Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

[RajeshA]

Not unless they have national or ideological interests separate from those of India.

Yes but who determines India's national / ideological interests? (this would be OT for this thread)

Those who ensure(d) India's global preeminence in politics, culture, military, commerce and technology, and contribute(d) to empowerment of the Indian people.

In any case, anybody who acts servile and submissive to a foreign group and its national and ideological interests cannot determine India's interests.

[Lilo]

Did TFTA Alexander win against SDRE Porus ?
any good proof for that .. i am on the lookout for a while on this question

[arnab]

Those who ensure(d) India's global preeminence in politics, culture, military, commerce and technology, and contribute(d) to empowerment of the Indian people.

In any case, anybody who acts servile and submissive to a foreign group and its national and ideological interests cannot determine India's interests.

come on RajeshA ji - you can do much better than this! Whats with listing out a set of motherhood intentions? How do you achieve this? If someone comes and says that the way to preeminence is to destroy 20 per cent of your population - would we jackboot our way down that path?

Similarly acting 'servile' and 'submissive' may just be that - acting. We here try to make sense of political nuances in a world of asymmettric information. So sitting on judgement that a person is servile and submissive and therefore must be inmical to Indian interests (and in contrast somebody screaming fire and brimstone is benefical for India) is absurd.

[Prasad]

**Deviation from thread purpose alert**

[johneeG]

Sikandar popular in Latin America? !!! Simon Bolivar would be the prime choice.East Africa - yes, most likely to be among Muslim populations again, but then again not that much outside of Sudan and Saudis. Iranians and by association Shia's have a particularly dim view of Sikandar - they protray him with the devil's horn. I should have clarified that in Lucknow Sikandar was not adored.

Once again, Alexander is a hero more of the British empire, much touted by British historiography, and among Indians - a particular obsession with Alexander/Sikandar is associated with the Anglophile subculture. Outside India, he is better known among ex-Brit colonies, and among social classes traditionally associated with being close to or servile to the Brits.

Well Indians have been kinder with much more to the Brits - in allowing them not only to work, but also to loot, rape and maim and destroy. The greatest kindness Indians showed was providing the necessary bootlickers. The Brits are yet to make up for it in kind and length of time. No one will disagree that a significant portion of Indians were bootlickers of the Brits! Many continue to do so even long after the Brits are not their direct overlords. But that does not elevate bootlicking to the status of national pastime.

arrey 'popular' nahi bhai - but are they more likely to have heard of Alexander or Madanlal Dhingra? Umm - saar loot, maim, destruction was already happenning before that. Ah not bootlickers saar - at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)

Your feelings are matched by those of Churchill.

India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator.
Winston Churchill

You say:
a) There were many 'nations'.
b) alignment with the British was 'national interest'?!!

(a) & (b) seem self-contradictory. If there were many 'nations', how can aligning with British(and not someone else, like say Germany or France or Japan or XYZ) be national interest? Why the unique status to brits only?

---
Anyway, your primary argument(by bringing in Alexander) is that Noor Inayat Khan was too young to prove her deshbhakti(because India was not yet free)... maybe if she lived longer, she could have done it like Carriappa or Manekshaw...

If that is your argument then all those who died young can resort to that argument. The younger one died, the more their supporters can claim that if they had been alive they would have done this or that. But, that would be speculation... imagination. One can imagine whatever one wants to.

The reality is one has to go by what one has done in given conditions. Based on this criteria, Noor Inayat Khan has shown an excellent bravery and loyalty for the cause of Brits. The Brits must be ashamed if they ignore or neglect her valiant efforts for the Brit cause. But, how can her efforts be called 'Indian cause'(especially when you claim that there was no single nation)?

So, what you are essentially saying is that brit cause means Indian cause(even though no single Indian nation existed according to you). If that is the case, then all those who went against the brit cause(like Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Azad, Lal, Bal, Pal, Bismil,...) must be traitors...

[RajeshA]

Those who ensure(d) India's global preeminence in politics, culture, military, commerce and technology, and contribute(d) to empowerment of the Indian people.

In any case, anybody who acts servile and submissive to a foreign group and its national and ideological interests cannot determine India's interests.

come on RajeshA ji - you can do much better than this! Whats with listing out a set of motherhood intentions? How do you achieve this? If someone comes and says that the way to preeminence is to destroy 20 per cent of your population - would we jackboot our way down that path?

No, the aim should never be to destroy, but to liberate. Sometimes it suffices to do away with the jailers over the minds of the many.

Similarly acting 'servile' and 'submissive' may just be that - acting. We here try to make sense of political nuances in a world of asymmettric information. So sitting on judgement that a person is servile and submissive and therefore must be inmical to Indian interests (and in contrast somebody screaming fire and brimstone is benefical for India) is absurd.

arnab ji,

You asked for a determinant, so I offered one. That is the essence of what distinguishes Indian interest and those who stand for it versus those who are against.

One should not look at it superficially, but follow the logic. I believe you are looking at it as a piece of rhetoric - I have not said anything about fire and brimstone.

It is not a question of sitting in judgment over who is servile and submissive to foreign interests! What is 'servile' and 'submissive' is more than obvious for others but also to the people themselves who do this, but choose to explain it away - on the one hand claiming universality and superiority of the ideas offered by the foreign groups, and thus legitimate for embracing, and on the other, alleging inferiority of the Indian civilizational narrative, and thus unsuitable for embracing.

[arnab]

Your feelings are matched by those of Churchill.
India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator.
Winston Churchill
You say:
a) There were many 'nations'.
b) alignment with the British was 'national interest'?!!

(a) & (b) seem self-contradictory. If there were many 'nations', how can aligning with British(and not someone else, like say Germany or France or Japan or XYZ) be national interest? Why the unique status to brits only?

Saar I don't say it - for e.g in the war of 1857 - the sikh princes did not join the war (supported the Brits). Neither did the kingdoms Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore etc. But I don't tarnish them as traitors and cowards today or berate them for not having a pan-India vision. I think at the time they did it in their 'national interest'.
No not a unique status to brits (but only in the context of those being called bootlickers). Tipu sultan did align with the French earlier - but I think Tipu is not really well received on BRF

---

The reality is one has to go by what one has done in given conditions. Based on this criteria, Noor Inayat Khan has shown an excellent bravery and loyalty for the cause of Brits. The Brits must be ashamed if they ignore or neglect her valiant efforts for the Brit cause. But, how can her efforts be called 'Indian cause'(especially when you claim that there was no single nation)?

[/quote]

Not a 'cause'. I admire her bravery as an Indian. Manekshaw won a military cross for his efforts against the japanese (who were allied to Bose) - it did grant him his rise through the ranks and put him in the role of the Indian army chief at a crucial point in India's history. I can't spit on one part of his history (as a lackey of the brits) and praise another! He was a man of his times and it all contributed to what he became and did for India.

[g.sarkar]

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?

I am finally back. So, what is your point? I am not a gora, and I look in the mirror every morning when I shave. I know my color. It would be much better if you had some argument instead of an innuendo.
Gautam

[member_23677]

Madhava Rao and Baji Rao were "local heroes"?!?! the geographic area of their field of action is equivalent to Europe, excluding the British Isles and Slavic Europe. so Germany+France+Italy+Spain+small countries squished in between these 4. in Europe, those who came even close to conquering all that area were named either "conquerors" or "tyrants". they were considered "great Empires".

the area conquered by Salahaddin, considered a "great conqueror", is about ONE-THIRD the area of what Baji Rao and Madhava Rao traversed.

when you say "traitorous Gurkhas of Jallianwala Bagh", you are branding the entire Gurkha community with the blame for the massacre. don't you see the inherent contradiction here? in your haste to defend the master race, you are making logical leaps which are hard to reasonably justify. why brand the "Gurkhas"? brand the soldiers who specifically carried out the massacre.

Saar - 'geographic' area sharea is meaningless in the debate. Simbly walk out to the street in India or any other street in any city of the world (since you reside in the US you may wish to try this experiment there). Ask random people if they have heard of Alexander / Sikander or if they have heard of Baji Rao Peshwa or Madan Lal Dhingra. I think the answer will be obvious - and that will be the difference between a 'local' and a 'global' hero.

er..I know I was branding the entire Gurkha community as traitors, but isn't that what we regularly do on the forum with the brits / american/ muslims etc whosoever we currently have a beef with? so - sauce for the goose etc...

You miss obvious points here... there are thousands of books,movie, propoganda that celebrates the relatively minor victories of sikandar.... amreekis,being a part of anglo-saxon civilisation do teach their children about sikandar... it all comes down to more propoganda vs. less. Also, it seems you have mistaken west for being an utopian society, while it's not. West has always tried it's best to supress other countries and their rulers and promote their local heroes, even though their victories and battles were way easier and less complex than the ones fought by what you call "local" heroes (a very dumb move btw).
West makes a lot of noise of their one and only worthwhile civilisation that they were able to form in the bygone era, that is what they promote and "imagine" in various aspects, when in reality, their "global" heroes are merely a part of a long line of major and minor heroes of the world. The problem here is of propoganda... west does it more and has better access and a lot of "listeners", our media,still doesn't and hence this perception that you get of "local" and "global" heroes.

[member_23677]

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?

I am finally back. So, what is your point? I am not a gora, and I look in the mirror every morning when I shave. I know my color. It would be much better if you had some argument instead of an innuendo.
Gautam

What is your argument?

[g.sarkar]

There has been, and still do exist - quite critical assessments of Nivedita, from both Indian and non-Indian sides. Yugadharma is a rather slippery slope, which can be used to justify any and all. The primary question here was, whether or not he showed racial and imperialist constructions towards India/Indians/1857 anti-Brit movement etc. IF you immediately respond to a quote by someone showing his possible feelings in this regard - with an item that appears to contradict in action such alleged feelings, you are trying to negate his racist side, aren't you?
Apply then your yugadharma theory to this very case again : if he was unable to rise above his yugadharma where India was concerned, how did he manage to surpass that very yugadharma in the case of Edalji? If he could rise above, as you seem to imply [just being careful here - so please let us know if you mentioned Edalji not to contradict or counterpose his racist position, and you mentioned it just for the fun of it - and in that case my "implication" would be incorrect], then he was not bound by his yugadharma, and in that case we don't expect to see his racist bias, isn't it?
Is this logical for you

Brihaspatiji,
I like your post as it raises good points, I did not reply earlier as I was away. I do not know why you think I am trying to negate his racist side, or his racial/Imperialistic constructions. On the contrary. What I am trying to say is this, a majority (if not all) of Britishers of that era were racists. This was due to the education of that time, obviously no one is born hating others. Sir Aurthur did not rise above that. His writing contains feelings that were common for that period, namely the British were born to rule over all other races. Again common does not mean correct. He had never come to India and did not deal with other colonial peoples (as far as I can remember, the last time I read his biography was really a long time ago) other than students living there. This is what I am referring to as the Dharma of that age in England. That is the reason I mentioned Nivedita. Reading authors of that era, I now take it for granted that they will have some racism implicit in their way of thinking and I have learned to ignore it. This is not a slippery slope as you put it, as I am not justifying this prejudice in anyway. But, if I reject all of their writings, because of their inherent racism, I will miss out a complete era. Now, let us come to the the case of George Edalji. This was a concrete case of miscarriage of justice. Sir Arthur may have helped just to show the world that he was as good a detective as his creation, he had a low opinion of Holmes but a high opinion of his own deductive skills. But there may be another reason. Let me give you an anecdote. During my stay in Germany, I met a number of people who disliked Jews openly and strongly. But when I would ask them if they knew any Jewish person on a personal basis, they would say no. The dislike was based on no personal experience at all, but opinions formed by talking with like minded people and by reading racist literature. It is possible that when it came to the case of Edalji, Sir Arthur was rise above the common feelings and see the human in Edalji. It is normal to be contradictory. The bare fact is, he helped him and he was not white. We have to leave it at that.
Gautam
PS Read the last few pages that were written while I was gone. I think I opened a Pandora's box. Mercifully this is last post from me on this topic. OM Shanti to all.

[brihaspati]

Sikandar popular in Latin America? !!! Simon Bolivar would be the prime choice.East Africa - yes, most likely to be among Muslim populations again, but then again not that much outside of Sudan and Saudis. Iranians and by association Shia's have a particularly dim view of Sikandar - they protray him with the devil's horn. I should have clarified that in Lucknow Sikandar was not adored.

Once again, Alexander is a hero more of the British empire, much touted by British historiography, and among Indians - a particular obsession with Alexander/Sikandar is associated with the Anglophile subculture. Outside India, he is better known among ex-Brit colonies, and among social classes traditionally associated with being close to or servile to the Brits.

Well Indians have been kinder with much more to the Brits - in allowing them not only to work, but also to loot, rape and maim and destroy. The greatest kindness Indians showed was providing the necessary bootlickers. The Brits are yet to make up for it in kind and length of time. No one will disagree that a significant portion of Indians were bootlickers of the Brits! Many continue to do so even long after the Brits are not their direct overlords. But that does not elevate bootlicking to the status of national pastime.

arrey 'popular' (as in 'rah rah Alexander') nahi bhai - but are they more likely to have heard of Alexander or Madanlal Dhingra? Umm - saar loot, maim, destruction was already happenning before that. Ah not bootlickers saar - at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)

I doubt that most of "them" have heard of Alexander at all, and some might be thinking of certain Popes more than the Greek supposed conqueror of the known world [according to Greek hagiographies written some 150 years after his supposed conquests.]

You might persistently want to avoid the primary problem with your example icon, but the fact remains that Alexander is a big name onlee in British ex-colonies and those brought up on a diet of Brit determined historiography of the world. The British followed Roman use of the Alexander myth, as part of their own image buildinga nd legitimization exercise. Latest archeological evidence seems to question even Alex's legendary victory at Guagamela being at all simply been a result of his on-field military talent - and bribery of key generals on the other side is suspected.

In India, people who think Alexander is a universal hero/figure - are more likely to have been educated in the English medium, and/or Bengali forward "caste" urbanite, and/or with liberal/leftist pretensions. Hammer and anvil is not unique to him even in his period of history, and the nature and extent of his conquests are disputed. Alexander is more of a myth shaped by later imperial propaganda needs - and for India, more a legacy of British rule and popular among a class which does not even realize how drugged it still remains with its British administered soporific.

As for rape and maiming and destruction, yes it had been going on before - but this is a very sly dievrsion tactic. Even if others were doing the same - in the context of the discussion - those others doing the same does not decrease the role and absolve the British of doing the same. This came up because you tried to bring in the kindness of the Brits in allowing some Indians tow ork for them. If that is how you think - then the contextual answer was that, in terms of raping/destroying/looting behaviour Indians have not been allowed the same kindness by the Brits. Neither has been the time sufficient for such Indian kindness to be compensated for by British reciprocality.

[arnab]

I doubt that most of "them" have heard of Alexander at all, and some might be thinking of certain Popes more than the Greek supposed conqueror of the known world [according to Greek hagiographies written some 150 years after his supposed conquests.]

You might persistently want to avoid the primary problem with your example icon, but the fact remains that Alexander is a big name onlee in British ex-colonies and those brought up on a diet of Brit determined historiography of the world. .

Saar - Alajendro a spanish derivative of 'Alexander' is one of the most popular names in latin america.

[ranjbe]

I doubt that most of "them" have heard of Alexander at all, and some might be thinking of certain Popes more than the Greek supposed conqueror of the known world [according to Greek hagiographies written some 150 years after his supposed conquests.]

You might persistently want to avoid the primary problem with your example icon, but the fact remains that Alexander is a big name onlee in British ex-colonies and those brought up on a diet of Brit determined historiography of the world. .

Saar - Alajendro a spanish derivative of 'Alexander' is one of the most popular names in latin america.

This is a stretch. Alexander is a name of greek origin (as are many other christian male names), and there have been many rulers called Alexander before and after Sikander. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander

[Virupaksha]

So according to wiki, the etymology is derived from a-re-ka-sa-da-ra and the meaning is "one who comes to save warriors".

That is a simple derivation from ra-ksha-ka + indra.

I remember in Chanakya serial, it was pronounced as arakshendra.

[arnab]

This is a stretch. Alexander is a name of greek origin (as are many other christian male names), and there have been many rulers called Alexander before and after Sikander. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander

So you are seriously trying to run with the argument that Baji Rao Peshwa / Madan Lal Dhingra is as well known (if not more) worldwide than Alexander? One is not interested in side issues as to why he became popular and others stayed 'local' - apparently it is our fault that we got an english education that did it (The Bengal commies had a similar idea and stopped english education in schools in west bengal)

[brihaspati]

I doubt that most of "them" have heard of Alexander at all, and some might be thinking of certain Popes more than the Greek supposed conqueror of the known world [according to Greek hagiographies written some 150 years after his supposed conquests.]

You might persistently want to avoid the primary problem with your example icon, but the fact remains that Alexander is a big name onlee in British ex-colonies and those brought up on a diet of Brit determined historiography of the world. .

Saar - Alajendro a spanish derivative of 'Alexander' is one of the most popular names in latin america.

Alexander is also a favourite in the Catholic church - and many in latin countries know the name more associated with saints/popes - not necessarily for its Greek "conqueror" connotation.

[ranjbe]

This is a stretch. Alexander is a name of greek origin (as are many other christian male names), and there have been many rulers called Alexander before and after Sikander. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander

So you are seriously trying to run with the argument that Baji Rao Peshwa / Madan Lal Dhingra is as well known (if not more) worldwide than Alexander? One is not interested in side issues as to why he became popular and others stayed 'local' - apparently it is our fault that we got an english education that did it (The Bengal commies had a similar idea and stopped english education in schools in west bengal)

You make a spurious claim, and then compound it with wild allegations. What do I have to do with Baji Rao or Dhingra?

[arnab]

You make a spurious claim, and then compound it with wild allegations. What do I have to do with Baji Rao or Dhingra?

Saar then before jumping in - why not read the whole discussion in the past few pages to get a better understanding of how Alexander's name crept into the UK discussion forum?

p.s it is not a 'spurious' claim because you cannot falsify my claim that the popularity of Alajendro as a name in latin america may have stemmed from Alexander. (It may equally have stemmed from Pope Alexander as B-ji says; but then it is equally likely that Pope Alexander may himself have chosen that title based on Alexander the great's exploits).

[brihaspati]

This is a stretch. Alexander is a name of greek origin (as are many other christian male names), and there have been many rulers called Alexander before and after Sikander. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander

So you are seriously trying to run with the argument that Baji Rao Peshwa / Madan Lal Dhingra is as well known (if not more) worldwide than Alexander? One is not interested in side issues as to why he became popular and others stayed 'local' - apparently it is our fault that we got an english education that did it (The Bengal commies had a similar idea and stopped english education in schools in west bengal)

No by the looks of it - the Bengal commies have done a good job of retaining admirers of Alexander the all conquering hero who must be an all-over-the-world heroic figure. The centre of the world is England, English and Anglophilia according to the derivatives nourished under left liberal thoughts. Almost every Bengal commie learned about Marxism from English translations first - even if some learnt German and Russian and read things in the original. CPI(M) party programme, and constitution - exists in English. The party prints each of its manifesto/programme in English aside from regional languages [not for internal consumption I suppose then!].
English has never been abandoned by communists of the subcontinent.

By the way - Pope's name choice is a complicated affair. Lets no go into that here. Those papa who had the name had very interesting and illustrious careers -one of them was a certain Borgia/Borghesi. Popularity of a name does not necessarily indicate knowledge or awareness of career behind the name. The way Roman catholic names are chosen at christening means that at least one name has a strong likelihood to be that of a Catholic saint.

Even if the Popes chose their papal name to be Alexander - it only shows a Roman obsession with iconifying a mythical military conqueror, and is in the tradition of imeprialist reconstructions. Thus the subsequent popularity - then becomes a state imposed popularity. The fact remains that Alexander is a myth, reconstructed for imperialist purposes, and is touted or believed to be universally important only by those still looking through the imperialist glass.

[arnab]

No by the looks of it - the Bengal commies have done a good job of retaining admirers of Alexander the all conquering hero who must be an all-over-the-world heroic figure. The centre of the world is England, English and Anglophilia according to the derivatives nourished under left liberal thoughts. Almost every Bengal commie learned about Marxism from English translations first - even if some learnt German and Russian and read things in the original. CPI(M) party programme, and constitution - exists in English. The party prints each of its manifesto/programme in English aside from regional languages [not for internal consumption I suppose then!].
English has never been abandoned by communists of the subcontinent.

Since we are having this discussion in english, let us say that it does not appear to have been abandoned by indophiles of the subcontinent either Commies only consigned a whole generation of students in WB to lose their comparitive advantage based on their idelogically driven approach to education.

Even if the Popes chose their papal name to be Alexander - it only shows a Roman obsession with iconifying a mythical military conqueror, and is in the tradition of imeprialist reconstructions. Thus the subsequent popularity - then becomes a state imposed popularity. The fact remains that Alexander is a myth, reconstructed for imperialist purposes, and is touted or believed to be universally important only by those still looking through the imperialist glas

s.

Sir you are again going into side-issues - whether Alexander's role is more important in world history or Baji Rao Peshwa's is; and who determined it and foisted it up on us simple minded english speaking folks who never got the red pill to escape the matrix of imperialist conspiracy is not the point here at all The fact or reality is that alexander's achievements are more well known worldwide than Peshwa's. Now one can rage against the 'injustice' of it all one wants (and possibly it sounds even sweeter when the raging is done sitting in the cosy laps of an erstwhile imperialistic nation). So in that context - all the other historical figures presented are 'local' figures and one does not have to be a 'boot licking lackey' to accept it

[ranjbe]

You make a spurious claim, and then compound it with wild allegations. What do I have to do with Baji Rao or Dhingra?

Saar then before jumping in - why not read the whole discussion in the past few pages to get a better understanding of how Alexander's name crept into the UK discussion forum?

p.s it is not a 'spurious' claim because you cannot falsify my claim that the popularity of Alajendro as a name in latin america may have stemmed from Alexander. (It may equally have stemmed from Pope Alexander as B-ji says; but then it is equally likely that Pope Alexander may himself have chosen that title based on Alexander the great's exploits).

Now we are combining sarcasm with spurious claims ("MAY" have stemmed from)and wild accusations (read the whole discussion etc)?. This discussion is OT anyhow to this thread, and I will not indulge in a p..ing match any further on OT issues. I would advise you do the same.

[brihaspati]

No by the looks of it - the Bengal commies have done a good job of retaining admirers of Alexander the all conquering hero who must be an all-over-the-world heroic figure. The centre of the world is England, English and Anglophilia according to the derivatives nourished under left liberal thoughts. Almost every Bengal commie learned about Marxism from English translations first - even if some learnt German and Russian and read things in the original. CPI(M) party programme, and constitution - exists in English. The party prints each of its manifesto/programme in English aside from regional languages [not for internal consumption I suppose then!].
English has never been abandoned by communists of the subcontinent.

Since we are having this discussion in english, let us say that it does not appear to have been abandoned by indophiles of the subcontinent either Commies only consigned a whole generation of students in WB to lose their comparitive advantage based on their idelogically driven approach to education.

No dispute here. But you still ignored the point that commies never really abandoned English - they simply might have wanted to control as to who got access to it. But that is common to all the known commie regimes of the world. Commies are not against English, and almost all their supporting historical/ideological stuff is still primarily in English and written in English.

Even if the Popes chose their papal name to be Alexander - it only shows a Roman obsession with iconifying a mythical military conqueror, and is in the tradition of imeprialist reconstructions. Thus the subsequent popularity - then becomes a state imposed popularity. The fact remains that Alexander is a myth, reconstructed for imperialist purposes, and is touted or believed to be universally important only by those still looking through the imperialist glas

s.

Sir you are again going into side-issues - whether Alexander's role is more important in world history or Baji Rao Peshwa's is; and who determined it and foisted it up on us simple minded english speaking folks who never got the red pill to escape the matrix of imperialist conspiracy is not the point here at all The fact or reality is that alexander's achievements are more well known worldwide than Peshwa's. Now one can rage against the 'injustice' of it all one wants (and possibly it sounds even sweeter when the raging is done sitting in the cosy laps of an erstwhile imperialistic nation). So in that context - all the other historical figures presented are 'local' figures and one does not have to be a 'boot licking lackey to accept it'

These are not side issues. Alexander as a military hero - is really, really, not that much known outside of ex-Brit colonies, and the respective Anglophile comprador classes. In the Spanish influences colonies - the name appears through an institutional mechanism more connected to its religious organizational connotations than the Grecian [oh no, thats an inaccuracy too - he was Macedonian, whom most of "Greek" greeks treated as backward barbarians and not as "advanced" greeks] legend.

If one obsesseses so much about Alexander as some kind of universal legend, then it merely shows the lingering influence of British historiography of the colonial period on the mind. Indians - as this is an Indo-UK thread - should try to reassess all the Brit historiography led icons and myths and not be so eager to jump up to play fiddle to the Brit tune.

[arnab]

If one obsesseses so much about Alexander as some kind of universal legend, then it merely shows the lingering influence of British historiography of the colonial period on the mind. Indians - as this is an Indo-UK thread - should try to reassess all the Brit historiography led icons and myths and not be so eager to jump up to play fiddle to the Brit tune.

Sir this is very simple - is in your opinion, the number of people who know (have heard about) Alexander > than the number of people who know (have heard about) Baji Rao Peshwa, worldwide? If yes - then Alexander is a 'global' hero compared with a 'local' hero Baji Rao Peshwa.

Not entirely sure why Brits would obsess about teaching the glory of Alexander to the natives. Couldn't they come up with some other icons? Given that these 'famous' people were not really famous as you say - couldn't they have chosen a nice english boy - who did nothing, and build up myths around him?

[brihaspati]

Alexander is lovely ! Especially for the Indo-UK thread :
Here is something From Dr. Arvind Sharma :
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/ ... the-great/

What Should One Think of Alexander the Great?

Perhaps the clue to what we should think of Alexander the Great is provided by the dual etymology of the word itself: (1) the ruler of men and (2) the repeller of men. It is understandable why the first etymology should have appealed to the British, virtually to the point that they identified themselves with the Greeks. Vincent Smith devoted almost a ninth of his book On the Early History of India, to recounting his exploits, and E.R. Bevan, in his chapter “India on Early Greek and Latin Literature”, in the first volume of The Cambridge History of India, edited by E.J. Rapson under the title Ancient India (1922) starts using the word Europeans to refer to the Greeks, which suggests a degree of identification with the subject which would otherwise remain only a matter of speculation. Indeed, the British could find a precursor to their own imperialism, and even its justification, in harking back to Greek imperialism although they were more prone to invoke the Roman. As Plutarch notes:

Those whom Alexander subdued would never have become civilized unless they had been brought under submission. Egypt would not have had Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia Seleukeia, nor the Sogdians Prophthasia, nor India Boukephalia nor Caucasus Hellenic cities in its neighbourhood, by the influence of which barbarism was crushed and a better morality superceded a worse. [1]

If, however, Alexander is viewed without the distorting spectacles of Western imperial historiography, a somewhat different picture begins to emerge. Attention may be drawn to the three devices of imperialism which one might have difficulty calling noble or even dignified. First is the use and abuse of Indian mercenaries. A good example of this is provided by what was done to them at Massaga. Accounts differ as to motive, but not as to the gruesome outcome: “Arrian justifies the massacre of the Indian mercenaries at Massaga on the ground that they had treacherous intentions, but, according to Diodorus, Alexander treacherously attacked the mercenaries, being actuated by an implacable enmity against them.”[2] Were the killings in the Indian Mutiny a replay of this on a grand scale? The second is the proleptic genocidal elimination of groups which might turn hostile, which in this case seem to be the Kṣatriyas and the Brāhmaṇas. Thus, while he was at Taxila, according to Plutarch:

As the Indian mercenary troops, consisting, as they did, of the best soldiers to be found in the country, flocked to the cities which he attacked and defended them with great vigour, he thus incurred serious losses, and accordingly concluded a treaty of peace with them; but afterwards, as they were going away, set upon them while they were on the road, and killed them all. This rests as a foul blot on his martial fame, for on all other occasions he observed the rules of civilized warfare as became a king. The Philosophers gave him no less trouble than the mercenaries, because they reviled the princes who declared for him and encouraged the free states to revolt from his authority. On this account he hanged many of them.[3]

The third is the imperial projection of one’s powers. When Alexander withdrew, according to Q. Curtius Rufus, “he ordered…couches of a size larger than was required for men of ordinary stature to be left, so that my making things appear in magnificent proportions he might astonish posterity by deceptive wonders”.[4] So also Plutarch: “he first, however, contrived many unfair devices to exalt his fame among the natives, as for instance, causing arms of men and stalls of bridles to be made much beyond the usual size, and these he left scattered about”.[5]

Is Alexander in these respects too the precursor of Western imperialism, inclining one to some partiality towards the second etymology of his name? What the Indian philosopher, whose name in its Hellenized form is given as Mandanis, thought of Alexander may not be irrelevant here as anticipating India’s struggle against British imperialism centuries later.

For when Alexander’s messengers summoned Mandanis to visit the son of Zeus and promised that he would receive gifts if he obeyed, but punishment if he disobeyed, he replied that in the first place, Alexander was not the son of Zeus, inasmuch as he was not ruler over even a very small part of the earth, and, secondly, that he had no need of gifts from Alexander, of which, there was no satiety and, thirdly, that he had no fear of threats, since India would supply him with sufficient food while he was alive, and when he died he would be released from the flesh wasted by old age and be translated to a better and purer life; and that the result was that Alexander commended him and acquiesced.[6]

Thus hero-fication of Alexander, and thinking of him as must-be-globally-popular - is a direct legacy of kowtowing to the british reconstruction of history.

[brihaspati]

If one obsesseses so much about Alexander as some kind of universal legend, then it merely shows the lingering influence of British historiography of the colonial period on the mind. Indians - as this is an Indo-UK thread - should try to reassess all the Brit historiography led icons and myths and not be so eager to jump up to play fiddle to the Brit tune.

Sir this is very simple - is in your opinion, the number of people who know (have heard about) Alexander > than the number of people who know (have heard about) Baji Rao Peshwa, worldwide? If yes - then Alexander is a 'global' hero compared with a 'local' hero Baji Rao Peshwa.

Not entirely sure why Brits would obsess about teaching the glory of Alexander to the natives. Couldn't they come up with some other icons? Given that these 'famous' people were not really famous as you say - couldn't they have chosen a nice english boy - who did nothing, and build up myths around him?

Ji - care to read up on colonial historiography as to why it was so important for the Brits? Or you are reluctant to find motives that do not show the Brits in good light? Arvind Sharma's post should be a good starting point - he alos gives refs to source material you can find on the net or standard libraries. Arrian's Plutarchs - all available now online.

[disha]

Sir this is very simple - is in your opinion, the number of people who know (have heard about) Alexander > than the number of people who know (have heard about) Baji Rao Peshwa, worldwide? If yes - then Alexander is a 'global' hero compared with a 'local' hero Baji Rao Peshwa.

Arnab, the term a$$-whole and its localization and various words for the term "a$$" exist all over the world., does that mean a$$-whole is an influential thinker and actor? Since more people know about it - across linguistic and cultural divide?

Not entirely sure why Brits would obsess about teaching the glory of Alexander to the natives. Couldn't they come up with some other icons? Given that these 'famous' people were not really famous as you say - couldn't they have chosen a nice english boy - who did nothing, and build up myths around him?

You are welcome to be more britisher than the britisher. There is an entire continent for such people, it is called Asstralia. Ever paid a visit there?

Edited: Fixed quotes and missing sentence.

[arnab]

Ji - care to read up on colonial historiography as to why it was so important for the Brits? Or you are reluctant to find motives that do not show the Brits in good light? Arvind Sharma's post should be a good starting point - he alos gives refs to source material you can find on the net or standard libraries. Arrian's Plutarchs - all available now online.

Sir - one can find underlying motives behind anything and write it on a blog (and couch it in the form of leading questions) more difficult to get a peer reviewed publication perhaps but again the moot question remains unanswered is alexander more well known than Baji Rao Peshwa world-wide?

[arnab]

Arnab, the term a$$-whole and its localization and various words for the term "a$$" exist all over the world., does that mean a$$-whole is an influential thinker and actor? Since more people know about it - across linguistic and cultural divide?

er.. if a 'term' could think sorry your post just showed that it could (sort of)

[RajeshA]

Ji - care to read up on colonial historiography as to why it was so important for the Brits? Or you are reluctant to find motives that do not show the Brits in good light? Arvind Sharma's post should be a good starting point - he alos gives refs to source material you can find on the net or standard libraries. Arrian's Plutarchs - all available now online.

Sir - one can find underlying motives behind anything and write it on a blog (and couch it in the form of leading questions) more difficult to get a peer reviewed publication perhaps but again the moot question remains unanswered is alexander more well known than Baji Rao Peshwa world-wide?

Let's say Baji Rao Peshwa is lesser known worldwide than Alexander. The only two conclusions I can arrive at are:

1) That has no affect on who should be better known in India. Indian heroes have a higher right to fame in India. And Baji Rao Peshwa may indeed be better known in India.

2) The civilization which sees Alexander as its hero, has been able to push Alexander's fame more effectively in the global arena than Indians. So India needs to do better.

Do you disagree with these conclusions?

[arnab]

Let's say Baji Rao Peshwa is lesser known worldwide than Alexander. The only two conclusions I can arrive at are:

1) That has no affect on who should be better known in India. Indian heroes have a higher right to fame in India. And Baji Rao Peshwa may indeed be better known in India.

2) The civilization which sees Alexander as its hero, has been able to push Alexander's fame more effectively in the global arena than Indians. So India needs to do better.

Do you disagree with these conclusions?

1) Absolutely agree - 'what is' and 'what ought to be' are different questions. I was asking about the former, folks were answering the latter

2) Absolutely agree - and to do that, one cannot start by ascribing underlying reasons to some Indians for their heroism, whether it be Noor Inyat Khan or Cariappa or Bose. They are all heroes IMO in the perspective of unertaking the task that they were assigned (or assigned themselves) to do.

[nachiket]

2) Absolutely agree - and to do that, one cannot start by ascribing underlying reasons to some Indians for their heroism, whether it be Noor Inyat Khan or Cariappa or Bose. They are all heroes IMO in the perspective of unertaking the task that they were assigned (or assigned themselves) to do.

So should we call Jinnah a hero as well?

[RajeshA]

Let's say Baji Rao Peshwa is lesser known worldwide than Alexander. The only two conclusions I can arrive at are:

1) That has no affect on who should be better known in India. Indian heroes have a higher right to fame in India. And Baji Rao Peshwa may indeed be better known in India.

2) The civilization which sees Alexander as its hero, has been able to push Alexander's fame more effectively in the global arena than Indians. So India needs to do better.

Do you disagree with these conclusions?

1) Absolutely agree - 'what is' and 'what ought to be' are different questions. I was asking about the former, folks were answering the latter

2) Absolutely agree - and to do that, one cannot start by ascribing underlying reasons to some Indians for their heroism, whether it be Noor Inyat Khan or Cariappa or Bose. They are all heroes IMO in the perspective of unertaking the task that they were assigned (or assigned themselves) to do.

As brihaspati garu pointed out earlier, and I did too, as far as Alexander/Sikander is concerned, his fame in India shows a certain demographic pattern. Also his fame is quite low, and if present simply there due to a film "Muqadar ka Sikander" which overlays Alexander's popularity among the British, and thus the Nehruvian elite onto Alexander's Persianized name better known among the earlier Mughal elite, thus giving the semblance of "positive" relevance for the Indian society. The film itself does not go into any detail of who Sikander was, but leaves it up to the audience to find out, should they be interested.

1) In India 'what is' is not much different from 'what ought to be'. It seems you are making the argument, that in India, Alexander 'ought to be' better known, as he is a 'global hero'. What I am saying is that there is no need to give the Western narrative more attention in India, which too is a 'what ought to be', but 'what is' is that local heroes are thankfully still more loved among Indians, except for in some demographic pockets. So except for those demographic pockets, 'what is' is pretty satisfactory.

2) As far as question of Noor Inayat Khan is concerned, let me try to propose a few criteria for judgment.

a) Did the Indian fight against foreign occupation of India? If yes -> Hero.

b) Did the Indian fight under a foreign flag over India against another non-Indian power threatening India in the belief that the established foreign occupation may be better than the attacking foreign power? If yes -> ~Hero (depends on whether in hindsight he/she was proven right or wrong)

c) Did the Indian fight for the foreign imperial power ruling India against one of its enemies not threatening to India? If yes-> irrelevant to India

d) Did the Indian regardless of his service to the foreign imperial rule in India, also go on to serve India under Home rule? If yes -> Hero (for his second service)

e) Did the Indian serve the foreign imperial rule in India and thus prolong it? If yes -> Certainly not a hero! Not to be appreciated.

f) Did the Indian show fighting spirit under the belief that his/her actions were not against Indian interests? If yes -> Brave, but not a Hero for India. Did credit to the fighting spirit of Indians, but that alone not a hero makes!

______________

Subhash Chandra Bose: Hero due to a). => HERO

Cariappa, Manekshaw: Hero due to d). Not appreciated due to e). Brave due to f) => HERO

Noor Inayat Khan: Irrelevant due to c). Not appreciated due to e). Brave due to f) => BRAVE but NOT TO BE APPRECIATED

[arnab]

2) Absolutely agree - and to do that, one cannot start by ascribing underlying reasons to some Indians for their heroism, whether it be Noor Inyat Khan or Cariappa or Bose. They are all heroes IMO in the perspective of unertaking the task that they were assigned (or assigned themselves) to do.

So should we call Jinnah a hero as well?

Well a number of ex-indians already do However, from our perspective - here we have a chap who unleashed a conflagration on the Indian civilian population through direct action day, never undertook any personal risk (even avoided the minor discomfort of going to jail when supposedly fighting for an Indian cause), and willingly conspired with the Brits to satisfy his ego; if such a person embodies heroism for you - so be it

[brihaspati]

Ah Arnab ji,
that final refuge word of intellectual rascals [again a pithy English word meant for whom?] : "heh heh do you have peer reviewed articles eh?"

Slimy folks cleverly take the exact sciences peer reviewed paradigm - which is feasible there because people can independently verify stuff, to the case of inexact subjects like historical interpretation - where it is after all opinions on all sides, whether peer "reveiewed" or not "peer reviewed". Electronic journal of vedic studies will never publish anything that contradicts any of the pureesha dropped by Witzel - and its pool of "peers" will onlee approve Witzelian agitprop and drop of anything else with disdain.

Do you remember Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts in the sciences? In summary, it is about how a group forms around a hypothesis and forms a "peer group" that serves as the perpetuator of the hypothesis. In "sciences", as Kuhn points out, people are forced to deal with newer and more accurate measurements of the same old phenomena and hence periodically - its the hypothesis that has to be changed. Each time such a change is resisted fanatically - by the "peer group", until it becomes completely unsustainable with the maximum possible stretch of the older paradigm.

Somehow this "science" idea of paradigm shifts have been slyly appropriated by people who deny that very methodology of science in their own subject areas. They are helped along in subjects like history - especially in narrative interpretations because, newer and more "accurate" evidence are rare to come by. The peer group in history thus becomes entrenched mutual back-scratching societies - unlike "sciences".

I find it not that surprising that you are taking cover behind the "not peer reviewed" slime to dismiss Dr. Sharma's arguments. It does not matter whether an argument appears on a blog or a site [apparently the British penchant for putting everything in a hierarchy of superiority-inferiority applies to blogs versus sites too] or in a "peer"-reviewed humanities journal : he gives the references very clearly for you to be able to verify them independently.

The fact of V.A.Smith et all, devoting a disproportiionate amount of space to Alexander's supposed "conquest" of India is something that stands independent of any pheer-reviews. You want to avoid acknowledging that fact by saying this is not quoted in peer-reviewed journals?

Similarly, you need a peer review approval to check out the quotes from Arrian or Plutarch or the use of their writings by the British colonial historiographers? Do you realize that you have cornered yourself into trying to clear the name and reputation of each and every British imperial ideologue, historian, inetllectual where their conscious efforts at justifying or legitimizing every possible atrocity on the Indians are concerned?

[arnab]

As brihaspati garu pointed out earlier, and I did too, as far as Alexander/Sikander is concerned, his fame in India shows a certain demographic pattern. Also his fame is quite low, and if present simply there due to a film "Muqadar ka Sikander" which overlays Alexander's popularity among the British, and thus the Nehruvian elite onto Alexander's Persianized name better known among the earlier Mughal elite, thus giving the semblance of "positive" relevance for the Indian society. The film itself does not go into any detail of who Sikander was, but leaves it up to the audience to find out, should they be interested.

1) In India 'what is' is not much different from 'what ought to be'. It seems you are making the argument, that in India, Alexander 'ought to be' better known, as he is a 'global hero'.

'What is' and 'what ought to be' are positive and normative statements - it does not alter for India. I could similarly argue that Baji Rao's fame in India would also follow a certain demographic patters (primarily from Maharashtra). These are facile arguments.

2) As far as question of Noor Inayat Khan is concerned, let me try to propose a few criteria for judgment.

______________

Subhash Chandra Bose: Hero due to a). => HERO

Cariappa, Manekshaw: Hero due to d). Not appreciated due to e). Brave due to f) => HERO

Noor Inayat Khan: Irrelevant due to c). Not appreciated due to e). Brave due to f) => BRAVE but NOT TO BE APPRECIATED

I think you would also need to give a 'weight' to the length of service in each cause then If someone served 24 years under Brit military and 5 years under Indian - it autmatically should not confer heroism on him. Afterall you are 'not appreciating' the bravery of a 28 year old dead girl who never got the opportunity to do what Cariappa and Manekshaw did later.

[arnab]

Ah Arnab ji,
that final refuge word of intellectual rascals [again a pithy English word meant for whom?] : "heh heh do you have peer reviewed articles eh?"

Slimy folks cleverly take the exact sciences peer reviewed paradigm - which is feasible there because people can independently verify stuff, to the case of inexact subjects like historical interpretation - where it is after all opinions on all sides, whether peer "reveiewed" or not "peer reviewed". Electronic journal of vedic studies will never publish anything that contradicts any of the pureesha dropped by Witzel - and its pool of "peers" will onlee approve Witzelian agitprop and drop of anything else with disdain.

I find it not that surprising that you are taking cover behind the "not peer reviewed" slime to dismiss Dr. Sharma's arguments. It does not matter whether an argument appears on a blog or a site [apparently the British penchant for putting everything in a hierarchy of superiority-inferiority applies to blogs versus sites too] or in a "peer"-reviewed humanities journal : he gives the references very clearly for you to be able to verify them independently.

***

Similarly, you need a peer review approval to check out the quotes from Arrian or Plutarch or the use of their writings by the British colonial historiographers? Do you realize that you have cornered yourself into trying to clear the name and reputation of each and every British imperial ideologue, historian, inetllectual where their conscious efforts at justifying or legitimizing every possible atrocity on the Indians are concerned?

Er..no, what you are providing is a quote from a blog which quotes the impact of Alexander's conquest on Egypt (Plutarch). The blogger then asks the question - is it possible that Brit historians glorify alexander because they see themselves in the role of civilising the natives? You are presenting that as 'proof'. Sure - anything is possible!

Saar - you are an academic and do not like peer review. Is the underlying implication that you do not have any journal publications? if, so what sort of an academic does it make you? How's that for an uninformed opinion?

[johneeG]

Your feelings are matched by those of Churchill.
India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator.
Winston Churchill
You say:
a) There were many 'nations'.
b) alignment with the British was 'national interest'?!!

(a) & (b) seem self-contradictory. If there were many 'nations', how can aligning with British(and not someone else, like say Germany or France or Japan or XYZ) be national interest? Why the unique status to brits only?

Saar I don't say it - for e.g in the war of 1857 - the sikh princes did not join the war (supported the Brits). Neither did the kingdoms Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore etc. But I don't tarnish them as traitors and cowards today or berate them for not having a pan-India vision. I think at the time they did it in their 'national interest'.
No not a unique status to brits (but only in the context of those being called bootlickers). Tipu sultan did align with the French earlier - but I think Tipu is not really well received on BRF

1857?!!!
Noor Inayat Khan was captured in Oct 1943 and executed in Sept 1944. You had originally said:

at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)

But,

The Purna Swaraj declaration, or Declaration of the Independence of India was promulgated by the Indian National Congress on January 26, 1930, resolving the Congress and Indian nationalists to fight for Purna Swaraj, or complete self-rule independent of the British Empire. (Literally in Sanskrit, purna, "complete," swa, "self," raj, "rule," thus "complete self-rule")

The flag of India had been hoisted by Congress President Jawaharlal Nehru on December 31, 1929, on the banks of the Ravi river in Lahore, modern-day Pakistan. The Congress asked the people of India to observe January 26 as Independence Day. The flag of India was hoisted publicly across India by Congress volunteers, nationalists and the public.

even before that, we have Bal Gangadhar Tilak:

Tilak was one of the first and strongest advocates of "Swaraj" (self-rule) and a strong radical in Indian consciousness. His famous quote, "Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it!" is well-remembered in India even today.

Tilak died in August 1920.

Ram Prasad Bismil was hanged in Dec 1927 for his revolutionary activities against brits from 1918 to 1925.

Lala Lajpat Rai was beaten to death in Nov 1928 by the brits when he was protesting against one of their policies.

In Feb 1931, Chandra Shekhar Azad was encountered for his revolutionary activities against the brits.

In Mar, 1931, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were hanged for killing a brit officer named Saunders in 1928. At the time of hanging, they were about 23 yrs old. You originally brought alexander into the picture to emphasize on the age. Here, we have Indians who embraced the Martyrdom at the age of 23. Bhagat Singh fasted for 116 days.

Anyway the point is, by late 1920s, there was a clear acknowledgement of 'national cause' i.e. Independence from the brits. People were agitating against the brits in violent and non-violent manner.

Clearly, you are wrong when you say that there was no national cause or 'a single nation' at the time. At least, in 1943-44 period(Noor Inayat Khan's activity period), there was acknowledgement of 'national causes' and of being a single nation among Indians(who were not 'bootlickers' of the brits).

So, to say that alignment with the brit cause is equal to national cause in 1943-1944 is a disingenuous argument. Yes, some Indians may have believed that allying with the brits in WWII was beneficial to India's cause.

But, there is nothing to show that Noor's involvement with the Brits was for the Indian national cause. On the contrary, she seems to have been primarily motivated by occupation of France by the Nazi Germany.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of those for whose cause she worked and died, to honour her. Why bring India into it? There are many people who were working for Indian national cause in that period and suffered as much(if not more). India needs to honour them.

---

The reality is one has to go by what one has done in given conditions. Based on this criteria, Noor Inayat Khan has shown an excellent bravery and loyalty for the cause of Brits. The Brits must be ashamed if they ignore or neglect her valiant efforts for the Brit cause. But, how can her efforts be called 'Indian cause'(especially when you claim that there was no single nation)?

Not a 'cause'. I admire her bravery as an Indian. Manekshaw won a military cross for his efforts against the japanese (who were allied to Bose) - it did grant him his rise through the ranks and put him in the role of the Indian army chief at a crucial point in India's history. I can't spit on one part of his history (as a lackey of the brits) and praise another! He was a man of his times and it all contributed to what he became and did for India.

So, cause is not important?!! Hain, ji!

So, you are saying that because Noor Inayat Khan was of Indian origin, her bravery must be admired. This is a very faulty premise. In fact, generally, people work other way around i.e. as long as the cause is 'right', the origins can be ignored. Generally, people admire public figures to the extent that they worked for the 'cause'. This is the general way. But, some people get carried away and want to deify the figures and celebrating them blindly even in those instances when the actions or words of these figures went against the cause. This is true for all figures. Bose or Manekshaw....

But, you want to ignore the cause and blindly admire any bravery shown by any Indian. Fine then! But, are you actually ready to practice this view in all cases i.e. admire the bravery of the Indian(or Indian origin) regardless of the cause? I hope you are not propping up this argument just to suit your present case. Are you willing to practice it in all cases? If you practice it in all cases, then it can get very tricky. You would have to admire people from all kinds of causes(even 'sinister' ones).

---
PS: I agree with Bji.

No need to assume I am contradicting you. my position has been clear on this for a long time, and we exchanged on this before too. People switched their formal loyalties like changing old clothes. Previously they might have justified it by detaching from and raising loyalty above any concept of "nationhood". "Oath" - the concept so important for a foreign ruler to insist as superior to identification with ones birth culture and identity - was paramount. The "oath" could also be the smooth road to switch.

Question: if in the future, a new foreign regime invades and becomes the formal ruler of India by right of conquest - and becomes legitimate authority as recognized by international bodies say : and the Indian army takes a new oath to this new state led by a foreign regime, will the "oath" excuse be justified too?

But from a pragmatic viewpoint, I agree - there is great tactical value in having very loyal servants to the ex-ruler switching allegiance to a new ruler. They could be most valuable in their eagerness.

[arnab]

[Noor Inayat Khan was captured in Oct 1943 and executed in Sept 1944. You had originally said:

at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)

er..that quote was made in the context of loot, rape etc happenning before the british arrived (in discussions with B-ji) and the subsequent alignment of some kingdoms with the britishers in their national interest.

[RajeshA]

'What is' and 'what ought to be' are positive and normative statements - it does not alter for India. I could similarly argue that Baji Rao's fame in India would also follow a certain demographic patters (primarily from Maharashtra). These are facile arguments.

You were making some arguments using Alexander's global popularity as a hero. You still haven't said, what is the relevance of Alexander or his popularity for India or for that matter for your argument about Inayat Noor Khan.

2) As far as question of Noor Inayat Khan is concerned, let me try to propose a few criteria for judgment.

______________

Subhash Chandra Bose: Hero due to a). => HERO

Cariappa, Manekshaw: Hero due to d). Not appreciated due to e). Brave due to f) => HERO

Noor Inayat Khan: Irrelevant due to c). Not appreciated due to e). Brave due to f) => BRAVE but NOT TO BE APPRECIATED

I think you would also need to give a 'weight' to the length of service in each cause then If someone served 24 years under Brit military and 5 years under Indian - it automatically should not confer heroism on him. Afterall you are 'not appreciating' the bravery of a 28 year old dead girl who never got the opportunity to do what Cariappa and Manekshaw did later.

Noor Inayat Khan may not have got the opportunity to do what Cariappa and Manekshaw did. I guess both were lucky that they could show their heroism. What we did find out however was that there was heroism there to be found and it was not just some mirage or promise.

Like Noor Inayat Khan, I too did not get an opportunity to serve India as Field Marshall. Should one then conclude that I am just an under-appreciated Hero?

Noor Inayat Khan did not distinguish herself as a Indian Hero during the Second World War (she was a British Hero), and she did not distinguish herself as a Indian Hero afterwards. Going into hypotheticals of whether she would have done so if she had not died is really a moot question. Would I have been an Indian Hero if I had joined the Indian Army? Who knows! That is iffy history and just so useless. What if we had all evolved into amphibians? If the question looks off the cliff of sanity, then so too is the question about Noor Inayat Khan. She never got around to prove herself an Indian hero, and so she is NOT an Indian hero!