginning of the page. So according to Wiki, it is a form of slavery.
Correct me if I am wrong here but Devadasis and also bonded labour were transactional relationships in India. But Slavery practiced by Europeans was where you could "own" a person and you had documents to prove it. Huge difference IMO.
Well when I was in college Iron Maiden was my favourite band; still is when I listen to old school heavy metal one of their songs actually talks about Native Americans being killed by the British.
"
White man came across the sea
He brought us pain and misery
He killed our tribes killed our creed
He took our game for his own need
We fought him hard we fought him well
Out on the plains we gave him hell
But many came too much for Cree
Oh will we ever be set free?
Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plains
Chasing the redskins back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children are cowards attack
Run to the hills, run for your lives
Run to the hills, run for your lives
Soldier blue in the barren wastes
Hunting and killing their game
Raping the women and wasting the men
The only good Indians are tame
Selling them whiskey and taking their gold
Enslaving the young and destroying the old
shiv wrote:This has always struck me as something strange which I have not been able to explain adequately to myself. I wonder if the fundamental basis of exchange rates was to put the value of the same human work higher in the countries whose currency was valued. In other words - for a given job - a man gets paid 10 dollars in the US and 10 Rupees in India. The worth of the India is 60 times less than the American because of the exchange rate. Of course, I am told that a lot of other factors come into play like cost of living, but as far as I can see, it boils down to the same thing.
The wealth transfer doesn't come from the exchange rate as much as from the seigniorage gains from owning the reserve currency, or the much more widely traded and accepted one, which in turn controls exchange rates. The exchange rates can relatively weaken as the strength of seigniorage weakens. Take the case of buying oil. We want $1 million worth of crude ? We need to do enough work to be able to buy $1 million based on current exchange rate in the open market, go to Soddy Arre Bhaiyya, buy the oil and deliver it. The US ? Some flunky asks for $1 million to be printed and handed to Arre Bhaiyya, and they get their oil. The Soddies now have to buy something productive in the US to make use of that freshly printed paper. The Americans get the oil AND the productive investment, in exchange for freshly printed paper. The Soddies have a larger empty cavity in the ground underneath them. Who benefits ?
Theoretically you can get around this by making USD legal tender in your country. That's what some countries do. But it has its own cost - you have no control over monetary decision. You can't go go US Treasury HQ and make demands. You'd be told 'eh ? who said you could use USD as your currency ?'
One can theoretically equalize costs across countries. Take barbers. It costs maybe $15-20 for a haircut in US. In India it costs less than the equivalent (Rs.1000-1500). Tomorrow, all barbers in India can mutually agree to charge that much. Or US barbers can change their prices to $2-3 . Most of them will go out of business. That's why they have a 'purchasing power parity' (PPP) GDP measure. Typically engineered and manufactured goods cost the same (or more in the developing country). Services on the other hand are distinctly cheaper in the developing country, because the value of output there is priced lower.
Growing economically and making your currency more widely accepted is key to surmounting this. The loss of the Gulf Rupee did not help us, in this regard. We had an entire region using our currency, which was clearly unacceptable to the west - if they needed to trade, they'd have to buy things in India with those Rupees, which would only enrich us. Instead they prefer to use their currency to enrich themselves. The goal therefore is - make your currency an important part of your external engagement and get others to use it.
India is doing this today. Take what I just posted in the economy thread. There's now something called the Masala Bond, which is a Rupee-denominated bond authorized by RBI, offered on external bond markets. Back during Pokhran times, we had to beg NRIs to buy the USD denominated bonds to restore our currency reserves. Today we sit on $325 billion in reserves and are in a position to allow outsiders to buy Rupee bonds, because *they* want it. This is part of the play of making the Rupee more widely traded and accepted, to an extent unimaginable 15 years back.
In Macaulay's letter dated 12th Oct., 1836, he wrote to his father:
"Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully; we find it difficult to provide instruction to all. The effect of this education on Hindus is prodigious. No Hindu who has received an English education ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. It is my firm belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respected classes 30 years hence. And this will be effected without our efforts to proselytize; I heartily rejoice in the prospect'
That was the confidence with which they set out. But the missionaries, after years of toiling in vain realized that their efforts of proselytization had not been successful. So after some years there was a conference of missionaries in India in 1882. They sat together and discussed the effects of their education on the Brahmins. They found that though to an extent they were successful in taking away the Brahmins from their ideals, their conversion had not taken place. A decision to slowly target the other castes and tribals in their educational institutions, was taken. Till the British started ruling India most of the castes were educated and prosperous but the delicate policies of the British are responsible for their later condition. The Brahmins who were supposed to set the standards of behaviour in the society were targeted, and when they strayed away from their path they were blamed for the condition of the other castes. The point to note here is that they are responsible not because they kept all the education to themselves, as is generally believed, but because they allowed themselves to be intellectually corrupted by the British and because they entered into all the professions practiced by other castes. They also took on government jobs thus paving the way for competition and hatred among castes in the society. Today they stand discredited in general, and are no longer considered to be the examples to be followed. But although the Brahmins became corrupted, it is to the credit of all the other castes that though they too were targeted, they stood firm, and thus foiled the designs of the British.
But as the poison induced by Macaulay continues to weaken this nation, we hardly even care to know about "Indian thinking", Indian problems and Indian models and solutions to these problems. The best brains and the best energies are concentrated on evolving and applying western models and solutions. We seem to know less and less about our own nation. After all how does a nation die? One way is by physical destruction as the Europeans who settled in America destroyed whole civilizations there. Another is that people lose faith in their own way of life, their philosophies, their principles, their thought currents etc., and the nation is destroyed. Take for example, the Greek and Roman civilizations. What great civilizations they were! But there came a time when the intelligentsia lost faith in their own way of life, in their own wisdom. They adopted a totally different philosophy in their lives and where are these nations and their civilizations now? In a sense, in the museums and monuments!
Compare that with India! The land with the most ancient cultural continuity, the oldest living nation Greece did not physically die. People did not die. People now in Greece, Italy and Persia are the descendants of those who were the originators of those great civilizations. But today if we ask them what are the ideals that sustained their nation they would say," we do not know, it is in the books; it is in the museum; you may refer to it better there." That is how a nation is destroyed, rather mummified. Now these countries are nothing more than geographical or political entities trying to evolve a nation out of their statehood. How does a nation get weakened? A nation gets weakened when the ignorance of the people about their own roots increases, or when they become ashamed of themselves or of their forefathers. Actually that is where real regression of a nation starts. A nation which wants to forget about itself and imitate other nations cannot redeem itself but is on the path of self-destruction. The regression is there in our nation at present. And if we truly do not want to weaken ourselves as a nation, we need to extricate our educational system out of its Macaulayian traits, and obtain a fresh and untainted understanding of our ideals; for these have held us together as a nation for nearly ten thousand years. Then put them up for renewed enquiry before the younger generations so that if at all they are imbibed, they are expressed with feelings that become stronger, nobler and grander with time
While few educated South Asians would deny that British Colonial rule was detrimental to the interests of the common people of the sub-continent - several harbor an illusion that the British weren't all bad. Didn't they, perhaps, educate us - build us modern cities, build us irrigation canals - protect our ancient monuments - etc. etc. And then, there are some who might even say that their record was actually superior to that of independent India's! Perhaps, it is time that the colonial record be retrieved from the archives and re-examined - so that those of us who weren't alive during the freedom movement can learn to distinguish between the myths and the reality.
Literacy and Education
Several Indians are deeply concerned about why literacy rates in India are still so low. So in the last year, I have been making a point of asking English-speaking Indians to guess what India's literacy rate in the colonial period might have been. These were Indians who went to school in the sixties and seventies (only two decades after independence) - and I was amazed to hear their fairly confident guesses. Most guessed the number to be between 30% and 40%. When I suggested that their guess was on the high side - they offered 25% to 35%. No one was prepared to believe that literacy in British India in 1911 was only 6%, in 1931 it was 8%, and by 1947 it had crawled to 11%! That fifty years of freedom had allowed the nation to quintuple it's literacy rate was something that almost seemed unfathomable to them. Perhaps - the British had concentrated on higher education ....? But in 1935, only 4 in 10,000 were enrolled in universities or higher educational institutes. In a nation of then over 350 million people only 16,000 books (no circulation figures) were published in that year (i.e. 1 per 20,000).
Urban Development
It is undoubtedly true that the British built modern cities with modern conveniences for their administrative officers. But it should be noted that these were exclusive zones not intended for the "natives" to enjoy. Consider that in 1911, 69 per cent of Bombay's population lived in one-room tenements (as against 6 per cent in London in the same year). The 1931 census revealed that the figure had increased to 74 per cent - with one-third living more than 5 to a room. The same was true of Karachi and Ahmedabad. After the Second World War, 13 per cent of Bombay's population slept on the streets. As for sanitation, 10-15 tenements typically shared one water tap!
Yet, in 1757 (the year of the Plassey defeat), Clive of the East India Company had observed of Murshidabad in Bengal: "This city is as extensive, populous and rich as the city of London..." (so quoted in the Indian Industrial Commission Report of 1916-18). Dacca was even more famous as a manufacturing town, it's muslin a source of many legends and it's weavers had an international reputation that was unmatched in the medieval world. But in 1840 it was reported by Sir Charles Trevelyan to a parliamentary enquiry that Dacca's population had fallen from 150,000 to 20,000. Montgomery Martin - an early historian of the British Empire observed that Surat and Murshidabad had suffered a similiar fate. (This phenomenon was to be replicated all over India - particularly in Awadh (modern U.P) and other areas that had offered the most heroic resistance to the British during the revolt of 1857.)
The percentage of population dependant on agriculture and pastoral pursuits actually rose to 73% in 1921 from 61% in 1891. (Reliable figures for earlier periods are not available.)
In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in "Public Works in India" noted: "Public works have been almost entirely neglected throughout India... The motto hitherto has been: 'Do nothing, have nothing done, let nobody do anything....." Adding that the Company was unconcerned if people died of famine, or if they lacked roads and water.
Nothing can be more revealing than the remark by John Bright in the House of Commons on June 24, 1858, "The single city of Manchester, in the supply of its inhabitants with the single article of water, has spent a larger sum of money than the East India Company has spent in the fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 in public works of every kind throughout the whole of its vast dominions."
Irrigation and Agricultural Development
There is another popular belief about British rule: 'The British modernized Indian agriculture by building canals'. But the actual record reveals a somewhat different story. " The roads and tanks and canals," noted an observer in 1838 (G. Thompson, "India and the Colonies," 1838), ''which Hindu or Mussulman Governments constructed for the service of the nations and the good of the country have been suffered to fall into dilapidation; and now the want of the means of irrigation causes famines." Montgomery Martin, in his standard work "The Indian Empire", in 1858, noted that the old East India Company "omitted not only to initiate improvements, but even to keep in repair the old works upon which the revenue depended."
The Report of the Bengal Irrigation Department Committee in 1930 reads: "In every district the Khals (canals) which carry the internal boat traffic become from time to time blocked up with silt. Its Khals and rivers are the roads end highways of Eastern Bengal, and it is impossible to overestimate the importance to the economic life of this part of the province of maintaining these in proper navigable order ....... " "As regards the revival or maintenance of minor routes, ... practically nothing has been done, with the result that, in some parts of the Province at least, channels have been silted up, navigation has become limited to a few months in the year, and crops can only be marketed when the Khals rise high enough in the monsoon to make transport possible".
Sir William Willcock, a distinguished hydraulic engineer, whose name was associated with irrigation enterprises in Egypt and Mesopotamia had made an investigation of conditions in Bengal. He had discovered that innumerable small destructive rivers of the delta region, constantly changing their course, were originally canals which under the English regime were allowed to escape from their channels and run wild. Formerly these canals distributed the flood waters of the Ganges and provided for proper drainage of the land, undoubtedly accounting for that prosperity of Bengal which lured the rapacious East India merchants there in the early days of the eighteenth century.. He wrote" Not only was nothing done to utilize and improve the original canal system, but railway embankments were subsequently thrown up, entirely destroying it. Some areas, cut off from the supply of loam-bearing Ganges water, have gradually become sterile and unproductive, others improperly drained, show an advanced degree of water-logging, with the inevitable accompaniment of malaria. Nor has any attempt been made to construct proper embankments for the Gauges in its low course, to prevent the enormous erosion by which villages and groves and cultivated fields are swallowed up each year."
"Sir William Willcock severely criticizes the modern administrators and officials, who, with every opportunity to call in expert technical assistance, have hitherto done nothing to remedy this disastrous situation, from decade to decade." Thus wrote G. Emerson in "Voiceless Millions," in 1931 quoting the views of Sir William Willcock in his "Lectures on the Ancient System of Irrigation in Bengal and its Application to Modern Problems" (Calcutta University Readership Lectures, University of Calcutta, 1930)
Modern Medicine and Life Expectancy
Even some serious critics of colonial rule grudgingly grant that the British brought modern medicine to India. Yet - all the statistical indicators show that access to modern medicine was severely restricted. A 1938 report by the ILO (International Labor Office) on "Industrial Labor in India" revealed that life expectancy in India was barely 25 years in 1921 (compared to 55 for England) and had actually fallen to 23 in 1931! In his recently published "Late Victorian Holocausts" Mike Davis reports that life expectancy fell by 20% between 1872 and 1921.
In 1934, there was one hospital bed for 3800 people in British India and this figure included hospital beds reserved for the British rulers. (In that same year, in the Soviet Union, there were ten times as many.) Infant mortality in Bombay was 255 per thousand in 1928. (In the same year, it was less than half that in Moscow.)
Poverty and Population Growth
Several Indians when confronted with such data from the colonial period argue that the British should not be specially targeted because India's problems of poverty pre-date colonial rule, and in any case, were exacerbated by rapid population growth. Of course, no one who makes the first point is able to offer any substantive proof that such conditions prevailed long before the British arrived, and to counter such an argument would be difficult in the absence of reliable and comparable statistical data from earlier centuries. But some readers may find the anecdotal evidence intriguing. In any case, the population growth data is available and is quite remarkable in what it reveals.
Between 1870 and 1910, India's population grew at an average rate of 19%. England and Wales' population grew three times as fast - by 58%! Average population growth in Europe was 45%. Between 1921-40, the population in India grew faster at 21% but was still less than the 24% growth of population in the US!
In 1941, the density of population in India was roughly 250 per square mile almost a third of England's 700 per square mile. Although Bengal was much more densely inhabited at almost 780 per square mile - that was only about 10% more than England. Yet, there was much more poverty in British India than in England and an unprecedented number of famines were recorded during the period of British rule.
In the first half of the 19th century, there were seven famines leading to a million and a half deaths. In the second half, there were 24 famines (18 between 1876 and 1900) causing over 20 million deaths (as per official records). W. Digby, noted in "Prosperous British India" in 1901 that "stated roughly, famines and scarcities have been four times as numerous, during the last thirty years of the 19th century as they were one hundred years ago, and four times as widespread." In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31(thirty one) serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule.
Not surprising, since the export of food grains had increased by a factor of four just prior to that period. And export of other agricultural raw materials had also increased in similar proportions. Land that once produced grain for local consumption was now taken over by by former slave-owners from N. America who were permitted to set up plantations for the cultivation of lucrative cash crops exclusively for export. Particularly galling is how the British colonial rulers continued to export foodgrains from India to Britain even during famine years.
Annual British Government reports repeatedly published data that showed 70-80% of Indians were living on the margin of subsistence. That two-thirds were undernourished, and in Bengal, nearly four-fifths were undernourished.
Contrast this data with the following accounts of Indian life prior to colonization:-
" ....even in the smallest villages rice, flour, butter, milk, beans and other vegetables, sugar and sweetmeats can be procured in abundance .... Tavernier writing in the 17th century in his "Travels in India".
Manouchi - the Venetian who became chief physician to Aurangzeb (also in the 17th century) wrote: "Bengal is of all the kingdoms of the Moghul, best known in France..... We may venture to say it is not inferior in anything to Egypt - and that it even exceeds that kingdom in its products of silks, cottons, sugar, and indigo. All things are in great plenty here, fruits, pulse, grain, muslins, cloths of gold and silk..."
The French traveller, Bernier also described 17th century Bengal in a similiar vein: "The knowledge I have acquired of Bengal in two visits inclines me to believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports in abundance cottons and silks, rice, sugar and butter. It produces amply for it's own consumption of wheat, vegetables, grains, fowls, ducks and geese. It has immense herds of pigs and flocks of sheep and goats. Fish of every kind it has in profusion. From Rajmahal to the sea is an endless number of canals, cut in bygone ages from the Ganges by immense labour for navigation and irrigation."
The poverty of British India stood in stark contrast to these eye witness reports and has to be ascribed to the pitiful wages that working people in India received in that period. A 1927-28 report noted that "all but the most highly skilled workmen in India receive wages which are barely sufficient to feed and clothe them. Everywhere will be seen overcrowding, dirt and squalid misery..."
This in spite of the fact that in 1922 - an 11 hour day was the norm (as opposed to an 8 hour day in the Soviet Union.) In 1934, it had been reduced to 10 hours (whereas in the Soviet Union, the 7 hour day had been legislated as early as in 1927) What was worse, there were no enforced restrictions on the use of child labour and the Whitley Report found children as young as five - working a 12 hour day.
Perhaps the least known aspect of the colonial legacy is the early British attitude towards India's historic monuments and the extend of vandalism that took place. Instead, there is this pervasive myth of the Britisher as an unbiased "protector of the nation's historic legacy".
R.Nath in his 'History of Decorative Art in Mughal Architecture' records that scores of gardens, tombs and palaces that once adorned the suburbs of Sikandra at Agra were sold out or auctioned. "Relics of the glorious age of the Mughals were either destroyed or converted beyond recognition..". "Out of 270 beautiful monuments which existed at Agra alone, before its capture by Lake in 1803, hardly 40 have survived".
In the same vein, David Carroll (in 'Taj Mahal') observes: " The forts in Agra and Delhi were commandeered at the beginning of the nineteenth century and turned into military garrisons. Marble reliefs were torn down, gardens were trampled, and lines of ugly barracks, still standing today, were installed in their stead. In the Delhi fort, the Hall of Public Audience was made into an arsenal and the arches of the outer colonnades were bricked over or replaced with rectangular wooden windows."
The Mughal fort at Allahabad (one of Akbar's favorite) experienced a fate far worse. Virtually nothing of architectural significance is to be seen in the barracks that now make up the fort. The Deccan fort at Ahmednagar was also converted into barracks. Now, only its outer walls can hint at its former magnificence.
Shockingly, even the Taj Mahal was not spared. David Carroll reports: "..By the nineteenth century, its grounds were a favorite trysting place for young Englishmen and their ladies. Open-air balls were held on the marble terrace in front of the main door, and there, beneath Shah Jahan"s lotus dome, brass bands um-pah-pahed and lords and ladies danced the quadrille. The minarets became a popular site for suicide leaps, and the mosques on either side of the Taj were rented out as bungalows to honeymooners. The gardens of the Taj were especially popular for open-air frolics....."
"At an earlier date, when picnic parties were held in the garden of the Taj, related Lord Curzon, a governor general in the early twentieth century, "it was not an uncommon thing for the revellers to arm themselves with hammer and chisel, with which they wiled away the afternoon by chipping out fragments of agate and carnelian from the cenotaphs of the Emperor and his lamented Queen." The Taj became a place where one could drink in private, and its parks were often strewn with the figures of inebriated British soldiers..."
Lord William Bentinck, (governor general of Bengal 1828-33, and later first governor general of all India), went so far as to announce plans to demolish the best Mogul monuments in Agra and Delhi and remove their marble facades. These were to be shipped to London, where they would be broken up and sold to members of the British aristocracy. Several of Shahjahan's pavilions in the Red Fort at Delhi were indeed stripped to the brick, and the marble was shipped off to England (part of this shipment included pieces for King George IV himself). Plans to dismantle the Taj Mahal were in place, and wrecking machinery was moved into the garden grounds. Just as the demolition work was to begin, news from London indicated that the first auction had not been a success, and that all further sales were cancelled -- it would not be worth the money to tear down the Taj Mahal.
Thus the Taj Mahal was spared, and so too, was the reputation of the British as "Protectors of India's Historic Legacy" ! That innumerable other monuments were destroyed, or left to rack and ruin is a story that has yet to get beyond the specialists in the field.
India and the Industrial Revolution
Perhaps the most important aspect of colonial rule was the transfer of wealth from India to Britain. In his pioneering book, India Today, Rajni Palme Dutt conclusively demonstrates how vital this was to the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Several patents that had remained unfunded suddenly found industrial sponsors once the taxes from India started rolling in. Without capital from India, British banks would have found it impossible to fund the modernization of Britain that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries.
In addition, the scientific basis of the industrial revolution was not a uniquely European contribution. Several civilizations had been adding to the world's scientific database - especially the civilizations of Asia, (including those of the Indian sub-continent). Without that aggregate of scientific knowledge the scientists of Britain and Europe would have found it impossible to make the rapid strides they made during the period of the Industrial revolution. Moreover, several of these patents, particularly those concerned with the textile industry relied on pre-industrial techniques perfected in the sub-continent. (In fact, many of the earliest textile machines in Britain were unable to match the complexity and finesse of the spinning and weaving machines of Dacca.)
Some euro-centric authors have attempted to deny any such linkage. They have tried to assert that not only was the Industrial Revolution a uniquely British/European event - that colonization and the the phenomenal transfer of wealth that took place was merely incidental to it's fruition. But the words of Lord Curzon still ring loud and clear. The Viceroy of British India in 1894 was quite unequivocal, "India is the pivot of our Empire .... If the Empire loses any other part of its Dominion we can survive, but if we lose India the sun of our Empire will have set."
Lord Curzon knew fully well, the value and importance of the Indian colony. It was the transfer of wealth through unprecedented levels of taxation on Indians of virtually all classes that funded the great "Industrial Revolution" and laid the ground for "modernization" in Britain. As early as 1812, an East India Company Report had stated "The importance of that immense empire to this country is rather to be estimated by the great annual addition it makes to the wealth and capital of the Kingdom....."
Unfair Trade
Few would doubt that Indo-British trade may have been unfair - but it may be noteworthy to see how unfair. In the early 1800s imports of Indian cotton and silk goods faced duties of 70-80%. British imports faced duties of 2-4%! As a result, British imports of cotton manufactures into India increased by a factor of 50, and Indian exports dropped to one-fourth! A similiar trend was noted in silk goods, woollens, iron, pottery, glassware and paper. As a result, millions of ruined artisans and craftsmen, spinners, weavers, potters, smelters and smiths were rendered jobless and had to become landless agricultural workers.
Colonial Beneficiaries
Another aspect of colonial rule that has remained hidden from popular perception is that Britain was not the only beneficiary of colonial rule. British trade regulations even as they discriminated against Indian business interests created a favorable trading environment for other imperial powers. By 1939, only 25% of Indian imports came from Britain. 25% came from Japan, the US and Germany. In 1942-3, Canada and Australia contributed another 8%. In the period immediately before independence, Britain ruled as much on behalf of it's imperial allies as it did in it's own interest. The process of "globalization" was already taking shape. But none of this growth trickled down to India. In the last half of 19th century, India's income fell by 50%. In the 190 years prior to independence, the Indian economy was literally stagnant - it experienced zero growth. (Mike Davis: Late Victorian Holocausts)
Those who wish India well might do well to re-read this history so the nation isn't brought to the abyss once again, (and so soon after being liberated from the yoke of colonial rule). While some Indians may wax nostalgic for the return of their former overlords, and some may be ambivalent about colonial rule, most of us relish our freedom and wish to perfect it - not gift it away again.
References: Statistics and data for the colonial period taken from Rajni-Palme Dutt's India Today (Indian Edition published in 1947); also see N.K. Sinha's Economic History of Bengal (Published in Calcutta, 1956); and "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis
Bibliography: (For further research into this area)
* M. M. Ahluwalia, Freedom Struggle in India,
* Shah, Khambata: The Wealth and Taxable Capacity of India
* G. Emerson, Voiceless India
* W. Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times
* Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilization and Decline
* J. R. Seeley, Expansion of England
* H. H. Wilson, History of British India
* D. H Buchanan, Development of Capitalist Enterprise in India
* L. C. A Knowles: Economic Development of the Overseas Empire
* L. H. Jenks: The Migration of British Capital
French colonialism, it seems, never really ended in Africa. Talking to a friend from Africa, he was telling me about the state of affairs in Djibouti. The spelling of this name in the Latin script itself shows strong French influence. Apparently, in the 19th century, the French approached the king of Ethiopia, saying - "why do you want that useless desert territory, which is a drain on your resources? We'll take it off your hands." And the king of Ethiopia gave Djibouti away to the French. Today, the territory is French to all intents and purposes. There is one major city (Djibouti), and that's it - the rest of the land is desert. The French apparently keep the local population addicted to doles and subsidies, and flatter their vanity by telling them they're all French citizens, just like the white people of France. The president (or PM) of Djibouti attends the French parliament, and is strongly discouraged (behind the scenes, of course) from trying to improve relations with the African neighbors, like Ethiopia or Somalia.
The city of Djibouti is policed by the French, who have a large naval presence in the country. The hospitals are run by white Frenchmen, and any new schools or hospitals are discouraged, or opened under French supervision. And then there are rumors about the French not only burying their own nuclear waste in those deserts, but also leasing out land to other countries to bury their nuclear wastes as well.
Running the entire city of Djibouti costs the French very little, with the docile, vain populace easily pacified by notions of French citizenry, their egos massaged by lessons in the French language and history and culture. Supplies arrive from France, so there's no local economy to speak of. Remember the movie "The Matrix?" That's what the whole scenario brought to my mind. In return, the French get a foothold in Africa, a place to bury their nuclear wastes, control over shipping lanes, the whole sweet deal.
Have we considered currency exchange rates as a modern form of perpetuating slavery and transfer of resources?
One book historians use to get great deal of insights into last 80 years of world finance, currencies, debt, gold is this book. If you have limited time, read first 40-50 pages.
News Weekly, April 15, 2006
A Texas scientist advocates killing nine-tenths of the world's population by an airborne Ebola virus, writes John Ballantyne.
An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth's population by an airborne Ebola virus.
The University of Texas evolutionary ecologist, Dr Eric R. Pianka, was addressing the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, in early March, after the academy had named him 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Present at Pianka's speech was Forrest M. Mim III, a popular science writer and editor of the bi-weekly journal, The Citizen Scientist. He reported:
"Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
"This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka's strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind ... I grabbed a notepad ..." ("Meeting Doctor Doom", The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006).
Pianka began his speech by condemning anthropocentrism, or the idea that the human race occupies a privileged position in nature. He exclaimed, "We're no better than bacteria!"
He argued that the sharp increase in the human population since the onset of industrialisation was destroying the planet. He warned that Earth would not survive unless its human population was reduced to a tenth of its present number.
He then offered drastic solutions, accompanying his remarks with a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
War and famine were insufficient for solving global overpopulation, he explained. Instead, disease was far more efficient and swift. At this point, Pianka displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls.
AIDS took too long to kill people off, he explained. His preferred method of exterminating over five billion human beings was via airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and kills its victims in days rather than years.
However, as Mim observed: "Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
"After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, 'We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.' "
After he finished his address, the audience burst into applause.
Mim reported: "It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause. ...
During a question-and-answer session, Pianka praised communist China's draconian one-child policy, and suggested that IQs are falling because only "uncaring people" (i.e., people with below-average intelligence) have large families.
Mim recalls how, once the questioning was over:
Dr Eric R. Pianka (left), with an
appreciative member of the audience.
"I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. ..."
"Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern. ..."
A few hours later, the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Warning
Executive director of the Society for Amateur Scientists, Dr Shawn Carlson, later warned in The Citizen Scientist (April 2, 2006):
"I believe, with the terrible experience of the bloodiest century in human history behind us, that all men and women of conscious in the 21st century must be proactive in our opposition to genocidal or apocalyptic philosophies, before they have the chance to inspire some new champion with the will to take their conclusions to the next step.
"When the professional scientists have lost their sense of moral outrage at such ideologies, then it falls to America's great community of citizen scientists to be the conscious of science."
News Weekly, April 15, 2006
A Texas scientist advocates killing nine-tenths of the world's population by an airborne Ebola virus, writes John Ballantyne.
An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth's population by an airborne Ebola virus.
Maybe we should start with him and the other morons that gave him the standing ovation!
The Groundwork of Everything Indians Suffer Today Lies on the Britishers!
“Britain plundered India and treated locals as sub-humans and killed the indigenous industry”
(1) If there was no British rule, Indians would be still venturous and probably America and Europe would be learning Indian languages and etiquette, as they doing with Japan and China. The Indians need to change their mind set.
(2) The Indians have lost all their confidence as a nation. Their people suffered and got humiliated under the Britishers? Just look at the position India was when they left the country - it was pathetic!
(3) Their companies exploited India and after they left…they killed off their industry and to a large extent…their spirit.
To make amends Britain must:
· Publicly apologize to India
· Offer compensation to direct victims of genocidal events like ‘Jalianvala Bagh’ etc. somebody can add more…
· Get every history book modified to acknowledge all the atrocities on India and Indians, put people like ‘General bloody Dyer’ in the same category as Hitler in the history books and publish it
· Bring any living perpetrator to face justice in India
· Return every stolen jewels, artifacts, stones to India including the ‘Kohinoor’
· Appoint joint commission to evaluate the potential economic loss to India during British rule and make it public
News Weekly, April 15, 2006
A Texas scientist advocates killing nine-tenths of the world's population by an airborne Ebola virus, writes John Ballantyne.
An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth's population by an airborne Ebola virus.
8 years after that speech, the airborne Ebola virus is a reality. The Anglo Saxons have engineered the genocide virus for non-whites.
Remember reading this. . And Ebola was perhaps aerosol borne since ever.
The specific strain that the speech talks about, now I know, as 'discovered' in US in 1989 and is supposed to be virulent for bandars but not effective on Humans. Twisted, hein ji?! Reston is actually some place in Virginia, US.
Please do not use South Asia., we need to stop this term. The correct English term is
Indian Subcontinent which is correct translation of Bharat Jambu Dweep!
