 |
Faith Freedom International
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yeezevee
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 2300
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:40 am Post subject: AIR YOUR OPINIONS WITHOUT INSULTS: INDIA |
 |
|
Some one e-mailed me this letter
| Quote: | | Due to the British presence in Indian subcontinent, India now exports more technical expertise to the West than any other Asian country (including Japan). No doubt Indians and India suffered greatly under occupation and There isn’t a single fair-minded observer who would claim otherwise. But had India not been catapulted into the modern world by the military force, Woul she be the economic and intellectual power that we now know. Without England, would there be a Naipaul, Nehru or a Gandhi and other freedom fighters(all of whom were educated in Western schools)? |
I may not completely agree with this, but it is worth thinking. Did British unite what is left now as India; or did they breakdown Indian subcontinent? We should not forget about How British ruined Indian local economy and stole even that Jewel Khohinoor??, but at the same time, If British didn't occupy the country for 100 years or so, Did Islam had the power to destroy what is left as THE HINDU PRESENCE, would it have become many mini-Afghanisthans?
with best regards
yeezevee |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HPyroli
Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 923
Location: Batmalu, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Every nation that is today a player in the modern world has had a cruel interlude. China has become a formidable economic power after the ruthless Japanese occupation and then its own authoritarian Communism. The Arab nations too have had their share of foreign occupation. The United States fought a bitter war of independence with the British, after British cruelty. Europe was occupied by the Catholic Church. England, which went out to conquer the world, is itself the product of conquests. The Irish were humiliated by the English for centuries.
All these dominations and humilitations have chiselled the people of these countries to face the challenges of modernity. Every thing about modernity may not be good, but of all the options it is the only one that is universally adaptable... and acceptable. Modern India, indeed, has gained from its cruel past, and has been steadily progressing, but there are lumpen archaic forces attempting to retard this progress, by making noises of the past humiliation and demanding revenge. Ironically, many of these lumpens, use English as their first language, pay lip-service to their country's needs and earn money in the Middle East and Western nations.
In every nation and society, there are (and may always be) forces that are disgruntled about something or the other... modern thought (transcending religious beliefs) can act as a bulwark against them, and thereby protect all people. The fundamental right of each living person is to live within societal norms, national (human friendly laws) and do, say, believe, eat, drink, cohabit... they way he/she wants. Modernity has not come till this is achieved... the work must go on relentlessly.
And as far as India is concerned, every one who is a true Indian will embrace modernity, other are all self-seeking tratiors. My case is that these are the Brahmins, humiliated by the fact that their supposed superiority over the other castes, finds no recognition in modern India. They hate the India where there appears to be a strong possibility, in the future, that everyone will be truly equal, socially and politically: The end of Brahiminis.
_________________
Blessed are the peace makers... and others will get ulcers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnostic
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dear yee
I suppose the question your asking is imperialism wholly bad? Your right in a sense that it is never black and white. First of all let us look at roman imperial rule in europe.The romans were ruthless when it came to war and conquer. But once a people were conquered the came under the roman umbrella. The romans garuanteed protection and stability as long as they could collect the taxes. People could worship whatever gods they wanted to. In this way most of europe was in peace and stability, and it was because of this pax romanus that ideas and trade flourished. look what happened after the roman empire collapsed, the so called dark ages arrived.
So it is was with the british empire. I for one think the legacy of the british empire was not wholly bad. The british arrived in india when the mughal empire was in decline, they basicly stepped into a power vacuum. Their motive for empire was basicly profit (It was the east india company that ran things before it was nationalised)The brits were never interested in ideological or religious conversions. I realise that while the brits were in charge atrocities were commited , all imperial powers are guilty of this but the fact remains that they did provide pax britanicus to the whole subcontinent. They got rid of muslim rule for us (and for this fact alone i shall be eternaly grateful to them). The ideas of free speech and free liberty flowed from europe and was absorded by the educated classes of india. And when the brits did finally leave they gave us a relatively united india , i know pakistan was created but that was largely the fault of gandhi and his cronies. They gave us a working democracy which against all odds still functions to this day. How many other third world countries can make the same claim. They gave us bureaucracy and a railway infrastucture. They also gave us the english language which is the world language of business and commerce.
So all in all i would say that as far as imperial powers go the brits were OK and far more preferable to the muslims powers.
thats my view any way
all the best
G |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l l
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 1625
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hello yeezevee, HPyroli, gnostic,
Thanks for your insight and objectivity. It is reassuring to see people who can see the forest and not get confused by the trees.
Roman empire was for profit, but it was a contributor to humans progress, materially and intellectually.
British empire was for profit but it a contributor to human progress, materilally and intellectually.
Most empires despite their record of opression and exploitation were contributors to human progress.
Contrast this with Islamic empires, Arab, Mogul, or Ottoman Turks, they were non contributors. The were parasitic. They caused regression of dynamic cultures and destruction of vibrant economies over seveal centuries of their rule.
best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roshan
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 1717
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I realise that while the brits were in charge atrocities were commited , all imperial powers are guilty of this but the fact remains that they did provide pax britanicus to the whole subcontinent. They got rid of muslim rule for us (and for this fact alone i shall be eternaly grateful to them). |
this is one of the largest myths of indian history. prior to the british invasions, the mahrathas had already crushed mughal power. at the time the british got to india, the mughals ruled nothing except delhi and a few areas around it.
| Quote: |
Contrast this with Islamic empires, Arab, Mogul, or Ottoman Turks, they were non contributors. The were parasitic. They caused regression of dynamic cultures and destruction of vibrant economies over seveal centuries of their rule. |
the muslims brought mathematic knowledge and hindu numerals to europe. without hindu numerals, modern mathematics would not be possible. it is only after the introduction of hindu numerals to europe hat europeans developed their mathematical knowledge.
similarly, although hitler massacred jews, hitler also brought to germany military strenght and economic revival.
if we ignore the bad things and focus only on the good, even the most satanic, depraved and evil societies can be transformed into a bunch of angels. this includes british rule, nazism and even islam.
the british did not convert to human progress. they exploited other peoples and destroyd their civilizations and then used it to progress THEMSELVES.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnostic
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hi roshan
as far as i'm aware when clive of india landed in bengal he waged war with a muslim overlord. Yes the mughal empire was in decline but chunks of the country were still controlled by muslim overlords.
but the problem is that we as hindus have lacked unity. Even at the height of the empire only twenty thousand brits controlled a population of 300 million indians. If we had any kind of unity we could have expunged them.
But my hypothesis is that if the brits had not arrived there would be no modern day unified nation of india. If the brits had not arrived the indian subcontinent would in all probability be a collection of seperate principalities. And i firmly believe that our future strengh lies in our unity. so the point i'm making is that a legacy of empire is a modern unified state of india. Which to me is one of the more positive aspects of empire.
so all i'm saying is that it is never as simple as saying its good v evil.in reality most things tend to be a shade of grey
all the best
g |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JyotiBasu
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 270
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | But my hypothesis is that if the brits had not arrived there would be no modern day unified nation of india. If the brits had not arrived the indian subcontinent would in all probability be a collection of seperate principalities. And i firmly believe that our future strengh lies in our unity. so the point i'm making is that a legacy of empire is a modern unified state of india. Which to me is one of the more positive aspects of empire |
Your hypothesis is false to begin with, if you bring into the fact that the ganga basin and almost the entire Sindhu are located in countries not called India.
Secondly, the Marathas conquered most of modern day India. What they didnt conquer was the south, and Bengal. They did invade Bengal in 1742, but Siraj-ud-daulah was ruling by the time of the Battle of Plassey in 1757. It was the defeat of Siraj-ud-daulah that allowed the British to get a foothold. The Niwabs and the British then proceeded to rape the land. It took the british until 1805 to defeat the Marathas. Too bad the Marathas had internal dissension.
At the same times the Marathas conquered most of modern day India, the Sikhs were conquering most of modern day Pakistan.
_________________
Learn about Islam's horrific history:
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_indian_hist_frameset.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JyotiBasu
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 270
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People are waaay too apologetic for the British. i remember someone else on this forum talking about how they gave cricket to us! Am I supposed to be thankful?
The British ruined the prosperity of the country. That does not bother me too much. But then, the british talk about how they 'helped' the colonized people. This is actually not a wise thing for British and Brit apologists to continue doing.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/year/year-c01-s04.html
| Quote: | Stigler may well be right, however, that Smith "certainly convinced all subsequent economists." If so, that is a comment on the dangers of illegitimate idealization that isolates some inquiry from factors that crucially affect its subject matter, a problem familiar in the sciences; in this case, separation of abstract inquiry into the wealth of nations from questions of power: Who decides, and for whom? We return to the point as Adam Smith himself understood it.
The wealth of the colonies returned to Britain, creating huge fortunes. By 1700, the East India Company accounted for "above half the trade of the nation," one contemporary critic commented. Through the following half-century, Keay writes, its shares became the "equivalent of a gilt-edged security, much sought after by trustees, charities and foreign investors." The rapid growth of wealth and power set the stage for outright conquest and imperial rule. British officials, merchants, and investors "amassed vast fortunes," gaining "wealth beyond the dreams of avarice" (Parker). That was particularly true in Bengal, which, Keay continues, "was destabilized and impoverished by a disastrous experiment in sponsored government" -- one of the many "experiments" in the Third World that have not exactly redounded to the benefit of the experimental subjects. Two English historians of India, Edward Thompson and G.T. Garrett, described the early history of British India as "perhaps the world's high-water mark of graft": "a gold-lust unequalled since the hysteria that took hold of the Spaniards of Cortes' and Pizzaro's age filled the English mind. Bengal in particular was not to know peace again until she has been bled white." It is significant, they remark, that one of the Hindustani words that has become part of the English language is "loot."12
The fate of Bengal brings out essential elements of the global conquest. Calcutta and Bangladesh are now the very symbols of misery and despair. In contrast, European warrior-merchants saw Bengal as one of the richest prizes in the world. An early English visitor described it as "a wonderful land, whose richness and abundance neither war, pestilence, nor oppression could destroy." Well before, the Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta had described Bengal as "a country of great extent, and one in which rice is extremely abundant. Indeed, I have seen no region of the earth in which provisions are so plentiful." In 1757, the same year as Plassey, Clive described the textile center of Dacca as "extensive, populous, and rich as the city of London"; by 1840 its population had fallen from 150,000 to 30,000, Sir Charles Trevelyan testified before the Select Committee of the House of Lords, "and the jungle and malaria are fast encroaching... Dacca, the Manchester of India, has fallen from a very flourishing town to a very poor and small town." It is now the capital of Bangladesh.
Bengal was known for its fine cotton, now extinct, and for the excellence of its textiles, now imported. After the British takeover, British traders, using "every conceivable form of roguery," "acquired the weavers' cloth for a fraction of its value," English merchant William Bolts wrote in 1772: "Various and innumerable are the methods of oppressing the poor weavers...such as by fines, imprisonments, floggings, forcing bonds from them, etc." "The oppression and monopolies" imposed by the English "have been the causes of the decline of trade, the decrease of the revenues, and the present ruinous condition of affairs in Bengal."
Perhaps relying on Bolts, whose book was in his library, Adam Smith wrote four years later that in the underpopulated and "fertile country" of Bengal, "three or four hundred thousand people die of hunger in one year." These are consequences of the "improper regulations" and "injudicious restraints" imposed by the ruling Company upon the rice trade, which turn "dearth into a famine." "It has not been uncommon" for Company officials, "when the chief foresaw that extraordinary profit was likely to be made by opium," to plough up "a rich field of rice or other grain...in order to make room for a plantation of poppies." The miserable state of Bengal "and of some other of the English settlements" is the fault of the policies of "the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies." These should be contrasted, Smith urges, with "the genius of the British constitution which protects and governs North America" -- protects, that is, the English colonists, not the "mere savages," he fails to add.
The protection of the English colonists was actually a rather devious instrument. As Smith notes elsewhere, Britain "imposes an absolute prohibition upon the erection of slit-mills in any of her American plantations," and closely regulates internal commerce "of the produce of America; a regulation which effectually prevents the establishment of any manufacture of [hats, wools, woollen goods] for distant sale, and confines the industry of her colonists in this way to such coarse and household manufactures, as a private family commonly makes for its own use" or for its close neighbors. This is "a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind," standard in the colonial domains.
Under Britain's Permanent Settlement of 1793 in India, land was privatized, yielding wealth to local clients and taxes for the British rulers, while "The settlement fashioned with great care and deliberation has to our painful knowledge subjected almost the whole of the lower classes to most grievous oppression," a British enquiry commission concluded in 1832, commenting on yet another facet of the experiment. Three years later, the director of the Company reported that "The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cotton-weavers are bleaching the plains of India." The experiment was not a total failure, however. "If security was wanting against extensive popular tumult or revolution," the Governor-General of India, Lord Bentinck, observed, "I should say that the `Permanent Settlement,' though a failure in many other respects and in most important essentials, has this great advantage, at least, of having created a vast body of rich landed proprietors deeply interested in the continuance of the British Dominion and having complete command over the mass of the people," whose growing misery is therefore less of a problem than it might have been. As local industry declined, Bengal was converted to export agriculture, first indigo, then jute; Bangladesh produced over half the world's crop by 1900, but not a single mill for processing was ever built there under British rule.13
While Bengal was despoiled, Britain's textile industry was protected from Indian competition; a matter of importance, because Indian producers enjoyed a comparative advantage in printed cotton textile fabrics for the expanding market in England. A British Royal Industrial Commission of 1916-1918 recalled that Indian industrial development was "not inferior to that of the more advanced European nations" when "merchant adventurers from the West" arrived; it may even be "that the industries of India were far more advanced than those of the West up to the advent of the industrial revolution," Frederick Clairmonte observes," citing British studies. Parliamentary Acts of 1700 and 1720 forbade the import of printed fabrics from India, Persia, and China; all goods seized in contravention of this edict were to be confiscated, sold by auction, and re-exported. Indian calicoes were barred, including "any garment or apparel whatsoever...in or about any bed, chair cushion, window curtain, or any other sort of household stuff or furniture." Later, British taxes also discriminated against local cloth within India, which was forced to take inferior British textiles. |
The British didnt take long in ruining the country. Just a decade.
Richard Becher, a servant of the company, wrote to the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors on the 24th May, 1769: "It must give pain to an Englishman to have reason to think that since the accession of the Company to the Diwani the condition of the people of this country has been worse than it was before; yet I am afraid that the fact is undoubted.... This fine country, which flourished under the despotic and arbitrary government, is verging towards ruin."
An Advanced History of India
by RC Majumdar, HC Raychaudhri & Kalinkar Datta
_________________
Learn about Islam's horrific history:
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_indian_hist_frameset.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnostic
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
dear jyoti
I'm not apologising for the british empire.I'm merely stating that there are some positive aspects to come out of empire. The brits ruled for 200 years or so. if the brits had not arrived india would not be the india of today. The subcontinent would not be india and pakistan but would in all probabilty be 20 different countries. Man is a very tribal being and the country would have fragmented along those lines. i.e punjab , gujerat, kerala, tamil etc would not be states within a federal india but would be seperate countries. And this fragmentation would have weakened the hindu cause even further. We have hostile countries to the north, east , and west and it is only by being unified can we resist the hostile intent of these countries. So again i would say that brits are responsible for this modern day entity called india and it is up to us maintain the unity of mother india. through unity lies strength.
Another positive aspect of empire is communication. the fact that i can speak to you on the internet is testimony to this fact. Let us look at this forum. There may be people of a 100 different nationalites. The fact that we can communicate with each other in english is a direct legacy of the british empire. Otherwise it would mean i would have to learn 100 different languages which is somewhat unreasonable. India alone has so many languages and dialects.
So agian i say that the legacy of empire has not been all bad there have some benefits of empire.
all the best
g |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
govind
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 199
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think what Gnostic is trying to say is that this cloud has a silver lining. He is not denying that it is a cloud... 
_________________
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
"The truth is neither in separation nor in uniformity - The truth is in unity manifesting through diversity"
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JyotiBasu
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 270
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roshan
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 1717
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
sometimes i think partition was a blessing, the main problem with it was the rejection of total population transfer.
consider this: it wont be long before muslims outnumber the hindus in the subcontinent.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l l
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 1625
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| roshan wrote: |
the muslims brought mathematic knowledge and hindu numerals to europe. without hindu numerals, modern mathematics would not be possible. it is only after the introduction of hindu numerals to europe hat europeans developed their mathematical knowledge. |
Dear Roshan,
The earliest recorded human knowledge comes from Babylonians. There is solid proof to their legacy, not in conjecture and fancy but in real information recorded on clay tablets. Hundred of thousands of such clay tablets are stored and protected in the great musuems of the world. Their contributions were the foundations for subsequent progress in sciences and human thinking.
In the never ending march of human progress, many from various people and cultures have been making contributions. No one denies contribution made by India. Arab Muslims mostly copied and transmitted. At any time one civilization or another may be the biggest contributor. That fact tha A contributed at time B does not take any thing from C who contributed at time D.
Due to confluence of events and due to certain root causes and core beliefs, the Westerners have made the tremendous contributions in the shortest period in the recorded history of mankind. The contribution of the West at a gigantic pace continues unabated.
100, 500, or 1000 years from now, India may eclipse any other nation or culture in its contribution. That will be good for India and mankind.
In the mean time there is nothing to be embarrased about or to get on the defensive if some one says India today is not at top in a, b, h, p, or z.
Muslims are always on the defensive about their present miserable status. They bury their head in the sand and gloat over the golden age of Islam.
We are greatful to all who had contributed in the past. But goldean age and platinum age, and diamond age of the long ago past does not place one loaf of bread in the hands of a starving and disposesed person.
| Quote: | | if we ignore the bad things and focus only on the good, even the most satanic, depraved and evil societies can be transformed into a bunch of angels. this includes british rule, nazism and even islam. |
If you are getting your information from Muslims about Muslims and others, that is true.
The West records its good and its bad. Your knowlewdge about the bad deeds of the West comes from Westerners, and not from Reincarnation or Pagan Prophet. The West spreads its dirty laundry to be seen by everyone including Roshan. The ability to discuss one's wrongs is a contributor to self cleansing, strenght and progress. Go to any book store or library, read any newspaper, listen to TV programs and you will be astounded at the amount of criticism that Westerners heap on them selves. Can we say the same thing about India or Islamic countries. The more people run away from their problems, the less chance of fixing the problems.
The more Roshan concentrates on the bad deeds of the West, the more you ignore your India and impede its progress. That makes you even more embarrased on on the offensive.
Those who keep pointing to the faults of other to cover the pain and shame of their faults impede their self cleansing and progress.
| Quote: | | the british did not convert to human progress. they exploited other peoples and destroyd their civilizations and then used it to progress THEMSELVES. |
I am sorry to say that your conclusion is wrong and emotional. All the problems of India were not created by Britain. Britain exploited and contributed. If I were you, I would make a comparative study of Japan and India. It could help in understanding why India has not progressed as fast as Japan, or even as fast as China since 1980.
There are countless people that are more attractive and more successful than me, l l. Am I going to feel embarrased and bitter? No.
That is your are feeling Roshan, about India. I do not feel embarrased and bitter because Iraq is backward and stupid. I may feel sympathy for it now and then.
best regards
Last edited by l l on Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l l
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 1625
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | [quote="roshan"]sometimes i think partition was a blessing, the main problem with it was the rejection of total population transfer. |
There was a one way population transfer. The Hindus in Pakistan were decimated.
The Muslims in India were practically left intact.
And you have been gunning at a perceived enemy rather than the real enemy.
| Quote: | | consider this: it wont be long before muslims outnumber the hindus in the subcontinent. |
That is true.
Rather than facing the real threat to India, you have have been charging at windmills.
They will outnumber the Westerners in the West.
And you are fighting the wrong enemy.
It is one thing to recognize danger, It is bad to get emotional and not know the real enemy.
best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yeezevee
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 2300
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WIthin the context of the present discussion, let me add The Indian Primeminister's views about Hindutva;The meaning of Hindutva seems to be different for different people. here is excerpts from his writings
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_129275,000900040002.htm
| Quote: | Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee celebrated Hindutva on Tuesday as an all-encompassing concept and attacked the Sangh Parivar for distorting it as an extremist, narrow, rigid and obscurantist "way of life".
"The extremist projection of Hindutva is an unfortunate and unacceptable interpretation that runs totally contrary to its true spirit," said Vajpayee in his first post-Gujarat musings during his
holiday in Goa. Drawing heavily from the teachings of Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore and Aurobindo, he has packaged the real Hindutva, the essence of which was apparently lost in the dust and grime of poll-time compulsions.
....He says secularism enjoins upon the state the duty to respect all faiths and to practise no discrimination among citizens on the basis of their beliefs. "Hinduism's acceptance of the diversity of India is the central feature of Indian secularism,"he says" ... |
Is He sincere or is it all politics?
with best regards
yezeevee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yeezevee
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 2300
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:24 pm Post subject: Let there be light! Hassan |
|
|
Let there be light! by Mr. Hassan is an interesting article with reference to the present discussion here is excerpts, let us think about it.
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html
| Quote: | Although the incandescent electric bulb was invented in 1883, the use of electricity in the Punjab was not prevalent everywhere till after the birth of Pakistan. Most people most certainly regard turning on an electric switch as normal as swatting a fly so they cannot know the wonder of it as I do.
As for lighting, all households had what was called a hurricane lantern, lit by kerosene oil. It had a protective glass shade. The ritual in those days was that all these lamps and lanterns would be gathered in the evening, their chimneys cleaned, wicks cut and their reservoirs filled with kerosene oil which was drawn out of a large tin can by a curious tin pump.
They hardly gave sufficient light to enable one to recognise a person so if there was a gathering in a room, one recognised who was speaking by the voice emanating from a certain direction.
In 1935, when electricity was first introduced into Muzaffargarh, I stood in the street in front of our house. Nearby were standing two local yokels. Suddenly, for the first time, the streetlights went on. The yokels were startled. One said to the other in Seraiki, "Nor did he light a match nor a stick and humph went up the light. This diabolical Englishman works wonders." All invention was ascribed to the ruler, the Englishman... |
with best regards
yeezevee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnostic
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
to govind
succinctly put. by the way your not that bollywood actor who wears those really garish clothes are you?
to ||
an erudite analysis
to roshan
fear not dude , if mr ali sina is right in his prognostications then with 2-3 generations islam will be a blip in history. Besides rishi aurobindo prophesied the break up of pakistan and it reabsorption into mother india and who am i to contradict the great man. So dont worry about being swamped by islam.
to yeevezee
in a similar vein check out the film monty pythons THE LIFE OF BRIAN. theres one scene in particular where the jews are discussing rebellion and one guy gets up and says "what have the romans ever done for us ". A very amusing scene follows. For those of you who have seen the film you'll know what i mean, for those of you haven't its well worth a view.
take care chaps
g |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
govind
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 199
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gnostic wrote: | | by the way your not that bollywood actor who wears those really garish clothes are you? |
No way dude. I don't wear garish clothes and I'm a lot better looking. 
_________________
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
"The truth is neither in separation nor in uniformity - The truth is in unity manifesting through diversity"
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hinduwoman
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 1092
Location: India
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would put it like this --
The British conquest benefited us by intoducing us to modern science, modern education and ideals and a link-language with the greater world. In many places it did manage to get rid of muslim rulers. (Roshan Bankimchandra thought that God had sent the British to rescue the Hindus from muslim rule; his advice was to learn whatever useful was there to learn from British and then kick them out). It also gave us a common focus of unity. But nothing they did was for India's benefit. They sucked the resources of the country dry, grafted a tradition of inferiority and bootlicking of whites and left the legacy of a very brutal and largely unaccountable police force: the rulers we got after independence continued the pattern because that was all they knew. What benefits we received was accidental.
However modern Brits have nothing to do with us now. High time for Indians to stop blaming today's problems on them.
_________________
May facts and logic always win over 'feel-good' factor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roshan
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 1717
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The West records its good and its bad. Your knowlewdge about the bad deeds of the West comes from Westerners, |
its amazing that you say this, while at the same time you are attempting to twist and rewrite history to make it seem like the british rule "helped" india and contributed to its progress.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pagan Prophet
Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1320
Location: Space within your heart
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| roshan wrote: | | Quote: |
The West records its good and its bad. Your knowlewdge about the bad deeds of the West comes from Westerners, |
its amazing that you say this, while at the same time you are attempting to twist and rewrite history to make it seem like the british rule "helped" india and contributed to its progress. |
There are also Christian preachers in USA who say that white Christians need not apologise to blacks for slavery because slavery 'helped' them to come to Christ...this kind of warped thinking can be stretched to any extreme...
_________________
Islam is NO way and Christ is NOT the only way. Standing for the honor of pagan cultures against the tyranny of monomaniac Judaic faiths. Cherishing the wisdom of ancient Greece, Persia , India and China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l l
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 1625
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| roshan wrote: | | Quote: |
The West records its good and its bad. Your knowlewdge about the bad deeds of the West comes from Westerners, |
its amazing that you say this, while at the same time you are attempting to twist and rewrite history to make it seem like the british rule "helped" india and contributed to its progress. |
Hello Roshan,
I would say neither You nor I twist. We look at the same thing, see different shades and arrive at different conclusions. Honest people may differ.
We are all unique and endowed with free will and ability to think independently. We can limit ourselves by a million excuses, and we can march forward and catch up. The choice is up to the individual, the group and the nation.
Japan has the highest rate of irreligious citizens. Yes they are described as Shintos. That is all, just described as shintos. Yet Japanese are exremely loyal to Japan and proud of it. Japanese are proud (not pride) and confident. The only foreigners that are allowed free entry and exit in and out of Japan are Western Christian missionaries. I am not going to tell you why.
Back to India. You are terrified that the number of Hindus is decreasing, relatively speaking, Low birth rate, some converting to other religions, some becoming marxists or seculars, some emigrating for better opprtunities. What you see in India happened long time ago in Japan. Has been hapenning in the West, and is happening in China. Japan is still Japan, The West is still the West. China is still China, and India will still be India. Monopolies are being dismantled for whatever reasons. This applies to religious monopolies. India is not exempt from that. All countries where all monopolies have been dismantled are democratic progressive and generaly prosperous.
Countries that continue to adhere to monopliles including religious monoplies are ruled by ruthless ruling classes, are stagnant or regressing. This model applies to all Islamic countries without exception.
In a democratic and progressive India, the relative number of Hindus may indeed decrease. But these Hindus will be genuine believers, strong and confident. Faith is personal. Faith should be separate from state. In all states where faith and state fuse, the winner are the dictators, autocrats, oligarchs who manipulate the church to maximize their power. The Western model where the catholic church at times had the upper hand represents a unique model that resulted from the fall of the Western Roman empire and the the need to fill a vacuum to administer civil administration. Unless one reads the full history of the West, one would not understand why the church gained temporal power. In the Eastern Roman empire, and subsequently eastern Europe, Christianity was merely another department of the state. In Islam, religion was a tool of the rulers. And in India, fusing state and faith will make Hinduism a tool for the rulers.
Back to the bad British. From 1918 to 1932, the period of time that Britain ruled Iraq as a colony or League of Nations mandate, it (Britain) pulled Iraq out of the worst pit of degradation imposed on them by their fellow Muslims. To this day they blame Britain for their problems. Because they are stupid (I am not implying you are stupid) they continue to stumble.
best regards
Last edited by l l on Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
