I am importing the relevant posts from the Gandhi thread. The thesis of this discussion has been set forth in detail in a chapter called the 'South Asia File" in a book jointly authored by acharya and me
It was Sarojini Naidu, in a now famous quote was overheard remarking to Mountbatten (and i paraphrase)_that' you would be surprised Lord Louis, at how much it costs the Congress to keep Gandhiji in poverty'. It was well known that Gandhi was a fastidious man in many respects. Simply wearing a loin cloth does not make for simple living.
But that is not the crux of my assertion. My point is that Gandhi (and to a large extent Nehru) were afforded many facilities like writing materials and books and a desk during their incarceration which were not afforded to those like Savarkar who were sentenced to hard labor. What is the point of this assertion ? The point is that such an incarceration was not such a great hardship and was relatively benign compared to those who were sentenced to hard laborand therefore did not indicate a high level of courage on the part of Gandhiji knowing that the punishiment was easily bearable. The issue of whether Gandhiji cared for these luxuries is irrelevant, but the fact that they were there, puts a question mark on whether there was any real courage involved in his courting arrest.
Another point needs to be made. During his entire stay in South Africa, Gandhiji remained a staunch friend of the brits. It was not till jallianwallahbagh that it dawned on him that the presence of the brits in india was the problem
You must recall also that the reason i wrote the post was that i felt it was unnecessary to label Gandhiji a wimp, which i find to be unnecessarily derogatory. My view is that Indians tend to pigeonhole their leaders into saints or sinners. Well Gandhiji was neither and this constant tendency to deify our leaders takes away from the ability to look upon their achievements in an objective manner. BTw i do not deify any leader, while i find it distasteful to attack the personality of any leader, but criticism of his or her actions is quite another matter
QUOTE
So we are to believe that since one of the founding members of INC was a Brit, the INC in 1885 was no differrent once the leadership had passed from his generation (Dadabhai et al) to Tilak to Gandhi and Nehru. Far from revolting in any great numbers, Indians by and large actively helped and sustain the british government
I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument , but one minor point is that IIRC the majority of the founding members were brits. My point was that the Brits set the tone of the debate by starting the INC. They ensured that any nationalist movement that arose would be largely confined to the english speaking elite and that many avenues of action would not even be considered acceptable because the elite were already building a considerable stake in theeconomy and almost believed that without the Brits there would be no recovery possible for India. The point is that the INC was a British plant and it is to the credit of Indians like Tilak that they finally broke away from the ideological umbilical cord that the Brits had surreptitiously wrapped around the INC. You have to admit that starting the INC was a master stroke by the Brits
In reality their expectation were right on the button until Jallianwallahbagh . It was only then that the educated elite in India realized that the brits would resort to any measure to retain their hold in India.
Also , I have to be careful and not be unduly harsh on the average Indian during that period. The average Indian was poverty stricken and barely able to survive after 7 centuries of semislavery. My remarks were directed at the elite. It was well known that the Birts did not believe they would overcome the uprising of 1857 (which was ignited bottoms up by the aam janata) if the Maharaja of Scindia did not come through to their aid. Sure enough Scindia did not disappoint and the rest is history. The point being a large majority of the educated elite supported British rule , Again my reading of this is that after 7 centuries of mayhem and looting and impoverishment and lawlessness in the land the elite found the Brits to be relatively an improvement and were willing to settle for a small sliver of a loaf instead of a full loaf of bread (poorna swaraj).
One final point . I do not wish to give the impression that had i been alive during those time i would have unconditionally advocated violent resistance on every occasion, but at the same time I do not see the need to make ahimsa a central principle in the freedom struggle. The leader that i find myself in ideological proximity is clearly Tilak. Gandhiji has been conveniently deified by the western world after his death, but it is a matter to ponder that during his life he had very little support from the ruling elite of any country(let alone Britain for whom he did yoeman service during the Boer war In Africa), who were generally dismissive of his tactics.
This post has been edited by Kaushal: Nov 25 2005, 03:16 PM
post by shaurya
Kaushal,
You believe that Gandhi/Nehrus incarceration was benign and that the INC started as a british plan. What can I say, lucky for them and us (on that count alone) that they had the British and not the mongols as their rulers. As far as the INC being a British plan, I did say they managed this pretty poorly that they lost control of it in a single generation ! The British are not known for such shoddy management of affairs. My response to you is sarcastic becuause I do not find merit in your assertions. I will be more than glad to discuss anything more than what you feel about it. I have never read anywhere that the INC started as a british plan!
Shaurya said
QUOTE
As far as the INC being a British plan, I did say they managed this pretty poorly that they lost control of it in a single generation ! The British are not known for such shoddy management of affairs. My response to you is sarcastic becuause I do not find merit in your assertions. I will be more than glad to discuss anything more than what you feel about it. I have never read anywhere that the INC started as a british plan!
post by Kaushal
Obviously the Brits are not going to advertise that the INC at least in the first few decades after it was founded, was their vehicle for controlling the future direction of the freedom movement and while Congress was in power for most of the time of post Independent India,they would be hardly likely to admit that the venerable INC was a plant by the Brits. That would certainly take the shine of the official version of Indian history that the Congress was primarily instrumental in securing India's freedom.
The genesis and evolution of British policy towards the Indian subcontinent(later to be referred to as South Asia) and how the Brits crystalllized their stance towards India in the nineteenth century makes for interesting reading
In a recent book by Chandrasekhar Das Gupta (War and diplomacy in Kashmir) he makes it clear that Mountbatten called the shots in the Kashmir issue even after August 15, 1947 and prevented India from overrunning Kashmir and dealing a deathblow to the infant monstrosity called Pakistan. That this was the case is of course no surprise to most discerning Indians who have long since abandoned the starry eyed nonsense about Mountbatten being a friend of India. see for instance the relevant archived thread in BR.
The question is why did Britain ( and later the US) go to such extraordinary lengths to prop up a frankenstein like Pakistan. It is commonly assumed in India that it was Nehru's tilt towards the FSU (former soviet union) that resulted in the tilt of the west towards the terrorist state of Pakistan (TSP), That may explain the US stance after Hungary and 1956 , but it does not explain why the brits took such an anti Indian stance right from 1947. After all the first GG of India , at the express request of the Indians, was Mountbatten (who outwardly claimed to despise Jinnah) and the chiefs of staff were all British till 1950, and Nehru relied extensively on Sir PMS Blackett(who was almost a scientific adviser to the GOI) till his death, on the formation of Indian science policy and the development of Nuclear weapons. These are not the actions of a man who was anti west much less distrusted them. The chronology of events certainly does not bear out such a hypothesis as the tilt by the Anglo/US alliance predates the so called tilt by Nehru towards the FSU. No, there was more to it than that.
The real answer, as far as I can discern, goes back to the aftermath of the 1857 uprising. I have attempted to answer this question after doing some extensive research (jointly with acharya). The analysis is summarized in a presentation we recently made at a joint meeting of BR and IF, titled the South Asia File . see for instance my post dated Nov 24 2005, 08:06 AM in the India US thread
The details including an extensive list of additional materials to read are available in a forthcoming book by me which can be read online here
The reason i went into the lengthy explanation was your self confessed assertion that you were being sarcastic. Well it is time to educate oneself on the subterannean strands in Indian history and if i were you, i would abandon sarcasm as a weapon of choice. It impresses neither friend nor foe
post by shaurya
And educate myself I did. Read your reports and your blog and the introductory chapter of your book. First, Let me respectfully congratulate you on your ability to compile all this material. Having said that let me provide some critique to your writings. I found your writings to be uninsightful and felt you are seeing dangers, where none exist. Your premise that there is some kind of an anglo saxon plan led by the US to prop up TSP and make India fail falls flat against KNOWN facts established by all sides the US, the TSP and India. The root cause for the importance of Pakistan post 1947 has been its location and subsequent events such as access to China, cold war front in Afghanistan, border with Iran post 1979 and access to Afghnistan post 9/11 (all to primarily do with location). India firmly siding with the USSR and the US with TSP started post 1965. Your theory of Mountbatten's role on Kashmir policy matters the least. You should know better that the post of GG post Independence was a ceremonial post and the powers of the executive were with the provisional government led by Nehru. As the leader of a sovereign nation, I hold him to be solely responsble for the decision to refer the case to the UN, regardless of the advice of a Mountbatten.
I simply do not agree with the conclusions you have drawn. You fundamentally believe that there has been some kind of a deliberate plan by the British and then by the US post 1947 to work against the Indic civilization. In making these assertions, you fail to give proofs, which can by scientifically evaluated.
Understand that britain or the INC will not claim INC to be be a british plan. I see the creation of INC as nothing but an attempt by some british symathizers of India to give a organizational voice to Indian polity. Its shape and character changed with time, people and events. There is no more to it. You may continue to see ghosts, where none exist. I have no illussions of inherent goodness of the western civilization and/or christendom. I am under no illusions that they were shouldering the white man's burden in the colonization of Asia and Africa.
I do not wish to open your entire book up for scrutiny, but would encourage forum members to read it and post their own views.
post by Kaushal
Nov 27 2005, 09:18 PM | Post #183|
Bharatya
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1209
Joined: 12-August 03
Member No.: 6
Shaurya,The emphatic manner in which you reject the thesis of the book and all that it contains without a shadow of a doubt within the space of a few hours,tells me you have obviously not read the book(or at least the first 4 chapters - about 200 pages) which is well documented with extensive footnotes,or if you have read it you must have done so in a cursory manner, because otherwise you would not make the statement that we did not provide proofs. It is clear from Chandrasekhar Das Gupta's (IFS cadre) book that Mountbatten moved heaven and earth to prevent Kashmir from falling into India's hands. That Britain took such an emphatic anti Indian stand all of a sudden in 1947 in what was regarded then as the most peaceful transfer of power in all of history is not easily explainable, especially with a labor government at the helm,ostensiby sympathetic to demands of Indian independence All this was from documentation released by Britain's India office only in the last five years , so it is not reflected in the conventional wisdom which prevailed during the first fifty years of independence.
One does not have to believe that the British ruling class (or the Americans for that matter) were an especially devious people to believe them capable of doing what i have painstakingly l laid out. After all it was Britains Lord Acton who emphasized that 'Nations do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies only permanent interests' . An aphorism we as Indians should recall more than any other but conveniently forget in the emotion of the moment , resulting in inanities like 'hindi Chini Bhai Bhai'.
The governing dispensation in Britain believed strongly in maintiainiing the Imperial majesty of Britain (" I will not preside over the dissolution of the British empire' thundered Winston Churchill while reacting to the plans for indian independence)and failing that it became an article of faith that it was (perceived to be) in the permanent interest of Britain that the subcontinent should not be left intact should they have to leave. IOW, they wanted to establish an alternate center of sunni power to encircle and contain a resurgent India should it ever achieve independence. The notion that Indian and Muslim league leaders were instrumental in creating partition misses the whole crux of the issue that the foundations of such a policy were laid in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising when the Brits were stunned at the extent of the unity between Hindus and Muslims and thereby worked systematically to destroy the cohesiveness of Indian society using myriad means at their disposal during the ensuing decades.
Oh well we are left with at least one agreement -to agree to disagree. so be it
Kaushal,
A lot what you've written in the above post is also documented in Durga Das' book "India - Curzon to Nehru". Durga Das served as journalist/reporter for over 50 years and editor of Hindustan times. He had access direct access to people like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad, Prasad, and most British policymakers in India. Someday, I'll take time to post from his book.
Kaushal Yesterday, 06:44 PM | Post #185|
Bharatya
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1209
Joined: 12-August 03
Member No.: 6
Viren, it has been many years since i read DurgaDas' book.It appears i should revisit it
Shaurya Yesterday, 07:41 PM Post #187|
Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 5-October 05
Member No.: 946
Kaushal,
First a correction, I said, I read the introductory chapter of your book and not the whole book. I have re-read your introductory chapter only. While i have no argument with much of what you have written (the information was very basic and without much insight) there is no proof or persuasive reasoning leading up to the thesis of your book. The key points being:
1. It was the intent of Britain to break India before leaving
2. The UK was particularly against India post independence (prove their actions did not follow the cold war centric actions of the US and were hostile through the 50's)
3. The US as the inheritor of the anglo-saxon global leader, continued to work against India and is still doing so. (delinked from geo-political events)
4. The US/UK strategy has been and is to bolster a Sunni Islamic state within the subcontinent and encourage the eventual extinction of the Indic civilization in its ancestral homeland.
Also, please provide some motives, After all, Nations do not have permanent friends or enemies but they do have motives --- What would be the motive behind such actions. Motives such as the need of imperial britain to expand trade and power in the 18th and 19th centuries. The need for Islam to be in a state of war or peace, as dictated by the political ideology in the Quran and other such mundane motives such as the US aligning with India as a hedge against china in a possible future Asian security scenario, etc.
I hope you realize that most watchers of Indo US relations today will not believe points 3 and 4. If you can indeed prove these and i have an open mind on this, it will be a revelation to me and other forum members. Please let me know, if i have not understood your key points, the mistake would be in my understanding and not deliberate.
Viren Today, 06:35 AM | Post #188|
Bharatya
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4798
Joined: 12-August 03
Member No.: 5
Kaushal/Shaurya:
Perhaps this dialogue can take place in a separate thread?
ben_ami Today, 06:48 AM | Post #189|
Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 5-October 05
Member No.: 944
QUOTE(Viren @ Nov 29 2005, 08:05 PM)
Kaushal/Shaurya:
Perhaps this dialogue can take place in a separate thread?
YES please.... i was hooked the moment i read it.
will someone please give the lowdown on what their intentions ACTUALLY are??
i am new here. and there will be newer guys here in future too.
so to the mods i have a request.
that you start a "must read" thread in the main part of the forum that should have links to some of the best and most pertinent threads (and if possible to individually brilliant posts from the not-so-good threads) as well.
the compilation can be done slowly with new links added as and when necessary.
this will help to serve as a "highlights package" to the contents of this forum.
which will come in very handy... for example look at me... i dunno which ones to read first and which could wait.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Please use the Gandhi thread to discuss gandhi and this thread on the issue of Anglo/US policy towards India beginning in 1857.</span>
ok ... these are the basic questions i want to know.
1) originally (before colonising) what was the exact way the poms wanted to use the muslims of india against hindus
2) how did the missonaries...ditto
3) what was the real reason that the poms backed gandhi, nehru and ambedkar. what exactly did they want to achieve through the first 2 puppets??
4) what was the real reason of carving out pakistan and yet ensuring that india remained burdened with a sizable lotasthani polulation??
5) why allow pakistan to make a hardcore muslim state and yet maintain that india be a secular state. or was the last one totally gandhi's brainchild ??
6) and most imp.... what is the exact game plan of the anglosaxon/barbarian brigade RIGHT NOW/FOR NEXT 50 ODD YEARS, with regard to -
(a) backing pakistan against india and yet backing india against china
(b) tacit backing of the 3M* alliance in india. what is it that want the 3M to do for them by doctoring indian media and politics??
* 3M = muslim, marxist, missianary (+christian) brigade in india
Pl.bear with me as I am very busy during the next 2 weeks. Even though i may be tardy i will get to the key issues raised here. In the meantime i recommend go to the nearest good library and read up as much as you can on this topic. there is an ecellent bIbliography at the end of the book
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 29 2005, 10:49 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 29 2005, 10:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pl.bear with me as I am very busy during the next 2 weeks. Even though i may be tardy i will get to the key issues raised here. In the meantime i recommend go to the nearest good library and read up as much as you can on this topic. there is an ecellent bIbliography at the end of the book
[right][snapback]42236[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
which book ?
and does anyone know if there's some good material/book available online on this ??
Believe this will a nice and quick primer to the limits of freedom, independence of democracies, and international pwoer structures w.r.t India that is Bharat and hostility towards Hindus by 4M axis (4th M is Macaulyites) <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The sudden and surprise attack which ripped through the World Trade Center and tore down the part of the complex of buildings of the Pentagon in the United States, evidently administered a rude shock. <b>American administration, had for more than three decades used the Muslims as their allies in the Cold War</b>. The history of the evolution of pan-Islamic fundamentalism and the Islamic revolution, <b>goes back to the time of early phases of the Cold War when the western world began planning a fresh struggle for what in called the free-word, against the ideological state, the communist world symbolized</b>. The psychology of freedom, the <b>Anglo-Saxon world upheld, was the mental make-up of an international system, in which the Anglo-Saxon powers had played the role of a major determinant of the balances of power, which characterized the concert of Europe or what I have called the "Consensus Imperialism". </b>
The Muslim countries of the West Asia, were never formally colonized like India, Africa, South East Asia and the Latin America. <b>The Middle East, with its strategic importance and oil resources, in fact, formed a subsidiary alliance between the Anglo-Saxon powers and the Muslim of Asia or the middle east which was consolidated into a major power-block in between the two world wars.</b>
<b>That was almost the pattern of colonial expansion followed by the Anglo-Saxon powers in the far East, China, Japan and Korea. The policy of open door followed by "Consensus Imperialism" promoted in China the opening of the Meiji Japan, more or less, sought imperial pacification limited to subsidiary alliance structures. </b> The American expression of the "Consensus Imperialism" and subsidiary alliance took the form of the <b>Monoroe Doctrine</b>.
<b>Â The Monoroe Doctrine, in fact, enunciated the basic principle which bound the Latin America, the Caribbean States and entire seas around the Southern hemisphere of the American continent to the political hegemony of the United States of America. In the pattern of the emerging bipolar international relations in the aftermath of the second world war, the Muslim factor assumed a new significance. </b>
<b>The partition of India, aimed to de-Sanskritise the Himalayas, in order to demolish the traditional Indian frontier in the north, was an expression of the western effort to link up the Muslim strains right actors the middle-East and North Africa, North of India and Western China and the tapering Muslim peoples in South East Asia. </b>
In this link-up, Pakistan was always considered to be a major epicenter, providing the whole Muslim, expanse a more stringent ideological version of Wahabi Islam, which had originated in Saudi-Arabia in the 19th century. India had come directly under the Wahabi movement and the British had suppressed Wahabism with a stern hand.
But the Wahibi ideology assumed a new forum after the commencement of the liberation struggle in India in the beginning of the twentieth century. I<b>ndeed the new form actually reflected the subsidiary alliances, the Muslim power formed with the concert of Europe.</b> Pakistan was in fact the first and most important achievement in forging a new alliance system in which the free-world of the west and Islam joined to defeat communism.
<b>The historical role played by Maharaja Hari Singh and the Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir thwarted the plot to bring the Himalayas under the Muslim hold.</b>
<b>For four decades, the Cold War continued after the end of the Second World War. Pakistan supported by the Western powers spared no efforts to undo the accession of the State to India, with a long fifth column inside India, supporting the Pakistan's political and military maneuvers. </b>
In 1947, let the record be put straight, lest the truth is buried under the debris of what in India is called objective history, the Indian leaders stubbornly refused to include the Indian States with a hundred million people living over one-third of India in the liberation struggle against the British Colonialism. At least not till they carried the British India to the sacrificial alter of the partition and the Indian states to the brink of disaster.
The Indian army which drove out the invaders of Pakistan after the Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India, was unable to dislodge the invaders from the Muslim majority districts of the Jammu and Kashmir. It was never deployed to save Gilgit and Baltistan, due to the indecision of the Indian leaders and the treachery inside. Almost half the state was allowed to be occupied by Pakistan. The rest of the state was handed over to the Muslims of Kashmir, virtually in perpetual possession. A decade after a part of the state was meekly left to be occupied by China.
The subsidiary alliance with the west consolidated the Muslim states into a closer uniformity, around the concept of the unity of the Muslim Ummah and its role in a world divided on ideological basis and a new political sociology of the Muslim power, which was ideologically committed to the theological imperatives of Islam.
The foundation of Pakistan therefore, was the first expression of the pan-Islamic unity of the Muslim Ummah and the beginning of the evolution of the fundamentalisation of the Muslim society. The Muslim state of Pakistan, lost no time to underline its commitment to the theological imperatives of Islam. The claim of the Muslim power to unite on the basis of the theological imperatives of Islam underlined a conflict, which was more fundamental than the conflict in the ideologies of States. It underlined a conflict in ideologies of the civilization.
The first expression of the conflict which the western powers supported wholly, was the Muslim resistance to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the Muslim crusade launched to annex the Jammu and Kashmir state. <b>The subsidiary alliance of the Muslims with the powers of the West lost their anchor with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. </b>
The Muslim revolution came to a dead end for it suddenly found the Western powers, erstwhile partners in their alliances of the Cold War, emerge out as the sole-super power with a set of commitments to a new world in which the Muslim states, were reduced to their original shape and size. The Muslim crusade in Kashmir, did not lead to intervention of Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir, <b>because western powers were no longer interested in the expansion of the Muslim power to the east into India. </b>
<b>The terrorist operatives, must therefore, be viewed in the their historical context. Jews and Hindus are the two defined enemies of the battle for the ascendance of Islam and the unity of the Muslim Umah. </b>Buddhism was defeated with the Bamiyan demolitions. <b>
The terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir was never cross-border terrorism. It formed a new genus of international terrorism, which marked the advance of the Muslim power into India under the banner of Islam. </b>The terrorist attack on the United State is an inseparable part of the same Muslim crusade.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Nov 29 2005, 10:25 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 29 2005, 10:25 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->which book ?
and does anyone know if there's some good material/book available online on this ??
[right][snapback]42238[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In our book we have laid out the threats, both overt and covert faced by the Indic civlization. Foremost amongst these threats is the attempt to deny the antiquity of the Indic civlization. The mainstream Western Indologist even goes so far as to deny an autocthonous nature of Indic heritage . David Frawley in the following piece challenges the Indic to take up a new more assertive school of thought. He quotes Gandhi, who it appears said in response to the query, what do you think aboutWestern civilization, 'It would be a good idea". Implicit in this remark is the unspoken premise that there is much that is lacking in the Western heritage that prevents it from being accorded the sobriquet of being a civilization. Yet many Indians today insist on judging ourselves by a value system imposed on ourselves and internalized by decades of colonial rule. In short Macaulay would be pleased at the results of his implementation of English as the medium of instruction in India.
The need for a new Indic school of thought
David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)
Keywords: India , Culture, History
David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) is a scholar and teacher of Vedic Science, Yoga and Vedantic philosophy in the USA , where he directs the Vedic Institute. In India , he is recognised as an authority on Hindu cultural issues. Dr Frawley is the author of more than 20 books and his Web site is www.vedanet.com
During the Eurocolonial period, Indian history and civilization were distorted to fit European perceptions. A new school of thought is needed that will see Asian history and tradition with Asian eyes and thought, beginning with India .
The "clash of civilizations"
A clash of civilizations is occurring throughout in the world today, a war of cultures at various levels in both our personal and public lives. This clash is partly because of rising historical and cultural awareness on the part of newly-independent countries, beginning with India . The Western-European/North American culture is currently predominant and is strongly, if not rudely, trying to eliminate or subordinate the rest. Yet Western civilization is spreading itself not so much by force, as in the colonial era, but by subtle new forms of social manipulation. These include control of the media and news information networks, control of the entertainment industry, domination of commercial markets, continued missionary aggressiveness by Western religions, and â as important but sometimes overlooked â control of educational institutions and curricula worldwide.
This control of education has resulted in a Western-European/North-American view of history and culture in textbooks and information sources in most countries, including India . Naturally, people educated according to Western values will function as part of Western culture, whatever may be the actual country of their birth. They will experience an alienation from their native culture in which they have not really been raised. They easily become a fifth column for the Westernisation of their culture, which also means its denigration or, at best, its commercialisation. An authentic Indian or Indic perspective, a worldview coming out of the culture of India and its particular values and perceptions, is hardly to be found, even in India . The Western school of thought is taught in India , not any Indic or Indian school of thought.
The Indic school of thought
What is the Indic school of thought, one might ask? It is not at all something new or unknown. It is the great spiritual, philosophical, scientific, artistic and cultural traditions of the subcontinent that are among the largest and oldest in the world. It is the emphasis on dharma, on karma, on pluralism and synthesis, on yoga sadhana and moksha. It is not only the tradition of ancient sages from the Vedas and Upanishads to Buddhist and Yoga traditions but also modern teachers like Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda. It is not only the vast literature of Sanskrit but also that of the regional languages and dialects of the subcontinent, most of which have older literary traditions than the languages of Europe such as English.
All major cultural debates are now framed according to Western values and perceptions, and so they will naturally serve to uphold them. The important issues of Indic civilization today are framed according to the principles or biases of the Western school of thought. These include what Indian civilization is, when India as a nation first arose, what the real history of India is, how to reform Indian society, and how India should develop in order to have its rightful place in the future world. As the debate is defined according to the approach and values of Western civilization, India does not always fare well, and India as its own independent source of civilization is seldom acknowledged. India is judged as if it should be like another USA , UK or Germany , which it can never be, nor should be. This only makes Indians feel inferior or wrong.
<span style='color:blue'>The Western school of thought has denigrated or overlooked the Indic school, particularly in the Indian context. For example, the Indic school has its own history sources through the Vedas, Puranas and various historical texts (Itihasas) that are quite massive and detailed and have much internal consistency. However, in writing the history of India , the Western school does not give these any place. They are dismissed as, at best, mythology and, at worst, fraud. Instead, it defines the history of India according to outside influences, as a series of invasions and borrowings mainly from the west, from cultures the West knows better and has more affinity with, which makes India seem dependent upon the West in order to advance its civilization again today.
The Western school of thought negates the relevance of the traditions of India . This is not simply because the Indic tradition is wrong, unsophisticated or irrelevant. It is because Western civilization is hegemonic, if not predatory in nature, and such ideas help promote its spread. Its information about India contains a built-in poison. It is meant to undermine the culture of the region and subordinate it to the West, however objective, scientific or modern its approach may appear to be.
When India as a nation arose is defined by the Western school as 1947, the year of independence. It founders were Nehru and Gandhi, who inherited a united region from the British, before which India was just a confused mass of local kingdoms with no national consistency. On the other hand, according to the Indic school, India or Bharat as a country arose in the Vedic era as the type of dharmic/yogic culture that has been the main characteristic of Indian civilization through history. This spiritual or yogic orientation can be found in the cultures of all the regions of India from Tamil Nadu to the Himalayas , pervading even in the folk art and folk songs of all regions, as well as "high" culture.
Western distortions and the Indian response
In the Western school of thought, an Aryan invasion or migration is used to describe the way in which ancient Vedic civilization took root in India , as if it were an alien force of intruding barbarians. In the Indic school of thought, the whole idea of an Aryan invasion/migration is a sign of ignorance. The Indic tradition arose from the rishi tradition of spiritual endeavour, characteristic of the Vedic-Sarasvati culture and related cultures, reflected in the continuity of Vedic literature from the Vedas to the Mahabharata, Buddhist and Jain literature and the Puranas, which all reflect the same principles, peoples and dynasties of kings. In these current cultural debates, therefore, an overriding greater debate is ignored â that which takes place between the Western and the Indic schools of thought. The Western-style media and academia tries to see what is authentic in Indian civilization and finds it to be wanting, reducing it to little more than caste or superstition. This is not surprising as the Indic tradition has a different focus and values than does the Western tradition. Similarly, from the standpoint of the Indic tradition, we must question Western civilization itself. Is the Western school of thought enlightened? Is it appropriate for India ? Can it understand the unique civilization of the subcontinent?
The Indic school itself is often highly critical of the Western school. For example, when asked what he thought about Western civilization, Mahatma Gandhi replied: "It would be a good idea." What he meant was that, from the standpoint of the spiritual traditions of India , Western civilization with its materialism, aggression and dogmatism was not highly evolved. Sri Aurobindo wrote on the limitations of Western civilization, while appreciating it in certain areas. Secular missionaries
The West similarly tries to control any debate on cultural ethics, using slogans of democracy and human rights, which are only used to intimidate weak nations and conveniently ignored relative to stronger or wealthier nations like China or Saudi Arabia . Organizations operating under the cover of human rights are among the most aggressively alienating influences today. They function like "secular missionaries", ignoring victims of terrorism like the Hindus, while defending the "rights" of terrorist organizations against security forces that are compelled to take action against them. Meanwhile, it is the West that is selling the weapons and profiting by terrorism and civil strife throughout the world. The West originally trained many terrorist groups, such as the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan .
Such groups highlight social inequalities in India , but ignore a colonial history marked by attacks on indigenous Indic culture. The same charges of cultural backwardness have been used throughout the colonial era to undermine the native traditions of Africa , Asia and the USA , and to justify forced religious conversion and political domination, which is their real aim. Sometimes native intellectuals are taken in by these Western approaches to social issues, not realizing that they are just promoting the colonial agenda of world domination in a more covert form.
New rules of debate
Therefore, it is not enough simply to debate issues of culture, politics, or history in the existing forums in order to promote a more Indian or Hindu view. We must question the very process itself, its basis and the perspective or values behind the school of thought in which the debate occurs. What India needs is the creation of a new Indic school of thought that is dynamic and assertive in the modern global context â one that can challenge Western civilization not merely in regard to the details of history or culture, but also relative to fundamental principles of life, humanity and consciousness. This requires a revival or renaissance in the Indic tradition and its great spiritual systems of Yoga, Vedanta, Buddhism, and Jainism, and also in its political, artistic and scientific traditions. Modern science and technology can arguably be more humanely employed according to Indic or Dharmic values than according to Western religious exclusivity and commercial greed.
The world today needs a critique of "modern civilization" from an Indic or Dharmic perspective, an interpretation of capitalism, socialism, communism, Christianity and Islam from a tradition that is much older, deeper and closer to the spirit in both man and nature. These Western ideologies are failing to address the spiritual needs of humanity and are incapable of creating a world order that transcends dogmatism or exclusivism.
Those of us who are part of the Indic school of thought should emphasize such a greater debate and not get caught in the details of issues already formulated according to the biases of Western civilization. This debate should examine the right structure for society and the real forward direction for history and evolution. We must raise fundamental questions. Is the current Western materialistic view of history valid at all, or are there spiritual forces at work in the world that go beyond all these? Can we understand our history through outer approaches like archaeology, linguistics or genetics, or is a higher consciousness or more intuitive view required as well? Are the records of our ancient sages to be rejected so lightly, whenever we think they do not agree with our views?
The real issue of the Vedas, India's oldest tradition, is not how these texts might fit into the current model of history as promoted by the Western school of thought, tracing the development of civilization through outward material advances. It is how the existence of such an ancient tradition of rishis, knowers of cosmic consciousness, shows a higher spiritual humanity from which we have arisen and whose legacy we can reclaim.
Towards a new school of thought
India needs a different type of scholarship, an Indic school of thought that has its own values, traditions and methods of reaching conclusions. Those of us who follow the Indian civilization should develop this Indic school in its own right and not merely try to justify our views in terms of the Western or European school of thought, which is hostile and radically opposed to Indic cultural tradition.
I recently raised a call for an intellectual Kshatriya in India â a new class of warrior intellectuals to defend India and its great pluralistic traditions from the onslaught of Western exclusivist approaches, whether religious, economic or political. This call fundamentally requires the creation of such a new Indic school of thought. Such a new Indic school of thought concerns not only philosophies of liberation or yoga, but Indic, Hindu and Dharmic approaches to ecology, the global marketplace, health, science, the status of women, religious freedom, in short to all the main issues in society today â and it should also look beyond these issues, which are often the issues of the Western school, to yet broader concerns. How can we integrate humanity and nature, with its underlying cosmic intelligence? How can we reclaim our spiritual heritage, as a species, that the great yogis have pointed out for us?
Such a new Indic school of thought requires new institutions to promote and embody it, or new Vedic schools. This will arise not through Indology departments in Western-style universities but through a new type of institution with its own funding and curriculum, free from manipulation by the vested interested and ideologies of the Western school and its religious, commercial and political bias.
An intellectual renaissance
The problem is that the Western school created Indian academic institutions that reflect Western values. To try to gain credibility for Indic thought in the context of European institutions, as some well-meaning Hindus are attempting, may be a helpful strategy but misses this main point. Western universities have their own agendas that they will not readily give up. They will not change simply because a few well-intentioned people and groups give them money and sponsor positions to project a more "sympathetic" picture of India and her civilization. Like a sea that salts every river that flows into it, existing trends and interests will force the people coming into them to conform to the dominant Eurocentric values that pervade these institutions. Otherwise, they cannot survive academically.
It is not on single issues that we need to make headway but on promoting the Indic tradition as a complete school of thought in itself, rather than merely as a side subject of Indological study in Western-defined academia. We must look back to such Indic models as Naimisha, Takshashila, Nalanda or Mithila, not only to their institutions, but also to the Gurukula approach and its more intimate and spiritual form of learning.
I urge the young people and the scholars of India to take up this cause. Do not try to define India in the context of civilization as defined by the West. Instead look to the great traditions of India that have their own deeper roots and use it to critique Western civilization and discover its limitations. Rather than seeking to define and control India according to Western perspectives, the West should look to India for guidance on the deeper issues of culture and spirituality. Indians, in turn, should assert their own greater traditions and not simply imitate the West or seek to justify Indian civilization from a Western perspective. True scholars of the Indic tradition need not go to Harvard or Oxford to seek credibility, rather these institutions should come to them. </span>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. It was the intent of Britain to break India before leaving<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let us take the first of your points for which you demand proof (incidentally i fnd it ironic that you make the facile remark that the INC was started by sympathetic Brits,an assertion for which you neither demand nor seek proof).
Surely we need no proof of this other than the existence and creation of Pakistan. If you read the news reports in western newspapers during the fifties,a common theme was the breakup of India,the only question being when (and not if).It was common to refer to India as the land of thousands of languages and flatly denying there was anything in common between the people of various parts of India.This was of course a holdover from colonal times.In my essay on the Indian identity I write
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In denying such an identity for the people of the subcontinent, the British wished to take credit for the formation of the modern political nation state called India and perhaps more to the point, to deny an independent civilizational status to the Indics. It would become very inconvenient to explain to the British public that given the antiquity of the cultural and civilizational status of the Indics, there was any need for the British to exert the role of Colonial overlord in the continent much less a role where they assumed absolute suzerainty over the people of the subcontinent. It was far easier to keep up the façade that Britain had a civilizing role in the subcontinent, if the presumption was made that there was no civilization to speak of prior to their arrival. Hence the constant attempt to deny any kind of civilizational status and to say whatever there was in existence on their arrival was in large part due to the advent of the Mughals and prior conquests and invasions. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->.The typical European view is summarized very well in the following quotes (again from my essay on the Indian identity)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An English authority, Sir John Strachey, had this to say about India: ...... this is the first and most essential thing to learn about India -that there is not and never was an India or even any country of India, possessing according to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political . His was not an isolated opinion. Reginald Craddock, Home Minister of the Government of India under Hardinge and Chelmsford, in The dilemma in India (1929) denied the existence of an Indian nation: An Indian Nation, if such be possible, has to be created before it can exist. It never existed in the past, and it does not exist now. Do we flatter ourselves that we created it? If so, it is sheer flattery. There is no word for 'Indian' in any vernacular tongue; there is not even any word for 'India'. Nor is there any reason why there should be an Indian Nation. The bond or union among the races to be found there is that they have for the last century and a half been governed in common by a Foreign Power. P. C. Bobb sums up Craddock's views nicely: By this account 'Indian' was the same kind of misnomer, applied by the English, as the term 'European' when applied to the English (as it was in India). According to Craddock, India was merely, like Europe, a subcontinent within the vast single continent of Europe and Asia, whose peoples had "roamed over the whole" in prehistoric times. Down the centuries nationalities had become localized, until Europe and India, for example, each contained well over twenty separate countries, divided by race and language. India looked like one country only if seen from the outside, from ignorance or distance. India's cultural diversity, and lack of political unity has often invited its comparison with Europe.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nurtured as they were on views such as these , is it any wonder that the average Englishman , who had an opinion of this subject wanted India to break up or at the very least expected her to break up.
I remain astonished that any Indian would ask for proof of the above proposition.
You ask for motives . This enters into the realm of speculation, but that is merely because we have an 'embarassment de choix' as the french put it elegantly. We will tackle the question of motives in greater detail later, but again i will quote myself from chapter 2 of the book)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do such disparate groups as the foreign policy establishment (by no means monolithic) of the US and the leftists of India desire the demise of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious Indian Republic with such fervor and single minded purpose? The answer to this question is multifaceted and one can only speculate, listing the obvious reasons. We have already alluded to some of these reasons. There is the commonality of the Abrahamic faith. Much of the weltanschauung of the western world is one that they share with the Islamic Ummah namely the concept of a monotheistic ideology, the aggressive proselytization of their belief systems, and the facile resort to violence, crusades and Jihad for purely religious reasons. In contrast, the Sanatana Dharma is regarded as a pagan and moribund faith bedeviled by exotic forms of idolatry and steeped in superstition or worse. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and in this instance the Indian left, under the tutelage of China, has made common cause with influential sections of the media, church, and the State Department in the US in undermining and preventing the maturation of democratic institutions in the Indian Republic. It is difficult at this point in time to gage the depth of this relationship. Writes Rajiv Malhotra, alluding to the analogy of the Stockholm Syndrome in the link mentioned earlier âHinduism is squeezed both from the American right and from the Indian and American left. The right backs the Christian fundamentalist goals of converting India and targets Hinduism as the last remaining and most resilient bastion of pagan culture in the world. The intelligentsia of the left is more complex and diverse in its reasons for the thoroughgoing bias against Hinduism and Hindus: (i) there is a holdover from an era of allegiance to pro-Communist movements; (ii) there are fifth-column opportunist double agents; (iii) there is a fundamental discomfort due to misunderstandings that Hinduism runs counter to modernity; and (iv) there are social stigmas that article's such as the Post's promulgate. The net effect of this is that many Hindus are intimidated into accepting every insult that is hurled at them, for fear of being subjected to further harassment. This may be viewed as a sort of societal Stockholm Syndrome. â
As an undercurrent to the above, it might be remarked as a corollary that there is general agreement that a state with an ancient and still thriving civilization is less amenable to blandishments from outside and is therefore less malleable in the hands of a superpower. Long years of dealing with the Hindu had convinced the British that he would prove to be a harder nut to crack than the pliable Ashrafs from Pakistan. Both the British and later the Americans have publicly expressed their preference for dealing with the Pakis while expressing distaste for the difficult negotiating tactics of the Hindu.
how HAVE they manupulated india, indian history, indian education, indian muslims. for what ends??
AND
how DO THEY CONTINUE to do it?? what exactky do they want to achieve?? coca-colanisation and a phillipines after balkanisation ??
speaking of balkanisation... would it be possible to get that firebrand writer, Varsha Bhosley into this forum as a guest writer or special member or something??
BenAmi <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1) originally (before colonising) what was the exact way the poms wanted to use the muslims of india against hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before colonizing (india) the question of using Muslims against Hindus did not arise. The general approach towards Islam was one of hostility based on their attempt to take over Europe in the 8th century and their long presence in the Spanish peninsula.
It was in 1857 that it dawned on the Brits that a unified Hindu Muslim populace spelled the deathknell of their presence in India. That plus the views of Wlliam Skawen Blunt (The Future of Islam) changed their overall perception of Islam and the role that they would assign the Muslims of India. To quote from Chapter 2 (Western studies of the Indic civilization) of our book again
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is one other point to be made. The relationship between the Hindu and Muslim during the insurrection of 1857 was by and large amicable. Immediately after the quelling of the rebellion in 1857 and the initial orgy of recrimination and revenge against the Muslims of Delhi and other urban centers, the British realized that a unified India, with a harmonious relationship between Hindus and Muslims would make their job of holding on to their ill gotten gains and conquest, that much more difficult. There was also the tacit assumption that the educated Hindu was far from being as malleable and pliable as the inhabitants of some of their other possessions, or even the reputedly aggressive Muslim. The British from their long colonial experience quickly grasped a central piece of wisdom that a people with an ancient civilization are far less malleable to molding towards a new order Ergo, if there were no differences to be found, they would have to be manufactured. It was imperative that the cultural unity of the subcontinent be ridiculed and the differences accentuated. The plan to institutionalize a âdivide and ruleâ strategy was therefore executed with efficiency and a single-minded focus.
The completion of the 1881 census with the extensive enumeration of the Schedule of Castes and Tribes (when for the first time thousands of communities were arbitrarily classified as castes ) was the first step among many to diminish and trash the cultural unity of the subcontinent, and to replace her Puranic Itihasa (History) with one that was more consonant with the notion that there was no indigenous civilization in the Indian subcontinent.
Max Mueller (Friedrich Maximilian Mueller) was hired by Macaulay with the express intent of devaluing the Vedic tradition and to invent a chronology for the Vedas in order to dethrone them from their premier position as the source of Indic traditions. Max Mueller was a student of Roth, who was one of the first Germans to study the Vedas. Besides his teacher's stamp on him, Max Muller's interview with Lord Macaulay on the 28th December, 1855 A.D. also played a great part in his anti-Indian views. Max Mueller had to sit silent for an hour while the historian poured out his diametrically opposite views and then dismissed his visitor who tried in vain to utter a simple word : "I went back to Oxford", writes Max Mueller, "a sadder man and a wiser man."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Max Mueller was alluding to was the fact that Macaulay was not so much interested in the content of the Vedas,as to use their contents to ridicule and denigrate them as the source of all wisdom and tradition in India. In Max Mueller hefound a willing tool who hence forward followed the dictates of his employer in order to retain his prestigious professorship at Oxford. That Macaulay succeeded beyond his wildest dreams because the average English educated Indian has never read the vedas and his views of the same are borrowed from English Historians.
The role of the Brits in embellishing the social stratification of the Indian society and creating hundreds of new castes overnight in 1881 (when for the first time a large number of communities were arbitrarily classified as castes) is a very interesting one and thereby hangs a tale in its own right, one that needs to be tackled in a separate thread.
are the barbarian brigade trying to use the missionaries to do in india what they did to the commie block countries???
we should just ban those damned missionaries and built a insuisition memorial hall in goa, which would highlight the bastardy of the portueguese on the west coast.
then there's one in hampi that also needs to be built.
I have no argument with you on the fact that the British and Europeans had a flawed sense of our history and the Hindu civilization. But the conlusions you derive from thereon are flawed. I am amazed that inspite of reading from VOI publications (assumed since you have mentioned Frawley and some others) you have reached such conclusions. Let us go back to the 17th century, european traders land up in a country with little kingdoms, myriad languages, customs, class/caste segregations, major parts ruled by Moghuls and all of them binded by some sort of over lapping culture. On further introspection they find out that this culture has some literary sources. The recent history says they were ruled by Muslims and many practice crude forms of discriminations and superstious rituals.
Moreover, these folks who have landed believe that they have a superior civlization and have come 5000+ miles by sea to trade and proft to make a small fortune. It is true there was never a India in the modern nation state sense. The big Hindu kingdoms that existed in the Gupta, Mauryan periods were long gone at least a 1000 years before the Europeans landed. Now, Why do you expect an honest and symathetic view of Inidan history from such folks. Till this day, except for some over whelming issue, India still votes on local issues (the 2004 elections being the latest example).The unity of India was rooted in its culture and not as a nation as understood by the British. So do not expect sympathy from a source so motivated, who wants to show his superiorty of civilization and wants to profit from us using his superior military and organizational skills. I also expect such an imperial power to exploit the weaknesses of the native country. The hindu/muslim division is not an invention of the British. It is a myth that we have a composite culture. It is utterly false to say Hindu-Muslims lived peacefully with each other at most times. Please read the following sources to get a accurate picture of the scenario, instead of talking only about a notion of hindu-muslim unity during the 1857 revolt.
Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences by Sita Ram Goel
Medieval Indian Chronicles by KS Lal
Myths of composite cultures and equality of religions by Harsh Narain
It is a myth that the British helped in the vivisection of India.In 1947, muslim society and their leaders succeeded in getting recoginition as a separate culture and nation and getting the country vivisected on that basis. I think in your enthusiasm to project and challenge western civilization with an Indic stream of thought you are projecting new notios of history (like the Britsh wanted to break the country) with no basis in fact. You talk about newspapers talking about the eventual breakup of India in the 50's. Well, what do you expect newspapers to talk about except for current political events. Britain had no interest in uniting India, when they were ruling (the motives were there) but they had no interest in breaking India, once they left (no motive).
Your views are establishing motives are in the realm of speculation. My view is motives are self evident (like the US involvement in the middle east is rooted in Oil). ON Macaulay a lot has been written and indeed he was biased and eager to scorn Indian culture but Koenrad Elst (a sympathizer of Indic views by all means) provides a good set of documentation in
"A dubious quotation, a controversial reputation: the merits of Lord Macaulay"
that Macaulay meant well and was not the devil he is made out to be. Here is a comment from the book on one of Macaulays post popular quotes.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Our lies about Macaulay. Was Macaulay attempting to create 'intellectual slaves' for the British Empire? Yes, if we just read the following: 'We must at present do our best to form a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.' We, in a most mischievous manner, present the above quote, twisted, taken out of context, and thus, present Lord Macaulay as a villain. No, if we read the full paragraph as originally available in his February 1835 Minute on Indian Education: 'It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.'"
So far, I had thought that Macaulay was well-intentioned but that he undeniably had wanted to anglicise India at least in language. But even this turns out to be unfair to him. In fact, he envisioned a modernization of the native languages, making them as fit as English for the conduct of modern affairs, thanks to the good offices of the "interpreter" class which he set out to create. Even on language he wasn't all that imperialistic, wanting to enrich and modernize rather than replace the native languages, assuring them a new lease of life in an age of science. As for replacing Indian taste/opinions/morals/intellect with their English counterparts, he considered this a great boon to the Indians.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even an Arun Shourie states the following:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, many of the strictures in his Minute were entirely to the
point: the texts which were in use at that time in Arabic and
Sanskrit schools were out-dated, they were teaching notions about
geography, astronomy and the rest which had been superseded by
recent researches. And in this sense, modernising the syllabus and
imparting education through English, opening our eyes to the world
was indeed to raise Indians.
The scorn was deepened in part because of the truimph of western
science and technology, but even more because of the fact that
educated Indians acquired just a smattering of anacquaintance with
even this new learning -- they concluded that the 'scientific
temper' and 'reason' were all; they knew next to nothing about our
culture...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In analyzing situations and history, one has to be intellectually honest. Just becuase the British did or get some things wrong, does not mean everything that went wrong with India has to be attributed to them.
Huntington's clash of civilizations is not a futile book, its arguments are well rooted in facts. In the book he observes that India seeks to structure the world through the eyes of her spirituality. Do not go and try looking for sympathy amongst a westerner for the view of Hindu civilization but at the same time do not go about blaming the westerner for all our problems. History will be written by the victors to suit their purposes. Let us not be apologetic about the disparities in the Indian nation. Not more than 10 nations have the homogenity that our detractors demand of us.
All you have provided as evidence or reasoning so far to the British intent to break India is that TSP was formed on their watch.
As evidence to refute this claim I provide the following:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nationalism generates a collective emotional response and converts it into patriotism. It is a sentiment, which demands the people of the country to rise above ethnic, religious, communal, sectarian and regional loyalties. But for Muslim scholars it is an evil, which instigates the people for war either to defend or expand the territorial boundaries of their respective countries. By and large the Muslim thinkers in colonial and post-colonial India tended to oppose nationalism on the plea that it was incompatible with the concept of pan-Islamism.Â
Muslim intellectuals like Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University, Shibli Numani, Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Abul Kalam Azad and other Muslim intellectuals of this sub-continent carried the tradition of Shah Waliullah (1703-17620), (known as father of Muslim fundamentalism). They did not allow their community to adopt India centric Islam and free them from the subjugation of Arab imperialism in the name of religion. Presently Sayyad Shahabuddin is carrying the same tradition and fighting an intellectual battle on behalf of Indian Muslims, whom he calls Muslim Indians. Â
Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan(1817-1898), scion of a Mughal family was known to be the principal founder of 'modernist Islamic thought'. A known advocate for scientific and modern education to Muslims he renounced the Islamic orthodoxy of Waliullah but his rational interpretation of Islam, which was contrary to the fundamentalists views on controversial issues like Jihad, polygamy and animal slaughtering was rejected by his contemporary Muslim intellectuals. Ultimately, he succumbed to the pressure of fundamentalists and âagreed not to express his views on Islam through his writingsâ (Rational Approach to Islam by Asgar Ali Engineer  2001 Âpage 191).Â
The Founder of Aligarh Muslim University, Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan was actually a Muslim intellectual loyal to British throne and was largely responsible for keeping away the modern educated Muslims from northern India away from Indian National Congress. In fact he never liked unity between Hindus and Muslims against the Britishers. Ironically, he was in favour of a non-Muslim and non-Hindu rule over India. During his speech on January 29,1884 he said, âI have said repeatedly that for India it is impossible that either Hindus or Muslims are rulers and are able to keep the peace. It is inevitable that a third nation rules over usâ( Muslim Nationhood in India by Safia Amir  2000  Page 25). He also suggested, "Since the Hindus were joining hands against Muslims (he meant Indian National Congress dominated by Hindus), the latter should unite with the British and strive to make their rule permanent, rather than becoming subjects of the Hindus by joining the Congress" (Ibid page 244). Sayyadâs main aim was to ensure that Muslims remain loyal to Britishers.Â
Shibli Numani (1857-1914), another Muslim thinker and contemporary of Sir Sayyad was also known for his fluctuating views on the question of Muslim nationality. Initially, he was in favour of the feeling of nationalism among the Muslims, but subsequently he became a 'confirmed pan-Islamist' with a plea that Muslim nationhood was not based on region but on Islam. He strongly believed that "it was extremely essential to keep alive Muslim nationality". Ironically, he even considered "India under British as Dar-ul-Islam" and made statement that "it was the religious duty of Muslims to remain loyal to their (British) government".Â
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3) what was the real reason that the poms backed gandhi, nehru and ambedkar. what exactly did they want to achieve through the first 2 puppets??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldnt go so far as to call them puppets (personally there is no need to demonze them just as there is no need to deify them). But there are several reasons. Remember they had both spent considerable time in britain and fundamentally did not have any animus against Britain (neither do i for that matter but that is neither here nor there).
Secondly they did not back Gandhi nor Nehru till the very end when they had little choice.
They obviously did not like the demands for freedom put forward by either of them. But the reason they preferred Nehru and Gandhi was that they were non violent. As long as opposition to British rule remained nonviolent they could rule India indefinitely. Particularly so, since by that time they had unleashed the Muslim League to thwart the Congress at every turn. If you read the interview with Lord Ismay(aide to Mountbatten) he makes it quite clear that Gandhhiji had very little do with granting of independence to India.
In fact they achieved quite a bit by agreeing to hand over power to Nehru. Nehru appointed Lord Mountbatten as the first GG of India. Remember at that time there was no constitution and in reality Mountbatten presided over the cabinet meetings regularly and was privy to a lot of confidential material. Mountbatten convinced Nehru to take the Kashmir case to the UN where the Brits and the Americans promptly scuttled it and made it look like India was the agressor.
Nehrus mistrust of the Indian military leaders was legendary,so much so that he preferred to have British military officers as Chiefs of staff till 1950
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, Nehru neither understood nor was interested in politico-military matters. At the time of Independence he believed, or was cleverly made to believe by Mountbatten, that there was no Indian capable of taking over as head of the army. The fact that he asked a British officer to stay on as commander-in-chief shows his frame of mind.
But in the initial decades of his rise to power, few perceived his distaste of the military as an obsession or considered it a serious liability. This was because India was busy celebrating its freedom, setting up democratic institutions, sorting out its internal problems, and integrating the princely states. Moreover, it was seen that India's military power was being used effectively to assert Indian authority on disputed borders in Jammu and Kashmir and in northeastern India. But military officers and others who were in close contact with Nehru had first hand experience of his obsessions. A few anecdotes will illustrate what this implied.
Nehru, who was honest enough to admit that he knew little about military matters, <span style='color:red'>left the setting up of the newly established defence ministry to Admiral Mountbatten and Lord Ismay. <i>(Amazing is all i can say!)</i>Nehru was advised by Mountbatten to organise the defence structure on the council system [each of the services having a council, composed of military staff] presided over by a politician and run very much on the lines of the Railway board, with military heads as chiefs of their respective service staff or boards. Under this system, there would be no need for a bureaucratic defence secretary [whoever hears of a railway secretary?] This would require the establishment of a Chief of Defence Staff to coordinate the three services at the defence minister level. But Nehru was unwilling to do that.
Lord Mountbatten has stated in a letter that 'although Prime Minister Nehru agreed with me in principle, he said it would be difficult at this moment to get through the appointment of a CDS as it would give to the Indian politician the impression of perpetuating the idea of the great Commander-in-Chief in India. Lord Ismay and I worked hand in hand on these proposals but I thought it would come better from him than the constitutional Governor General as I then had become. He [Ismay] also tried to negotiate a CDS but met with the same opposition from Nehru and for the same reason.'
Shortly after assuming the office of prime minister, Nehru was being taken around to the newly set up military wing of the Cabinet secretariat. When he entered the room he was startled to see several military officers wearing air force, naval and army uniforms. Nehru turned angrily on the secretary and began shouting and demanding to know what military officers were doing in the Cabinet secretariat.
Later Nehru calmed down when Lord Ismay explained the role of the military wing and why military officers were needed. Obviously the prime minister had no concept of the newly established higher defence system This episode was witnessed by military officers who were later told that they would always wear civilian clothes whilst at work; a practice which is followed till today.
Nehru would lay down the law to his Cabinet ministers knowing that none would dare oppose him. He felt he could do the same while dealing with elementary military issues about which he was quite ignorant.
During the early days of the Jammu and Kashmir operations Nehru visited the Srinagar airfield and was being briefed by IAF pilots. He was told they were using 500 lb bombs. He at once said this was an excessive use of force and the less powerful 250 lb bomb should be used. He was told the target area was criss-crossed with nullahs and deep valleys and less powerful bombs would be ineffective. Nehru protested that this was a violation of the principle of 'minimum force.'
He was tactfully told this was not an aid to a civil power operation but a full-fledged war against aggressors. The principle of minimum force was not relevant in this instance. It was essential for the air force and army to use adequate force while dealing with this enemy. It is significant that the senior military officers who accompanied Nehru seemed to be overawed by the prime minister and kept quiet.
On another occasion, Nehru and his entourage were waiting at Palam air force station for a VIP to arrive. The prime minister turned to the air chief and pointing to an air force plane parked nearby, asked, 'Why are your planes marked Indian Air Force? Surely no foreign planes could be parked here.' The air chief mumbled that he would look into the matter. A young air force officer standing nearby intervened and said, 'All air forces follow the practice of using national names. Thus we have the Royal Canadian Air Force, the French Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force and so on.' Nehru seemed taken aback at this response, turned to the air chief and said, 'Do look into this.' Later, after the VIPs had departed, the air chief scolded the young officer, telling him he should guard against talking about policy matters that were above his head.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From a British point of view, having Nehru at the helm of India was the best thing that could have happened. Till 1965 Britaiin was the sole supplier of military goods to India as a result.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In analyzing situations and history, one has to be intellectually honest. Just becuase the British did or get some things wrong, does not mean everything that went wrong with India has to be attributed to them. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go again , this time calling into question my intellectual honesty.First it was sarcasm,then i lacked insight and now I am intellectually dishonest Just because i disagree with you does not make me intellectually dishonest. In any event my intellectual dishonesty is not part of the debate. If you want to debate the issues well and good, but if you wish to hurl invective at me, i have no interest in debating you. If i have been factually wrong pl. feel free to corrrect me but simply to say arbitrarily that i am intellectually dishonest, tells me you are bereft of legitimate arguments,
As for blaming the British for every ill that India has where have i said that or implied that ? In fact I do not blame the Brits for anything. It is the Indians that i blame primarily for being gullible enough to be ruled by a distant land with one tenth the population of India, with less than 100,000 people. If anything i respect the British immensely. In particular i admire their patriotism and that they never do or say anything against their national interest.. Whatever the Brits did in India they did sincerely, secure in the knowledge that they were furthering the national interest of Britain
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:I wouldnt go so far as to call them puppets (personally there is no need to demonze them just as there is no need to deify them). But there are several reasons. Remember they had both spent considerable time in britain and fundamentally did not have any animus against Britain (neither do i for that matter but that is neither here nor there).
there is need to demonise them - just so that we could un-deify them.
else bulidings and bridges in 2047 will also be named after beevis and butthead.
btw, you provide a beautiful reason to demonise them regardless of whether they have been deified, in your post, when you say -
"and fundamentally did not have any animus against britain" !!!!
what do we call them freedom fighters??
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:Secondly they did not back Gandhi nor Nehru till the very end when they had little choice.
yes.
first there was only the moderates. the poms didnt back them, then.
then came the extremists. the poms had no choise now but back the moderates as the lesser of the 2 "evils".
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:They obviously did not like the demands for freedom put forward by either of them.
they did demand freedom did they??
swaraj is my birth right and i shall have it?? from the fakir ???
haha.
6 month ultimatum from butthead eh ??
recruiting hindus in the raj army to lay the groundwork for a future assault by these 2 eh ??
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:But the reason they preferred Nehru and Gandhi was that they were non violent.
and had no animus towards britain as you rightly pointed out.
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:As long as opposition to British rule remained nonviolent they could rule India indefinitely.
ergo, the moment the opposition turned violent, it would be "time up" for the damnpoms.
why are we even discussing these two ??
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:Particularly so, since by that time they had unleashed the Muslim League to thwart the Congress at every turn.
cometh the hour cometh the man.
sarvarkar.
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:If you read the interview with Lord Ismay(aide to Mountbatten) he makes it quite clear that Gandhhiji had very little do with granting of independence to India.
even without reading that or any other interview anyone can put two and two together and understand the real truth. more so since a lot many other countries who produced no gandhi also achieved independence just after a particular global event.
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:In fact they achieved quite a bit by agreeing to hand over power to Nehru. Nehru appointed Lord Moountbatten as the first GG of India. Remember at that time there was no constitution and in reality Mountbatten presided over the cabinet meetings regularly and was privy to a lot of confidential material. Mountbatten convinced Nehru to take the Kashmir case to the UN where the Brits and the Americans promptly scuttled it and made it look like India was the agressor.
yes.
few doubt the real intentions/motives of mtbt and the poms.
even fewer doubt the puppeticity of nehru.
churchill called him a showboy from harrow or something similar. other have called him worse. indians have called him god, but thats another matter.
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:Nehrus mistrust of the Indian military leaders was legendary,so much so that he preferred to have British military officers as Chiefs of staff till 1950
it should have been matched my an equal mistrust of nehru by indians but that was not to be.
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:read the following inter view of LG Vas
not needed.
we know exactly why india is as fawning torards to the west, as she is.
did you ask why we demonise him ??
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:From a British point of view, having Nehru at the helm of Inidia was the best thing that could havehappened.
yes, post independence butthead was a great help for them.
as was beevis in pre-independence days.
Kaushal,Dec 1 2005, 11:07 AM Wrote:Till 1965 Britaiin was the sole supplier of military gooos to India as a result.[/color]
[right][snapback]42333[/snapback][/right]
thats not a big surprise, since we get our books, our history, our culture, everything supplied from them too.
these two, are the father and godfather of the nation !!!
The intent was not to hurl personal insults and that is not what I am doing. I am getting more aware of your writings and the long effort you have put on this forum and respect that. I will be glad to take those words back, if they have hurt you. The critiques to your thesis stands and at least in my eyes remain unsubstantiated.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. On Mussalmans (of Eastern Punjab)
"In the eastern portion of the Punjab the faith of Islam, in anything like its original purity, was till quite lately to be found only among the Saiyads, Pathans, Arabs and other Mussalmans of foreign origin, who are for the most part settled in towns. The so-called Mussalmans of the villages were Mussalmans in little but name. They practiced circumcision, repeated the Kalimah, or mahomadan profession of faith, and worshipped the village deities. <b>But after the Mutiny a great revival took place. Mahomadan priests traveled far and wide through the country preaching the true faith, and calling upon believers to abandon their idolatrous practices⦠But the villager of the East is still a very bad Mussalman⦠As Mr. Channing puts it, the Mussalman of the villages âobserves the feasts of both religions and the fasts of neither.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Dec 1 2005, 07:57 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 1 2005, 07:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->An interesting quote I ran into..
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. On Mussalmans (of Eastern Punjab)
"In the eastern portion of the Punjab the faith of Islam, in anything like its original purity, was till quite lately to be found only among the Saiyads, Pathans, Arabs and other Mussalmans of foreign origin, who are for the most part settled in towns. The so-called Mussalmans of the villages were Mussalmans in little but name. They practiced circumcision, repeated the Kalimah, or mahomadan profession of faith, and worshipped the village deities. <b>But after the Mutiny a great revival took place. Mahomadan priests traveled far and wide through the country preaching the true faith, and calling upon believers to abandon their idolatrous practices⦠But the villager of the East is still a very bad Mussalman⦠As Mr. Channing puts it, the Mussalman of the villages âobserves the feasts of both religions and the fasts of neither.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not unsurprising as hindu cultural practices were widely practiced by Indian muslims until the Tabligh movement set in the early 20th century by Mawlana Muhammad Ilyas.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->