1. <!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Apr 28 2009, 02:49 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Apr 28 2009, 02:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a similar vein, Joshi states that Gandhi was "absolutely right in saying that India was more illiterate in 1931 [than] in 1870". The fact, however, is that Gandhi was wrong on this. We know that from census data. Perhaps Joshi considers Gandhi as a more authoritative source than the census. But Gandhi, for all his wisdom, was not infallible, and this is not the only occasion when he was carried away. Elsewhere, he touchingly described "the Indian shepherd" as "a finely built man of Herculean constitution", at a time when the vast majority of the Indian population was wasted and stunted, with a life expectancy of less than 30 years. His hasty comment on literacy belongs to the same genre wishful thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The book 'Beautiful Tree' which did have data supporting Gandhi's assertion was discussed on this forum a while back. I think Rajesh had started a thread on it and must be still around.
[right][snapback]96740[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think Viren is referring to the thread on Dharampal's researched writings
And reposting from Post 39 of Leters thread
Durant confirmed Dharampal's statements, also using data:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Will Durant, The Case for India (1930), Chapter 1:</i>
When the British came there was, throughout India, a system of communal schools, managed by the village communities. The agents of the East India Company destroyed these village communities, and took no steps to replace the schools; even to-day, after a century of effort to restore them, they stand at only 66% of their number a hundred years ago.109
Hence the 93% illiteracy of India. In several provinces literacy was more widespread before the British took possession than it is now after a century and a half of British control;118 in several of the states ruled by native princes it is higher than in British India. "The responsibility of the British for India's illiteracy seems to be beyond question."119
The Government spends every year on education eight cents a head 113 it spends on the army eighty-three cents a head.114 In 1911 a Hindu representative, Gokhale, introduced a bill for universal compulsory primary education in India; it was defeated by the British and Government-appointed members. In 1916 Patel introduced a similar bill, which was defeated by the British and Government-appointed members; 115 the Government could not afford to give the people schools. Instead, it spent most of its eight cents for education on secondary schools and universities, where the language used was English, the history, literature, customs and morals taught were English, and young Hindus, after striving amid poverty to prepare themselves for college, found that they had merely let themselves in for a ruthless process that aimed to de-nationalize and de-Indianize them, and turn them into imitative Englishmen. The first charge on a modern state, after the maintenance of public health, is the establishment of education, universal, compulsory and free. But the total expenditure for education in India is less than one-half the educational expenditure in New York State.116 In the quarter of a century between 1882 and 1907, while public schools were growing all over the world, the appropriation for education in British India increased by $2,000,000; in the same period appropriations for the fratricide army increased by $43,000,000.117 It pays to be free.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And Jabez Sunderland mentioned that the Hindu education program of universal education continued in Hindu-ruled Kingdoms, while education under christianist rule (British) was killed off (as happens to all good things whenever christianism touches anything).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Joshi's) hasty comment on literacy belongs to the same genre wishful thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The actual and only case of lying is in the christian claim that christianism had a 'literary effect' on Rome and Europe.
As seen above, Hindu Dharma most certainly DID ensure education, AND this was to almost utterly undone by the christobrits. Whereas the "Encyclopaedic Brain" (Joseph McCabe) spells out what christos did to Rome and after that to Europe when the christoplague spread:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2b.htm:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Roman municipalities supplied free elementary instruction for the children of all workers. Anywhere you went, in a suburb of Rome or a small Italian town, you would see the teacher, in the porch of a house perhaps, teaching the children how to write on wax-faced tablets. Practically every Roman worker could read and write by the year 380 A.D., when Christianity began to have real power. By 480 nearly every school in the Empire was destroyed. By 580, and until 1780 at least, from ninety to ninety-five percent of the people of Europe were illiterate and densely ignorant. That is the undisputed historical record of Christianity as regards education.
-- The Story Of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joshi describes pre-colonial India as a "land of abundance", with an "economy as flourishing as its agriculture". Hunger and famines, in his perception, were obviously unknown in that period. But the fact is that famines have a long history in India. They are mentioned in the Jatakas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Arthashastra and Manu's Dharmashastra, among other ancient texts. As historian Romila Thapar notes: "Famine was common and is mentioned in Indian texts. We do not have to go looking for certificates of merit from foreign visitors."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thapar a "historian"? Liars can't be historians. The parrot means Hysterian, which is the term for Titled Liars.
I'd have thought that rather than "Joshi" or whoever, people who quote Romila Thapars and other communitwits need to be retired, because:
Repeating start of post 38 in letters thread
http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html "The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs" states that:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>In Late Victorian Holocausts</i>, Mike Davis points out that here were 31(thirty one) serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(Note there were famines induced by the islamic rulers that terrorised the nation before christianism arrived, these probably account for a significant number of the pre-British famines.)
Francois Gautier moreover gives us the record after the christian terror rule at http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifac...enial.html, which shows that it was indeed christianism that was squarely to blame:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since Independence, there has been no such famines, a record of which India should be proud.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The communitwit parrot stated:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Elsewhere, he touchingly described "the Indian shepherd" as "a finely built man of Herculean constitution", at a time when the vast majority of the Indian population was wasted and stunted, with a life expectancy of less than 30 years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yeah, we all know why the Indian working masses were starving: because of
christian-induced famines (posts 37 AND 38).
I already did the maths earlier using just the non-overlapping figures given by world historian Durant, journalist Gautier, writers Jabez T. Sunderland and Dr. Gideon Polya (inserting titles and professions, since the communitwit referred to hysterian romila in argumentum ad authority):
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Mar 8 2009, 02:43 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Mar 8 2009, 02:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->One wonders what happened in the years not covered by Durant: the occurrence of christian-imposed genocide through starvation and epidemics. And also in the years of continued christian British rule after his book was published in 1930 (outside the Bengal famine of 1943-1945).
Sticking to the recorded figures of famines and epidemics introduced from abroad and due to low resistance because of malnutrition:
- Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1770: 10,000,000 victims of famine
- 1800-1900: 25,000,000 to 36 million victims of famine (upper-limit derived from the higher-end estimate of an additional 11 million victims in the famines of 1875-1900 presented in Jabez T. Sunderland's The New Nationalist Movement in India)
- 1930: an estimated 8,000,000 victims of famine
- Bengal Famine 1943-1945: 4,000,000 victims of famine
- 1901: 272,000 died of plague introduced from abroad;
- 1902: 500,000 died of plague;
- 1903: 800,000
- 1904: 1,000,000
- 1918: 12,500,000
<b>TOTAL = 62,720,000 (62.7 million) to ~73.7 million victims of christianism (British Rule) - just counting those genocided by the starvation and diseases it caused.</b>[right][snapback]95291[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->People doubting my mathematical (in)abilities may want to add the numbers up for themselves.
Bodhi, it would be better if people retired in order of the amount of embarrassment they cause. Romila Thapars and their parrots ought to be the first to go. Joshi sounds over-enthusiastic, but Romila et al and their parrot(s) are lying. Such liars are like those plastic gloves that come in 10 packs: disposable but bad for the environment. And hence best not to buy them in the first place.
<b>ADDED:</b>
The Parrot ridiculed:
'Joshi describes pre-colonial India as a "land of abundance", with an "economy as flourishing as its agriculture".'
Well, the following is historian Will Durant in The Case For India (Ch 1) - quoting Sunderland - who sounds even more enthusiastic and less PC than Joshi:
'Those who have seen the unspeakable poverty and physiological weakness of the Hindus to-day will hardly believe that it was the wealth of eighteenth century India which attracted the commercial pirates of England and France. "This wealth," says Sunderland,
"was created by the Hindus' vast and varied industries. Nearly every kind of manufacture or product known to the civilized worldnearly every kind of creation of Man's brain and hand, existing anywhere, and prized either for its utility or beauty-had long, long been produced in India. India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or than any other in Asia. Her textile goods-the fine products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silkwere famous over the civilized world; so were her exquisite jewelry and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, color and beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal-iron, steel, silver and gold. She had great architecture-equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great engineering business men, great bankers and financiers. Not only was she the greatest ship-building nation, but she had great commerce and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilized countries. Such was the India which the British found when they came."7
[7. (Jabez T.) Sunderland p. 367]'
The book 'Beautiful Tree' which did have data supporting Gandhi's assertion was discussed on this forum a while back. I think Rajesh had started a thread on it and must be still around.
[right][snapback]96740[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think Viren is referring to the thread on Dharampal's researched writings
And reposting from Post 39 of Leters thread
Durant confirmed Dharampal's statements, also using data:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Will Durant, The Case for India (1930), Chapter 1:</i>
When the British came there was, throughout India, a system of communal schools, managed by the village communities. The agents of the East India Company destroyed these village communities, and took no steps to replace the schools; even to-day, after a century of effort to restore them, they stand at only 66% of their number a hundred years ago.109
Hence the 93% illiteracy of India. In several provinces literacy was more widespread before the British took possession than it is now after a century and a half of British control;118 in several of the states ruled by native princes it is higher than in British India. "The responsibility of the British for India's illiteracy seems to be beyond question."119
The Government spends every year on education eight cents a head 113 it spends on the army eighty-three cents a head.114 In 1911 a Hindu representative, Gokhale, introduced a bill for universal compulsory primary education in India; it was defeated by the British and Government-appointed members. In 1916 Patel introduced a similar bill, which was defeated by the British and Government-appointed members; 115 the Government could not afford to give the people schools. Instead, it spent most of its eight cents for education on secondary schools and universities, where the language used was English, the history, literature, customs and morals taught were English, and young Hindus, after striving amid poverty to prepare themselves for college, found that they had merely let themselves in for a ruthless process that aimed to de-nationalize and de-Indianize them, and turn them into imitative Englishmen. The first charge on a modern state, after the maintenance of public health, is the establishment of education, universal, compulsory and free. But the total expenditure for education in India is less than one-half the educational expenditure in New York State.116 In the quarter of a century between 1882 and 1907, while public schools were growing all over the world, the appropriation for education in British India increased by $2,000,000; in the same period appropriations for the fratricide army increased by $43,000,000.117 It pays to be free.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And Jabez Sunderland mentioned that the Hindu education program of universal education continued in Hindu-ruled Kingdoms, while education under christianist rule (British) was killed off (as happens to all good things whenever christianism touches anything).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Joshi's) hasty comment on literacy belongs to the same genre wishful thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The actual and only case of lying is in the christian claim that christianism had a 'literary effect' on Rome and Europe.
As seen above, Hindu Dharma most certainly DID ensure education, AND this was to almost utterly undone by the christobrits. Whereas the "Encyclopaedic Brain" (Joseph McCabe) spells out what christos did to Rome and after that to Europe when the christoplague spread:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2b.htm:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Roman municipalities supplied free elementary instruction for the children of all workers. Anywhere you went, in a suburb of Rome or a small Italian town, you would see the teacher, in the porch of a house perhaps, teaching the children how to write on wax-faced tablets. Practically every Roman worker could read and write by the year 380 A.D., when Christianity began to have real power. By 480 nearly every school in the Empire was destroyed. By 580, and until 1780 at least, from ninety to ninety-five percent of the people of Europe were illiterate and densely ignorant. That is the undisputed historical record of Christianity as regards education.
-- The Story Of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joshi describes pre-colonial India as a "land of abundance", with an "economy as flourishing as its agriculture". Hunger and famines, in his perception, were obviously unknown in that period. But the fact is that famines have a long history in India. They are mentioned in the Jatakas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Arthashastra and Manu's Dharmashastra, among other ancient texts. As historian Romila Thapar notes: "Famine was common and is mentioned in Indian texts. We do not have to go looking for certificates of merit from foreign visitors."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thapar a "historian"? Liars can't be historians. The parrot means Hysterian, which is the term for Titled Liars.
I'd have thought that rather than "Joshi" or whoever, people who quote Romila Thapars and other communitwits need to be retired, because:
Repeating start of post 38 in letters thread
http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html "The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs" states that:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>In Late Victorian Holocausts</i>, Mike Davis points out that here were 31(thirty one) serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(Note there were famines induced by the islamic rulers that terrorised the nation before christianism arrived, these probably account for a significant number of the pre-British famines.)
Francois Gautier moreover gives us the record after the christian terror rule at http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifac...enial.html, which shows that it was indeed christianism that was squarely to blame:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since Independence, there has been no such famines, a record of which India should be proud.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The communitwit parrot stated:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Elsewhere, he touchingly described "the Indian shepherd" as "a finely built man of Herculean constitution", at a time when the vast majority of the Indian population was wasted and stunted, with a life expectancy of less than 30 years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yeah, we all know why the Indian working masses were starving: because of
christian-induced famines (posts 37 AND 38).
I already did the maths earlier using just the non-overlapping figures given by world historian Durant, journalist Gautier, writers Jabez T. Sunderland and Dr. Gideon Polya (inserting titles and professions, since the communitwit referred to hysterian romila in argumentum ad authority):
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Mar 8 2009, 02:43 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Mar 8 2009, 02:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->One wonders what happened in the years not covered by Durant: the occurrence of christian-imposed genocide through starvation and epidemics. And also in the years of continued christian British rule after his book was published in 1930 (outside the Bengal famine of 1943-1945).
Sticking to the recorded figures of famines and epidemics introduced from abroad and due to low resistance because of malnutrition:
- Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1770: 10,000,000 victims of famine
- 1800-1900: 25,000,000 to 36 million victims of famine (upper-limit derived from the higher-end estimate of an additional 11 million victims in the famines of 1875-1900 presented in Jabez T. Sunderland's The New Nationalist Movement in India)
- 1930: an estimated 8,000,000 victims of famine
- Bengal Famine 1943-1945: 4,000,000 victims of famine
- 1901: 272,000 died of plague introduced from abroad;
- 1902: 500,000 died of plague;
- 1903: 800,000
- 1904: 1,000,000
- 1918: 12,500,000
<b>TOTAL = 62,720,000 (62.7 million) to ~73.7 million victims of christianism (British Rule) - just counting those genocided by the starvation and diseases it caused.</b>[right][snapback]95291[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->People doubting my mathematical (in)abilities may want to add the numbers up for themselves.
Bodhi, it would be better if people retired in order of the amount of embarrassment they cause. Romila Thapars and their parrots ought to be the first to go. Joshi sounds over-enthusiastic, but Romila et al and their parrot(s) are lying. Such liars are like those plastic gloves that come in 10 packs: disposable but bad for the environment. And hence best not to buy them in the first place.
<b>ADDED:</b>
The Parrot ridiculed:
'Joshi describes pre-colonial India as a "land of abundance", with an "economy as flourishing as its agriculture".'
Well, the following is historian Will Durant in The Case For India (Ch 1) - quoting Sunderland - who sounds even more enthusiastic and less PC than Joshi:
'Those who have seen the unspeakable poverty and physiological weakness of the Hindus to-day will hardly believe that it was the wealth of eighteenth century India which attracted the commercial pirates of England and France. "This wealth," says Sunderland,
"was created by the Hindus' vast and varied industries. Nearly every kind of manufacture or product known to the civilized worldnearly every kind of creation of Man's brain and hand, existing anywhere, and prized either for its utility or beauty-had long, long been produced in India. India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or than any other in Asia. Her textile goods-the fine products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silkwere famous over the civilized world; so were her exquisite jewelry and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, color and beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal-iron, steel, silver and gold. She had great architecture-equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great engineering business men, great bankers and financiers. Not only was she the greatest ship-building nation, but she had great commerce and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilized countries. Such was the India which the British found when they came."7
[7. (Jabez T.) Sunderland p. 367]'