ShauryaT wrote:prashanth wrote: Forget about looting of money. The british didn't do in India what the spanish and portuguese did in brazil, argentina etc... On the contrary, by defeating many islamic kings they put an end to forced religious cnversions, jeziya and razakars. Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts.
Most certainly. What do these facts convey? Should we thank the British for not making the rape as physical and as brutal as some others did in other parts of the world?
Is a rape largely limited to the economic, social and political spheres more acceptable to the macuaylized mind?
Is the British colonists, what a tamed version of Islam, look like? I bring the analogy due to the differences in approach in exploitation and administration of colonies, which seem to indicate the differences in theology. i.e: the difference between catholics and protestants. Although, the physical rape of the natives of North America, was done by the very same British and their descendants. In India, Goa suffered the catholic fever of the portugese and their violence. These points seem to indicate that race theory has as much to do with colonialism as religious fever. So, how does one explain the differences in approach of rape. Maybe the Americas were more physically desirable to the Europeans than India was?
Is a non-physical rape more acceptable to most Sanatanis? Is that the message?
To me, it shows the limitations of a non-spiritualized society. A limitation clearly represented in the geo-political order of today. So India, be forewarned, the same vultures are out there is the message.
Shaurya: You appear to have very little idea of how indians suffered under the rule of islamic kings.
The sultans, moghuls and their likes used extreme physical torture and tried to wipe out hinduism as far as possible.
Read this:
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2007/06/14/bo ... -aavarana/
Islamic rulers lacked civility, and their sole intention was to torture and exterminate what they called kafirs. On the other hand the British were here purely to make economic profit. Tell me, which is better being poor or being dead?
The british atleast did some help to India in by establishing railways, survey of India, postal system etc. They gave us english which you and I today use today without the slightest gratitude to them,and because of which our so called IT sector,BPO exist . With the help of lord william bentinck, Raja ram mohan roy put an end to sati.
Now, could you have expected this from the islamic rulers. Would you be happy with sharia and talaq?On the contrary, much of our constitution is based on the govt of India act,1935.We can attribute the parlimentary form of govt to the british. I say do not blindly critisize the british for every thing they did. Give the devil its due!
Like it or not, the advent of the british to India was of some help. Many of the literary works of renaissance era in Europe got hold of india through english, and dont forget this gave a big push to our freedom fighters.Could you expect the din-e-ilahi do this work?
And for heavens sake stop overusing the word rape.
Agreed, Indians faced the brutality of british. That is condemnable. But of what use is venting out anger today is?
Merely highlighting good things that the british did to India does not make me a macaulayite, as you imply. In now way is this an outright support to the Raj.
To me, it shows the limitations of a non-spiritualized society. A limitation clearly represented in the geo-political order of today. So India, be forewarned, the same vultures are out there is the message.
Precisely, we should not shy away form fortifying ourselves. Whoever those vultures are, british, mullahs, america ,china, India's task is to fortify itself so that history does not repeat. And for this we must call a spade a spade. The more you hide inside the well of ignorance the more will you suffer.
Again, make no mistake, I am not calling the british good samaritans, but let us see facts as facts.