I received this email yesterday and could not stop before reading it right through to the end…It is a long read…quite a long read, in fact.  And it is seriously thought-provoking. Below, excerpts from a speech delivered by Sh. Gurumurthy at IIT Chennai in 2003 which - although five years old - still retains its and relevance and punch.  This is a *must read*.
*** Excerpts from “The Intellectual Scene in Post-Independence India“Â by Sh Gurumurthy ***
A critical review of strengths and weaknesses
… Defeat and anger go together. Abuse and defeat go together. So, it is in this norm and with this understanding of what an intellectual debate means, I would like to place before you some of my thoughts today. Some of may find it provocative. I am confident that the audience is competent enough to absorb this and think rather than get into the mood which all of us have got used to in the last 30-40 years abuse.
Background: India before Independence
Let us see the pre-independence background, the intellectual content of India. See the kind of personalities who led the Indian mind Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Gandhiji, Tilak- giants in their own way. Most of them were involved in politics, active politics, day-to-day politics, handling men, walking on the road, addressing meetings, solving problems between their followers. And, meeting the challenges posed by the enemy, the conspiracies hatched against them. They were handling everything, yet, they were maintaining an intellectual supremacy, and a record and an originality which history has recorded.
Let us look at the academic side. Whether it is a P. C. Ray who wrote on Indian Chemistry in 1905 or Sir C. V. Raman who wrote about mridangam, tabala, and violin, and saw the Physics in it (this was in 1913); whether it was R. C. Majumdar or Radhakumud Mukherjee who saw greatness in the Indian Civilization; trying to bring up points, instances, historical evidence to mirror the greatness of India, to the defeated Indian race, they were all building the Indian mind brick by brick. Sri Aurobindo spoke of Sanatana Dharma as the Nationalism of India. He didn”t rank it as a philosophy. He brought it down to the level of emotional consciousness. Swami Vivekananda spoke of spiritual nationalism; it was the same Swami who spoke of Universal brotherhood. For them philosophy was not removed from the ground reality. The nation was at the core of their philosophy. Swami Vivekananda was called the “patriot monk”.
Mahatma Gandhi spoke of Rama Rajya. Bankim Chandra wrote Bande Maataram. The song, the slogans in it, the mantra in it made hundreds of people kiss the gallows smilingly and many others went to jail. It transformed the life of the people; this was the intellectual scene, this was the content…This was the core of India, the soul of the Indian freedom movement.
The symptoms: India immediately after Independence
…Let us look at post Independence India. The persons who led post-Independence India were also trained in the same freedom movement. They went to jail, but they were not rooted in the intellectual content of the Freedom movement!
The first Prime Minister of India, he was in jail for 7 years. He was a great intellectual himself, purely in the sense of his capacity to reason, understand, read, and expound a thought. He told Galbrieth once, “I would be regarded as the last English Prime Minister of India. See the intellectual capability of the man, the enormously competent mind.
But intellectualism doesn”t exist in a vacuum. It has to be rooted in something concrete. Vivekananda”s universal brotherhood was rooted in India”s greatness as a civilization, which proclaimed it. The concept of “Vasudaiva Kutumbakam” cannot exist without a living form, a population which believes in it and believes in itself. You need to have a society, which believes in it.
That is why India could invite the Jews who were butchered, raped, all over the world. In 107 out of 108 countries, this race was butchered. At least they had the courtesy and the gratitude to publish a book, the Israeli govt. published a book that out of 108 countries that we sought refuge, the only civilization, the only country, the only people, the only ideology that gave us refuge was the Indian civilization. They published a book, which most Indians are unaware of.
And we invited the Muslims. The refugee Muslims first landed in Kutch. And they are called the Kutchy Memons even today but not the Memons who bomb Bombay. But the Memons who lived with us.
Keep Reading…
October 26th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
A Hindu Identity, An Indian Identity, British Rule in India, Hindu Dharma, Identity, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History, Sanatana Dharma, Women in Hinduism & India |
7 comments
I came across this fascinating piece of research a while ago but almost forgot to post it here. From The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs, some thought-provoking excerpts:
*** Excerpts Begin ***
While few educated South Asians would deny that British Colonial rule was detrimental to the interests of the common people of the sub-continent - several harbor an illusion that the British weren’t all bad. Didn’t they, perhaps, educate us - build us modern cities, build us irrigation canals - protect our ancient monuments - etc. etc. And then, there are some who might even say that their record was actually superior to that of independent India’s! Perhaps, it is time that the colonial record be retrieved from the archives and re-examined - so that those of us who weren’t alive during the freedom movement can learn to distinguish between the myths and the reality.
Literacy and Education
…(since) the last year, I have been making a point of asking English-speaking Indians to guess what India’s literacy rate in the colonial period might have been…Most guessed the number to be between 30% and 40%. When I suggested that their guess was on the high side - they offered 25% to 35%. No one was prepared to believe that literacy in British India in 1911 was only 6%, in 1931 it was 8%, and by 1947 it had crawled to 11%! That fifty years of freedom had allowed the nation to quintuple it’s literacy rate was something that almost seemed unfathomable to them…
Urban Development
It is undoubtedly true that the British built modern cities with modern conveniences for their administrative officers. But it should be noted that these were exclusive zones not intended for the “natives” to enjoy. Consider that in 1911, 69 per cent of Bombay’s population lived in one-room tenements (as against 6 per cent in London in the same year). The 1931 census revealed that the figure had increased to 74 per cent - with one-third living more than 5 to a room. The same was true of Karachi and Ahmedabad.
…Yet, in 1757 (the year of the Plassey defeat), Clive of the East India Company had observed of Murshidabad in Bengal: “This city is as extensive, populous and rich as the city of London…” (so quoted in the Indian Industrial Commission Report of 1916-18). Dacca was even more famous as a manufacturing town, it’s muslin a source of many legends and it’s weavers had an international reputation that was unmatched in the medieval world.
…The percentage of population dependant on agriculture and pastoral pursuits actually rose to 73% in 1921 from 61% in 1891. (Reliable figures for earlier periods are not available.)
In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in “Public Works in India” noted: “Public works have been almost entirely neglected throughout India…
Nothing can be more revealing than the remark by John Bright in the House of Commons on June 24, 1858, “The single city of Manchester, in the supply of its inhabitants with the single article of water, has spent a larger sum of money than the East India Company has spent in the fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 in public works of every kind throughout the whole of its vast dominions.”
Irrigation and Agricultural Development
There is another popular belief about British rule: ‘The British modernized Indian agriculture by building canals’. But the actual record reveals a somewhat different story. ” The roads and tanks and canals,” noted an observer in 1838 (G. Thompson, “India and the Colonies,” 1838), ”which Hindu or Mussulman Governments constructed for the service of the nations and the good of the country have been suffered to fall into dilapidation; and now the want of the means of irrigation causes famines.” Montgomery Martin, in his standard work “The Indian Empire”, in 1858, noted that the old East India Company “omitted not only to initiate improvements, but even to keep in repair the old works upon which the revenue depended.”
The Report of the Bengal Irrigation Department Committee in 1930 reads:…“As regards the revival or maintenance of minor routes, … practically nothing has been done, with the result that, in some parts of the Province at least, channels have been silted up, navigation has become limited to a few months in the year, and crops can only be marketed when the Khals rise high enough in the monsoon to make transport possible”.
Sir William Willcock, a distinguished hydraulic engineer, whose name was associated with irrigation enterprises in Egypt and Mesopotamia had made an investigation of conditions in Bengal. He had discovered that innumerable small destructive rivers of the delta region, constantly changing their course, were originally canals which under the English regime were allowed to escape from their channels and run wild. Formerly these canals distributed the flood waters of the Ganges and provided for proper drainage of the land, undoubtedly accounting for that prosperity of Bengal which lured the rapacious East India merchants there in the early days of the eighteenth century.. He wrote” Not only was nothing done to utilize and improve the original canal system, but railway embankments were subsequently thrown up, entirely destroying it. Some areas, cut off from the supply of loam-bearing Ganges water, have gradually become sterile and unproductive, others improperly drained, show an advanced degree of water-logging, with the inevitable accompaniment of malaria. Nor has any attempt been made to construct proper embankments for the Gauges in its low course, to prevent the enormous erosion by which villages and groves and cultivated fields are swallowed up each year.”…
Keep Reading…
August 30th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Modern Indian History |
4 comments
From a Sify report on a seminar held last Friday at IIC on ‘1914 Shimla Convention Agreement and Consequences’ (emphasis mine):
The fact that the Chinese refused to ink the 1914 Shimla Convention agreement between India and Tibet puts question mark over the legality or morality of China’s claim of sovereignty over Tibet, a group of India’s top jurists, scholars and security experts feel.
…The participants - who included senior Supreme Court Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, Arunachal MP Khiren Rijuju, Lt Gen. (Rtd.) F.R. J. Jacob, veteran diplomat Dalip Mehta, and writer Dr Parshotam Mehta - felt that this could make a strong case for India to press for autonomy of the Tibet in its negotiations with China during sixth round of discussions on Indo-China border that started today.
…Dhawan argued that China’s case for sovereignty over Tibet was inconclusive, contradictory and un-established. “I have gone through all relevant documents. At best, a nominal suzerainty was imposed by the imperial powers, which lapsed when the Chinese did not sign the agreement,” he said.
Writer Parshotam Mehta and Dr Anand Kumar of Jawaharlal Nehru University drew attention to the July declaration signed by the “plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet” which said if China did not sign the agreement “she will be debarred from all privileges”.
”It was an agreement between the government of India and Tibet and did not accept any claim by China if the latter did not accept the conditionalities,” they contended.
But all the legalities in the world pale against lack of political will and resolve…I am not in the least optimistic that the sixth round of discussions with China would be any different from the previous ones…
Related Posts:
Of sound bites, Shilpa Shetty and Arunachal
Tibet - not always part of China…
Dancing with the Dragon…
.
If you liked what you read, consider subscribing to my feed or subscribe by Email.
July 6th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Miscellaneous, Modern Indian History, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History, World History |
one comment
Some thought-provoking excerpts from: Does Europe have a Civilising mission in India? by Jakob De Roover*, published on 16 June 2008 - Issue : 786.
*** Excerpts Begin ***
Recently, the European Parliament hosted a meeting on “caste discrimination in South Asia”. At the meeting, participants stated that “India is being ruled by castes not by laws” and that they demanded justice, because there “is one incredible India and one untouchable India.” The EU was urged to come out with a policy statement on the subject. One MEP, referring to the caste system, said that “this barbarism has to end.” This is not the first time. However, before the EU decides to publish policy statements on caste discrimination in India, we would do well to reflect on some simple facts.
First, the dominant conception of the caste system has emerged from the accounts by Christian missionaries, travelers and colonial administrators. Rather than being neutral, these accounts were shaped by a Christian framework. …Especially the Protestants rebuked the “evil priests” of Hinduism for imposing the laws of caste in the name of religion. They told the Indians that conversion to Protestantism was a conversion to equality. Thus, Indian souls were to be saved from damnation and caste discrimination.
Second, this Christian account of “the Hindu religion” and its “caste system” informed colonial policies in British India…
Building on the theological framework, scholars now wrote “scientific” treatises on Hindu superstition and caste discrimination.
The Christian mission found its secular counterpart in the idea of the civilising mission, which told the West that it had to rescue the natives from the clutches of superstition and caste.
Third, the colonial educational project had a deep impact on the Indian intelligentsia. Hindu reform and anti-caste movements came into being, which reproduced the Protestant accounts of Hinduism and caste as true descriptions of India.
…Political parties and caste associations were created to safeguard the interests of the “lower castes.” The elites of these groups united in associations and received financial and moral support from the missionaries and other progressive colonials.
Fourth, the “Dalit” movement of today is the product of these colonial movements. The notion of “Dalits” makes sense only within the colonial account of India, which had postulated the existence of one single group of “outcastes” or “untouchables” that was supposedly exploited by the upper castes. In reality, it concerns a variety of caste groups, with no criteria to unite them besides the claim that they are all “downtrodden.” Indeed, many of these groups are poor and discriminated against by other caste groups.
…In the name of the downtrodden, these elites establish NGOs and then travel from conference to conference and country to country in order to reveal the plight of the “Dalits” to eager western audiences and secure funding from donor agencies.
Fifth, when present-day Europeans rebuke Indian society for the “barbarism” of caste discrimination, they are reproducing the old stanzas of the civilising mission. Such a stance of superiority perhaps worked in the context of colonialism. But today, at a time when Indians buy some of the European industrial giants and Europe is in need of more collaboration with India, it is ill-advised to continue this type of civilisational propaganda.
In fact, such propaganda derives its plausibility from a series of assumptions that no one would be willing to defend explicitly. It attributes all socioeconomic wrongs of the Indian society to its structure and civilisation. The implication is that there is only one way to get rid of socio-economic wrongs here: one has to eradicate both the social structure and the Hindu civilisation. It is as though one would blame the racism, bingedrinking, pedophilia, poverty, homelessness and domestic violence in the contemporary West on its age-old civilisation.
The times have changed. As Europeans, we need to reflect on our deep-rooted sense of superiority and how this informs our moralising discourse on human rights in other parts of the world. To appreciate the impression we give to Indians with our statements on caste discrimination, just imagine a possible world in which the Indian government regularly castigates the US for its racism against African-Americans and the disproportionate death penalties, and the EU for the treatment of South Asians in England, Turks in Germany, women in Romania, the Basque movement in Spain, gypsies in Italy …
just imagine Indian members of parliament consistently blaming the very structure of western societies as the cause of all these wrongs. Europe needs to wake up fast. The time of colonialism is over. If we do not change our attitudes, the irritation towards the EU will grow in countries like India and China. So will the unwillingness to collaborate. In the fast-changing world of the early 21st Century, Europe cannot afford this.
*** End of Excerpts ***
Related Posts:
The British ‘Caste System’ - excerpts
Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination - Join the debate
Caste, Varna and Jatis: The need for clarity in intellectual debate
* Jakob De Roover is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation (FWO) at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap, Ghent University, Belgium.
June 26th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Conversions, Missionaries in India, Current Affairs, Debates & Discussions, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, Human Rights and Legal Issues |
2 comments
In my previous post, I has asked the question: What could be the reason(s) for the Government’s continued silence on the matter of Netaji’s disappearance?
It would be tempting to blame this on partisan politics but actually it is not just the Congress that has failed us in this regard. As Anuj Dhar mentions: “The BJP seems to be in unison with the Congress over the Subhas Bose death case. That’s why you haven’t heard anything on this matter from their senior leaders, with the notable exception of Dr Murli Manohar Joshi”
.
Time for a little bit of history.
In the early days of the struggle for India’s freedom, Netaji’s influence and impact on the freedom movement was equal to (if not more than) that of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru…Unfortunately the relationship between Netaji on one hand, and Mahatma on the other was uneasy and fraught with disagreements.
As many of you may know, his re-election to the post of Congress President in 1939 created further tension between him and the Mahatma - especially as he had won the post defeating Pattabhi Sitaramaiah (who was Gandhiji’s nominee).
Gandhiji apparently took Sitaramayya’s defeat personally and is believed to have remarked: “I consider Pattabhi’s defeat as my own”.
There were other reasons behind the tension, including disagreement over the immediate goals and objectives of the movement. Soon after his re-election, Netaji “…brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt. There was much opposition to his rigid stand, and he resigned from the post of president and formed a progressive group known as the Forward Block… [link]”
Here is another account and interpretation of events around the time:
In a letter dated March 28, 1939, from Manbhum, Bihar - Bose complained bitterly to Nehru of Gandhi’s quiet campaign of non-cooperation with him. Bose had just won the Presidency of the Indian National Congress, defeating Gandhi’s chosen nominee, Dr Pattabhi. At first, Gandhi had tried to talk Bose out of running for the post, and tried to work out a backroom deal for Dr Pattabhi’s ascension (as he had done on many earlier occasions). But Bose was determined to seek the mandate of Congress activists, and won by a handsome margin in an election where the official machinery of the Congress had put all its weight behind Gandhi’s hand-picked nominee.
Bose’s historic election signified the mood of the Indian masses, who were becoming increasingly impatient with Gandhi’s tepid nationalism. Bose had always strived to accelerate the freedom struggle, and the mass of Congress Party workers appreciated his sincerity and unswerving commitment to the national cause. In many ways, he was the best person to lead the Congress, with intellect and vision that exceeded Gandhi.
But Gandhi, along with Patel and Nehru formed a tactical block against Bose, and prevented him from functioning effectively as leader of India’s preeminent national organization. In vain did Bose make his case with Nehru, who remained unmoved, and eventually, it led to Bose having to quit the Congress, and organize outside it’s tedious confines.
But there was more to this than met the eye…
In the words of Prof Satadru Sen, “Gandhi certainly saw Bose as a rival and a dangerous upstart, and did his best to destroy him politically”
What follows is probably the most truthful (and detailed) account of what actually happened during the months following Netaji’s re-election that ultimately led to his ouster as Congress President.
Keep Reading…
May 30th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Modern Indian History, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History |
5 comments
Like many of you, I have often wondered how India’s present would have looked if Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had lived (and led) an independent India.
Last week I was alerted to this site dedicated to finding the truth behind Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s tragic disappearance from the national freedom struggle in 1945 (Thanks a lot, Mohan). Specifically it deals with the Mukherjee Commission (which was the third official proble into Netaji’s disappearance) and what came out of it.
The site mentions how the government tried hard to stall the work of Justice Mukherjee Commission and avoided cooperating wherever it could. It also mentions some very interesting facts which I felt we should all be aware of:
- The UPA Government was overtly hostile towards the Commission. Justice Mukherjee was “humiliated” by them for his insistence to probe the Taiwanese and the Russian angles to the Netaji mystery.
- The Government was against the Commission visiting Taiwan, but Justice Mukherjee prevailed. Justice Mukherjee’s January 2005 visit to Taiwan and his direct interaction with Taiwan Government yielded the disclosure that there was no evidence of any air crash in or around Taipei around 18 August 1945. The Commission also found out that despite the claims of the previous panels, and so called eyewitnesses, Netaji and other victims of the “crash” were not cremated in Taiwan.
- It was established that the Governments of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi’s either hushed up or destroyed several records pertaining to the reported death of Subhas Bose.
- The British Government told the Commission that they would not declassify some papers on Netaji until 2021. The Government of India would not help the Commission in accessing these papers.
- With the evidence hinting at no crash, the Commission made attempts to find out what had happened to Netaji after 1945. Starting February 2001, the Commission asked the Government to make arrangements for their visit to Russia so that the evidence could be assessed. The Government kept dilly-dallying. In September 2005, the Commission was (finally) allowed to visit Russia (after much dilly-dallying by the government) , but it never got access to major intelligence and security-related archives of Russia. One major witness did not turn up and others apparently turned hostile. As a result, the Commission’s Russia sojourn failed.
What did the Commission find? Amongst other things, it noted that:
- (Netaji)…did not die in the plane crash, as alleged
- The ashes in the Japanese temple are not that of Netaji
Getting into the details, the Commission didn’t just nix the air crash story; it paved the way for further inquiry, maintaining that Subhas had disappeared while heading towards the Soviet Russia.
A secret plan was contrived to ensure Netaji’s safe passage to which Japanese military authority and Habibur Rahman were parties.
The purpose of his (Netaji’s) flight was to go to the Soviet Union and with the aid of the Soviet Union he was to continue his independence movement.
The departure of Netaji from Saigon on August 17, 1945 along with Habibur Rahman and some Japanese officers for going to Russia via Manchuria is … not in controversy.
It stands established that emplaning at Saigon on August 17, 1945 Netaji succeeded in evading the Allied Forces and escaping out of their reach and as a camouflage thereof the entire make-believe story of the air crash, Netaji’s death therein and his cremation was engineered by the Japanese army authorities including the two doctors and Habibur Rahman and then aired on August 23, 1945 ….
Whether Netaji thereafter landed in Russia or elsewhere cannot be answered for dearth of evidence.
Read the full report here.
What does the government know that it does not want us to know?
Why is it that the Government believes: “disclosure of the nature and contents of these documents would … hurt the sentiments of the people at large and may evoke wide-spread reactions …. Diplomatic relations with friendly countries may also be adversely affected if the said documents are disclosed.”? [link]
As Anuj Dhar asks: “Should not we demand to know what these documents have to say? …Should not we ask our Government to state facts? Don’t we have a right to know what happened to the man who liberated us?
Some of you would of course know the history of tension and disagreements between Gandhi, Nehru (on one side) and Bose…Might that have something to do with the Government’s unusual (and almost hostile) attitude towards this issue?
More on this bit of history in Part II tomorrow…
.
Related Post: Reassessing Mahatma: Did Gandhi-giri really worked?
May 28th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Modern Indian History, Politics and Governance in India |
23 comments
Please watch this short video and spare a moment to remember the brave souls who laid down their lives so that we may breath free
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tb4sSKmdik&hl=en]
To share the video, pl. forward the link:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/05/08/naman-1857/
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.
May 8th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
An Indian Identity, British Rule in India, Current Affairs, Modern Indian History |
8 comments
Amidst all the recent brouhaha around Bharat Ratna nominations, someone conveniently forgot the “truth” about some of our nominees. I am thinking of Bahadur Shah Zafar who was proposed for the award as a champion of India’s freedom and someone who actively opposed the British.
The demand was made by Delhi Assembly Deputy Speaker Shoaib Iqbal…(who reportedly said that)… it was unfortunate that Emperor Bahadur Shah II, also known as Zafar, whose martyrdom and national stature rank among the highest in India’s freedom struggle, had not so far been conferred with the Bharat Ratna.
”Bahadur Shah Zafar was the leader of the freedom fighters of the entire sub-continent. He could have compromised with the British and lived a life like the royal family of England but chose to sacrifice his sons, pomp and grandeur - all for for the sake of the honour and independence of India and its people,”
The facts are somewhat different (and inconvenient).
The reality was that the Emperor did not think much of the Sepoys who had marched to Delhi to ask him to be their leader. He viewed them as “rustic, uncouth and ill-mannered”.
His support (for the revolt), when it came…was far from being decisive…”He vacillated, but overcome by the desire to reclaim his inheritance, he assented” (from “Requiem for Mughal Delhi” by By Muneeza Shamsie, a review of William Dalrymple’s book “The Last Mughal”).
And yet, “
…he was never quite in control. His page, Zahir Dehlavi, who later wrote an invaluable memoir, Dastan-e-Ghadr, described Bahadur Shah’s horror when he learnt the sepoys wanted to slaughter the British families held prisoner in the fort. He pleaded with them.
He asked the sepoys, Hindus and Muslims, to consult their religious leaders if they had the authority to massacre helpless women and children. “Their murder can never be allowed,” he added. But in the end, he failed to prevent it.” (from Muneeza Shamsie’s review)
So much for leading the freedom fighters.
The end of his leadership was also far from heroic: “When the victory of the British became certain, Zafar took refuge at Humayun’s Tomb, in an area that was then at the outskirts of Delhi, and hid there. British forces led by Major Hodson surrounded the tomb and compelled his surrender.”
Will the Honorary Dy Speaker admit that he may have been mistaken?
For some extra “fun”, read this leftist interpretation of Zafar’s life from an article written for CPI(M)’s newspaper last June. I thought this bit was the funniest:
“One should not take too literally Zafar’s statement at his so-called ‘trial’ in which he projected himself as a mere prisoner of the sipahis.”
Classic!
Related Post: Lies and half-truths in the name of national integration
.
February 2nd, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, India & Its Neighbours, Islamic Rule in India, Modern Indian History, Politics and Governance in India |
3 comments
Several weeks ago, I came across this piece by Dr Dipak Basu (Professor in International Economics in Nagasaki University, Japan) examining the role of Satyagraha in the national freedom movement.
Until I read the article, I used to believe that Satyagraha as a tactic was effective to at least some extent in the fight for freedom. Now I am beginning to have some doubts. I would be very interested to hear from other readers on this topic.
But before that, excerpts from “Satyagraha and India”s freedom Movement” in which Dr Base analyses Gandhi-ji’s three major Satyagraha movements and their impact on the struggle for independence.
Although Gandhi-ji’s involvement with the freedom movement began with his visit to India in 1896, it was not until six years later that he began to get seriously involved.
*** EXCERPTS BEGIN ***
“…In his second visit for a year in 1901-2 he attended the Congress session in Calcutta and spent more than a month with G.K. Gokhale, who was very loyal to the British and was opposed to the ideas of freedom movement of Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Chittaranjan Das, Surendranath Banerjee and Bipin Pal. Thus, Gandhi has joined the Empire-loyalist camp within the Congress, disinterested in the Swaraj movement of Tilak.
Gandhi’s first Satyagraha:
Returning to South Africa, Gandhi began to defy the Transvaal Asiatic Ordinance, where the government wanted all Asiatic, Arabs and Turks to carry a pass all the time to prove their eligibility to stay in South Africa. It was not a big issue, as in most countries even today foreigners must carry such documents anyway.
Throughout the Satyagraha, Gandhi emphasized that it was not so much for the rights of the Indians in South Africa as for the honour of the motherland, but which “motherland’ Gandhi was talking about was not clear.
One of the most dramatic events of the Satyagraha was the burning of the passes. The question is did that help the Indians in South Africa. The answer is definitely negative. Indians were rounded up and deported in many cases. The campaign lasted for over seven years, and in 1913 hundreds of people went to jail - and thousands of striking Indian miners faced imprisonment and injury.
Even when General Smut decided to meet Gandhi, it was made clear that there would be no further immigration of the Indians to South Africa. Passes were withdrawn temporarily but soon after laws were passed to restrict the non-Europeans into designated areas in every cities; that was the beginning of the legal racial segregations in South Africa.
By all means Gandhi’s Satyagraha was not a success, but that had not stopped certain people and the English language media in India at that time to propagate Gandhi as victorious against a racist government of British origin for whom Gandhi had worked as medical orderly in the war against the Dutch settlers in South Africa and became a recruitment agent during the First World War…”
Dr Basu also notes that “…(during this time)..Gandhi had practically no contact with the African and their liberation movement”.
Keep Reading…
December 3rd, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Indian Media, Modern Indian History, Pakistan related, Politics and Governance in India |
16 comments
Varnam posted this great entry on “The Benevolent Empire“ earlier this week which mentions how British rule ended up with an impoverished India (emphasis mine):
When Clive of India came to Bengal, he described it — in a way all visitors of the time did — as “extensive, populous and as rich as the city of London.” It was a place of such “richness and abundance” that “neither war, pestilence nor oppression could destroy” it.
But within a century of British occupation, the population of its largest city, Calcutta, fell from 150,000 to 30,000 as its industries were wrecked in the interests of the mother country. By the time the British left, Calcutta was one of the poorest places in the world.
Reminded me of Loot and another post I had written many months ago on Economic Exploitation and the Drain of Wealth during British “Raj”
Related Posts:
India in the 1820s…
Loot - in search of East India Co. (excerpts)
November 24th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Indian Economy, Modern Indian History |
9 comments
Many of you must have come across this “famous quote” of Macaulay in which he appears to be praising the wealth, cultural and spiritual heritage of India:
“I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”
Some of you may have also tried to locate the original source of this quote - a search that most likely ended in frustration.
I had my doubts about the quote ever since I first read it and I also wrote about this once before -specifically mentioning that the accuracy of the quote was questionable and it needed further verification.
A few days ago, Anirban forwarded me this email by Michel Danino which suggests that my doubts were correct and the quote is actually fiction. Read on:
Keep Reading…
June 26th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Modern Indian History |
12 comments
Here are some links for your weekend reading:
1. An article recommended by someone I respect. I have very quickly browsed through it but looks very readable and well-written: ”Without quota, every caste would be a forward caste“ - by Shri M R Venkatesh (I am hoping to explore this whole issue in greater depth sometime in the next few weeks)
2. Well written and researched article on Sethusamudram (or Rama Setu, Setu Rameshwaram): “Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project : A Good Thing Done Badly!” - by Shri Sundara Krishnaswamy
3. A collection of news reports (from March ‘07) related to Pakistan and Terrorism. Iran cleric says Pakistan becoming ‘terrorist sanctuary’. Here’s a US senator calling for direct strike inside Pakistan. Also see this: “Pakistan: No Entry for Coalition Troops” and
4. A speech by Devan Nair, former President of Singapore (I havent read it fully yet but hope to do so tonight): Neo-Colonial Captive Minds.
Have a happy, healthy and safe weekend, where ever you are and whatever you are doing.
May 11th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Indian History, British Rule in India, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Miscellaneous, Modern Indian History, Terrorism in India |
no comments
Aditi Goyal from Bharat Uday Mission recently wrote this essay - worth a read.
Some excerpts below:
“About 3 days prior to a national holiday � � the independence day of India � I along with my desi phirangs thought of being patriotic and decided that all of us will converse in � Hindi �, the national language of India for a week. To hell with a week we hardly could converse in Hindi without using a single English word and formed a new language popularly recognized as �Hinglish�.
…It is indeed astonishing that most of us are gradually losing pride in our own national language (and amongst)…�the so-called �elite� class (those who) choose not to speak in this overrated language i.e. English are looked down upon.
Our big shots in Bollywood industry who are earning arabs and kharabs of moolah because of this golden egg laying hen � � Hindi � surprisingly never come and say thanks in Hindi during the Oscars of India � the Filmfare Awards�.
…lets discuss…the situation in our own schools and colleges where students not well versed with the English language are labelled as �gautis� and �vernis�.
…I do not say we should just stop speaking English altogether and adopt Hindi for everything but what I want to convey is that we should not forget our roots and our national language our uniqueness, the language of Indians, �Hindi� because Indianess just doesn�t come from hoisting a flag twice a year and singing the national anthem daily, it is something that has to come from within.
In the end to put the icing on the cake, though I am very sure that everyone would not be convinced by my arguments and the biggest question mark � why is this article in English?� the reason is, this article is intended towards those who wouldn�t give a freaking trash to glance over a Hindi article….
…which reminded me of something else that I had written a while back: “Deprivation’s real cause: English“.
In that post,�I wrote that one of the �dreams� I have is to have a piece of software that could translate this blog in Hindi and Indian regional languages so that more people can access it and read it.�
I could of course choose to blog in Hindi but there are numerous practical difficulties (keyboard layout/ my Hindi typing speed etc)�a podcast may be a viable idea�but I have not tried it yet.
Which brings me to Lokmanch�- the newly launched Hindi news portal… I highly recommend it for anyone�and everyone who is conversant with Hindi and wants to feel the pulse of the “real India” (the one hidden behind the LCD TV sets and latest Ford models).� I was fortunate to meet Shashi Singh and Amitabh Tripathi (the brains - and the muscle - behind the portal) a few days back and I wish them every success in their endeavour…we need more like them.
.
UPDATE:
Hindi is not the *national* language but the *official* language of India. Please see my comment dated 2nd Jan ‘08 below. Thanks
April 23rd, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
An Indian Identity, British Rule in India, Current Affairs |
15 comments
The recent controversy around Germany’s proposal to seek an EU ban on swastikas (and later its abandonment: see here and here) prompted me to dig up and refresh this article which I wrote for my newsletter almost two years ago. (Mar ‘05)
Swastika and its Religious Significance:
As some of you may be aware, there has been a great deal of controversy in the UK regarding the wearing of an armband by Prince Harry that had a “swastika” badge on it.
This created a predictable uproar in the local media with many people being reminded of the grim horrors of the Holocaust (the Prince was wearing a replica Nazi uniform).
Along with the reaction, there were calls for the symbol to be banned (on the grounds of being racially offensive).
Thankfully, the Hindu Forum of Great Britain got into the act (see, “HFB launches national campaign to reclaim swastika”) and decided to start a campaign to create awareness amongst the general public about how an ancient Hindu symbol had been misappropriated by the Nazis.
As I watched this controversy unfold, I realised that I was myself not fully aware of the significance of “swastika” and how it had come to be associated with the Nazis.
Below is a summary from my research on the subject. Keep Reading…
February 8th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
A Hindu Identity, British Rule in India, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism |
no comments
Nice one from the BBC (although when you click the link the actual title of the story is, “Big Brother row points to mature India”…
On this page though (about “Booming India expects 9.2% growth), the ”scary” title is visible in the right column under FEATURES… see below)
February 7th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Current Affairs |
no comments
