Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Dec 2009 19:25

Frankly,I don't see what can be achieved by this move.It will only hurt genuine travellers and businessmen,espcially those in the IT industry and for exporters/importers,where travelling is very frequent.All that the ungodly need to do is to send different teams to India ,making just one trip each time thus avoiding suspicion as frequent travellers.It is a case of bolting the door after the horse has bolted.

India visa changes inconvenience travellers
Britain has protested a tightening of India’s visa rules that prohibits travellers from returning to the country within two months of exiting.

By by Our Foriegn Staff

New Delhi has changed its visa regulations for British and American visitors in the wake of the arrest of American terrorism suspect David Headley, who is accused of involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

The new rules mean that tourists cannot use India as a base for regional travel, which will constitute an obstacle for many planning to visit the sub-continent.

Forced marriage laws keep young couple apart - even though they love each other

The British High Commission in New Delhi said it had lodged objections. “We have discussed this matter with the government of India,” it said. “We understand the Indian government is reconsidering its plans.”

India attracts 750,000 British visitors a year and a total of five million tourists.

Indian has also targeted long-term visitors who have abused business visas to prolong their stay in the country, often for years.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Dec 2009 20:08

there is little point in wasting energy in rona dhona about the past (Note: we must all be extremely aware of the past and what happened - and most of it is bad for us) whilst the enemies of today strike us at will. the anglo-saxons have always thought indians to be emotional and unrealistic, this dhaga reflects that too

Hari has put it more succinctly, but the above smacks of being a colonial apologist. Its one thing to say we should not dwell in the past when the other party's current actions are not detrimental to your own interests. However in case of UK, it has shown a disturbing tendency of going out of the way in carrying out actions not favourable to Indian interests in a serial manner.
Is a bit difficult to overlook the pattern to be honest.

Why do the royal family go out of their way to make outrageous statements when they visit India, from the comments made at Jallianwala bagh to other stuff? Yes, apologists can always explain it away as "its not official policy".. but then they are the titular UK representatives aren't they?

The US is not getting a free ride, has anyone missed the India - US threads, the bashing it got over the nuke deal, the current Headley drama, or forget that, just read Philip's posts

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2009 02:19

Tanaji wrote: Hari has put it more succinctly, but the above smacks of being a colonial apologist.

no he hasn't, and no it doesn't.

i can understand why hari singles out my comments to extrapolate his perspective from. ofcourse i used to bully him at school and perhaps with hindsight, humiliating him with garden vegetables was perhaps going too far. but anyway... in your case, your new found skills in extrapolative interpretation no doubts stems from being labelled a thackeray apologist in the past!

you're a smart guy, are you responding to my comments or to hari's self serving embellishments of those comments?

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 23 Dec 2009 12:34

David Cameron, PM candidate from Britains Conservative Party

You also have a world-beating higher-education system in this country. Do you think it's being used to its fullest extent?

No, I don't. We should look at our student-visa system and deliberately bend it in favor of highly skilled students from countries of the future like India and China and Brazil. We haven't got a driven-enough immigration policy that is actually going after the people whose links with Britain will benefit us in the future.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/227738

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Dec 2009 14:28

Britain's role as a colonial power in India is very controversial,Partition being the most controversail act of all.Colonial powers as a rule put the economic and strategic interests of their country first and last..always! Therefore there is no doubt at all about the exploitation of India by the Raj at the expense of the Indian peasant in particular.The French however,gave French citizenship to the people's of their colonies,very egalitarian,whereas the British had their class pecking order even for their own tribe.However,being part of the British Empire did bring India many gains.The foremost was the English language which has made India the world's foremost IT nation.We saw India linked through the railway and telegraph networks and there were many other achievements by the British,especially the great efforts made by pioneering archaeologists,artists and scholars in discovering and preserving India's vast cultural heritage.This quest for knowledge by our erstwhile rulers,especially by dedicated individuals who "discovered" India and exposed it to the world, in part explains why an "Oxbridge" degree is so sought after.

60+ years on,a new more mature relationship has emerged with our former rulers.We have a huge diaspora of people's from the subcontinent in the UK,with those from India perhaps the most successful at carving out for themselves a special niche in the UK's ethnic mix.The contribution of Indians in the UK has grown enormously with the Mittal,Paul and Tata being in the limelight.With their centuries of understanding the "colonies",it should be to Britain's advantage to leverage its relations with its former colonies,now independent English speaking states.However,by playing poodle to Uncle sam in more recent times,it has lost a lot of respect by submitting its foreign policy to subservience of that of the US's (by joining the US as chief ally in its adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan),instead of joining hands with its other European colleagues in the EU and its importance to its former colonies is dwindling as new strong Asian powers like China,Japan,Korea,India and Russia have emerged as new strong economic powers.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 23 Dec 2009 14:47

Lalmohan wrote:
i can understand why hari singles out my comments to extrapolate his perspective from. ofcourse i used to bully him at school and perhaps with hindsight, humiliating him with garden vegetables was perhaps going too far. but anyway... in your case, your new found skills in extrapolative interpretation no doubts stems from being labelled a thackeray apologist in the past!

you're a smart guy, are you responding to my comments or to hari's self serving embellishments of those comments?

Interestingly you have not countered any of his arguments, which speaks a lot,

Secondly, I was already past whatever you called me, and for the record, you called all Maharashtrians Nazis, which was what had my goat.

vina · Post by **vina** » 23 Dec 2009 14:48

With their centuries of understanding the "colonies",it should be to Britain's advantage to leverage its relations with its former colonies,now independent English speaking states.However,by playing poodle to Uncle sam in more recent times,it has lost a lot of respect by submitting its foreign policy to subservience of that of the US's (by joining the US as chief ally in its adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan),instead of joining hands with its other European colleagues in the EU and its importance to its former colonies is dwindling as new strong Asian powers like China,Japan,Korea,India and Russia have emerged as new strong economic powers

Sorry Philip. I think you have it wrong. First UK stan knew that after the debilitating strikes and the unrest after WWII (50s, 60s and 70s) and the stagnation that it was a spent power and was quickly headed down to "turd world " status.

If there is one thing the Brits absolutley absolutely know, it is "Which side of the bread is buttered" . So what they did was they basically sold the country and themselves to the Americans and continued having a "modicum" of influence as a poodle of the US , sort of like the Moon, showing up in the reflected light of the Sun. Without that US alliance, UK stan is dead as nails.

For one, there is no "independent" anything in UK. If not for the North Sea oil discovered in the 70s and the sale to US, UK stan would be basically bankrupt and be even more irrelevant than it is today. The old cartoons in the newspapers of "If labour comes to power , will the last person leaving UK turn the lights off please ?" would have literally come true. The UK stan population would have moved enmasse in even greater numbers to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and US to the last man.

Frankly, the Dilli Billi idiots have to drop their mental shackles to the UK and realize that UK is as stale as yesterday's news . It is a dead duck with no future (either within or outside EU/US or by itself) and is irrelevant in the long term and has no value, not even nuisance value. It has been punching way above it's weight, by riding on the shoulders of Unkil and because others allowed to do so. Call the truth in it's face and UK's bluster will turn into a whimper.

Heck, in the mid 90s or so, Mahatir Muhammad put a "Buy Britain Last" press release out after some particularly bad behavior by the Brits and they came back crawling on their knees.

Kick the Brits in the nuts, especially when they are down . Best way to deal with them IMHO.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Dec 2009 15:22

I would like to be educated on what competitive niches the british economy occupies in the world economy that make it indispensible ? people ? services ? material goods?

the army of 'hedge fund/Pvt fund' rogues staffing the city of london doesnt count! burn that village down!

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 23 Dec 2009 15:27

Philip wrote: The French however, gave French citizenship to the people's of their colonies, very egalitarian, whereas the British had their class pecking order even for their own tribe.

Very charitable of the french indeed, after killing, plundering and destroying the north africans. They were benign when compared with fellow oiseaules from Portugal or Netherlands, but then this is a game that goes steeply downhill in trying to pick the most fragrant among the shite-pile.

However, being part of the British Empire did bring India many gains. The foremost was the English language which has made India the world's foremost IT nation.

Nice, but does nt cut it. Wide knowledge of English in India is an Indian success, not the success of the british. When India gained freedom in 1947, the literacy rate of the male population was ~25%, female literacy rate was 8%. And this does not include specifics of working knowledge of anglais or a sophistication enough to be a babu in those days. What we had was a small number of institutions that taught a select set of people who were either rich or famous or powerful enough to bulldoze their way through these institutions. Why should credit be given to the brit oiseaules for bringing our literacy levels up from ~16% in 47 to ~60% today? And what does knowledge of anglais have to do with success in IT, we were just in the right place at the right time with the right skillset and the right frame of mind to corner the pie that was y2k. Sure anglais helps, but it was/is NOT the no. 1 reason why we are successful in IT-vity. Lets give credit to who we are and what we are rather than attributing our successes to british generosity.

We saw India linked through the railway and telegraph networks and there were many other achievements by the British, especially the great efforts made by pioneering archaeologists, artists and scholars in discovering and preserving India's vast cultural heritage.

Amusing, the then british India covered a wide territory all the way from NWFP to NEFA and burma, all the way from nepal (with limited suzerainty) to SL. Yet, it is our railways that still work fine even today. The paki railway system is an absolute mess, the BD are asking us to help them out, so why is our success being attributed to people who laid the tracks. Sure they laid the tracks, but we took it one step ahead and made it a mass medium by which people could connect. Should the success be attributed to the brits? Hardly, if you ask me.

Archaeologists, artisans, scholars who discovered our heritage because of anglais language education, amusing yet again. May work with the mahavamsam tribe or the folks who fall for the Max Muellers, but much of our discovery has been done by folks who could stand up and say, "this is our history and this is our narrative of it." That is not british success, that is the success of Yindia. What the brits [not as a population, but as a system] deserve is opprobrium of the highest order for inflicting the worst pillage on what is now India. Let them pass at least on paper an apology for colonialism, but guess what, their cousins in Oz ONLY now apologized to the aborigines who were hunted and exterminated, we were hunted but not exterminated, so our apology is not gonna come. So India's best response is to do a Patch Adams routine to the british system for whatever it is worth.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Dec 2009 15:47

Please respect copyright
Stan you missed the point.My first statement,that the colonial powers had their own interests "first and last", covers all exploitation ad nauseum.Imperialism was not a charitable exercise.The Nilambur railway track was laid to exploit the vast teak forests of Kerala.However,it is a fact,if you read books like The Great Arc,India Discovered,etc.,how several dedicated Brits and others painstakingly covered the entire country,surveyed it from top to toe, despite atrocious conditions,brought back to life our ancient history (one man alone spent twenty years painting the Ajanta frescoes) and looked after it far better than we have done so after independence.Look at the shabby way in which our ASI is taking care of our heritage.Rajaji said that "English is Sarawati's gift to India".Why are the Chinese desperately lerning English for their IT industry? So we can't also deny that we did benefit too in many ways,though in the ultimate summing up,it was all at the expense of India and her people.

Labour's woes continue with a Brown-Mandelson (crown prince in waiting) spat threatens to deliver power to Cameron & Co.at the next election.

Rift between Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson threatens Labour revival

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 23 Dec 2009 15:48

Nice, but does nt cut it. Wide knowledge of English in India is an Indian success, not the success of the british. When India gained freedom in 1947, the literacy rate of the male population was ~25%, female literacy rate was 8%.

Except for one minor nit pick above..(literacy in India was @10% when the Brits left India in 47.), i agree absolutely English in India is not Britains success. Also i note in some int3erviews Pakis are getting away with India and Pakistan inherited the same legal system, and we function similarly. While i agree all is not well in the Indian judicial system, there is a lot of evolving public awareness in India that put's pressure on an elected legislature to change the nature of Laws to a more humane and just society for all. This is an evolution and not an inheritence. Public donscience and morality in Pakistan will lead a chorus to more barbarity and Talibanization of their legislature, in India the trend has been completely different. Public conscience ultimately is the keeper and no legal syustem can be blindly inherited. There is a distinction.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 23 Dec 2009 16:09

Britain's role as a colonial power in India is very controversial,Partition being the most controversail act of all.Colonial powers as a rule put the economic and strategic interests of their country first and last..always! Therefore there is no doubt at all about the exploitation of India by the Raj at the expense of the Indian peasant in particular.The French however,gave French citizenship to the people's of their colonies,very egalitarian,whereas the British had their class pecking order even for their own tribe.However,being part of the British Empire did bring India many gains.The foremost was the English language which has made India the world's foremost IT nation..

Yindians learnt angrezi after Brits left. When Brits were kicked out of the country, the total literacy was only 12%. People learnt english 'coz they wanted to go to US.

India became world's foremost IT nation 'coz of the people by and large as a tradition learn abstract knowledge faster which help understand logic of computer operation. Why No Angrezi speaking country - australia, new zealand, england - became IT world power? Why germany where nobdoy speak or learn english in school still leads in many kind of IT-ware. SAP is one of the examples. By speaking or learnign particular language nobody become any kind of power - world or regional. The most developed european nations - France, Germnay, Norway and Sweden do not speak (or even use a little) english at all.

We saw India linked through the railway and telegraph networks and there were many other achievements by the British,especially the great efforts made by pioneering archaeologists,artists and scholars in discovering and preserving India's vast cultural heritage.This quest for knowledge by our erstwhile rulers,especially by dedicated individuals who "discovered" India and exposed it to the world, in part explains why an "Oxbridge" degree is so sought after.
..

I am still seraching examples of kind of brits in india - like constructing ponds, wells, rural development, women empowerment etc. And the price we paid for railway and telegraph were in the form of Jalianwala Baug and overtaxed farmers. Denying our GD Birla to use the lift used by Goras in our own country or now allowing mumbai people to travel by train.

Eulogising the colonial brits is akin to to being thankful to a rapist who paid for taxi for vicitm to go home.

http://www.greatmirror.com/index.cfm?na ... ize=medium

The so call civilised brits tried to ban the child marraige. And look here, which country is having youngest of unmarried mothers and unmarried fathers in modern times ?

The only gain india got was to Unite against such most inhuman civilization(?) on earth.

For more severe versions on brutality from Brits read american history.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2009 16:19

Tanaji wrote:Interestingly you have not countered any of his arguments, which speaks a lot,

to you maybe, but to others its usually an opportunity to extrapolate further. no matter what i say, it will be twisted - therefore i will not enter into it. just so you and i are clear i have never apologised for any empire least of all the british one, and i have not called all maharashtrians nazis, only that there is a general sympathy towards a specific view - and i speak from considerable immersion in your community and not a random remote statement. i do not appreciate my words being projected out of context to label me in a particular way, as neither do you - so i think you get my point. just as others claim to have read a lot, i too have a modest appreciation of history - what i encounter are anomalies, inconsistencies, ambiguities - any attempt to explore those are immediately labeled in a particular way. now that to me speaks a lot.

vina · Post by **vina** » 23 Dec 2009 16:28

we paid for railway and telegraph were in the form of Jalianwala Baug and overtaxed farmers

Oh, the Brit build out of Railways in India is a case study in itself of the loot of the country.

The companies were given guaranteed returns for the rails they built and opreated (by the Brit Govt of India out of India's taxation revenues) . It wasnt done out of charity and they got their money's worth and more out of it.

It was the best of all worlds. There was NO risk and sky high rewards (in the best case if the project took off). All altogether new definition of Risk-Reward that will do a RAPE Paki proud.

vina · Post by **vina** » 23 Dec 2009 16:36

the army of 'hedge fund/Pvt fund' rogues

Ouch Baby. Very ouch!

. I hope that was meant only for the ones in London and not for those in the rest the world.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 23 Dec 2009 16:41

And the world wars I and II were paid by India - provided men and money and resources.

Brits fought these wars for free...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2009 16:53

Murugan wrote:And the world wars I and II were paid by India - provided men and money and resources.

Brits fought these wars for free...

not quite free but heavily subsidised. the first war bankrupted the major european powers and started the rapid decline of british power (which had peaked in 1905) and the rise of american power. the second basically cleaned out britain and france and both were spent as imperial powers by 1945 (if not much sooner) as were all other colonial powers - all being funded by the US economy and protected by the massive US war machine. leaving a new era for the US and USSR and the choice for everyone else to join one camp or the other in order to survive.

serious two way discussions on Indian freedom, dominion status or whatever else start after the 1905 watershed

munna · Post by **munna** » 23 Dec 2009 20:55

Folks I think this has degenerated into a slanging match to prove or disprove UK's acts of imperial impoverishment of India. While there is little doubt that Britain perpetrated lots of atrocities in India for which they even failed to apologize, it should also be noted that to get them to apologize we need to wield influence over them or at least control something that can make them do our bidding in geopolitics.

US, UK, France and Germany all have imperial ambitions and they use influence covertly or overtly within other nations to achieve their ends, something that the Lizard is learning to do too. Insulting UK and all talk of bravado/hot air will get us only this far that is a slanging match on BRF. If we need to move beyond that we need to realize that the ability of UK to politically manage a global trade-finance and supply chain is pehnomenal and they invariably bow to superior or really powerful trading nations. China and USA became precisely that (trading powers) and got UK to do what they wanted. The point is that with services based economy and a low share of global trade it will be tough to dictate terms to UK and it makes no sense to spoil relations with a good friend of our bureaucracy (note not nation) within EU.

Regarding the Dilli Billi non-sense here is a take from a non Dilli Billi who has observed both "Bikhe Hue Dilli Billis" and "Bikhe hue Bangloris" (to quote other posters). In 1971 the same sold out set of Dilli Billis walloped Bakiland and poked a thumb at mighty Khan while after the Parliament attacks it was the "Banglori" establishment that did "you know who's bidding" and read riot act to Vajpayee. If people are discussing past lets analyze both sides it makes no sense to consider only one side as sell outs and the others smelling roses cause they are allegedly allied to a newer imperialist/hegemon. To add to topping people in a mighty and respected company have qualms in playing full national anthem in front of TFTA furriners.

My take is that none of the either is evil, engage and enhance should be the key rather than destroying existing relationships for inflated sense of self. The day we arrive economically and militarily everyone and their aunts will apologize to us!

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 23 Dec 2009 20:56

vina wrote:The companies were given guaranteed returns for the rails they built and opreated (by the Brit Govt of India out of India's taxation revenues) . It wasnt done out of charity and they got their money's worth and more out of it.

It was the best of all worlds. There was NO risk and sky high rewards (in the best case if the project took off).

I'm not in finance, but is 5% annual return really ''high rewards"?!

http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-hist.html

I think its more than possible to acknowledge where colonial governance left positive legacies without changing the basic fact that its evils outweighed the good.

One of its most positive legacies was building such strong, all-India, merit based institutions - the armed forces, the Indian Civil Service, Post & Telegraph, the railways, the universities. They provided a vital framework for stability and progress, especially in the early years of independence.

However it is to India's credit that these institutions (well perhaps with the exception of the civil service) have continued to flourish well past independence.

The real credit for the improvement in ordinary people's lives since independence goes to democracy. India couldn't have been democratic without being independent, but it certainly could have been independent without being democratic. Without democracy India in socio-economic terms would have looked a lot like Pakistan - the ranks of the poor growing at a geometric rate while the land-owning class continues to reserve power and privilege to themselves. Its perfectly possible for the colonial power to leave and to have little change for the better.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Dec 2009 21:00

Johann wrote: I think its more than possible to acknowledge where colonial governance left positive legacies without changing the basic fact that its evils outweighed the good.

Agreed!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Dec 2009 21:52

It's more appropriate to say that those former British colonies which succeeded, such as India, did so in spite of their British colonial legacy... while those which failed, like Pakistan, did so as a direct result of their British colonial legacy.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Dec 2009 22:10

More tales of honour from the UK Ummah:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... in-12.html

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2009 22:26

Rudradev wrote:It's more appropriate to say that those former British colonies which succeeded, such as India, did so in spite of their British colonial legacy... while those which failed, like Pakistan, did so as a direct result of their British colonial legacy.

in particular the strong civilisational bedrock of the indian nation brought about that success - or as i prefer - the recovery to its former status

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 23 Dec 2009 22:50

Or could it be possible that when the hour of need arrived, there were leaders from all section of the nation realized that there cannot be draconian rules or regulations that can be imposed. That the nation is actually a grouping of multitude of nations where the majority may profess a particular religion but there existed different ethnic groups, different sects, different castes, sub-castes etc. That the only course is deep rational policy because nothing can be taken for granted and the unity is fragile which can come undone if mishandled. Thus the leaders walked a tight rope with care. Where the head goes, the tail follows. Leadership is important especially in the beginning.

In Pakistan on the other hand, the leaders from the word go took for granted that Islam over rides everything else and Islam alone will ensure unity and provide for the progress of the nation. Thusly, the took for granted an utopian idea and force fed it to a grouping of different people with different interests. And thusly so the mishandling began ernestly. When the head is nowhere the tail dies with the body.

Avram

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 23 Dec 2009 23:15

The problem with the British presumption that some of their acts were beneficial lies in the fact that all their allegedly beneficial actions were incidental ones; their investments and actions were geared to their benefit, not ours.

This argument follows the lines of the one that credits a rapist for having left his victim a taxi fare get home afterwards - as charitable his action may be, he's still a rapist.

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 23 Dec 2009 23:36

Future king of londonisthan making a chanakyan yuvraj move. Did milliband come to spy on our yuvraj’s strategy on behalf of his majesty william?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/ ... 1569.shtml

So he spends the night out, with the homeless. Why does he not invite the homeless to live within the vast (now almost derelict) estates that his ancestors built after looting the whole world for centuries?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2009 23:42

Suraj wrote:The problem with the British presumption that some of their acts were beneficial lies in the fact that all their allegedly beneficial actions were incidental ones; their investments and actions were geared to their benefit, not ours.

This argument follows the lines of the one that credits a rapist for having left his victim a taxi fare get home afterwards - as charitable his action may be, he's still a rapist.

there's a better analogy

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 02#p661602

person A threw a stone at a wandering mentally unstable person on the streets to get some sadistic pleasure out of the act.
miraculously, the said insane person was hit on the head and his insanity was cured. should A be credited for curing the person of insanity ?

do we see a parallel with british rule in India ?

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 24 Dec 2009 00:07

Suraj,
That is why the deep and serious study of history and most specifically antropology is important. In the evolution of human history going back tens of thousands of years, one thing we learn is that time is a great equalizer.
I will give you several most recent example.

1) A few centuries ago European colonizers went about subjugating and colonizing other peoples' lands. What is the net result. It opened the door for the natives of the colonies to first go the to European heart lands and these days many of these are migrating by the hundred. What is the net result? The Euro white population is declining while that of those whose ancestry is from the colonies is increasing. Europe is in danger of being colonized by the non euros.

2) Arabs from the Arabian peninsular went about subjugating, colonizing and imposing Arab culture, language and religion across continents. In the region close to their heartland, they totally Arabized the non-Arab populace from present day Iraq all the way to the north Atlantic part of Africa. Yes, glory for Islam indeed. But soon after the Arabs lost out to the Momgoloid Turks and ended up being colonized by these Mongoloids. Not only that. The fertility rate of the original Arab women folks was very low and continued to be very low. As usual the Khalijees augment is by importing concubines and wives from all across the world. Oneday, there is a chance that original Arabs will become extinct and those claiming to be Arabs would be descendants of non-Arabs who were Arabized culturally. In another words, Islam brought glory to the original Arabs but that same Islam may also lead to their demise.

3) In the lands colonized by Europeans in the Americas, they brought slaves from Africa to work the land. The white master must have looked at his fortune and smiled at his so called superiority and his lordship over the inferior races all over the world. Well, today their birthrate is fast declining and their holdings are in danger of being over run but the descendants of the "inferior" races. If they had worked the land with ther own bare hands, there is a high likelyhood that the present demographic dilema that they face may not have happened. But, in those days, they thought they ruled the seas and the lands and all the inferior peoples. And they bought slaves to work the lands.

So, the colonies may have brought riches to Britain and glory for the Union Jack. Thise days are gone. Those glories gave rise to jealousies and animosity among other Europeans especially the French and Germans. And almost ended up anhilating Britain. Though Britain avoided the anhilation, but it broke her back. As I said. Time is the ultimate equalizer. What might seemd like a great achievement yesterday could well be a headache today.

Avram

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 24 Dec 2009 00:45

Avram: Yes, I know. Stuff happens.

My criticism lies in the dynamic of Indo-UK discussions on the matter of colonization. On one hand, there's the British view that persistently underscores the positive as a means to assuage their own guilt. On the other hand there's the regrettable Indian beaten-woman-with-Stockholm-syndrome attitude to the matter.

Both these are out of touch with reality, and IMHO, are much too emotional. My view of the matter, and one that I hope will be more common is this: no credit is due for any incidental benefit. The British built railways because they had to get around a vast country and transport its raw materials out for their use. They built a civil service because they needed a means to control a vast, far away place. No action on their part was meant to help India modernize, and nearly always was intended to ensure our continued subjugation.

What India has achieved in 60 years since is entirely India's achievement, and what remains to be done is our responsibility. Nothing Britain 'left us' is the reason for our success today, unless they're also willing to accept the blame and/or responsibility for what we still have left to do today. It's amusing to see some Britons pat themselves at India's rise, imagining they have something to do with it.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Dec 2009 00:48

Suraj wrote:The problem with the British presumption that some of their acts were beneficial lies in the fact that all their allegedly beneficial actions were incidental ones; their investments and actions were geared to their benefit, not ours.

that is absolutely and exactly right. just as the romans gave the celts and goths roads (to move the legions around quickly) and bath houses (to provide civilised facilities for the imperial soldiers). reminds me of the clip in "the life of brian" where the judeans ask - "what have the romans ever done for us?"

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 24 Dec 2009 03:05

Rahul M wrote:
Suraj wrote:The problem with the British presumption that some of their acts were beneficial lies in the fact that all their allegedly beneficial actions were incidental ones; their investments and actions were geared to their benefit, not ours.

This argument follows the lines of the one that credits a rapist for having left his victim a taxi fare get home afterwards - as charitable his action may be, he's still a rapist.
there's a better analogy

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 02#p661602
person A threw a stone at a wandering mentally unstable person on the streets to get some sadistic pleasure out of the act.
miraculously, the said insane person was hit on the head and his insanity was cured. should A be credited for curing the person of insanity ?

do we see a parallel with british rule in India ?

Stupid analogy. India was not a wandering mentally unstable person before British colonized it.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 24 Dec 2009 03:14

asprinzl wrote:In the evolution of human history going back tens of thousands of years, one thing we learn is that time is a great equalizer.
I will give you several most recent example.
...

Are you telling stories of the b!tch called Karma?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 24 Dec 2009 03:19

Is it necessary or true to paint 'the British' as one-dimensional in their motivations? No group of humans is monolithic, and politics is complex.

On the balance colonial rule unquestionably hurt more than it helped.

Many of the progressive things that were done were not just for the benefit of the residents of Britain, but because there was a significant body of British opinion that demanded that colonial rule bring some benefits to those it ruled.

The moral question of whether the subjects of empire were seeing improvements in their life was a question that could not just be ignored in Britain. These progressive opinions in fact became stronger as time passed, and were the basis of the deep friendship between the Indian National Congress and the Labour Party which lasted until Labour developed a Islamist friendly bent in the 1970s.

Even as far back as the 1830s when the higher education policy of India was being debated between different British groups, the terms of the debate (however wrong) was in terms of its benefit for Indians on the assumption that they would one day be engaged in self-rule.

From the end of WWI in particular it was clear that Indian Home Rule, however delayed or gradual was an inevitability - Ireland in particular pointed the way. That was in part why the title of Empire changed to Commonwealth.

Obviously, racist reactionaries like Churchill never believed that day could or should come, but many, if not most British were more realistic than that. Certainly, increasingly after 1905 many in the British establishment were anxious to win over Indian opinion in order to keep Indo-British ties positive.

None of this in any way changes India's right to be an independent state, or diminishes its tremendous achievements since independence.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Dec 2009 03:41

Johann wrote:Certainly, increasingly after 1905 many in the British establishment were anxious to win over Indian opinion in order to keep Indo-British ties positive.

I certainly doubt the "Many " word in there. The right word will be "Very few". Not only was India supplying troops and labourers across the entire British Empire, it was also very profitable for UK to maintain its colonies. The very fact that there was so much reluctance to transfer power, and their use of "divide and rule" policies show the british establishment for what it was.

There were very few like AO Hume etc who really cared for the "natives". However, the larger british establishment had no time for such concerns.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Dec 2009 04:12

That part of the west which is the offspring of Britain is amazed at its own generosity of curtailing thugee and bringing railroads to India.

Much as the Chinese are self congratulatory at having freed the Tibetan serf from the lamas.

It is unfortunate that Japan did not have the benefit of these two colonialist powers, otherwise it would be an economic and technological powerhouse today.

Ultimately it is futile to get into arguments with smug colonialists. The course of the future is discernible. It shows no signs of French, German or much of European culture. Canada and Britain will remain relevant albeit diminished thanks to their liberal immigration policies. Australia will be discovered to have adivasi roots and will be freed from its oppressors, the Aryan Nations of Christ followers will head deeper into the hills. The smug feeling is spreading.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 24 Dec 2009 04:19

Hi Johann, as I mentioned previously, my view is that I don't acknowledge any commonly quoted 'benefits' (e.g. trains, civil services) of British rule at all, simply because they are incidental. The plunder and loss, on the other hand, was deliberate.

Therefore it is not even a case of the bad outweighing the good, but that of incidental gains accrued during the process of wreaking deliberate havoc.

As another - if blunt and Godwin's Law reinforcing - analogy, the Germans industrialized the city of Osweicim in Poland, by connecting it with railway lines and roads, and further promoted economic activity by sourcing local timber and steel during the construction and maintenance of a large camp there, i.e. Auschwitz-Birkenau.

This is the fundamental fallacy of the 'benefits' of colonization argument: deliberate plunder can only be realistically offset with deliberate benefits, not incidental ones. It isn't merely a matter of bad outweighing good - it is an attempt to compare different things.

While part of the British administration may have doubtless been sympathetic to the Indian cause all the while, ultimately the brutality of a collective group could not be overcome by the intentions of a minority within.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 24 Dec 2009 10:18

Amongst all the colonizers, the brits were the worst.

Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography specifically mentions about the difference of attitude amongst french and brits clearly citing the most inhuman treatment of natives, the settlers and morovians by brits - that includes rapes, loots and violence. He further mentions that the french were better and even did not even touched an apple unnecessarily.

Movie the Patriot vividly portrays the 'beneficial' traits of brits and how french helped General George Washington getting rid of benefactors.

BTW, india is more indebted to US for her freedom than the well-wisher brits.

All these funny stories of creating educational insitutions and democratic value and bla bla are challanged in the following paragraph from one of the great WWII time personalities:

“The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements–all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.” ~FDR (Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It)

further

“I’ve tried to make it clear … that while we’re [Britain's] allies and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to their archaic, medieval empire ideas … I hope they realize they’re not senior partner; that we are not going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot.” ~FDR (Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It)

and further

“The British Empire trade agreements,” he [Churchill] began heavily, “are–”

Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It is because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under these conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”

“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be disagreement between you, Winston, and me. I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace, it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done obviously by eighteenth-century methods. Now–”

“Who’s talking about eighteenth-century methods?”

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of the that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation–by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community…”

“You mentioned India,” he [Churchill] growled.

“Yes, I [Roosevelt] can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”

...

“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”

“They’re artificial….”

“They are the foundation of our greatness.” (enough evidence of arrogance that still persists)

“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples…”

~The conversation between FDR and Churchill during the summit held off the coast of Argentia, Newfoundland on Aug. 13-14, 1941, as related by FDR’s son, Elliot.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Dec 2009 10:28

paramu wrote: Stupid analogy. India was not a wandering mentally unstable person before British colonized it.

ah yes, the literal interpretation.

should have expected it.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 24 Dec 2009 10:37

And FDR had very specific recommendations about what to do with British India back in 1941 -

…‘India should be made a commonwealth at once. After a certain number of years—five perhaps, or ten—she should be able to choose whether she wants to remain in the Empire or have complete independence.

‘As a commonwealth, she would be entitled to a modern form of government, an adequate health and educational standard. But how can she have these things, when Britain is taking all the wealth of her national resources away from her, every year? Every year the Indian people have one thing to look forward to, like death and taxes. Sure as shooting, they have a famine. The season of the famine, they call it.’

__________

Thank You FDR!

(who educated FDR and who/what influenced him, any idea?)

__________

Unfortunately, FDR opposed the extant British empire far more than the gathering Soviet one. As a result, at Yalta he relented on Atlantic charter diktats when it came to the fate of Eastern Europe under Stalin after the war. Still, there’s no question that on the India question, FDR’s demands shook British expectations about the post-war fate of the empire to the core.

In later statements during the conflict, Churchill tried to backtrack and assert that the Atlantic Charter did not apply to India…. However, with US entry into the war and the Japanese knocking on India’s door, the die was cast and policy pronouncements from Downing street were very much swimming against the tide of history…

(Left nothing to mention about the WWII leader of UKstan, i am speechless!

Since, the songs sung by Indian Soldiers make me cry I wonder was it really needed to be sung for such an inhuman entity:

Oh bury me at Cassino
My duty to England is done
And when you get back to Blighty
And you are drinking your whisky and rum
Remember the old Indian soldier
When the war he fought has been won!

-Indian 8th Infantry Division
War Song from the WWII Italian Campaign)

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 24 Dec 2009 11:02

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004745.html

(are such stories still remembered by the thankless?)