Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jul 2010 15:43

british PM has just left bangalore 15 mins ago in a magnificent BA 747. no doubt headed north to have dinner with the PM etc.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 28 Jul 2010 15:46

^^^ Must watch video

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jul 2010 15:51

yeah, greater forces than us are surely on the march out of barad dur.

contrary to the numerically based "johann covenant" that france and germany have a bigger problem, it seems to me as a layman that only UK has the Govt that is very hand-in-glove with such elements and too politically correct for UKs own welfare.
france and germany have shown on occasion a total disregard for irresponsible 'demands' and the ability to use the stick.

germany has Turks mostly and france has north africans, UK has BD/Paki - a different kettle of fish methinks.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 28 Jul 2010 16:17

Barbarik bhai jaan....shukran for that video...just can't stop laughing

Mango Brit must be "Maatha Peething" & "Chaathi Peething" uttering why our ancestors invaded their lands? and bring them to London?

enjoy brits....we have been eating and digesting this through centuries....now its your turn..thats just a taste...lunch and dinner on your routine

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 28 Jul 2010 16:31

Barbarik bhai,

pl also provide link. (my past karma do not allow me access to such site from office. Means simply cant see embedded video wala post from karmashala comp/conn)

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 28 Jul 2010 17:02

BBC Delhi repoter pour cold water on British hopes................................no mentioning of David Camroon on front page of Toilet and HT. He was briefly mentioned on page 13th

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 28 Jul 2010 17:17

Govt to sign $775 mn jet deal with BAE Systems

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... /103072/on

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jul 2010 17:36

arnab wrote
I think we are creating a mountain out of a mole hill. The indian independence movement was all about 'swaraj' (self rule). This was articulated by Tilak and even MKG when he said to the brits to go even if it meant leaving leaving India to the mercy of the gods. MMS's argument is about not entirely rejecting Brit's claim to 'good governance'. One does not need to be particularly perspicacious to claim that Brit rule was inequitable, uneven and ultimately self-serving (e.g rail ines were set up to ferry troops to put down future 'mutinies', but the unintended consequence of this was it for the first time connected different parts of India). Similarly, the RBI Act of 1934 for the first time provided India with a currency union even before it became a political entity. Prior to this every princely state from Bhawalpur to Hyderabad was issuing its own currency. All these provided a glue which kept the country administratively unified after independence(rather than empty slogans). These are the good governance factors that MMS is refering to.

How far do we need to sink in denying history to whitewash the speech of the Honbl Prime Minister of India? Why should MKG be misquoted and words and interpretations put into his mouth that suits JLN and his descendants' and courtiers' agenda? I am no blindly amorous slave of MKG - but please let us not freely interpret his words to suit our deceptive and confused justifications for sheer opportunism and detachment from the suffering of Indian commons both under the Brits as well as those who were selected to hand power over to!

It is unethical at the least to smoothly use MKG's concept of "swaraj" into a westernized interpretation of "self rule"=="political autonomy" of an admin system as a whole. MKG's swaraj was a much more deeper and more anarchist concept than is being proposed. How many of us have read his works before commenting? We need to be familiar with all the nooks and crannies of thoughts spread around in his collected works - the edition I know of runs into 90 volumes.

Let us briefly see what he really meant by his swaraj and how twisted evil it is to use his "swaraj" to claim love for the "British system" "or "British model of governance" :

"The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence....While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind."[1] Here goes the major claim to "good governance" model.

"[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy."[2]

"If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery."[3] Here goes the claim of Indian gratitude for the Brit model of "good governance".

"It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority."[4] Here goes Brit model of governance by majority decision.

"Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."[5] Here goes the claim of Brit model state that power reside in the admin once elections are over and the state itself is sort of a self-perpetuating machine over and above that of the people - that people simply decide who is going to control that machine for a while.

Discussing the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, "In such a state (of affairs), everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor."[6]

For MKG, every individual had to take steps towards self-rule in their lives; only then India would naturally move towards self-rule as a nation. He insisted, "Everyone will have to take [swaraj] for himself."[7]

"If we become free, India becomes free and in this thought you have a definition of swaraj. It is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves." [8] Here goes swaraj as a primarily collective meme and therefore sinks its equation with western concept of autonomy.

"It is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost... to blame them for this is to perpetuate their power."[9] Here goes the claim that it was the Brits who gave the better system - Indians did not exercise their power to prevent the Brits from coming in.

"A petition of an equal is a sign of courtesy; a petition from a slave is a symbol of his slavery...Love-force can thus be stated: 'if you do not concede our demand, we will be no longer your petitioner. You can govern us only so long as we remain the governed; we shall no longer have any dealings with you.'"[10] Here goes the right of the state to impose any system of admin

Thus MKG's definition of swaraj ultimately leads to a grassroots, bottom-up, community of self-ruling communities. In 1946, Gandhi explained this vision:

"Independence begins at the bottom... It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbors or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be every-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it."[11] Here goes the IAS/ICS, parliamentary model of Brits.

"Every Indian whether he owns up to it or not, has national aspirations--but there are as many opinions as there are Indian Nationalists as to the exact meaning of that aspiration."[12] Here goes the deafening claim that "all" Indians were thinking the "same" on the Brits as regards the "nation".

He wanted the Congress to disband post-independence, "Its task is done. The next task is to move into villages and revitalize life there to build a new socio-economic structure from the bottom upwards."[13] Here goes the Brits model of party based governance model.

"by patriotism, I mean the welfare of the whole people."[14]

But Congress did not disband after independence in 1947. Gandhi recognized that there would be a national government, and his anarchic, oceanic circle would not yet be possible. Nevertheless, he used the terms of nationalism to move towards the ideal of Anarchy. He advocated for a minimal level of State organization to fund some education programs and to promote his economic concept of trusteeship. Hence, Gandhi was a compromising Anarchist.

MKG openly supports his vision of of anarchy in India on this point, "It may be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought... Let India live for the true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want, before we can have something approaching it."[15] Here goes the hard task of "concrete" structures instead of empty slogans.

This should make it amply clear that MKG was trying to develop an idea of governance that was in the opposite direction from the Brit model of governance.

If possible the book by Atulya Ghosh, with whom I had the longest running debate in my life on this very topic, "Gandhiji in the eyes of an Anarchist" should be read. It was those ideas and line of thought in MKG that drew in a lot of early "anarchists" into his "mass-movement".

[1] Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. Gujarat Sahitya Prakash: Ananda India, 1987. pp. 236-237.
[2] Bhattacharyya, Buddhadeva. Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi. Calcutta Book House: Calcutta, 1969. p.479
[3] Parel, Anthony (ed.) Hind Swaraj and other writings of M.K. Gandhi. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. p. 38
[4] Ibid. p. 92
[5] Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. p 251.
[6] Murthy, Srinivasa. Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters. Long Beach Publications: Long Beach, 1987. p. 13.
[7] Ibid. p. 112.
[8] Ibid. p. 73.
[9] Ibid. p. 41.
[10] Ibid. p. 85.
[11] Ibid. p. 189.
[12] Ibid p. 40.
[13] Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. p. 225.
[14] Parel, Anthony (ed.) Hind Swaraj and other writings of M.K. Gandhi. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. p. 77.
[15] Ibid. p. 189.

I think the thuggish behaviour of the police is hardly a product of the colonial era. I'm sure the high-handedness of law enforcing officials existed in the pre-colonial era as well. If you really want to know about colonial attitudes - visit RBI. Even today, the mumbai office has separate elevators for officers, separate dining rooms for officers. Or think of the Batman (sahayak) in the Indian army - these are vestiges of the colonial era. Or think of why every Indian Airlines aircraft's ID number commences with the letters - VT (It stands for Viceroy's Territory).

Separate dining rooms as far as I know is not just only in RBI but extends to other important wings of the rashtra. The problem with "high handedness" before pre-colonial era is a debatable one, and if we go sufficiently backward, there are at least textual claims of severe penalties for over-stepping limits by law-enforcement officials coming from the pre-Islamic period.

However, the crucial debate in the modern period is that in the colonial regime, the police were serving the Brit crown and were basically and technically servants of HM's government in India. As such they were not accountable to the Indian people because there was no effective democratic representation of the Indian commons in the Brit Parliament which had some degree of control over admin. Post independence there can be no excuse for such unaccountability. As is evident in growing numbers of cases , police arbitrariness can only be subject to penalizing action if initiatives are taken by the "centre" and by current culture only if the arbitrariness has taken place on "politically correct" victims.

So MMS is merely articulating that outside of the well known aspects that have denounced british rule, running a government requires one to look beyond slogans and involves the the hard and unglamourous task of providing legislative frameworks, legal structures and administrative coverage to a country. This initial framework is what the Brits provided and which is what we still largely use and it is a reality (just as the brit made famine of 1942 was a reality as shown by Amartya Sen).

Brits provided a legal structure? You mean they invented the wheel for India? Have you studied or gone through the early formation of the legal codes and court systems by the Brits in India? Where did their ideas of Indian law come from - from Whitehall and Westminster only? (except for those that selectively jarred on Anglican Christian sensibilities like homosexualism) There were at most a top-dressing of imported civil-servants to oversee an army of Indian underlings who carried out the day to day grind of admin [just a simple search on the number of ICS's per 1000 Indians say would do]. In most cases the Brits had destroyed the older admin deliberately, destroyed therefore the economy and infrastructure of admin [look at EIC stalwarts and admins almost complete negligence of pre-existing canal and irrigation systems in the south and east which were responsible for famines - as shown in detailed work by their own surveyor - and who was therefore shown the door], had little or no knowledge about how to run things. They are credited by frothing-at-the-mouth bootlickers of the Raj with actual work carried out by Indians.

Why do we have to wait for a market-socialist to prove that the 1942 famine was Brit made? Wasn't it shown amply by other people long before - maybe those people were not under favour because they were seen as "right wing".

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Jul 2010 18:15

David Cameron is not cutting it with India’s media

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 28 Jul 2010 19:22

^^^
The snake charmer & the burra sahib, they just cant let the raj go away can they?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jul 2010 19:29

^^ germans complain that they cant let WW2 go either... but look more closely at the image, why is the disinterested snake lying in a bed of money? why is the burra sahib wearing a costume that hasnt been seen in the UK for 60 years? why is he blowing hoarsely? Who is it parodying? India or the UK?

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 28 Jul 2010 19:32

It would have been better if the burra sahib was dhoti clad with the helmet on & begging bowl nearby. Although I would approve putting MMS's mugshot on the snake.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jul 2010 19:58

^^ it could always be improved, point is that the british media are not entirely convinved by the sincerety of cameron's big push either

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 28 Jul 2010 20:05

Acorn tweets: http://twitter.com/acorn

David Cameron's Bangalore speech http://is.gd/dOg1S has undone the damage that David Miliband had done.

Cameron warns Pakistan not to export terrorism http://is.gd/dOg1S

"Britain believes there is a distinction between the government of Pakistan and some state agencies" http://is.gd/dOg1S {There now the yanks have the perfect template to build upon and further fool a willing dilli}

Briefing on UK Prime Minister’s Visit to India http://tinyurl.com/33ddjn8

Cameron scores -- India buys 57 Hawk AJTs from BAe for over £500 million http://j.mp/bBhGQR

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 28 Jul 2010 20:08

On currencies.

We have another example of us "Thanking" the British for giving us a singhle currency. is this something Indians could not have done it themselves? What is there to thank?

What is so fundamentally wrong with many currencies. Is it a disaster? Even in today's Germany there are multiple currencies. Many parts of Germany have local currency. Some places in US also have local currencies. Both seem to me stable, prosperous independenct countries.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Jul 2010 20:29

surinder wrote:On currencies.

We have another example of us "Thanking" the British for giving us a singhle currency. is this something Indians could not have done it themselves? What is there to thank?

What is so fundamentally wrong with many currencies. Is it a disaster? Even in today's Germany there are multiple currencies. Many parts of Germany have local currency. Some places in US also have local currencies. Both seem to me stable, prosperous independenct countries.

There may actually be benefits to have more than one currency, especially in the worl'd 2nd largest nation as the monetary scenario can greatly differ from region to region.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jul 2010 20:31

which parts of germany have a local currency?

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 28 Jul 2010 20:39

Carl_T wrote:
surinder wrote:On currencies.

We have another example of us "Thanking" the British for giving us a singhle currency. is this something Indians could not have done it themselves? What is there to thank?

What is so fundamentally wrong with many currencies. Is it a disaster? Even in today's Germany there are multiple currencies. Many parts of Germany have local currency. Some places in US also have local currencies. Both seem to me stable, prosperous independenct countries.

There may actually be benefits to have more than one currency, especially in the worl'd 2nd largest nation as the monetary scenario can greatly differ from region to region.

IIRC Germany stopped using the Deutsche mark and has switched fully to the Euro.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 28 Jul 2010 21:01

Interesting stories from the Guardian about Cameron's trip. The Guardian is sympathetic to the Labour party, but the tenor is interesting:
David Cameron bound for India but Delhi is hardly agog

The news of the imminent arrival of the biggest party of British dignitaries for decades barely featured in local newspapers, got almost no coverage on television bulletins and prompted only six lines – sandwiched between "Light showers bring down temperature in Delhi" and "North-east shaken by moderate earthquakes" – in dispatches from the government-run Press Trust of India.

Cameron and co tread carefully over Kashmir

Don't mention Kashmir. That is the unequivocal message from every minister accompanying David Cameron on his trip to India.

The six cabinet ministers have been drilled by the Foreign Office, which was bruised after Labour ministers repeatedly slipped up on the acutely sensitive issue, to say absolutely nothing on Kashmir.

Vince Cable, the business secretary who is attuned to Indian sensitivities after visiting the country regularly since 1965, gave a taste of the new approach this morning. Asked about Kashmir, he said:

That is a dispute within the sub-continent that we are not expressing a view on.

The silence on Kashmir is a sign of the depth of preparations by Downing Street and the Foreign Office to ensure ministers do not cause offence to their Indian hosts.

It is important to see articles like the above, for that's the attitude we seek to engender among visiting dignitaries.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 28 Jul 2010 21:31

That is a dispute within the sub-continent that we are not expressing a view on

It is indeed a minor improvement, but still not good enough IMO.

This is almost as offensive as " We have a view on Kashmir which is not acceptable to you and is directly against India's interests. We won't say it aloud now because we want your business dealings and we will lose out if we open our mouths. However, we reserve the right to say it later when it is convenient for us"

munna · Post by **munna** » 28 Jul 2010 21:33

rgsrini wrote:" We won't say it aloud now because we want your business dealings and we will lose out if we open our mouths. However, we reserve the right to say it later when it is convenient for us"

Cap, rollback and eliminate! The message of "either you are with or against us" will have to be delivered unequivocally to one and all.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 28 Jul 2010 22:02

Opinions are like a**holes - everyone has one. I'm ok as long as the a**holes keep their opinions to themselves

The attitude of Cameron's delegation is a reflection of the fact that despite the rona-dhona here regarding the Millipede's behavior, MEA and GoI did convey an effective word to the Brits behind the scenes about the importance of not repeating that episode.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 28 Jul 2010 22:24

Suraj,

spot on... we ought to give credit where it is due to both teams!
In the end it is what was said and what was left unsaid.

As long as India can inculcate future behavior -
past is best left to intellectuals and those with 'opinions'

Ashwin B · Post by **Ashwin B** » 28 Jul 2010 23:22

Does he actually carry that emblem on the podium (and double sided, adhesive tape) wherever he goes?

Unbelievable.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Jul 2010 00:03

i understand that the Indian HC in the UK did some sterling work in cultivating the tories, looks like it has paid off

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Jul 2010 00:59

churchill must be turning in his grave, who could have 'thunk' that his beloved conservatives would one day have to run to ~~India~~ (the nation whose nationality has no more claims to being a nation than the equator) in UQ's own interests.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jul 2010 02:18

Rahul M wrote:churchill must be turning in his grave, who could have 'thunk' that his beloved conservatives would one day have to run to ~~India~~ (the nation whose nationality has no more claims to being a nation than the equator) in UQ's own interests.

He wanted the current India to be smaller and completely dominated by other states. He was adamant against India getting independence and secretly against the Hindus (esp Brahmins).
One thing the west has done is make the map of India smaller and also reduce the voice of Indians in the global media.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jul 2010 02:25

It's India's poor who need British aid, not its military and business elites

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 29 Jul 2010 02:37

Lalmohan, these are small regions which have issued there own paper currency. It is magically set so that 1 Local Currency = 1 Euro. I don't know the names, I just know that it exists.

In the US, some local small cities have issued local currency which is accepted only locally, so that business stays local. It is legally allowed. I know that it exists.

Check out:

"Twenty-two such regional currencies are already in use in Germany, and 31 more are in preparation." in
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 75,00.html

"There are more than two dozen local currencies in circulation, and 40 or so initiatives are about to start printing their own banknotes. " in
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128546325

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jul 2010 02:40

Gerard wrote:It's India's poor who need British aid, not its military and business elites

By creating Pakistan by Partition British created more problems and expenses for India than it would have been.
So just by not giving anything British created more debt and problems for Indians and its poor people.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jul 2010 02:44

Singha wrote:british PM has just left bangalore 15 mins ago in a magnificent BA 747. no doubt headed north to have dinner with the PM etc.

British PM comes and visits Bangalore first.

The American President visits Hyd and ND. Does it say something

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 29 Jul 2010 02:54

A good way for the british to show that they have turned a new leaf is to return our cultural stuff which lying in the museums. That wud be a good start.

munna · Post by **munna** » 29 Jul 2010 02:58

A very interesting tid bit that has emerged out of Prime Minister Cameron's visit, he has made an all out attempt to serenade the Banglori Munnas in addition to Dilli Billis. The delegation from Britain has done its homework well and has nicely pulled the right strings to ring perfect chords. Infosys and HAL have proven to be as important calling points as the political mandarins of Dilli. Unfortunately most respected company and HAL have both decided against kicking UK out of the park as suggested by some posters. What gives?
My hunch is that Tories will do a Bush on UK and progressively move to a situation whereby British growth will be powered by Indian companies and interests. In return Indian firms, personnel and strategic community can firmly put UK under its sphere of influence through mutually indestructible cross linkages. Now is the time to think big and bold and create our first outpost in the western world. If MMS and MSA pull this one off, my sashtang pranam to them!!

PS: For all the

posters who believe India or Indians will be hoodwinked again or will be taken for a ride, remember no risk no gain. We have to break free from this South Asia-South Asia stranglehold and win for ourselves our own spaces outside. We will land some punches and will be hit by a few, but let us not think small for now.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Jul 2010 03:25

My hunch is that Tories will do a Bush on UK and progressively move to a situation whereby British growth will be powered by Indian companies and interests. In return Indian firms, personnel and strategic community can firmly put UK under its sphere of influence through mutually indestructible cross linkages. Now is the time to think big and bold and create our first outpost in the western world.

Very good point!

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 29 Jul 2010 03:50

Acharya wrote:
Singha wrote:british PM has just left bangalore 15 mins ago in a magnificent BA 747. no doubt headed north to have dinner with the PM etc.
British PM comes and visits Bangalore first.

The American President visits Hyd and ND. Does it say something

That needs a bit of writeup:

Welcome to BRF's touch tone system. Please listen carefully, though menu hasnt changed for years....

If you are CRamSji or of the opinion "All is lost, look at how <deep robotic voice: David Cameron> is treating us by visiting <deep robotic voice: Bangalore> first instead of <deep robotic voice: Delhi>. Pakistanis are doing much better than us." press 1
If you are Shivji or of the opinion "We need to fix ourselves, before we wave our middle-fingers at the plane or lift our lungi in its general direction" press 2
If you are Ramanaji or pressed both 1 and 2, press 3
If you are Amitji or pressed 2 but pulled out button 1 in frustration, press 4
If you are Acharyaji or asked yourself lately "Do I see a Rothschild watching me from my rooftop Sintex tank?" press 5 with your hand wrapped in foil
If you are JEM-saar or loves making falafel out of a crisis, press 9 to order some

Other's, please hang up the phone and continue surfing"

<Basement Jaxx playing in the background, while I jump from rock to rock down the ravine to escape Bredators. All with a determined expression and spiky hair with blonde tips>

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jul 2010 04:23

Not funny

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 29 Jul 2010 04:37

Murugan wrote:Even after the pre-independence RBI started printing paper currency, big and important princely states viz, Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bikaner, Kutch, Tripura, Dungarpur, Hyderabad and many others continued minting their own metal/paper currency till Bharat became Republic of India. They were all valid acorss the length and breadth of Bharat.

Hyderabad kept on issueing currency notes well after independence

Goa and Pondicherry kept issuing currency notes well past 1950

Obviously there was no currecncy union after RBI Act of 1934.

Bharat had, at regular intervals, unified currency, in the time of Magadh Rulers, Maurya rulers, Gupta rulers, Mughals and for shorter periods during rules of delhi sultans. During this time Governance was far better and people were most prosperous compared to british misrule and terror.

What MMS calls a good governance is very difficult to pinpoint, imho. Though in his speech he made some tongue-in-cheek remarks against british administration:

Very quickly - The RBI act created an institution which would eventually become the facilitator of currency union. The Act itself did not mean that all other forms of money would be instantly demonetised. The closest analogy is that of the Euro. The Euro was officially adopted in 2002, while the European Monetary Institution was set up in the early 90s which eventually became the European Central Bank in 1998. During the period all EU nations retained their own currency. While I would not use the e.g of Hyderabad (Nizam was forced to join India through the police action) or Goa (joined India in 1961) or Pondicherry (joined India in 1956?), the fact still stands that the 1934 act was the basis of the currency union in India.

See the point that there have been pockets 'unified currency' at various times in history just goes to prove my point. The fact was that such innovations never lasted or were never built upon was because they were too tied to the individual (ruler) who was proposing such reforms. When the ruler (or the empire) died the reform died with it. There was no institutional memory and no such institutions that were divorced from a particular personality. That is what is necessary for a unified nation state - a set of institutions and administrative structures that could broadly be enforced over the state.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 29 Jul 2010 04:41

surinder wrote:A good way for the british to show that they have turned a new leaf is to return our cultural stuff which lying in the museums. That wud be a good start.

A start would be giving a monthly stipend to all the descendants of Jallianwala Bagh, partition, kashmiri pandits, calcutta riots, 6 million bengalis etc. equal to renting of Kohinoor around $1 billion a year.
http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/koh-i-noordiamond.html

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 29 Jul 2010 05:01

Acharya wrote:Not funny

I know! It is not as funny as when you say it....

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Jul 2010 05:27

Hmm. Watched David Cameron's performance on NDTV last night. What a refreshing contrast from that dour boring dork Gordon Brown. Seems to be earnest, at least talks straight, very straight on Terrorism and Pakistan, hits all the right chords, I like it!.