Indo-UK: News & Discussion

[Pranav]

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.

UK is the HQ of the so-called "Anglo-American" power bloc, led by elite Jewish families such as the Rothschilds, Warburgs and Schiffs. See this thread: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5525

[shiv]

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.

<snip>

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

US and USSR allies? That is funny. We begged both and they helped.

The US has helped:
UK
France
Germany
Japan
Pakistan
South Korea
Taiwan
Philippines
..and a whole list of other countries

The USSR helped

India
China
Cuba
Vietnam
A bunch of African states
..and others?

Calling them allies of India is an act of pompous self delusion. We were their clients, beggars, "friends" in need. We did not lift a finger to help them in their wars.

But forget that. Which small country has India helped as an ally - with aid, arms and support in a war?

A one day action against the Maldives? Guess who supplied Sri Lanka with arms?

There must be something funny about Indian psyche if we think that our begging the nearest available superpower when we are in trouble is an "alliance" of some sort. Heck there are 180 odd countries in the world. The US and USSR are allied with them all. What sort of "ally" are we talking about saar? Please?

[D Roy]

I see that the self flagellation continues one way or the other.

And naturally any evidence of being an 'ally' with a superpower is an act of beggary. suggesting in some way that the only kind of alliance worth calling an alliance is an axis, a sort of partnership based on equality ( thereby going back to the same argument that started it all)

In fact if this indeed your view then there is no point talking about the wounded Indian psyche that cannot engage in adult relationships. Because the other guys ( non-aligned variety) say the same thing that you are saying and they continue to remain wary whereas you probably aren't or maybe are, (I don't know).
Either way its the same circular argument that Indians cannot be allies but now evidently beggars. And given the power differential some would say that we are still beggars .


I know the semantics and don't wish to indulge in it.

Nevertheless, I do not share your view that we were beggars during the cold war. And we are certainly not beggars now.

I think we were allies. And are allies now as well. In fact we even have an axis.

And India with its limited power projection capability has gone to war in favour of a nation i.e Bangladesh which was of course then not a state. nevertheless it was an intervention as was the IPKF(again arguably in favour of a nation and not a state).

[Tanaji]

How is all this even related to this thread?

Can we all get back to UK bashing and being Raj apologists (as the case may be) please?

[shiv]

I see that the self flagellation continues one way or the other.

And naturally any evidence of being an 'ally' with a superpower is an act of beggary. suggesting in some way that the only kind of alliance worth calling an alliance is an axis, a sort of partnership based on equality ( thereby going back to the same argument that started it all)
the same circular argument that Indians cannot be allies but now evidently a beggar. I know the semantics and don't wish to indulge in it.

I do not share your view that we were beggars during the cold war. Period. I think we were allies.

And India with its limited power projection capability has gone to war in favour of a nation i.e Bangladesh which was of course then not a state. nevertheless it was an intervention as was IPKF.

The truth of course lies somewhere in between the extreme of your suggestion that "India makes great alliances" and my "beggar asking for help in a moment of weakness".

But Pakistan has certainly been a US ally more than India has been a Russian ally. Pakistan has done things for the US in return for favors that India has not done for its "allies".

There are two ways of describing that

1) India is a nation that has too much self respect and independence to be at other's beck and call
2) India is unable to make alliances.

It certainly is psyche if you like sentence 1 but not sentence 2. They mean exactly the same thing.

[D Roy]

What makes you so sure that India has not done anything to return favours? India does more than its bit to return the favour in the covert domain and that is what really counts sometimes in the game of nations. I will two examples - India's conduct during Gulf war I both on the intelligence side as well logistics. ditto in the Indian ocean post GWOT.

India as a country likes to do things in a certain way given domestic budgetary and demographic sensibilities. But its usefulness as a 'covert partner' is beyond compare.


And as India's capability increases it will agree to being more of an overt ally. Thereby satifying some

I think we built the best alliances we could during the cold war and the best we can do now. Indian foreign policy has been remarkably prudent throughout the years at a macro level.

Its calibration despite all the criticism by jingodom ( overreach and underreach) has been cautious and evolutionary based on the capabilities of the domestic sector.

[brihaspati]

One of the great things about supposed "covert" acts is that it can cover real action. On the otherhand it can also cover total inaction. Because it is covert, no one knows whether some concrete positive effect has taken place because of covert action or covert action had no role to play. While hinting at the great covert actions can give the false aura of doing something when in reality nothing is being done.

Here is an article on this legendary covert action by India which these two authors think have mostly been ineffective, sometimes fatal, and sometimes confused as to end purpose - with the exception of BD. The connection to being used as a tool of foreign policy and alliances turns up only in one case - that of cooperation with the CIA on Tibet in the 50's and 60's.

LINK

[Mahendra]

English Administered York-Swat valley keen to become Pakistan’s home venue

[shiv]

And as India's capability increases it will agree to being more of an overt ally. Thereby satifying some

Whether it "will agree" or not at some future date, this is where the discussion started. I have some thoughts about the possibility of this occurring based on what I see as some uniquely Indian traits. But that is OT

[Hitesh]

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.

Prasad, my most heartfelt thanks. Now I can see the humor. Thanks for allowing me to have a laugh.

[Hari Seldon]

India eyes an American special relationship
PB Mehta in FT. Takes some liberties with terminology and with generalizing what India represents and thinks, IMHO.

Select excerpts:

David Cameron’s visit to India this week seeks to restart a once-strong alliance. Historical and cultural ties remain, but for the past decade the sense in Delhi has been that this is a relationship in decline.

Britain’s share in India’s trade and investment has fallen {mercifully so. The chances that it will regain what it was pre-'47 are precisely zero}.

David Miliband’s clumsy comments on Kashmir angered many by implying Indian responsibility for the mess in Afghanistan. {The anger, well justified, was about more than just that. It was about the freakin' chootzpah of a 2-bit nautankibaz lecturing India to compromise on J&K standing close to the site of the 26/11 massacre even before the blood spilled in 26/11 had dried}.

As the US has become the country to emulate, Britain has become marginal to Indian political consciousness.{yawn. restating the obvious, are we?}

The Indian government will be too polite to say it, but there is a lot of (perhaps premature) condescension in India towards Britain’s shrinking role in the world.
{Oh, I agree. Never pays to writes the anglo-saxons off. India learnt the hard way, several times in the past. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom with these types scouring the world for conquest and profit}

Where once Britain educated India’s ruling classes, now most head to the US. The economist Amartya Sen’s move from Harvard to become Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, was described in India as a move from a powerhouse to a museum.

In subtle ways Indians are constantly comparing the ability of the US to cut imaginative deals that benefit India directly with that of other nations.

And on the quiet, the dynamism of their new relationship with the Americans has inspired hope in many Indians that they may come to replace the United Kingdom as the US’s special ally among the world’s democracies.

Re the last bolded part, speak for yourself sri mehta.
That Dilli wants to become unkil's poodle is your fantasia maybe, but to say it is that of 'many Indians'? Well, maybe it is, who knows.

But Cameron’s visit comes at a time when both nations are trying to redefine their position in the world order. India has a sense of itself as a rising power. Britain is undergoing a moment of introspection, in the wake of its fiscal crisis. Underneath lie two differing conceptions of globalisation that make an Anglo-Indian partnership less likely.

Britain wants an open global economy to allow it to export the services in which it is most competitive. But, as in the past, India will open up its economy at its own speed, and largely on its own terms. There is little appetite in Delhi to open its finance, banking, insurance or retail sectors further, all areas in which British exports could prosper. Cameron’s hope for a boost for British businesses from the trip in these areas is therefore unlikely to yield dividends. India, on the other hand, wants globalisation to mean freer movement for its people, and foreign markets for its own services. Here Mr Cameron’s plans for an immigration cap in the UK, in particular, are viewed with dismay.

Well written. Agreed.

To be fair, Mr Cameron’s government has acknowledged shifts in the global balance of power, for instance supporting India’s bid for a UN Security Council seat. But many in India view Britain’s continuing presence at the head of so many global governance institutions as a perpetuation of an old world order, created at Yalta in 1945.
{Regardless of what you claim to be the 'many in India' viewing it as, do you disagree that the current institutional setup reeks more of 1945 than of 2010? just askin', mehta saab}

Worse, strategically Britain has little to contribute to India’s principal security objectives: the stabilisation of Af-Pak, and the management of growing Chinese power. On other issues central to India’s security, like energy or building new coalitions at the global level, it is now more likely to turn to Brazil, South Africa or Russia.

Re the last bolded part, Not only does it have little to contribute (in positive terms) to India's security, the UK had in the past and continues in the present, to contribute hugely to disrupting what little security we did have - by breeding and sheltering terrorist and insurgent assets against India, for instance.

Britain, by contrast, has little to offer that grips India’s imagination. The East India Company came as a trade delegation and founded a mighty empire; Mr Cameron will have to prove, that the prime minister of Britain can lead something other than a mere business delegation.

Yeah, whatever.

PB Mehta yappoing off for an FT audience of TFTA anglos is understandable.
Whatever it be, I would be wary of sri cameron's attempts to lead anything more than a business delegation. No, thank you, UKstani establishment sleazeballs. You've looted India enough already. We'll do business with you on our terms or not at all. Because we can.

[Prasad]

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

Prasad, my most heartfelt thanks. Now I can see the humor. Thanks for allowing me to have a laugh.

You're most welcome Hitesh. Glad to be of help

[arnab]

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?

I think he was merely stating a fact. The IAS structure was entirely similar to the British inspired ICS. And it continues to this day (The officer posted to districts is still called a 'Collector' though he does no revenue collections today). I think India does / did retain a lot of its colonial administrative structures instead of completely abandoning them and trying to rebuild institutions from bottom-up. By extension this means that the leaders of the time thought that it was a good tool for governance.

[derkonig]

Cameron angry over Turkey's slow accession to EU
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10767768
Jeeve jeeve londonistan....
hamburgistan khappay...

[jagga]

How Britain said farewell to its Empire

Far from being the embodiment of ancient British traditions, the rituals associated with the end of the British Empire dated back only to 1947; and insofar as any one individual can be described as the inventor of what briefly became these traditions of termination, it was the last Viceroy of India, who also happened to be a royal personage, namely Lord Mountbatten.

As the central figure in the independence pageants that took place on successive days in August 1947 in both India and Pakistan, Mountbatten was determined that the transfer of power should be well planned and carefully stage managed: he wanted the new nations to begin in peace and with feelings of goodwill towards the former imperial power; he wanted the British to leave with dignity and with as much residual influence as they could retain; and he wanted the ceremonials to be a personal triumph.

And so in some ways, they were, with the crowds, the processions, the speeches, and at the stroke of the midnight hour the lowering of the Union Jack and the raising of the two new national flags. Although no one could have known it at the time, this would be the beginning of a sequence of valedictory spectacles which would take place during the next half century, and they would all be indebted to the template that Mountbatten had created in South Asia.

Yet, as so often with such public displays, the impressions given of an orderly transfer of power, and of the continuing warm and friendly relations between the British and their former colonists, were often only part of the story. In India and Pakistan, the euphoria of independence was soon followed by the reality of partition, and by the terrible bloodshed which ensued; while the rulers of the former princely states felt betrayed by the Viceroy, when he gave them no choice but to throw in their lot with the two new successor nations

Read the comments from "Anand Mohan Chaturvedi, Akron, Ohio USA" & "Sainagakishore Srikantham, Chicago, US ". Lot of rona-dhona

[brihaspati]

arnab wrote
I think he was merely stating a fact. The IAS structure was entirely similar to the British inspired ICS. And it continues to this day (The officer posted to districts is still called a 'Collector' though he does no revenue collections today). I think India does / did retain a lot of its colonial administrative structures instead of completely abandoning them and trying to rebuild institutions from bottom-up. By extension this means that the leaders of the time thought that it was a good tool for governance.

I can see that we are having difficulty here in interpreting his words as they appear on the speech. On the speech itself he is not discussing "good governance model" or "good governance structure" - he is saying "claim to good governance". The first two are abstract constructs describing a whole set of rules, regulations, infrastructure to impose those rules, personnel etc. The third one is something completely different - it is about the "claim" by the British to "good governance". If that claim by the British was so acceptable - then the whole point of the freedom struggle becoames hollow and meaningless. It is a one-sided and extremely callous hijacking of the entire spirit of the freedom struggle and at one stroke erases the volumes of sentiments and spirit exhibited in writing and in words by the seekers of independence - including MKG who for most of his life did not support the Brit model of governance and tried to devise his own.

Who is this "we"? How dare he ascribe the sentiments of the coterie around JLN and his courtiers in the Congress provincial organizations to the whole of the nation and to all Indians? He is claiming that he represents the nation - therefore his "we" translates to the whole of India and all Indians at the time of the transfer of power - which is a d*** historical lie.

Yes the IAS structure was adopted, minus the relative independence of the ICS under Brit rule from local accountability and local political pressures. If the colonial repressive and exploitative "governance" was so acceptable - then it only shows what the real motives of the group that came to power was. This had nothing to do about rejection of a machinery or apparatus of power that was repressive and exploitative and a means of subjugation and control of the commons - but an obsessive compulsion to get hold of control of that apparatus of control for personal power.

And in many senses that colonial attitude still permeates the admin machinery to a great extent - as evident and pointed out by social scientists frequently - in the behaviour of the police. The admin is detached from the "masses" - feels superior and acts superior and unaccountable - only submitting to politicians and political parties who inturn use this "detached from the masses" machinery to impose their personal power.

[surinder]

People often comment that India did not go through bl()()dy purges at independence. These purges usually are very traumatic and can take decades to die down. But the net result is that you uproot the old completely (throwing the supposed "good" with the bad too) and start afresh. You make a one-time complete break. The INC did not want this at all, that is why Indian independence is more correctly called "transfer of power" rather "Indian Revolution", since it was not a revolution.

The Indian tendency of avoidance of chaos and uncertainty and a greed for continued material affluence was used by INC very effectively to device a way in which basic governenace is unchanged, only that the control falls in their hands.

This is the tradegy of the so-called independence movement of India.

[Haresh]

Cable shatters coalition truce on immigration by hinting migrant cap could change to suit trade partners


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tners.html

[Rony]

How Britain said farewell to its Empire

Read the comments from "Anand Mohan Chaturvedi, Akron, Ohio USA" & "Sainagakishore Srikantham, Chicago, US ". Lot of rona-dhona

What a shameful comments ! I do hope that people like them are in a minority.It is because of people like them that few thousand Brits were able to colonise millions of Indians.India may have regained independence from Britain physically but the Indian mind is still colonised.There is an urgent need for decolonization of Indian mind.

[munna]

What a shameful comments ! I do hope that people like them are in a minority.It is because of people like them that few thousand Brits were able to colonise millions of Indians.India may have regained independence from Britain physically but the Indian mind is still colonised.There is an urgent need for decolonization of Indian mind.

Sadly the people who stand colonized in mind either by US or UK seem to be in majority when it comes to our middle and rich classes. If an IT czar of today feels toubled to play his national anthem in August company of some two bit kahnian kaarporate types or our PM ji is not too antagonized by the idea of "Raj" then who am I to complain only??
Cut to chase the fact is that a lot of our new found influence and economic power in modern world is a result of our continued engagement with west ie earlier UK and then US, our elite are all derived from their companies, universities and markets. The same is reflected in the composition and comments of the same NRI or RNI elite. We could have chosen a radically different path in 1947 and then in 1950 but we refused to do so.
Jingos like us are and will be in minority as has been the case historically.

[joshvajohn]

We need to go beyond this discussion on Colonial mind and so on. Because we are somehow colonised not only by British but also by many others. What is need to be seen is how to go forward in developing and building our relationship. Yesterday many Indians were poor and today many Indians are rich. So the world's attitude has changed. The West is looking for India's investment, management and intelligence and money. It has been proved that Indian investment in many western countries has brought support even during the recession time. We need to look for a new kind of business relationship and mutual partnership where both sides would benefit. Now many westerners work under Indian officials and owners and the attitude has changed a lot. In this sense what can be a forward looking mind that Indian investers can develop and make more money by investing in the West.

'Britain, India must forge new economic partnership'
http://www.zeenews.com/news643925.html

Cameron Urges India to Lift Barriers to Trade to Create Thousands of Jobs
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-2 ... -jobs.html

[arnab]

I can see that we are having difficulty here in interpreting his words as they appear on the speech. On the speech itself he is not discussing "good governance model" or "good governance structure" - he is saying "claim to good governance". The first two are abstract constructs describing a whole set of rules, regulations, infrastructure to impose those rules, personnel etc. The third one is something completely different - it is about the "claim" by the British to "good governance". If that claim by the British was so acceptable - then the whole point of the freedom struggle becoames hollow and meaningless. It is a one-sided and extremely callous hijacking of the entire spirit of the freedom struggle and at one stroke erases the volumes of sentiments and spirit exhibited in writing and in words by the seekers of independence - including MKG who for most of his life did not support the Brit model of governance and tried to devise his own.

And in many senses that colonial attitude still permeates the admin machinery to a great extent - as evident and pointed out by social scientists frequently - in the behaviour of the police. The admin is detached from the "masses"

I think we are creating a mountain out of a mole hill. The indian independence movement was all about 'swaraj' (self rule). This was articulated by Tilak and even MKG when he said to the brits to go even if it meant leaving leaving India to the mercy of the gods. MMS's argument is about not entirely rejecting Brit's claim to 'good governance'. One does not need to be particularly perspicacious to claim that Brit rule was inequitable, uneven and ultimately self-serving (e.g rail ines were set up to ferry troops to put down future 'mutinies', but the unintended consequence of this was it for the first time connected different parts of India). Similarly, the RBI Act of 1934 for the first time provided India with a currency union even before it became a political entity. Prior to this every princely state from Bhawalpur to Hyderabad was issuing its own currency. All these provided a glue which kept the country administratively unified after independence(rather than empty slogans). These are the good governance factors that MMS is refering to.

I think the thuggish behaviour of the police is hardly a product of the colonial era. I'm sure the high-handedness of law enforcing officials existed in the pre-colonial era as well. If you really want to know about colonial attitudes - visit RBI. Even today, the mumbai office has separate elevators for officers, separate dining rooms for officers. Or think of the Batman (sahayak) in the Indian army - these are vestiges of the colonial era. Or think of why every Indian Airlines aircraft's ID number commences with the letters - VT (It stands for Viceroy's Territory).

So MMS is merely articulating that outside of the well known aspects that have denounced british rule, running a government requires one to look beyond slogans and involves the the hard and unglamourous task of providing legislative frameworks, legal structures and administrative coverage to a country. This initial framework is what the Brits provided and which is what we still largely use and it is a reality (just as the brit made famine of 1942 was a reality as shown by Amartya Sen).

[Manu]

From an earlier discussion on this thread (here: clicky). For Hari Seldon and Jupiter Babu.

UK economic growth jumps to 1.1%

Also, see here: Clicky

PwC Report here: Clicky

[Suraj]

I've heard this VT = Viceroy Territory ICAO aircraft registration thing many times, but have never seen any authoritative basis for it. For what its worth, all British colonial domains had ICAO codes of V* assigned. For example:
HK: VR-H
Singapore: VR-S
Malaysia: VR-J, VR-O, VR-R
Australia: VH
Carribean Islands: VP-*, VQ-*

These were assigned in the early 1940s, before the baki subcontinental entities came into existence. Several countries have changed their originally assigned ICAO registrations to some other. Here's a list of old and new ones:
http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/regprefixcur.asp

It's just an arbitrary code no one bothered to change, and all it takes to do so is an ICAO filing and lots of paint.

[vina]

Ok. I am sold. The Brits seem to be going about it the right way. Point is how will the Dilli Billis behave ?

A stronger, wider and deeper relationship

So it's clear why India matters to Britain. But why should Britain matter to India? I believe our two countries are natural partners. We have deep and close connections among our people, with nearly two million people of Indian origin living in the U.K. We share so much culturally, whether it's watching Shah Rukh Khan, eating the same food or watching cricket. Beyond the cultural bonds, Britain has practical attractions for India. We speak the world's language. We are still the world's sixth largest manufacturer and the best base for companies wanting to do business in Europe. We have some of the best universities in the world and we are a great hub for science and innovation. Britain still has the strengths of its history, not least our democracy, rule of law and strong institutions, but there is also the modern dynamism of the nation that helped pioneer the internet, unravel the DNA code and whose music, films and television are admired the world over. All of these things can mean opportunity for Indian investors and entrepreneurs.

So this is the case I'm making for a stronger, wider, deeper relationship between India and Britain. I have come to your country in a spirit of humility. I know that Britain cannot rely on sentiment and shared history for a place in India's future. Your country has the whole world beating a path to its door. But I believe Britain should be India's partner of choice in the years ahead. Starting this week, that is what we are determined to deliver.

[brihaspati]

Stronger, deeper, wider - somehow reminds me of the ads on late night tv guaranteeing sustained "penetration". Now depends on who is getting f*****.

[Jarita]

Cameron Urges India to Lift Barriers to Trade to Create Thousands of Jobs
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-2 ... -jobs.html


This sounds too much like East India Company part two. This is such BS. Didn't they come with the same flattering words and garbage 400 years ago. We've already opened the kimono much too much since early 90's and are suffering for it.

[Karan Dixit]

Dear Mr. Cameron,

No worries. We are moved by your overtures. And, we (I am speaking for myself here) surely will give Britain a fair consideration. We have lots in common - English, Polo, Cricket, Tea, Tandoori and so on. There is a great potential for India and UK to work together. UK has squandered many valuable years playing some sort of great game which it could have used to make amends with India. Anyhow, I hope going forward, UK will be of no hindrance to India's strategic scheme of things.

[chetak]

I can see that we are having difficulty here in interpreting his words as they appear on the speech. On the speech itself he is not discussing "good governance model" or "good governance structure" - he is saying "claim to good governance". The first two are abstract constructs describing a whole set of rules, regulations, infrastructure to impose those rules, personnel etc. The third one is something completely different - it is about the "claim" by the British to "good governance". If that claim by the British was so acceptable - then the whole point of the freedom struggle becoames hollow and meaningless. It is a one-sided and extremely callous hijacking of the entire spirit of the freedom struggle and at one stroke erases the volumes of sentiments and spirit exhibited in writing and in words by the seekers of independence - including MKG who for most of his life did not support the Brit model of governance and tried to devise his own.

And in many senses that colonial attitude still permeates the admin machinery to a great extent - as evident and pointed out by social scientists frequently - in the behaviour of the police. The admin is detached from the "masses"

I think we are creating a mountain out of a mole hill. The indian independence movement was all about 'swaraj' (self rule). This was articulated by Tilak and even MKG when he said to the brits to go even if it meant leaving leaving India to the mercy of the gods. MMS's argument is about not entirely rejecting Brit's claim to 'good governance'. One does not need to be particularly perspicacious to claim that Brit rule was inequitable, uneven and ultimately self-serving (e.g rail ines were set up to ferry troops to put down future 'mutinies', but the unintended consequence of this was it for the first time connected different parts of India). Similarly, the RBI Act of 1934 for the first time provided India with a currency union even before it became a political entity. Prior to this every princely state from Bhawalpur to Hyderabad was issuing its own currency. All these provided a glue which kept the country administratively unified after independence(rather than empty slogans). These are the good governance factors that MMS is refering to.

I think the thuggish behaviour of the police is hardly a product of the colonial era. I'm sure the high-handedness of law enforcing officials existed in the pre-colonial era as well. If you really want to know about colonial attitudes - visit RBI. Even today, the mumbai office has separate elevators for officers, separate dining rooms for officers. Or think of the Batman (sahayak) in the Indian army - these are vestiges of the colonial era. Or think of why every Indian Airlines aircraft's ID number commences with the letters - VT (It stands for Viceroy's Territory).

So MMS is merely articulating that outside of the well known aspects that have denounced british rule, running a government requires one to look beyond slogans and involves the the hard and unglamourous task of providing legislative frameworks, legal structures and administrative coverage to a country. This initial framework is what the Brits provided and which is what we still largely use and it is a reality (just as the brit made famine of 1942 was a reality as shown by Amartya Sen).

VT -- Victorian Territories

[Karna_A]

How Britain said farewell to its Empire

Read the comments from "Anand Mohan Chaturvedi, Akron, Ohio USA" & "Sainagakishore Srikantham, Chicago, US ". Lot of rona-dhona

What a shameful comments ! I do hope that people like them are in a minority.It is because of people like them that few thousand Brits were able to colonise millions of Indians.India may have regained independence from Britain physically but the Indian mind is still colonised.There is an urgent need for decolonization of Indian mind.

Without Islamic invasions and British colonialism, India would have been more or less like Japan where Indic culture flourished without outside influences.

[Dileep]

I speculate that the 'V' is viceregal, common for all colonies and dominions.

[chetak]

I speculate that the 'V' is viceregal, common for all colonies and dominions.

Viceregal not mentioned commonly when googling this topic.

In the regal sense, viceroy's did not have territories, Victoria did.

[arnab]

I've heard this VT = Viceroy Territory ICAO aircraft registration thing many times, but have never seen any authoritative basis for it. For what its worth, all British colonial domains had ICAO codes of V* assigned. For example:
HK: VR-H
Singapore: VR-S
Malaysia: VR-J, VR-O, VR-R
Australia: VH
Carribean Islands: VP-*, VQ-*


It's just an arbitrary code no one bothered to change, and all it takes to do so is an ICAO filing and lots of paint.

Hmm I found this news report

http://75.125.77.246/news/2009/aug/0308 ... -Patel.htm

Despite plans to scrap Brit relic Viceroy's Territory it will remain the registration code for all aircraft

After spending considerable time and energy, the government of India has decided to give up its efforts to repaint and re-register all aircraft in the country, simply because the tail number identification, VT (Viceroy's Territory), is a relic of the British era.

Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel told MiD DAY that the government had decided not to replace VT as the international code of registration for Indian aircraft.


MiD DAY report on May 13, 2008

A Civil Aviation Ministry spokesperson said, "Several options were considered to replace the VT sign with something more distinctly Indian, but nothing worked out."

MiD DAY had front paged the story on May 13, 2008, 'Angrez chale gaye VT chhod gaye' on how the government's hunt for a new tail sign meant that all planes in the country would have to be repainted and re-registered.

Among other signs examined by the government were B (for the Hindi word Bharat) or the letter I for India.

However, both these have already been assigned to China and Italy, respectively. The government was of the view that the VT registration did not make any sense in post-colonial India.

The ministry was in touch with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to get a new identification code.

Interestingly, the ITU allotted X, V, AT, AW, T and 8Y to India all of which were in no manner found to be symbolic to India.

What's VT?

The sign VT can be seen on both commercial and private aircrafts in India. The VT prefix, allotted in 1929, stands for either Victorian Territory or Viceroy's Territory.

[Suraj]

Here's another article on the ICAO registration: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/hi ... 0257.shtml

We've also received a number of questions asking why India uses the code VT. You may notice that numerous countries and regions have codes starting with V, and many of these are now or once were British colonies. When the prefix code system was implemented by the ICAO, British possessions were given codes starting with V to indicate their status as part of the British Empire. The letter V was chosen to represent Viceroy, the title given to a colonial governor. Even after these nations gained their independence, many have retained the V prefix codes to the present day. Aside from India, the most recognizable example is probably Australia's VH. Exceptions include Pakistan, which gained the new prefix AP after splitting from India in 1947, and Hong Kong, which traded in its former VR for B upon its return to China. It is also noteworthy that a movement has been underway in India to request a prefix code change from the ICAO to something better representing the independent nation.

While the V may allegedly refer to viceroy, I still don't see any basis for the claimed full form of VT, simply because other colonies had V* designations too, with no such similar claim.

In any case, the whole matter is at best of dubious utility, no different from renaming cities. If GoI comes up with an alternate ICAO designator and someone from the private sector funds the repainting of several hundreds of plane markings, then sure, let them do it.

[Murugan]

(e.g rail ines were set up to ferry troops to put down future 'mutinies', but the unintended consequence of this was it for the first time connected different parts of India).

...For further exploitation and carry away goods produced by connected people of connected parts of Bharat and sell them again as finished goods at high prices back to connected different parts of India

Similarly, the RBI Act of 1934 for the first time provided India with a currency union even before it became a political entity. Prior to this every princely state from Bhawalpur to Hyderabad was issuing its own currency.

Even after the pre-independence RBI started printing paper currency, big and important princely states viz, Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bikaner, Kutch, Tripura, Dungarpur, Hyderabad and many others continued minting their own metal/paper currency till Bharat became Republic of India. They were all valid acorss the length and breadth of Bharat.

Hyderabad kept on issueing currency notes well after independence

5 Forth issue (1936-38). Fakhr-Yar Jung (1st time)
6 Fifth issue (1939). Mehdi Yar Jung
7 Sixth issue (1940-41). Fakhr-Yar Jung (2nd time)
8 Seventh issue (1941-45). Ghulam Muhammad
9 Eighth issue (1945). Liaquat Jung (1st time)
10 Ninth issue (1945-46). Zahed Husain
11 Tenth issue(1946). Zahed Jung
12 Eleventh issue (1946-47). Liaquat Jung (2nd time)
13 Twelfth issue (1947-48). Moin Nawaz Jung

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

Goa and Pondicherry kept issuing currency notes well past 1950

http://rbi.org.in/currency/museum/o-Indo-Port.html
http://rbi.org.in/currency/museum/o-Indo-French.html

Obviously there was no currecncy union after RBI Act of 1934.

There were independent postal administrations ran by many of the so called feudatory states, e.g., Bundi, Jaipur, Idar, Kisangarh etc. Both conventional and feudatory state having their independent fiscal policies and revenue gernation till the birth of Republic.

Independent, princely states postal administration was in place from Kashmir to Kanyakumari till the gora rats left bharat in the dark, in the middle of the night.

=No National Postal Administration

All these provided a glue which kept the country administratively unified after independence(rather than empty slogans).

Bharat had, at regular intervals, unified currency, in the time of Magadh Rulers, Maurya rulers, Gupta rulers, Mughals and for shorter periods during rules of delhi sultans. During this time Governance was far better and people were most prosperous compared to british misrule and terror.

What MMS calls a good governance is very difficult to pinpoint, imho. Though in his speech he made some tongue-in-cheek remarks against british administration:

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 {with the help of railway lines} in terms of per capita income.

or

It used to be said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I am afraid we were partly responsible for sending that adage out of fashion

[Murugan]

It completely beats me how a person like MMS, who is so deft and brave in saying things against imperial establishment (by actually not saying) in their own land spoke in a very naive way at S-e-S

[derkonig]

Don't forget, MMS also declared British rule to be beneficial to India. As for the explanation for "naivety", treachery suits fine.

[Haresh]

The British people need to buck up their moronic ideas quickly.
They Need India, India does not need them.
For more proof that British education has gone down the toilet and that they will always have a hateful attitude towards India, just look at the coments

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politi ... First_Time

http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/ ... b9c2ed4f43

[Mauli]

karma is a female dog

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6h2XBZz88VE&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6h2XBZz88VE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[biswas]

^ lolowned