Indo-UK: News & Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4129
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby pgbhat » 31 Dec 2009 00:48

Winners and losers of the decade: The global edition
The Losers
.......
The British Government (Lifetime Achievement Award): Well, let's book at the worst problems the world has faced during the past decade -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel-Palestine...what do these diverse countries have in common? They were all cooked up or stirred up by those fertile minds at the British Foreign Office and their colleagues elsewhere up and down Whitehall, either as they were dismantling their empire or fiddling with the region after one war or another. Thanks guys for your creativity...and for the foresight you showed by actually bequeathing your handwork to yet another remnant of your empire as you shuffled off the world stage so you could focus on counterbalancing your past contributions to global culture by producing Simon Cowell and the likes of Susan Boyle.

:rotfl:

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Hitesh » 31 Dec 2009 01:17

Bart,

Don't forget how the British treated the defeated in the aftermath of 1857 Indian Rebellion. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Indians, the most famous example of tying the prisoners to the cannons and blowing them into smithereens.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4539
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby sanjaykumar » 31 Dec 2009 01:27

UK Abdul did not seem to have benefited from a psychiatric evaluation. He does seem to have ebeen a character.

If indeed he was mentally ill and duped into carrying a bag of heroin into Chinese occupied Estern Turkestan, it is barbaric to have sentened him to death. (ie treated him as the Chinese treat each other).

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 31 Dec 2009 02:02

shaikh's execution is a message ofcourse, but one wonders if the chinese would have been so keen and swift if he had been a gora?

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2492
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Jarita » 31 Dec 2009 07:10

^^^^ That was first thing I thought. The west would have tried harder too

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Karan Dixit » 31 Dec 2009 07:35

Life of a Muslim or any other colored man means nothing to British elites. Britain did not make any sincere attempt to save the life of the Muslim man who was brutally executed by China. This explains why many Muslims harbor resentment towards Britain.

---

On a separate note, first Chinese then Iranian and now Somalis:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21930849/


Somali pirates seize UK tanker

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 31 Dec 2009 11:58

There is a reason that Bharat Rakshak is in English. The beneficial effects of common language, common rule of laws and civil service cannot be denied, though all of the above were accidental benefits.


BR is in English - boon or bane?

While the Indian census has not actually counted the numbers, English speakers in India is estimated to be in the range 9% of her total population (100 million) to 33% of her population (350 million speakers). The most conservative estimate is 9% or well over 100 million speakers.


English Teaching

750 million live in villages
40% of total population speak/read/write hindi/devnagari

100 million - sirf 10 Karod log are english users

to

350 million can 'speak' english but reading/understanding the BR is limited to very very few.


had BR been in Hindi language how deep BR would have reached?

PLEASE do not forget that the total percentage literate people in india was only 12% when brits were kicked out. People opted for studying english keeping US in mind and not as an accidental benefit.

As far as the civil laws, rules and services supposed to be the benefits of brit raj are concerned there is no denying the fact that all these rules are ineffective and useless - reflected in our daily lives. Jaago... bhai!

Moreover, from above link

The entire University education in India is in English - very similar to what you find in the USA.
= No brit influence, obviously

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 31 Dec 2009 12:08

It was Mughal point of view I was referring. They were also an imperial ruler and not native to the country. Hence that point of view cannot be a Indian point of view.


The old paintings and pictures of ruleres are anything to rely, their faces do not look like mongols/kazakhs/persians etc.

jahangir typically looks like a rajput (he was born to rajput mother perhaps) so probably shahjahan.

were these people indic by origin?

(may be OT and may kindly be shifted if appropriate to the relevant thread)

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 31 Dec 2009 12:31

I have great anger towards the British for what they have done to us but you know what? I have greater anger towards our kings, aristocracy, and leaders during the 1700s and early 1800s for allowing this to happen. That's where the most of the fault lies. Our leaders were so corrupted and so selfish that they ignored what was really happening. If a lesson has to be learned, I would rather that the lesson be about how our leaders have failed us and India in the face of the greatest threat that India had faced : the British occupiers.

Forget about repatration and return of the loot. I would rather those things stay in Britain for no other reason but to serve us a grim reminder how we can never let this happen again. Let the British keep their museums, artifacts, loots, and their "glorious" heritage as a punishment for our leaders' failings and to serve us a historical reminder that unity in the face of grave dangers and threats existing today such as Pakistan and China is imperative for the survival of the nation. One such example is the breakup of Andhra Pradesh state. I do not support it. I have a suggestion. Let us turn Victoria Memorial in Calcutta into a museum that highlights our leaders' failures, greeds, sins that allowed the British takeover as well as the crimes of the British. That would be a good use of the Victoria Memorial and will poke a black eye in the British.


Hitesh, in democratic india leaders are not brought from heaven. they are one of us. people of india produce leaders and leaders are from the societies they belong to. We cannot blame our leaders but ourselves. we produce the leaders and we are responsible.

the only way out to change leaders is to change ourselves. realize our true potential, true past and stop scoring self-goals and change will be visible.

Again referring to your post - our leaders did our best to kick the rasc**s out of this nation - successfully but paid heavy price. we ourselves and our leaders are trying to do our best but efforts are still not enough

To undo the wrong doing of previous maharajas, rajas and badshahs and some of our ill-advised leaders - the first thing in the 'to do' list is to de-colonise the mind of ourselves and educate all our future leaders.
Last edited by Murugan on 31 Dec 2009 12:50, edited 1 time in total.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby svinayak » 31 Dec 2009 12:37

Murugan wrote:
It was Mughal point of view I was referring. They were also an imperial ruler and not native to the country. Hence that point of view cannot be a Indian point of view.


The old paintings and pictures of ruleres are anything to rely, their faces do not look like mongols/kazakhs/persians etc.

jahangir typically looks like a rajput (he was born to rajput mother perhaps) so probably shahjahan.

were these people indic by origin?

(may be OT and may kindly be shifted if appropriate to the relevant thread)

It is not about the race or ethnic composition but about the ruling thought process and ruling culture.
It cannot be foriegn.

shyam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby shyam » 31 Dec 2009 14:20

^^^ Didn't they use Persian as official language, instead of any indic languages?

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 31 Dec 2009 15:53

Thats true, used persian language but here again you see indic connection to persian language

for example 979 in persian naushat haftdaha va nu in sanskrit nau shat sapta dasha va nav


Number persian sanskrit

1 - yek - ek
2 -do - dwi
4 -chahr - chaturth, hindi = chaar
5 -panj - punch
6 - shesh - shashta
7 - haft - sapta
8 - hashta - ashta
9 - noh - nav
10 - dah - dus

persian ahur mazda = sanskrit asur mahat

Word Hindu itself is actually a Persian word coined by Cyrus the great in the 6th century B.C. to describe people who lived beyond the river Indus which was the eastern boundary of the ancient Persian empire. The Persians had a phonetic problem with the letter ‘S’ hence, Sindhu became Hindu just as Rigveda’s Soma is similar to Zend Avesta’s Hoama. Kharoshti script which like Persian is written backwards i.e. from right to left millenniums ago. Persian warriors were called ratheshwars... indic connections?

or mughals were unknowingly using words having sanskrit roots in perso/arabic script which has probably dervied from kharoshthi?

more
Persian - Sanskrit/Hindi
pusht - piiTh back
baazuu - baa.nh arm
ambah - amra, aam (amb in Punjabi) mango
gaao - gau, gaay cow
paa - paad, pao.N / pair foot
dandan - danta, daa.Nt tooth

amazing? now we have to establish - which one is the most ancient, sanskrit or persian?

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 31 Dec 2009 16:22

btw, the english of UKstan is made-up of all stolen words (like everything else) from different language.

many of the words have direct connections with sanskrit dhatu (roots).

you say 'go' and the root is 'ga'
say 'come' and connection is with 'agam'
sugar = shukra
candy = khandi
palanquin = palkhi
yoke = yog (cognate)
inter = antar(-ik)
band = bandh
heart = hard (hriday, core etc)
name = naam
path = path (!!) chor logo ne pura ka pura utha liya hai
rage = raag
pre (prefix) = pra
same = samya (-ta)
saloon (large room) = shaala
centum = shatam
sweat = sved (prasved, svedan etc)
sweet = svaadu (!?!?)
vest = vast (own clothers)

... endless

chor!

(i am sure now nobody here will argue that we have been benefitted by english connection. we are using our own maal - but chori ka maal when we use anglais - englis - angrezi)

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 31 Dec 2009 16:44

sanrkrit via latin from chor log

sanskrit - latin - angrezi

Gau (meaning Cow) Bous (G) Cow
Matr (meaning Mother) Mater (L) Mother
Jan (meaning Generation) Genea (G) Gene
Aksha (meaning Axis) Axon (G) Axis
Navagatha (meaning Navigation) Navigationem (L) Navigation
Sarpa (meaning Snake) Serpentem (L) Serpent
Naas (means Nose) Nasus (L) Nose
Anamika (means Anonymous) Anonymos (G) Anonymous
Naama (means Name) Nomen (L) Name
Barbara (meaning Foreign) Barbaria (L) Barbarian
Dhama (meaning House) Domus (L) Domicile
Danta (meaning Teeth) Dentis (L) Dental
Dwar (meaning Door) Doru Door
Dasha (meaning Ten) Deca (G) Deca
Madhyam (meaning Medium) Medium (L) Medium
Kaal (meaning Time) Kalendae (L) Calendar
Kri (meaning To Do) Creatus (L) Create
Mishra (meaning Mix) Mixtus (L) Mix
Ma (meaning Me/My) Me (L) Me
Pithr (meaning Father) Pater (L) Father
Bhrathr (meaning Brother) Phrater (G) Brother
Loka (meaning Place) Locus (L) Locale
Maha (meaning Great) Magnus (L) Mega
Mala (meaning Dirt/Bad) Malus (L) Mal as in Malicious, Malnutrition, Malformed etc
Makshikaa (meaning Bee) Musca (L) (Meaning Fly) Mosquito
Na (meaning No) Ne No
Nakta (meaning Night) Nocturnalis (L) Nocturnal
Paad (meaning Foot) Pedis (L) Ped as in Pedestrial, Pedal etc
Pancha (meaning Five) Pente (G) Penta, Five
Parah (meaning Remote) Pera (G) Far
Patha (meaning Path) Pathes (G) Path
Raja / Raya (meaning King) Regalis (L) Royal
Sama (meaning Similar) Similis (L) Similar
Sapta (meaning Seven) Septum (L) Seven
Sharkara (meaning Sugar) Succarum Sugar / Sucrose
Smi (meaning Smile) Smilen (L) Smile
SthaH (meaning Situated) Stare (L) (meaning To Stand) Stay
Svaad (meaning Tasty) Suavis (L) Sweet
Tha (meaning That) Talis (L) That
Tva (meaning Thee) Dih Thee
Vachas (meaning Speech) Vocem (L) Voice
Vahaami (meaning Carry) Vehere (meaning to Carry) (L) Vehicle
Vama / Vamati (meaning Vomit) Vomere (L) Vomit
Vastr (meaning Cloth) Vestire (L) Vest
Arjuna (meaning Charm of Silver) Argentinum (L) Argentinum – Scientific Name of Silver
Nava (meaning New) Novus (L) Nova – New
Kafa (meaning Mucus) Coughen Cough
Mithya (meaning Lie) Mythos (G) Myth
Thri (meaning Three) Treis (G) Three
Mush (meaning Mouse) Mus (L) Mouse
Maragadum (meaning Emerald) Smaragdus (L) Emerald
Ghritam (meaning Ghee) ?? Ghee
Srgalah (meaning Jackal) Shagal (Persian) Jackal
Nila (meaning Dark Blue) Nilak (Persian) Lilac
Srgalah Shagal (Persian) Jackal
Man (Ma as in Malaysia) (meaning Mind) Mens (L) Mind
Upalah (meaning Precious Stone) Opalus (L) Opal
Vrihis (meaning Rice) Oriza (L) Rice
Upalah (meaning Precious Stone) Opalus (L) Opal

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 31 Dec 2009 20:02


Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2492
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Jarita » 31 Dec 2009 23:37

Biggest landowner in world is Queenie

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-th ... landowner/
Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres


Largest five personal landowners on Earh Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby putnanja » 02 Jan 2010 01:26

UK 'not sharing' Pak intel despite pact with India

...Notwithstanding a strategic partnership agreement between the two countries since 2004, an informed diplomatic source revealed that the

British government is still reluctant to share intelligence about Pakistan with Indian officials.

Not unusually, the United Kingdom's Foreign & Commonwealth Office does not comment on security issues. However, an official said off the record: ``I am sure that's not correct.'' She added: ``We work closely with India and Pakistan; and we've been quite supportive on the Mumbai terror attack, to bring to justice its perpetrators.''
...
...
Furthermore, a stereotypical remark on 'working closely with India and Pakistan' in the current climate does not go down well with the Indian government, which sees no reason why, given recent history, Britain needs to sound even-handed. South Block's view is if Whitehall's mandarins don't believe that the powers-that-be in Islamabad are a problem, then this is a matter for concern.
...
...
More to the point, a senior aide of Brown, not so long ago, specifically declined to discuss Pakistan with a fairly high-level Indian diplomat. This not only flies in the face of the strategic partnership, but arguably demonstrates a lack of trust in India.
...
The subject could also arise during national security adviser M K Narayanan's visit to London in February.
Britain generally restricts exchange of sensitive extracts to the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Regardless of much improved bilateral ties, India is not a part of this favoured group yet.
...

Sriman
BRFite
Posts: 1858
Joined: 02 Mar 2009 11:38
Location: Committee for the Promotion of Vice and the Prevention of Virtue

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Sriman » 02 Jan 2010 01:57

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/de ... dy-release

Families' fury as body of last British hostage set for release

Parents of some of the five British hostages kidnapped in Iraq have attacked the UK government's handling of the crisis, claiming they were lied to by officials during their two-and-a-half-year ordeal.


The developments follow the Guardian's revelation that Iran's Revolutionary Guard led the operation to capture Moore, a British IT consultant, and his four British bodyguards, from Iraq's finance ministry in 2007. According to Iranian and Iraqi sources, the hostages were held inside Iran. The former US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, told the BBC he was "90% certain" that the Britons had been held in Iran.


Pasdaran's involvement in Iraq is nothing new but the article has a 30 minute video report with nuggets on the Pasdaran Al Quds brigade.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23597
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Jan 2010 12:35

Considering their continued colonial mindset should we even be surprised?


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 403267.cms


UK 'not sharing' Pak intel despite pact with India
ASHIS RAY, TNN 2 January 2010, 01:21am IST

LONDON: Notwithstanding a strategic partnership agreement between the two countries since 2004, an the British government is still reluctant to share intelligence about Pakistan with Indian officials.

Not unusually, the United Kingdom's Foreign & Commonwealth Office does not comment on security issues. However, an official said off the record: ``I am sure that's not correct.'' She added: ``We work closely with India and Pakistan; and we've been quite supportive on the Mumbai terror attack, to bring to justice its perpetrators.''

The UK's solidarity on 26/11 is not in doubt. But it's equally true that British foreign secretary David Miliband rather hastily gave a clean chit to Pakistani authorities in respect of their involvement in the incident.

Furthermore, a stereotypical remark on 'working closely with India and Pakistan' in the current climate does not go down well with the Indian government, which sees no reason why, given recent history, Britain needs to sound even-handed. South Block's view is if Whitehall's mandarins don't believe that the powers-that-be in Islamabad are a problem, then this is a matter for concern.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has oft stated that 75% of all terrorist threats to Britain emanate from Pakistan. Yet, his civil servants don't appear to be on the same page.

More to the point, a senior aide of Brown, not so long ago, specifically declined to discuss Pakistan with a fairly high-level Indian diplomat. This not only flies in the face of the strategic partnership, but arguably demonstrates a lack of trust in India

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Johann » 02 Jan 2010 22:24

Rudradev wrote:So it's nonsense to argue that we're being one-dimensional about India's experience with the British. I mean, I'm sure some Jews in Germany were able to afford a Volkswagen thanks to Hitler, and even enjoyed it for a while before they were sent to the ghetto. Ask their descendants if it makes any difference.


Rudradev,

The 'one dimensional' comment was about treating 'The British' as a monolithic entity whose only interest was the impoverishment of India, while all Indians were another monolithic entity, either victims or martyrs. Reality was much messier than that.

19th century Britain was a country where liberal sentiment grew strong enough to bring about the abolishment of slavery and the African slave trade, and did so without a civil war. That same liberal sentiment demanded that British rule bring improvements to the lives of the empire's subjects. Does that justify the awful misrule that made the life of landless Indian farmers so unbearable? Not in the least. But it cant be ignored either.

The comparison to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews is an incredible one. Jews under Nazi rule lost everything - their property, their right to work, and finally their lives over the span of 9 years.

The Raj lasted 150 years and went through many phases. For all those changes the vast majority of private land ownership in India remained in Indian hands. The majority of wholesale and retail trade as well as private financing also remained in Indian hands.

The Raj was a partnership that enriched Indians in the upper and middle classes, even as it impoverished those at the bottom. That is why it lasted as long as it did. The people with capital and social power in India were rewarded for not rocking the boat.

Of course as time passed Indians at the top wanted a bigger share of political control, as well as the right to build and control modern industry, and that is when differences emerged.

The real moral greatness of Mahatma Gandhi was that he put the interests of those who suffered the most under British colonial rule first - not the middle class, or the Indian land owning or business classes, but the landless peasants who made the majority of the population.

Haven't you ever wondered why the Indian Army of WWII, the largest volunteer army in history didn't collapse when the INC passed the Quit India resolution in 1942 while the INA was calling for uprisings and defections? Why India's civil service and military-industrial base didn't grind to a halt? For all the growth in nationalist feeling, WWII was wonderful for India's middle class, land-owning and entrepreneurial classes with more positions in government open to Indians than ever before, and increased demand for commodities that land owners profited from, and more opportunities for Indian industry. Why should they force a halt to a process that was not only good for them as families and individuals, but was giving Indians as a whole what they wanted - industrialisation and positions in government. Once again, the ones who suffered the most were the ones at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2492
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Jarita » 02 Jan 2010 22:58

^^^^ Factual errors galore.

If the Raj was such a partnership why did Indias literacy plummet to 6% by the time the Brits left. There are too many holes. Indians lost everything as well just like the Jews so the comparison holds.
Most of the Indian freedom fighters were from this 6%. They did not view it as a partnership.
The Raj was a partnership between Brits and a portion of Indias elite that worked together to create a compliant population through illiteracy, starvation, social reengineering.
The experiment worked for 200 plus years till it became unbearable for the Indian masses (and mind you the Indian masses can take a lot).

To justify this brutality is like saying that slavery was fine because there were some uncle Toms in the mix.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Johann » 02 Jan 2010 23:23

Jarita,

Please read my post carefully.

What was done to India's landless farmers can never be justified, as I've repeatedly said.

The colonisation of India was joint project that involved not only the wealthy land owners and traders, but the emerging middle class as well.

The difficulty in assessing the colonial experience is because its outcomes for different classes were so different - and the classes that did well under colonialism are still the dominant economic and political classes today.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 03 Jan 2010 02:44

Johann wrote:
The colonisation of India was joint project that involved not only the wealthy land owners and traders, but the emerging middle class as well.
Can't you see, it all makes perfect sense. Expressed in dollars and cents, Pounds, shillings and pence...it all makes perfect sense!


^^^Credit: Roger Waters

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby svinayak » 03 Jan 2010 03:15

Johann wrote:
The colonisation of India was joint project that involved not only the wealthy land owners and traders, but the emerging middle class as well.

The difficulty in assessing the colonial experience is because its outcomes for different classes were so different - and the classes that did well under colonialism are still the dominant economic and political classes today.

It was the economic exploitation which trapped the upper class of the Indian society into the collaboration with the British ruling class. When the economic control is total then 150,000 British can rule the large population of 400 M only with the help of Indians.
By controlling the external trade/merchant and creating a global trading regime under British control Indians were permanently subjugated. By controlling the military leadership the Indian classes were always under the total control of British global military. They made sure that India was a smaller portion of the larger vast British empire (economic and military).

Indian society is very stable and does not believe in revolution. Hence we see that the transfer of power is smooth even when the British leave the country. Non violence was needed to protect the country after several centuries of exploitation.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 03 Jan 2010 03:25

The comparison to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews is an incredible one. Jews under Nazi rule lost everything - their property, their right to work, and finally their lives over the span of 9 years.

it's true many Indians and much of India survived the british onslaught but that's not for want of trying. the number of people dead in artificial famines were not exactly small. you are also ignoring the fact the jews were a minority in europe, Indians in India were not. if the reverse was true it is likely that Indians would have ended up much worse than jews.
british rule in India had a subtlety in violence and oppression (covering and justifying them under quaint names and ideas) that the nazis sorely lacked. I daresay it was as brutal and much more ruthless and cunning.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3175
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby vera_k » 03 Jan 2010 03:34

Suggestion to combine the UK and Pakistan threads.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Chinmayanand » 03 Jan 2010 03:41

Can the gurus here(in some appropriate thread),throw some light on the precious role that Hitler and Germany played in the independence of India and other british colonies? Had Hitler not kicked the british musharraf left ,right and centre :lol: for so many years; had he not bankrupted the brits financially and militarily , there was no way India would have kicked the brits outta here in 1947 ? Do we owe a "Thank You" to Hitler?

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4414
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Mahendra » 03 Jan 2010 03:58

Durgesh
We dont owe a "thank you" to the devil incarnate Hitler.
No body other than our own freedom fighters deserves any credit what so ever
We do certainly require an "apology" which will come in due course of time, sooner rather than later given the way our economy is growing.

Not that an apology will wash off the sins of the colonial rule

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2492
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Jarita » 03 Jan 2010 05:52

Johann wrote:Jarita,

Please read my post carefully.

What was done to India's landless farmers can never be justified, as I've repeatedly said.

The colonisation of India was joint project that involved not only the wealthy land owners and traders, but the emerging middle class as well.

The difficulty in assessing the colonial experience is because its outcomes for different classes were so different - and the classes that did well under colonialism are still the dominant economic and political classes today.


:shock: Emerging middle class
The middle class rapidly shrank in the period that marked British rule.
From the nation with highest GDP in the world we were reduced to penury. Please check data points on share of GDP and trade.
Your own British Records talk abt Indian education system when the Brits first came to India.
The class of Maharajas that assisted the Brits through the elaborate financial network no longer exists in India. Industry and science in India are propelled by people whose ancestors struggled to survive in the colonial period


This is very very very clever. Now you shift the blame of colonialism on the existing dominant economic and political classes in India.

Folks, are you reading this. It's part of the multi pronged strategy to drop arms in Purulia on the one hand and shift blame on educated Indians.

I am in awe of british powers of manipulation

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Chinmayanand » 03 Jan 2010 17:23

25,000 Indian-origin British doctors to return to India

"Also, at least 10,000 senior doctors of Indian origin who are retiring from their jobs in the UK, are set to return to India," said the doctor, currently on an Indian tour.

He said they have already talked to the Indian health ministry and have got a favourable response. "The government has allowed us to come back and practise."

He said the ministry told the association that there will be a problem in finding quality doctors to man the seven new medical colleges modelled after the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

"We believe that these young doctors who are undergoing training in the UK currently, can be of great help in the new AIIMS-like institutes," he said.

The central government has given a go ahead to seven AIIMS-type medical institutions in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Each of these institutes will come up with a cost of Rs.300 crore (Rs.3 billion).

Each new institution would have an 850-bed hospital, including superspecialty facilities and 39 departments covering all major disciplines of medicine. The medical colleges will also have the provision to take in 100 undergraduate students each per year as well as facilities for imparting Post Graduate and doctoral courses in various disciplines.

Mehta also said the Indian government's plan to start a three-and-a-half-year rural medical course can benefit from these British doctors. "We are ready to play a part in training doctors whom government will post in rural areas."

The health ministry and the Medical Council of India (MCI) have proposed to start a rural medical course called Bachelor of Rural Medicine and Surgery (BRMS) in district hospitals. This will help doctors to get posted in rural areas and improve the healthcare delivery system at village level.

Welcome back ji, you all are much needed here in India.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2492
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Jarita » 03 Jan 2010 23:46

shyam wrote:
Haresh wrote:Fact is Britain doesn't produce anything that can't be brought from other countries.

To be rather crude "£uck them" :twisted:


Why is that £1 ~= Rs 70?

Why should the currency of a tiny country that produces nothing useful be valued so high?
In fact I think we should see £1 < Rs 1.

What is the secret manipulation there?

I can understand the reason for US$ to be so high. It is linked to the oil that everyone needs to purchase. Also, US is the worlds largest consumer to which every country wanted to export.




London is the financial nerve center of world - in more ways than one.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2492
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Jarita » 04 Jan 2010 00:29

SOmeone just sent this tweet by Burkha Dutt


BDUTT as train rolls thru night thinking the brits gave us the railways and also our entity as a nation. ironic isnt it?
about 1 hour ago from mobile web


:-? WTH. With Journos like this who needs ...

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby harbans » 04 Jan 2010 00:32

This is very very very clever. Now you shift the blame of colonialism on the existing dominant economic and political classes in India.

I think you're reading Johann incorrectly. Fact is feudal-colonial/ imperial collusion was what ultimately did India in. Fact also remains that those who prospered under colonialism (feudals, the major business houses) continued prospering and holding markets in post independence India. I'll give also Parsi's as an example. They were close to the British and even today are amongst the most prosperous communities.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby svinayak » 04 Jan 2010 01:06

harbans wrote: Fact is feudal-colonial/ imperial collusion was what ultimately did India in.

British wooed the feudal and landed class to get their cooperation when they took control of the larger economy. The Indian merchant class was cut of from the external economy when the British controlled the Cotton trade and cut the cotton manufacturing in India.
The Indian merchant class had to trade with the British and was cut from direct contact with the traditional export countries. British were able to transfer fund and control the internal economy by creating favorable regional area for e.g. Calcutta and excluding other traditional economic regions.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 04 Jan 2010 15:14

The Raj was a partnership that enriched Indians in the upper and middle classes, even as it impoverished those at the bottom. That is why it lasted as long as it did. The people with capital and social power in India were rewarded for not rocking the boat.


sorry, come again?!?!

the brits did not allow G D Birla to do business in Kolkata. Did not even allow him to board the same lift theey (brits) were using, Jamshedji Tata was not allowed to stay in hotel by brits in mumbai because he being an Indian...

from tatasteel website:

The incident left such deep scars on Jamsetji’s heart that he decided to construct a place equally luxurious and lavish for all fellow Indians. By the time the Taj Mahal Hotel was completed in 1903, it was the finest luxury hotel and the first building in Bombay that used electricity. Endorsed with supreme luxury items from across the globe, Taj Mahal Hotel boasted American fans, German elevators, Turkish baths, English butlers (what a revenge) and whole lot of other innovative delights that the Indians were deprived of.


(Sir) G D Birla was not allowed to start a small industry in kolkata. every piece of land he wanted to buy for his factory was cunningly blocked by the people you are thinking have enriched upper indian class. GDB almost gave up and decided to sell all the land he had purchased to andrew yule & co. at that moment he was taunted by a british clerk that such an indian fool has come out to compete with we great british people. He decided at that moment to not proceed with the sale and eventually one day on his own purchased Andrew Yule.

He established Birla Jute Mills in Bengal, much to the consternation of established European merchants. This noted businessman had to cover a number of obstacles as the British and Scottish merchants with unethical and monopolistic methods tried to close his business. Birla`s business reached its pick when supply problem arises throughout the British Empire due to World War I. Ironically, GDB was conferred knighthood but he never used it...

Anglophiles’ note of apology says “British colonial rule in India was the organized banditry that financed England’s Industrial Revolution”. The British rulers even took over the technology of India, along with money. Will Durant, an American Historian mentioned in his note “India was flourishing in Ship building besides the expertise of making steel and textiles. But all got ruined when British took over those technologies”.

where is the enrichment thru partnership?

and this piece from indiannavy.nic.in provide ample proof:

(quote)
Indian maritime interests witnessed a remarkable resurgence in the late seventeenth century, When the Siddhis of Janjira allied with the Moghuls to become a major power on the West Coast. This led the Maratha King Shivaji to create his own fleet, which was commanded by able admirals like Sidhoji Gujar and Kanhoji Angre. The Maratha Fleet along with the legendary Kanhoji Angre held away over the entire Konkan Coast keeping the English, Dutch and Portuguese at bay. The death of Angre in 1729 left a vacuum and resulted in the decline of Maratha sea power. Despite the eclipse of Indian kingdoms with the advent of western domination, Indian shipbuilders continued to hold their own well into the nineteenth century. The Bombay Dock completed in July 1735 is in use even today.

Ships displacing 800 to 1000 tons were built of teak at Daman and were superior to their British counterparts both in design and durability.

This so agitated British shipbuilders on the River Thames that they protested against use of Indian built ships to carry trade from England. Consequently active measures were adopted to cripple the Indian shipbuilding industries.

Nevertheless, many Indian ships were inducted into the Royal Navy, such as HMS Hindostan in 1795, the frigate Cornwallis in 1800, HMS Camel in 181 and HMS Ceylon in 1808. HMS Asia carried the flag of Admiral Codrington at the battle of Navarino in 1827 the last major sea battle to be fought entirely under sail.
(unquote)

Irony is india has to buy UKstan built ships! Fruits of ancient Indo-british partnership for upliftment of people with capital and social power :evil:

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Murugan » 04 Jan 2010 15:24

Why is that £1 ~= Rs 70?


Why
Cyprus Pound - 1.00 CYP = 113.883 INR
Kuwait Dinar - 1.00 KWD = 161.369 INR

What is the secret manipulation in above currencies vis-a-vis INR
Different reasons for high prices of other currencies

Why should the currency of a tiny country that produces nothing useful be valued so high?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby JE Menon » 04 Jan 2010 21:50

Cyprus Pound no longer exists. The country's currency is the Euro as it is now a part of the EU and EMU. When it did exist though, that was about the rate...

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13757
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Suraj » 04 Jan 2010 23:11

The US national anthem was written aboard the HMS Minden, a 1800-ton ship built in 1810 by Wadia (yes, *that* Wadia) Shipbuilders in Bombay.

I don't follow the argument about exchange rates. Would people agree that, based on their relative exchange rates, the Japanese and Koreans 'produce nothing' ? It's just an exchange rate; a static rate indicates nothing meaningful, and only the dynamic exchange rate over time indicates whether one currency is strengthening vs another.

ss_roy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 21:48

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby ss_roy » 05 Jan 2010 00:48

I have to say that any honest evaluation of British rule in India requires Indians to face up the "traitor" problem.

Simply put, the effects of British rule in India were so bad because so many affluent Indians willingly collaborated with them. In many cases, their inhumanity and callousness exceeded the foreign rulers. Given that Indians had both the money and opportunity to learn and compete against the British, but instead chose to exploit people who looked liked them is detestable.

It is also disturbing to note that descendants of these traitors are still among the influential classes in India, indeed many of them are still elected by a popular majority.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13757
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Postby Suraj » 05 Jan 2010 01:10

Why should modern day descendants bear the blame for what their distant ancestors (allegedly) did ? Such an attitude will only descend into a veiled witchhunt. One could ascribe ill-gotten gains to most 'old money' entities in the world.

My perspective on the topic of Indo-UK issues from the Raj are restricted to stating that there's no reason to credit UK for anything India had at the time of independence, or has achieved since, whether it be infrastructure, administration or any other facet, for the simple reason that they are all incidentals left behind by a plunderer.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests