Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Oct 2012 02:00

It's all right to feel shy when your identity has been revealed. Well I have never seen a dog type english before so I am assuming you are this guy http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-illBrEIUcxQ/T ... roll+6.jpg

No need to stalk me in the roads thread. I am sure you must be fantasising about some abduls. I am just SDRE.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Oct 2012 02:09

nakul wrote:It's all right to feel shy when your identity has been revealed. Well I have never seen a dog type english before so I am assuming you are this guy http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-illBrEIUcxQ/T ... roll+6.jpg

Sorry, I am not your identical twin. That pic is definitely you!

Don't worry we (thankfully) don't know everything about you. We know how you look, but we don't know your name, your favorite GI joe action toys etc.

No need to stalk me in the roads thread.

I don't even post in the roads thread. Don't even have to. You got shown some (road) sense there from everyone else.

I am sure you must be fantasising about some abduls. I am just SDRE.

The more you talk, the more you reveal about your psychology! Gay jokes, seriously? LOL

So now you are attracted to abduls and want to start on that topic? No thanks!

You are BIZARRE, man.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Oct 2012 02:11

I have better things to do than follow RNIs in every thread and collate their words to use them against them. But if you are interested, please continue.

I don't spend my days & nights stalking discussions and calling other members MUTUs/RNIs.

Your stalking is clearly evident. Please don't be disappointed since I don't share your fantasies.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Oct 2012 02:16

Isn't this the second time you are giving a heartfelt bye bye, to all the dastardly RNIs, NRIs or whoever?

nakul wrote:Your stalking is clearly evident. Please don't be disappointed since I don't share your fantasies.

Gee, so you don't like being accountable for your past behaviour, found by something called a search function?

Re: fantasies (shudder!) spare us any more of yours!

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Oct 2012 02:20

Yawn! Your interest in me won't subside. You can do a forum search in my name and read/reread my posts to your hearts' content. I hope that satisfies your cravings since pics are not working anymore. Enjoy the night.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Oct 2012 02:25

So this is your THIRD goodbye? Seriously, yet again?

Regarding the valuable wisdom enshrined in your posts, well I will pass on that "option".

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 25 Oct 2012 02:35

People, read and enjoy what you like. Whyfor this endless personal back-and-forth? Mods kindly wake up and restore some order. Please.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Oct 2012 03:00

Karan M wrote:
brihaspati wrote:That is the primary question - can you admire Kipling's verse while realizing how he is constructing the role of the "east" as a devoted servant in his "East is is East" verse? Someone who is doing this, is already halfway through accepting or tolerating the very idea of subservience - if it is packaged nicely in golden verse.
Hmmm....where exactly in "If" is he doing any of this? I do think that you are protesting too hard...
Seems to me that almost half of this stuff which you accuse others of doing seems to be only in your own imagination..

Oh really, you still don't see it? Maybe you read it a long time ago so dont remember.

If that is not the case, then you can you have a look again at the last few lines before the refrain? I do think you are defending too hard....

You might find it amusing, and as expected your reaction is more defensive of your justification of separation of enjoyment from content.
Its not defensive at all...it was actually quite exact & appropriate regarding your apparent tantrum at other persons who could appreciate a literary work or figure without getting into each and every issue regarding that "literature" or anything and every regarding the person/literature

By your standards, if I have to read a research paper from Harvard I have to contemplate the impact of the institution in breeding unethical businessmen who may have been involved in the financial industry collapse..

Or if I find something interesting in how the German Army organized and fought WW2, boohoo...I have to give a PC shout about the atrocities of the WaffenSS..

The list doesn't end does it.

Impressive attempt at being logical, but completely irrelevant. What you say would make sense, if and only if that Harvard research paper was also promoting unethical business practices within that researh paper as a subtext.

Your quoting of the German army and the waffenss is very very interesting, for the consensus is that the WaffenSS was never really part of the regular army, even though formal tactical command appears to have been given on mobilization to the HC. By bringing this example in your sarcasm, you are comparing the sadist authors like Kipling to the "good German army" and laying all the "atrocities" at the door of the "bad waffenSS" types like Rex Dyer? And you are claiming that you are not any part of any whitewashing? The separation of the "good German army" forced to do bad things, and all blame on the waffenSS is a very old phenomenon and strategy.

None of your examples fit in case of Kipling, because he did openly come out in support of Dyer's atrocity. And if you take time to remember the verse in dispute, well, maybe, just maybe you will change your opinion.

Did you ever point out the imperialist dogma and degrading model sought to be imposed in the last few lines of the "east is east" verse to anyone else - at school, at home or your next generation - while showing your delight in the "verse" and the pure literary joy of the verse? I do find much greater anger, and a much quicker response against any direct criticism of English literature as text that pushes for acceptance of British/white/Christian supremacy - from supposedly extremely aware Indians - than they are in exposing or pointing out these "insidious" stuff to others in the appreciation societies.
If I did point this out, what do you or don't you know about it? Besides which are you the self appointed of Indian nationalism on the internet? I find your assumptions about folks you don't even know, amusing. Especially since you have parked yourself in the very midst of the western imperialists and are happily eating off of them. Two can play at this game.

Oh, this is not playing a game at all! Even if I am eating "off" imperialists [unfortunately for you I am not parked in an ex-imperialist country!] at least I am eating off them and thereby reducing their ill-gotten wealth, while if you are not parked among imperialists and still acting eager at the leash to defend the image and reputation of long gone masters - then you are eating off non-imperialists to whitewash imperialists!

Second, if you do find much greater anger from Indians that question criticism of English literature & its contribution to western hegemony, do something about it. Like I said, create a site, not some amateur blog, and be prepared to spend some serious effort combating this perception. Otherwise, you lack any locus standi to jump down other folks throats for not being very caught up with combating "western hegemony"...hard for the rest of us, to worry about all that when India's own issues take precedence.

Ah! so a site is professional and a blog is amateur? news for lots of professional folks having professional blogs! or is it a learned behaviour from imperialists about subtly associating hierarchies and denigrations in status by the mere turn of words? I am not a professional literary critique, or even a writer of fiction even if my first literary work will come out soon. If you care to be honest about it, surely you know that there are a whole lot of people from within the English literary circle who crtique the colonial/oreintalist subtext of the authors concerned, and yes they do have their own professional spheres where they talk and write about it. If I have time in about 5 years time, yes, I will try to do my own small bits about it. Meanwhile, since you are keen on it - why dont you make a start?

As it happens, I found both Blyton and Lovecroft, rather poor literature.
Sure you did. But thats your opinion. Didn't see any books with "Brihaspati" or "Jupiter" or "Gas Giant" in any book store yet. If I do, and see huge debates about it, I might be willing to take your opinions on what constitute good literature (or not) under advisement...

By that same logic, none of your brilliant literature need be liked by me either. So far I don't remember trying to drag in "Karan M" or "Mkaran" or any of its possible mutations in half a dozen Indian languages in my posts. Or is this sort of personal name-calling also something you picked up from your admired icons?

Again a matter of opinion, and compares nowhere in the genre with Bester, or a Card, or Zamyatin, or Haldeman - if you are looking at scifi in the backdrop of a militarized state.
Gee, how educative...I quote one example...and you have to "one-up". Is that supposed to be impressive? Are we going to be comparing Nebula awards next.

Besides which your opinion is equally countered by those who enjoyed Heinlein (or were repulsed by it).

Oh, sorry, my bad! It didnt occur to me that you were dropping his name to show off in the first place! I didnt see it as one-upmanship, but you would of course if that was your original motivation. Apologies for hurting your showmanship.

Conan is supposed to have popularized the sword & sandal genre. Again, an American - the author died young. If you read his books, its often a simplistic paean to some pagan glorious western culture, but he did make an occasional effort to research about other non western cultures (Khitai = China, Vindhyas = India and so forth).

Conan is an epitome of enjoyable literature for you? Of course, its a matter of personal taste.
LOL - did I say Conan was enjoyable anywhere above? You seem to have serious issues with reading comprehension - talk about being defensive, and trying to score points where none exist! Read it again "Conan is supposed to have popularized the sword & sandal genre."...and "If you read his books, its often a simplistic paean to some pagan glorious western culture".

I did not realize that you were wandering off from the topic - which was about English literature being immensely enjoyable regardless of any subtext of imperialism. I should not have assumed that this was a continuation of examples to illustrate your claims about imperialism-enjoyable-literature. Accusing others rampantly of non-"Comprehension" + use of ellipsis - you are not any reincarnation of the lor dof the moon, are you?

This is supposed to be me finding it enjoyable!
As regards personal taste, I am sure none here can compare with your glorious personal taste, with what it must have traversed, but then again, who's trying.

Sure, it will be impossible to bridge the gap between your tastes and mine, especially if you find Conan a quotable illustration of your thesis.

No one is asking to be isolated [there goes the subliminal message again - if you are not appreciating and enjoying what English literature dishes out - you are in a hencoop]. What I responded to - was the prompt putting up of the "good English heart" behind an author otherwise openly and viciously imperialist and racist in his texts, and whose that particular side was simply being highlighted by a poster.
My goodness, subliminal messages now! My, my - the powers that I have. Corrupting the innocents of BRF, all decked up in my regulation Clive era uniform.

Lets see - so we are communicating in a language, invented by the openly and viciously imperialist Brits, but that doesn't bother you. But it does bother you if someone points out the common sense fact that given that we know the language its up to each person to see what literary works were written in it & enjoy them as need be. Seriously...the irony in your own position is lost to you.

Great logical thinking. By that logic, since Pakistan is a reality, and we have to deal with Pakistanis, in international processes in ways that remain the only channels available to engage - we have to enjoy that engagement, or see what enjoyment we can derive from such engagements. Perhaps even forget what forces created this Pakistan, and the fact that those forces are very much alive and kicking and will repeat the process again whenever opportune. Maybe, by analogy, we must learn to appreciate the brilliance shown by various authors of Paki moves within that sphere of engagement - and separate it out from Paki atrocity, or the original creators of this situation behind the Pakis that force us to enage the Pakis in this way.

English has become a means of communication and engagement between Indians from now drifted apart Indic language threads, but that does not imply that we have to forget the very role of English in sharpening that drift. Or the imperialist project behind that very supremacy of English. You see irony where I see shame and a tragedy. That is the difference between you and me.

Seriously, its ok to have a bee in your bonnet - everyone does, as you quite ably demonstrated by taking the Noor Inayat Khan angle OT (I wonder how viciously imperialist and racist that girl was, as she was being tortured to death), but dear sir, when you abrogate yourself the privilege of all that is good & proper....sorry, you aren't going to convince everyone else.

No, no need to convince anyone. Just pointed out my objection to the whitewashing.

One cannot help sensing a sense of identification with the British, a subconscious sympathy for and acceptance of the totality of the identity - helped along by the supposedly brilliant literary flourish.
LOL, at both your chutzpah & amateur pisko-babble. So one doesn't agree with your histrionics regarding a bunch of dead Brit authors - some of whom (ouch!) were pretty good at writing (if not much else) & one automatically has "sense of identification with the British".

Dear sir - spare me your psycho babble - please. Most folks here (and elsewhere) were countering the Brits quite effectively without having self proclaimed experts like you arrive, with your oh so developed literary taste & gilt edged nationalist credentials (cough, cough). We'll get by without you as well..

Well, your kind of appreciation of colonialist literature, is getting rarer now too. We already get by without you and your appreciation too.

If folks are serious about this - start a website - not a blog, about deconstructing British authors of the Raj, pointing out the more obvious racist swipes & such like. Thats useful.

People who read these books & miss the subcontext may be helped. People on this website though, are unlikely to be at that level. We crossed that bridge a long time back. We can read Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes and appreciate it, while rolling our eyes at some of his fantastical rubbish about the Lost World (masala fantasy at its worst). Bottomline - there's no standard appreciation society here, if that's what you are worried about.

I am not worried. Thankfully - a large number of Indians do miss out - out of necessity, the so-called literary brilliance of the English. Those who are so confident of having crossed the bridge, might be the most vulnerable actually. Those odd pieces of biographical information, or the logic of forgiving an inherently genocidal ideological bias because of literary brilliance - pave the way for softening resistance. That appreciation of literature for literature's sake, often covers for an acceptance of the values and perceptions of the admired sources.
LOL - so lets see here. A practical call to arms re the website? Ignored. Too much effort, and too much work clearly. Better to sit and engage in idle banter & crocodile tear coated worries about "the confidence of those who crossed the bridge".

Tell you what dear Brihaspati, you can save our souls, once you cross the bridge by doing something practical about it...like actually proceeding on some practical lines, as versus sitting in UK stan or Amreeka stan...and covering your guilt about us poor, at danger Indoos, by solemnly warning us.

Oh you mean a superior "site" and not a lowly "blog"? As I said, wrong guesses about whom I eat off.

And, yes plenty more qualified and professional people already do so in their literary circles - maybe your kind doesnt like to explore critiques of your imperialist brilliant literary icons? I am much lower in the pecking order! [you are fond of hierarchies arent you, with your superior "sites" compared to lowly "amateur blogs"!]

And regards "odd pieces of biographical information" - dear sir, I couldn't in any way, compare with you. You, in your own words, are literally a renaissance man. Need one quote your own snippets to you?

There is no literary "renaissance" period as far as I know - they seem to simply dub stages characterized by styles, focus etc.

By the way - there has been a lot of work on how the very sense of literary appreciation is constructed, by early or educational conditioning. If you write out the texts you "appreciate", and note where you first encountered them - through whom and in what environment, you will see a pattern of selection, often guided by your school, adult opinion, and so-called "peer reco", which agin takes its cues from other selectors.
Actually, very little about my "literary appreciation" (seems overly formal for something as simple as liking a few works/books) is guided by anything formal.

Still, if you care, simply write down the books names against where, and through whom you came across them - it might show up some interesting patterns.

I rarely hear appreciations of Quincey's confessions of an English opium eater, for example, or the peculiar ref to India in Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover, or George Ade's stories of benevolent assimilation, or Howard Crosby's Swords and plowshares, or Dean Howell's between the dark and the daylight. PS : forgot to add Steinbeck and Grapes of wrath, or even Cranes careful explorations in the red badge of courage. How about Jean Rhys?
Perhaps because some of these books were not to one's own tastes for instance! Lady Chatterley's lover was a particular favorite for some folks in earlier days, I doubt they particularly cared about the intellectual claims of having read it....but their aims were very different. I believe they got by with other "substitutes" later.

Seriously, overanalysis....is all very good, but no wonder you are jumping at shadows.

LCL contains little ahem ahem, just one or two pages - compared to what was available otherwise. There is a connection to BIA and India though and war and its consequences.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 25 Oct 2012 08:14

B ji, a factual correction -

Neither of Alfred Bester's two (most successful and well known) books - The Demolished Man, The Stars My Destination - is military SF.

A big thumbs-up to Joe Haldeman's Forever War (Forever Peace is not bad) - is (IMHO) one of the best mil SF. John Scalzy's Old Man's War is also very good. One British writer who is enormously impressive is Iain M. Banks - not quite mil SF but close. Ian McDonald has got a lot of attention lately. Even though I have The River of Gods sitting on my shelf, I haven't read any of his books after reading a review. He seems to be a totally confused soul who writes with an Indian setting, but looks like he makes sweeping generalizations (aka stereotyping) with f**k all knowledge about India.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 25 Oct 2012 08:45

I think the visceral reaction to Noor Inayat Khan on the forum was partly because she is a muslim. I mean there have been Indian officers who served the British Army (on a Kings Commission no less) - Field Marshall Cariappa for instance. He served the major part of his career in the British Army (and only around 5 years with the Indian Army) - fighting their wars, so to say.
Amar Jawan Jyoti / India Gate also has engravings of name of Indian soldiers fighting for a british cause against the non-imperialistic Germany (snigger snigger).
Have never seen any one on BRF suggesting that Cariappa be considered Wajib ul Cuttle or that India Gate should be blown up.
The fact is that all these people were warriors in their own rights and Indians - they should be honoured IMO.

jambudvipa · Post by **jambudvipa** » 25 Oct 2012 09:26

arnab wrote:I think the visceral reaction to Noor Inayat Khan on the forum was partly because she is a muslim. I mean there have been Indian officers who served the British Army (on a Kings Commission no less) - Field Marshall Cariappa for instance. He served the major part of his career in the British Army (and only around 5 years with the Indian Army) - fighting their wars, so to say.
Amar Jawan Jyoti / India Gate also has engravings of name of Indian soldiers fighting for a british cause against the non-imperialistic Germany (snigger snigger).
Have never seen any one on BRF suggesting that Cariappa be considered Wajib ul Cuttle or that India Gate should be blown up.
The fact is that all these people were warriors in their own rights and Indians - they should be honoured IMO.

I was waiting for this one.If nothing works then the usual scream of discrimination as he/she is a muslim!

The UK thread brings out all the inferiority complexes Indians have vis a vis whites.The most ferocious defenders of the Brits are actually our own brown sepoys.

What had Noor INayat to do with India?Brihaspati ji clearly outline his reasons.

Cariappa fought for India post independence as well.As I said before if you have the mental capability why dont you propose a memorial in UK to the 90 million odd dead Indians?

Karan M why do you want a website ? a case of peer ( pear/orange/apple) review disease? whats wrong with blogs? are you going to fork out money to set up that website? typical useless talk.Do nothing,expect everything else to be done by others.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 25 Oct 2012 09:55

jambudvipa wrote:
I was waiting for this one.If nothing works then the usual scream of discrimination as he/she is a muslim!

The UK thread brings out all the inferiority complexes Indians have vis a vis whites.The most ferocious defenders of the Brits are actually our own brown sepoys.

What had Noor INayat to do with India?Brihaspati ji clearly outline his reasons.

Cariappa fought for India post independence as well.As I said before if you have the mental capability why dont you propose a memorial in UK to the 90 million odd dead Indians?

Karan M why do you want a website ? a case of peer ( pear/orange/apple) review disease? whats wrong with blogs? are you going to fork out money to set up that website? typical useless talk.Do nothing,expect everything else to be done by others.

Umm - Noor Inayat was 28 years old when she died, apart from Alexander not many have achieved anything significant at that age and lived to talk about it. Perhaps if she had lived to Cariappa's age she might have contributed too? who knows? The point is she was fighting for a cause she believed in at an age when you were probably still living with mummy and daddy.

similarly there was a point of time when soldiers like Cariappa and Manekshaw were on the opposite side of someone like Netaji Subhash Bose (metaphorically speaking). So does that make their contribution any less?

Saar those 90 million (whatever) were also killed using Indian tools. In Jallianwallah bagh the bullets were fired by Gurkha soldiers - so do you permanently consign them to the role of traitorous collaborators?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 25 Oct 2012 14:07

and the insecurities keep flowing...

Cariappa, Manekshaw, Netaji fought for India. Let for those who that woman fought appreciate her. She is absolute nothing and even more nothing for India.

PS: Those soldiers who did in Jallianwala bagh are traitors for me.

Again, why do "westernised" Indians have so much insecurity that they want to carry all the burdens in the world other than Indian. Why are people so afraid of being western politically incorrect, that they fail to notice that they are rubbing India to the ground.

"duniya ka theka baap ka maal thodi hain?" - Is the world's burden some ancestral wealth?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Oct 2012 14:26

^^^

Nothing we say is going to change them. They are mentally tuned to accept only those facts that do not cast a shadow on the white heritage. Rajiv Malhotra stated that it was difficult for him to convince Indians but when whites said the same stuff, they were applauded. Taking his insight, I am using a gora's work to state my points.

Rule of Darkness: British Literature and Imperialism, 1830-1914 Pg 80

Here is the typical circular pattern of racist thought. Clive's great faults are projected onto Indians, whose supposely perfidious nature is then used to excuse those faults in Clive.

We are seeing this happening as British faults are projected onto Indians who excuse those faults in British using excuses like "imperialism," "era," and "Indian weakness." The Islamics use the same excuse to brand hindus as barbaric since hindus don't brand them as such.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Oct 2012 14:28

nakul wrote:<SNIP>We are seeing this happening as British faults are projected onto Indians who excuse those faults in British using concepts like "imperialism."

Can you point out in this entire exchange of posts where the British faults have been projected onto Indians by those who disagree with your POV?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Oct 2012 14:30

I have no intention of answering the question "WHo is Sita?"

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Oct 2012 14:39

nakul wrote:I have no intention of answering the question "WHo is Sita?"

That is because in this case, there is no Sita but you are hell bent on creating one.

The passage you quoted was simply because that is all you could come up with in your desire to somehow show the other person as incorrect and label him/her as 'this' or 'that'. Your entire series of posts on the subject are utterly useless and complete waste of bandwidth. All you can do is write posts which amount to nothing and argue like a 10 year old.

Go back, read something and write something useful. And not for the heck of it.

jambudvipa · Post by **jambudvipa** » 25 Oct 2012 14:40

jambudvipa wrote: Saar those 90 million (whatever) were also killed using Indian tools. In Jallianwallah bagh the bullets were fired by Gurkha soldiers - so do you permanently consign them to the role of traitorous collaborators?

FYI 90 million Indians killed in the british made carange is not "whatever"! That line alone says a lot about the typical mindset where one Noor (who had nothing to do for India) is treated a greater than millions of our dead compatriots!

Yes for me anyone who lifted arms against unarmed Indians is a traitor...no more no less.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 25 Oct 2012 14:41

dont attack the brits. whoever does so is childish, immature etc

Ad hominem. That's all you can come up with. The Brits did their work well. They left in 1947 and we are still seeing their defenders in 2012. Whatever. You are entitled to your views.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Oct 2012 14:46

Culling is imminent. Guys, learn to effing tolerate other points of view and debate without name calling and labelling. If not examples will be set.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 25 Oct 2012 18:17

Arnab ji,

your sense of history is very jarring. "no 28 year old has done anything significant at that age" !!!

are you serious?! there are so many examples I could give you but I'll limit myself to the famous ones. what was Shivaji doing at that age? he had already conquered forts and even gave a bloody nose to Bijapur and was expanding both North to Gujarat border and South to karnataka border from his home base on Raigarh. he had personally led countless battles by then already....what nonsense is that about Alexander being the only one?!?!

forget 28 years olds, Madhava Rao became a Peshwa at the age of 16 and immediately started leading Maratha armies against powerful enemies all over India. he died at age 27, and in a matter of 11 years, he restored Marathas to supremacy in India, after the disastrous Panipat experience. at age 28, Bajirao had already become a menace to the Mughals, expanded Maratha field of action from Maharashtra west coast to Karnataka, Andhra, Gujarat, Malwa, Bundelkhand, and other Central Territories, and would soon get to Delhi to make Mughals his puppets.

men like Bhagat Singh ignited an entire country at age 23 and still remembered today, and you want to talk about "No one but Alexander doing anything great at the age of 28"?!?!

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 25 Oct 2012 18:40

Unusual Union Jack seen in London

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 25 Oct 2012 19:15

devesh wrote:Arnab ji,

your sense of history is very jarring. "no 28 year old has done anything significant at that age" !!!

are you serious?! there are so many examples I could give you but I'll limit myself to the famous ones. what was Shivaji doing at that age? he had already conquered forts and even gave a bloody nose to Bijapur and was expanding both North to Gujarat border and South to karnataka border from his home base on Raigarh. he had personally led countless battles by then already....what nonsense is that about Alexander being the only one?!?!

forget 28 years olds, Madhava Rao became a Peshwa at the age of 16 and immediately started leading Maratha armies against powerful enemies all over India. he died at age 27, and in a matter of 11 years, he restored Marathas to supremacy in India, after the disastrous Panipat experience. at age 28, Bajirao had already become a menace to the Mughals, expanded Maratha field of action from Maharashtra west coast to Karnataka, Andhra, Gujarat, Malwa, Bundelkhand, and other Central Territories, and would soon get to Delhi to make Mughals his puppets.

men like Bhagat Singh ignited an entire country at age 23 and still remembered today, and you want to talk about "No one but Alexander doing anything great at the age of 28"?!?!

How come you didn't name any Muslims, OMG you are discriminating against them. I know it because I am telepathic, my socialism gives me such powers that ordinary mortals don't have.

Many of the men who played a prominent role in Meiji restoration and are considered as national heroes in Japan had already achieved much by that age. Examples include Yoshida Shoin, Kido Takayoshi, Takasugi Shinsaku to name a few.

Madan Lal Dhingra was 26 when he was executed but I suppose he never did anything of significance either.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 26 Oct 2012 00:12

beeebeeeceeee in trouble with child abuse scandal of jimmy saville.
hope sdres fight over this.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 26 Oct 2012 01:04

^

Saville hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread because he didn't molest Muslims.
Racist hindutwawaadi Bharat Rakshak forum..Jeehaaaaaaaaaaaad, lal Salaaaaaaaaaaaaaam.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 26 Oct 2012 01:35

British gang of Muslims waging war in Syria 'pose threat to UK'

Security chiefs estimate that there are just over 50 Britons in Syria fighting to bring down President Assad

The man, who is his 20s and believed to be from a Bangladeshi family, is regarded as a high-ranking officer in an international group of terrorists devoted to bringing down the regime, the Times reported.

The gang are believed to be young Muslim males, mostly of Asian origin but with a number from North African backgrounds and some being white or Afro-Caribbean Islamic converts.

Security sources told the newspaper that authorities were concerned about the domestic threat emerging from Syria than they were about the conflict in Libya last year.

In comparison most of the “British fighters” who fought to overthrow Col Muammar Gaddafi were Libyan exiles.

Most of them live in the Manchester area and are said to be have been motivated by patriotism rather than an ideological jihad.

Scotland Yard has not commented on the claims.

matter of time before ropers sh!t hit the fan big time.
well deserved.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Oct 2012 01:45

devesh wrote:Arnab ji,

your sense of history is very jarring. "no 28 year old has done anything significant at that age" !!!

are you serious?! there are so many examples I could give you but I'll limit myself to the famous ones. what was Shivaji doing at that age? he had already conquered forts and even gave a bloody nose to Bijapur and was expanding both North to forget 28 years olds, Madhava Rao became a Peshwa at the age of 16 and immediately started leading Maratha armies against powerful enemies all over India. he died at age 27, and in a matter of 11 years, he restored Marathas to supremacy in India, after the disastrous Panipat experience. at age 28, Bajirao had already become a menace to the Mughals, expanded Maratha field of action from Maharashtra west coast to Karnataka, Andhra, Gujarat, Malwa, Bundelkhand, and other Central Territories, and would soon get to Delhi to make Mughals his puppets.
men like Bhagat Singh ignited an entire country at age 23 and still remembered today, and you want to talk about "No one but Alexander doing anything great at the age of 28"?!?!

Alexander was Gora Dev ,Secular Bhagat and known for doing genocide. All the people you mentioned were Safforn fundamentalits out to misguide Indians.
Madan Lal Dhingra was 26 when he shook the whole Britain : Birtish Cabinet could not sleep . Churchil was Chirping no more when they told him about the sheer calmnes of Dhingra in facing death . This is what he said .

3. "As a Hindu I felt that a wrong done to my country is an insult to God. Her cause is the cause of Sri Ram! Her services are the services of Sri Krishna! Poor in health and intellect, a son like myself has nothing else to offer to the Mother but his own blood and so I have sacrificed the same on her altar.
4. "The only lesson required in India at present is to learn how to die and the only way to teach it, is by dying ourselves. Therefore I die and glory in my martyrdom! This war of Independence will continue between India and England, so long as the Hindu and the English races last (if the present unnatural relation does not cease!)
5. "My only prayer to God is: May I be reborn of the same Mother and may I redie in the same sacred cause, till the cause is successful and she stands free for the good of humanity and the glory of God!"

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 26 Oct 2012 03:09

British engineers produce amazing 'petrol from air' technology

Revolutionary new technology that produces “petrol from air” is being produced by a British firm, it emerged tonight.

Experts tonight hailed the astonishing breakthrough as a potential “game-changer” in the battle against climate change and a saviour for the world’s energy crisis.

The technology, presented to a London engineering conference this week, removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide.

Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.

what is this-- can anyone decipher this.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Oct 2012 03:24

krisna wrote:British engineers produce amazing 'petrol from air' technology
Revolutionary new technology that produces “petrol from air” is being produced by a British firm, it emerged tonight.

Experts tonight hailed the astonishing breakthrough as a potential “game-changer” in the battle against climate change and a saviour for the world’s energy crisis.

The technology, presented to a London engineering conference this week, removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide.

Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.
what is this-- can anyone decipher this.

Caustic soda is a good scrubber of CO2 from air. Now petrol from gassified/"liquefied" coal/carbon is a very old thing, first successfully run by the Germans before 1923 I think. Thre are quite a few improvements and plants based on them now. So electrolysis is used to get H2 in their case - but that needs energy too. This will make sense only if less energy is used to make a product that gives more energy than it needs to operate, and the value of the product is so high that it compensates for all the input costs. At this stage seems closer to the Paki djinn trapper unlimited energy source. I could be wrong.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 26 Oct 2012 04:00

devesh wrote:Arnab ji,

your sense of history is very jarring. "no 28 year old has done anything significant at that age" !!!

are you serious?! there are so many examples I could give you but I'll limit myself to the famous ones. what was Shivaji doing at that age? he had already conquered forts and even gave a bloody nose to Bijapur and was expanding both North to Gujarat border and South to karnataka border from his home base on Raigarh. he had personally led countless battles by then already....what nonsense is that about Alexander being the only one?!?!

forget 28 years olds, Madhava Rao became a Peshwa at the age of 16 and immediately started leading Maratha armies against powerful enemies all over India. he died at age 27, and in a matter of 11 years, he restored Marathas to supremacy in India, after the disastrous Panipat experience. at age 28, Bajirao had already become a menace to the Mughals, expanded Maratha field of action from Maharashtra west coast to Karnataka, Andhra, Gujarat, Malwa, Bundelkhand, and other Central Territories, and would soon get to Delhi to make Mughals his puppets.

men like Bhagat Singh ignited an entire country at age 23 and still remembered today, and you want to talk about "No one but Alexander doing anything great at the age of 28"?!?!

Thank you for the history lesson Devesh ji

despite going off on a tangent on perhaps the least important line in my post. I'm sure if you trawl through history you will find many such heroes. However they would mostly be 'local' heroes (not that it dimnishes their heroism in any way). My use of Alexander was more as a point of contrast.

As usual the difficult questions of who amongst Cariappa, Manekshaw and Bose are heroes? is responded by the usual hand waving - 'they are all Indian heroes because they fought for India' - guess what when Bose was fighting for India Cariappa and Manekshaw were fighting for the Brits! Maybe if more trained Indian officers had joined the INA and fought for India's cause - perhaps India's history could have been different? The forum's favourite bugbear the "dienasty" may never would have had the chance to rule India.

similarly these British trained officers and soldiers were the ones who rescued and held on to fledgling Indian territories in 1947 (and not by reading annals of Chola or Maurya military history).

Similarly the 'traitorous Gurkhas' of Jallianwallah Bagh have been at the forefront of India's defence (even Manekshaw will attest to that).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Oct 2012 04:12

devesh ji,
you must acknowledge the continuing protective and beneficial role of the British who trained all those who have defended India even when they supposedly do no longer rule India. Even when they have "left" they are still guarding us and ensuring our safety.

History is very bad, it should not be quoted as having any effect on subsequent events. One exception : except of course if it helps to show how the past-historical role of the British in training the Indian army, alone subsequently saved us.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Oct 2012 04:19

How should we characterize the Naval uprising navy personnel? Who were not treated as patriots of course - by the independent nation. One can be very devoted to a regime or a state. One can be very devoted to a nation. Sometimes it becomes very hard to distinguish between the two. When loyalties are ardently switched between two supposedly antagonistic states, those loyalties can get hightened in their manifestation. Both before and after the switch.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 26 Oct 2012 04:20

Context ji context

If one argues that Noor Inayat Khan an Indian muslim should not be recognised as a hero because she fought (and died at the age of 28) to preserve the british empire - the one which killed 90 million indians; then one must also argue that there were many Indian heroes who loyally served the empire in its heydays.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Oct 2012 04:28

No need to assume I am contradicting you.

my position has been clear on this for a long time, and we exchanged on this before too. People switched their formal loyalties like changing old clothes. Previously they might have justified it by detaching from and raising loyalty above any concept of "nationhood". "Oath" - the concept so important for a foreign ruler to insist as superior to identification with ones birth culture and identity - was paramount. The "oath" could also be the smooth road to switch.

Question: if in the future, a new foreign regime invades and becomes the formal ruler of India by right of conquest - and becomes legitimate authority as recognized by international bodies say : and the Indian army takes a new oath to this new state led by a foreign regime, will the "oath" excuse be justified too?

But from a pragmatic viewpoint, I agree - there is great tactical value in having very loyal servants to the ex-ruler switching allegiance to a new ruler. They could be most valuable in their eagerness.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Oct 2012 04:33

The Indians in the BIA helped the British invaders to disarm and demilitarize the native population - especially demilitarize in a way that would prevent any independent militancy that is not kowtowing to the British authority. The best proof of loyalty and patriotism would have been if after "obtaining the military modernization" [the logic given for collaboration] skills, the Indians of the BIA had risen against the British and defeated them in a war of national liberation. It did not happen, so the jury has to be out.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 26 Oct 2012 05:26

varunkumar wrote:
g.sarkar wrote:I do not need to defend him, and I am not defending him.

g.sarkar wrote:In defence of Sir Conan Doyle I can say that in spite of his inherent racism, he did help to clear the name of Edalji who was half Indian.

Well, in the above, you came out in his defence even if you "don't need to defend him."

His name was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I call him just that.
?
Really? Is the full name of Lata Mangeshkar "Bharat Ratan Lata Mangeshkar"? How many Goras prefix "Bharat Ratan" in front of APJ Abdul Kalam's name while writing about him?

Saarji,

more interesting point is that Conan Doyle believed it was his political activity(defense of imperialism) that secured for him 'knighthood'(and the title 'sir'), not his literary activity.

Following the Boer War in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century and the condemnation from around the world over the United Kingdom's conduct, Conan Doyle wrote a short pamphlet titled The War in South Africa: Its Cause and Conduct, which justified the UK's role in the Boer War and was widely translated. Doyle had served as a volunteer doctor in the Langman Field Hospital at Bloemfontein between March and June 1900.[25]

Conan Doyle believed it was this pamphlet that resulted in his being knighted in 1902 and appointed Deputy-Lieutenant of Surrey. Also in 1900 he wrote the longer book, The Great Boer War.

So, given this background, the question definitely rises whether non-brits(particularly those at the receiving end of imperialism and colonialism) should use these brit honorific titles?!

If the victims of imperialism and colonialism protest against glorification of people who celebrated imperialism and colonialism, what is wrong?!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 26 Oct 2012 09:38

arnab wrote:
Thank you for the history lesson Devesh ji despite going off on a tangent on perhaps the least important line in my post. I'm sure if you trawl through history you will find many such heroes. However they would mostly be 'local' heroes (not that it dimnishes their heroism in any way). My use of Alexander was more as a point of contrast.

As usual the difficult questions of who amongst Cariappa, Manekshaw and Bose are heroes? is responded by the usual hand waving - 'they are all Indian heroes because they fought for India' - guess what when Bose was fighting for India Cariappa and Manekshaw were fighting for the Brits! Maybe if more trained Indian officers had joined the INA and fought for India's cause - perhaps India's history could have been different? The forum's favourite bugbear the "dienasty" may never would have had the chance to rule India.

similarly these British trained officers and soldiers were the ones who rescued and held on to fledgling Indian territories in 1947 (and not by reading annals of Chola or Maurya military history).

Similarly the 'traitorous Gurkhas' of Jallianwallah Bagh have been at the forefront of India's defence (even Manekshaw will attest to that).

Madhava Rao and Baji Rao were "local heroes"?!?! the geographic area of their field of action is equivalent to Europe, excluding the British Isles and Slavic Europe. so Germany+France+Italy+Spain+small countries squished in between these 4. in Europe, those who came even close to conquering all that area were named either "conquerors" or "tyrants". they were considered "great Empires".

the area conquered by Salahaddin, considered a "great conqueror", is about ONE-THIRD the area of what Baji Rao and Madhava Rao traversed.

when you say "traitorous Gurkhas of Jallianwala Bagh", you are branding the entire Gurkha community with the blame for the massacre. don't you see the inherent contradiction here? in your haste to defend the master race, you are making logical leaps which are hard to reasonably justify. why brand the "Gurkhas"? brand the soldiers who specifically carried out the massacre. the objective is to prevent such actions in the future. the idea is to use negative reinforcement mechanism to strongly buttress the notion that crimes such as those will not go unpunished. either in the form of overt violence or more subtle ostracizing, the perpetrators of such crimes will pay for their deeds. why is there a problem with that?

Since Cariappa and Manekshaw later also served in defending free India, they at least partially acquitted themselves of past crimes. your consistent insistence on "appreciating the British" is unjustifiable. as a nation aspiring for freedom, and having experienced the taste of the particular Brit imperialism, it is not unjustified of us to seek this "differentiation" between the "Indic" and the "British". those actors who participated in defense of Britain primarily as a mark of respect for the Brits with Indian interests far from their minds, should not be made a big deal of, at least where it concerns India.

Cariappa and Manekshaw, therefore, are completely different from Noor Inayat Khan. the former 2 were capable of thinking of Indian interests, and also fighting for those interests even after their former trainers were no longer their superiors. the same cannot be said with any amount of clarity for Noor Inayat Khan. there is no evidence that she ever went to any extant beyond mere lip-service in acting on behalf of Indian interests. whatever her personal courage, it should be respected, but in the broader and more significant issue of how Noor is relevant to Indian discussion, she has absolutely no place. Certainly not in the same line as Manekshaw and Cariappa, and most certainly not with Bose.

the fact that you make that comparison shows that the Brit association of these characters is what you value the most, and that underlying "association" is the common denominator which you consider a sign of "greatness" and "importance". this curious unwillingness to go beyond the "Brit association" and actually probe the similarities and differences of these persons is very starkly on display here.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 26 Oct 2012 09:46

brihaspati wrote:devesh ji,
you must acknowledge the continuing protective and beneficial role of the British who trained all those who have defended India even when they supposedly do no longer rule India. Even when they have "left" they are still guarding us and ensuring our safety.

yes, the only focus seems to be on the "Brit association" as a common denominator. all other life experiences of the individuals and actions and thoughts throughout their long lives are consigned to the dustbin. the only aspect worthy of study is the "British service". as long as that common denominator exists, all else is moot point, and they begin their study from that point and end it at that point. all done, neatly wrapped up, and "problem solved"....the comparison of Noor Khan with Manekshaw and Cariappa when clearly the former has done nothing for India on the later persons' level, should clearly indicate the focus.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Oct 2012 10:25

But Did not British gave India its unity and identity? Making Britain a focal point and genuine creteria of defining Indians, India and its Interests is but a natural development among the Intelligentia. Inayat helped India by helping Britain. IMHO, she should be nominated for Bharat Ratna or Padam Vibushan for her services and children should be taught about her courage and dedication to Britain.Whole India need to know about her.She can be an inspiration to many children ready to serve Britain with similar committment.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 26 Oct 2012 12:58

another muslim hater, eid mubarak to u