Posted on 12/01/2006 2:19:29 PM PST by Gengis Khan
One question: Were the British any worse than Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Yadav and the countless other corrupt scoundrels who plundered millions in the name of "social justice" and other archaic slogans ?
The thing is the electorate gets a chance to throw them out every five years and at the end of the day they are held accountable somewhere some way.....The british had absolute power and were accountable to none...
History is written by those who win a war and not by the losers. No wonder, the history of Second World War is written by British and American authors. We are told that the war was necessary to eliminate the evil of Nazism and Hitler from the earth. Nazism and Hitler are painted as devils because they killed six million Jews (a figure put out by British and Jew historians and disputed by many).
"Jew historians"? The author's anti-Semitism and thinly veiled Holocaust denial are palpable. Such a first paragraph renders the remainder of his piece deeply suspect. Are you certain that you're comfortable providing links to such stuff? Even if the author gets some things right, by wrapping his views up in garbage paper, he undercuts any claim he might make to be taken seriously.
I have read the entire article and haven't found anything that can even remotely be construed as "antisemitism".
There is a difference between the expression "Jew historians", which the author chooses to use, and the expression "Jewish historians", which the author chooses not to use (note that he was perfectly willing to speak of "British historians"). The former expression contains a hint of the disdain that invariably accompanies anti-Semitism, the latter expression does not. If you can't hear the difference, I urge you to listen more closely. In addition, by remarking that Holocaust figures are "disputed by many", the author suggests that he's not entirely certain about those figures, either; otherwise, why bring it up? He doesn't outright deny the Holocaust, but he subtly calls at least its scope into question. That's enough for me to see what he's doing.
These unfortunate choices render Anil Chawla's judgment suspect, in my view.
why bring it up?
Not to deny that holocaust never happened but to highlight the double standard practiced in the western Anglo-sphere with regard to holocaust that happened in India to that which happened in Europe. Anil Chawla is perfectly right in drawing upon the comparison. Jew historians (or Jewish historians whatever you call them) has done themselves some amount of disservice by throwing in their lot with British propagandists which has led many Indian scholars/writers to suspect the claims regarding Jewish holocaust. Otherwise most Indians for miles have nothing to do with Semitism (for or against) something which Indian society have never historically encountered.
As far as this articles is concerned I am yet to see even a hint of disdain (that which is directed against Jews and not the British)and anti-Semitism, whatever you accuse the author of. Moreover what you are arguing over is more a matter of technicality then any serious anti-Semitism. And I doubt the Jews themselves would be so paranoid and finicky over such subtleties that they would accuse all and sundry of anti-Semitism over the slightest misuse of proper terminologies. As a matter of fact, going by that logic, your own abnegation of the article can be construed as anti-Indianism. And reading your opinion about British India would only endorse that view.
IMO Anil Chawla has nailed it regardless of whether you accept or not.
BTW almost the same thing is written by Wolfgang Pfitzner regarding the hunger holocaust that happened in India under British rule:
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Pfitzner71-75.html
"Unfortunately it also has to be stated here that, as always, actual or alleged German atrocities receive one-sided and often distorted attention in the public mind, whereas balanced descriptions and comparative studies of similar events which occurred elsewhere in the world are generally avoided. That could put in doubt the alleged uniqueness of the German 'evilness', and this is, as is generally known, politically incorrect and thus undesirable."
No, I didnt imply that it was indicative of lower intelligence, but once people tend to group think it automatically leads to dumbing down of electorates.
Who carried on the Jalianwala Bagh massacre ? Hindu Gurkhas machine gunned Punjabi Sikhs.. in other words Indians slaughtered fellow Indians.
And its very obvious that they didnt even have a strong notion of being ONE people until Brits created India.
The same tendency was evident in the third battle of Panipat. When Afghans invaded India, they faced Marathas. The sikhs refused to help the Marathas fearing further consolidation of Maratha power in north India. And everyone knows what a mince-meat Afghans made out of the much-reputed Maratha warriors.
The worst treachery and all that is wrong with India comes from within herself, its not due to any external conspiracy. Sure we have insurgency problems in Kashmir, North-east and marxist problems in a handful of states, but they are all products of INDIAN incapability of handling the situation.
Like in the 1971 war.. with 90,000 enemy troops in her hand, Mrs. Gandhi couldnt occupy P-o-K, thereby resolving the Kashmir dispute once and for all ? It was a clear demonstration of our ability to compromise, expecting a "change of heart" in the enemy, rather than proceeding by practical military necessity.
So, think twice before blaming the Brits for every ill that befalls India.. there were numerous oppurtunities for us to solve the problems that plague our society, but our self-serving politicians, ruined most of those chances.
And right now, after 60 years of independence, with a few generations having already passed since the Brits already left, we've no right to pin our obvious failures on them.
Look at the Japanese..a country ravaged by nuclear weaponry, built itself from scratch to become an economic super-power within a span of 3-4 decades.. its that kind of commitment which Indian people need, not mere escapism and ruing over the past.
And yet, even if we over throw them, new breeds of goons and gangsters are coming to power, with the help of much-respected political parties.
If Laloo is booted out, Abu Salem or (who knows) Dawood Ibrahim will take his place. And illiterate villagers, who still vote based on caste/religious voting patterns refuse to look into the character of the person they are voting for.
Corruption is replaced by criminalization. Bureacracy is still utterly corrupt. Executive is ineffective and cant handle mild insurgencies in the heart of the country.. the list is endless.
Yes, there is nothing wrong in wondering how Hong Kong was transformed into an economic powerhouse under BRIT rule while Indian politicians a.k.a mobsters and gangsters, only weakened the country with their corrupt ways and ineffective administration.
As a matter of fact, going by that logic, your own abnegation of the article can be construed as anti-Indianism. And reading your opinion about British India would only endorse that view.
Nice try, but nothing I've written supports this.
Regards to you and yours...
There were many instances of Jews themselves siding with Nazi officers to identify other Jews and report on them. That does not absolve Nazis of their guilt. Had the Hindu Gurkhas (who are actually from Nepal) not fired on the hapless people their own families would have been facing the British firing squad.
And its very obvious that they didnt even have a strong notion of being ONE people until Brits created India.
Only in your own perverted world view.
The same tendency was evident in the third battle of Panipat. When Afghans invaded India, they faced Marathas. The sikhs refused to help the Marathas fearing further consolidation of Maratha power in north India. And everyone knows what a mince-meat Afghans made out of the much-reputed Maratha warriors.
What has this got to do with whatever we are duscussing?
Sure we have insurgency problems in Kashmir, North-east and marxist problems in a handful of states, but they are all products of INDIAN incapability of handling the situation.
Kashmir is the product of "INDIAN incapability". Could you elaborate? Are you one of those raving Marxist pseudo-intellectual JNU-types who see Kashmir problem as India's fault?
Like in the 1971 war.. with 90,000 enemy troops in her hand, Mrs. Gandhi couldn't occupy P-o-K, thereby resolving the Kashmir dispute once and for all ? It was a clear demonstration of our ability to compromise, expecting a "change of heart" in the enemy, rather than proceeding by practical military necessity.
Again what has this got to do with anything? In hindsight its always easy to blame someone or the other, but do you realize that it was a time when US, China and Muslim world were against us. The raving anti-Indian Nixon-Kissinger duo would have militarily intervened had we opened up another front in western Punjab or POK. Also China would have very much joined in the fray. We won the war in 1971 because we managed to finished it right there where we won it, in the Eastern front.
So, think twice before blaming the Brits for every ill that befalls India.. there were numerous oppurtunities for us to solve the problems that plague our society, but our self-serving politicians, ruined most of those chances.
I am only blaming the Brits over acts in which they deserve to be blamed. Nothing more, nothing less. And no sir, two wrong do not make a right. The fact that some of our current politicians have let us down does not mean the Brits are absolved of their guilt. Thats an illogical argument. Almost all countries have their share of scoundrels in politics, only we have a lot more then our fair share but thats completely a separate issue. It does not means that Brits are not to be blamed for any of their crimes or that we should forget about history.
And nobody is pinning our current failure on them. On the contrary one of the poster was "pinning" our current success on the Brits. Go back and read the posts again. I agree with you that we shouldn't be blaming the Brits for our current failures. My points is, on the same lines nobody should be pinning our current success on the Brits either.
So go back and re-read the posts once again, you have lost track of what the original argument is.
As far as today's India is concerned, British can no longer be held responsible for the all that is ailing the society and country. After 60 years of independence, the only ones responsible for the mess are Indians themselves..
The original argument 'The British rule was beneficial to India' is untrue....India has nothing to thank for as far as British are concerned...
"And yet, even if we over throw them, new breeds of goons and gangsters are coming to power, with the help of much-respected political parties"
But anywhere in the world in democratic setups...it is the goons and people with objectiobale past are the ones with the resources to fight and win the elections.
For example the Kennedy fortune was made on Bootlegging and they used it to catapult themselves into position of power..
The Bush family made their fortune in opium trade in China...100 year later they are presidents and governers..
So India is not unique as far as thar phenomenon is concerned...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.