Ok, Let me clarify one thing. I was not talking about "developing nations" in the classical, economic sense but nations where "nation building" is going on.
Wherever it already happened (Nation building that is and specifically in Europe), Nationalism, for the good part, brought about unifications often with violence and wars etc (Example: Divisions of the European nations -reunification of Italy and Germany and to the breakup of Austria-Hungary).
They were not "developed" in the economic/classical sense, nor was "Democracy and Human rights" was their goal. They all came later. So is this event the onset of modern history?
Nation building is not about building nations, but it is about common sense of identity. It does not guarantee a "state". The identity was forged by imposing language, culture etc. There are different ways to go about building a nation, nationalism being one of them.
Here is the quick segue into history, revisionism and perception of identity etc. when did "modern" history begin. So, the thought process went.
Anyways, I believe poor choice of a phrase (on my part) led you on the economic sense of "development" (??) but I was thinking in terms of society & nation formation in India, how do we then define such a period in our history when all the history that we know of, comes out of revisionism [France's ancestors were Gauls only after their History books said so, before that it was not in french consciousness, but Indians have no such issues but we are being told otherwise;-)].
11-18-2006, 01:57 AM (This post was last modified: 11-18-2006, 02:00 AM by Sunder.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont believe that a India without Muslims is possible, you cannot ignore some 15 Cr. population just like that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are talking about the human potential of 15 crore individuals, I agree you cannot ignore them, and have can definitely include the 15 crore in the development of the Nation. What we can do without is the idealogy of the 15 Crore which is detrimental to the progress of the nation. The idealogy which turns a sizeable amount of the 15 crore into fifth-column, and is a threat to the internal security. This idealogy is something we can definitely live without. I do not see how this idealogy can bring progress to, or enrich the time tested methodologies of the Bharat.
If at all there is any lack of progress in this land called Bharath; if at all there was a degradation in Her citizens' pride in themselves; if at all there was an urtter deprivation of knowledge, it was precisely owing to this stone-age idealogy that saw progress in destruction of knowledge and reason. Thus we can progress in leaps and bounds once we retain the 15 crore devoid of this idealogy.
11-18-2006, 03:08 AM (This post was last modified: 11-18-2006, 03:14 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
How could Jai Singh share any commonality with Muslims, people who were oppressing and terrorising his community?
Do you ask if the Jews had any commonalities with Nazis under Hitler?
The Muslims were the opressors not Sawai Jai Singh and no self respecting Hindu of those times would go around trying to act as if he and the Muslims belonged to one nation while the former were trying to root out Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if the Marathas gained the upper hand, considering the way they handled conquered provinces, you would agree that it seems unimaginable that they would have been able to govern them properly. Can you imagine India wide railroads, common postal system, telegraphy, common civil service comign in place within another 100-120 years in this kind of background.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did the Brits govern us properly?
How many famines happened under the British and how many millions died because of British greed?
Compared to that, I am pretty sure Marathas would have done much better.
And colonialism is not prerequisite for railways or the other things you mention, countries like Japan which didn't have colonialism as we did also have these things today.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did he share a sense of commonality with any Mussalman of those times. Now maybe these are different perspectives in which we view things. Is being Hindu alone fully define being Indian, which would mean other religions count for nothing. Anyways this is a wholly different debate. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already answered this, no he did not share any commonality with bigots who were oppressing members of his community.
You were the one who brought up the topic about commonality between a "Jat and a Tamil", I said yes they knew what they had in common, I never said that the Hindus and Muslims shared anything in common but the Hindu community (who formed the bulk of Jats and Tamils of those times) knew what they had in common despite linguistic differences.
Let me make it clear, the majority of Indians of those times (except the Muslims and Christians) knew what they had in common, Hindus formed the bulk of the population (over 80%) and had a shared culture, even the Sikhs knew what they had in common with Hindus which was why they made cow slaughter punishable with death when they gained power and invaded Kashmir upon the request of the KP's.
By the same token how many Hindus and Muslims saw themselves as being one nation under the British, after all if they saw it that way then we wouldn't have hade partition in the first place, anyway Islam effectively bars any such thinking of common nationality between Muslims and kafirs, so what didn't happen in the last 1000 years will not happen in the ensuing 1000 years.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But then after defeating us, they put in railroads, telegraphy, roadways, civil service, education system so that they can get the most from their conquered territories. But these also served to bring about a political unity and without that political unity, national spirit would not have emerged. This is what I have tried to establish, that consolidation helps to bring about development and the emergence of a modern state. <b>Without the British, the present modern Indian state is impossible to imagine</b>...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Now that I understand what "modern" is, I must say, IMO, this is pre-modern intellectual exercise when western colonial dialectic was exported to natives, to legitimize colonialism.. what next? British saved India from Indians, civilized us for 150 years and handed over the country to the coconuts, who go on to spin old theories of benevolent imperialism and colonialism.. Marx too agreed with this notion - bringing progress and civilization dispelling superstition and ignorance and nonsense. Sorry, aint no big fan or follower of "culture of colonialism". Guess, that is not being modern, heck, so be it.
British didn't <b>give</b> railways to India. If you be so inclined, do some research to find out, who paid for all the people involved in building the railways, its labourers and its pampered british overlords.
All that was <b>INDIAN MONEY</b>. And who benefited the most from it? THE BRITISH. They could move their army from Assam to NWFP with the help of the railways, and transport the cheap raw goods to ports for export to england, where value addition was done, and manufactured goods were dumped on the Indians' heads again using the same railways. British very gainfully maintained their empire through the railways. <b> And all that at India's expense. Britain in the net never paid a penny to India, and took away a lot</b>.
India and Indians have absolutely nothing to thank the British for the railways. For all the cost to India and Indians caused by the railways by helping maintain the exploitative british empire, we could have bought 1000 times better railways system in the open market.
"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called <b>"Hindu Renaissance</b> of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
A colonialist or eurocentric would consider the modern age of India to coincide with the advent of colonialism, as in his eyes, India then left behind its morass of old systems and was introduced to the "civilizing" touch of Europe.
If you ask Muslims, they may think Muhammad Ghori brought "modernity" to India. In Pakistan at least pre Ghori period in India is called "Jahiliya" or period of ignorance or darkness.
What is the point of buying into other's definition of ourselves? Wouldn't it be best if we ourselves figure out who we are?
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 18 2006, 10:25 AM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 18 2006, 10:25 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Now that I understand what "modern" is, I must say, IMO, this is pre-modern intellectual exercise when western colonial dialectic was exported to natives, to legitimize colonialism.. what next? British saved India from Indians, civilized us for 150 years and handed over the country to the coconuts, who go on to spin old theories of benevolent imperialism and colonialism.. Marx too agreed with this notion - bringing progress and civilization dispelling superstition and ignorance and nonsense. Sorry, aint no big fan or follower of "culture of colonialism". Guess, that is not being modern, heck, so be it.
[right][snapback]60974[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok...so please tell me what you consider as modern. And please read what i have to say in its entirety. Kindly dont just focus on a few words or phrases.
Secondly I want to clarify, <b>I consider the British not as benevolent fathers</b>, when I said that we need to be thank them, it was rather in a humorous vein. We need not be grateful for the British, they tried to divide us, not unite. <b>They did what was in their self interest </b>and if you go thru what I have written, thats what I've said. I'm no zombie to take Britishers side.
Let me put it this way, with the political conditions of the eighteenth century, it would have been unimaginable that some colonial power would not have taken political control over India. If not the British, maybe the French would have colonised us. Even if it were not wholesale colonization, we would still have been under some form of strong influence of one of these powers.
One of the posts said, that the British exploited us and we need not be grateful for them for anything. I completely accept what you say. But it would be naive to think that had not the British colonized us and exploited us, we would have been well off or that but for the British, we would still have been "Sone ki chidiya". What I want to say is simply this, if it were not the British, it would have been someone else. Ok so you will say, if nobody colonized us we would have been well off. We'll consider that possibility also.
In the last post I considered a scenario, where assuming no British, French presence in the eighteenth century, what would have happened in the 18th century and thereafter. Lets take it one step further. Lets assume that even in the 19th or 20th century nobody could colonize us, what would have happened. Lets say we would have been fortunate to get away with only mild colonial influence. Even these are possible. Lets say if Napolean would have sustained himself and maintained stranglehold over entire Europe, then English would have been more preoccupied with him and the French also would have been kept busy in the Continent, with the English being en everpresent threat. It is possible, though it is something that would have been beyond Indian control. Now how would India of today be different if this were the scenario. I have my own ideas. But I would like to first hear your inputs and then maybe we can discuss further.
Discussion on a topic like this is fraught with dangers of misundertanding - starting from the title itself.
1) A lot hinges on the definition of modernity:Obviously people on the thread see "modern" differently
2) The tendency to see India/Asia as an isolated entity from the west. Eurasia was always connected to greater or lesser degrees historically and ideas beginning at one end may land up at the other with the whole system being connected. So many concepts seen as European and Western may simply be of more general Eurasian provenance having origins elsewhere but aggressively sold by the west.
3) Tendency to believe that such changes are step functions and not gradual processes where the "ground slowly shifts under the ground". It is better people are on the same page before talking past each other.
To give a non-political example:
West portrays a few points as the triumphant result of its scientific modernization:
1)The rise of the heliocentric model via Tycho and then Kepler 2) Rise of coordinate geometry 3) Calculus and the use as these mathematical ideas as a "world-view" to understand nature. 4) Ideal gas and electro-magnetism. 6) Concept of chemical elements 7)theory of Evolution.
The general western historical model is that these elements of modernization developed in the west and came to india with brahmin pandits resisting it as it contradicted their pauraNic delusions. But a more careful analysis shows that this is far from the truth and the development of modern science in Europe happened only because it was linked to Asia and key ideas flowed in as a result.
So we must realize study history more careful before accepting certain models of Maharattas or other Indian rulers. Note the grudging acceptance of Cooper.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Nov 18 2006, 05:46 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Nov 18 2006, 05:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
One of the posts said, that the British exploited us and we need not be grateful for them for anything. I completely accept what you say. But it would be naive to think that had not the British colonized us and exploited us, we would have been well off or that but for the British, we would still have been "Sone ki chidiya". What I want to say is simply this, if it were not the British, it would have been someone else. Ok so you will say, if nobody colonized us we would have been well off. We'll consider that possibility also.
In the last post I considered a scenario, where assuming no British, French presence in the eighteenth century, what would have happened in the 18th century and thereafter. Lets take it one step further. Lets assume that even in the 19th or 20th century nobody could colonize us, what would have happened. Lets say we would have been fortunate to get away with only mild colonial influence. Even these are possible. Lets say if Napolean would have sustained himself and maintained stranglehold over entire Europe, then English would have been more preoccupied with him and the French also would have been kept busy in the Continent, with the English being en everpresent threat. It is possible, though it is something that would have been beyond Indian control. Now how would India of today be different if this were the scenario. I have my own ideas. But I would like to first hear your inputs and then maybe we can discuss further.
[right][snapback]60985[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok, so you want to play the counterfactual history game..?? Then we need an interprative grid or a framework, definitions, indicators of a "state" - such as what is "modern" state (not as in nation state) etc within which one can operate. Otherwise there will be no end to speculation.
The fictional market's been cornered by Marxists historians and Western Indologists. So, let's stick please with facts and leave role playing to the 'experts'.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Nov 23 2006, 05:00 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Nov 23 2006, 05:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The fictional market's been cornered by Marxists historians and Western Indologists. So, let's stick please with facts and leave role playing to the 'experts'.
[right][snapback]61168[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are getting deeper and deeper. Maybe thats the great thing about a discussion, you question each other and together get into a deeper meaning of things.
Thanks Mr. Ram for giving me this term "counterfactual" for the arguments put across earlier. Viren, I have a my own view of history, which you may not agree with. Thats where all my arguments come from. Hence let me put across the way I look at history. To start by giving an example. There are a whole lot of events that occur today. Dozens of TV news channels and other media bombard us with information 24x7. So necessarily there is no dearth of sources of information. Yet take any issue even with all the facts available, a dozen commentators on the subject will give wholly different views. Say the question is "Who is responsible for Indian cricket team's debacle at Durban two days back". The match broadcast live to crores of cricket fans across the country. W.r.t to cricket even the average man in the street has an opinion. With everybody having the same facts with them, you speak to a dozen people, you will get as many different opinions. This is with regards to something happening live, with many sources of information, different commentators having analyzed it from every angle possible. The point is you cannot give a definite prognosis, that this happened because of this, that this person was responsible or X is this kind of man. I admire Sourav Ganguly, there are many who like him, but as many who detest him. The information or facts available to those who like him or detest him is not very different. Yet is produces antipodal reactions, so much so that any discusssion on such issues becomes very emotional. Another point is when we discuss any issue, we need to understand that different people will have different points of view based on their background, education and biases. We all have biases. Maybe as Mr Ram says I have a colonialist bias and maybe you can bring me to a balanced view of things, but please be open to the fact that I can do the same to you and accept it as such. Otherwise we'll find each other a wall of rock.
With so many facts available we still cannot be definite about the present, then how with less amount and more vagueness in information, we can make definite claims about the past. When we quote sources of history, should we also not look at what kind of biases the writer had and how do we adjust it to interpret history. Lets say a thousand years from now, there is no other source of information on the "Kargil War" save Musharraf's autobiography. And if people start quoting it verbatim, without trying to understand Musharraf's bais and interests, then it would make a hero out of Musharraf and a villian out of India. I hope I am not baised on this, but based on what I know of Kargil War, Musharrafs book at least in the Kargil section (from what I know whats written in it thru media) is mostly a bunch of lies. Secondly by removing interpretation from the study of history, I believe you are removing something very essential to the study of history. Take Achyuta Deva Raya, the step brother of Krishna Deva Raya. His reign over Vijayanagar was during a tumultous period. There can be so many different interpretations of his personality based on the same facts. Some people can sympathetically view him as a courageous, capable person braving tough circumstances, others can see him at best as incompetent. I also think we should not let the "fictional" (I would put it as interpretative) market cornered by only certain sections, as interpretations by like minded people will not remove their inherent biases. Please excuse this long digression from the main topic.
karthiksri, there are two natures/methods of historical study (broadly, AFAIK) - Analytic history and Speculative (and a variant, counterfactual) history. If analytic history is what you want, that is one story. I agree, there is use and abuse of history, there is a definite need to get to the bottom of that. No question about it. If it is Speculative, then, any theory/scenario goes without some boundaries, and/or by default gets driven by ideologies and biases. For example, the very framing of the thread "When did India become modern"? has bias bult into it.
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 24 2006, 11:46 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 24 2006, 11:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->karthiksri, there are two natures/methods of historical study (broadly, AFAIK) - Analytic history and Speculative (and a variant, counterfactual) history. If analytic history is what you want, that is one story. I agree, there is use and abuse of history, there is a definite need to get to the bottom of that. No question about it. If it is Speculative, then, any theory/scenario goes without some boundaries, and/or by default gets driven by ideologies.
[right][snapback]61263[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't this the classic way of putting the blame on the tool rather than the user.
Sir, you tend to give terms to everything. Perhaps that can lead to stereotyping things. But using your terms Analytical and Speculative; In the wiki link on counterfactual it is mentioned that it is based on reasoning. So counterfactual or analytical are basically logical tools. Basically, I guess, we understand, that in history we have to interpret facts and in order to remove inherent biases we would like to make the interepretation as much close to exact as possible (though we can never be exact). To do that and to get at the bottom of the truth, we have to use some reasoning tools. So there's no point blaming the tools. Ideologies are the preserve of the people who interpret, not the methodologies used to interpret. So if we all in this forum believe that we can interpret the issue at hand purely on basis of logical reasoning, trying as much as possible not to bring our ideologies into it, then we can start using these tools. One way of nullifying the idealogy effect is to put all our earlier conclusions to the backburner and looking at the issue at hand afresh and being open to whatever conclusions come out of the reasoning process.
To use your cricketing analogy - I might Ganguly like him based on his cricketing stats while my teenage niece might like him because he looks 'cool' on TV ad. And we could have a third person who blames him for botching up the match since he's been devoting too much time to his advertising/modeling career. While all opinions are valid in it's place, a reference framework is important for any kind of reasoning to make sense.
To use your cricketing analogy - I might Ganguly like him based on his cricketing stats while my teenage niece might like him because he looks 'cool' on TV ad. And we could have a third person who blames him for botching up the match since he's been devoting too much time to his advertising/modeling career. While all opinions are valid in it's place, a reference framework is important for any kind of reasoning to make sense.
More as I thread evolves.
[right][snapback]61273[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, what I meant was the same set of facts. In this case the cricketing stats of Ganguly, for the purpose of deciding his position vis-a-vis the India cricket team. Former cricketers, commentators, board administrators, even selectors will reach at different conclusions based on the same data. There can be different view points on whether he should be in team or not, whether he should be the captain or not, should he be permanently kept out of India team or temporarily. In our case, in interpretation of history, needless to say, it should have a sound basis on the facts.
I have been thinking about the first 'modern' revolution in the Western Europe. I have narrowed it down to the Guy Fawkes plot to kill the English King. This is the first instance of the commons plotting to get rid of the King. All previous plots were palace or court intrigues for regime change. From this flows the Parliamentary revolution that led to the demise of King Charles, the restoration, to the Glorious Revolution in 1680s. The American colonists revolted against the English King and then the French Revolution.
I am curious about this Guy Fawkes guy? Who was he? What was his point of view? Are there Englishmen still with the name Fawkes? Is it related to Fox or other variants?
If it's historical, 'modern India' was born at the time of industrial revolution.
OTOH, if 'modern' refers to advancement, then one must submit that India is not a modern nation. There is a lack of advancement in various fields, including technology, medicine, and so on. Human rights abuses are rampant. Basic hygeine is missing. All this is hardly modern.
<!--QuoteBegin-suresh+Nov 26 2006, 06:14 PM-->QUOTE(suresh @ Nov 26 2006, 06:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If it's historical, 'modern India' was born at the time of industrial revolution.
OTOH, if 'modern' refers to advancement, then one must submit that India is not a modern nation. There is a lack of advancement in various fields, including technology, medicine, and so on. Human rights abuses are rampant. Basic hygeine is missing. All this is hardly modern.
[right][snapback]61367[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a very generalized statement. By your standards more than half the countries in the modern world would not be "modern". But I guess if you see the history over a period of time, you would definitely see a lot of difference between India in 1900s and India in recent times. So also there would be a lot of difference between India of 18th century vis-a-vis 19th century.
We need to maybe decide on the changes that had made our nation decidedly modern.
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Nov 26 2006, 08:29 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Nov 26 2006, 08:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am curious about this Guy Fawkes guy? Who was he? What was his point of view? Are there Englishmen still with the name Fawkes? Is it related to Fox or other variants?
[right][snapback]61358[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hans Lyngby Jepsen. Det gode selskab. Copenhagen. Lindhardt & Ringhof. 1999. 235 pages. 298 kr. ISBN 87-595-1246-6.
HANS LYNGBY JEPSEN has followed his first novel, Krudt under Parlamentet (Gun-powder under Parliament; 1971), on the <b>5 November 1605 plot against the English monarch and Parliament devised and led by Guy Fawkes and a contingent of lay Catholics and members of the Society of Jesus or Jesuits, with a second work, Det gode selskab (The Good Society</b>). Narrated by a Jesuit co-conspirator, Oswald Tesmond, Det gode selskab <b>records the failure of a revolution; of an effort to reestablish Catholicism in government, in schools, and as the state church; and of a coup d'etat against King James I and the reactionary Protestant Parliament</b>.
Tesmond's story is one of loneliness, wandering, institutional and individual cruelty and intolerance, and, finally, of anonymity and ghostlike disappearance within the fabric of an increasingly rigid, vindictive English society bent on erasing all traces of Catholic heritage and individual Catholics. Tesmond himself comes across as a rather idealistic, well-meaning young Jesuit sent home to England from Spain and immediately engulfed in the conspiracy. He strikes us as a lonely soul, condemned to a life in hiding, eventually forced to separate from his brothers, his mentors, and his own small congregation. A survivor of sorts, Tesmond escapes England to become a teacher in a small, obscure continental village: "I was on the earth where I once again dared be what I was, one of the Brothers of the Society of Jesus."
In addition to focusing on the Gun-powder Plot led by Robert Catesby,<b> Guy Fawkes, and the Jesuits</b>, Jepsen offers the reader a careful depiction of the Jesuit Society and the fate of English Catholics in Protestant England: for their faith, Jesuits and lay Catholics endure trials, confinement in the dreaded Tower, torture, and death on the decree of James I and Parliament, and particularly on the orders of Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury and leader of the government. <b>The Gun-powder Plot, an idealistic but ill-conceived and unrealistic project at best, suffers from poor and inadequate planning, from confusion concerning goals and objectives, and from betrayal. The ambitious plan to reconvert England seems doomed from start to finish</b>. Open combat between the Catholic conspirators and the soldiers of Parliament at Holbeche leads to the uncovering of the plot, then to the trial, conviction, and execution of eight conspirators, among them Catesby, Fawkes, John and Kit Wright, and the Winter brothers, Thomas and Robert.
The trail of blood -- and of hatred and persecution -- <b>eventually leads the government to the leader of the Society of Jesus in England</b>, Henry Garnet, a kindly, sincere elderly man who shares the same tragic fate as the active conspirators, becoming a martyr and winning "what was worth winning, divine and earthly love, eternal salvation, undying recognition, his star." By contrast, Tesmond escapes the repercussions of the failed Gunpowder Plot but only reaps hatred in his own land and loneliness and despair abroad. His life is one of "unhappiness and longing," so much so that he would gladly have traded places even briefly with Garnet. Tesmond has escaped torture and death, but he has failed to escape the bitterness, loneliness, and anonymity that have become his companions.
Det gode selskab is an accurate account of troubled lives, troubled times, troubled people, remembered by a participant who ends up on the sidelines of the fray, in permanent exile and obscurity. It presents a fine picture of early seventeenth-century England, the Society of Jesus, an age of political and personal conspiracies, and one very lost and lonely protagonist, Oswald Tesmond.
Lanae Hjortsvang Isaacson San Jose, California
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
