Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

[JwalaMukhi]

Anyways, it is always fascinating to see the payoff - for the amount of investment in cultivation of the natives who proudly take up cudgels on behalf of the perfidious albions. It takes lot of finesse to develop such a constitution. Now, the SDREs and some other natives are sent sparring over some "secular female" whose statute needs to be hoisted in londonistan/queendom, while the overlords probably are smoking cheerot while watching the natives are going in a tizzy arguing about that.

Well, the day the goras start defending/fighting on behalf of SDREs just as many SDREs are obligated in interest of fairness/civility (whatever you name it), that is the day the one can consider SDREs have arrived. Haven't seen one, will unlikely to see one.

OT:
Ah the "internet hindooze", are a distortion from the norm for the analysis of sagarika goose types. For sagarika goose types the common attributes that a "mango hindoo" would/should mean:
1) backward, caste ridden and primitive, - uncouth, uneducated and a perfect slave preferably to "melanin deficit" lords
2) is a abomination whose cardinal sin is being a hindu, whose duty is to die without complaint from a perspective true blue mullah. But from a compassionate perspective of true blue of educated monotheistic admirer, hindus duty is to stop being a hindu. problem solved.
Which part of above two points of the memo did the "internet hindooze" miss is the eternal question for sagarika goose types.

[JwalaMukhi]

P.S. "Noor khan" or "sher khan"? who cares?

For my part, The very fact that Delhi doesn't have any scheme named after "His excellency Shri. Hon'ble Deve Gowda" in national capital, reflects a deep seated hatred of "mannina maga - son of the earth" types and general facist attitude to "SDREs elderly gentleman types" even among the internet seculars/ hindoos etc.

[lakshmikanth]

Anyways, it is always fascinating to see the payoff - for the amount of investment in cultivation of the natives who proudly take up cudgels on behalf of the perfidious albions. It takes lot of finesse to develop such a constitution. Now, the SDREs and some other natives are sent sparring over some "secular female" whose statute needs to be hoisted in londonistan/queendom, while the overlords probably are smoking cheerot while watching the natives are going in a tizzy arguing about that.

Well, the day the goras start defending/fighting on behalf of SDREs just as many SDREs are obligated in interest of fairness/civility (whatever you name it), that is the day the one can consider SDREs have arrived. Haven't seen one, will unlikely to see one.

OT:
Ah the "internet hindooze", are a distortion from the norm for the analysis of sagarika goose types. For sagarika goose types the common attributes that a "mango hindoo" would/should mean:
1) backward, caste ridden and primitive, - uncouth, uneducated and a perfect slave preferably to "melanin deficit" lords
2) is a abomination whose cardinal sin is being a hindu, whose duty is to die without complaint from a perspective true blue mullah. But from a compassionate perspective of true blue of educated monotheistic admirer, hindus duty is to stop being a hindu. problem solved.
Which part of above two points of the memo did the "internet hindooze" miss is the eternal question for sagarika goose types.

Very interesting. To again invoke Godwin's law, would the Jews (and anyone who belongs to the Allied powers of WWII) consider people who heroically served the Nazis as heroes?

There are plenty of them, here is a discussion: http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic ... 1&start=15

I am yet to meet a Jew who says:- "Antisemitism was the norm of the day back then, so all these writers and people would be extremely antisemitic, we have to look past that and see their greatness"

I am yet to meet a Jew who says :- "Hitler's army might have been doing evil deeds and were jerks, but there were men who did heroic deeds to them and we should consider them as heros."

If Nazism was such a bad thing (rightfully so) that wiped off 3.6 million Jews, then British imperialist infrastructure (which includes their writers and philosophers as such) that resulted in more than 30 million Indian deaths should be treated as a evil, ugly, untouchable moths that deserve to be incinerated from planet earth. Instead we are being asked to look past their "racism" and see their "kindness" in allowing Indians to migrate.

The comparisons to yeeevil French imperialism in Tunisia and Algeria is even more interesting. Here is a paraphrase:-

In 19th century America, two slaves who recently got freed realize that one of them had a harsh master while the other one was "slightly better" (if you ignore the injuries that were impinged). One makes a case that his master was more lenient, and hence he still shows love and respect to his former master, the big sahib, who occasionally reminds him that he used to own him in not so subtle ways.

lol onleee

Jai Ho onleeeee

EDIT: phor your enjoyment on the French-Imperialism was bad onreeee argument:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/03 ... -argument/

[JwalaMukhi]

If Nazism was such a bad thing (rightfully so) that wiped off 3.6 million Jews, then British imperialist infrastructure (which includes their writers and philosophers as such) that resulted in more than 30 million Indian deaths should be treated as a evil, ugly, untouchable moths that deserve to be incinerated from planet earth. Instead we are being asked to look past their "racism" and see their "kindness" in allowing Indians to migrate.

The comparisons to yeeevil French imperialism in Tunisia and Algeria is even more interesting. Here is a paraphrase:-

In 19th century America, two slaves who recently got freed realize that one of them had a harsh master while the other one was "slightly better" (if you ignore the injuries that were impinged). One makes a case that his master was more lenient. However both of them were slaves, and that itself makes both the masters evil .

Jai Ho onleeeee

Lakshmikanthji,
The irony of the kindness in allowing migration - In the first place, the loot and reduction of the SDRES to penury and condemning them to worst form of poverty, necessitates the migration of SDREs even today prinicipally that is economic based. If not for all the robbery, loot, most SDREs probably would not have seen such a devastating penury! The orchestration of one of the Richest nation to one of the poorest, if not for the poorest nation tag honor goes to the perfidious albions. The ramification of that is generation even today looks to migration as one of the solution to escape poverty and penury!

[arnab]

Arnab ji,
I did not say I was speculating - again you seem to have picked up a lot from the professional historians by imputing things to people that hey have not said. You dismissed Dr. Sharma's arguments because you didnt care to actually verify his arguments, and took cover behind "peer review" excuse. Your argument for such dismissal was first
(1) it was not published in some established historical journal
(2) it was speculation

Does it mean that the speculations published in "peer reviewed journals" become acceptable for you simply because a certain group had decided to approve of it? So in that case you are not against speculations per se, but onlee if approved by a certain group.

Second, Dr. Sharma is perfectly in line with the so-called professional historians technique of interpretations. Some serious acquaintance with actual "peer reviewed" historical published research should have immediately shown this obvious fact to you. You found Dr. Sharma's arguments speculation, and I did not say I was speculating. I simply said, what Sharma has done is in line with currently accepted historical method of narrative interpretation. In that sense, almost everything that Prof. Thapar, or Prof Jha have written are entirely "speculations".

Here's the thing - Peer Reviewed journals offer a modicum of respectability to the conclusions (possibly a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Afterall, as I'm sure you know, even peer reviewed publications have been found to be wrong). Besides, you have previously disagreed with Thapar's methodology, approach and conclusions, yet you offer as 'proofs' (or for initial reading) the blog of a person who uses a similar technique and then tell me that if I don't believe him, I cannot believe anything Thapar says. Tell you what? I'm happy to disbelieve both Then the onus is on you to provide something more concrete.

Second, you claim that british history - is replete with british historians and writers ignoring, whitewashing british crimes against humanity or essentially indulging in hagiography to create heroes of people who were not heroes (and I agree, though not all britishers, afterall you did provide a piece written by George Monibot in the UK's Guardian as evidence to show how Britain has whitewashed it's colonial history). However, when you ascribe through 'anecdotal' evidence, letters and partial quotes - sterling qualities to Indian (hindu) rulers and try to claim that they were pan-indic and in their approach and respected all 'dharmas', you too are indulging in the same hagiography that you accuse the west of doing (afterall even Jinnah allegedly made a speech saying all religions would be free in pakistan. Does that fall in line with his actions?). So why should it become acceptable in your case but not in theirs?

Third, I agree not 'onlee the Nazis' were evil. It was the entire German people. The silent majority were happily marching to Hitler's tune when the going was good and jumped ship only when the outcome of the conflict became apparent. They did however manage to create this false dichotomy between the Nazis and others.

[kenop]

Not sure where it could go.
MI-5 whistleblower interview

MACHON: Well, that sort of came to a head, came to the boil in 1995, because David Shayler, my partner at the time, was the head of the living section in MI5. And he had an unusually close working relationship with his counterpart in MI6, the foreign intelligence agency, and he was briefed officially about a plot that MI6 was involved in—and some of his colleagues were, too; it wasn't just David. And this was basically MI6 funding a bunch of Islamic extremist terrorists in Libya. And this group had links with al-Qaeda, which was a known terrorist group even then, which MI5 was investigating. And MI6 was funding this group. And what they were doing was helping to foment a coup against Gaddafi. So the group—.

JAY: But to investigate, they just, I assume, could have phoned the CIA and asked, because the CIA had (certainly at the beginnings of al-Qaeda, at least) something to do with it.

So MI5 was investigating them; MI6 was funding them.

[lakshmikanth]

Here's the thing - Peer Reviewed journals offer a modicum of respectability to the conclusions (possibly a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Afterall, as I'm sure you know, even peer reviewed publications have been found to be wrong).

I think you should take sometime to read up the OIT thread. Pir review has failed miserably there, coz the Pirs themselves are ideologically biased.

Assume this is 1939 and you are trying to publish a paper detailing the perils of antisemitism to a German publication on sociology. I can only imagine what the pir review would be. This is the case with most western historian pirs, as can be seen from the OIT thread.

Third, I agree not 'onlee the Nazis' were evil. It was the entire German people. The silent majority were happily marching to Hitler's tune when the going was good and jumped ship only when the outcome of the conflict became apparent. They did however manage to create this false dichotomy between the Nazis and others.

This is an astute observation, replace Nazis with English colonialist and Germans with the English. Hitler with her Majesties white a$$. Would read the same.

Also read up on the first two chapters of this book, on the psychological nature of the colonizer and the colonized who identifies with them.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZB8-Hy ... &q&f=false

[arnab]

I think you should take sometime to read up the OIT thread. Pir review has failed miserably there, coz the Pirs themselves are ideologically biased.

Assume this is 1939 and you are trying to publish a paper detailing the perils of antisemitism to a German publication on sociology. I can only imagine what the pir review would be. This is the case with most western historian pirs, as can be seen from the OIT thread.

I'm sure however the publication requested in this context is not that politically fraught. All one needs to do is publish a paper claiming that Alexander's 'greatness' was systematically built up by british historographers to justify their colonialism.

This is an astute observation, replace Nazis with English colonialist and Germans with the English. Hitler with her Majesties white a$$. Would read the same.

Oh completely agree The problem is that in the case of the Indian revolutionary movement - there were too many Indian colluders and sympathisers with the British. The Indian revolutionary movement was very geographically specific as you would know. Talking about that would unnecessarily cause hurt and the fact that many internet warriors now offer their services in exposing the perfidy of the britishers now might be to compensate for the silence of their ancestors earlier Interesting piskological questions, no?

[lakshmikanth]

I'm sure however the publication requested in this context is not that politically fraught. All one needs to do is publish a paper claiming that Alexander's 'greatness' was systematically built up by british historographers to justify their colonialism.

Frankly, OIT is not that politically fraught, one has to look at genetic evidence and astronomical observations only no? Oh wait..........

Oh completely agree The problem is that in the case of the Indian revolutionary movement - there were too many Indian colluders and sympathisers with the British. The Indian revolutionary movement was very geographically specific as you would know. Talking about that would unnecessarily cause hurt and the fact that many internet warriors now offer their services in exposing the perfidy of the britishers now might be to compensate for the silence of their ancestors earlier Interesting piskological questions, no?

Every colonization and oppression is a divisive event, it divides the colonized into the ones who are with the colonizer and ones who are against. Infact, it is in the interest of the colonizer to divide the colonized as that would reduce resistance. Read up on the "House Negro vs Field Negro" in the US. Jews in Tunisia. Macaulay's children in India.

About the internet warriors (or Internet Hindus as Sagarika motormahatma might have put it):
Does it reduce the perfidy of the British in anyway? Does it change the fact that there are still Macaulayputras who are longing to lick her majesties hairy you-know-what and would sell out her brown dharthiputra brethen down the river in a heartbeat? Does it change the fact that the genocidal nature of British imperialism has been largely neglected in India? Does it change the fact that the British have no respect for Indians and our culture in general, while Indians are trained to respect the British culture and would lap up any piece of $hit if its British made?

Here is something about myself (I am an internet Hindu): To be honest, other than migrating away from Goa due to the Portugese conversion and torture, my ancestors, to the best of my knowledge, were neither here nor there. They may or maynot have colluded with the British. I do not know, I have no records of that. Even if they did not, their movement out of Goa and subsequent poverty due to loss of business was due to colonialism. I dont think I can forget that . Even if they did collude, I don't see how what I am doing could be a compensation for that. I only see irrelevance.

[arnab]

Frankly, OIT is not that politically fraught, one has to look at genetic evidence and astronomical observations only no? Oh wait..........

I still maintain that it is 'politically' fraught as opposed to scientifically fraught. But I confess, frankly I do not know much about it.

About the internet warriors (or Internet Hindus as Sagarika motormahatma might have put it):
Does it reduce the perfidy of the British in anyway? Does it change the fact that there are still Macaulayputras who are longing to lick her majesties hairy you-know-what and would sell out her brown dharthiputra brethen down the river in a heartbeat? Does it change the fact that the genocidal nature of British imperialism has been largely neglected in India? Does it change the fact that the British have no respect for Indians and our culture in general, while Indians are trained to respect the British culture and would lap up any piece of $hit if its British made?

No it does not and the 'macaulayputras' are basically a continuation of the collusion effect we saw over the 200 years of British rule. Perhaps if there had not been so much collusion, we could have shaved off 100 years from that rule. The collusion effect may have lingered far less in that event.
The problem as I see it is in ascribing eveything that does not appeal to forum members in terms of 'colonised minds' So far people have been accused of having a colonised mind if they have - read enid blyton, liked wodehouse, said alexander was great, claimed not all britishers were evil. What next? a colonised mind because we wear trousers? ride on trains? eat omlettes? use a computer?
Finally - I'm not sure of the end game here. Suppose we agree that Indians are actually colonised in the mind and BRF does manage to liberate these minds - what are we aiming to achieve? stopIndians going to UK? stop playing cricket? organise a better olympics? beat them at soccer?

[lakshmikanth]

No it does not and the 'macaulayputras' are basically a continuation of the collusion effect we saw over the 200 years of British rule. Perhaps if there had not been so much collusion, we could have shaved off 100 years from that rule. The collusion effect may have lingered far less in that event.
The problem as I see it is in ascribing eveything that does not appeal to forum members in terms of 'colonised minds' So far people have been accused of having a colonised mind if they have - read enid blyton, liked wodehouse, said alexander was great, claimed not all britishers were evil. What next? a colonised mind because we wear trousers? ride on trains? eat omlettes? use a computer?
Finally - I'm not sure of the end game here. Suppose we agree that Indians are actually colonised in the mind and BRF does manage to liberate these minds - what are we aiming to achieve? stopIndians going to UK? stop playing cricket? organise a better olympics? beat them at soccer?

Self Respect, Freedom from inferiority complex, and justice to heinous crimes against humanity. And since the Brits are ruthless barbarians in civilized skins, the only way they will learn is to turn the tables on them. Be equally ruthless in adapting whatever good they have to offer and giving zero credit, apart from being extremely critical of anything that is even close to being bad/evil.

No it does not and the 'macaulayputras' are basically a continuation of the collusion effect we saw over the 200 years of British rule. Perhaps if there had not been so much collusion, we could have shaved off 100 years from that rule.

Edit: I cannot help but notice you blaming Indians again in this one Why the self goal? Do you think anyone else would have colluded less? Do you think its just because they were Indians that they colluded? Or do you think its human nature to do so (regardless if he or she is a gora or kala?). It almost sounds like you are saying that there is something "inherently" wrong with onleee Indians and that is the root cause of collusion against the Brits.

If you believe this is the case it might be helpful to read up on the social piskology book i posted above. It is universal human nature, and more importantly there is a very unique pattern of psychological redemption to an oppressive situation. An example of redemption is the Gay community doing their "Gay Pride Parade".

I am trying to get Indian people to be proud of themselves instead of shaming themselves saying that their ancestors might have colluded with the British. It is only human to do so. It is also human to seek a solution to their psychological miseries once they are free and prosperous, and there are people who have studied this mental decolonization in a very academic fashion. I suggest you read their work.

[Virupaksha]

Lakshmikanth ji,

As you know, McCaulay Putra ism is itself a representation of their deep seated inferiority complex of not being good enough on their own, their hatred towards the other natives which converts into boot licking for the british.

[lakshmikanth]

Lakshmikanth ji,

As you know, McCaulay Putra ism is itself a representation of their deep seated inferiority complex of not being good enough on their own, their hatred towards the other natives which converts into boot licking for the british.

Yes sir 100% true and agree. Now we have people here saying that Indians are "Inferior" because so "many" of them colluded with the Brits and its a uniquely Indian problem (as evidenced by taking 100 years more than "normal" to get our freedom) We invent new ways of feeling inferior onlee.

[arnab]

Lakshmikanth ji,

As you know, McCaulay Putra ism is itself a representation of their deep seated inferiority complex of not being good enough on their own, their hatred towards the other natives which converts into boot licking for the british.

Yes sir 100% true and agree. Now we have people here saying that Indians are "Inferior" because so "many" of them colluded with the Brits and its a uniquely Indian problem (as evidenced by taking 100 years more than "normal" to get our freedom) We invent new ways of feeling inferior onlee.

I thought feeling better about ourselves by knocking down others is a manifestation of deep seated inferiority complex - but what do I know

I did read somewhere that the percapita share of british population to indians was the lowest in India. Still when the opportunity arose in 1857 - some Indians felt obliged to collude. Hopefully it is not an uniquely Indian phenomenon. I will however read the book you suggested.

[lakshmikanth]

I thought feeling better about ourselves by knocking down others is a manifestation of deep seated inferiority complex - but what do I know

I guess you don't know then. Knocking the brits down is never my agenda, it can occur as a by product of what I am doing.

The main goal is to cut them to size when they try to sell their propagandu, which many swallow without even questioning. The aim is to question, to poke holes at myths, to find reality, and of course to do unto them what they did to us. It is a legitimate goal, and it is a process of redemption.

I did read somewhere that the percapita share of british population to indians was the lowest in India. Still when the opportunity arose in 1857 - some Indians felt obliged to collude.

In effect what you are saying is Indian psyche is "somehow" different from psyche of other people. This is a rather racist statement to make very subtle one at that. And ofcourse, if there was a person around here with an agenda, you are providing him a dagger to shove it into our collective behinds. All he would need to say is "You Indians dont deserve your freedom because you could not even get your act together in 1857, you would have been better off under the British" (i.e. the same theme of you Indians are inferior and hence cannot take care of themselves)

You might love the Brits, but please dont make these kind of gross generalizations and self-goals. For humanities sake

[arnab]

In effect what you are saying is Indian psyche is "somehow" different from psyche of other people. This is a rather racist statement to make very subtle one at that. And ofcourse, if there was a person around here with an agenda, you are providing him a dagger to shove it into our collective behinds. All he would need to say is "You Indians dont deserve your freedom because you could not even get your act together in 1857, you would have been better off under the British" (i.e. the same theme of you Indians are inferior and hence cannot take care of themselves)

You might love the Brits, but please dont make these kind of gross generalizations and self-goals. For humanities sake

I don't see it like that. I do not see the britishers having divine right to rule Indians irrespective of whether they are 'worthy of ruling themselves or not. My argument is better I don't have to prove to the brits that Indians were 'as good' (or as bad) as any one else in ruling themselves. The moment we run around trying to have to justify ourselves to them (that we are worthy of Swaraj) we get into murky territory apart from giving them the opportunity to say - 'no you are not worthy'.

[lakshmikanth]

I don't see it like that. I do not see the britishers having divine right to rule Indians irrespective of whether they are 'worthy of ruling themselves or not. My argument is better I don't have to prove to the brits that Indians were 'as good' (or as bad) as any one else in ruling themselves. The moent we run around trying to have to justify ourselves to them (that we are worthy of Swaraj) we get into murky territory apart from giving them the opportunity to say - 'no you are not worthy'.

You dont have to prove anything to the Brits, however you have to make them pay for the 30 million deaths in India. Or atleast make sure all Indians know how heinous that crime is. It is imperative to poke holes at the myths of the Brits. It is also imperative not to respect their leaders and their imperial infrastructure that caused millions of deaths in India . It is imperative that Indians do not commit self-goals, which include calling people 'Sir' and ignoring racist views of racist authors just because everyone around that time was racist. They are all a part of the heinous and cruel machinery of torture and oppression, and should be treated like you treat any criminal scum in your neighborhood.

Hopefully it is not an uniquely Indian phenomenon. I will however read the book you suggested.

Are you desperately hoping that it is not "uniquely" Indian phenomena (i.e. Hoping that your belief that it IS indeed a unique Indian phenomena be proved wrong so that you can breath a sigh of relief)

[RajeshA]

No it does not and the 'macaulayputras' are basically a continuation of the collusion effect we saw over the 200 years of British rule. Perhaps if there had not been so much collusion, we could have shaved off 100 years from that rule. The collusion effect may have lingered far less in that event.

The problem as I see it is in ascribing eveything that does not appeal to forum members in terms of 'colonised minds' So far people have been accused of having a colonised mind if they have - read enid blyton, liked wodehouse, said alexander was great, claimed not all britishers were evil. What next? a colonised mind because we wear trousers? ride on trains? eat omlettes? use a computer?

Finally - I'm not sure of the end game here. Suppose we agree that Indians are actually colonised in the mind and BRF does manage to liberate these minds - what are we aiming to achieve? stopIndians going to UK? stop playing cricket? organise a better olympics? beat them at soccer?

"a colonised mind because we wear trousers?"

Well that seems to be the fear then, that Hindu fundamentalists would take away the trousers of the Macaulayputras and send them naked in the streets. Would have to suggest that to chaddi-wearing Hindu fanatics! Go picket the pants!

What one wears should be dependent on what is comfortable and appropriate for the occasion. And of course we should first look for this in our traditions first before exploring other offers.

ride on trains?, use a computer?

So does this make British wearing cotton clothes into Indians? After all cotton clothes were one of the main exports of the Indus Valley Civilization!

These are some of the more immature arguments that Macaulayites give! They say if you wish to use an invention of some other people, please become mental slave of the other, mortgage yourself and your family to them, and sell out your culture! Really a pathetic argument!

eat omlettes?

So eggs and stoves were an invention of the British as well! Indians make their omelettes very differently and much more tasty. In any case, the British are the joke of the world when it comes to cuisine! And omelette is a loan word from French. I wonder if the British used to go to the homes of Indians and teach them how to make omelettes!

what are we aiming to achieve? stop Indians going to UK? stop playing cricket? organise a better olympics? beat them at soccer?

No aims! We will beat them at the games and competitions if we are good! But there is no such obsession! Britain is simply a mediocre country and they do not set the standards we live up to!

[Sanku]

Serious question to RajeshA-ji and others who are discussing the topics on this page -- in terms of thought experiment -- do the bootlickers realize they are bootlickers? And do it despite? Or is it ingrained and when shown a mirror (we have examples) -- they still dont realize that they are bootlickers? Or that causes deep cognitivie dissonance?

[JE Menon]

In this context it might be instructive to define who is not a bootlicker and associated characteristics.

[Sanku]

In this context it might be instructive to define who is not a bootlicker and associated characteristics.

That is a tricky question, , the framing and the question was influenced by the discussion on this page and hence -- I will use the following borrowed characteristics from the discussion:

Virupaksha wrote:
Lakshmikanth ji,

As you know, McCaulay Putra ism is itself a representation of their deep seated inferiority complex of not being good enough on their own, their hatred towards the other natives which converts into boot licking for the british.


Yes sir 100% true and agree. Now we have people here saying that Indians are "Inferior" because so "many" of them colluded with the Brits and its a uniquely Indian problem (as evidenced by taking 100 years more than "normal" to get our freedom) We invent new ways of feeling inferior onlee.

Since we are discussing Indians, who bend over backwards, to whitewash British crimes, and/or try and contextualize them (well everyone was like that) -- while at the same time blaming Indians for being loosers (you lost you deserve it)

Such are characteristics of Macaulayputra or bootlickers.

I have few examples in mind (outside BRF) but putting that down will probably earn me a warning so I shall cease and desist.

[Sanku]

The thread on Indian inferiority complex might be better to discuss this further though -- Lakshmikanth-ji, arnab, Virupaksha et al, could I request you to please share your thoughts on the question that I asked on that thread?

[Lilo]

What next? a colonised mind because we wear trousers? .....

"a colonised mind because we wear trousers?"

Well that seems to be the fear then, that Hindu fundamentalists would take away the trousers of the Macaulayputras and send them naked in the streets. Would have to suggest that to chaddi-wearing Hindu fanatics! Go picket the pants!

What one wears should be dependent on what is comfortable and appropriate for the occasion. And of course we should first look for this in our traditions first before exploring other offers.

Just to inform brf, a few links on how british inspired dress codes are changing and not changing..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/schoo ... oin/615226
http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.as ... 0117608c2d
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2 ... chool.html

Looks like currently the bengal babus on other side are not so deluded regarding the britishness of atleast the suits and ties, (not mentioning our half naked kafir , guruDev etc in past).
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Br ... s-and-ties

Keeping the question of britishness of dress aside,
i personally think the short+lungi combo of karti in below tamil movie simply blows away the dressing esthyles of bolly khans or teluguwood supastars or "even" the tux of hijj majesthyies own James the Bond.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo8f2j97qr4

[RajeshA]

Sanku ji,

My definition of Macaulayite is as follows:

Any educated Indian who considers British or Western narratives on Indian history, on heroism, on sciences, on politics, on justice, on social values, on aesthetics, on culture, on product quality, etc. to be intrinsically superior and more trustworthy than those of Indian origin without a deep and objective study of it.

I personally think many such Macaulayites are in a self-feeding cycle. There is a shame among them that they and their ancestors could not defend Bharat and her Sanskriti as they should have, and many from among them turned collaborators, and that in order to hide this shame, they allow their psyches to pretend that Bharat and her Sanskriti were simply not worth defending and saving. Once they think like this, they continue the cycle by lapping up more of the Western/British norms. Collaboration is thus both a shame as well as an argument by the Macaulayites to show that Indians and their culture do not deserve to be considered as worthy of respect.

And so the Macaulayites propagate a culture of boot-licking and have raised this culture of boot-licking to an elite full-fledged culture.

There was collaboration but we cannot allow the shame of the collaborators and the psychology of their ideological descendants to dictate our future and civilization.

[JE Menon]

Sanku, that's why I framed it as defining who is NOT a bootlicker. Surely, these chaps who are not bootlickers must have qualities that can only elevate the standards of BRF. And I doubt these would be ban-worthy characteristics.

[JE Menon]

>>Any educated Indian who considers British or Western narratives on Indian history, on heroism, on sciences, on politics, on justice, on social values, on aesthetics, on culture, on product quality, etc. to be intrinsically superior and more trustworthy than those of Indian origin without a deep and objective study of it.

A nice definition I think, except I would remove the bolded part. Reason being any British/Western narrative is bound to be biased one way (extreme left/liberal - as in: on July 7, 1875 somebody's butt was tickled by grass during an outdoor crap in Cholamandalam, and that's the fault of Viceroy Stiffupperlip), or the other (tending towards white supremacist, as in: who the fu(k else could bring these sandniggers out of their lethargic uncivilisation other than us, led by Viceroy Stiffdickie?).

In short, in above circumstance, as an Indian, I would prefer an Indian bias rather than a Western/British bias of any sort, no matter how bloody deeply and "objectively" I studied the damned thing. The question with that, however, is whether we can take that to mean we should try to be as "objective" as possible about ourselves. I think, if we lose the complexes arising from our millennium of subjugation, it will not only be possible, but simply be a natural condition of our civilisational ethos. Reciprocally, our capability to generate a maximally objective narrative of our own history will be what, going forward, ensures optimal integrity to the Hindu civilisation, which is what makes India what it is.

[Sanku]

Sanku, that's why I framed it as defining who is NOT a bootlicker. Surely, these chaps who are not bootlickers must have qualities that can only elevate the standards of BRF. And I doubt these would be ban-worthy characteristics.

[Sanku]

Sanku ji,

My definition of Macaulayite is as follows:

Thanks RajeshA ji, it helps.

The question with that, however, is whether we can take that to mean we should try to be as "objective" as possible about ourselves.

One problem that I see with that JEM is that, is that just as it is easy to define who is a Macaulite, rather than who is NOT a macualite, similarly it is easy to define, "clearly that is not objective" vs. yes that is objective.

In the sense, objectivism can be subjective in a bounded domain, but lack of the same is clearly understood when the thresholds ae crossed. And the thresholds themselves are easy to identify.

[Lalmohan]

why so much takleef with these definitions? what does it achieve?
presumably we are all intelligent enough to come to our own conclusions?

[Sanku]

why so much takleef with these definitions? what does it achieve?
presumably we are all intelligent enough to come to our own conclusions?

Was that addressed to me? I am sorry I didnt quite understand.

[RajeshA]

why so much takleef with these definitions? what does it achieve?
presumably we are all intelligent enough to come to our own conclusions?

Taxonomy can be helpful sometimes, even for intelligent people, should they wish to accept the definition. And then if we were all intelligent, than why would there be any Macaulayites.

[JE Menon]

Or to me?

[JE Menon]

Sanku, that's why I put objective in quotes. The problem with not knowing who is not a bootlicker, or having some agreed characteristics thereof, is that tomorrow you or I - or any other mango abdul - will be accused of bootlicking, because just about anything can be considered bootlicking - one only needs to be loud enough, and supported enough, in the allegation. And that, will be the beginning of the end.

[jambudvipa]

Lakshmikanth ji,

minor correction.

The number of Indians butchered under British tyranny is not 30 million...it is 90 million and still counting.

[Sanku]

Sanku, that's why I put objective in quotes. The problem with not knowing who is not a bootlicker, or having some agreed characteristics thereof, is that tomorrow you or I - or any other mango abdul - will be accused of bootlicking, because just about anything can be considered bootlicking - one only needs to be loud enough, and supported enough, in the allegation. And that, will be the beginning of the end.

Yes, I see what you are saying. What I am saying is something slightly different. While the objectivity is always something that can be questioned, the characteristics can easily be defined. (the not characteristics are more difficult since its a open set)

The question then is, whether the objectiveness in use of the characteristics, that could be flawed, but I don't suppose there is too much issue in agreeing on some characteristics of the same.

At least that is my understanding. IMVHO etc (without meaning any sarcasm)

[brihaspati]

Arnab wrote
Here's the thing - Peer Reviewed journals offer a modicum of respectability to the conclusions (possibly a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Afterall, as I'm sure you know, even peer reviewed publications have been found to be wrong).

Again you are deliberately ignoring the difference between "exact sciences" peer review and "humanities" - especially the non-verifiable type like history, which is primarily based on "interpretations" based on narratives or scarce archeological traces. This is what I pointed out repeatedly and you still have to put the two on the same pedestal of respectability.

Besides, you have previously disagreed with Thapar's methodology, approach and conclusions, yet you offer as 'proofs' (or for initial reading) the blog of a person who uses a similar technique and then tell me that if I don't believe him, I cannot believe anything Thapar says. Tell you what? I'm happy to disbelieve both Then the onus is on you to provide something more concrete.

Are you disbelieving Arrian's or Plutarch's account of Alexanders' hatred towards Indians and genocidic or deceptive tendencies?
Are you disbelieving Sharma's thesis that the British stressed and highlighted Alexander so much in their Indian historiography because they wanted to use Alexander as a motif legilimization/icon for their own colonialism?
Nowhere did I mention Sharma's article as "proof" - this is your technique of putting words in others mouths. You yourself have done this to claim that the opposition to Noor Inayat's deification as an Indian hero-in on this forum - was motivated by hatred of Muslims, or because of the fact that she was a Muslim. It was a speculation on yourpart without proof : did you care to justify it? You are saying that you don't like your own method?

Second, you claim that british history - is replete with british historians and writers ignoring, whitewashing british crimes against humanity or essentially indulging in hagiography to create heroes of people who were not heroes (and I agree, though not all britishers, afterall you did provide a piece written by George Monibot in the UK's Guardian as evidence to show how Britain has whitewashed it's colonial history).

There have always been a minority of voices from time to time that protested from within British society about this or that aspect of their own society's atrocities, and Indians have done it too on their own - long before the Islamic or the Buddhist came along - a characteristic shared by almost every society except the post Ummayid Islamic. [There can of course be protests about why sufficient atrocities wre not being committed].

Does Monibot represent British historiography? You are so keen on onlee accepting historian-peer-reviewed conclusions - is Monibot part of that peer group? Any British historian - with "peer reviewed articles" cared to bash the British record on colonial atrocities?

However, when you ascribe through 'anecdotal' evidence, letters and partial quotes - sterling qualities to Indian (hindu) rulers and try to claim that they were pan-indic and in their approach and respected all 'dharmas', you too are indulging in the same hagiography that you accuse the west of doing (afterall even Jinnah allegedly made a speech saying all religions would be free in pakistan. Does that fall in line with his actions?). So why should it become acceptable in your case but not in theirs?

It becomes acceptable in my case, because I am an Indian talking about India and a reality about Baji Rao you are keen to deny. Baji Rao was doing everything in India on Indian soil among his own people - the british you are so keen to justify were doing it on a foreign soil, on Indians, among Indians. To even begin to compare - you should have found a Baji Rao doing "atrocities" that the British carried out, on England, on English soil, on the english people. When one consistently tries to do an equal equal on every possible negative point of salience between India and the british, without realizing that one is deliberately ignoring concrete differences in condition that prevents such equal-equals - that is when one becomes non-objective, and illogical to the point of being a hagiographic bootlicker of the british.

Third, I agree not 'onlee the Nazis' were evil. It was the entire German people. The silent majority were happily marching to Hitler's tune when the going was good and jumped ship only when the outcome of the conflict became apparent. They did however manage to create this false dichotomy between the Nazis and others.

You mean that teh British ruling regimes were not much different from the nazis either but they managed to create a false dichotomy? who are the "they"?

[Lalmohan]

its directed to all of you/us
why the need to label/categorise/compartmentalise/point fingers
these definitions are all relative
let each make their mind up about what they see

[RajeshA]

>>Any educated Indian who considers British or Western narratives on Indian history, on heroism, on sciences, on politics, on justice, on social values, on aesthetics, on culture, on product quality, etc. to be intrinsically superior and more trustworthy than those of Indian origin without a deep and objective study of it.

A nice definition I think, except I would remove the bolded part. Reason being any British/Western narrative is bound to be biased one way (extreme left/liberal - as in: on July 7, 1875 somebody's butt was tickled by grass during an outdoor crap in Cholamandalam, and that's the fault of Viceroy Stiffupperlip), or the other (tending towards white supremacist, as in: who the fu(k else could bring these sandniggers out of their lethargic uncivilisation other than us, led by Viceroy Stiffdickie?).

JE Menon saar,

the bold part, I think is important. The bold part, tells them what they are lacking - depth and objectivity.

It is stick one holds forth to the sinking Macaulayite, and when he tries to grasp at it to save himself, one uses it instead to beat the crap out of them, figuratively speaking. When the Macaulayite knowing what we expect him to lack, tries to make a case that he has in fact looked at it in depth and objectivity, and he still finds the British position superior, he runs right into the trap. Then he has to stand and justify all of the British racism, their genocides and their robbery, and thus make himself a fool. If he tries to wiggle out using rhetoric, then he makes himself prone to the charge that he did not analyze everything in depth and with objectivity.

So I would leave the bolded part.

[RajeshA]

Lalmohan ji,

it is always open to debate who belongs in which "category"! You see, the Macaulayites too have made nice categories like "Hindu fundamentalists", "Internet Hindus", "knickerwallahs", etc. So if they make labels, it is equally justified that they too should accept labels from others.

[Lalmohan]

so i am asking you to rise above the noise level...