Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 12 May 2010 07:34

@brihaspati: The UK Economy was in recession (marked by de-growth) from March 2008 - December 2009. The problems are by no means over, and things will not return to 2007 levels in 2011 - but the D&G days will definitely be behind us this time next year. In essence, I am not forecasting a Boom, but a complete end to Bust.

I am basing my assertion on what I read in the news and observations, no special insights.

* The UK GDP has been revised upwards. In any event, the Economy has stopped de-growing. (http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2010/05 ... d-upwards/)

* Monetary policy of 0.5% interest rates - 14 months on the trot (Interest rates are likely to remain low throughout 2010)

* 20% depreciation in the Value of Pound - helps exporters and domestic demand

* House price falls have ended or at least stabilized

* Credit rating is still AAA Plus

* Please remember that this winter was most severe in UK

* inflation is not a significant concern for 2010

* To sum, GDP growth will be 2% in 2011 and 2.2% in 2012; Level of GDP will return to its pre-recession peak at the end of 2012. It could have been higher but cuts in public spending (both consumption and investment) will HAVE to be made. This is based on the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Ernst & Young, for example, forecast UK GDP growth of 2.7% in 2011 and 3.4% in 2012. See This

Caveats/Disclaimers:

* Size of Budget deficit is still a worry, though (Government borrowing reached a record 11.5% of GDP in 2009-10
under Labour). Now that UK has its Youngest PM in 200 years, and who has also stated that he will cut spending quick and fast, this may be a problem with a solution.

* Unemployment may continue to be a problem in the near term but will never reach double digit %. Spain's unemployment, for example is 20% and France is 10%.

See also:
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10107501.stm
(2) http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/ukeo_mar2010_complete.pdf
(3) http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Issues/Business ... ic-Outlook

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 12 May 2010 07:50

Bhima wrote:Cameron as Brit PM could change U.S. ties

David Cameron becoming Prime Minister is good news for UK-India relationship or as he calls it "special relationship". Britain has actually realised the Anglo-American alliance is no more and Cameron knows this well. This is an exceptional opportunity for India to develop a new relationship with a major world power bruised by not being loved by America and indifferent towards Europe yet having strong relations and influence with both.

Let's hope so. However, actions speak louder than words. And UK-stani establishment policies and actions, that have more often than not directly and seriously hurt Indian interests* regardless of the party in power in Westminister, hasn't changed significantly across the decades, it would seem. Hence, ipso facto, any decline in UQ influence in world affairs, benefits India at least indirectly, IMHO.

*Apart from the more obvious and obnoxious support to every stripe of anti-Indian insurgency and grievance-mobilization, it also reflects, quite ranklingly in the complete lack of formal acknowledgement (forget expression of even insincere regret) of the evils committed in the name of (and expressedly sanctioned by) the crown in India pre-'47.

It is in Indian interest that Yindia and Yindians treat UK-stan with more circumspection and wariness, justifiably given UQ's past record, than has been the case so far. Again, JMTPs only.

Deficit, Debt, QE and gubmint-support driven gdp growth is not == to that driven by consumption due to real wage-rises, and expansion in private sector economic activity. I understand that what was done was necessary to stave off a debt-deflationary spiral into outright depression. Fair enough. There was also the hope that gubmint pump priming the liquidity taps would, sorta, kick-start private sector economic activity. Little evidence of that so far, IMO.

There're some who say there's been a fundamental shift in the world economic outlook. We'll know, soon enough, if that is correct. Till then, better to be sceptical about any and all khanomic claims onlee.

Jai ho and have a nice day, all.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 12 May 2010 08:12

Manu wrote:I suppose I should have added a Bon Appétit! with my previous post. Too much food for thought for some folks.

No body here "likes" the U.K. - or defends past actions (or current Pakiness) anyway.

Good thing that. But why bring in India's problems with its muslim minority into the discussion?

Just don't want to drag down BRF to the level of a Paki forum. There has to be a balance between polemical and analytical.

Quite a low-blow, IMHO. Pakis and paki forums never acknowledge they are wrong about something. Hence, there is no feedback, no learning, nothing there. I would be the first to admit I am wrong about something if facts show it. BRF is a diverse body of opinion, much more so than any paki forum, IMHO. And nobody I know on brf has anything against that diversity in opinion.

Those that think they bestride BRF like an intellectual colossus and make lesser men quiver in awe of their cranial prowess will hopefully realize that a lot of people are not familiar with the intricacies of the UK system, and if we have D&G posts only, it gives them (who rely on BRF for objective opinion and analysis) a very colored view. Not reality.

Great put-down, admittedly. I plead guilty to going too much to the D&G side on the economic front in the past months. That has been rectified, quite a bit though.

Old Blighty, erstwhile Queen of the Waves - is not going under quite yet.

Quite yet is right.

/Sorry, if I came off as arrogant or insensitive or otherwise caused you any offense. Didn't mean to. I remember thinking of your posts in other threads as quite good ones. Apologies, again. Unlike pakis, I know when I'm beat and when to shut up. Have a nice day.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 May 2010 08:40

I met a relative of mine from the UK a couple of weeks ago who was also under the impression that th UK is far from going down, and also felt that the question of Pakistanis in the UK is given far more importance in India than in the UK.

This is clearly a UK viewpoint.

The UK remains a wealthy industrial nation but it is difficult to sit outside and not see its gradual decline as a world power. An Indian can migrate to the UK today (2010) and live a far wealthier and "fuller" life than most Indians for the next 40 years, but when you look at the status of the UK in 30 year time slices - you see a gradual decline and change.

Migrants do change the culture of a nation and once that new culture is absorbed over 30-40 years nobody remembers what it used to be like and the new culture is "normal". A nation that fights new culture is called Xenophobic. A nation that accepts and internalizes new cultures is called "Dhimmic"

The UK today has a far more "Paki" appearance that it used to have in the 1980s. That is now "normal" for the UK. Interestingly in the 80s no UK restaurant (other than Indian ones, or Paki passing off as Indian) would ever place glasses on your table for water. This has now become commonplace. Nothing wrong, but it still remains a powerful indicator of cultural influence. There are many other subtle changes that are mostly evident to the visitor (such as myself) who has visited the UK on and off for the past 30 years or so.

There is an old Indian saying that refers to a man who made enough wealth to last the next seven generations. This is not empty guesswork. The UK itself is a clear example of a nation that got so big and powerful that its wealth and reputation have lasted and will last far longer than its clout as it gradually declines. The world is not a friendly place. If the UK is declining there are already other nations and people who are waiting to show Britain its real place in the world.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 12 May 2010 10:12

surinder wrote:B,

I have seen the Lawrence of Arabia movie. I know of that scene in the movie that hints about some stuff that one would much rather not talk about. What else is there in the book that you can quickly outline in a para or two?

I have seen that movie when I was little. What is this stuff hinted at that people don't want to talk about? I want to know too.

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 12 May 2010 10:35

Hari,

I think we are clearly talking past each other. Since you are somewhat new here, let me tell you - I was the most active poster on the Psy-Ops Thread ('back in the day')- with a sole focus on UK. I am merely saying underestimating your enemies/ill-wishers/rivals leads to the wrong conclusions and that will do no one any good.

I try to bring up the India issue as we have had several "Religion" threads closed on BRF in the past (this is not an Open Shirt/Torn Fly thing). They were getting uncomfortably Non-PC. A lot of very good members like Hauma Hammidha (sp?) etc were lost in the rather heated debates we used to have.

After the threads were closed (without explanation) - the focus then shifted to something like this - "India does have an Islamism Problem - but so does the UK. So there".

My point is that India has *real* problems with Islamism, UK does not. Instead of focusing on our very real problem, we are chasing an imagined problem in UK.

Can't say this directly (well, I have now) to avoid possible crucifixion as an Islamophobe.

BRF should restart the Islamism thread. The real malignancies, from which has grown the frightful cancer of Islamism that has riddled our national fabric, have been the petty opportunism and continual failures of our leadership - this needs to be discussed on BRF.

The context was obviously not there for you - you have taken this kind of personally.

No apologies are needed, please. I am a selfish person, 90% of BRF is learning for me (and what a learning it is), and only 10% is contributing.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 May 2010 10:41

Carl_T wrote:
surinder wrote:B,

I have seen the Lawrence of Arabia movie. I know of that scene in the movie that hints about some stuff that one would much rather not talk about. What else is there in the book that you can quickly outline in a para or two?
I have seen that movie when I was little. What is this stuff hinted at that people don't want to talk about? I want to know too.

I haven't watched the movie but lawrence was said to be homosexual, I believe he either wrote or narrated an incident in homoerotic terms and this was portrayed in the movie.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 12 May 2010 11:35

A UK that is a) more inward looking, b) fixes its problems and c) stops punching above its weight will be a different UK?

The theme in this forum (on many boards) has been that the decline was arrested / postponed due to some factors (Thatcherism, North Sea Oil, Financial bubble etc). But now issues stare at them on their face.

Nevertheless it is a nation that has managed leadership and still has critical mass (not an Italy, Greece or Portugal). Need now for a more British Britain (meaning less international)?

Such a Britain, will a) modernise and reinvest in itself, b) slash defence and foreign office expenses (Remember the "defence against whom" quote?), c) review the relationship with US(repeat review not break off) , and d) calibrate relationship with Europe. Actually one aspect could also be to deepen reach and relationship with India.

Meanwhile NYT says
Cameron Faces Challenges Beyond His Coalition

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 12 May 2010 12:28

Rahul M wrote:I haven't watched the movie but lawrence was said to be homosexual, I believe he either wrote or narrated an incident in homoerotic terms and this was portrayed in the movie.

There is a scene in the movie in which a Turkish Effendi (a police/army officer??) tries some 'homo' techniques on a captured Lawrence. But in the movie atleast Lawrence retaliates heavily. The Turkish officer in return gets Lawrence flogged, and is seen peeping from a slightly open door, watching Lawrence's agony.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 12 May 2010 18:01

It is not just the whipping in the scene. Lawrence did make a reference to being raped in his memoires.
Hompsexual rape is quite common in the arab/turkish/islamic world as a means of punishment and control.
If any of you have watched the comedy film "Airplane", there is a scene when a young boy is visiting the cockpit, he is with the pilot and the pilot asks him (words to the effect) "Have you ever been to a Turkish prison, young man?"

Also in the book "Scramble for Africa", when the British missionaries were carrying on a campaign to stop the arab slave trade, anal rape was commonly inflicted on africans by the arabs, to such an extent it was called "the arab disease".

Moslems always have an issue with sexual repression and this is borne out in their violent obcession with anal sex.
Sad but true.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 May 2010 19:35

Manu wrote:
My point is that India has *real* problems with Islamism, UK does not.

This is a statement that could come from a British politician. But it is not true mainly because the UK is still a wealthy country and a lot of jihadi funds came to Pakistan's "charity" coffers India from Britain. This is not your fault. But that does not mean that there is no "islamism" problem. The problem is not he way you want to see it that is all.

The UK represents a problem that india cannot do much about. Your stout defence of the UK is a parallel track that only shifts focus away from the "islamism" problem that the UK is seen to have. The UK allows islamism to thrive but enforces its own laws over Islamic laws. India does not do that. So the UK does not have an "Islamism problem" like India. But the Islamism that operates under UK laws have been allowed to collect funds for jihad, just like Sri Lankan Tamils in the UK were allowed to collect funds for the LTTE.

The UK has no Irish problem either. It used to have some Northern Ireland related terrorism even up to the eighties when I was there. I recall being evacuated from a train for a suspected IRA bomb. But after the IRA terrorism ended the UK had a terror free break from the late 1980s to the first years of this century. Your insistence that the UK does not have an Islamism problem makes no mention of the fact that the UK is now very much keyed in to the problem of islamist terrorism which the UK has seen in recent years. There have been bomb blasts, attempted bombings and several Islamist terrorists have originated from the Pakistani/Muslim community of the UK.

I know that all this is not considered to be much of a problem by those who live in the admittedly peaceful and civilized society that the UK is, but imagining that it does not exist by pointing a finger at how bad it is in India is definitely an example of wearing blinkers, if not a blatant torn shirt-open fly accusation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 May 2010 19:50

A close friend of mine (for 38 years!) who lives in Scotland, a dark complexioned, very "subcontinental looking" man was sitting at lunchtime in a Scottish hospital doctor's common room one day in 2008 when a Pakistani in a shalwar kameez and Muslim topi came up to him and told him "Chalo. Aaaj jumma hai. Masjid nahin jayenge?" ("Come. Today is Friday. Are you not going to the mosque?"). My friend gave him a dirty look and told him off.

This sort of random mobilization of likely mards to move their ass to the mosque with a blanket assumption that "Asian"=Muslim could start a communal riot in India.

But of course the UK has no Islamism problem.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 12 May 2010 21:52

Ever heard of mozzies, anyone?

I visit the UK frequently, a very good friend of mine is a doc there, married to a native. Like me, he too has gone native. We were for 8 years on the same bunk-bed in a tough boarding school, so you could say we are brothers pretty much. And i've been all over the UK, probably more than some Brits even.

Every year, I notice something that gets me a just a little more worried. It is nothing dramatic, in the sense of an inbound catastrophe, but rather a slow and perhaps systematic (wouldn't rule it out) erosion of Britain's ability to deal with Islam as a proselytizing, absolutist, confident and unreconciling force straining at the boundaries of British tolerance, fair-mindedness and inherent liberalism. It will be interesting to watch how they handle this. For the moment, I think they can.

Last year, I was entering a mid-size British city and I noticed two religious buildings on either side of the high way. One was a mosque, and the other was a church. The mosque's minarets were higher than the steeple of the church, not by much, but clearly. That was what intrigued me. It occurred to me that this could not have been a coincidence, these minarets that were just that bit higher. It occurred to me that someone must have made that decision, to ensure that the minarets would be a little higher. It occurred to me that it must have been a considered decision. Later, since I was staying in the city for a couple of days, I walked around the downtown area extensively as I like to do when I am in a foreign city. Nothing like a good walkabout to observe a city. It was a Sunday afternoon, when people are relaxing and enjoying the company of family, friends, girl or boyfriends and generally fooling about. Near the city centre in an open public space, there was this chap in a business suit, haranguing the general public about the ills of the world, how they could be solved by Islam and would be solved by Islam. Sitting around him scattered here and there were a few sullen young men, dressed in the shalwar. No smiles. A few stragglers stopped, listened and moved on. I watched for a while. There weren't many people interested. I wondered what motivated this man and his obvious supporters to engage in this apparently futile exercise. It dawned on me that this was more than anything else a statement of strength, saying essentially: I am here. This is what I am. I will continue. You can do nothing about it.

Somehow it rattled me. Perhaps it was just my foolishness and misreading of the situation.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 May 2010 22:49

JE Menon wrote: It dawned on me that this was more than anything else a statement of strength, saying essentially: I am here. This is what I am. I will continue. You can do nothing about it.

Somehow it rattled me. Perhaps it was just my foolishness and misreading of the situation.

That is why there will be more movements like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ok4njJXI8

in response to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJwRCv9g88
We are going to see changes in the western world

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 May 2010 23:03

The Swiss Minar ban specifically refer to the islamic political statement made by the height of the minarets. Its common knolwedge that Islam eggs on it followers to snatch the political power of the land they happen to reside.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 13 May 2010 01:45

Yes and talking of political power, here is the list of candidates approved of by the moslem brotherhood.

http://www.bminitiative.net/

http://www.bminitiative.net/bmi/en/deta ... &table=sub

Things are getting hotter in West Pakistan and it is not the spring weather!!!!

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 13 May 2010 01:58

Foreign Challenges Facing David Cameron
Note the writers views on India

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politi ... id_Cameron

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 May 2010 02:07

A LITTLE BRITAIN? - Why Britannia doesn’t matter any more by Mukul Kesavan

...
Those dramas are done, and while Britain hasn’t stopped straining to punch above its weight, the theatrical productions it figures in now get poor reviews. Instead of Thatcher’s little triumph in the Falklands, we have New Labour’s disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of saving socialism or reinstating capitalism or fighting collectivist tyranny, David Cameron and Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown used their campaign debates to parse immigration, spending cuts and electoral reform, looking apprehensively over their shoulders all the while at Europe’s cautionary tale, a bankrupt Greece.
...
...
Certain that Wall Street’s new capitalism and the Pentagon’s unmatched power were going to order the world forever, Blair went to bizarre lengths to stake out Britain’s claim to being America’s most-preferred coat-tail rider. The low point of this abjection was the time he offered to visit Israel to scout out peace prospects in place of the US secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, just so that American prestige wasn’t dented by failure. The idea of the British prime minister being a proxy for America’s foreign minister didn’t appal him because the very real power and influence and prosperity derived from being America’s poodle outweighed any abstract loss of dignity or independence.
...
...
There are some lessons for India in Britain’s predicament. Over the last decade we have seen an Indian tilt towards America. In this time America has tried, with some success, to integrate India into its geopolitical designs: the isolation of Iran, for instance, or the counter-balancing of China.

...

...
Our government endows scholarships and professorships to Oxbridge and the Ivy League, we strain to win honorary membership in an alien club by buying shares in the great institutions of the West. Alien, because it’s clear to everyone except a tiny, deluded anglophone elite, that Indians are not of the West. Not the most fanciful genealogist is going to unearth pedigrees for our prime ministers that make them eighth cousins of the English queen. To bid, despite this, to be seen as honorary Westerners, is nearly as embarrassing as trying to pass as honorary whites.

sunnyP · Post by **sunnyP** » 13 May 2010 02:19

Karan Dixit wrote:I have to agree with Johan as well. It is unfortunate to portray Muslims as troublemakers in UQ. The reality is they (Muslims) are victims of a racist British society, which has completely disenfranchised Muslims (and other Colored folks) in UQ.

---

Have you picked up this paragraph from the Muslim Council of Britain's website? This is exactly the line they use whenever some young British Jihadi is caught in the midst of planning a terror attack.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 May 2010 02:29

Surinder,
T.E.Lawrence in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, bring up four things close to Brit elite institution graduates in the Victorian and post Victorian period (1) homoeroticism not extending to Lesbianism (2) masochism - especially a taste for flogging or the whip (3) "boys oh boys, more boys" (4) male companionship particularly in military or security ventures (with threat of physical risk - including spying) itself as replacement for normal heterogeneous society and somehow religiously/ideologically purer. You will find all four components in the book, where he hints at male rape, flogging, Bedouin fondness for "boys", and his commitment to his brothers with whom he identifies so much that he actually feels "betrayed" by his own government.

Lawrences' process of assimilation with the Arabs and his transformation through the book's description is obvious to anyone who keeps these points in mind. Just to point out, Lawrence here was no exception. Look at for example Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead revisited.

Look at the introduction to the 1997 edition of the Wordsworth Editions Limited, publication of the book - the relevant page is available on Google books (page 17 of intro).

Moreover, the Victorian or colonial Brits were looking at the classics for inspiration - homoeroticism, physical enjoyment of "boys" - older male younger boy relations, flogging and other forms of masochism, and military unit sponsored homoerotic bonds were not seen as abnormal in many stages of Greek and Roman history. Spartans would be extreme examples and Athenians a bit more sophisticated. For Romans just get hold of any good translation of Petronius's Satyricon, or Suetonius' Twelve caesars - especially about Tiberius and Nero.

But in Lawrence we see an aesthetic and psychological connection for the attraction this particular Brit subculture may feel in the Arabic subculture as constructed/imagined/or real. Moreover, we see an uncannily large number of suspected/alleged cases subscribing to this subculture represented in the sub-surface influential men in the politco-military corridors or power at that stage of Brit power.

Since auto-filter drubs it off - I wanted to convey that it was restricted to male version only and not the female version!

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 13 May 2010 02:33

shiv wrote: Your stout defence of the UK is a parallel track that only shifts focus away from the "islamism" problem that the UK is seen to have.

Hakim Sahib,

If only I possessed the divinely flexible gift for a fresh turn of phrase or for delightful keenness of observation - I would post much more often here.

That is NOT my point, at all. I couldn't care less if all of England drowned in the North Sea/Celtic Sea. There is no love lost here. I also couldn't care less if all of England were consumed by Jihad. I am trying to say, why does BR focus so much energy on UK's Islamism problem (the way it effects them) vs how much Islamism effects India? You were Admin when we had the Islamism threads on BR (which were locked and trashed without explanation). You conveniently side stepped that point I made in my post. How the heck is this Torn Shirt/Open Fly?

Is there anybody in the UK (or for that matter, in the entire civilized world) that campaigns for elections with a Osama Bin Laden Look alike for Muslim Votes? No. But that happens in India.

In any event, the only Islamism problem of UK that should bother us is UK based Islamic Terrorism directed at India - nothing else. If the world's Jihadis gather in UK, re-establish Caliphate there - but don't bother with India - I could care less.

Lastly, you are adding insult to injury with that "stout defence of UK" comment. I am only trying for BR readers/members to be aware of *reality* of the UK Economy (and society). Because we wish for something to happen, does not mean it will.

N^3 used to say for years that Pakistan is *Nuke Nude* - thank goodness, no one bought that here. There are folks here who are forecasting an economically ruined Britain in just a few years (like it will sink without a trace). I am here trying to tell folks, it will not. They are nestled comfortably in the bosom of their Trusting and Nonjudgmental Readership - I am providing an alternative view point. Take it FWIW, or ignore it, as you like.

shiv wrote: I know that all this is not considered to be much of a problem by those who live in the admittedly peaceful and civilized society that the UK is, but imagining that it does not exist by pointing a finger at how bad it is in India is definitely an example of wearing blinkers, if not a blatant torn shirt-open fly accusation.

I have lived for a year in UK when I was a 7 year old and went to an Irish School. Other than that, I go there 1-2 times a year for work. I do not live there, nor do I enjoy their "peaceful and civilized" society. I have seen the procession of Orange Men in Belfast and also the Football riots in the "North". It is not so peaceful and civilized as you think it is.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 13 May 2010 03:20

I don't think anyone in their right mind could deny that the UK's Muslim population has serious Islamist streak. It's not just the Pakistanis, but the Somalis (the UK has the largest Somali population in Europe) too.

The problem I think is putting it in perspective...finding its place in the big picture.

The ability of Islamists to flout social conventions and rule of law in little things is replicated in thousands of different ways all across the country. I've seen a huge rise in anti-social behaviour of all sorts across British cities across the last few decades, the product of a popular culture that no longer values personal restraint or consideration as much, and where neighbours simply don't need to rely on or deal with each other as much. The state simply can not replace society in policing social interaction, although it's trying.

Have people wondered why the British press (especially the tabloid and conservative press) runs stories about the outrageous demands and actions of Islamists if British society is already so dhimmified?

It's sort of like arguing that all the stories about muggers and football hooligans mean that the majority of people are going to lose their wallets or be knifed, and that this will be the end of the country.

They don't run these items because people are apathetic or in denial - its in fact the exact opposite - they run the stories because its something the general public consumes compulsively because it finds this sort of thing absolutely outrageous.

In my own experience Islamists today are *very* careful about saying even in private the kinds of things they used to call for routinely in public a decade ago. The laws that were passed have public support, and that support has come from public concern fueled by press reporting.

Bin Laden declared his jihad on Crusaders and Jews in 1998. How many terrorist attacks have there been on British soil since then? Compare it to the first ten years of the Troubles, and look at how many civilian and military casualties the IRA and INLA inflicted.

There WILL be more attacks, and there will be casualties. The effort that has gone in to preventing attacks in the last 7-10 years has been absolutely *enormous*. Not only are the individual attacks deadlier than the IRA, the plots come from many different directions rather than a single, neat, organisation.

Still I think in terms of perspective counter-terrorism initiatives have a bigger impact on broader society and politics than terrorism in the long run. For example, the fact that Britain is the most heavily surveilled society on earth....

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 13 May 2010 03:31

T.E. Lawrence, like Harry Philby were people privileged British men who nevertheless felt like outsiders within their own societies, and tried to get as far away from as possible.

Lawrence because he was an illegitimate son, and gay ("In the desert man lives candidly with man"), Philby because he was simply an irascible contrarian. It should be pointed out that Lawrence eventually fell out of love with the Arabs after the war. Mostly because they fell out of love with him - he made political promises he had no authority to make, and no way of delivering on.

Philby was literally spat on and thrown out of Saudi Arabia by Ibn Saud's son, and settled in the much more cosmopolitan and Western friendly Beirut. That incidentally is why Kim Philby, his equally traitorous son settled treated as a half-way house in the decade between being forced out of MI6 and finally defecting to Moscow.

That's the thing about misfits - after a while even their adopted societies cant really stand them.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 13 May 2010 03:34

The present coalition government needs to work for the betterment of the United Kingdom.
Conservatives should not try to implement completely their election manifesto as it was not accepted completely by the majority. It will also lead UK to isolationist agenda. UK cannot afford to be anti-American, anti-EU and anti-other countries. Some of their policies may differ from Obamas and EU's but one needs to take smoothly. Liberal Democrats too have their election manifesto which is too ideal and too good but cannot be implement only to benefit their party and leaders.

There is a strong feeling among the Scottish of rejection and also of Northern Ireland which need to be slowly tended. Also EU needs more collaboration rather than confrontation particularly during this time of crisis.

One cannot make cuts in every thing to reduce deficit in the budget. One needs to be careful so that those who are affected by the cuts have another way of support. Otherwise the country returns to Thatcherite policy of making rich more richer and poor poorer.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 13 May 2010 03:36

Johann, UK could not (or did not) contemplate re-running the Danish cartoons in solidarity as other countries of N. Europe did. The risk of punishment at the hands of RoP'ers was way too much of a risk to take. Societal dhimmification happens in subtle and strange ways, but most importantly it is the relative changes that are noted by outsiders. It can simply be small accomodations and small capitulations just to keep peace and semblence of community peace. The level at which the RoP'ers grate the society is hard to gauge simply by government policies.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 13 May 2010 04:02

Surinder,

What I'm saying is that there has been an explosion in violent, socially subversive public behaviour all across British cities in the last few decades. There is a fear of street crime (and the numbers do show a huge increase) of all sorts that has vastly increased over this time.

I'm saying this as someone who has actually spent most of his life outside the UK, and who is a visitor, like many other people here.

It is not simply thuggish Islamists who are able to project a presence in their areas - its parts of deprived and working class neighborhoods of every ethnicity, and some of the shopping or nightspots or public transportation in the city centre at certain times.

There's a very good reason why 'cohesion' is now a ministerial portfolio, because it's a major issue in urban life. Has society given up? Not as far as I can see - but they are cautious about how they want to tackle any difficult social problem. You don't see a lot armed police for example, whether in high crime areas, or even around the kind of places that are at the top of terrorists targeting lists.

I'd very much like to continue this discussion, but I'm going to have to be offline for the next two months. Cheers everyone.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 13 May 2010 04:58

Johann, thanks for the answers. I hope I was not offensive.

Where are you going that you cannot access the internet?

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 13 May 2010 05:33

Right on cue, Mukul Kesavan has this take in the telegraph....

A LITTLE BRITAIN? - Why Britannia doesn’t matter any more
http://telegraphindia.com/1100513/jsp/o ... 440452.jsp

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 May 2010 07:19

Johann wrote: In my own experience Islamists today are *very* careful about saying even in private the kinds of things they used to call for routinely in public a decade ago. The laws that were passed have public support, and that support has come from public concern fueled by press reporting.

<snip>

Still I think in terms of perspective counter-terrorism initiatives have a bigger impact on broader society and politics than terrorism in the long run. For example, the fact that Britain is the most heavily surveilled society on earth....

If this is stated in another way, you find that Islamism has its place within the framework of British society and is allowed to exist within th framework of British laws.

So this is happening in Britain. Not in India and we need not really be bothered except that among anglophone Indians there are memories and tales of Britain and its society that go back well over a century. "Living memory" itself extends back over 70 years - you still get Indian octagenarians who remember the Britain of the 1930s. I have family records of my grandfather in Britain in the 1912 to 1916 period.

So there is a fairly clear picture of what Britain used to be like to compare with the Britain of today. The fact that there is hooliganism in Britain still does not cover up the fact that Islamism was actually given shelter in Britain and has now established itself as a political force in Britain - albeit small.

Football hooligans were perhaps the most irritating of British hooligans in the 80s although there were other yobs like punks and skinheads who popped up now and again. To a large extent they were both white and racist. This was a time when Britain freely imported "subcontinental" citizens - Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and you guessed it "Kashmiris". All these people added a splash of color to the tail end of empire. The political differences between these colored people were there even then, but they were all invariably clubbed together and the political differences were treated like little disagreements between toddlers while Brittania decided who was important and who was not. With Indian political concerns being at the bottom of the heap, the British need to be "fair" to Pakistan and Kashmiris allowed a community of Islamists to flourish. For a drunken Brit gang wandering through an inner city area singing a football song the brown locals were all the same. The red-dot wearing Indian was no different from the real Paki. All were Pakis anyway. And this is how the police and government too viewed immigrants - as a monochrome whole with no differences.

But guess what happened? Indians ended up being law abiding and by and large, better performers in school, more educated and ended up "joining" Britain and turning native. Pakis did what they do - did not study, remained jobless on the dole, collected that money for terrorist training in Pakistan and claimed a special identity. To their credit they carved that special identity for themselves in Britain and British Muslims. The two nation theory in Britain.

Is it any wonder that Indians now see Britain as Britainistan? Britain has done some serious downhill skiing, and hiding behind the excuse that Johann has given - i.e. that everyone is a yob in Britain, not just Pakis is a feeble tactic that fails to hide the fact that Britain is now having to deal with a fissiparous Islamic two nation theory group whose main allegiance is outside Britain. If Britain has more pressing problems - well it only shows how far Britainistan has fallen.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 May 2010 09:30

shiv wrote:
But guess what happened? Indians ended up being law abiding and by and large, better performers in school, more educated and ended up "joining" Britain and turning native. Pakis did what they do - did not study, remained jobless on the dole, collected that money for terrorist training in Pakistan and claimed a special identity. To their credit they carved that special identity for themselves in Britain and British Muslims. The two nation theory in Britain.

Is it any wonder that Indians now see Britain as Britainistan? Britain has done some serious downhill skiing, and hiding behind the excuse that Johann has given - i.e. that everyone is a yob in Britain, not just Pakis is a feeble tactic that fails to hide the fact that Britain is now having to deal with a fissiparous Islamic two nation theory group whose main allegiance is outside Britain. If Britain has more pressing problems - well it only shows how far Britainistan has fallen.

Shiv ji,

This is a perspicacious insight and gives rise to a train of thought.

The colonial birds are vindictively coming home to roost.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 May 2010 09:40

Its onlee 60+ years since they lost the Crown in Empire . It will be less than a century before they become the Clown of Crown in same Empire. They are lucky that Indians dont hold the grudge but they must made to feel and tatse the civilizational strength with the return of Indics whom they tried best to extinguish in every possible way, using all genocidal methods available to them.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 May 2010 23:42

Should be OK, na?

She seems to have all the same normal healthy interests of a paki man!

The new UK prime minister chappie seems more dhimmi than the last.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pak-origi ... 43072.aspx

Pakistani-origin woman is Conservative Party chairperson

Indo-Asian News Service
London, May 13, 2010

Sayeeda Warsi, an unelected member of the House of Lords, said after being named a cabinet minister in Britain's new government that she was proud of being "from working class, of Muslim faith and of Pakistani background".

............................................

She has been a leading campaigner for awareness and stronger legislation on issues like forced marriages and female genital mutilation.

praksam · Post by **praksam** » 14 May 2010 01:09

Dear Mr. Cameron: 10 Things You Can Learn from India

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... ORDS=INDIA

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 May 2010 02:10

chetak wrote:Should be OK, na?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pak-origi ... 43072.aspx

Pakistani-origin woman is Conservative Party chairperson
Sayeeda Warsi, an unelected member of the House of Lords, said after being named a cabinet minister in Britain's new government that she was proud of being "from working class, of Muslim faith and of Pakistani background".

my understanding is that warsi has tried to speak against the islamists a few times and often been harangued by them in the past. she presents herself as mainstream - as indeed she must - in order to gain the confidence of the party leadership. i believe that she has also dabbled in the Kore Kause rhetoric a few times - anything for popularity

the tories have also been cultivating indian origin future MP candidates - i have met a few. they will be groomed to run for parliament in a few elections time. all are highly educated, sufficiently anglicised, and i atleast have not met any amongst them who is muslim. traditionally, the indian vote has gone to labour, because the tories were "BNP in suits" - or atleast they had a far right element and many educated indian enthu 'kids' migrated towards the labour agenda and worked for the party or strongly supported it. the tories are playing catch up.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 May 2010 02:22

Vicious public disorder, breakdown of basic norms in social interactions, criminality in seedy urban or semi-urban underbellies - all this has been part of British life for centuries. In fact in past centuries they were sometimes even more vicious than the 80's or current decade of teenage fondness for the knife or "gangbangs".

The British society which identifies itself as "white" is definitely aware and concerned. But as with most other societies that have fallen from a sense of dominance, they would like to see the devil in the "other" - the "outsider" devil in their own society which is causing the disruption. Moreover, there is a solid amount of sociological data that shows that even though the same orders of criminality and outrageous behaviour exists in all ethnic groups - the devil is in the actual proportion with respect to each group. In this, Caribbean+African+Pakistani score disproportionately high in actual population group size compared to British, continental European white, Indians. Muslims on an average score higher than Christians or Hindus and Buddhists.

Having said that, the impact of this criminality in terms of capital flow involved is higher in the "white/Christian" sector compared to the "non-white/non-Christian" sector. Major drugs and crime syndicates are controlled by authentic white/Brits with their white European counterparts across the channel. While Pakistanis+Caribbeans+Africans are involved in the lower end of that network and in petty local-hood based crime and profiteering. So their overall share of benefits from criminality in monetary terms are much less.

The British veneer of social control as mythically propagandized in the Victorian period (it all simply went under the table and flourished compared to the early Regency period) was destroyed in stages through the aftermath of the two European wars. The second one was particularly destructive because it broke most of the official Victorian era remnants of sexual and moral codes. Those surviving the war were no longer confident of the values of restraint in the satisfaction of their instantaneous desires. This came out in different forms in the 60's and 70's from the children who saw destruction and self-abrogation of the moral impact of their seniors behaviour during and immediately after the war. Their lackof commitment to look after social cohesion and mores in this generation contributed to the further social barbarism of the next generation in the 80's.

The temporary backlash in Thatcherism, was gone in a whiff. However nothing could be done to prevent the further erosion of social values because "every" deviation had to be tolerated on selective cultural/political [compensating for historical trauma is only justified if it is claimed by admired groups like Islamists etc] twistings - so that various community leaderships could take advantage of trying to carve out their identity based power which also allowed overlooking outrages by elements of these communities.

Now the Brits are at a stage where they will be forced to confront these issues. However, my projection will be that the new gov will be forced to target the softer ones - such as say cracking down on Indians and Russians using the EU-non-EU cover because these are the people who may match brains with the cornered Brits. However, in spite of lots of pep-talk, nothing serious will happen to the Pakis, Islamists in general, or those EU components who are known to be involved in trafficking of both live and material commodities to satisfy the taste buds of Brit connoisseurs.

I also think Labour may make a surprising come back, before a full term.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 14 May 2010 03:24

Jupiter saab, good post on the latent homoeroticism and Lawrence's dalliances in the desert....only homoeroticism in the British public school class may be more a narcissism than love of fellow man.

Bhima · Post by **Bhima** » 14 May 2010 03:31

IMO the inclusion of token brown face Warsi in the cabinet is nothing more than a PR stunt. She will hold no portfolio. Makes sense to promote a Conservative member of the Pakistani Muslim community, a female at that, to the most powerful group of UK policy makers in a role that is frankly nothing more than a glorified group organiser/spokesman. Look forward to seeing her explain why the Pakistani Muslim population is suffering disproportionate suspicion, surveillance, and downright hounding.

Here she is in action against "extremist" Pakistani Muslim men.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 May 2010 08:08

I found something on 1857 event

Charles Dickens: "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I
should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment
by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to
exterminate the race."

Karl Marx: "The question is not whether the English had a right to
conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the
Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton."

L'Estaffette, French newspaper: "Intervene in favour of the Indians,
launch all our squadrons on the seas, join our efforts with those of
Russia against British India ...such is the only policy truly worthy
of the glorious traditions of France."

The Guardian: "We sincerely hope that the terrible lesson thus taught
will never be forgotten ... We may rely on native bayonets, but they
must be officered by Europeans."

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 May 2010 09:37

praksam wrote:Dear Mr. Cameron: 10 Things You Can Learn from India

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... ORDS=INDIA

^^ Comment from above article:

*
* Pakistani in UK wrote:

Indeed Cameron is set to cement the UK’s relationship with Pakistan. Since Pakistan is a indispensable power in South Asia and our historical linkages run deeper than between India, one should see our democracies flourish. .

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 May 2010 11:46

sanjaykumar wrote:Jupiter saab, good post on the latent homoeroticism and Lawrence's dalliances in the desert....only homoeroticism in the British public school class may be more a narcissism than love of fellow man.

post 1857 young british officers were discouraged from social dalliances with indian women which ended the white nawab era. these young men also had restricted access to the few memsahibs in india, and were often posted out in the wilds with lots of other men and encouraged to spend more time playing sports to divert their energies. if they couldn't get hold of "nautch girls" or the usual 'noblese oblige' on local women which was certainly known in India and they found themselves spending a lot of time with communities where 'peachy bottom appreciation' was inherent, then it is not very surprising that they found common ground. However i think that these were still the exception and not the rule, lawrence was a 'bright star' and these people tend to have more complex facets to their characters than mango people, amongst which is homosexuality. i would say that mainstream british society remains fairly homophobic, or these days, perhaps more homoneutral.