Indian Core: Ideas and descriptions-I

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Oct 2009 21:08

RayC wrote:
Of course there were mistakes made too, but then there are always some mistakes.
Exactly what the naxal sympathiser ( I forget the name) said in We the People when given an example of children, amongst others, killed by the Naxasl/ Maoists for being govt informers!!

Uh, what?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 05 Oct 2009 11:51

RayC wrote:
Of course there were mistakes made too, but then there are always some mistakes.
Exactly what the naxal sympathiser ( I forget the name) said in We the People when given an example of children, amongst others, killed by the Naxasl/ Maoists for being govt informers!!

Uh, what?[/quote]

The chap said that Naxal/ Maoists never ever killed an innocents.

Of course, he conceded that there could be 'mistakes'. There are always mistakes!

So similar that it caught my eye!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Oct 2009 14:13

RayC wrote:
The chap said that Naxal/ Maoists never ever killed an innocents.

Of course, he conceded that there could be 'mistakes'. There are always mistakes!

So similar that it caught my eye!

Well RayC, any agrument can be used by any side if skilled enough in the art of debate (and naxals are class A masters)

For that matter both Hitler and Gandhi appealed to a sense of nation (Mein Kampf and Hind Swaraj) in many similar ways.

What matters is not the argument used alone, but the argument used within context as well as the known history and reality of the world.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 05 Oct 2009 23:12

A polite question about the Marital Race theory. Did the British ever say whether they themselves were Martial Race or not?

I would like to know.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Oct 2009 23:15

surinder wrote:A polite question about the Marital Race theory. Did the British ever say whether they themselves were Martial Race or not?

I would like to know.

They were the rulers, these divisions were for races.

The Englishmen could not be put in these comparisons. They just were. (thats a serious reply BTW, a look into English Piskology)

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 05 Oct 2009 23:16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race
(what a joke...)

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 05 Oct 2009 23:34

They must had Mental Race Theory too otherwise Pakisatan could not be made so easy by them.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 05 Oct 2009 23:48

The thing I always find funny is that British tend (tended to in the past) of themselves as above all examination or observation. They found it uncomfrotable to be classified or compared with anyone. They liked the fact that in the petri dish of India they had all these people who could be analyzed under their microscope----classiefied like animals, categorized like crops, designated characteristics like insects & ants. All the while not even mentioniong that these people were Humans who had exactly the same set of rights & priveleges as the British themselves.

So here comes another pet theory of theirs, the "Martial" "Race" theory, in which various groups are given condescending sops & designations. No comment is made on the whether English themselves are one or not. In fact, by their definition they were a pretty good martial race, I am not denying that: By any measure they were brave, they waged incessent war for centuries in far of places under very trying circumstances, won most of the wars; they were by all accounts brave in battle, and wise in executing their victories. But they would not contenance any designation which compares them with what they considered the human swill of India. No that was not something they would take lightly.

You see that tendency in many many aspects of British narrative, not only about India, but also of other places.

(Are people interested in analyzing British/English psyche? We really should have a thread for it.)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Oct 2009 23:54

surinder wrote: (Are people interested in analyzing British/English psyche? We really should have a thread for it.)

Too late now? They are extinct or going to be soon shortly?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 06 Oct 2009 00:01

Sanku wrote:
surinder wrote: (Are people interested in analyzing British/English psyche? We really should have a thread for it.)
Too late now? They are extinct or going to be soon shortly?

Did I ever suggest that it is late?

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 06 Oct 2009 00:07

Let's do it...is this forum hosted in Britain, the great? Do we need legal opinion here?
S

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2009 01:02

surinder wrote:
Sanku wrote:"surinder"
(Are people interested in analyzing British/English psyche? We really should have a thread for it.

Too late now? They are extinct or going to be soon shortly?
Did I ever suggest that it is late?

Oh no that was what I was trying to suggest!!

(that its too late now)

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Oct 2009 10:21

Surinder,

Why, what and how of Martial Races are very evenhandedly explained in Philip Mason's "A Matter of Honour". He clearly enunciates the biases of the British that prompted such classification.

He also explains how this was more applicable to the North and not the South including the Marathas including the British bias on height, colour etc

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 06 Oct 2009 19:09

Baba Banda Bahadur was probably another unique soldier of India who lived almost all of India. He was born in Jammu (Jammu and Kashmir) and lived as an ascetic at Nanded (Maharashtra). Guru Gobind Singh reminded him of his Kshtriya Dharma and told him to go to North to fight the oppression of Mughals. That's what he did.

In the battle of Chapar Chiri (A village close to Sarhind), Where Wazir Khan was defeated in an unprecendented revolt by the locals non-muslims of North India (current day Punjab and haryana where average folks who couldn't tolerate the oppression of Mughals joined Banda Singh Bahadur to Attack Sarhind) there is no memorial at all about this historic battle where normal folks armed with picks, axes and home made armament defeated Heavy Guns and artillery. Now check this news story in light of above.
Village folks of Chapar Chiri wanted a memorial of Banda Singh Bahadur but got a Golf Course (It is in the periphery of Chandigarh)

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091006/cth1.htm#5

What can you expect from the core people who will have statues of Gandhi, Nehru, Mayavati, Moti Lal, et all but not of people like Banda Singh Bahadur who inspired millions.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2009 23:39

SBajwa wrote:What can you expect from the core people who will have statues of Gandhi, Nehru, Mayavati, Moti Lal, et all but not of people like Banda Singh Bahadur who inspired millions.

One Banda Bahadur and one Adi Shankara ALONE lay to rest all notions of a India not being ONE NATION unfortunately that will never be highlighted.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 06 Oct 2009 23:59

samuel wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race
(what a joke...)

Check the list of races listed there:

"Nairs (removed after rebelling)".

So nairs became wimps because they said "screw you"? irony right there

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Oct 2009 00:03

Sanku wrote:
SBajwa wrote:What can you expect from the core people who will have statues of Gandhi, Nehru, Mayavati, Moti Lal, et all but not of people like Banda Singh Bahadur who inspired millions
One Banda Bahadur and one Adi Shankara ALONE lay to rest all notions of a India not being ONE NATION unfortunately that will never be highlighted.

But neither of them was secular , so lets hope they are not erased from indian History books within a century.
OTOH, One go to go to Anandpur sahib to watch the ( Bandai)Nihangs displaying the art of Mlecch Mardan.

The core has been made to losse roots to which it must go back to grow and flourish.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 00:18

hnair wrote:So nairs became wimps because they said "screw you"? irony right there

They said screw you but didnt complete the screw thats why. The British won the Nair's lost.

Just as the entire NI caste Hindu's who pretty much won the entire British empire for the EIC become wimps overnight (well over a year actually) after 1857.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 07 Oct 2009 00:24

Still, race is a race, if you are martial race today, then presumably genes cannot change that rapidly to not be martial race in a few years. But the sad thing about martial race is how India bought it hook line & sinker.

PS: Samuel, I don't whether you noticed or not, Pathans are not listed as martial race. I wonder if it is due to their unemployability in the BIA.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 00:29

I had the so called martial and so called non martial in my unit in war.

I daresay they performed inferior to the other.

I can't comment on earlier times, but today, this martial race stuff is pure hogwash!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Oct 2009 02:03

surinder wrote
PS: Samuel, I don't whether you noticed or not, Pathans are not listed as martial race. I wonder if it is due to their unemployability in the BIA.

The others probably satisfied the criteria of consistent loyalty, docility, and intellectually challenged. The Pathans probably in Brit eyes did not satisfy the first two.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 07 Oct 2009 02:32

Wondering why Andhra groups were excluded in the martial race list. However they were heavily encouraged in Madras presidency politics.

Telugu regiments are missing even in current military. Does AP contribute less to military?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Oct 2009 02:55

Really, thats a surprise. "Telengi" soldiers were part of the EIC army. I think the martial races for the British had to satisfy all of the criteria : ready to be mercenaries, consistently loyal in return for payment, docile and manipulable, serious lack of leadership initiative and tendency to be independent. What about the role of soldiers from Andhra in the First war of Independence. Please elaborate, those who know!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2009 03:58

They were part of Madras Army and hence played no part.
In modern IA they get recruited into Madras Regt.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 07 Oct 2009 04:07

Sanku wrote:The British won the Nair's lost.

British won when leaders all over India stuck to rigid positions and showed disrespect to each other, completely disregarding the big picture

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 07 Oct 2009 07:03

ShyamSP wrote:Wondering why Andhra groups were excluded in the martial race list. However they were heavily encouraged in Madras presidency politics.

Telugu regiments are missing even in current military. Does AP contribute less to military?

General Lord Roberts, while not originating the concept of martial races, was instrumental in implementing a strategy of building "class regiments." Recruiting policies were rewritten, and the Bombay Army "was notified that the Mahars, together with a number of other classes of the Bombay Army, would no longer be recruited to the Army." Lord Roberts recorded his rational in his autobiography, Forty-One Years in India. He writes:

I have no doubt whatever of the fighting powers of our best Indian troops; I have a thorough belief in, and admiration for, Gurkhas, Sikhs, Dogras, Rajputs, Jats and, selected Mahomadans; I thoroughly appreciate their soldierly qualities; brigaded with British troops, I would be proud to lead them against any European enemy.

Roberts thought that the first step to making the Indian Army was "to substitute men of the more warlike and hardy races for the Hindustani sepoys of Bengal, the Tamils and Telagus [sic] of Madras, and the so-called Mahrattas [sic] of Bombay." He was convinced that:

In the British Army the superiority of one regiment over another is mainly a matter of training; the same courage and military instinct are inherent in English, Scotch, and Irish alike, but no comparison can be made between the martial value of a regiment recruited amongst the Gurkhas of Nepal or the warlike races of Northern India, and of one recruited from the effeminate peoples of the south.

From The Mahar Movement

surinder wrote:A polite question about the Marital Race theory. Did the British ever say whether they themselves were Martial Race or not?

"We are not a military nation, but we are a martial race." Benjamin Disraeli, 19th century British PM.

Also General Lord Garnet Wolseley said, "We may not be a military nation but without doubt we are the most warlike people on earth."

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 07 Oct 2009 08:41

Then in the wikipedia on "Martial Races'', the anglo-saxon should be listed. Why is it not? Why do all the english literature on India never mentions that anglo-saxonns are also martial race?

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 07 Oct 2009 09:03

surinder wrote:Then in the wikipedia on "Martial Races'', the anglo-saxon should be listed. Why is it not? Why do all the english literature on India never mentions that anglo-saxonns are also martial race?

We should edit wikipage to make them TFTA also. So add ons to Martial races are:

Scottish Highlanders (as per wiki page)
Anglo-Saxon (as per Benjamin Disraeli)
Anglo-Irish (Lord Roberts is Anglo-Irish)

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 07 Oct 2009 09:16

Can some good soul edit this page on this ludicrous "Martial Race" theory and add the Anglo-saxons, Irish, & Scotts. Please add citations to prove the additions. It would be nice to see the Gods dragged to the level of us brown native people.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 07 Oct 2009 09:21

One thing I am surprised is that no one has stepped up to defend the core. Every one has cursed the core (not unjustified), but there are many redeeming qualities in the core. They need to be highlighted too. I will do it if I find some time.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 07 Oct 2009 09:23

Airavat wrote:Also General Lord Garnet Wolseley said, "We may not be a military nation but without doubt we are the most warlike people on earth."

Thanks to the Good Lord for creating a more war-like race in the form of Germans, who beat the crap out of Britishers so that us Indians could get our independence.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2009 09:25

Which core baba? We already agreed the core is an idea and is not limited in its geographic fixity. The core is the idea of India and that migrates where it finds its adherents.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 07 Oct 2009 11:20

ramana wrote:Which core baba? We already agreed the core is an idea and is not limited in its geographic fixity. The core is the idea of India and that migrates where it finds its adherents.

Thank you for stating it...I was not joining this thread due to gratuitous bashing of the UP or Bihari. If they are down now, they were glorious once, and will be again along with the rest of Bharat.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 11:23

Every race, community, cores and identity has contributed to what is India today.

Everywhere there is the core!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Oct 2009 21:18

Yes, everyone leaves his mark. But the important question is do we welcome, and hold on to every legacy? We have rejected lots of legacies of the past. So there must have been criteria to decide what to retain and what not to retain. And more importantly we also decided to actively discourage certain legacies which were still being actively practised.

What makes certain authorities only the sole decision maker as to what should be retained and what not? In a way by exrecising such discretionary power they are deciding on what constitues the core not based on "everyone's" contribution - but exactly those contributions they feel fit into their definition of the "core". So someone decided that whatever the Abrahamic practised socially on Indian soil were worth retaining intact and should be unalterable part of the "core", but only the "Hindu" needed changes from its legacy - as expressed in the "Hindu code bill" reforms.

Isn't there a need to explore and understand these criteria used to selectively reform or retain legacies and contributions? What is the basis of such slection biases? Why should they be sacrosanct? Why cannot alternative selection criteria be developed - if selection seems to be the compulsory method to filter what goes into the "core" from "legacy and contributions"?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Oct 2009 21:58

What is a legacy?

Legacy is anything handed down from, or as from, an ancestor or a regime or historical event.

It would be incorrect to assume that we do not accept such legacy or are not influenced by it. The distaste for the Islamic ‘superior than Thou’ or ‘Holier than Thou and Islam is the sole religion of the world to come’ or the Christian missionary zeal are legacies of the past visiting the present even now. The fact that they flourish is an indicator that we are accepting this legacy even now. And so it means, we are holding on such legacy even now, even if some do not welcome it!

The point to note is that we do not have to embrace every aspects of the legacy.

We do welcome only those aspects that suit us. We embrace with ecstasy the Mughlai cuisine or the tandoori (which is not a Punjabi cuisine so mistakenly attributed, but that of the Frontier) or even the achkan (taken as a national dress, while the dhoti is not). We throng to Christian missionary schools or go to their hospitals over those that are there sponsored by the govt! These are but legacies that we embrace! Everyone wants to go to a ‘Convent’ school as if that is the sureshot to education.

Indeed we must sift the wheat from the chaff. However, the question is who will beard the lion in the den? Notwithstanding the pious pontificating of Indians, we are self first and thereafter, the Nation! Therefore, it is a waste of time and instead one has to work around the system to achieve the aim.

Why we require a sole decision making system?

It is because of our ethos. We require a father figure, no matter than the joint family system has collapsed. We deify our leaders. Dare analyse the Mahatma as a human and you are in trouble. The Nehru Gandhi dynasty is beyond being human (well, as far as the Congress spokesperson are concerned like Manish T and Jayanti N). They are but the second coming of Christ to these spokespersons! I don’t think SG or RG are amused over such adulations, but then they understand that it is essential to salve the Indian psyche!

Let us not reject ‘’external influences’’. Let us amalgamate it (the ones that are good) in our system and make it richer!

The fact that I can communicate with you because of the legacy of English and those who are not from my region is another legacy that we have inherited. I use it to communicate with the international community.

Should I reject it because English is an alien language imposed on us?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Oct 2009 23:48

RayC,
this was the reason, once before also I came to ask the question - what exactly have been the contributions from those we know of as being from "outside" within known recent history. Which parts of their "contribution" should we retain and which we should not? And to come to that we needed to clarify, what was not there before and what has been the "added" part. I am sure you realize that we are tolerating things and allowing them to be practised under virtual immunity from any accountability - without actually checking whether they have been positive contributions or negative contributions.

But to decide what is "negative" and what is "positive", subconsciously we are judging things against a certain "value" system. Now are we aware of what value system we are using by default? That is crucial to know because that decides how much is tolerated and what is not tolerated. The value system decides what is okay to go into the "core" and what is not okay to go into the "core".

My simple question was to ideintify and decide the principles of that value system first. Without that we are in the danger of applying different value systems for different claims, becoming complete opportunists to twist values and principles according to our own sweet needs. Even this perhaps will be justified by some value system - rank persoanl opportunism. But then what about the human costs of such individual opportunism on the entire society as short term or long term consequences? A small group of politicians could instil different value systems to support or denigrate different social groups/ideologies according to their individual needs or biases. But who bears the costs of such discrimination over the long term if this discrimination seeks to hide or protect aspects of ideologies that bring only trauma and damages?

And all this perhaps protected under the excuse that it is a contribution from some entity and because it is there we have to accept it and let it continue.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Oct 2009 23:45

I would like to make few observations

We do welcome only those aspects that suit us. We embrace with ecstasy the Mughlai cuisine or the tandoori (which is not a Punjabi cuisine so mistakenly attributed, but that of the Frontier) or even the achkan (taken as a national dress, while the dhoti is not). We throng to Christian missionary schools or go to their hospitals over those that are there sponsored by the govt! These are but legacies that we embrace! Everyone wants to go to a ‘Convent’ school as if that is the sureshot to education.

These tendencies are seen in elite groups only. Most of the commons still use and live those Indic traditions (Indic food, traditions, and cloths). National-dress, national-that are elitist choices only and 70% of the public are not even aware of what it means.

The fact that I can communicate with you because of the legacy of English and those who are not from my region is another legacy that we have inherited. I use it to communicate with the international community

It depends. For example most of US institutions are offering tri-language services in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Why can’t they do in Hindi if needed?

Should I reject it because English is an alien language imposed on us?

Yes! If it is at the cost of your mother tongue, national language.

Once again we are back to square one.

What are the civilizational contributions of Islam or Christianity to Indian subcontinent?

If anyone thinks Indian economy grew just because of English-medium education system, they are not only wrong but also stupid. What medium of education made China, Japan, Germany the top5 economies?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Oct 2009 23:55

[quote="RamaY
What are the civilizational contributions of Islam or Christianity to Indian subcontinent?

?[/quote]
I have been asking this for ages and have not gotton any reply but we can easily observe few pointers like wanton destruction, genocide conversion and pile of poop at our doorstep i,e Pakisatan .

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Oct 2009 03:11

I think, when searched concretely - cuisine, and certain styles of music and elements of literature will come out as "contributions". But the main areas of concern will be to explore concretely law, political and administrative system, social organization, technological and economic innovation, and ethics. These are areas where "contribution" wil become most controversial as an issue.

For example many elements of the IPC instituted by the British are not derived from pre-Abrahamic influence time in India. The social organization impacts are even more murky. We can see that exactly in those parts of India which were under direct shadow of Islamic rule, we find close parallels to the murderous provisions of the "Hudood" being applied to "sexual deviations" or "crimes". Many of these are not found even in the Arthasastra (which is quite unashamedly brutal in many situations compared to current views). Attitudes on female education, "purdah", rights of women, and even "widow remarriage/burning" and female infanticide - all seems to have been adversely affected in those areas proximate to the Islamic power centres.