Indo-UK: News & Discussion

[surinder]

I have read the biography of Gen. R.Dyer. The surprize which it had for me was that Dyer had only set foot in England for the first time, when he was sent to RMA Sandhurst. Until then he lived in India (he was born in British India, Murree if I am not mistaken). He was also quite close to his Indian soldiers (Sikhs mainly), did visit Golden Temple etc.

This must have been the "Butcher of Amritsar" Book. Right?

Many Britishers were born & raised in India. They spoke local Indian languages well, understood local people and formed local friendlships. They also liked Indian climate, the land, flora, fauna. They were Indian in all except that their loyalties were towards UK, even they hadn't really seen it. After eating India's salt, the heart in their chest beat for England. When this crop of men/women went to UK, they did not take well to the life there: climate was cold and damp; people were different; the England of dreams was much better. Not to mention that they were treated like Sahibs, or god, in India. Their wish was command, they had a retinue of fawning servants. Even educated Indians bowed to them. Their longing for India resulted in many Indo-Anglo societies and associations to keep the nostalgia alive, but these soon died out as these men and women were of no consequence when the empire evaporated.

The irony is that they got all they had from India, yet stabbed her. No unlike many Indians, by the way.

On another note: Gen. Dyer was not discharged dishonorably, got even promoted. He was given a military funeral in UK after his death. Never spent a day in jail. There was a fund-raising for Gen. Dyer, the biggest contributors to his kitty were no other than Britishers who were living in India (using India and her wealth to feed a murderer of Indians). The fund was so large that I calculated it was equal to about 30 years of his Indian pay (which was already an inflated pay, more than what military men made in UK). He was a man of Independent means now.

Now when you talk of Gen. Dyer, British people point out to a colorful and stylistic speach by Churchill to show how apalled was England at the crimes of Gen. Dyer. They fail to mention the state funeral, the promotion, and the fund raising and his not having to spend a single day in jail. (Indian in India could be jailed, exiled to Burma, or have their property liquidated for something as simple as saying "British go home").

[Sachin]

This must have been the "Butcher of Amritsar" Book. Right?

Yes. That is the book.

[svinayak]

Many Britishers were born & raised in India. They spoke local Indian languages well, understood local people and formed local friendlships. They also liked Indian climate, the land, flora, fauna. They were Indian in all except that their loyalties were towards UK, even they hadn't really seen it. After eating India's salt, the heart in their chest beat for England. When this crop of men/women went to UK, they did not take well to the life there: climate was cold and damp; people were different; the England of dreams was much better. Not to mention that they were treated like Sahibs, or god, in India. Their wish was command, they had a retinue of fawning servants. Even educated Indians bowed to them. Their longing for India resulted in many Indo-Anglo societies and associations to keep the nostalgia alive, but these soon died out as these men and women were of no consequence when the empire evaporated.

The irony is that they got all they had from India, yet stabbed her. No unlike many Indians, by the way.

There are several things which was happening to British after the first world war in 1917. British govt first figured out that they have lost their ability to keep their empire and they had overstretched. British Indian army had to keep the several rebellions in assam and remote places under check and its budget in India was over stretched.
There was call in the Europe for British to scale down and US was in negotiation with the British to hand over the control of the seas to US Navy.

The British who knew their closest people were the Punjabis/Sikhs also felt the freedom movement had taken away the last of the loyal Indians away from British monarchy. That is the moment when they had to make a choice for the future.
People like Gen. R.Dyer knew that time was up for the British and last of the loyal Indians are going to turn against them. They had to leave the country and go back to England. There would be no future for the BRitish people and their families in India ever.
In Amritsar, more than 5,000 people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. This situation deteriorated perceptibly over the next few days. Michael O'Dwyer is said to have been of the firm belief that these were the early and ill-concealed signs of a conspiracy for a coordinated uprising around May, on the lines of the 1857 revolt, at a time when British troops would have withdrawn to the hills for the summer.

This was the last attempt by the British to keep their rule and loyal people in India. Gen. R.Dyer made a choice knowing that he had to go back to England in the future. People he knew and grew up with in India could not be trusted anymore for him. This is a big change for people like him.

[ramana]

if you read the Raj Quartet by peter Scott you get the same sense of eventual loss in the British Army characters. Did anyone do a psycho profile of average British ruling elite in India of those days?

How did the so called Indian born British behave so callously? Were they under stress like the PA or its Biharis in Dacca during the Bangla Desh rebellion?

[svinayak]

How did the so called Indian born British behave so callously? Were they under stress like the PA or its Biharis in Dacca during the Bangla Desh rebellion?

There was outrage at the sense of betrayal. The loss of prestige after the WWI was deeply felt.
This is the same thing which makes them say now that British contributed to India progress.

This also gives clues to how they still keep the attachment to Paki Muslim Punjabis after they lost the Empire.
Some of this as a kind of revenge

[Paul]

On another note: Gen. Dyer was not discharged dishonorably, got even promoted. He was given a military funeral in UK after his death. Never spent a day in jail. There was a fund-raising for Gen. Dyer, the biggest contributors to his kitty were no other than Britishers who were living in India (using India and her wealth to feed a murderer of Indians). The fund was so large that I calculated it was equal to about 30 years of his Indian pay (which was already an inflated pay, more than what military men made in UK). He was a man of Independent means now.

Now when you talk of Gen. Dyer, British people point out to a colorful and stylistic speach by Churchill to show how apalled was England at the crimes of Gen. Dyer. They fail to mention the state funeral, the promotion, and the fund raising and his not having to spend a single day in jail. (Indian in India could be jailed, exiled to Burma, or have their property liquidated for something as simple as saying "British go home").

I vividly recall reading the books section of Reader's digest in the mid 80s. (quoting from memory here) It had a feature on Dyer. His full name was Reginald Edward Harry Dyer.

A british newspaper had kicked off a fundraising campaign for Dyer. Amongst the biggest contributors other than the usual suspects were the Gurkha soldiers as well. We need to remember that the Brits played up the differences between the hill people (gurkhas were the unit who opened fire) and people of the plains ( the victims). The money raised came to around 300K pounds, quite a big sum in those days.

[Rony]

Lot of Psycops of both variety !


The legacy of Empire and an India galloping ahead

[surinder]

I vividly recall reading the books section of Reader's digest in the mid 80s. (quoting from memory here) It had a feature on Dyer. His full name was Reginald Edward Harry Dyer.

A british newspaper had kicked off a fundraising campaign for Dyer. Amongst the biggest contributors other than the usual suspects were the Gurkha soldiers as well. We need to remember that the Brits played up the differences between the hill people (gurkhas were the unit who opened fire) and people of the plains ( the victims). The money raised came to around 300K pounds, quite a big sum in those days.

The newspaper in question is non other than the The Times. IIRC, the money totalled 30 thousand pounds, and the annual salary of Dyer in India was 1000 Pounds. That is 30 years worth of salaries. The salaries of Britishers in India were exorbitant, to entice the Britishers to come to India. [It might interesting to calculate what that money is worth in today's terms.]

So that was a lot of money, it made him a "man of independent means". Dyer settled down in village. He pursued his hobby of inventing some kind of a telescope. Never worked again. But I think at the bottom his heart he knew what he had done.

While it may be true that money came from Gurkhas, it could be a British psy ops to play up one group against others. I have come to conclusion that it was a common British strategy to portray one group of Indians as loyal to them, which has an effect on their standing in the rest of the country and its unity. Again it could be true, but it need not be.

One thing is sure, the biggest supporters of Dyer were Britishers in India, especially the women. The attack on Jallianwala had come after the attack on one Miss Sherwood in Amritsar. She was a british women who was assaulted, and to create terror Dyer had the whole street closed and flogged many people there. He forced the residents of that street to crawl on the street to cross it. All this to avenge Miss Sherwood's humliation and also to show that no one dare touch a British women. The British women & their husbands donated handsomely to Dyer.

This lead Gurudev Ravindra Nath Thakur to first see the moral bankurptcy of England, and he returned the knighthood.

Jallianwala ultimately was a big strategic mistake for England. This single event changed Indian & Punjabi feelings towards England for all times to come. Not only did it bring forth Bhagat Singh, but Udham Singh killed Michael O'dyer, who was Punjab's governer and a supporter of Gen. Dyer.

[brihaspati]

Rex Dyer was educated at Midleton College, in Cork County, Ireland - at the time - under British crown rule. What is important to see here is that a Reginald Dyer, and a Michael O'Dwyer wre both involved. Dwyer/Dyer in general would be Irish roots - especially, there is a common joke about the "O'" [O' == of the tribe/clan, so O' Brian would be "of the clan of Brian"] that those who did not take the "dole", or British largesse during the famine kept their "Irishness" and those who capitulated dropped that symbol of Irishness.

In fact a lot of those who came to "rule" India under the Brits, were of partial or full Irish stock. Even though the Irish were severly repressed from the time of Cromwell, and were constructed racially to be inferior to the "British" [there is a well known historical racist cartoon placing them in between "Africans" and British] - they made common cause mostly with British imperialism where India was concerned. [Some of the more positive exception being people like Mayo, in fact from county Mayo in Ireland].

It is possible that they fell into the Brit trap of allowing themselves to be defined by the British - seeking their approval - [just like many who even now subconsciously feel elated to be comapred with or at par with those "Brits" who "went out to "rule India"].

So there can be internal differences and conflicts between various components of the "white" identity. But where it comes to India - or a country of predominantly "dark/coloured" skins, they will all have a common reaction. They will have it because it pays to have so!

When our illustrious historians and intellectuals try to fool us by pointing out sects/internal conflicts within identities - they deliberately suppress the fact that such internal conflicts may be completely suppressed where interaction with other perceived identities are concerned. There can be fights within "whites", "christians", Islamics - but what concerns us is whether those conflicts affect or do not affect a common hatred of "dark", "Hindu/pagan", "kaffir". History shows that our historians are wrong, and since history shows so - it implies that our historians are criminally wrong, because they suppress it even after knowing it.

Rex Dwyer never apologized. He was employed by the British crown. The British crown has never apologized. And there are Indians who take pride in identifying themselves with British symbols and heritage. In "glorious" history of service and battle honours or flags won serving British imperialist interests. No one can help what his ancestors did. But the least they can do is condemn what their ancestors [or predecessors if in service] did and not show pride in that heritage. The British did what they were expected to do - with the murderous, sneaky, uncivilized, and deceptive sadism that their aristocracy had shown consistently in expanding from their famished bases in northern Europe with the fall of the western Roman Empire. [ I am not condemning the common populations - the Gaullic or Celto-Iberians who occupied most of western Europe at the time] That is not what we expect from Indians.

[surinder]

B,

The Irish in USA played a very devastating role for the British empire. They were staunchly anti-English. They supported and hosted many indian freedom fighters and their movements. The intense interest & pressure that the US president & govt put on UK during WW2 to free India was partly a result of Irish Americans and their public posture. (US Govt had made de-colonization a prerequisite for US support to UK. UK had no choice, either face the Germans alone, or free the colonies---caught between the rock and a hard place, or a devil and the deep sea.)

Not just the oppressed Irish who became oppressors themselves, the same behaviour was displayed by Welsh & Scottish people too.

[brihaspati]

Surinder,
I said about those who "came to rule India". Subhasji was hosted with honour by Eamonn De Valera at Dublin. regarding the American role in "India's freedom" that is another story.

It still rankles that the Crown has not apologized for what a servant under its formal service did in India. It still rankles that treasures belonging to India adorn Crown possessions. No Indian government seems to mind. It is an Egyptian archaeologist - who in spite of being born a Muslim takes pride in the Pharaonic Egypt [Pharaos being represented negatively in general in the Abrahamci tradition], and who has taken a persistent initiative to return national treasures looted by the west during colonial occupations. Not an Indian historian or archaeologist. It rankles that a young boy-king was pressurized and robbed of a priceless gem to brighten up British monarchy.

[ramana]

Bji, The Irish are Celts while the British are Anglo-Saxon. There was a bit of racial discomfort between them when Richard, Earl of Pembroke (Norman ie a Viking) conquered the Irish in ~1100s. In fact it was only when the Irish came to America and managed to assimilate into A-S society and they were able to support the Irish Republic.

Yes they were treated very badly by the English and subject to all sorts of atrocities and lampoons which they in turn subjected the colored in the US.


Surinder, US support for Indian independence is long story which is not yet understood as its not simple as it looks. So lets leave it for another time and another thread.

[surinder]

B,

I also saw the recent news report of the Egyptian musuem head tying up with Greece etc. to get back the loot. The article also reported that he had managed to get back 5000 items in the last year.

India has failed. We have valuable treasure looted and we have not succeeded in getting anything back. One thing that does keep us back is .... drum roll ... Pakeestan. Whenever we make efforts to claim something TSP comes and claims a share. The British are delighted and claim confused ownership to deny the claim. TSP is fulfilling the basic aim of why it was created in the first place.

Few years back I remember Indian govt had lodged a formal attempt to get the Koh-I-Noor. The Pakees immideately laid a counter claim that since Ranjit Singh's empire was over much of what is TSP, the diamond belongs to them. Well, the British did reply to that claim and they had a very interesting argument, which ran something like "Since we have possession, it is ours." (They have also claimed it was a gift, but it was war booty. By they way, the Egyption curator is asking France/Germany to return centuries old "gifts" also.)

That said, Indian efforts have been far less vigorous, we haven't shamed the British, we haven't paid a political price or any price to get back our treasures. We have even failed to join cause with other nations with similar claims on the British (Greece, and some African nations).

As an aside: A lot of Indian treasures is hardly even catalogued properly, it is lying in the basements of museums and storage houses of UK.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji, and surinder,

The majority of the Irish, and southern half of Britain is most likely to be Celto-Iberians - expansions from ice-age refugia in Spain and lands now under the sea. The ruling sections are predominantly Nordic in origin - mostly tribes of mercenaries and armed gangs who enlisted with the Roman armies first and finally took over lands and populations in ex-Roman provinces when the western empire retreated. Thei initial history of expansion and exploits make for interesting reading as far as civilizational values are concerned. It shows that nothing much has changed in British ruling-elite character in a thousand years. It was their history that led me to my early hypothesis that any monarchy and kingship basically started off with a thug whom less sadistic people began to appease. I have not found much in British royal behaviour over the ages to change that hypothesis.

Both Ireland and Britain are deeply class-divided societies. There is an underlying current in Ireland too of a resentment and hostility towards "upper class". The Irish domestic political history is also one that has underlays of class-struggle, with the anti-imperialist struggle complicated by have-land and dispossesed dynamics. So it is natural to expect the trends to be different in mainland Ireland, America and India. My concern was about attitudes - and as I have seen in my researches - that seem to converge between Scottish-Irish-British when it comes to on-spot behaviour to Indians on Indian soil.

Surinder, the US aspect about Indian Freedom struggle and its collaboration or looking after British imperialist interests - is something you can perhaps start exploring with the so-called "German conspiracy trials" in America. The attitudes changed only after WWI, and that too not quite in a straightforward way.

[chetak]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...


What next for 'respected Islamic rituals'

Suicide bombers??

Is the UK government just plain Dhimi or is it because of elections ??

http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2 ... ed-to.html

Monday, April 12, 2010
UK: Muslim protesters 'will be allowed to throw their shoes' as a part of a 'respected Islamic ritual'

Bush beware ~ Britain's Muslims are legally allowed to hurl their shoes!!

What's next ~ certain types of Islamic jihad. This week the UK has already seen Muslim medical staff being allowed to forgo scrubbing their forearms before surgery ~ because displaying their wrists is seen as immodest. Now its hurl your shoes ~ at a policeman or anything else it might happen to hit ~ without penalty. So close to an election common sense is being overturned for votes.

The ruling emerged after a judge in the case of Aquib Salim, 21, a student who threw a shoe during last year's Gaza protests in London dismissed a charge of violent disorder for the act.

His comments, at Isleworth Crown Court, mean that many of the 70 mainly Muslim protesters charged with violent disorder following the protests outside the Israeli embassy could also escape prosecution if they threw shoes rather than other missiles.

It has since been confirmed by the Crown Prosecution Service that the judge's decision was based partly on guidance issued by police in 2008 shortly after an Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at George Bush during a press conference in Baghdad.

It has led to an increase in the practice, with protesters hurling shoes at Downing Street and at the US consulate in Edinburgh during the Gaza protests.

Chris Holt, Salim's solicitor, said his client was likely to escape with a suspended sentence for another offence of throwing a stick at police – an offence to which he pleaded guilty.

"The court accepted that the earlier shoe-throwing incident was simply a ritual form of protest and therefore not a criminal act of violence," he said.

The form of protest is based on the Muslim belief that shoes and particularly their soles are unclean.

Lindsey German, of the Stop the War coalition which has led a series of protests against the Iraq and Afghan wars, said the group sought advice from police on shoe-throwing for a protest outside Downing Street after the Baghdad protest.

"They said that was OK and there was a facility allowed for people to bring old pairs of shoes. Afterwards, they joked that they didn't realise we were going to throw the shoes so hard," she told The Sunday Times.

[Avinash R]

Stolen indian goods being sold

Tipu's sword fetches 500,000 pounds in auction
15 Apr 2010, 1416 hrs IST,IANS
LONDON: Seven years after Indian liqour baron Vijay Mallya bought a sword of Tipu Sultan, a majestic sabre of the Mysore king fetched 505,250 pounds at a Sotheby's auction here.

The 200-year-old sword was estimated to go under the hammer for 50,000-70,000 pounds. It eventually sold Wednesday at nearly 10 times that estimate.

According to the auction house, there are a very small number of sword hilts, such as the one auctioned, which have a pronounced tiger theme that was a mark of Tipu's ownership.

Another highlight of the auction was a rare Indian bronze cannon cast at the Mysore king's royal foundry. This artefact from around 1790 AD was bought by an anonymous buyer at 313,250 pounds.

Among other items in the lot were a tent canopy that was sold for 121,250 pounds and a rare matchlock carbine that came under the hammer for 91,250.

The auction fetched 15.4 million pounds, compared to the 1.2 million pounds earned at the first part of the Tipu Sultan auction of 2005.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 810854.cms

[Murugan]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 398315.ece

Volcano creates massive ash cloud

Airports across Britain looked like ghost towns on Thursday as, in an unprecedented move, British airspace was completely sealed and not a single flight was allowed either to take off or land anywhere, including military airstrips, because of safety fears after a volcanic eruption in Iceland set off a massive cloud of ash drifting towards the U.K.

...

Heathrow and Gatwick, among the world’s busiest airports, wore a deserted look while rail and coach stations were overwhelmed with extra demand as domestic travellers switched to trains and coaches. Eurostar reported an extra 10,000 bookings.

The lockdown, described as the most serious since the Second World War, started shortly before noon and was originally expected to be lifted at 6 p.m. (local time) but later in the day it was announced that it would continue at least until 7 a.m. on Friday.

(UKstan financially troubled Iceland recently. Karma payback?)

[kittoo]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...


What next for 'respected Islamic rituals'

Suicide bombers??

Is the UK government just plain Dhimi or is it because of elections ??

http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2 ... ed-to.html

Monday, April 12, 2010
UK: Muslim protesters 'will be allowed to throw their shoes' as a part of a 'respected Islamic ritual'

Though this is for elections I guess, they have been pretty Dhimmi in past few years. There is a reason why Londonistan is pretty much a reality for many.

[Neela]

Long melodramatic story of cricket in the UK and how it is today .( and unsolicited advice on where it should be in the future for the rest of the world.)
The ways of the lord are indeed mysterious. An English native complains of the slow, winding fall and the accompanying excruciating pain that cricket lovers experience. Why does he make them suffer this gradual, painful fall from "grace" ?I enjoy the squeal of the natives about the state of their cricket. Why? Because just as every other article from every other english reporter has a customary dig at poverty/homeless/toilets in India, this has one and goes a step further.

Were the ICC to be based in New Delhi or Mumbai, the power-base of their next president Sharad Pawar, the staff would become predominantly Indian as the main current administrators would find it too difficult to relocate their families there, and the organisation would cease to reflect the attitudes and values of all its members.

Remember hockey guys? The way it moved from being an art to a powersport the moment Europeans came in changed the rules? And this guy claims that the ICC, by being in England and by having English staff members, is fair!
http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/ ... 55883.html

It will happen. Ignominy and the bowed heads! I wait for the day when it reaches its lowest point! It will happen!

[Akshut]

^^ Why are you so worried? BCCI is much powerful to let anything of this sort happen. BCCI is no IHF, and that too of a India of 1970s. British cried before Corus, Land Rover - Jaguar, Arcelor, and we all know the end result. Their press keeps on spewing on Dubai, and who stopped from visiting Dubai?.
.
They just aren't able to comprehend the difference between their history books and the present daily news.

[Hari Seldon]

It will happen. Ignominy and the bowed heads! I wait for the day when it reaches its lowest point! It will happen!

Amen. Lets drink to that together, brother.

[JE Menon]

>>They just aren't able to comprehend the difference between their history books and the present daily news.

very cool observation

[surinder]

Dear B,

The Brutish had some kind of a genius, a talent where they could take defeated people and make them allies in further conquests. In India they conquered the South, and then drafted the defeated South Indians into their army and went on to conquer more of India. Other groups included, Bengalis, Purbias, Gurkhas, Sikhs, Panjabi Muslims, Muslims and many others. The only group that I can think of whom they wanted to draft and were not able to were the Pashtuns.

Perhaps Indians were the most idiotic people, or British the most skilled. Maybe both. Can you comment what those skills are which causes the Anglo-saxons to skill fully achieve these things?

Thanks.

[Prem]

>>They just aren't able to comprehend the difference between their history books and the present daily news.
very cool observation

The Circle is not complete yet , future awaits for karmic retribution by pushing them down to mental Pakiesque level, giving competetion to Pakjabis in boasting , begging and bitchservices.

[Prasad]

In India they conquered the South, and then drafted the defeated Madrasis into their army and went on to conquer more of India.

errr WHAT?

[putnanja]

^^ Why are you so worried? BCCI is much powerful to let anything of this sort happen. BCCI is no IHF, and that too of a India of 1970s. British cried before Corus, Land Rover - Jaguar, Arcelor, and we all know the end result. Their press keeps on spewing on Dubai, and who stopped from visiting Dubai?.
.
They just aren't able to comprehend the difference between their history books and the present daily news.

And the BCCI administrators are one tough SoBs, and they won't take crap from anyone, especially when the moolah is coming out of India.

[anandsgh]

Londonistan in the making!!!

http://www.videolinks4u.net/video/hindilinks/54826/

[brihaspati]

Surinder wrote
Perhaps Indians were the most idiotic people, or British the most skilled. Maybe both. Can you comment what those skills are which causes the Anglo-saxons to skill fully achieve these things?

What did the British develop as a national character that helped them develop and empire whose benefits they continue to enjoy even if they have formally lost it - that Indians missed out - by choice or otherwise?

The only thing that comes to my mind after going through their history as far back as is known : a gradual refinement and sharpening of pure and sheer opportunism. Here, progressively they have made complete subservience of all morality, ethics, faith, religion, values, principles ever known/created/conceived by any human civilization ever - all subject to immediate opportunism as the fundamental national drive.

The British can be whatever another group wants it to be - if it serves an opportunity they see. They will pretend to be whatever is necessary to win the trust and confidence of a group they feel will serve an opportunity they see. When the purpose is served they will immediately and ruthlessly discard or sacrifice the very same group if they see an opportunity in doing so. Underneath the supposed good-faith/trust/respect etc., towards "others", lies a vicious and ruthless opportunistic "killer".

Perhaps something that developed in a society where survival was extremely difficult, resources limited. So that over time, the more value-based, ethical component of society gets weeded out - and morality or values essentially become a sham propaganda tool which becomes just another deceptive weapon of war. In fact perhaps such societies show an excessively loud and formal rigid claim of "morality". I think the other such society also developed in a similar tough-survival situation in the deserts of Arabia.

Crucial perhaps is not just tough survival - but also the presence of "prosperous" neighbours. In case of the Brits, France-Spain. In case of a disgruntled member of a certain Qureysh tribe, it was the oases farms of Jews. Or the fabulous riches further afield of the caravan routes - like India.

[JwalaMukhi]

"Perfidy" is the hallmark. But beyond that; ruthless capacity to rob and steal till the last coin of wealth on the prosperous victim, coupled with robbing the dignity and dismantling of the capacity to develop prosperity of the victimized. In short inflict unrecoverable injury on the target, strip the target of everything except the capacity to exist in comatose state or zombie status. Then allow only a select few of the enervated in the target to escape from the such humiliating status by confining them to be obedient gunga dins.
The said gunga dins would not hesitate to even kill others in the pathetic condition for the sake of survival.
P.S: BTW, it will be always fun when the "perfidious" and "Taqqiya" masters spar to outmaneuver each other.

[Hari Seldon]

I was always mystified, amazed at the peoples of Nepal and the hill folk of India - there was something about their way of life and acculturation that seemed to my untrained senses as somehow freer, happier, more at ease than a comparable demographic in the plains. Seen young people with guitars and in Jeans sport these huge tikas - vermillion+rice grains on their foreheads without the slightest hint of any self-consciousness anywhere. No dowry-harassment, gender imbalances or other such nastiness there. None that I could see. I couldn't quite put my finger on what and why was so different about them at that time. Pawan Varma's book brought it out for me. I think I now have the answer to that question.

The Nepalis and the Hindu hill folks of India were never really directly culturally colonized. They retain this comfortable mix of tradition and modernity that comes with the security and easy rootedness of a never-colonized identity. Or so I think.

It is important for India's mental/cultural decolonization that India ride prosperity again, on its own steam. We're finally starting to do that. It will take another generation before (hopefully) the aam aadmi will not semi-instinctively hold the western/british culture/system/way of life to be inherently superior to our own.

But to speed up that process, IMHO, it won't hurt if the inherent trappings and failings of the western system were exposed sans coverups and psy-ops for what they really are. The global meltdown provided one glimpse into the insolvent core of a unsustainable system that could not be papered over completely, then. UQ's pensions crisis, its steadily downhill going prospects, employment scenario, living standards coupled with rapidly rising debt, costs and % of pakis in the population might just do them in. Should that happen, and actual, literal poverty raise its ugly head in UQ, not even deluded macaulayputras here can continue to claim the inherent greatness and souperearity of the brits and their glorious rule anymore.

Time will tell, we'll see.

Jai ho and all that.

[krisna]

http://www.dailypioneer.com/244684/Pava ... Gupta.html

KG: We get carried away by foreign awards...

PKV: Yes, any foreign accolade! I give the example, I have nothing against Slumdog Millionaire although on merit I believe it was mediocre, but when it got the Bafta award, it had not been released in India, people had not seen it. Yet, without application of mind there was only only euphoria, it made headlines and breaking news everywhere. Similarly with the Booker. I have read 12 reviews of Aravind Adiga’s White Tiger in the British Press, substantive reviews, some good, some damning, some panning it. In India, when the award was announced, there was hardly a review. In this great flexible civilisation with its own refinement touchstone, the only news is that it got the Booker! There has to be santulan, there has to be equilibrium, which is a sign of maturity…

KG: We are constantly looking at foreign awards…Somebody gets the Sahitya Akademi award or Gnanpeeth does not even find mention in the media…

PKV: I will give an example, I will name the person. Sitakant Mahapatra, a very sensitive Odiya poet, he gets the Bharatiya Gnanpeeth award, and his book sells 843 copies! Even till this day in Russia, when a new edition of Pushkin is published, a million copies sell. And they were selling even during the stage of transition during and after Yeltsin when people had not got salaries for three months. So you have to think...

KG: Today we have crossover sahibs who subscribe to the idea of being global citizens, world citizens. For them, the Indian identity becomes baggage.

PKV: I would say I honestly believe in today’s time, the authentic global citizen is one who has the tools to interface with a globalising world is one who is rooted in his own milieu, his own civilisation. Because it is only that person who is rooted in his own milieu who can be a confident interlocutor with the world. Otherwise, we are producing clones. One of the great myths spawned by globalisation is that having been reduced to a global image we have all become mirror images of each other. But I believe that differences are real, that diversity needs to be respected and people who are the legatees of such a civilisation must preserve that identity because only then will they get respect.

KG: You are also harsh with Rammohun Roy…

PKV: I have used Rammohun Roy as an example to show how the well-intentioned leader in the colonial phase needed to caricature his own civilisation in order to win the approbation of the ruler. First of all, his movement against ills within his own society and religion, especially sati, was a well-intentioned crusade. But if you read his letter to the Viceroy, he first devalues his language, the learning of philosophy and metaphysics, and without a doubt they struck the right chord. And, as you know, when he went to London he actually argued in the House of Commons for the permanent residency in India of the British and a mixed community through inter-marriage between both. So Rammohun Roy, as I say in my final paragraph, shows that people are products of their times. Colonialism was a hugely, hugely impacting influence on the lives of our well-intentioned leaders…

[surinder]

What did the British develop as a national character that helped them develop and empire whose benefits they continue to enjoy even if they have formally lost it - that Indians missed out - by choice or otherwise?

The only thing that comes to my mind after going through their history as far back as is known : a gradual refinement and sharpening of pure and sheer opportunism. Here, progressively they have made complete subservience of all morality, ethics, faith, religion, values, principles ever known/created/conceived by any human civilization ever - all subject to immediate opportunism as the fundamental national drive.

The British can be whatever another group wants it to be - if it serves an opportunity they see. They will pretend to be whatever is necessary to win the trust and confidence of a group they feel will serve an opportunity they see. When the purpose is served they will immediately and ruthlessly discard or sacrifice the very same group if they see an opportunity in doing so. Underneath the supposed good-faith/trust/respect etc., towards "others", lies a vicious and ruthless opportunistic "killer".

Perhaps something that developed in a society where survival was extremely difficult, resources limited. So that over time, the more value-based, ethical component of society gets weeded out - and morality or values essentially become a sham propaganda tool which becomes just another deceptive weapon of war. In fact perhaps such societies show an excessively loud and formal rigid claim of "morality". I think the other such society also developed in a similar tough-survival situation in the deserts of Arabia.

Crucial perhaps is not just tough survival - but also the presence of "prosperous" neighbours. In case of the Brits, France-Spain. In case of a disgruntled member of a certain Qureysh tribe, it was the oases farms of Jews. Or the fabulous riches further afield of the caravan routes - like India.

Very astute obervation, B.

One thing that intrigues me is that usually societies which take to criminal & violent enterprises soon find their own internal working of the society affected by it. A certain amount of internal adherence to higher principles is necessary to be able to to effectively exploit others. You know what I mean, like a gang of dacoits still need enough internal honesty & sufficient bravery to commit docoities.

When I see the British conquest and rule of India, it strikes me that while I can find endless cases of Indians stabbing their nation & fellow Indians in the back for small amount of money, power, or prestige, but I find the British uncorropt. While they used Indian money to bribe Indians, we could not use Indian wealth to bribe them. (That is what appears to me.)

How do they achieve that impossible target of maintaining internal morality, while discarding it completely in external dealings.

[Karan Dixit]

There is a difference between coercion and bribery. British were able to coerce many Indians, which is not the same as bribery. Bribery only works on people who are either destitute or greedy. Bribery will work on the British once they have adequate number of destitute in the country, which is already happening. I have met many working class brits that would gladly lick your boot for money. I am serious. There is nothing special about them and any belief to the contrary is nonsense.

[Hari Seldon]

Interesting discussion abt values inherent in cultures that enabled distant-land domination.

IMO, every land has its diverse types of people in terms of vulnerability to bribes or coercion. The key difference was in the kind of people who self-selected into making the long journey to Yindia from UQ. Those men weren't your average aam englishmen. Those men were tough nuts. And they came into contact with the hoi-polloi of india - not just with our finest or bravest or noblest but also with the venal, the greedy, the cowardly and the treasonous. So they got to piock and choose who to do business with. And they chose well, so to say.

Think of the Chola expeditions to Java and Sumantra. The men who went there weren't the average Yindian either. What influence they were able to have. Similarly the ones who left Yindia for phoren shores as missionaries (to Burma, to China to japan) and later in the later-20th century to the west weren't the aam Yindian either but a self-selcted bunch of tough nuts.

The pirates, the marauders, the bandits and raiders are all tough nuts - internally homogenous and externally devious. They have to be. The ones who survive their 'way of life' are the ones we in India got to see.

Anyway, not sure if this discussion is OT or not for this dhaga. So, stopping here.

[svenkat]

Surinder ji,
The British were corrupted by the wealth of India.That is why they wanted to rule India for ever.

Secondly,if we want to be blind to our shortcomings,then there is no point at all.

The British had a 'superior' morality. Any honest observer,one does not have to be a jholawala or christian missionary or pakjabi mussalman to see the flaws in our polity and even indvidual character.

BRF is in a way fanatasy land.I am talking about myself and my compulsive urge to come to what is called by gurus here as Hot Air Forum.(Strategic Issues etc).

This is Indian reality -the gap between elite realists and the 'hoi polloi'.

I will make a sensitive point-The caste leaders-of the petty type are not able to think beyond narrow loyalties.Britain doesn't have this problem.In India,'every one' is trying to screw every one else. Britain had a 'genuine' 'varna system',based on 'merit' in place.

As Shivji remarked,we DON'T think as Indians wanting to screw others.British thought that way and the US/Chinese think that way today.

In a long range Karmic view point,all the subtle-psy-ops,nuances,pangas can only go some distance.All branding,imaging without substance can lead to pure investment banks frauds type economy.

But let us not deny that there was a Britain of science,innovation,social reform and literature which was superior to the fossilised India 200 years back.

Look at the way we are handling IPL compared to how the English organised their county/Test/World Cups etc.Let us give the Devil its due.

Neelaji,

Please look at some of the comments by our 'leaders'

Lalu-Yadavs are being humiliated.Why? His son Tejaswi is being 'made to carry towels' for Delhi Daredvils and So Yadavs are being humiliated.This while Umesh Yadav,who is someone to watch out,was establishing himself.

Dasgupta(CPM)-T20 should be banned and we should go back to Test Cricket so that babus in Writers Buildings can waste a full 30 hours.

Isnt it about time the Indian people put the British Devils out of their mind?Atleast the f******g leaders?No,they cannot.The truth is commies,kkangressmen,BJP,Akalis,DMK,Telugu Desam,Dalit parties each one of them have their pet axes to grind.

We should not forget this while whining against the British.

[Yayavar]

When I see the British conquest and rule of India, it strikes me that while I can find endless cases of Indians stabbing their nation & fellow Indians in the back for small amount of money, power, or prestige, but I find the British uncorropt.

In what way were they uncorrupt? They made profits on the side and were expected to in the earlier years - one hast to but read the letters and histories of the earlier viceroys. If you mean they were loyal to their country and crown -- that is where the bread was buttered and we would have found enough dissension if they were not making money. Now that things are not as sanguine the news of the British parliamentarians is not as rosy (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 52,00.html). I'm sure there are more. At other times there was Kim Philby who was a KGB agent while being at the helm (or very high up) in the British intelligence. I'm sure you will find more as (if) harsher economic conditions dominate.

[surinder]

Viv,

What I am referring to is the feeling I get when I read the British conquest and rule of India. From the earliest in Plassey to the last one in the Punjab, all I read is sad tales of Indian generals, soldiers, politicians, small kings selling their nation for a dime, committing serious treason. I have not read any story of of a battle in which the British general sold the battle plans to the Indian forces.

Note: I am not referring to the UK of the present, which I am sure is perhaps not the same UK of 300 years ago.

[surinder]

The key difference was in the kind of people who self-selected into making the long journey to Yindia from UQ. Those men weren't your average aam englishmen. Those men were tough nuts. And they came into contact with the hoi-polloi of india - not just with our finest or bravest or noblest but also with the venal, the greedy, the cowardly and the treasonous.

Interesting point, Hari.

[Sanku]

all I read is sad tales of Indian generals, soldiers, politicians, small kings selling their nation for a dime, committing serious treason..

Surinder, you have to note that when the British came to India, India had already defeated the Portugese and other assorted Johhny came earlies. The British were seen as just another stupid western power with slightly better captains who were willing to stand around in the heat for a few pennies. Idiots who could be played to advantage in local power struggles.

There was no selling out to the British in many cases, but the Indians did not see the larger picture, which the British saw and did.

Also remember the push into India by the British was basically to replace America as a colony after they lost it with the accumulated capital based on the slave trade and extraction from US. They had a advantage which Indians had lost, roughly 100 years back and India was unlucky enough to lack a dominant power at that moment.

[brihaspati]

Surinder,
Missed out to track this most favourote topic of mine - the issue of British "morality" and "internal cohesion", on this thread!

One thing that intrigues me is that usually societies which take to criminal & violent enterprises soon find their own internal working of the society affected by it. A certain amount of internal adherence to higher principles is necessary to be able to to effectively exploit others. You know what I mean, like a gang of dacoits still need enough internal honesty & sufficient bravery to commit docoities.

When I see the British conquest and rule of India, it strikes me that while I can find endless cases of Indians stabbing their nation & fellow Indians in the back for small amount of money, power, or prestige, but I find the British uncorropt. While they used Indian money to bribe Indians, we could not use Indian wealth to bribe them. (That is what appears to me.)

How do they achieve that impossible target of maintaining internal morality, while discarding it completely in external dealings.

The British were neither uncorrupt nor were they immune from internal criminality and tendency towards violence - before they came to India. This is a myth maintained by the Brits themselves and colonial hagiographers. It will be too much to go into the real seamier and dark side of British history here. But those interested can look up.

To admire the British supposed "internal consistency" and "united front" in criminal enterprise is like admiring the "mafia" for its success. Come on, then, let us all join in admiring and cheering the D-company! Its chief is free and living and pulling all necessary strings in "south Asia". How successful D-company has been is all its activities on India. Now we all have to agree that the D-company has shown "internal honesty", "consistency", "united front" in exploiting Indians! So that should qualify them for admiration?? No!? They share in this respect exactly all the qualities some of us are grudgingly/reluctantly admiring in the Brits. D-company uses ethnic/religious sentiments as cover to justify their atrocities and criminala ctivities. Just as the Brits did.

The mafia are a reality of humanity. The reason they succeed are also quite specific. They succeed when the rashtra gets weak and is ideologically confused and vacillating. Or the rashtra is torn in a military or non-military internal civil war from which no side has emerged a clear winner. As it is mentioned in "Gone with the Wind" there is always money to be made when civilizations are getting destroyed. Both the Brits as well as D-company have taken advantage of specific civilizational crises in India - as ordinary vicious criminal enterprises - nothing more.