Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

[PratikDas]

From the University of Montreal:

Mother Teresa: anything but a saint...
VENDREDI, 01 MARS 2013 16:24

The myth of altruism and generosity surrounding Mother Teresa is dispelled in a paper by Serge Larivée and Genevieve Chenard of University of Montreal's Department of Psychoeducation and Carole Sénéchal of the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Education. The paper will be published in the March issue of the journal Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses and is an analysis of the published writings about Mother Teresa. Like the journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, who is amply quoted in their analysis, the researchers conclude that her hallowed image—which does not stand up to analysis of the facts—was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign.

“While looking for documentation on the phenomenon of altruism for a seminar on ethics, one of us stumbled upon the life and work of one of Catholic Church's most celebrated woman and now part of our collective imagination—Mother Teresa—whose real name was Agnes Gonxha,” says Professor Larivée, who led the research. “The description was so ecstatic that it piqued our curiosity and pushed us to research further."

As a result, the three researchers collected 502 documents on the life and work of Mother Teresa. After eliminating 195 duplicates, they consulted 287 documents to conduct their analysis, representing 96% of the literature on the founder of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity (OMC).

Facts debunk the myth of Mother Teresa
In their article, Serge Larivée and his colleagues also cite a number of problems not take into account by the Vatican in Mother Teresa's beatification process, such as "her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce."

The sick must suffer like Christ on the cross
At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries. The missions have been described as "homes for the dying" by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta. Two-thirds of the people coming to these missions hoped to a find a doctor to treat them, while the other third lay dying without receiving appropriate care. The doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers. The problem is not a lack of money—the Foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundreds of millions of dollars—but rather a particular conception of suffering and death: “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," was her reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital.

Questionable politics and shadowy accounting
Mother Teresa was generous with her prayers but rather miserly with her foundation's millions when it came to humanity's suffering. During numerous floods in India or following the explosion of a pesticide plant in Bhopal, she offered numerous prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid. On the other hand, she had no qualms about accepting the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti. Millions of dollars were transferred to the MCO's various bank accounts, but most of the accounts were kept secret, Larivée says. “Given the parsimonious management of Mother Theresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?”

The grand media plan for holiness
Despite these disturbing facts, how did Mother Teresa succeed in building an image of holiness and infinite goodness? According to the three researchers, her meeting in London in 1968 with the BBC's Malcom Muggeridge, an anti-abortion journalist who shared her right-wing Catholic values, was crucial. Muggeridge decided to promote Teresa, who consequently discovered the power of mass media. In 1969, he made a eulogistic film of the missionary, promoting her by attributing to her the “first photographic miracle," when it should have been attributed to the new film stock being marketed by Kodak. Afterwards, Mother Teresa travelled throughout the world and received numerous awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance speech, on the subject of Bosnian women who were raped by Serbs and now sought abortion, she said: “I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing—direct murder by the mother herself.”

Following her death, the Vatican decided to waive the usual five-year waiting period to open the beatification process. The miracle attributed to Mother Theresa was the healing of a woman, Monica Besra, who had been suffering from intense abdominal pain. The woman testified that she was cured after a medallion blessed by Mother Theresa was placed on her abdomen. Her doctors thought otherwise: the ovarian cyst and the tuberculosis from which she suffered were healed by the drugs they had given her. The Vatican, nevertheless, concluded that it was a miracle. Mother Teresa's popularity was such that she had become untouchable for the population, which had already declared her a saint. “What could be better than beatification followed by canonization of this model to revitalize the Church and inspire the faithful especially at a time when churches are empty and the Roman authority is in decline?” Larivée and his colleagues ask.

Positive effect of the Mother Teresa myth
Despite Mother Teresa's dubious way of caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, Serge Larivée and his colleagues point out the positive effect of the Mother Teresa myth: “If the extraordinary image of Mother Teresa conveyed in the collective imagination has encouraged humanitarian initiatives that are genuinely engaged with those crushed by poverty, we can only rejoice. It is likely that she has inspired many humanitarian workers whose actions have truly relieved the suffering of the destitute and addressed the causes of poverty and isolation without being extolled by the media. Nevertheless, the media coverage of Mother Theresa could have been a little more rigorous.”

About the study
The study was conducted by Serge Larivée, Department of psychoeducation, University of Montreal, Carole Sénéchal, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, and Geneviève Chénard, Department of psychoeducation, University of Montreal.

The printed version, available only in French, will be published in March 2013 in issue 42 of Studies in Religion / Sciences religieuses. This study received no specific funding.

*The University of Montreal is officially known as Université de Montréal.

On the Web :

Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses
http://sir.sagepub.com
Official biography of Mother Teresa published by the Vatican: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/lit ... sa_en.html

Media contact:
William Raillant-Clark
International Press Attaché
Université de Montréal
Tel: 514-343-7593
[email protected]

[brihaspati]

So that is ekalavya's actual pic of himself? You do look cute with your masters boots! So Pande has been recruited into the IAS and groomed for most of his life as civil admin - by the BJP! where further will ekalavya go down to whitewash his beloved Brit and INC masters!

But ekalavya still cannot acknowledge that he deliberately avoided the suppression of doc evidence - and cited all other narratives to try to show - oh its so controversial, so many funny stories. Really, how dishonest are you in other aspects of your life? You still have not managed to find the Brit position on the docs they hold? With all your sniffing skills honed at your master's boots?

Yes BJP might have not managed to finish what they started - like many other stuff they attempted and realized that the state machinery had loyalties of its own and had their means to thwart things not wanted by the real powers that be. But to be fair, they did start with a fresh look at the whole controversy when they started the Mukherjee commission - and tried to give as fair a chance as possible for the one man committee to work. The commission was obstructed both within and outside India - very diplomatically, but obviously with all the bureaucratic means available to bureaucrats with hidden political affiliations.

Poor his-masters-voice Ekalavya has to deliberately ignore the fact that the IAS started out as relabeling of the civil servants groomed under the Brits, and had served or been filled up for most of its existence - under the watchful eyes of Congress led governments for most of the 60 odd years since independence.

[eklavya]

brihasspati: you must be quite stupid or incredibly deluded to try and pin the blame for the actions of the BJP government from 1998-2004 on the INC.

For a man who found it impossible to admit to his own simple arithmetical error, to talk of honesty is not sensible.

In fact, the depth of your dishonesty is plain for everyone to see. You started off by saying:

Something about an Indian, and not universally hated except by portions of INC and Marxist ideologies, cannot be revealed to Indians because Indians will lose the friendship of certain countries. Those country's gussa is more important to the friends of those countries in India - I guess - than Indian feeling for a much loved revolutionary who never seems to have gushed in eulogy of Brit masters unlike some of those who were handed power

And then:

The logic of "hurting" relations with "friendly countries" was provided by an INC incumbent administration.

Very clearly you were blaming assorted INC and Marxists for witholding the documents. Very clearly the documents were witheld by the BJP government, which wrote about lowering the image of Bose and hurting diplomatic relations if the documents were publicly disclosed.

You are either very stupid, or a complete liar, and most likely both.

As for Kamal Pande's relations with BJP/INC:

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiato ... ation.html

The BJP is also seething about Kamal Pande's hastened exit as cabinet secretary. Pande was given a two-year tenure, which stretched almost a year into his retirement, because the previous government wanted "longevity of service". Manmohan Singh vetted 10 officers before replacing him with petroleum secretary B.K. Chaturvedi. Pande was sent to bureaucratic purgatory, the Inter-State Council Secretariat.

KAMAL PANDE,
Ex-Cabinet Secy
Had five more months to go. He belonged to the dominant Allahabad University brigade in the NDA dispensation.

[brihaspati]

ekalavya,
you could search out Anuj Dhar's Faizabad story and could not find his publicly posted track of documentary evidence on how successive govs suppressed the release of documents relating to Bose? The friendly relations excuse was provided at the very latest, but the refusal to share documents or make them public has been going on for much long before the BJP gov - and mostly under INC incumbency. So the continuation of the policy of suppression would become an administration thing nurtured carefully under series of Congress govs.

Your dishonesty lies in going for a vicious personal attack merely because the Brits were obliquely implicated and GOI/Congress was implicated. You spring to defend Brit honour and image whenever you feel the Brits are being exposed or maligned. I openly express my distrust and inability to forgive them for their past behaviour as well as my ongoing concern about their intentions and hold on Indian regimes/admin where it concerns Pakistan and other assorted anti-Indian forces. As long as Pakistan exists as a nation, trusting UK and pushing it as a "friendly" nation is unwarranted.

You on the other hand, are such a slimeball - that you cannot admit your blind defense of British "honour", cannot admit that you do selective fact-finding, and omit any from your searches that you could not have overlooked but that which goes against your whitewashing of the Brit image. You are quick to apply denigrating adjectives to other posters because the Brits or INC have been criticized, but you have nothing to say about the real track record of the Brits with respect to India. You have no choice adjectives reserved for them. This shows where your heart and loyalty lies. There can be no greater dishonesty than any Indian doing everything possible to defend British image, or British role even post independence in connection with fostering and protecting violently anti-Indian ideologies, organizations, and movements that are a direct continuation of Raj time British policy of continued subjugation and subversion of India - even post independence.

I think I have used far less adjectives on you than you have done against me. Your depiction of yourself as a British canine - perhaps is the only streak of honesty you have shown so far.

Since you are so riled up when the Brits are criticized or exposed as to their perfidy, and any Indian regime or component that appears to be collaborative in British ideological or political interests regarding India - this is going to be fun. Its only the start. You can carry on barking.

[brihaspati]

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... r-al-assad

Many of the Indian fighters found in Syria are coming in from the UK, she said. Shabaan said the western narrative on the Syrian conflict was incorrect, and the war within Syria was actually being fuelled by Turkey and Qatar, with some help from Saudi Arabia.
[...]
She said she had told foreign minister Salman Khurshid that India should be wary of countries funding mosques here since Damascus was living with the consequences of such action.

Khalistanis, Pakistani-LeT and other anti-India groups, Naxalite backers, Islamist or military leaders key in anti-India groups for both Pak and BD - all seem to be living happily in UK or finding shelter when things get too hot back in their native grounds. Now the latest about "Indians" in Syria.

[brihaspati]

Somewhat dated but just one indicator of who plays what role and where:

India expects UK to act on Khalistanis
Dipankar De Sarkar, Hindustan Times
London, October 04, 2012

India will seek firm action from Britain in dealing with Khalistani and other anti-Indian militant networks based in Britain — a problem that surfaced dramatically in this week’s attempted murder of retired Indian army officer KS Brar in the heart of London.

New Delhi has taken a dim view of the British government’s inaction in checking the activities of these militants, who disrupted this year’s Independence Day celebrations in the town of Coventry — home to a large population of British-Indians.

Foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai, who is in London ahead of next week’s strategic dialogue between senior officials of the two countries — an annual series — has already raised the issue with the British foreign office minister responsible for India, Huge Swire.

Next week’s meeting will see the Indian side restate its concerns. India objects not only to the disruptive activities of such militants but also their unchecked ability to spread anti-India hatred through speeches.

Mathai told a meeting at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) on Thursday that it is time to strengthen and deepen counter-terrorism cooperation between India and Britain. “Much more can be done by our two countries,” Mathai said, “for example by establishing mechanisms for exchange of actionable intelligence in real time.” India already has such mechanisms in place with the US ad France.

But why were the Khalistanis given breathing space and rooting time in the UK in the first place? Why were earlier extradition attempts not successful? And why did not corresponding GOI's pursue the matter or expressed their inability to do so to the Indian pubic. Khalistanis and assorted anti-India groups have been organizing, raising funds and on occasions brought in assorted political or other important Brit figures behind their campaigns - for decades before 2012.

[brihaspati]

http://tehelka.com/khalistani-extremism ... rror-woes/
Jan 11, 2013

In addition to the US, the Khalistani question is also likely to figure in the next dialogues with European nations like UK and Germany where pro-Khalistani cells have been quite active. In focus will be Britain, where the self appointed president of the Council of Khalistan, Gurmit Singh Aulakh has been garnering support from the diaspora and local British MPs in a desperate attempt to re-ignite the issue. In addition to information sharing on such groups, India also wants Britain to crack down on the propaganda machinery of Aulakh and others, fearing that the relatively young Indian Punjabi diaspora might be brainwashed by the diatribe.

In the 8th JWG meeting between the two nations held in November, there was a silent acknowledgement of the increasing ‘soft-power’ rise of Khalistani voices which may eventually translate into violent attacks on Indian soil.

If it was "silent", how was it known? By sign language perhaps.

[brihaspati]

A 2009 extract, written from an "authorized" view from within UK, and hence not everything to be expected to be revealed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... story.html

Soutik Biswas | 17:41 UK time, Monday, 12 October 2009

Many of our archives are not up to the mark. There is almost an Orwellian consensus in government not to declassify information about key events.

Professor Andrew had virtually unrestricted access to 400,000 security service files and there is much in his new book to excite Indian readers: an intelligence entente of sorts between India and Britain, a mutual distrust of a maverick left-leaning diplomat and friend of Jawaharlal Nehru, and much later, the unearthing of a plot to kill former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi during a visit to London.

What I found most interesting is the cosy relationship which India established with British intelligence after independence.

"India set an important pattern after the second war for MI5's relation with newly independent states," Professor Andrew told me. "It is very little known that Nehru agreed that an MI5 officer should remain in India after independence. His relations with MI5 were frequently closer than with the Nehru government."

The relationship was forged very early in the day - according to declassified documents quoted in the book. MI5 got a security liaison officer to be based in Delhi after the end of British rule. The secret agreement was agreed with the Nehru-led government in March 1947, a good five months before independence.

Soon enough, there appeared to be a convergence of interests between the newly-independent nation and its former rulers when it came to intelligence assessments. MI5 Deputy Director General Guy Liddell and TG Sanjevi, the first head of India's intelligence agency, which was curiously called Delhi Intelligence Bureau (DIB), were "united in their deep distrust of the first Indian high commissioner in London, VK Krishna Menon, the Congress party's leading left-leaning firebrand," writes Professor Andrew.

"We are doing what we could to get rid of Krishna Menon," Liddle wrote in his diary, about a man who, in Professor Andrew's words, had a "passionate loathing for the British Raj which independence did little to abate". How it wanted to "get rid" of the Communist-loving high commissioner is not clear. "The attempt failed," writes Prof Andrew.

The love affair between the DIB and the security service continued unabated: the two shared intelligence on "Communist subversion" freely, and the Indians, according to Professor Andrew, even asked for an experienced counter-espionage officer to visit the DIB headquarters and for help in training transcribers.

Most of the service's special liaison people appointed to Delhi were "gregarious people, fond of India and good at getting on with both the DIB and their high commission colleagues," writes Professor Andrew. Even a chill in Indo-British diplomatic relations after the Anglo-French invasion of Suez which Nehru roundly condemned "had little impact on collaboration between the DIB and MI5."

But one special liaison officer, John Allen, was prescient when he feared that "with so many unfavourable winds blowing between India and Britain, if Nehru realised how close collaboration between the DIB and MI5 was, he would probably forbid much of it."

But that was not to be. "Nehru, however, either never discovered how close the relationship was or - less probably - did discover and took no action," writes Professor Andrew.


He will be possibly surprised to know that India's prime minister's office alone sits atop some 28,000 files which it resolutely refuses to declassify. Two years ago, it declassified 37 files dating back to 1947, up from a single file in 2005. It is a wonder that history gets written at all in India.

[vishvak]

Why are our own diplomatic personnel not putting this in black and white?

Curiously, this makes no sense. Such diplomacy from educated people, especially on such serious matters.

The Brits and Oiropeans go after anything regardless. Do NGOs/individuals have scope to work on it similarly?

[brihaspati]

^^Even if the files are revealed for research, indirect and direct controls remain in place - in UK. Not everything found can be published or reproduced without permission. Sometimes, the retribution will not come immediately but may have consequences otherwise for the researcher - and people make sure that such eventualities - are made aware of.

Problem in India is that the files will not be revealed at all even to researchers.

[brihaspati]

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... gh-rajoana
Attack not meant to kill Brar, but show ‘uprising’ still alive
Bharti Jain, TNN Oct 3, 2012, 04.43AM IST

NEW DELHI: Even though the attackers of Operation Blue Star commander, Lt Gen K S Brar, are yet to be identified, agencies here suspect it might be linked to the radical elements in the Sikh diaspora, who have repeatedly disrupted Republic Day and Independence Day events of the Indian High Commission in the UK.

According to intelligence sources, radical Sikh groups such as Dal Khalsa UK have been organizing protests for years now outside the Indian High Commission office in London as well as at the consulate office in Birmingham. Of late, some militant Sikh youth have gone a step beyond by even disrupting these national events. Sources said the Sikh youth make forced entry at R-Day or I-Day receptions, posing as invitees from the Indian community, and mask their faces before shouting pro-Khalistan slogans, breaking glassware, and grabbing/throwing microphones.

"These radical Sikh men then escape on their motorcycles as quickly," an intelligence official said adding that though the local police are posted outside, they do little to stop or intercept them. Sources indicated that the UK law enforcement authorities prefer to take a neutral stand, assessing the Sikh protests as an internal matter of the Indians. Though the Indian authorities have been pursuing the British government to get tough with the Sikh extremist elements, the UK has been reluctant to oblige.

Incidentally, the Indian agencies fear that the success of the Sikh radicals' protests this year — they even led a huge protests against the pending execution of Balwant Singh Rajoana, assassin of former Punjab CM Beant Singh — may have emboldened them to go for the high-profile strike at Brar.

Brar, incidentally, had not followed the recommended drill of informing the local High Commission and the UK authorities of his visit to London, which would have ensured deployment of requisite security for his protection. The attackers were possibly aware of this and may have been following him for some time.

According to an intelligence officer, the UK has been found rather wanting in acting against the Sikh radicals, who now may be playing into the hands of groups like Babbar Khalsa International that are making fresh attempts at reviving Sikh militancy with help from Pakistan's ISI. The attack on Brar is seen not as much as a daring assassination attempt, but as a message to convey that the Khalistanis are still alive and kicking.

[devesh]

this super-duper Home Secretary has decided grace his opinion on the rest of us, and we, as the idiotic Indians, should simply accept whatever drivel comes from him??

Since it grates against your prejudices, I expect you will feel better if you don't.

Ah! so that is what it comes down to: our respective level of "trust" in the British/INC/IAS/GoI apparatus.

so why not state this in the beginning itself, instead of beating around the bush? we can have a much more honest and possibly more productive discussion if you just come out and state your position that anything said/done by the Brit/INC/Central-apparatus-of-GoI is sacrosanct and to be trusted with the utmost faith.

but past experience and behavior of the regime makes it hard to believe their "nuanced arguments", does it not? The GoI's apparatus is curiously insistent on not releasing documents which were relevant decades and generations ago. they constantly display a deep-seated paranoia of trying to protect the image of their carefully nurtured so-called "inheritors". They have shown a distinct willingness to act as the attack dogs of Dynasty whenever they are unleashed on enemies of dynasty, while the same level of enthusiasm is often lacking when dealing with allies/friends of dynasty itself.

the question is of trust.

[eklavya]

The friendly relations excuse was provided at the very latest, but the refusal to share documents or make them public has been going on for much long before the BJP gov - and mostly under INC incumbency. So the continuation of the policy of suppression would become an administration thing nurtured carefully under series of Congress govs.

brihasspati, this happens to be one of those national interest issues (of which there are many; in fact, on national security issues, the two parties are close) on which the Congress and the BJP agree. I realise that the category of issues on which the two parties agree probably doesn't exist inside your miniscule brain, and that combined with your deep seated inferiority complex vis-a-vis the British, makes you say and do stupid things.

[eklavya]

Ah! so that is what it comes down to: our respective level of "trust" in the British/INC/IAS/GoI apparatus.

devesh, for your own sake, try and keep a grip on reality. The GoI, the INC and the IAS are not part of the British apparatus. Certain BJP supporters have a hard time reconciling themselves to the fact that the leaders of the INC successfully lead India's freedom struggle from the British, and are trying to turn history on its head by painting the INC as collaborators. The British don't count for much if anything in the world anymore, and are now supplicants to the US and Indian governments. If someone believes that Britain in 2013 is still running India by remote-control, then they need their head examined.

[eklavya]

You on the other hand, are such a slimeball - that you cannot admit your blind defense of British "honour", cannot admit that you do selective fact-finding, and omit any from your searches that you could not have overlooked but that which goes against your whitewashing of the Brit image. You are quick to apply denigrating adjectives to other posters because the Brits or INC have been criticized, but you have nothing to say about the real track record of the Brits with respect to India. You have no choice adjectives reserved for them. This shows where your heart and loyalty lies. There can be no greater dishonesty than any Indian doing everything possible to defend British image, or British role even post independence in connection with fostering and protecting violently anti-Indian ideologies, organizations, and movements that are a direct continuation of Raj time British policy of continued subjugation and subversion of India - even post independence.

Your dishonesty and stupidity on the Bose issue have been so thoroughly exposed that all you can try and do is aim to paint yourself as a patriot and me as the reverse. The only thing you are achieving is making yourself look ridiculous. The truth is that you are pompous fool with a fragile ego and a deep seated inferiority complex who cannot stand to be contradicted, especially with facts.

[brihaspati]

ekalavya who posted his own picture as a Brit canine -still cannot acknowledge that he deliberately avoided mentioning the fact of suppression of documents regarding Bose - as laid out by the same author from whom he quoted about Faizabad?

He still has not found out about the restrictions placed on Bose material in UK archives?

As for size of brains, lies, warmth by burning union jack, being a dog, and strings of other abuses -(in this you are faithfully copying your masters) I have only referred to you as a bootlicker of the brits, and a potential ideological betrayer - because you have consistently tried to defend the British image. People who underplay the continuing role of the brits on the subcontinent, their connection to the ISI, their apparent protection of various virulently and violently anti-Indian movements, sheltering of subcontinental Islamist anti-Indian politicans and military commanders -are actually serving foreign interests.

Congress won "independence" is a standard propaganda of the Congressophiles - but the ground facts are that a subset of the Congress leadership seems to have been singled out for better treatment by the british penal system compared to more virulent critics [JLN was never exiled so he could continue his political work, compared to Bose], and MKG or JLN's head was never targeted for lathi-charge as some other congress elements were. Exactly those leaders seem to have been singled out for transfer of power who would be amenable to British plans of partition.

There have been umpteen discussion son the role of other forces, like the dissent within the army, which was actually suppressed by the INC leaders - in giving the shakes to the Brits to leave. On overall assessment - Congress leadership played along the british plan to gain personal power, and the British did such a transfer of power into these specific hands in order to avoid something they mortally fear - the record of being physically forced out of control and be known as having been militarily defeated or overthrown through revolutionary violence.

Yours is not the only view of this history. However this belongs to another thread.

[brihaspati]

If the Brits do not matter anymore, and the Russians would have no issue with what naughty things Stalin did - why is it so difficult for the post bumbling-BJP glorious UPA gov to release the documents to dispel myths! Surely it cannot hurt the sentiments of a power which does not matter any more!

[abhishek_sharma]

shaanti ...shaanti

[VikramS]

Your dishonesty and stupidity on the Bose issue have been so thoroughly exposed that all you can try and do is aim to paint yourself as a patriot and me as the reverse. The only thing you are achieving is making yourself look ridiculous. The truth is that you are pompous fool with a fragile ego and a deep seated inferiority complex who cannot stand to be contradicted, especially with facts.

eklavya:


Your view seems to be controlled by what is released for public consumption; Have you looked at internal British Archives? Do you know what they were thinking?

By 1930 most of India had awakened and had been united by Gandhi. However the Brits were able delay independence by negotiating with the Congress and giving it crumbs to govern, while they controlled the economy. That gave them the time to prop up the Muslim League.

The Brits left once the Royal Indian Army & Navy revolted. They knew that they could no longer count on the sepoys to control India.

Even at that time the congressis did their best to suppress the revolt, lest they forces get credit. The Brits could have dragged on the negotiations for another decade if it came to the Congress. The Congress served as useful idiots for the British.

I get a feeling that you are comparitively young. You trust state controlled source of info blindly, especially when it comes to the Brits. State funded sources are best for data; they are best equipped to gather that.

However when it comes to interpretation of historical events, or even data, it helps to seek alternative viewpoints.

Interesting thing I learnt today: The phallic interpretation of Shiv Lingam started only in the late 19th century when Westerners started putting their negative spin on Dharmic institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam#cit ... itannica-5

[eklavya]

Congress won "independence" is a standard propaganda of the Congressophiles - but the ground facts are that a subset of the Congress leadership seems to have been singled out for better treatment by the british penal system compared to more virulent critics [JLN was never exiled so he could continue his political work, compared to Bose], and MKG or JLN's head was never targeted for lathi-charge as some other congress elements were. Exactly those leaders seem to have been singled out for transfer of power who would be amenable to British plans of partition.

There you go again ... spreading lies and distortion comes as easily to you as breathing in and out ... now Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru were chosen by the British for the transfer of power ... and it had nothing to do with their immense popularity with the people of India. Now you are rewriting the whole history of the independence movement ... truly you are a disgusting chap, worse than a paki.

[eklavya]

If the Brits do not matter anymore, and the Russians would have no issue with what naughty things Stalin did - why is it so difficult for the post bumbling-BJP glorious UPA gov to release the documents to dispel myths! Surely it cannot hurt the sentiments of a power which does not matter any more!

The documents the GoI holds potray Bose in a bad light (that is what the BJP government told us), and Bose was a very big and very popular (to this day) leader of the independence movement. Why is it so hard to accept what Union Home Secretary Kamal Pande wrote in his letter?

You want to delegitimise our freedom movement, our civil service, our senior government functionaries, a major national party ... why? ... because your own ideological home is not so glorious?

Who cares two hoots about the sentiments of the British. Gujral called them a "third rate power" and everyone in Britain felt he was being excessively generous.

Your agenda is not about the British, your agenda is actually about delegitimising India's freedom movement and the state that followed. Worse than a paki ...

[eklavya]

Your dishonesty and stupidity on the Bose issue have been so thoroughly exposed that all you can try and do is aim to paint yourself as a patriot and me as the reverse. The only thing you are achieving is making yourself look ridiculous. The truth is that you are pompous fool with a fragile ego and a deep seated inferiority complex who cannot stand to be contradicted, especially with facts.

eklavya:


Your view seems to be controlled by what is released for public consumption; Have you looked at internal British Archives? Do you know what they were thinking?

By 1930 most of India had awakened and had been united by Gandhi. However the Brits were able delay independence by negotiating with the Congress and giving it crumbs to govern, while they controlled the economy. That gave them the time to prop up the Muslim League.

The Brits left once the Royal Indian Army & Navy revolted. They knew that they could no longer count on the sepoys to control India.

Even at that time the congressis did their best to suppress the revolt, lest they forces get credit. The Brits could have dragged on the negotiations for another decade if it came to the Congress. The Congress served as useful idiots for the British.

I get a feeling that you are comparitively young. You trust state controlled source of info blindly, especially when it comes to the Brits. State funded sources are best for data; they are best equipped to gather that.

However when it comes to interpretation of historical events, or even data, it helps to seek alternative viewpoints.

Interesting thing I learnt today: The phallic interpretation of Shiv Lingam started only in the late 19th century when Westerners started putting their negative spin on Dharmic institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam#cit ... itannica-5

[/quote]

Vikram, the British have done the greatest harm to our country, reduced it over 200 years of opressive misrule from opulence to penury, caused millions (maybe tens/hundreds of millions) of deaths by famine and starvation, and left us with the parting gift of the cancer of Pakistan. British rule in India was worse than what the Nazis did to Germany and to Europe. Now, even a 12 year old in India knows this. However, INC was the leading movement that brought freedom to India; notwithstanding the many failings of its leaders, past and present. To potray the INC, its leaders, and the state that succeeded the British as stooges of the British, and to attempt to delegitimise them in this way is just plain wrong and dangerous, and goes against the grain of democratic politics.

Of all the institutions of India, I know and understand the armed forces the best, and the armed forces do not take credit for winning India its freedom. The armed forces are the foremost and selfless defenders of the modern Indian state, but they do not ever claim credit for winning India its freedom. The freedom movement is not part of the 'lore' or the 'institutional memory' of the Indian armed forces.

[VikramS]

eklayva:

But to blindly worship INC leaders without doing a critical analysis of their role is also equally bad.

The thing is that the older I get, the more I learn, and then I realize that the harm the INC did to India post independence.

This is especially true of Nehru.

What India needed was Gandhi, a person who understood the West & the British very well.

His role as a social, philosophical leader was irreplaceable; he united Indians.

India however did not need a Nehru who was extremely enamored with the Western institutions and trusted them in spite of what they had done to India.

The issue is not whether the Armed Forces take credit.

The issue is what truly forced the Brits to leave. The catalyst was the Armed Forces. It told them the game was up. That is what scared the Brits the most. They had been dealing with the Congress for almost forty years!!

[Hari Seldon]

The Fraudian hails the amazing turnaround in the Brit economy

[Atri]

Congress won "independence" is a standard propaganda of the Congressophiles - but the ground facts are that a subset of the Congress leadership seems to have been singled out for better treatment by the british penal system compared to more virulent critics [JLN was never exiled so he could continue his political work, compared to Bose], and MKG or JLN's head was never targeted for lathi-charge as some other congress elements were. Exactly those leaders seem to have been singled out for transfer of power who would be amenable to British plans of partition.

There you go again ... spreading lies and distortion comes as easily to you as breathing in and out ... now Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru were chosen by the British for the transfer of power ... and it had nothing to do with their immense popularity with the people of India. Now you are rewriting the whole history of the independence movement ... truly you are a disgusting chap, worse than a paki.

Eklavya ji,

I think this is getting too far.. I would urge you to stop and ponder about style in which this debate is happening... I am reporting this post..

JLN enjoyed no immense popularity. Not among masses, not among AICC members. Most of the members had suggested the name of Sardar Patel as prime-ministerial candidate. It was MKG who singlehandedly vetoed the decision and forced Sardar to withdraw. All this is on the records.

JLN became a cult, only after 1952-53 when most of his competitors were thrown out of business by hook or crook. For example, the way in which JLN camp in INC engineered cornering and defeat of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar is also on the records. This was done because of his caste appeal and his immense rallying power in central India and Krishna-Godavari Basin.

Sardar had died in 1950 already. rest who remained in th loop of powre were the pole-bearers and spit-catchers of JLN. heck, even S.P.Mukherjee was gone (will you call his death as one by natural causes?).It was after 1952-53 when the soviet style 5-year plans started rolling out, that JLN's cult started forming. JLN owes his position to many bnefactors, both desi (MKG) and videshi (Angrez)..

[RajeshA]

Those who see India as being born on August 15, 1947 would of course be pained if one is less than reverential towards JLN, but those who see India as just the latest bearer of the Bharatiya Civilization would always feel that Nehru who said, "I am an Englishman by education, a Moslem by culture, and a Hindu by accident." was the worst thing to befell this country - Partition, Kashmir, English language, Tibet, 1962, "Nehru Growth Rate", etc. etc.

[brihaspati]

Congress won "independence" is a standard propaganda of the Congressophiles - but the ground facts are that a subset of the Congress leadership seems to have been singled out for better treatment by the british penal system compared to more virulent critics [JLN was never exiled so he could continue his political work, compared to Bose], and MKG or JLN's head was never targeted for lathi-charge as some other congress elements were. Exactly those leaders seem to have been singled out for transfer of power who would be amenable to British plans of partition.

There you go again ... spreading lies and distortion comes as easily to you as breathing in and out ... now Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru were chosen by the British for the transfer of power ... and it had nothing to do with their immense popularity with the people of India. Now you are rewriting the whole history of the independence movement ... truly you are a disgusting chap, worse than a paki.

The popularity bit is worth research ain't it? Can you go for the real data about evidence of INC popularity, and the popularity of various leadership? MKG was not a member of the INC from which year? How many organizational or other elections did he face? What was the electoral representation of the INC before independence ? You are supposedly a champion of hard facts and data - so you must be able to produce the organizational electoral data at the least?

This however has already been discussed form both sides - in the Partition thread and does not belong here. As shown by your agenda here - you are not interested in the full history and trajectory or reality of the freedom movement. Your agenda is a partial reconstruction to favour a particular party. The same thing that is done over and over again in Pakiland. Given that the Brits created Pakiland, it is understandable that those you hate would appear to be less lovable than the pakis.

[eklavya]

Eklavya ji,

I think this is getting too far.. I would urge you to stop and ponder about style in which this debate is happening... I am reporting this post..

JLN owes his position to many bnefactors, both desi (MKG) and videshi (Angrez)..

Atri ji,

Please take a look at brihaspati's posts where he openly accuses me of batting for British interests, etc etc etc. I merely mentioned that non-INC governments also had the opportunity to release the documents held on Bose, but decided not to. This led to a direct accusation of "how low can you sink to defend British masters"?

To oppose brihaspati on any subject involving the British is to become a "boot licker" and loyal to the "British master".

Did you read his ridiculous rantings about why India is not fully free, and how I am the key to understanding how my "class" collaborates with the British.

Now brihaspati is suggesting that Nehru and Gandhi were collaborators of the British in the partition of India etc etc

Are you saying that brihaspati should be free to label all and sundry as "British boot lickers" and accuse Gandhi and Nehru of being collaborators, but we should draw the boundary of civilised debate at calling anyone "worse than a paki"?

I stand by statement.

[brihaspati]

If the Brits do not matter anymore, and the Russians would have no issue with what naughty things Stalin did - why is it so difficult for the post bumbling-BJP glorious UPA gov to release the documents to dispel myths! Surely it cannot hurt the sentiments of a power which does not matter any more!

The documents the GoI holds potray Bose in a bad light (that is what the BJP government told us), and Bose was a very big and very popular (to this day) leader of the independence movement. Why is it so hard to accept what Union Home Secretary Kamal Pande wrote in his letter?

You want to delegitimise our freedom movement, our civil service, our senior government functionaries, a major national party ... why? ... because your own ideological home is not so glorious?

Who cares two hoots about the sentiments of the British. Gujral called them a "third rate power" and everyone in Britain felt he was being excessively generous.

Your agenda is not about the British, your agenda is actually about delegitimising India's freedom movement and the state that followed. Worse than a paki ...

Okay : lets assume the documents portray Bose in a very bad light. So who created those documents? Surely those documents were not created by the INC or any of its icons? Or any "patriotic" Indian? So revealing them to the Indian public would not cause any harm to the INC or any of its associated forces?

If they were really really "bad" in the protrayal of Bose - by say non-INC institutions, people, and regimes or governments and secret services, then they may cause outrage and denial from the public, but why would it tarnish Bose's "image" for Indians?!!! People will simply think it of as lies, propaganda, and slander campaign from interested - lets hope - onlee "foreign" powers! If Bose is still so "big" a figure, what some intel department cooked up - surely would not tarnish anything.

The argument that revealing the "bad" stuff will tarnish Bose's image - implies, that the gov believes in the authenticity of what those docs claim, and they believe that Bose was capable of and did "very" bad things. Since you are so good at estimating other's brain sizes - it might be a worthwhile exercise to estimate your own, if you do not realize that thsi argument about tarnishing Bose's image - actually says that the gov wants people to believe that Bose did "bad" stuff, so bad that they cannot be revealed to the public to preserve his image. Its the gov which is trying to tarnish Bose's image - without providing factual basis.

Now the final bit comes to "hurting relations with friendly foreign powers". If as per gov claims, Bose really did very bad stuff and revealing them wil hurt current relations with friendly foreign power - it means Bose did bad stuff with the help of "currently friendly" nations against the interests of Indians - so that if revealed Indians will be outraged with Bose and will want friendly relations with connected nations to be dropped. So the government is then acknowledging that India now has friendly relations with nations who were once collaborating with Bose to do very bad stuff against Indians and Indian interests.

Does this enhance the image of Bose - as per admin and your claims?

The connected powers relevant for the time and for Bose - would be Japan, UK, Soviet Union, and indirectly USA. In the zone concerned where he was operating before his disappearance, for the countrie smentioned above both USSR and Japan has had profound change of regimes and political systems. McArthur deliberately carried out a policy of destroying and weakening the "feudal" element in Japan, and defanging teh emperor based militancy - and almosta complete wipeout of the war-time leadership. USSR has been overthrown in a semi-popular uprising in 1991, and the leader of USSR at teh time Bose would be walking around - was even shifted out of his mausoleum. Neither of these states have much reason to be ashamed of what "misguided" leadership did around the war.

Political continuity and state legitimacy has continued only in the two other - but for USA, Bose was much less of a direct enemy than for UK. Bose's fight was against UK and not USA. So by your favourite admin theory - in the light of the previous arguments - Bose collaborated with the British to do very bad stuff against India and Indian interests, and which the gov and admin sincerely believes as facts.

Do you see why you need to first estimate your own brain size? But then you just might not see it after all - if the size is really small...

[eklavya]

^^^^^
I have no clue whatsoever what those papers contain, and speculation is not my cup of tea. But LK Advani's Home Secretary and AB Vajpayee's Cabinet Secretary tells us that they would lower Bose's image. I don't know for certain whether they would or not, and only putting them in the public domain can answer that question (but possibly at a cost, at home and overseas, that the GoI wished to avoid). The only thing I do know for certain is that the papers were not withheld by the BJP government due to INC/IAS collaboration with the British, but because the BJP government at the time considered it to be in India's national interest.

[Cosmo_R]

@eklavya ^^^

Rest easy. We all know the self-appointed soup Nazis on BRF. They alone know the truth. Past, present and future.

They have lots of time and infinite amounts of "my way or the highway" arguments.

They leverage this "Guru" avatar as a shield against any counter arguments or opposing POVs. Their doppelgangers can be found in purifying the land of the pure.

Speak your mind and heart without fear. That is what we hope BRF is all about.

[Yayavar]

yep! The British were so smart that they were able to foist Gandhi on Indian people. To do that they first had him monitored, made him stand 34th in his class for the bar, and then in SA got him thrown off the train. Then with great skill they maneuvered to teach him satyagraha in Transvaal and then, Gandhi was ready to be sent to India. This allowed the British to control Indians for another 30 years. Else things would have been settled in the 20's. In between they let him, and allowed him to recruit Patel too, for various Satyagraha. Champaran was one of their special strokes to make all feel more confident in Gandhi. Rest is of course history.

[RamaY]

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

Founded in 1885 claiming that it had the objective of obtaining a greater share in government for educated Indians, the Indian National Congress was initially not opposed to British rule. The Congress met once a year during December. Indeed, it was a Scotsman, Allan Octavian Hume, who brought about its first meeting in Bombay, with the approval of Lord Dufferin, the then-Viceroy. Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee was the first President of the INC. The first meeting was scheduled to be held in Pune, but due to a plague outbreak there, the meeting was later shifted to Bombay. The first session of the INC was held from 28–31 December 1885, and was attended by 72 delegates.

Within a few years, the demands of the INC became more radical in the face of constant opposition from the government, and the party decided to advocate in favour of the independence movement, as it would allow for a new political system in which they could be a majorly dominant party. By 1907 the party was split into two halves—the Garam Dal (literally "hot faction") of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, or Extremists, and the Naram Dal (literally "soft faction") of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, or Moderates—distinguished by their attitude towards the British colonists. Under the influence of Tilak, the Congress became the first organised independence group in the country, bringing together millions of people against the British.[8]

In the pre-independence era, the INC featured a number of prominent political figures: Dadabhai Naoroji, a member of the sister Indian National Association, elected president of the Congress in 1886, and between 1892 and 1895 the first Indian Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons; Bal Gangadhar Tilak; Bipin Chandra Pal; Lala Lajpat Rai; Gopal Krishna Gokhale; and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, later leader of the Muslim League and instrumental in the creation of Pakistan. The Congress was transformed into a mass movement by Surendranath Banerjea and Sir Henry Cotton during the partition of Bengal in 1905 and the resultant Swadeshi movement. Mohandas Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915 and with the help of the moderate group led by Ghokhale became president of the Congress and formed an alliance with the Khilafat movement. In protest a number of leaders—Chittaranjan Das, Annie Besant, Motilal Nehru—resigned from the Congress to set up the Swaraj Party. The Khilafat movement collapsed and the Congress was split.

With the rise of Mahatma Gandhi's popularity and his Satyagraha art of revolution came Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (the nation's first Prime Minister), Dr. Rajendra Prasad (the nation's first President), Khan Mohammad Abbas Khan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Chakravarti Rajgopalachari, Dr. Anugraha Narayan Sinha, Jayaprakash Narayan, Jivatram Kripalani and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. With the already existing nationalistic feeling combined with Gandhi's popularity, the Congress became a forceful and dominant group of people in the country, bringing together millions of people by specifically working against caste differences, untouchability, poverty, and religious and ethnic boundaries. Although predominantly Hindu, it had members from just about every religion, ethnic group, economic class and linguistic group. In 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose, the elected president in both 1938 and 1939 was expelled from the Congress for his socialist views and the Congress was reduced to a pro-business group financed by the business houses of Birla and Bajaj. At the time of the Quit India movement, the Congress was undoubtedly the strongest revolutionary group in India, but the Congress disassociated itself from the Quit India movement within a few days. The Indian National Congress could not claim to be the sole representative of the Indian people as other parties were there as well notably the Hindu Mahasabha, Azad Hind Sarkar, and Forward Bloc.

The 1929 Lahore session under the presidency of Jawaharlal Nehru holds special significance as in this session "Poorna Swaraj" (complete independence) was declared as the goal of the INC. 26 January 1930 was declared as "Poorna Swaraj Diwas", Independence Day, although the British would remain in India for 17 more years. To commemorate this date the Constitution of India was formally adopted on 26 January 1950, even though it had been passed on 26 November 1949. However, in 1929, Srinivas Iyenger was expelled from the Congress for demanding full independence, not just home rule as demanded by Gandhi.

After the First World War the party became associated with Mohandas K. Gandhi, who remained its unofficial, spiritual leader and mass icon even as younger men and women became party president. The party was in many ways an umbrella organization, sheltering within itself radical socialists, traditionalists and even Hindu and Muslim conservatives, but all the socialist groupings (including the Congress Socialist Party, Krishak Praja Party, and Swarajya Party members) were expelled by Gandhi along with Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939. Members of the Congress initially supported the sailors who led the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. However they withdrew support at the critical juncture, when the mutiny failed. During the INA trials of 1946, the Congress helped to form the INA Defence Committee, which forcefully defended the case of the soldiers of the Azad Hind government. The committee declared the formation of the Congress' defence team for the INA and included famous lawyers of the time, including Bhulabhai Desai, Asaf Ali, and Jawaharlal Nehru.

[member_23629]

yep! The British were so smart that they were able to foist Gandhi on Indian people. To do that they first had him monitored, made him stand 34th in his class for the bar, and then in SA got him thrown off the train. Then with great skill they maneuvered to teach him satyagraha in Transvaal and then, Gandhi was ready to be sent to India. This allowed the British to control Indians for another 30 years. Else things would have been settled in the 20's. In between they let him, and allowed him to recruit Patel too, for various Satyagraha. Champaran was one of their special strokes to make all feel more confident in Gandhi. Rest is of course history.

Why don't you do research on why Gandhi was never shot or jailed in Kala Pani, and who suggested to him to go to India with his non-violence campaign. The maximum punishment he got in jail was a glass of orange juice from the doctors to help break his fast. In contrast, you know what happened to Savarkar, Aurobindo Ghosh, Lala Lajpat Rai, Subhash Bose and Bhagat Singh, don't you?

[brihaspati]

^^^Tilak was deliberately targeted by British police and died as a result. Typically the British police [not all of them British born] seems to have applied two modes of "lathi-charge" - the one targeted for the back of the head, and the other for lower limbs and the lower back. Those eliminated - like Tilak - appears to have come more from the more demanding [complete independence, compared to Home Rule for example] factions, and seems to have been the beneficiary of the "back of the head" style. Thus it left the field clear for the "moderates".

MKG was persuaded to return to India, after mediation by Andrews who was sent by Gokhale for the purpose.

[Yayavar]

Varun: I'm researching why Patel continued with Gandhi

[Sanku]

B-ji;

Have you read/seen this book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India's_Biggest_Cover-up

I have been trying to get my hands on it without much luck BTW. Would you mind posting your views on the book if you have read it. Would look forward to hearing your views on the same.

[Atri]

Eklavya ji,

I think this is getting too far.. I would urge you to stop and ponder about style in which this debate is happening... I am reporting this post..

JLN owes his position to many bnefactors, both desi (MKG) and videshi (Angrez)..

Atri ji,

Please take a look at brihaspati's posts where he openly accuses me of batting for British interests, etc etc etc. I merely mentioned that non-INC governments also had the opportunity to release the documents held on Bose, but decided not to. This led to a direct accusation of "how low can you sink to defend British masters"?

To oppose brihaspati on any subject involving the British is to become a "boot licker" and loyal to the "British master".

Did you read his ridiculous rantings about why India is not fully free, and how I am the key to understanding how my "class" collaborates with the British.

Now brihaspati is suggesting that Nehru and Gandhi were collaborators of the British in the partition of India etc etc

Are you saying that brihaspati should be free to label all and sundry as "British boot lickers" and accuse Gandhi and Nehru of being collaborators, but we should draw the boundary of civilised debate at calling anyone "worse than a paki"?

I stand by statement.

Yes, I am surprised as well. Lets hope the debate becomes more civil in coming posts.

Regarding inc check this post by vilayat.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1025770

We cannot get all knowledge by means of pratyaksha pramana or shabda pramana alone, eklavya ji. Anumaana (inference) and upamaana (comparison) are needed to be applied as well.

There is clear pattern in behavior of INC which makes one infer about the kids glove treatment that tjey recieved.

[RamaY]

B-ji;

Have you read/seen this book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India's_Biggest_Cover-up

I have been trying to get my hands on it without much luck BTW. Would you mind posting your views on the book if you have read it. Would look forward to hearing your views on the same.

http://www.flipkart.com/india-s-biggest ... sssrhjzdj8
http://www.amazon.com/Indias-biggest-co ... B008CDVRWW

[Sanku]

Thanks RamaY ji; guess not much of a online buyer still.