Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 12 Oct 2012 18:33

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... lt-on-modi

Secular sewagae vomit...tries to casually link Modi to Hitler in a typical spit and run tactic..yet it is couched in language that can be easily used to slither away when questioned..

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Oct 2012 22:46

b-ji, what of the lakhs of indians who volunteered to fight on the allied side against the axis on the 'understanding' that their efforts would lead to recognition and freedom from britain? the british need to know that there were millions of indians and africans and carribeans who fought their war, not just the all white images they are familiar with
a statue of noor does that - regardless of her personal beliefs

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 13 Oct 2012 01:21

Hari Seldon wrote:^^Or perhaps the reaction was overdone. Anyway, with Dilli treating Guj like a pariah, its welcome to get recognition from somewhere, even 3rd rate powers, perhaps.

Seriously? That is what the khalistanis and kashmiris did recently, as well as other Indian rulers down the centuries. Feeling happy about recognition from elsewhere....

Dilli treats everyone who has an opinion, like a pariah. There was a pause between PVNR and ABVP (rather mysteriously, during that period, Indians were confident of their nation than ever before...). But it seem to be back. That doesn't mean we need to go with another round of "3rd rate powers being elevated to 1st rate, thanks to India" routine.

Anyways, do we really need to give a shyte ? As someone pointed out above, disrespecting a legally elected leader of an Indian state is bad, but rejoicing over stoppage of that disrespect is worse. It is like a paki celebrating a drone-free day as a "Great Satan's Surrender Day".

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 13 Oct 2012 03:15

^^^ Agreed. Mea culpa. Sorry.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 13 Oct 2012 03:48

Suppiah wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... lt-on-modi

Secular sewagae vomit...tries to casually link Modi to Hitler in a typical spit and run tactic..yet it is couched in language that can be easily used to slither away when questioned..

What can you expect from a Scumbag who for a first class Plane ticket and 5 star stay in America, gave legitmacy to Ghulam Nabi Fai.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Oct 2012 07:38

Lalmohan wrote:b-ji, what of the lakhs of indians who volunteered to fight on the allied side against the axis on the 'understanding' that their efforts would lead to recognition and freedom from britain? the british need to know that there were millions of indians and africans and carribeans who fought their war, not just the all white images they are familiar with
a statue of noor does that - regardless of her personal beliefs

The propaganda so far around Noor, merely lips-services "India" - without really pointing out anything Indian about her- except the Tipu Sultan connection. What is bandied about more, is her so-called "princess" status, her "sufi" heritage, her opposition to Nazism, and her devotion to the British cause. During those years, an "Indian" would be very very concerned about the role and impact of British rule on India. Do we have any evidence whatsover about her feelings on this issue?

I have my respects for her courage, but dont see any reasons to go gaga over any Indian-ness. More difficult is accepting this desire for recognition of Indian contributions to their war efforts, from the Brits. They will always gloss over this - and even if Noor's statue is put up, it will highlight - if at all, her aristocratic and sufi background and her devotion and sacrifice in the British cause will take pride of place.

I don't want to go into the issue of those who fought "voluntarily" on British behalf in WWII. Not everyone was perhaps motivated by the so-called "deal" about freedom in return and some perhaps were. This myth was propagated more in WWI MKG circles, and in the buildup to the congress resignation from provincial ministries - but there is little evidence on ground that it was really and sincerely sourced from the Brit side at all. I have rather negative feelings about all those who served the British cause before independence. But at the same time I personally salute their personal sacrifices.

Sree · Post by **Sree** » 13 Oct 2012 08:22

Brihaspati Ji and Lal-mullah Ji, thanks for your considered contributions to this discussion.

Brihaspati Ji, I agree there is some room for ambivalence about the extent to which those who fought on the British side during WW2 were motivated entirely by nationalist sentiments and / or the perception that there was a freedom deal on the table immediately after victory had been won; as opposed to those (and there were some, even among those we now regard as heroes) who before Independence were unequivocally among the servants of Empire (as, it could be argued, were many of those who joined the ICS or participated in political processes such as the pre-Independence provincial elections and government you refer to - which would cover a lot of highly-regarded post-Independence figures). As you refer to obliquely, the Mahatma himself served in British uniform early in his life.

I would suggest the ambivalence was even more personally painful for some of those who, like Noor, made the decision to serve. As some on the Military side of this Forum know, I have (together with one of the Admins on that side) made it a personal project to collect the recollections of some who served in uniform during WW2, and I can confirm that at that time the ambivalence was very real, very painful, and not admissible of as clear a position as we in hindsight have the luxury of. Some hugely successful, gallantry-decoration-wearing WW2 veterans have done me the privilege of sharing some agonizing details of these dilemmas, as they were seen at the time, which I hope to make a more serious write-up about some time. We today, who do not have to grapple with the realities of the time, do all those who lived through those times an injustice, by dismissing them with one-liners.

I am happy to continue this discussion off-Forum with anyone who has an interest (or on a separate thread for this purpose). On this particular thread, I reiterate, my purpose was just to bring the petition on the Noor memorial to the notice of an audience who have an interest in the India-UK relationship, and not to convert anyone. I will leave it at that here.

Rgds

Sree

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 13 Oct 2012 10:57

Gentlemen: let me write a few things that I know regarding Noor-un-nisa Inayat Khan:
1. Her father Inayat Khan was Indian Sufi musician (he played the veena). Her mother was US American named Ora Ray Baker. They met at a lecture in the Ramakrishna Mission Ashram in San Francisco. They were married later on in London, where Inayat Khan re-named his wife Amina Sharada Begum. Sharada after Shrada Ma of Ramakrisna, and also Goddess Sharada that had influenced Inayat Khan in his youth.
2. Inayat Khan was friends with Sarojini Naidu and he had met Gandhiji and Tagore.
3. Noor was born in Moscow in 1914, where Inayat had gone to play music. There he adapted his music to play an episode of Shakuntala from Kalidasa. Political changes made him settle in France, where Noor grew up. She learned French and English literature and German and Spanish. She went to Sorbonne and was engaged to a French Jew. She wrote a children's book based on the Buddhist Jataka tales in French and later translated into English. This book is still in print today.
4. She escaped to England, when France was occupied by Germany during the WWII. In England she joined the WAAF, as she wanted to fight the occupation of France. She considered France to be her home. Later on she joined the SOE an intelligence organization created to help French resistance, she was selected due to her fluent French and knowledge of France. However, during the interview she made it clear that she supported Indian leaders against the British rule. She promised to support the British against the Germans as long as France was occupied. The British accepted her reluctantly, as they were not very sure of her loyalty. But they did not have much of a choice as there were few with such fluency of French and radio operation. Even though she was a pacifist, she accepted the task of fighting the Germans based on her own interpretation of the Gita.
5. After being dropped in France, she operated the radio successfully. But she was betrayed by double agents, tortured and then executed at Dachau. Even though she was tortured by the Gestapo for months she never told them anything useful. It is said that her dark skin invited more torture from the Nazis. She was in German captivity for about 11 months. They then shot her and cremated her body.
6. The French have always considered her a hero. Every year on Bastille Day a military band plays in front of her house in France, to remember her sacrifice. The British have been more reluctant to acknowledge her. They may yet do so.
Gautam

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Oct 2012 19:20

Sree ji,
as I have made it clear earlier, I have immense appreciation and regards for her personal courage and sacrifice. I am just not so sure about the desirability of helping out the Brits as serving the cause of Indian independence - since until 1944, and until the formal defeat of the conservative party - there was no mood in the government of UK to even discuss "independence". I recognize the value of Noor's efforts [iconic/symbolic/as well as wider political] but it was not directly tied to helping the cause of India at that time.

As g.sarkar's post points out - she seems to have been more motivated by feelings of loyalty and attachment to her adoptive homeland and regional politico-military situation than a consideration of Indian interests. This in no way diminishes her role and contribution - but it is a more of European connection than an Indian one.

Regarding the dilemma and pain of those Indians who served on the Brit side before independence, I would be keen to hear of them and explore such issues more - and it should still be possible on the forum, witthin GDF if necessary. It is among one of several issues around Independence that I have long tried to explore since both by family history/experience and my personal early political/later private research experience - I doubt most of the official/regime sponsored/allowed versions about these issues. In my own mind - the jury is not yet out on these issues, so there is a possibility of conversion from my own current positions. At the same time, I am a part of the small group of academics who advocate experimental/behavioural dissection of claimed social wisdoms by actual obseravtions aimed specifically at going beyond the deception/delusional mode of formation of opinions.

Or for that matter how skilled people generally are in presenting their real motivations hidden completely and wrapped up in socially applauded forms. I specialize in devising ways and means by which the real strategic behavioiur can be estimated without letting the observed agents know. So far this experience applied to the issues hinted above - makes me extremely skeptical of the simplistic "patriotic" angle within the collaboration theme. I would be most happy to be exposed to anything that does make me less of a skeptic.

Where Indian-British relationship in the current era is concerned, there are two issues that deeply bother me.

First, I have a model that explains a lot of phenomena [some quite public but many I know of privately because of certain accesses] in post Independence politics of India - by which there are continued connections and remnant pockets of control as well as bi-directional information and political patronage flow, between the British state establishment [not to be confused with the political parties] and the Indian establishment. It is likely that this connection goes into coercive/intel wings of the rashtra. This penetration extends perhaps to all three successor regimes over the subcontinent and into Nepal as well.

We must and should differentiate between British "people" and the British state. However, unlike the Indian parallel, when it will become a case of choosing between their state's demands or position on some future Indian issue, and Indian interests on the other - they will stand solidly behind their state, even if they do so reluctantly and with great personal grief at having to do inhuman stuff affecting India or Indians. In India and among Indians however, the humanitarian issues will prevail over loyalty to the rashtra - for a mirror case on the Brits. In concerete military-political terms this means UK will win over India in any such confrontation.

Greater sympathy from Indians on the British "folk" therefore will mean a vacillation where "hard" things become necessary to think of in Indian interests - whereas no such dilemma and vacillation appears on any of the British "folk" side on concrete net effects. This has happened repeatedly in the history of India and is amply shown up in the whole transition to independence game.

Second, I have partly unreasonable and inexplicable and partly researched personal inability to trust the British state in any of its forms where the subcontinent is concerned. I do not feel that British public opinion has any effect where power projection and imperialist ambitions of the British state is concerned. I also feel that ceratin historically sourced paranoia are so deeply ingrained into the British state psyche - that they cannot easily give up sadistic tendencies in revenge of what they perceive as humiliation, even if such humiliation was a natural and justified consequence of their own immense greed, perfidy, sadism or inhumanity.

If we allow ourselves to be deluded into a false sense of euphoric people-to-people bubbles regarding Indo-Brit relations, we stand the possible chance of much greater pain on the Indian people in the future.

PS: I have staunch "English" friends, whom I trust implicitly as persons, but on whom I will not rely where it becomes a conflict of interest between Britain and India. At state levels, I have had this feeling from childhood, to an extent confirmed by later direct experiences - that India can expect to know where it stands, and even manage to come to reliable partnerships, more so with Germany and Japan, and to a lesser extent with Russia - than the British state establishment.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 13 Oct 2012 21:28

brihaspati wrote: As g.sarkar's post points out - she seems to have been more motivated by feelings of loyalty and attachment to her adoptive homeland and regional politico-military situation than a consideration of Indian interests.

Sirji,
That is not what my post points out. Once again: I am saying that in the interview that Noor had with the SOE, she was clearly asked about her attitude to India's independence, and what would she do if Indian leaders took steps against the British. She replied that she would support any responsible Indian leader in any step that they thought necessary. This did not endear her to the British military. She did not have any politico-military inclination. She wanted to study music and teach children. But in London and Oxford she was able to meet many Indian leaders that were in England during the war. Please remember that she was only 28 when she joined the SOE. At that age both Nehru and Gandhi were more pro British than her. She was killed in 1944, when she was 30.
My last post on this topic.
Gautam

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Oct 2012 23:19

g.sarkar wrote:
brihaspati wrote: As g.sarkar's post points out - she seems to have been more motivated by feelings of loyalty and attachment to her adoptive homeland and regional politico-military situation than a consideration of Indian interests.
Sirji,
That is not what my post points out. Once again: I am saying that in the interview that Noor had with the SOE, she was clearly asked about her attitude to India's independence, and what would she do if Indian leaders took steps against the British. She replied that she would support any responsible Indian leader in any step that they thought necessary. This did not endear her to the British military. She did not have any politico-military inclination. She wanted to study music and teach children. But in London and Oxford she was able to meet many Indian leaders that were in England during the war. Please remember that she was only 28 when she joined the SOE. At that age both Nehru and Gandhi were more pro British than her. She was killed in 1944, when she was 30.
My last post on this topic.
Gautam

I said it was your "post" and not "you" who points out. Your report about her interview indicates that she would have been in favour of "responsible" Indian leadership over the question of independence. But your "post" also mentions about her feelings for France as "home" and her urge to do something against German occupation of her homeland. All it does say is that at that point her considerations for what she did - was guided by regional European politico-military considerations. If she had no thoughts and positions on politico-military affairs, she should have been unaffected mentally - about a military occupation, or would not have thoughts on what her attitude would be on the very political issues of Indian independence.

jambudvipa · Post by **jambudvipa** » 13 Oct 2012 23:45

B ji +1 on your post.

Why this hankering amongst Indians for "recognition" from the British establishment?That is never going to happen.

Is this how our self esteem is redeemed?One memorial here with dubious wording and another there and we agree to be nice people!

Use and throw is the motto.Whatever sacrifices Indians have made for their British masters are never going to be recognised as it will undermine the historical fantasy that they have written about themselves.

If you have the intellectual courage you would be better off pressuring them to erect a memorial for the 90 million+ Indian deaths thanks to their humanity.Start a petition on this worthy cause perhaps?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 14 Oct 2012 01:11

Regarding B ji's post, while I do not have any opinions about the statue, do we (as in Indians - both public and state) even have to be worried about our relations with British going forward? What exactly is it that we are going to get out of them? What they can get out of good relations is quite clear - a vast market for their industrial goods. We do not have to give them access. The point about the British state having great influence - I think those days are past. Neither the Indian polity nor the Indian public gives a damn about the British. Today we look more towards US and possibly other European countries plus China and Japan. UK is becoming progressively irrelevant so are the relations mirroring the decreasing importance of UK on the world stage.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 14 Oct 2012 03:55

With the uk poodlistan officially working with NaMo, can the owner of poodle be left behind.
Likley there will be some movement amongst other european powers like germany and uncle.

Looks like congis brand of making NaMo international pariah is coming to an end.

Usually foriegn powers do not interfere in Indian affairs -- that too with NaMo he has never been indicted by courts for the last 10 years.
Foreign powers to the dictates of congis govt and freinds (not to forget pakis and other islamists) made him an international pariah.
There is also a controversy in usa on applying the laws/visa issue to him. It does not stand scrutiny in us courts. Read this --http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1338045
The congis and assorted psecs created the turmoil to bring some brownie points to themselves against him. But scr*wed India in the process.
BRFites here seem to have forgotten how congis with friends internationalised the issue.

No wonder there is nothing wrong in highlighting what NaMo said "better late than never".
all the foriegn companies have been meeting and his govt all these years -- only offically politicans were not commenting.
Now that is gone.

I do not find anything bad about it. On the contrary the foreign powers will be asked about it--
-- coolly they will reply he has a good record-- no communal riots, peace, continuing development of Gujarat (despite bottlenecks from congis). They will give sound bites like --- he has not been convicted in court-- we believe in India-- fair justice democracy etc etc.

Congis and psecs created a major embarassment/shame to India by false innuendos.
NaMo by his stellar role has tried to remove the blemish.
All the more good news.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 15 Oct 2012 03:24

UK, Scotland to set out terms of independence vote

It's not a meeting David Cameron is likely to enjoy.

The British prime minister is due to visit the leader of Scotland's separatist administration on Monday to agree the terms of a referendum that could break up the United Kingdom — the country Cameron leads.

Cameron does not want to be the leader who presides over the demise of the 300-year-old political union between England and its northern neighbor. But, practically, there is little he can do to stop politicians in semiautonomous Scotland asking voters whether they want to break free.

With Scotland, like much of Europe, facing recession and economic uncertainty, the answer is hard to predict

The two countries united in 1707 to form Great Britain, with a common monarch, currency and London-based government. (Wales is also part of Great Britain which, along with Northern Ireland, constitutes the state known as the United Kingdom).

It is likely to call for a referendum in October 2014, as Salmond's nationalists had desired. Cameron and other pro-union politicians had pressed for the vote to be held earlier, because opinion polls show that only between a quarter and a third of Scots favor splitting the nation.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 16 Oct 2012 11:10

A forgotten Hamzanama (The Hindu)
About the extradition of a Abu Hazma - Al Masri. The author tries to prove that all such extremist elements in UK, were actually used by the British Intelligence Agencies, and then dumped for good

.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 16 Oct 2012 21:40

Britain deals blow to U.S. extradition treaty, blocks handover of hacker

The British government on Tuesday, seeking to roll back its controversial treaty allowing expedited extraditions to the United States, and moved to enact legislation that could complicate future attempts by American prosecutors to pursue alleged criminals in Britain.

The changes would mean a British judge would be able to decide whether a suspect should be tried in the U.K., or extradited to the U.S. to face trial.

McKinnon has admitted to hacking into 97 U.S. government computers between February 2001 and March 2002, including those at NASA and the Pentagon. McKinnon, who has fought a 10-year legal battle, admits he exploited security problems in U.S. government computers from his bedroom in a North London apartment, but says he was only looking files that would prove the existence of UFOs.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Oct 2012 22:56

After Modi's yatra to China,it was matter of time . UQ , as usual sensed the danger decade ahead and made this overture. Inspite of PS crowd, Congress and other RNIs, coming of Indian Nationalistic Sarkar is inevitable. Modi have become symbol of nationalistic inspirations . DeshBhagat Sarkar settling issues with China can finish of the the Western influence in whole Asia and by extention in ME and Africa.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 23 Oct 2012 02:19

An interesting excerpt from "The Crooked Man" from "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes", which is a collection of Sherlock Holmes stories. It was originally published in 1894, by Arthur Conan Doyle.

I am posting it because it can be a sample of the depiction of India and Indians by the colonial brits. This particular one deals with 1857.

"Good, Simpson!" said Holmes, patting him on the head. "Come along, Watson. This is the house." He sent in his card with a message that he had come on important business, and a moment later we were face to face with the man whom we had come to see. In spite of the warm weather he was crouching over a fire, and the little room was like an oven. The man sat all twisted and huddled in his chair in a way which gave an indescribably impression of deformity; but the face which he turned towards us, though worn and swarthy, must at some time have been remarkable for its beauty. He looked suspiciously at us now out of yellow-shot, bilious eyes, and, without speaking or rising, he waved towards two chairs.
"Mr. Henry Wood, late of India, I believe," said Holmes, affably. "I've come over this little matter of Colonel Barclay's death."
"What should I know about that?"
"That's what I want to ascertain. You know, I suppose, that unless the matter is cleared up, Mrs. Barclay, who is an old friend of yours, will in all probability be tried for murder."
The man gave a violent start.
"I don't know who you are," he cried, "nor how you come to know what you do know, but will you swear that this is true that you tell me?"
"Why, they are only waiting for her to come to her senses to arrest her."
"My God! Are you in the police yourself?"
"No."
"What business is it of yours, then?"
"It's every man's business to see justice done."
"You can take my word that she is innocent."
"Then you are guilty."
"No, I am not."
"Who killed Colonel James Barclay, then?"
"It was a just providence that killed him. But, mind you this, that if I had knocked his brains out, as it was in my heart to do, he would have had no more than his due from my hands. If his own guilty conscience had not struck him down it is likely enough that I might have had his blood upon my soul. You want me to tell the story. Well, I don't know why I shouldn't, for there's no cause for me to be ashamed of it.
"It was in this way, sir. You see me now with my back like a camel and my ribs all awry, but there was a time when Corporal Henry Wood was the smartest man in the 117th foot. We were in India then, in cantonments, at a place we'll call Bhurtee. Barclay, who died the other day, was
sergeant in the same company as myself, and the belle of the regiment, ay, and the finest girl that ever had the breath of life between her lips, was Nancy Devoy, the daughter of the color-sergeant. There were two men that loved her, and one that she loved, and you'll smile when you look at this poor thing huddled before the fire, and hear me say that it was for my good looks that she loved me.
"Well, though I had her heart, her father was set upon her marrying Barclay. I was a harum-scarum, reckless lad, and he had had an education, and was already marked for the sword-belt. But the girl held true to me, and it seemed that I would have had her when the Mutiny broke out, and all hell was loose in the country.
"We were shut up in Bhurtee, the regiment of us with half a battery of artillery, a company of Sikhs, and a lot of civilians and women-folk. There were ten thousand rebels round us, and they were as keen as a set of terriers round a rat-cage. About the second week of it our water gave out, and it was a question whether we could communicate with General Neill's column, which was moving up country. It was our only chance, for we could not hope to fight our way out with all the women and children, so I volunteered to go out and to warn General Neill of our danger.
My offer was accepted, and I talked it over with Sergeant Barclay, who was supposed to know the ground better than any other man, and who drew up a route by which I might get through the rebel lines. At ten o'clock the same night I started off upon my journey. There were a thousand lives to save, but it was of only one that I was thinking when I dropped over the wall that night.
"My way ran down a dried-up watercourse, which we hoped would screen me from the enemy's sentries; but as I crept round the corner of it I walked right into six of them, who were crouching down in the dark waiting for me. In an instant I was stunned with a blow and bound hand and foot. But the real blow was to my heart and not to my head, for as I came to and listened to as much as I could understand of their talk, I heard enough to tell me that my comrade, the very man who had arranged the way that I was to take, had betrayed me by means of a native servant into the hands of the enemy.
"Well, there's no need for me to dwell on that part of it. You know now what James Barclay was capable of. Bhurtee was relieved by Neill next day, but the rebels took me away with them in their retreat, and it was many a long year before ever I saw a white face again. I was tortured and tried to get away, and was captured and tortured again. You can see for yourselves the state in which I was left. Some of them that fled into Nepaul took me with them, and then afterwards I was up past Darjeeling. The hill-folk up there murdered the rebels who had me, and I became their slave for a time until I escaped; but instead of going south I had to go north, until I found myself among the Afghans. There I wandered about for many a year, and at last came back to the Punjab, where I lived mostly among the natives and picked up a living by the conjuring tricks that I had learned. What use was it for me, a wretched cripple, to go back to England or to make myself known to my old comrades? Even my wish for revenge would not make me do that. I had rather that Nancy and my old pals should think of Harry Wood as having died with a straight back, than see him living and crawling with a stick like a chimpanzee.
They never doubted that I was dead, and I meant that they never should. I heard that Barclay had married Nancy, and that he was rising rapidly in the regiment, but even that did not make me speak.
"But when one gets old one has a longing for home. For years I've been dreaming of the bright green fields and the hedges of England. At last I determined to see them before I died. I saved enough to bring me across, and then I came here where the soldiers are, for I know their ways and
how to amuse them and so earn enough to keep me."
"Your narrative is most interesting," said Sherlock Holmes.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2012 03:39

johneeG wrote:An interesting excerpt from "The Crooked Man" from "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes", which is a collection of Sherlock Holmes stories. It was originally published in 1894, by Arthur Conan Doyle.
I am posting it because it can be a sample of the depiction of India and Indians by the colonial brits. This particular one deals with 1857.

Sirji,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a Victorian and a product of his times. Most of his books are peppered with racism that was natural of that time. The fact was that India was looted and raped by the British Empire. This unpalatable thought was hidden by the invention of a civilizing British empire. No one who was educated in England during that time was immune to it. I would bring to you the example of Ms. Margaret Noble, who to us is famous as Sister Nivedita, who also suffered from this.
In defence of Sir Conan Doyle I can say that in spite of his inherent racism, he did help to clear the name of Edalji who was half Indian. We can still enjoy his writings.
Gautam

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Oct 2012 04:23

Does his clearing the name of Edalji, somehow diminish or eliminate the sentiments expressed in his writings about India/Indians/1857? Why are we so keen to see or invent redeeming features in the British that we always have to bring up whenever something negatively revealing about British icons turn up in our explorations?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Oct 2012 08:12

I will go out on a somewhat OT leg here and say that perhaps we need more adrenaline. yes, that's what we need. we need to train our bodies to get used to the Endorphins. often times, having a physical culture helps in construction a more "prideful" identity. I even see a direct correlation on many occasions. at least for outer appearance, those who enjoy and get a kick out of being physically fit and capable of violence seem to exhibit less of this incessant necessity to gain praise from the gora. I see it many times in the physical posture and physical security correlating with the external feelings of "security" and "insecurity".

this is actually a very serious solution. no sarcasm intended. it worked with me. and it generally correlates with more "prideful" behavior.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2012 09:58

brihaspati wrote:Does his clearing the name of Edalji, somehow diminish or eliminate the sentiments expressed in his writings about India/Indians/1857? Why are we so keen to see or invent redeeming features in the British that we always have to bring up whenever something negatively revealing about British icons turn up in our explorations?

No. That is why I gave the example of Nivedita who is certainly more admired by Indians than Conan Doyle. "We" are not keen seeing on anything, or inventing anything. Just as people in that age could not escape the Yugadharma, that includes Conan Doyle and Kipling of that age (and this includes Indian leaders of that era), so are we affected by our Yugadharma, and we will be judged by our descendents at a later date in future. Just a little understanding is needed.
Gautam

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 23 Oct 2012 10:35

johneeG wrote:I am posting it because it can be a sample of the depiction of India and Indians by the colonial brits. This particular one deals with 1857.

Then I suggest you read "The Sign of Four" as well

. Talks about the mutiny and Andamans. And it has some mentions about the attitude of various religions in India towards the British. And there are also other Sherlock Holmes stories which kind of try to show you a picture as how London (unfortunately, you see) becomes an area for folks from other countries to settle their problems.

But all said and done, I am a great fan of Sherlock Holmes

. Currently reading "The Far Pavilions" by MM.Kaye.

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 23 Oct 2012 10:56

g.sarkar wrote:
johneeG wrote:An interesting excerpt from "The Crooked Man" from "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes", which is a collection of Sherlock Holmes stories. It was originally published in 1894, by Arthur Conan Doyle.
I am posting it because it can be a sample of the depiction of India and Indians by the colonial brits. This particular one deals with 1857.
Sirji,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a Victorian and a product of his times. Most of his books are peppered with racism that was natural of that time. The fact was that India was looted and raped by the British Empire. This unpalatable thought was hidden by the invention of a civilizing British empire. No one who was educated in England during that time was immune to it. I would bring to you the example of Ms. Margaret Noble, who to us is famous as Sister Nivedita, who also suffered from this.
In defence of Sir Conan Doyle I can say that in spite of his inherent racism, he did help to clear the name of Edalji who was half Indian. We can still enjoy his writings.
Gautam

Why do you need to defend Doyle and why do you keep calling him "Sir Conan Doyle"?

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2012 11:28

varunkumar wrote: Why do you need to defend Doyle and why do you keep calling him "Sir Conan Doyle"?

1. I do not need to defend him, and I am not defending him. What I have written is that he was a product of his time and the education that he received made him what he was. Unfortunately, practically most Europeans were like him at that time. Rudyard Kipling was a more extreme example. To elaborate my point, I used the example of Nivedita (Ms. Margaret Nobel), someone that is respected by most Indians, or at least by me. She was a liberal and educated person. Yet, when she came to India, she thought that the British Empire was a benevolent presence in India. Long sessions of aguments and fights with Swami Vivekananda finally made her see how India was exploited and looted by the British. Refer to her biography "Long Journey Home".
2.His name was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I call him just that.
Gautam

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 23 Oct 2012 11:31

Maybe I'm slightly dumb here, but exactly what do you find offensive in the above Sherlock Holmes story? Stuff highlighted in bold or is the stuff in red?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Oct 2012 19:17

did somebody just apply the word "yugadharma" to Brits?!?! perhaps we should be more careful in assigning our concepts to people who might not even care a rat's a** for it!!

perhaps the British induced famines are also Yugadharma. after all, there was a perfectly sane "scientific" explanation for it: Malthusian Darwinism.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2012 19:20

I read Crooked Man long time ago when I was 12 or 13, so I do not remember any of the offensive parts mentioned. But at the same age I read the Lost World, and it was full of disparaging words about blacks and people of mixed heritage. People of Victorian era were extremely against mixing of races. Then I started reading his biography to see where he was coming from.
Gautam

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Oct 2012 19:22

so we are supposed to sympathize with his "Yugadharma" by reading "where he was coming from"?

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2012 19:41

devesh wrote:did somebody just apply the word "yugadharma" to Brits?!?! perhaps we should be more careful in assigning our concepts to people who might not even care a rat's a** for it!!
perhaps the British induced famines are also Yugadharma. after all, there was a perfectly sane "scientific" explanation for it: Malthusian Darwinism.

I did and It does apply to them. Even if they do not care a rat's behind for it as you put it. Look what I am trying to say is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought that the British race was God's gift to the world. All other races were inferior to them. He lived in England and he did not get a chance to meet Indians or people of other races other than students living there. But he formed a bad opinion of them any way. In his defense we can say most English people of that time thought the same. Their education taught them this, their newspapers encouraged this chain of thoughts, and if one was brought up in that society, it was easy to adopt that way of thinking. Indians that were educated there often accepted that way of thinking, though there are exceptions. That being said, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote stories that we can enjoy. If you are looking for a real colonial writer to criticize Rudyard Kipling is your man.
Gautam

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2012 19:45

devesh wrote:so we are supposed to sympathize with his "Yugadharma" by reading "where he was coming from"?

No we are not supposed to sympathize.
Gautam

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Oct 2012 19:48

I did and It does apply to them. Even if they do not care a rat's behind for it as you put it.

isn't this a major blunder? one would call it cognitive dissonance. applying concepts to groups which do no abide by those concepts. same mistake was made with Islam by MKG and many others. now we wan't repeat that mistake again?!?! if the group which is being subjected to this analysis simply doesn't care and doesn't follow or abide by the concepts inherent in the analysis, then the whole paradigm of that analysis is fundamentally flawed. taking concepts that we believe in, and then assuming that everybody else does too, is a major tactical and strategic blunder. it will lead to perennial confusion in analyzing the real motives of various players.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Oct 2012 19:50

g.sarkar wrote:
devesh wrote:so we are supposed to sympathize with his "Yugadharma" by reading "where he was coming from"?
No we are not supposed to sympathize.
Gautam

but applying the concept of "yugadharma" achieves exactly that. almost indirectly, unintentionally, our guard is down and we psychologically become "compromised". "yugadharma" is a very intimate concept which we apply to the actions of our ancestors of various times. by applying it to foreigners and enemies, we guarantee that we subconsciously loose the paranoia and become psychologically compromised. this is unacceptable. a huge pitfall. one which is very tempting and psychologically, a highly dangerous slippery slope.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2012 19:55

devesh wrote: but applying the concept of "yugadharma" achieves exactly that. almost indirectly, unintentionally, our guard is down and we psychologically become "compromised". "yugadharma" is a very intimate concept which we apply to the actions of our ancestors of various times. by applying it to foreigners and enemies, we guarantee that we subconsciously loose the paranoia and become psychologically compromised. this is unacceptable. a huge pitfall. one which is very tempting and psychologically, a highly dangerous slippery slope.

Sirji,
This is a universal concept. Got to go to work. Please take this discussion off this forum, and enail me.
Gautam

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Oct 2012 20:09

Gautam ji,

feel free to respond on your free time. I'm not trying to get into a competition here.

but no, this is not a "universal concept". it is a concept developed by a particular set of people and applied by them to a culture with a preexisting set of beliefs and action patterns which was conducive to this type of analysis. how can it be "universal" if it wasn't meant to be applied uniformly to all societies, at all times? it isn't universal. to believe so is another major blunder. also "universal" implies a certain uniformity and non-variance, whereas the very concept of defining a varying "dharma" for various "yugas" is a clearly non-uniformal approach.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Oct 2012 21:33

understanding someone else's perspective =/= sympathy for that perspective

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 23 Oct 2012 21:54

g.sarkar wrote:I do not need to defend him, and I am not defending him.

g.sarkar wrote:In defence of Sir Conan Doyle I can say that in spite of his inherent racism, he did help to clear the name of Edalji who was half Indian.

Well, in the above, you came out in his defence even if you "don't need to defend him."

His name was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I call him just that.

?
Really? Is the full name of Lata Mangeshkar "Bharat Ratan Lata Mangeshkar"? How many Goras prefix "Bharat Ratan" in front of APJ Abdul Kalam's name while writing about him?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Oct 2012 22:04

X-post...

shyam wrote:UK: More than 30 chain stores closing a day
Extent of high street woe revealed as falling disposable incomes and online shopping take their toll on over-extended retailers
...
Figures show that across the UK embattled retailers closed 32 stores a day in July and August as Britain's high street continued to suffer from the consumer spending slump. That figure is up from 20 a day in the first six months of 2012.

High-profile administrations this year of major retailers including Game Group, Peacocks, Past Times and Clinton Cards helped push the number of closures of town centre chain store outlets to 953 in the first half on a net basis (meaning those closing minus those opening).

That compared with 174 in the whole of 2011, according to the study of 500 town centres by the retail data provider Local Data Company (LDC). for PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

In US three big chains had closed as start of the recession begining in 2007: Circuit City, Linens and Things and Borders. But it was blamed for not being proactive to see the change in the marketplace.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Oct 2012 22:19

@varunkumar sometimes people need to stop arguing for the heck of it. clearly you have not read the Indian constitution which would have told you that all state sanctioned titles were abolished barring academic and military ones. bharat ratna is neither. it's an honour, not a title. knighthood is an honour with a title. if someone wants to refer to arthur conan doyle by his full name including his title, that's his choice. I don't see how you can have an opinion on the matter.