I think our history systematically ignored in north after independence.
As far as I know British are good for uniting/building India.
Politicians are rubbish systematically killed good governance left by British.
I remember one bridge collapsed during 1997-1999 near Chennai on east coast road constructed at that time. The comedy was authorities tried to demolish(by blasting) old bridge built by British didn't collpase but due to impact on the new bridge completely fallen.
The whole day I was unable to control my laugh reading this funny!
So post independence Indian politics/governance infact worsened itself made British better like the above incident.
There were 180 ponds/lakes until 1947 in Chennai effectively helping water supply/drainage. All become residential areas and nowadays in Chennai, rain making 1000 lakes. What a reverse comedy!!
I am not justifying British atrocities but the "We OUR" done/doing more atrocities.
British did India no favor by building rails or bridges, they did it for their own cause for the 'long haul', unfortunately they bumped into some road blocks in name of genuine freedom fighters such as Gandhi , Patel , Bharathi and Bose etc. Our politicians are following the footsteps of brits so they are no good. North south divide - hindu muslim rift - language barriers etc was all done by brits. They did that over a period of 100 years, they never fixed anything, they ignited a time bomb that will put them totally in control at any point of our life. They were interested in archeology not to build indian history but to track and posses the wealth we had.
They stole our money, our morals, our values and everything we had, they left us in such a dire state that we landed up with politicians who work exactly like the british. The crown was nothing short of a petty criminal.
Today, they repent, who says nations do not have consequence. No kingdom can rule for a long period, every single atom that is born has an expiry date and the brits are feeling for their misdeeds while slaving poor countries.
yes the British did India no favor by building rails or bridges, they did it for their own cause but imagine the infrastructure they leftus with.
Our politicians are following the footsteps of brits so they are no good.
this I think is the greatest insult to the bristish.
North south divide - hindu muslim rift - language barriers etc was all done by brits.
no sir. the only times the hindus and muslims united were during 1857. till then they were chopping each other heads off if the british hadnt come we would be living in a nawabs teritory and speaking persian. your great freedom fighters wouldnt have stood a chance against them.
They were interested in archeology not to build indian history but to track and posses the wealth we had.
if the british had not discovered the fact you would still be thinking thtat big tmple was built by kariklan. that was the prevalent thought before the brits discoverd it.
> > They stole our money, our morals, our values and everything we had, they left us in such a dire state that we landed up with politicians who work exactly like the british.
in fact churchilll warned against giving freedom to india because it would land into the hands of stuuffed strawbags. thats pexcisedly what hapened.
when we plame them for partition do we praise them for uniting the sub continent 100 years back.
when you curse the brits you should also look into the alternative. maharajas who squeezed the country, hindus paying the jizia tax, a country whose 90 % had no access to education.
we cant just curse the brits and blame them for everything.
Nawabs stood no chance in changing India to persia. It cannot happen - it will not happen. The last Mugal emperor was not more than a mere pawn. If you believe the power of the nawab empire would stand for ages, that will be a wildest guess in the reverse. Akbhar tried to create a blend by evoking Din-i-illahi, which never progressed any further than himself. Aurangazeb could not survive by force. Our country accepts any religion not due to fear but due to tolerance and we see God in every thing, every one. Make no mistake, what our freedom fighters achieved was impossible by any one else to achieve. 'If' and ONLY if , the nawabs ruled, they would have done for not more than 1900's at the most.
Going back to British, they are single handedly responsible for creating a rift in Sinhala - Tamil relations and how can one ever forget the role they played in Kashmir... so sub continent unity is a bad thought.
It would be foolish to think, we will be living for ever that Karikalan build periya kovil, history will reveal itself, british were there just when it happened.
On education, true we faltered in between post Roman cycle, it happens with any civilization as old as India, but truth is, we were kings in knowledge by the time our western peers were trying to figure out how to write. You seem to be of the wrong impression that the British rebuilt India.... British were opportunists and used territory break ups to build their regime, as an unwanted 'side' effect, we got united. Which would have happened anyways, with or without the british.
PS: Even for the remotest of argument sake or for mildest of humor, please do not ridicule our freedom fighters. The sarcasm in 'your great freedom fighters' is definitely not in good humor. Please correct me if I am wrong.
what did the british break up? what except a geographic cohesion link us even today. if you feel our terrorism and day to day problems are due to the british you are mistaken. we are just making him a bogey man for everything.
i am not ridiculing our freedom fighters. but how many of them if alive today will like the state of affairs in the country. do you think they would be happy. when the british left there were 500 states. ( if they had not come at all there would have ben a 1500)states the average size of nepal and some like hyderabad bigger than many european states. they had a great chance of surviving today. the smaller ones would have been gobbled up by the bigger ones but we would definitely not have had one entity caled india. there would have been a perpetual blood bath in this part of the world. we would have become like central africa.
The new ideas and the "questioning attitude" that came about in the Europe during the renaissance period really spread to India through the Britishers. Without those modern thinking, some of the elements of our society would have turned our state truly "barbaric" today, when compared with contemporary nations:
1) The Sati system 2) Women of many caste were not allowed to wear upper garments - no hooks, buttons were sold to them. 3) Untouchability & bad treatment of lower caste. 4) Education and employment only for elite classes. 5) Fate of widows 6) Marriage of girls to gods ( pottu kattutal ) & the devadasi system 7) Slavery 8) Marriage at childhood 9) Only few castes can be of priestly class 10) Suppression of mother tongues. 11) Sacrifice of animals in rituals.
But how are we spending our freedom today? Thats the main crux to be focussed.
The real freedom of India can be fought only by children today. The nation will change, only if they pursuade their parents to follow the path of the truth. Only the children can do - no law, no enforcement can make about this change. The children should walk away from parents that take bribe or do illegal things and seek shelter in an orphanage. If they do this, the whole nation will change in a week!
I would like to point out some actions taken by the british government and people against some of their officials who were said to have looted india.
robert Clive had to defend his actions against his numerous and vocal critics in Britain. Cross-examined by a Parliament suspicious of his vast wealth, he claimed to have taken relatively limited advantage of the opportunities presented to him: "By God...I stand astonished at my own moderation". Despite his vindication, on 22 November 1774 he committed suicide at his Berkeley Square home in London by stabbing himself with a pen- knife.
warren hastings was impeached ( though later acquitted) dyer- the butcher of jalinwala bagh was put up before a commmision
even jackson durai is reported to have been suspended for antagonising kattabomman.
it is so heart warming when we see black and white pictures of gandhi being welcomed by the comon man in uk during the round table conference. inspite of all the politics indians share a rare warmth with the british and the commonwealth because our founding fathers realised another colonial ruler would have been worser.
it is not a question of english or indians.people all over the world get mesmerised by power.
right now we have extra judicial killings in kashmir and the north east. human rights violations in nandigram. though some of these can be justly compared to the british actions, they may be worse as these are by a democratically elected government against the people who have to be protected by them. after all the british had conquered a territory and it was in their interests to hold on to it, just as it is our aim to get it released.
I wish people would read kalki's article praising the british for their bravery during the nazi bombing. how he could segregate issues was fantastic.
-Hi everybody is entitled to his opinion and there is no point getting personal or emotional about it.
that was a long reply and befor vk replies i'll just like to add santayana's statement on history
'those who ignore the lessons of histroy are forced to repeat it"
just brushing under the carpet all our minus points wont make us a confident indian. its just hogwash. the first step towards solving a problem is recognising there is a problem.
we had all these problems, slavery, women diempowerment, devadasi system,. all of them were great social problems. justifying them or placing the blame on muslim invaders wont do any good.
in your account anybody who talks about nandigram or polic excesses in kashmir is unpatriotic. its a very wrong approach to hide behind a shield of so called patriotism when mistakes are pointed out. i guess a true patriot is one who realises there are follies in his society and points out to them bravely.
its not really a continuation of slave mentality as you point out.
Thanks for your comments. Exactly the same I wished our politicians better but they become worst and made their predecessor better.
Robbery is nothing but loot everything as possible and leave empty as possible.
I wouldn't imagine British left Hongkong empty after they tookover as village before 100 years. This is valid for Chennai/Mumbai.
The fact was India was in disarray in hands of kings/cheiftains with lack of vision.
Indian kings were divided all the times and that was the reason they last many wars and made tumultuous history to India.
Kings lacked vision and didn't colsolidate power to oust any alien invasion. This is true for King Prithviraj. Complete misery.
Chola empire, Maratta/Vijayanagar kingdoms were relief. British were relief ousting Mughals.
British occupied, indulged and defended India during WWII.
Conservative party lost election after WWII because labour party's policy was "UK unnecessarily mobilizing armed forces to defend colonies endangered UK home nations. So UK should free the colonies and safeguard UK". Labour party's Clement Attlee become prime minister and WWII champion Churchill's conservative party lost election. India won independence.
I am not supporting British atrocities but they were better if you compared with present politicians and Mughals.
Instead of making citizens are stake holders of the country our politicians making our people poorer and poorer. They already created voters pockets on each constituency. They effectively use whenever possible "divide and rule".
I am glad to see that some one had pointed out every gritty detail before I woke up this morning :-) . Excellent notes.
Degrading our country and making it sound like we were a barbaric tribe begging for a deliverer in the british empire, which is in a shade worse than even commenting on our freedom fighters.... pathetic and a horrendous shame, honestly I am searching for words on how people can degrade the nation. Frustration on post independence India is not to be diverted as 'oh the british were better', that is childish and namesake pathetic argument.
Blowing out of proportion in things such as Sati, untouchability, child mairrage, caste system etc were created by mugals and clearly set afire by the British.
Sati: 1. A certain 'indian' by name Raja Ram Mohan Roy made it a core of issue causing the British to forcibly pass the law. (British never allow any controversy to brew,excellent management strategy, i have added more points below.) 2.Talk about a widow's life without her husband was not easy at that time. This is clearly in tie up with widow re-mairrage. honestly how many widows get remarried today ? What happens in a widows life is not debatable, I think all rational people know what kind of treatment she gets even today. We had been a warring community according to some,by logic, where there is war, there are dead people, when there are dead people, there are widows, i dont remember reading any big mass burn outs during chola empire or even when early mugals ruled. The Sati was not a practice by law or rule or force, it was opted by wives who chose NOT to live without their partners who they have lived with since they were children. It became a rule after the 1800's which is what Raja Ram opposed. Which is again out of compulsion, to give away life is a strict no-no according to the hindu dharma. (hmmm why am I thinking that this has something to do with western explorers landing in India...) Ever reasoned why our elders say 'sumangaliya poyidanum'. It ties up with child mairrage also, they used live as ONE and not like now where we need 'our own space'.
Untouchability: Oh please give me a break, untouchability is a concept that takes a lot of mind and bravery to convert after the middle ages... this is existant even today, just that it is not open. Untouchability was defined in other terms too as Race and Darkies etc... the british supporters practically put a new cover for old book. If you read the proper context of vedas, you will know that untouchability was not from ages ago and it was practically for a 1000 years now. It is not called untouchability now, it has a new definition as caste politics now.
Child mairrage: The term 'kanavanin thunaiyai kondu thaan kaamanai vella vendum' has a lot of meaning to this specific concept, during the mid ages, the teen hormone transit was diverted into a model of Child mairrage, the couple was to be friends during teen age when their sexual hormones in body was raging up, the 'sexual outlet' was to be controlled instead of falling to false morals. I know that reading with a non rational mind it will be even difficult to think what I mentioned here. In western culture there was free sex, dating was simple and a model for that. Indian culture sex is for reproduction and considered a Godly. A combination of western model and conservative indian thoughts brought about a process where sex is taboo. We know what many teens of our era are doing vs what our great grand parents were. Most of our ancestors had married when they were children. One in a 100 complained, that is bound to happen. Compare the success of child mairrage vs divorce ratio's. Agreed child mairrage is an out dated concept, we are neither naive nor innocent (thanks to the west) to follow that tradition, we have moved out of it, that was an answer our ancestors had for adolescence. We are not in early ages, where girls matured at 16 and boys were following Rama's model of life. Today hormones are different and ...porn is the largest seller on internet. So instead of child mairrage, the 'sexual outlet' or the energy that drives us to what we are needs to be channelized into 'talent'.
A few more to add on the comment that India would have gone the African way. I would first need to know if that is a serious comment or a desperate stab in the dark. Only ignorant people who do not understand the basics of India can really try very hard and compare India with Africa. In my ignorant best I am not aware of one serious literacy that africa produced. Comparing India to warring nations in Africa is more or less degrading my country.
A rational mind is needed to look at what the British really did, by looking at bridges and railways (oh great again we have lousy trains vs the TUBE in london). There were a few rational people and a lot of brilliant management people in the British, ofcourse there are sane people everywhere...even in Africa. By remanding a bastard like dyre or jackson the british thought they can impress some indians who were hardcore supporters of the crown. An unattended jalianwallahbad would have even caused the coldest and darkest of indian hearts aiding the british to rethink a motive. That is management strategy not to be confused as 'Oh Almighty British - I see your Grace in the bread we eat'.
Churchill the prime minister of england was a great man - english patriot / freedom fighter and a strategist, but churchill on india was definitely not the man on mark. I would be interested to read Kalki's comments on Churchill's thoughts on India. Make no mistake, Britain is a great country for the British, but to even think that they were the rulers for our country is nothing short of traitor note.
Post Independence, we have our own people thinking we are worthless and sing hosanas of the western empire and believe strongly that the India does not exist without the west.
Yes as in any nation, there will be atrocities, Nandhigram here is equivalent to Columbine in US or other issues anywhere. Britain is Europe's crime hotspots according the the Guardian in Feb 2007. How the nation recoups is key and we can be a critic or rebuild it stronger. It is like making mistakes, you do not disown your children for them making mistakes. A country makes mistakes, we need to correct it rather than adopting a gutter mongering pig to rule us.
A nation that does not believe in itself will only cause more worry. What we are today is a trend of the british and our traitor citizens who helped the british then, only that we are all indians.
I have a slightly different view on why British built infrastructure.
For reasons I do not know, whites (I am not using this in a derogatory sense) have always stressed on clarity (they keep enhancing/creating rules/definitions for everything) and infrastructure development. Focus on inner growth too is done under strict frameworks - some times so strict that they tried forcing it by the sword. I would presume that creating what they created in India was sort-of second nature to them. We have benefited from their language and the structures (political and physical) they left behind. I would like to acknowledge that rather than take an offensive position. India did not fail as a state - as said by others before, we never were a single country. Even if we had, we need to only document why we failed so that it does not happen in future. I am not able to think of any one large country that has never failed.
In Asia, it was (until recently) the opposite - focus was on inner growth. What kings did in terms of rules appears to have been just sufficient to keep the governance machine running. Our rules have been simple and most are implemented out of individual acceptance. The ones implemented violently/strongly have not been exactly beneficial to the community. Caste system being an example.
These days, we seem to be drifting towards a typical materialistic society. Not that there is anything wrong with it. But, a few generations will have painful transitions - e.g. old age homes.
Hi Venu I am so glad you anscestors did not co operate with the british. thats outright patriotism.I am sure they would not have paid their taxes to british, ttended their schools or used their facilities.
most communities in india did co operate for example the sikhs who saw the british as liberators even after losing the anglos sikh war. the gurkhs too joined the british armies after losing a war. what was the geographical or political status of this wonderful nation called india in say 1600. if you were born in 1600 ( or as you say 1970 if the british had not come at all) you would have ben born in the thondaiman kingdom of pudukottai, serfoji kingdom of tanjore or maravar kingdoms of ramnad or sivaganga or the nawabs kingdom of arcot or naik kingdom of madurai. that was the geographical condition when the british entered. you have a lot of imagination to say all these states in a great show of unity united on their own in the national interest and then opened negotiations with the telugu kingdoms and the muslim nizam of hydrabad and wodeyars of mysore and padmanabadasas of tranvancore, the zamorins of calicut and kings of cochin. this would have united south india. then they would have opened negotiations with the 1000 northern hindu muslim sikh kingdoms, convinced their despot kings( ar you will be calling them noble men who descended from the sun and the moon) to unite one democratic nation called india. you beat most of the fiction writers today to propose this. even in 1947 land locked kingdoms had to be arm twisted by the sardar to join the indian confedration. the maharajas were the most decandent selfish mosquitoes we had and you hope they would have voluntarily given up their power and pelf so that you or I could have a democratic country. its just not reasonable even to entertain this thought.
have you heard of thuggery, human sacrifice,. these things exisited in this part of the world along with the social evils we have been discussing.
to turn a blind eye to the social evils that existed is bad but trying to justify them as right is ridiculous.
patriotism is a feeling that a country should improve. it should not be misconstrued as " nothing about my country can be wrong"
what happened in nandigram is as bad as the civilwar in sudan or the slaughter in congo. it would have been a daily event in an un united india.
> > 1) The Sati system > The sati system were entirely mis-represented in our history. > Actually, this is a voluntary ritual, willingly accepted by the women. > Secondly, it did not happen in all places. But only in certain areas of > North india, like Rajasthan, Bihar etc.
Hi,
this was discussed earlier:
Vaanavan maadevi - wife of sundara chozha (tirukkovilur malayaman vamsam) - entered funeral pyre of her husband.
Your view is of a burned down India, negative critic at the best. You can keep on complaining woefully that India would have been a bunch of tribals or a ill equiped lot of villages. Well, ask the remaining of community to see who can beat spielberg in recreating history.
Paying taxes or attending to schools were a force of rule. Looks like people such as your self would always prefer to be a slave to white skin and sing their lullaby anytime.
Give me a single reason: Why would the so called tribal indians, who are barbaric and had been binded to so many social evils and did not speak 'one' language 'unite' against a massive british 'Godly' rule and take them down in the path that has NEVER ever before been done in the history of the world. What made these dumb guys so patriotic that they could not tolerate the british but could tolerate every other ruler even as horrible as aurangazeb ?
Oh I forgot, we were split into so many zamindars and duh how the heck did they all unite under a half naked man ?
Every country has its dark age, every economy has its fall, every kingdom has to crash, every corporate has to buckle sometime, law of nature. 5th century to 1000 AD was british dark age, India started from 1100 to 1700 - not as a dark age but as unstable period. 1300 - 1600 was mugal peak time, there were a lot of disturbances (many people opposing the mugal autocratic rule) during that time when the country was 'rediscovering' itself, which people like you conveniently call as ignorance. India had peace under many of its rulers. Mugals ruled for 300 - 400 years approximately. Cholas were from 850 to 1250. Ashoka the great united India under one roof. Yes we were many states, so what ? US is 50+ states, china was so many states the biggest difference in India was that from the length and breadth of the country, we all used to believe in Hindu dharma. Sanskrit was spoken widely before the british split us, tamil was in tamil heartland, we used to speak many languages in indian country.
Ghori / Ghazni plundered the country, we bounced back, mughals tried to break the hindu culture and failed miserably, Nadir shah ripped us we rebound back.... then came the british, fresh out of their dark age, exploring new territories looking for places were they can spread their culture, education (as if no one else was educated), systematically ripped us of our minds and caused people such as yourself who believe in their dominion after 60 years. Whilst you speak of us going the African way, why wont you think of us going the Chinese way ? There lies a mind set, again british preset.
India, an internal economy, there in was her strength, the british wanted to develop their country and started levying heavy taxes on Indian goods and exported european goods. Coincided with the industrial revolution in england...fact or fiction ? Read the Imperial Gazzetter of 1881: some experts 1903-04 Data is Lakh Rupees (Rupees of that Era) Items Imports Exports (Textile) Apparels 172 16 Raw Cotton 5 2438 Cotton Goods 31288 10 Wool Items 215 27 My country paid (imported) Rs 31,680 lakhs and sold (exported) Rs.2500 lakh... rocket science on the numbers. This is only in textile, go for many many other imports and exports you will see that a billion of dollar value would be transfered every damn year for 100 years of british rule, and here we have patrons to be so happy with their rule.
Gandhi systematically counteracted them by dismantling their managerial capacities, hitting them where it mattered the most, Tata built its steel plant and rose against the empire, luckily for Tata, they happened to find customers in british during WW II. Gandhi and Tata worked closely in removing the steel trade of british from India. Check the public documents of Birmingham and Sheffield. Next - salt, monopoly of salt trade, british hit us with that and that was when our power as a nation moved full surge ahead. You can be proud that we helped england rebuild itself with our money. And coming to think of the tribal chieftains, they are still available today... they just kept changing names.. from sitrarasan of chola period to chieftains of mugal rules to zamindars of british rule to MLA's of republic of India. We are still at war with our neighbors, for water for trade for space for land etc... We will always be at war, it is our family, we will come to a compromise today or tomorrow. your motive says that just because karnataka wont release water, get whites to rule us.... how cool!
This is a great country, no matter how many people work hard on demotivating us or plundering us, we will prove our mettle. One thing is for sure, it is immaterial if Maculay really said his famous quote in 1835, what is alleged definitely is happening today. They have successfully planted their domain in minds of many indians. It is another test for the great nation and I am sure she will come good as usual.
Sati was not a rule, even during the Kuru clan (1400 - 450 BC), satyavati ruled after her husband Vichitravirya's demise. 10th century rashtrakutas followed widow remiarrage. Read for Niyoga on the topic of widows (jews and spartans practiced it too). India treated her women with great importance and respect. Shakti worship is prominent. Dowry was issued by the groom to the family of bride prior to mairrage - so many documentation to that, please read the background of Shri Desika's Shree Lakshmi thudhi. Sati was definitely optional and at some places, women who were under other pressures due to social factors were forced to sati.
Islamic rulers could not understand or accept many of our scriptures, they forced a lot of their rules. Then came the british and added to our woes. All said and done, we have a lot of confused indians, believing in the west and their marketing / management strategies in degrading the country.
Many points have been misinterpretted or rather we were forced to misbelive. One tip of the ice berg...
Untouchability...As if the west do not have it. What is aparthied? The whites never come in close contact with the blacks..even today....In the west, if a white touches the black or the black thouches the white, the black was severely punished..whipped terribly or even killed. But in India, as discussed,every clan kept away from others and even if toched, the ritual was to punish ourselves by taking bath. We never blame others and take things on us (though this has been greatly changed in later times by behaving harsh to the other clan).
I too strongly belive that inspite of all goods the brits have done, there wrongs have long lasting effect on us, even after so many years.
Hi ravi you and i could go on and on without convincing each other and boring others to the bottoms of their limits.
but just tell me what was the status of the entity called india in 1950, 1900, 1850, 1800, 1750, 1700, before that if we honestly refer history we would know there existed no such entity.
today we are patriotically told pakistanis are our enemies and we should hate them. the only pakistani i have ever spoken to was a damn friendly taxi driver in ajman UAE.
borders change, and so does history with it. european invaders were responsible for uniting large geographic tracts as single entities . indonesia, malysia, india, african states. while we in india refuse to give them the credit people in kashmir, or sri lanka blame european colonialists for wrongly uniting incompatible people. in one of the earlier mails you had said british divided sinhalese and the tamils. actually they wrongly united them should be the case against them.
could you list the wrongs the british did for discussion purpose?
and who would you rate as our best rulers. the moslems the maharajahs the british the congress party the non congress parties.
Vk was saying india is a much level playing field for all people after the british came and left. evils are every where and india is able to sort out its problems
a false shield of patrioism is being raised by many to hide behind unanswerable problems.
if somebody said mahatma gandhi had an affair with a married woman after he took control of the freedom struggle and had 4 grown up sons would you term it un patriotic.
what if his own grandson researches and finds it.
thats the main subject of the book that was released a year back. arent patriotism and the unvarnished truth compatible???? venketesh
> > Your view is of a burned down India, negative critic at the best. You can keep on complaining woefully that India would have been a bunch of tribals or a ill equiped lot of villages. Well, ask the remaining of community to see who can beat spielberg in recreating history. >
Never I am an indian who is proud of his heritage, ashamed of the ills of the country with an unvarnished view of history where I want to give credit to those who deserve it. And I certainly dont need lessons in patriotism.
we have achieved a lot yes but was that possible being a subhject of maharaja ofpudukottai or the zamindar of banganapalle.
the maharajah of pudukottai marthanda pairava thondaiman married and australian and was chucked out by the british who wanted a blue blooded indian royal to inherit his gaddi. as a compensation marthana a top horse owner in australia demanded and got 20 lakh rupees which was one years tazation income in pudukottai. that year incidentaly 10, 000 of his subjects died due to starvation and disease in a drought.
the lives and leisures of the maharajahs would have made india a bankrupt nation. its not singing the english lullaby to give cresit to the british for chucking out these blod thirsty mosquitoes. venketesh
I am not that learned to give facts and points like you people do.
During this discussion it was pointed out that no country or society will be the same for ever. There are obviously ups and downs. From 1AD to 5AD we call it dark ages of Tamil Nadu because no remarkable develpment was found during that period. Obviously those times, this part of the country would have been ruled by many such kurunila mannargal as you said. But then came the pallavas and at one point, whole of Indian subcontinent (more or less) was ruled by only three prominent kings, Mahendra in south, Pulikesi in the central and Harsha in the north. We make loud noise in this group that RJC is one of the most successful conqeurers of India (putting SE asia he conquered,sure its more than half the size of India). Kings like Ashoka did bring the entire nation in one umbrella..
Even during supreme muslim rule, whole of south came under Vijanagar emipire. So its not wise to say that no one united India before the brits. Times change and only during 19th century the whole world talked about democracy and hence the single nation concepts came into existence. Till then the entire world never had a fixed boundary.
So saying that ony Brits united us as a single country is just an incident in Indian history. If not for brits, someone else would have done it, its the compulsion of time. But at the same time, I really appreciate Brits for doing this.
If something has to happen, it will...maybe through someone. As a good human, I should thank that person whole heartedly, but should not belive that, if not for that person, my life would have come to a standstill. if not that person some xyz would have come my way. But at the same time, i should not take this arguement and be thankless to the person who helped. The same is my feelign towards brits.
Comapring the rule of different rulers, everyone has their own pros and cons. Ofcourse the maharaja's period were the dark ages, because India didnt get a great leader during those times. Saying british rule was better than muslim rule, is like saying one fire wood is better than the other. Everyone ruined us in their own ways. If you say, British gave us all the technology we have today, the muslims gave us all the architecture marvels we have today. Taj has brought India more pride than Indian Railways. So will you accept if I say that Mogul rule was better than British rule, because Moguls gave an identity to India?
VK arguement - we have a level playing field after the british period. Great joke. Can i contest an election and do good for this country today? You will yes, but its possible only in papers...as per law, yes I can. but practicality??? Can a qualified person get the required thing life, let it be education or job...are we treated equally in India? NO. Who brought these caste discriminations? Sanathana dharma had only varna's which is profession based and never caste based. Its the brain child of the 'divide and rule' policy, which we suffer till date.
Comparing congress and non congress party - Except for a five year BJP rule and 2 year JP rule, when was India ruled by Non congress party? comparing 7 years to 53 years is kidding.
I am ready to accept any facts...will the govt. be bold enough to publicise it? Forget Gandhi's personal life, no one is going to gain anything out of it. But how many facts which affect the common masses have been suppressed in India? Why dont you point those facts...who cares if Gandhi had an affair with a married women or Nehru had an affair with Mrs.MB. They were public figures who did a great deal to the nation.Period. If they prove to be unfit leaders, as an Individual its my liberty to change my mind. Nation is in no way getting affected by this. But surely the nation is affected by many a false propaganda which the brits sow seeds for.
British rule is like this - Giving a hungry man a pot full of rice with a drop of poison mixed in it. They gave India whatever we have today, but with a poisioned minds all around.
> > So saying that ony Brits united us as a single country is just an > incident in Indian history. If not for brits, someone else would > have done it, its the compulsion of time. But at the same time, I > really appreciate Brits for doing this.
.... as one unified entity. with one single conciousness as an indian and not a tamilian or a kannadiga. it never happenned before and ashoka's unity was more bloody and would have been thro sub kings.
okay you talk about the great indian unity which was inherent. if tomorrow somebody in power announces any state can seccede from the indian union, how many will stay back?
venketesh
> > If something has to happen, it will...maybe through someone. As a > good human, I should thank that person whole heartedly, but should > not belive that, if not for that person, my life would have come to > a standstill. if not that person some xyz would have come my way. > But at the same time, i should not take this arguement and be > thankless to the person who helped. The same is my feelign towards > brits. > > Comapring the rule of different rulers, everyone has their own pros > and cons. Ofcourse the maharaja's period were the dark ages, because > India didnt get a great leader during those times. Saying british > rule was better than muslim rule, is like saying one fire wood is > better than the other. Everyone ruined us in their own ways. If you > say, British gave us all the technology we have today, the muslims > gave us all the architecture marvels we have today. Taj has brought > India more pride than Indian Railways. So will you accept if I say > that Mogul rule was better than British rule, because Moguls gave an > identity to India? > > VK arguement - we have a level playing field after the british > period. Great joke. Can i contest an election and do good for this > country today? You will yes, but its possible only in papers...as > per law, yes I can. but practicality??? Can a qualified person get > the required thing life, let it be education or job...are we treated > equally in India? NO. Who brought these caste discriminations? > Sanathana dharma had only varna's which is profession based and > never caste based. Its the brain child of the 'divide and rule' > policy, which we suffer till date. > > Comparing congress and non congress party - Except for a five year > BJP rule and 2 year JP rule, when was India ruled by Non congress > party? comparing 7 years to 53 years is kidding. > > I am ready to accept any facts...will the govt. be bold enough to > publicise it? Forget Gandhi's personal life, no one is going to gain > anything out of it. But how many facts which affect the common > masses have been suppressed in India? Why dont you point those > facts...who cares if Gandhi had an affair with a married women or > Nehru had an affair with Mrs.MB. They were public figures who did a > great deal to the nation.Period. If they prove to be unfit leaders, > as an Individual its my liberty to change my mind. Nation is in no > way getting affected by this. But surely the nation is affected by > many a false propaganda which the brits sow seeds for. > > British rule is like this - Giving a hungry man a pot full of rice > with a drop of poison mixed in it. They gave India whatever we have > today, but with a poisioned minds all around. > > Regards, > Satish > > > > --- In ponniyinselvan@yahoogroups.com, "R.venketesh"
Dear All I thing we are getting too emotional and personal here I think Ravi owes an apology to venkat for bring his ancestors into this... Can we have a discusiion from the Head and not from the Heart blinded by fictious facts.
I am not swayed one way or the other
I am a proud of my country and its ancient heritage at the same time I am not blind to the facts
Fact: look around the world of places colonised by the powers and whats left behind?
Persions, Afghans and Mughals ...you dont see much of the ancient hindu heritage in north India...
Spanish...The natives were completely wiped out of north and southa merica French ....left the far east in such a state after looting them they are still in the dogs Like wise the French colonies of Africa Germany ....I think we all know our history....Well some believe hitler did it for the better ment of Aryan race...even in india America....
I dont deny the fact that the British benefited from Indian wealth initially it was the EIC then it was a bit moderated with the Crown....RRC did that 1000 years ago
They did not have to reform certain civil inequalities...well Sati, Child marraige and women's right werent social evil in some opinions Ill reserve my opinion on that...They shouldnt have cared to change those they were hear only for the money....
OOPs they did that to show how Hindu were barbarians and to convert to Christianity ....Yes like the spaniards converted the whole of goa into catholics...
Satish Aparthied and the KKK are good examples and thats because they dont considered coloured as humans at all...If we are proud to consider a fellow indian as not human so we go and clean ourselves...We have to be proud of ourselves...cant argue with that... I dont deny that exists even today...but still people speak out and are outraged I am sure we all know of stephen lawrence case which is still supported by locals...
Come on I and vijay can choose the British PM just because i lived in a counytry once ruled by the crown Yes a valid resident of commonwealth has voting rights in England
We may all be talking Persian,Tamil, Sanskrit or whatever...Even today I get asked ''Aap Bharat mein hain Hindi kya bolnahi sakthi??'' Oh by the way matey My language is older than yours and yours is only spoken purely by four states maybe more with the dissections...
We talked about our Half naked savior he was Ivy league type till he was brought to harsh reality in the middle of the night in a train in south africa....He chose to change many dont.... Do you know the support he had from the average white man in England because he was changing humanity and people recognised it You can call Tata a saviour but he was a business man
You can blame the British for the Caste system, the hindu moslem issues but then if you werent fighting where was the place for the third man...If ChandaSahib and Mohamed ali didnot go to the French and English history might be different
I would recomend you all to read a chapter in Freedom at Midnight not on Mahatmas exploits but our native maharajas ....Two of them had a bet on how many girls they could deflower in a month (the custom is virgins wear a mookuthi and removed it if they were no longer so...)one of them was able to make a crown out of it....
Well that takes you back to 15th 16th century britain when the nobels had the right of PrimaNocte...spending the first night with all their subjects was their right.
Gandhi was astute he ammassed people but it was our own Indians who were against our own blood as officers and sepoys who beat all those ahimsa wadis...thats where we went wrong!!!
Gandhi fought for the british during the war...He gained what he needed after the war...If britain wanted to do what US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq we would not have had any choice...because they were victorious but they kept their word.
The notion of Pakistan a hindu state was by a muslim student in Cambridge which even Jinnah felt was not possible...It happened
The first Indo pak war was won or atleast not lost thanks to two old fellow officers talking to each other to save a great war in a country already tiorn by a partition...It was the Pakistani Chief of Staff who phoned his indian counterpart both british ofcourse.
The list is endless.....
The bottomline We were a great nation with Heritage university Script and knowledge when the west except Rome and Greece were in caves...
We let it slip in the middle thanks to false interpretation of our own values it was enhanced by foreign intervention but we were to blam not them
If we accept that with humility we will progress...
You can't analyze history with counting your patriotism.
In history emperors/kings plundered countries, killed people. Asoka the great was no different from Hitler.
Rajaraja cholan was no different from Alexander the great.
British were no different from Post Independence Indian governments.
At the end of the day achievement matters.
India might have been Indonesia if British not arrived at that time. Mugal emperor was still in power at that time regardless of his puppet stature and meaning less to talk about something never happened that north kings might have allied and ousted Mugals because the very same north kings betrayed Prithviraj and arranged their self defeat.
This is something a football team with a leading goal has more possibilities to win the match than opponent team with out any goal. If opponent team make their same side goal would be bonuses for the goal leading team and fun for everyone!
Team 1:
Pre British-mogul era Indian kings they already done same side goal betraying Prithviraj and assured their early defeat. The same kings become puppet later! A self defeated team!
Team 2:
British prevented India becoming Indonesia, united and built India. A winning team!
Team 3:
Post Indian governments betrayed our own people and their achievements is poor.
but then i wasnt really insulted by ravi's mention of my zamindari back ground. my anscestors did so much for hindu religion and tamil culture and music that any mention of their political leanings would have no substance at all. if your anscestor was a zamindar, or a clerk in the british government it mattered the same. you had accepted their supremacy. the same went on for studying in british started schools, paying the taxes. the fact is greater part of the nation had accepted british rule gladly because they knew what was happening in the neighbouring princely state.it was a terrible state of affairs. even in a small state like pudukottai the british had to occasionally enter the palace to chase out the hundreds of nautch girls in the palace and send the king to a sanatorium. why do we have contreversies that the national anthem jana gana mana was really sung for the british emperor why was it that the freedom movement was greatly planned by UK returned leaders.
and its news to me that aurangazeb was greatly tolerated by the people of india by any other emotion other than fear.
Prior to any further note, I dont think I had insulted any one's background or ancestor. If there has been any accidental mention, I would appologize for it. However there were mentions of sarcassm towards freedom fighters and Gandhi too. Emotions aside, it would be prudent to bring in Gandhi's personal life or his early life. Something that is not fair too.
Sporadic incidents cannot be termed in general. You are confusing democracy and imperialism. You cannot do these in democracy but monarchs can. You are only talking of TN where there were so many states in the country. British unification was an accident, managerial strategies.
Ashoka had bloody wars so did RJC so did Harsha true, it is not like the british were patrons of ahimsa. If at all any credit to be given to the crown, yea there is one, they were better than aurangazeb in one segment of their rule.
However, you have not responded on my question, why the indians never united to fight against the mugals or ashoka or harsha but against the british?
:-) Agreed to that point. And it is true that I will never accept the supremacy of the crown.
Pakistan vs India is something of a different ghost and again points to british (may be i can give them credit for a useful side effect).
What was india called before ... this is funny, it just shows that your argument is very very limited to tamil nadu, i dont blame it but then thats what the english achieved. There was a country called 'BHARAT' or as we say ' Bharatam'. Does the name Bharatham make any sense ?
Read thirupugazh (1400 AD) and you will know how much of sanskrit and other bharat languages are mixed in that... mixing up dark ages with the light of a train coming out of a dark tunnel is not in the best interests of bharat.
> > However, you have not responded on my question, why the indians never united > to fight against the mugals or ashoka or harsha but against the british? > >
Since there was no concept of an Indian nation until 1900's ....
Tamilnadu is just one example...you just have to turn into history books to see the sects and sections good example rajputs...marathas...
Who said people didnt fight against them History books again Kalingas resisted Ashoka...Bloody War Pulikesin resisted Harshavardana Sivaji fought Aurangazeb.....
The only difference between Then and the British for 300 years the Indians were enslaved the free ones that is under the british and joined a man who cared for them.... the Maharajas were still bystnaders negotiating their future with the brits...OOOps the enemies
If we accept that with humility we will progress... Humility is our main weapon, as citizens of bharat, we all humble enough to have accepted many rulers and many opinions, bharat is a natural democracy, kings were a part of the democracy. They assumed they were monarch and we were blinded by that over time. Our shanmadhams are common across the country from afganistan to srilanka there are temples, I consider temples that were atleast 3000 years old to start with, how did the people so far and across pray the same god as the people down south ? If we were never united how did that happen ?
>> We may all be talking Persian,Tamil, Sanskrit or whatever...Even today I get asked ''Aap Bharat mein hain Hindi kya bolnahi sakthi??'' Oh by the way matey My language is older than yours and yours is only spoken purely by four states maybe more with the dissections. .. So this goes into a language discussion ? I dont remember language being a barrier when Vatapi was conquered and when gangai konda cholapuram was built or saraboji ruled south.... the british could not understand what the heck we speak or how the hell we communicated... hence the rift was build. Please read Feb 19th 1835 UK parliment address of Lord Maculay. Today they accomplished something that is amazing, many of us do not know what is north about...we all know a laloo or a ambani or a nandhigram but there will be avatars at every place, which we fail to recognize. Krishna's statement ' I will be there when adharma rules' has always been true, except that He does not show up in blue color with a chakra / bow n arrow on his hand. Cholas were drowned by Jatavarma pandyan... Mugals were countered by Shivaji... after aurangazeb they declined and British came in, which is in a way a balance to what was happening for a short period when Bharat shook. Unless Duryodhana had taken up the pandava land we would not have the Gita. Our argument is saying just because we have the Gita - duryodhana was rule was the best and pandavas were in a polyandry situation so they are evil... :-) the bigger scheme of things...
We talked about our Half naked savior he was Ivy league type till he was brought to harsh reality in the middle of the night in a train in south africa....He chose to change many dont.... Do you know the support he had from the average white man in England because he was changing humanity and people recognised it You can call Tata a saviour but he was a business man >> Does it matter ? Arunagiri was a womanizer prior to writing thirupugazh, valmiki was a thief prior to writing ramayana... so what ? It is not the question of what we did, but how soon we realize and what happened after that. Like I said, there are sensible people across the globe. There are honest god and peace abiding citizens everywhere, they see the difference between how or what is happening, the public opinion is bound to go towards the supressed and justice. The concept of public jury in the US lives and is a great way of providing justice. India has a lot to offer the world, it will and it does. Yes, there is the western culture that is dominating us now and we are falling for that, earlier they took our money and now they are dismantling our culture (not the one that a few people talk of deflowering or later end of devadasi cultures). A part of western process was to lure the concept of lust , greed and arrogance into our country. The very concept our shanmadhams fight against.
I would recomend you all to read a chapter in Freedom at Midnight not on Mahatmas exploits but our native maharajas ....Two of them had a bet on how many girls they could deflower in a month (the custom is virgins wear a mookuthi and removed it if they were no longer so...)one of them was able to make a crown out of it.... >> Wow that is disgusting... wondering who wrote it ? lapierre and collins... hmmm.. I would not even be surprised if Mountbatten funded the tennis courts and academies they built. Again, we accept anything we get. What Gandhi did in his personal life is of no consequence to us and it would be vulgar to think follow collins into 'gandhi and his 'girls' ' concepts.
Well that takes you back to 15th 16th century britain when the nobels had the right of PrimaNocte.. .spending the first night with all their subjects was their right. >> may be lapierre and collins tried to justify longshank type protocal to justify scottish policy ?
Gandhi was astute he ammassed people but it was our own Indians who were against our own blood as officers and sepoys who beat all those ahimsa wadis...thats where we went wrong!!! >> right... thats the breed that let traders rule...thats the breed that let muguls dominate...may be thats the breed, if i were to believe collins and co, involved in deflowering... a segment of our own people who believe in destroying the country.
Gandhi fought for the british during the war...He gained what he needed after the war...If britain wanted to do what US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq we would not have had any choice...because they were victorious but they kept their word.
I sure do not understand your point... Aurangazeb vs Sivaji was not a national struggle nor was Kalinga vs Ashoka... our freedom struggle was unique, we wanted a new country under our native dharma... that is why Gandhi is a name that sells.
Ashoka figured that out and took over ahimsa himself...fyi.
This Bharatam cannot be slaved or ruled by monarch's, we can only work by the law of dharma...which may sound stupid to overcivilized individuals but I am sure it makes sense to a lot of other people.
Hello...what is there to contradict ? British were monarch's... india is a natural democracy. british looted and systematically broke us down. British took our culture and portrayed us like barbarians...and unfortunately many indians find pleasure in that. We never fought against any of the other rulers as a unit, but we did against british as a nation... We have been debating the ghajini gori's of british india and from this part of the river it looks like you have been arguing to stake the british claim.
Hi I always felt history books should be read like physics or chemistry books. then you dont get emotional about boyle's law.
the resistance against mughals, men riding out to the last battle and the women commiting jauhar is still acknowledged in the west and north parts of india. to them its more emotional than the struggle against the british.
the war against the mughals by the sikhs, rajputs, and the marattas was eternal. it was an on going process for 300 years. the shiv sena is based on those ideals. the hindu muslim issues including babri masjid are ofshoots of those.
people blame the british for the india pakistan divide. but just imagine with a 17 percent population we have so much friction. what if they had occupied 45 percent in an udivided india.
- Hi ravi has the oddest of notions, which he tries to cover up with high sounding words and a huge dose of what he thinks is patriotism. from what I could grasp he feels aurangazeb's rule was better than the british.and people did not raise a finger against aurangazeb because he was one of us. I should ask sathish mainly if he agrees with it.so we gladly kept watching when aurangazeb knocked off a few thousand hindu temples and killed a few million hindus. ravi says a country like bharat always existed and we wee a natural democracy. our democracy is still in question today that had me in splits. the congress party possibly got an idea from the british that one large entity could be evolved. if the british could run it so could we. even in 1857 not one of the warring parties for for india or bharat. it was for jhansi, it was for marattas , it was for panjalan kurichi or sivagangai 50 years earlier. how would kattabomman or maruthu brothers reacted if you had tried to merge their countries with india. they would have fought tooth and nail like so many maharajahs in 1947.
frankly sri I think this conversation is pointless and leading to nowhere. its upto you to terminate it. venketesh
Hi ravi it would be a great conversation if you dont keep dropping words like supporters of british or singing the british lullaby or slave to the white skin.
the british left india sixty years back and you have such strong feelings on racism. I guess you must be living in the west. jut talking facts has brought this group to this level. over heated emotions have very little place.
as for the nautch girls issue in pudukottai, details were given by sesshaiyaa sastri the great administrator of travancore and pudukottai.( also the first sponsor of ravivarma the painter) seshaiya was the person who reformed the pudukottai state when it was in doldrums.
4) dowry - suththamaa ozhinchu pochchungo...(recent americavula car-lernthu thaana kadhava thorandhukkittu keezha vizhundhavangala paththi inga pesappadaathu. 5) jaathi pirachnaiyaa.. che che. enna sinna pulla thanamaa pesikkittu. (please visit any matrimonial site). Vedhaththila idhai ellaam sollalannu solradhu saaljaappu. It was prevalent and still online... 6) india muzhukka ore culture-aam. ada paavigalaa abdul kalaam kanavu kaanungal-nu sollittaar. adha kettuttu ivaynga panra alapparay thaanga mudiyala. rajasthan-la irukkaravanum, assam-la irukkaravanum, aattayaampattiyila irukkaravanum ore maathiri thaan samooga sindhanai ullavangalaa ? Sir, culture is based on various factors like geographical location, tradition, religion etc., 7) Gandhi's freedom struggle: if you really see the methods of operation of gandhi you would be puzzled that he had acted once in a decade. His major mass movements are in 1920, 1930 and 1942. If you see in between years, you would notice that Gandhi would have gone on pause mode. The main reason being freedom movement was not having MASS SUPPORT as reported in many of the articles. It is confined only to Major cities, towns, educated class etc., Just apply common sense. Population of United India at that time was 30 crores. Did 10% of this population took part in all of the freedom struggle ? Cannot be. Practically also it is not possible. But, Gandhi's freedom movements did make a big impact many of the Indian masses (unlike other congress leaders who did not understand the pulse of the problem). Whether Gandhi's propaganda of Grama munnetram, kaiththozil, etc., will take us forward ?
8) medicos problem - oru varusham graamaththila poi sevai pannungannu sonnaa poraattaththila kudhikkiraanga. (I do not really know the gravity of the problem; but the media is not allowing people to really understand both sides of the issues). 9) See the amount of money poured into IITs by Governments; as a matter of fact in all premium institutions. Let us all be honest (including myself) whether we have done justice to this. What will be the cost of education (of similar standards in overseas) and what we have actually paid ? Whether we are returning back to the nation ? We are ready to do service to the nation but there are lot of corruption, bureaucracy, etc., nu jalli adikkaatheenga. Intha negative points ulla nation thaan, intha inefficient government thaan majority of the educated class uruvaavadharku responsible enbathai naam maranthu vidakkoodaathu.
Ippadi negative points eththanaiyoo irundhaalum, we have lot to cheer about in the positive aspects. But none of the media is honestly putting efforts in this direction. (including this forum).
The bottom line is "let us facts as facts". As Venkatesh rightly pointed out "pushing the rubbish under the carpet does not mean everything is clean and rosy". We still have negatives and only thing that is making us moving forward is not patriotism, i repeat it is not patriotism it is purely survival of the fittest.
Once I read an article by Sujatha. Soldiers in the warfront do have different set of mindset when they are in distress. When a co-soldier is killed by an enemy gunshot, a soldier is not fired up by patriotism it is his acquaintance with the co-soldier that drives the soldier to take revenge. I agree to this theory.
can we compare the situation of any other british colony - in terms of pre colonial stage, colonial stage and post colonial development. how does india fare against a similarly handicapped ( endowed) state.
Almost 1/2 the world was a british colony, US to China... Egypt to south africa... australia etc. India is unique coz of its diversity. I dont think we can compare to any other colony, according to me ...closest can be said as china.
Hi south africa could have been compared to india but it broke off witht he crown. the break off actually happened because of the differences between afrikaners ( dutch origin) and british over rights for the blacks.
venketesh
hong kong , australia and canada were the last in the pocket of the british emperor.
There is a book by Dharampal called 'Beautiful tree'. It is an online book from the website 'www.dharampal.net.' This book shows the picture of Indian society in 18th century during the beginning of british rule. This book is an eye opener to me and it changed many of my views about british rule. It also helps me to understand the lifestyle, characters and living conditions of our ancestors 200yrs back and I no longer think of them as docile people who surrendered to the foreign invasion without much fight. This book is relevant to this current topic in discussion.I would like to know if any of you had read this book and what is its impact on your opinion about India under british rule.
There is no odd notion here. And you have also been attaching an emotional outcry without attempting to understand or completely read what I had mentioned. And I do not need lessons to patriotism either. Your grasp on my words as usual have been an impatient gesture to contradict what is said. Thats how you got to 'derive' some odd statement that Aurangazeb rule was better.... I am thinking how complex of a theorem you had to build to come into that conclusion through multiple iterations...
Aurangazeb did gross injustice,then Shivaji happened, but that was not a national fight...yet, before it got there...aurangazeb left the planet. Aurangazeb had to struggle for every inch of land he conquered. By the time he touched the Deccan plateau he was drowning. He ruled less than 1/4th of what is today's mainland india. He ruled for 48 years of which the second half was spent in the deccan losing to Shivaji. Aurangazeb is not the context of discussion but british are. Aurangazeb is a whole different story all together.
As you pointed out, I do live in the west and I am not sure what that has to do with thoughts on India. In the US, you are free to criticize anything you want, their iraq war, their foreign policies etc... but I am yet to see any critic on their freedom fighters. Please do not say US does not have issues...
I have been insisting that our democracy - dharma - is the way of life. I had quoted places from the Gita and other practices, in all essence there should be quite a lot for you to splits i guess :-)
Travancore Dewan: And again, why would you mix two entities into one common port , seshaya shastry - one of the sponsors of Ravi Varma and Seshaya shastry the british appointed dewan of travancore...every coin has another side is what I say, I for one, do not want to believe what a british appointed dewan wrote, without researching more into it.
Patriotism is key to bringing forward a country, the sense of my country, my people is key for us to build a stronger country. A soldier needs to look at his dead peer to feel the adrenaline and seek revenge, but he needs patriotism to be at the war front in the first place. A non patriotic soldier is no use for his peers or his country.
Covering up under the rug is the accusation, in a family if there are situations where there is a problem child, we try to rectify it in our home, not seek help from thugs. Post independance india has issues, too many issues, we are breathing free air after a long time, it takes time and cycles to settle down. What is the point in analyzing history if we do not learn from it. Ridiculing almost all of our freedom struggle attempts are not for my favor at anytime.
Gandi's movement: Yes there were periods of gaps in Gandhi's movements as pointed out by Muruganandam... however he also points that..Gandhi worked during pauses to collect mass support. I dont think any of us here were witness to the freedom stuggle and to go by logic on 10% support of 30 cr may not be a right number. There may have been atleast more than 20% of people like myself or some others... The world knew of a great man in Gandhi, he taught the world a lot, even if there are people who are critics of Gandhi the man, the mahatma had done a lot for not just India but for the whole world...and was rightly called the mahatma.. You all have read great books written by many authors for your wide knowledge, I would humbly request a read of Gandhi's Gita. Only a person of great and vast knowledge and ...spiritually evolved, can write so.
I would be lying if I say I am not emotional and cold on facts only, agreed. I do not know how many others feel same way, every topic other than national sentiments can be debated upon with a balanced view, this is something that needs a dash of color to it. Every one is entitled to their own views on religion, language or any subject. Forsome reason, I feel the whole issue of freedom is bound to have emotions attached for simple people such as me. Nothing personal against venkat or sridhar but freedom struggle is definitely an emotional one for me.
In the movie, Gandhi.. there is a statement at last when the general points out that without the british there will be so many indias inside india... for which members of our first congress replies that it would not be britain's problem to deal with but ours. I stand by that. I always will.
Again, there is nothing to say, the discussion became pointless, when freedom fighters and their cause is thrown to depths. Respecting and honoring our statesmen is the very least we can do to appreciate what they did. Finally, the catalyst for english lullaby started from the note on 'your freedom fighters', rightly it should have atleast been...i say again, atleast it should have been 'our freedom fighters'.
Say we all agree that the British did a whole lot of good to our country. Then why did whole idea of Independence start? what is the significance of Aug 15th? what was the necessity to chase these 'gentlemen' out? are we trying to prove a whole generation of Indians wrong by saying that we were better of under the british?
I have heard of this book, I believe Dharampal details how the british pulverized the indian economy and society. I have heard that he delves into great depth on the madras constituency tax structures.
I dont think this argument is going anywhere. But I feel Sri and Venkat refuses to accept the ill's the british has left back.
I clearly said - British rule is like giving a pot full of rice to a hungry person with a drop of poison in it. Simple, loud and clear.
A small drop in a potfull might not kill the person, but surely will have some side effects, and ofcourse ill effects. Thats what British rule has led us to.
I didnt get any impression from Ravi's mail that he was supporting Aurangzeb's rule to British rule. I wonder whether I got it wrong of Venkat got it wrong, and why should I be questioned for this. :)
Venkat was the one who told me (taught me) that for almost 80 years of Muslim rule in Madurai there were no Hindu celebrations. Later I learnt it when I read 'Thiruvarangan Ula'. For nearly 5 century's Bhrath was plundered by muslim invasion and the foundations of sanathana dharma was shaken. Then came Sivaji to rebuild the Hindu good, a concept of Hindu liberty. But what did we get out of British rule, apart from Indian Railways and the corrupted adminstrative system. Thats whay I meant by 'a potful of rice with a drop of poison'. A evil in the disguise of good.
When Sri and Venkat say that we should look at our ills, I am asking them, why dont you look at the goods we had? I strongly feel that taking a balanced look at of our goods and bads and taking the good and leaving the bad behind is the path to success. Pondering over the bads alone will take us no where. you are saying the glass i half empty, people like me and Ravi say the glass is half full. Same points in different perspective.
What has happened has happened. We cant change it. But we should admit that amidst a few good, the British has done a lot of harm to us. Material development can be achived only if we have a strong minds. British gave us material development but ruined our thought process. Thats a hard fact which everyone should accept.
Saying that without english (meaning without British coming to India), we could not have become global IT power, is baseless. What about China? They are equally good. Only problem they have is lack of English. Now they have realized it and started learning english. In next 10 years, they will also be good in English. Its a matter of time. If we were not talking english, we would have in next 10 years. Matter of time. compulsion of time. No one can go against it. Just for giving english knowledge, we should not say British did a lot of good to us. They did equal amount of good and equal amount of bad. But the bad's have a long lasting impact than the good they did. Lets accept it.