Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Jul 2010 21:00

just read amitav ghosh's sea of poppies if you want to catalogue the disaster that opium production brought to india and its consumption to china

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Jul 2010 21:24

Sorry for the disconnect. I did not mean to suggest that the Chinese are not sensitive. In fact, they are even more sensitive than we are about the humiliations they have suffered. I am merely saying that the Chinese would not bring this up as the first talking point. They will bide their time and we should too.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 23 Jul 2010 13:48

'Britain lacks money to protect itself' http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 203687.cms

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 24 Jul 2010 00:47

We must forge a new relationship with India

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/tele ... India.html

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 24 Jul 2010 10:29

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34065.html

jaibhim · Post by **jaibhim** » 24 Jul 2010 15:18

Here goes old boy Dean. Can't he for once avoid being so patronising and contemptuous? We have dean on one end and old India baiter and the guardian on the other, one yardstick for India another for prospective supersonic riders to heavan.
By Dean Nelson www.telegraph.co.uk
Published: 9:00PM BST 23 Jul 2010
19 Comments

India's emerging middle class partly explains its recent rapid economic growth Photo: GETTY IMAGES
David Cameron’s decision to take three of his four most senior Cabinet colleagues with him to New Delhi next week, along with his higher education minister, marks a historic moment in almost 400 years of British engagement with India. It gives ceremony to a state of affairs that has been the case for some time but not, until now, acknowledged: we need India more than it needs us.
For those of you whose most recent glimpse of India was the brutal poverty shown in Slumdog Millionaire, or believed you had just elected a government committed to clamping down on south Asian immigration, think again and steel yourselves: Mr Cameron’s visit with the largest senior Cabinet delegation in recent memory heralds the arrival of an Indian century.

Related Articles
UK and India to set up 'chief executive's forum'
India and Pakistan agree talks are 'only way forward'
Pakistan's Asif Zardari faces army rebellion over India detente
BA's Walsh sets sights on lasting Indian love affair
David Miliband accused of 'arrogance' over Kashmir comments
British diplomat to star as Sherlock Holmes in Bollywood
His aim is not just to win contracts for British firms, but to establish a strategic relationship in which our scientists, engineers, designers and entrepreneurs will work with their Indian counterparts and combine British innovation and Indian costs to sell to the rest of the world.
It is a challenge to the more familiar view of India, as home to 456 million people living in poverty – just under half its population – and one third of the world’s poor. This grim statistic remains accurate but not as urgent as other developments: India is the world’s second fastest-growing economy. It is expected to overtake China as the fastest-growing within 40 years, and also replace it as the world’s greatest population with more than two billion people by 2050. As its population rises, so too will its number of highly educated graduates and skilled engineers – already qualifying at the rate of 160,000 per year.
The pressing need to “partner” India was explained to me two years ago by a professor heading a series of collaborations between British and Indian university research departments and technology companies. They were hoping to develop revolutionary communications systems which could run on minimal electricity and store sensitive data securely in disaster-proof circumstances. “It is better to help them develop now than be overtaken and alone later,” he said.
Mr Cameron appears to have decided, wisely, that the project needs an injection of urgency: Britain’s snail-like recovery has not eased fears of a double-dip recession, while Indian growth is expected to push on from nine per cent.
If you’re still not persuaded that the Indians are coming, consider another random collection of persuasive facts: Singapore will become an Indian city if its Tamil population continues doubling at the current rate, Britain’s largest manufacturer (Tata, owner of Jaguar Land Rover and Corus steel) is Indian, India’s 700 companies in the UK are our largest job creators, UK businesses owned by British Indians generate £10 billion in turnover, and our richest man, Lakshmi Mittal is an Indian.
All of which explain why David Cameron will arrive in India on Tuesday with William Hague, George Osborne, Vince Cable and David Willetts to genuflect before the “emperors” of the new Raj and try to persuade them we may be of some use.
The scale and symbolism of the gesture hasn’t gone unnoticed. “It’s not a question of perception. David Cameron is on record that he would like an enhanced partnership with India, to deepen and diversify the economic engagement and this has registered with us, it came across clearly and it’s fully reciprocated,” India’s Commerce Minister Anand Sharma told The Daily Telegraph earlier this week.
Politically it marks a sea-change after the last government, which will be appreciated by India, according to Mark Runacres, head of the British Business Group in New Delhi. “We shouldn’t underestimate the political stuff here. The Indians will have come away from the Labour administration feeling that they prefer dealing with the Right than the Left. This manifests itself on issues like Kashmir. There’s a rumbling sense that the more liberal people focus on more sensitive political issues and less on hard business. There was a feeling that with Gordon Brown, China was more front of mind than India. The political message of an enormous delegation is taken as going the extra mile,” he said.
The most memorable contrast is with the visit of the boyish then foreign secretary David Milliband, who lectured ministers about the need to find a solution with Pakistan to their dispute over Kashmir while India was still in shock from the devastating terrorist attack on Mumbai. He made matters worse by appearing to patronise India’s then foreign minister rather than show the traditional respect due to elders.
The question of whether we should be worrying about India’s daunting social problems or licking our lips at the prospect of a piece of its business action divides commentators and diplomats: Should we be salivating over its growth, its successful lunar mission and ranks of new millionaires when hundreds of millions are living on less than a dollar a day, thousands are dying of malnutrition-related illnesses, AIDS, malaria and from drinking water contaminated with sewage?
India’s rapid growth is partly explained by the relationship between its increasingly wealthy middle class and its rising numbers of poor. It has both an inexhaustible supply of cruelly cheap labour in the service of a vast, English-speaking, college-educated middle class with access to large amounts of capital. The greatest fortunes in India are being made selling dirt cheap mobile phones to rickshaw pullers earning less than £3 per day, water-purifyers to those earning slightly more, and motorbikes to those described as middle-class yet earn less than £200 per month (household servants and drivers).
While the country’s breakneck “development” is enjoyed by many, it is also the cause of great unhappiness and rebellion in tribal, rural areas and its Hindi-speaking conservative “cow-belt”.
The pressure on India to better exploit its mineral resources has fuelled a Maoist insurgency which now affects more than 200 of its 600-plus districts. Tribal families have been forced from their land by mining companies such as Vedanta, owned by London-based Indian billionaire Anil Agrawal. In Punjab, West Bengal, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh there has been a growing number of “honour killings” by families whose daughters joined the sexual revolution that has accompanied the new jobs for women in India’s call-centre industry.
India’s caste system, with its strict hierarchy and rules on who can love whom, is starting to fray, as bright, educated dalit or “untouchable” boys mingle with higher-caste girls in meritocratic call centres or newspaper offices. Forbidden romances have blossomed out of the sight of conservative families. In Haryana, leaders of the traditionalist Jat clan are demanding state support for the execution of young lovers.
Until May Britain has hedged by pitching for business while giving millions of pounds in aid to some of India’s poorest states. Under the new government, our Indian aid programme is likely to be drastically cut back or even axed while all focus switches to the pursuit of trade.
Besides next week’s show of intense respect with Mr Cameron’s Cabinet delegation, ministers have been stressing our “shared history” in the British Empire and the links continued by Britain’s 1.5 million people of Indian origin. Some in India believe he is wrong to dwell on a colonial past in which Britain dominated India and treated it as a child in need of guidance.
But according to Pavan K Varma, India’s leading cultural analyst and its ambassador to Bhutan, Britain is still regarded with warmth despite conquering the subcontinent. “One of its legacies is that there is in the Indian psyche more goodwill than [between] India and France or India and Germany, and that contributes to a closer relationship with Britain in terms of emotional bondage.
“There is goodwill, nostalgia, and comprehension through language which needs to be capitalised upon with dynamism,” he said. “The problem is that the UK is no longer a super-power and it must deal with that.”

jaibhim · Post by **jaibhim** » 24 Jul 2010 17:31

Old India baiter Dean's apprehensions of empire and country

So patronising, i cant believe this tone, as he is at it yet again! He needs to read a bit of Spivak,Said and Foucault immediately! The blighty would never have been what it was without the help of the extraordinary courage of certain regiments of Indian army bailing her out . On another note there is a fine program in the BBC[www.bbc.co.uk, put india in the search] called tracks on empire by John Seargent[the construction of the railway after Dalhousie's decree and the graves that lie in oblivion in the bhor ghat. Just wanted to alert members if they had not noticed it.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Jul 2010 10:03

Angling for India
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Angling-f ... 77212.aspx

He wants India and Britain to enter into a 'special relationship' — a term that used to describe Britain's ties with the US. But with the Obama administration busy developing ties with a number of European and Asian countries, Britain too has signalled a Look East policy that is centred around India and China. Britain's new coalition government is pinning hopes of accelerated domestic economic recovery on the back of India's galloping growth, speaking of a “shared history.” But more than 60 years after independence, where memories of the Raj count for little, the two sides are taking nothing for granted. Both want trade to grow. Additionally, Britain is desperate for increased Indian investments in order to help create more jobs in Britain.
What a special relationship means for India is less clear — Britain is already in a strategic partnership with India, but so are many other countries, Indian sources say. Senior British ministers have spoken of offers in civil nuclear energy, education, infrastructure and defence but none of that sounds very 'special' to analysts. "The fact is that in the last 13 years of the Labour government, there has been a major slide in Britain's economic standing, while India has risen both economically and in its importance globally," said Gareth Price, head of Asia Programme at Chatham House, a London-based world affairs thinktank."There has to be something substantive coming out of this visit — time-tables, plans and targets, not just aspirations."There has been a demand from business leaders on both sides for the British to offer a "game changer" similar in scale to the 2008 Indo-US civil nuclear deal, but British ministers and officials have so far refused to divulge the details of what they plan to put on the table.
"We need to find out what India wants," said Hewitt.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 25 Jul 2010 11:28

There has been a demand from business leaders on both sides for the British to offer a "game changer" similar in scale to the 2008 Indo-US civil nuclear deal, but British ministers and officials have so far refused to divulge the details of what they plan to put on the table.

"We need to find out what India wants," said Hewitt.

Maybe they just want to be left alone. Ya think? Once bitten twice shy and all that, perhaps?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2010 13:06

We will never be left alone by any country with some power. Therefore, we must learn how not to leave others alone. We will not leave Britain alone. The Indian experience with Britain has been an interesting one. Their experience with us will be no less interesting. Britain will be a useful ally and friend in the long-term.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Jul 2010 13:46

Their experience with us will be no less interesting. Britain will be a useful ally and friend in the long-term

The Brits are mercantilists par excellence. They are no one's friend except their own. Let us not get taken in by the haw haw, fuddy duddy Indian Anglophiles pet fetishes.

Brits know which side of the bread is buttered and will always kiss upto anyone who will throw crumbs their way. The way to treat the brits is to treat it strictly as business. Not a quarter given or taking and insist on taking our pound of flesh .

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2010 13:54

>>They are no one's friend except their own.

And whose friend are we?

>>Let us not get taken in by the haw haw, fuddy duddy Indian Anglophiles pet fetishes. Brits know which side of the bread is buttered and will always kiss upto anyone who will throw crumbs their way.

Why not be the one throwing the crumbs then?

>>The way to treat the brits is to treat it strictly as business. Not a quarter given or taking and insist on taking our pound of flesh .

Who is saying otherwise. It is a curious phenomenon on BRF that any suggestion of friendship or co-operation is immediately taken as advocacy of selling oneself or one's country short. And a need is felt to reiterate things that should be taken for granted.

As good an indicator as any that the Brit's have done a good job on us.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 25 Jul 2010 14:23

Maybe the Game changer that Britain should offer is a complete, total clampdown on anti India activities by the paks in the UK.

LeT is very poplular in the UK and alot of it's funds are raised here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Taiba.html

infact the Uk security establishment regards it as a serious terror threat to the UK.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 25 Jul 2010 14:24

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/glob ... tiger.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jul 2010 14:45

JE Menon wrote:>>
Who is saying otherwise. It is a curious phenomenon on BRF that any suggestion of friendship or co-operation is immediately taken as advocacy of selling oneself or one's country short. And a need is felt to reiterate things that should be taken for granted.

Funnily enough I had a sudden thought about the word "ally" yesterday while watching a cartoon version of the Ramayana where Hanuman becomes an "ally" of Rama. A serious alliance is one in which both allies do things for each other.

If you recall the Korean war - the Chinese allies of Korea actually sent in troops who died in Korea. US troops died in the world wars as they allied with the UK. "Alliances" have meant something significant through world history - but India is unable to make alliances. We stand on our own and try to get as much as we can from that stance. but there is something we lose out too as others ally against us. But it's not just BRF, It seems an Indian thing.

I have noticed (not just BRF) but India as country has difficulty in making allies. As a nation we do not seem to like allying with others. There is some fear that we are losing out or compromising in some way. But individual kings of India had no problem allying with others for their advantage. Maybe that is why Indians have tended to look at anyone who allies with someone as a person who is selling out.

It certainly is a strange quirk that Indians have - maybe a piskological thing rooted in the history of pre-independence India - where people "allied" with the Brits for personal gain or power.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2010 15:18

True, true... I suspect the problem is a distributed one, i.e. many reasons why we are like that only:

1. Our ideological flexibility, i.e. no one will "commit" absolutely to any line of thought, and the few who do are usually looked at disdainfully. This means "alliances" are difficult, but not impossible - think USSR/Russia... which is strictly speaking counter-intuitive.

2. Definitely the colonial experience has contributed: our primary experience with the West (Britain & a few others) has been of kissing ass, so we think that when someone extends their hand for a shake, we need to circle around and pucker up; an extension of the grovel when only asked to kneel syndrome.

3. Projection: since a lot of us are in the West, working there, and very often succeeding (or just getting on) by very often deploying the very same tactic mentioned in point 2, there is a strong element of suspecting the nation as a whole - personified - will act in a similar way. I suspect if we made a check to see the number of people calling MMS and sundry others traitors and whatever else comes to mind, 90% of them at least would be NRI.

4. The "white" is better factor. Would a lower-caste SDRE shudra ever be able to enter into an "alliance" with an Ashkenazi Brahmin? Yes, that's what I thought. So how on earth is an SDRE nation going to enter into an "alliance" with an uber-Brahmin such as the "white" man represents, especially after the colonial experience. The underlying and ingrained sense of inherited inequality combined with the overall sense that the "white man" is somehow superior.

I suspect these are some of the reasons why we find it hard to exercise our power, sort of like first generation wealth-makers refuse to spend because they remember the hard times very vividly. A situation comparable to where some 30 years ago mothers in India did not want to spend a cent on going for that English movie, while the kids are clamouring to see Gregory Peck in McKenna's Gold.

Today Mother India is being asked to fund the entire film industry. Understandably, she's a little reluctant. But the kids will have their way. No question.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 25 Jul 2010 15:40

deleted. Only.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 25 Jul 2010 15:58

JE Menon wrote:>>They are no one's friend except their own.

And whose friend are we?

Friends of the universe, I reckon.

>>Let us not get taken in by the haw haw, fuddy duddy Indian Anglophiles pet fetishes. Brits know which side of the bread is buttered and will always kiss upto anyone who will throw crumbs their way.

Why not be the one throwing the crumbs then?

Great idea. Sadly, chances are when the team actually arrives in Dilli, the ones doing the fawning and begging by the table will be the dilli billi class. The same way that sri Pavan Varma in his 'Becoming Indian', describes the Dilli classholes fawned over that New Delhi firangi architect's family's Dilli visit. Led by an Hon PM who is on record praising the Brit Raj on an official trip, as PM of India, to his alma Mater in Oxford.

And then tell me who's the one throwing crumbs here. IIRC, back in the 1700s too, despite being the wealthier party, SDREs ended up losing the wealth and the country to phoreners. Only.

>>The way to treat the brits is to treat it strictly as business. Not a quarter given or taking and insist on taking our pound of flesh .

Who is saying otherwise. It is a curious phenomenon on BRF that any suggestion of friendship or co-operation is immediately taken as advocacy of selling oneself or one's country short. And a need is felt to reiterate things that should be taken for granted.

Expected better from you JEM saar, than building and demolishing strawmen only. The cycle on this thread, from what I have seen, is someone points out that the brits have been real bas turds in the past in their inflicting x y and z on the people of India. Immediately, the dilli-billi lite of raj apologists jumps in with 'oh, worse things happened elsewhere. So it not as bad as you think. Move on, get over it. tra-la-la. To forgive and forget is dharmic onlee.' Happens every now and then only. But in later piskological analysis, its the raj sceptics who get blamed as ass-kissing NRI traitors overcompensating for their sins abroad (or something to that effect from what I gather from your marvellous post).

As good an indicator as any that the Brit's have done a good job on us.

yeah, must be true, I'm sure.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2010 16:21

>>Friends of the universe, I reckon.

Friends of everyone then? Everyone's friend is no one's friend. That's my point actually. We are no more or less mercantilist than the Brits. We need to give ourselves the chance though.

>>Led by an Hon PM who is on record praising the Brit Raj on an official trip, as PM of India, to his alma Mater in Oxford.

It was the same PM in the same speech who also referred to colonialism (the Raj) as "evil". Pity few ever read the speech.

>>IIRC, back in the 1700s too, despite being the wealthier party, SDREs ended up losing the wealth and the country to phoreners.

Boss, are you seriously making this comparison? 1700s India and the situation now. Today we are not easy to cherry pick. Governmen officials from outside these days hardly dare to mention the word Kashmir during official engagements, especially at the highest levels - and that's just an example. Its a different ballgame.

>>Expected better from you JEM saar, than building and demolishing strawmen only.

Not sure where I did that. My question was "who is saying otherwise"? No answer to that yet.

>>..The cycle on this thread, from what I have seen, is someone points out that the brits have been real bas turds in the past in their inflicting x y and z on the people of India.

Who is saying otherwise? No one denies this.

>>Immediately, the dilli-billi lite of raj apologists jumps in with 'oh, worse things happened elsewhere. So it not as bad as you think.

Who said "worse things happened elsewhere"?

>>Move on, get over it. tra-la-la.

This I agree with actually. Time we get over it. We were weak, we got screwed. If we are weak again, we will get screwed again. This is not a hard lesson to learn. And the screwer can be of any nationality. The last one happened to be British. To screw or to get screwed: this is the question we are battling with, it seems. We seem to be paying inordinate attention to discussions on "how not to get screwed" rather than on "how to screw"... Understandable, given the past millennium of hour history I suppose.

>>To forgive and forget is dharmic onlee.'

Forgive maybe dharmic. To forget is moronic. Again, who advocated forgetting?

>>But in later piskological analysis, its the raj sceptics who get blamed as ass-kissing NRI traitors overcompensating for their sins abroad (or something to that effect from what I gather from your marvellous post).

Firstly, I'm an NRI and ever ready to kiss ass if that is the approach that can get me concrete measurable benefit. If an domineering approach is called for, I'm ready to provide that as well. A lot of Indians, including NRIs, are like that - maybe the majority. These are only techniques. The rest were my observations (actually tongue in cheek - no pun intended - just like "Ashkenazi Brahmin"). People can take it for what it is worth. Is there no element of truth to it whatsoever?

What is a "raj skeptic" by the way? I am an out and out Raj hater. Skeptic would be someone in two minds or doubtful about whether the Raj was good or not, I would have thought.

All that said, should we not engage with Auntie? I suppose it is the terms of engagement that people are getting a bit hot under the collar about. I'm personally quite confident that the engagement (which has actually never been broken) will be on terms that will prove quite useful to us. In fact we can already see the difference in the language. Increasingly, the talk is - between the lines about the brown and yellow man's burden. Not about the white man's burden. It is better this way.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 Jul 2010 16:54

In todays real politik there are no permanent friends - your local MLA/MP's should tell you that. No one becomes friends with another nation out of brotherhood, they look for gains.

UK is just doing what every else including the US is doing - trying to become India's best friend.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 25 Jul 2010 17:07

Wonder why many nations think the best way to become India's best friend is by arming to the teeth the mentally unstable, new-clear whore nation called Bakistan

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Jul 2010 18:36

Mahendra wrote:Wonder why many nations think the best way to become India's best friend is by arming to the teeth the mentally unstable, new-clear whore nation called Bakistan

Cause They know that India will not react adversely to that act.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 25 Jul 2010 23:05

Need practical approach to build ties with India: British MP
http://sify.com/news/need-practical-app ... cdaia.html

Cameron leads delegation to court India

By Alex Barker and George Parker in London and James Lamont in New Delhi

Published: July 25 2010 17:16 | Last updated: July 25 2010 17:16

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9eb999a2-9801 ... ab49a.html

For both sides it is essential to make this trip very successful.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Jul 2010 01:56

no one ever said 'its not as bad as you think' - perhaps some have said, understand what happened but don't waste all your energy in wallowing in self pity whilst every one else races past you - having burned their sentimentalism along the way. don't know about others, but i dont want to be left behind, i would rather be out in front, even if my own sentimentality and anger is hard to put aside. from the front is where i can shape a new future for myself and not be shaped by others.

{looking forward to the usual vitriolic sophistry that will undoubtedly follow}

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 26 Jul 2010 02:24

No matter how much they may want a new "special relationship" with India, the pakis will always be their favorites.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/ ... eport.html

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 26 Jul 2010 02:29

Just 2 cents.
There is a curious phenomena, where SDREs are forefront in defense of Queendom or similar others, when other SDREs challenge or comment about Queendomers attitude - either past or present. This rarely happens for SDREs. Even when accusal of SDRE is not correct by say Queedomers, no Queendomer has ever stepped up to challenge the accusers. Worse, SDREs sometimes do not even step up to do that. Well, got a long way to go. Bravo, I guess Queendomers after all have invested enuf and trained SDREs, so other SDREs can act as first line of defense for any problems of Queendomers when pointed out.
Probably, because SDREs believe in not letting others loose face, even if others have had greviously injured SDREs.

Just one more point about kiss ass attitude. It is a fine art, that usually transforms to "kiss up and kick down" attitude. Most SDREs, who were/are worshippers of queendomers had and have fine tuned this and it is easy for them to not just kiss up and stop, but go the extra mile and kick down others especially when it is SDREs that they are kicking down.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 26 Jul 2010 02:41

vina wrote:The way to treat the brits is to treat it strictly as business. Not a quarter given or taking and insist on taking our pound of flesh.

IMHO, when we deal with merchantile countries like britistan, we should look beyond how the pie is divided. We need to see the potential of the pie brits get.

An example, not a perfect one, I could give is the deal between uncle and PRC. In simple terms it may look like a good deal for uncle and PRC when PRC makes cheap goods for uncle and PRC gets uncle's treasury bonds. However, PRC gets extra advantage by becoming raw material major export destination for rest of the world and also becomes world's workshop. This gives an extreme leverage to PRC in dealing with other countries, and may not be in the good interests of uncle.

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 26 Jul 2010 05:56

Comedian Hari Kondabolu on the Kohinoor Diamond - NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuCaktPd ... r_embedded

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 26 Jul 2010 10:48

Please provide a transcript. there is no closed captioned and I am hearing impaired.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 26 Jul 2010 11:04

Hitesh wrote:Please provide a transcript. there is no closed captioned and I am hearing impaired.

Here you go hitesh. His narration was sarcastic, which is obvious if you read the transcript.

I was in Washinton 3 years ago. And I went to the Smithsonian exhibit about diamonds. Diamonds from across the world throughout history. And theres a picture of the Kohinoor and a caption that read "The Kohinoor is one of the largest diamonds in the world. It is found on the British royal crown and was originally found in India in the mid-1800s."

Right! It was just found in India. {laughter} It wasn't taken from India. It was just found there. cos we did not know what the f**k they were folks (sarcasm). We didn't know what the f**k diamonds were. Well you know, its perfectly reasonable. We were f**king eating 'em. We were f**king eating 'em. We didn't know. We didn't know{louder}. Cos we were grinding them up and putting them in curries. Diamond biriyani yay!! Its thursday!! Diamond biriyani day. {laughter} f**k stovetop kids. We got diamonds. {laughter}

But luckily the british showed up. And the first they taught us was to use our opposable thumbs. And then they taught us how to walk on two feet. And then they took those evil diamonds away before we invented something else to do with them. Man f**k the british. f**k 'em. I know it sounds ridiculous to be bitter but the queen of england, f**k the queen of england. Thats just some old white bitch wearing my old grandmothers jewellry. Oh shit! The queen of england son! Ain't she! Oh! I was offended. Im a colonial time traveller from Britain. I can't believe that. {laughter}

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 26 Jul 2010 12:09

Regarding UKstani's wish to build Special Relationship with Bharat:

An Old Saying:

BEWARE!!!

When a Brit Pats Your Back...

He is in all Probability Finding a Soft Spot to Stab You on that very Back

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Jul 2010 13:14

When a Brit Pats Your Back...

That is the way the world works. The idea is that you engage with them, but you do it for your own interests and your own benefit.

All I ask is not degenerate into Mai-Baap and the slave Dilli-Billi class, the Inglees school in hillstations, sent off to old country and returned to Dilli and hence became "soup"-e-rear blow hards, don't relapse into the idiots who will be suckered by a few words of smooth fawning and stroking of egos by the Brits.

If it turns into a Britanisistan-Hindustan bhai-bhai cirucs, nothing can be more unedifying than that.

Firstly, I think UK stan should be kicked hard in the nuts when they land in India on the subject of support to terrorism directed towards India. That should be the first order of business. Then the other things can follow during all the jaw-jaw.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 26 Jul 2010 13:30

Folks,
One thing that I did not understand is why UK gave ( and continues to give ) refuge to those things inimical to India.

Khalistan, LTTE and Paki terror are some things I can think of.

Did it have :
monetary benefits ?
strategic benefits ?
did they do it in the name of an open , welcoming society ?
Did they portray an image of India so as to project a beneficial image of colonialism,

I think they should have realised a few decades back that their influence is waning. Having allied with US during the cold war days, they must have thought they could help in with their part owing to their knowledge of India.

We need to find reasons for their heinous activities.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 26 Jul 2010 13:41

^ Probably a genetic issue. Mili bund looked genetically deformed and mentally retarded when he opened his stinking mouth on kashmir.

(similar to problem of kashmir, whatever good bharat does, the people are so nugra they will never be grateful, acknowledge or consider themselves to be part of a larger diaspora)

5-6 or more UKstani generations are into this business of skulduggery, cheating, dishonesty and it would not be possible to expect some kind of positive change of heart. These qualities are now innate in brits.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 26 Jul 2010 13:56

Letter from London (Economic Times, 26th July 2010, Page 17)

Mind your tongue (or is it language?)

S U D ES H N A S E N

IT’S one of my favourite provocative statements, usually when some hapless Brit is trying to make polite conversation at networking events. “So,” they’ll say, “What’s the biggest obstacle for people like us to do business successfully in India?” They assume I’m going to parrot the usual pet peeves, corruption, liberalisation, yadda yadda.

First, I tell them it’s the often infantile dependence that many private sector businesses in UK have on government. If they carry that sense of entitlement with them to India, they’re goners. That usually makes people sidle away like I’ve taken leave of my senses, leaving me free to try and snag the invariably scarce canapés. If they don’t, I then tell ’em it’s cultural, not of the curry variety, but like assuming that English is a common language.

That is definitely a clincher. I can by then, usually, grab a canapé or two and commune with the pot plants in peace. Okay, so I don’t like networking events. One needs four hands, seven-inch heels because you’re bound to end up jammed between the tallest people in the room, and I still find making small talk tiresome. I’m not just being deliberately anti-social, though. Both statements happen to be true.

Brit private sector expects that the government is going to do their sales, marketing, market entry, relocation service, PR service and, naturally, provide large grants for them to do what one would assume is their own job of developing new markets. As one senior British government bigwig said, “Everyone’s got this great business idea that will transform the world, but first they just need £50 million from the government.” Now, just because the UK government frequently behaves like a Santa Claus-cum-Nanny McPhee, Indian government or local authorities won’t. Expecting them to do so is pointless, it’s not their job to do the work of entrepreneurs, or pay for them. Oh well.

And next, the English as she is spoke, and writ. People think I’m nuts when I claim that it’s actually an inhibitor for cross-border relations. My argument is like this. Unlike when they’re trying to do business with say, China, when everyone makes an effort with interpreters, English speakers — like Brits and Indians — assume they understand each other perfectly.

Neither side takes the trouble, or do enough homework, to find out whether what they say is actually being understood the way they mean it. The fact is, the same language can often mean completely different things to different cultures. Take legalese, for instance. While most Indian laws sound terribly familiar to Brits, their actual interpretation and usage is often wildly different, and vice versa; something people don’t bother to double check until the damage is done. Or consider business jargon. When Indians say ‘we’re cutting costs’, they could mean anything from scrapping the free biscuits at staff meetings to finding cheaper sources of raw materials. When Europeans or Americans say it, they mean ‘we’re sacking people’. Or there’s that other howlarious example. An Indian manager told his UK counterpart he had ‘fired’ an employee, obviously meaning he’d bawled out the miscreant junior — the Brit thought he’d sacked the employee.

The latest such incident has ended up creating a storm in what shouldn’t even be a teacup, ticked off people on both the UK and Indian sides, at a time when neither wants or needs unnecessary controversy. These days, if you want to send important officials in Whitehall or the Indo-UK circuit run screaming from the room, just mention the phrase ‘carpet bomb’. Apparently, one of the innumerable government agencies involved in Indo-UK trade promotion — I’ve lost count how many there are by now — reproduced a snippet from an Indian publication (not ET) for its members. Which happened to use the phrase in the context that half the British cabinet and various other dignitaries are descending on India this week in, shall we say, a diplomatic blitz?

Now, we’re told, this upset the sensitivities of some politically-correct locals, who felt it’s a military term. So, the organisation, instead of leaving well enough alone, shot off a mailer saying that the article was inappropriate and so on. This, in turn, ended up outraging various Indians, who took offence at the unnecessarily judgmental tone of the clarification, for what they think is a completely innocuous bit of fluff. Since sensibilities on both sides have been venting at me last week, I looked it up. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the phrase as firstly military, but also ‘to bombard repeatedly, widely, or excessively, as in carpet-bomb the country with advertising’. Besides, these days, it’s almost a cliché in India.

Sigh. It ain’t easy living on a border. Sometimes, if I happen to use a currently fashionable British phrase — there’s a new one every season — I’ll get mails from Indian readers who find them offensive. I wish someone would come up with a modern English — Indian English-American English dictionary.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 26 Jul 2010 17:14

Murugan bhai,

Take it easy. Save the energy and the fire for when it will be really required.

For now, let us see what 'proposals' the brits bring (not that we have much of a choice here on the forum but to wait and watch).

It'll be less easy this time to divert, subvert and semi-convert the country than when the EIC landed on these shores 250 yrs ago. There will be a time for extreme caution/paranoia. No inch given or pawned. Every dirty linen piece brought out to truth and reconciliation. That time is not now, perhaps. Not yet, at any rate.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2010 18:08

I am confused, I remember the Hon'bl Prime Minister's acceptance speech almost by heart : where exactly does he call "colonialism" "evil"? The word evil was used, but not in a clear connection to "colonialism" - I think he does not even use the term "colonialsm"! This is what he says actually as reported in the published version on "Hindu":

The economics we learnt at Oxford in the 1950s was also marked by optimism about the economic prospects for the post-War and post-colonial world. But in the 1960s and 1970s, much of the focus of development economics shifted to concerns about the limits to growth. There was considerable doubt about the benefits of international trade for developing countries. I must confess that when I returned home to India, I was struck by the deep distrust of the world displayed by many of my countrymen. We were overwhelmed by the legacy of our immediate past. Not just by the perceived negative consequences of British imperial rule, but also by the sense that we were left out in the cold by the Cold War.

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis for. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.

Note that the consequences of Brit rule is called "perceived to be negative" which is dimplomatically speaking a world away from "to be negative". Then the ref to economic impact is immediately neutralized deliberately in the certificate of "benign" - you cannot have such drastic negative impacts existing side by side or being reciprocated by "benign-ness"! It could only exist in individual relationships if those individuals felt detached from what was happenining to theeir countrymen at large - individuals who benefited from such relationships with the Brits. Both MKG and Rabindranath sent away their close British collaborators and sympathizers in the latter phase - a fact conveniently dropped from this speech as are many other realities in this wonderful example of Thaparite revisionism and rewriting of Indian history.

This was best exemplified by the exchange that Mahatma Gandhi had here at Oxford in 1931 when he met members of the Raleigh Club and the Indian Majlis. The Mahatma was in England then for the Round Table Conference and during its recess, he spent two weekends at the home of A.D. Lindsay, the Master of Balliol. At this meeting, the Mahatma was asked: "How far would you cut India off from the Empire?" His reply was precise - "From the Empire, entirely; from the British nation not at all, if I want India to gain and not to grieve." He added, "The British Empire is an Empire only because of India. The Emperorship must go and I should love to be an equal partner with Britain, sharing her joys and sorrows. But it must be a partnership on equal terms." This remarkable statement by the Mahatma has defined the basis of our relationship with Britain.

Jawaharlal Nehru echoed this sentiment when he urged the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1949 to vote in favour of India's membership of the Commonwealth. Nehru set the tone for independent India's relations with its former master when he intervened in the Constituent Assembly's debate on India joining the Commonwealth and said:

"I wanted the world to see that India did not lack faith in herself, and that India was prepared to co-operate even with those with whom she had been fighting in the past provided the basis of the co-operation today was honourable, that it was a free basis, a basis which would lead to the good not only of ourselves, but of the world also. That is to say, we would not deny that co-operation simply because in the past we had fought and thus carry on the trail of our past karma along with us. We have to wash out the past with all its evil."

Here it is a quotation from JLN, which connects the "evil" to the past "karma" of Indians - and it is that nebulous "evil" which from the context of the quotation does not pin it down on "colonialism" and implies a shared "evil" in which Indians are also implicated - which is to be washed away.

What is most unpardonable is of course, are two proclamations made on India's behalf :

(1)

but the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance.

Indian's did not reject British claim to "good governance" with all the draconian measures to stifle protets and destory India's economy!!!!! And the model of Brit governance was "good" and still acceptable?

(2)

In the context of the study and preservation of Indian culture, I also wish to recall the contribution of another Oxonian, Lord Curzon, about whose project to preserve and restore Indian monuments, Jawaharlal Nehru said, "After every other Viceroy has been forgotten, Curzon will be remembered because he restored all that was beautiful in India."

Oxford has sent out many men to rule India. Some stayed behind to become India's friends. Men like Edward Thompson, Verrier Elwin and many others are remembered in India for their contribution to our life and society.

I always come back to the city of dreaming spires and of lost causes as a student.

The context of "Oxford" sending men out to rule India and only their "friendliness" is mentioned is horrifying in its implication - because he immediately points himself out as an Oxonian.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/nic/ ... speech.htm

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 26 Jul 2010 18:20

Mahendra wrote:Wonder why many nations think the best way to become India's best friend is by arming to the teeth the mentally unstable, new-clear whore nation called Bakistan

You Rock Brother!

I don't think any military alliances will work for India NOW!

India-US Pact=Big Time Pissed Russia (and bad consequences for India). after all russia is involved in almost every other Indian military project(ATV, AKULA, PAKFA, MKI..........the list never ends)

India-Russia Pact=Wary West and hence more alms and arms to terroristan!

We are between a rock and a hard place as far as alliances are concerned!

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 26 Jul 2010 19:54

B-ji.

Hajaar pranaams sweekar karein.

Your diligence, dig-ups, detail and doggedness continue to amaze only.

It was important to bring up what our Hon. PM sahib had then said. Hopefully he's changed his mind enough to get into crumb-throwing mode from the crumb gathering one on display above.

There remains no doubt in my mind that we are (again) fighting defensive, rearguard action here. Hopefully, we won't sign or give anything away dirt cheap - like market access for instance - in return for said crumbs only.

/Jai ho.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 26 Jul 2010 20:07

This notion that we have difficulty being an 'ally' is purely semantic and nice for discussions that we are having here. and yes I quite enjoy the piskological analysis and some self flagellation about India the wounded civilization.

but the truth is throughout the independent history of the republic we have had allies who were willing to go to war for us.

As long as Nehru was alive it was the United States.

And as long as one of the gandhi surnames were in the saddle it was the Soviet Union.

We were full blown slurpy wet 'allies' of the Soviet Union. The reason why we China did not seriously engage with us post 62 and why we won 71 was because the soviets were more than ready to go to war for us. whether it be Gorshkov getting soviet subs to tail the Enterprise or deployments along the Ussuri river in the 1965-85 period.

And yes today also we have an ally which is willing to go to war with us. the nature and scale ( and the sheer number, which is more than any other bilateral) of exercises all indicate towards something.

Of course if people still want to persist with deconstructing the Indian strategic psyche and keep talking at cross purposes they will do so.