NEHRU WAS ENGLISH BY EDUCATION AND MUSLIM BY CULTURE
Abhijit Mitra
Here is a very interesting article I found in the HVK archives... what kind of
nation are we if our first PM was such a sell-out ?????
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Nehru: India's last English PM!
Author: D P Sinha
Publication: The Observer
Date: November 12, 1997
In a passing moment of emotional weakness, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
Prime Minister of Independent India, shared a deep secret with the then
American diplomat John Galbraith, who said: "It did not especially surprise
me, when once in a relaxed' moment he (Nehru) said - well, you know I am
the last Englishman to rule in India".
To believe this is difficult. Is it possible that India's first Prime
Minister, a man who defiantly challenged the British rule, belligerently
criticised its policies and went to jail again and again, could claim to be
an Englishmen? And that, too, with an unmistakable stamp of pride. An
irony indeed!
The developmental patterns of any person and what direction these patterns
will unfold are pretty much determined during a person's childhood and
early youth. Take the example of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, former Prime Minister
of Pakistan. Bhutto's anti-Hindu psychology first evolved in his
adolescence. At 17, he wrote to Muhammed Ali Jinnah: "Muslims should
realise that the Hindus can never and will never unite with us, they are
the deadliest enemies of our Koran and Prophet..."
Young Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to his father from England: "Indians were
bound to have self-government but ... not before a few aeons of geological
time! This may mean anything between a few million years and wholly
incomprehensive period. The chief difficulty was the want of education and
some million generations will be required to educate them (Indians) up to
the colonial standard".
This letter written at the age of 21 clearly establishes the fact that
young Jawaharlal was deeply aware of the 'supremacy' of the British, and,
all his life, suffered from pangs of inferiority in relation to the white
rulers.
In his court trial of 1922, Nehru himself stated: "Less than ten years, I
returned from England after a long stay there ... I had imbibed most of
prejudices of Harrow and Cambridge and in my likes and dislikes I was
perhaps more an Englishman than an Indian. I looked upon the world almost
from a Englishman's stand point ... as much prejudiced in favour of England
and the English as it was possible for a Englishman to be".
The independence movement in India did witness a sartorial change in Nehru,
but not of heart. Like a first love, Nehru's romance with the English and
all that is English continued to influence his heart and mind and
manifested itself at the slightest opportunity. In the year 1946 as Prime
Minister of the interim government, Nehru embarked on his flight
resplendent in traditional Indian attire - sherwani, chooridar and
'Gandhi-cap'. But, Nehru arrived in England every inch an English,
gentleman, fitted out in tweeds, tie, hat and a smoking cigar in his hand.
This journey had somehow transformed the humble son of India into a dashing
gallant with his clothes dictated by prevailing tastes, Savoir-faire
demeanor, a native returning home. By the time Nehru reached the British
Isles, he had himself become British. He did let go of his Park Avenue
acquired wardrobe only after his actions were criticised back home in the
print media.
Discarding his English outfit was easy enough. But, Nehru remained to the
core an awestruck admirer of the English quintessence. According to B R
Nanda, "In the Indian Constituent Assembly, he threw his weight in favour
of Parliamentary democracy on the British model and as Prime Minister, did
all he could to evolve traditions conforming to established practices in
Britain".
After years of slavery, when people revolt, a nation is reborn. The prime
mission of the new government is nation building. Such government is
infused with revolutionary vigour and intellectual boldness. It dares to
lay down its own agenda which may be entirely different from that of the
now expelled rulers.
But Jawaharlal Nehru did not conceive of independent India's new fledged
government as an insurrectionary government with all its inherent potential.
The anti-Hindu policy is another heirloom from the white rulers which the
Nehru government wholeheartedly followed.
In August 1947, Dr Rajendra Prasad, who was the chairman of the Constituent
Assembly wrote to Nehru about cow slaughter and the fact that a majority of
Hindu sentiments run high against the cow slaughter.
Jawaharlal Nehru responded that he is well aware of the Hindu
sentimentality and, yet he would much rather resign from the prime
ministerial position than bow before it.
The man who can derive pleasure from the weakening and fragmenting of the
Hindu society can hardly be a Hindu himself. Disclaiming his Hindu
identity, Nehru declared that by education he was an Englishman, by culture
a Muslim and by accident of birth, a Hindu. It is a mere throw of the dice
that he was born to a Hindu couple, otherwise he had no undertaking with
the Hindus.
Albeit, it is a different matter that to remain the beloved Prime Minister
of a Hindu majority electorate, Nehru stuck to his Brahmanical title
'Pandit' pretty much in the same way as he stuck to the Gandhi cap on his
bald head: Both lending him validity and at the same time functioning as
tools to hoodwink Hindu masses. It was the same exigency that compelled
him to accept anti-cow slaughter as one of the Directive Principles of our
Constitution.
Two questions can be asked here. First, that if Nehru was such an ardent
fan of the British life-style, why did he, in the first place, participate
in a movement against the British? Secondly, what made him such a British
enthusiast?
Jawaharlal Nehru was an ambitious father's ultra ambitious son. He had a
dream. A dream of leading an independent India as its very first Prime
Minister. To make his dreams a reality Nehru did what was the need of the
hour. He opposed the British rule, even went to jail.
Yet throughout all this, at a deep, more personal level, Nehru continued to
experience a humbling respect and love for the British culture. Upon
analysis of Jawaharlal Nehru's behaviour it is clear that to him there was
no apparent conflict between love for all things English and an active
struggle against the English.
For a deeper understanding we need to go back further. In the early years
of 19th century, in East India Company, there was a debate on the education
policy for Indians.
While some believed that Indians should be formally instructed in their
native language of Sanskrit and Persian, the public instructions committee
headed by Lord Macaulay recommended that Indians should be taught in the
western traditions and the medium of instruction should be English.
Macaulay wrote that the aim of English education is "to create a class who
would act as interpreters between us and the millions we govern, a class of
Indians in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals
and in intellect".
East India Company adopted Macaulay's suggestions and teaching in English
language began in India.
Merely hundred years later, India was abound with 'black British' who were
only by 'blood and colour' Indians.
Apart from their 'blood and colour' nothing in them remained Indian.
No wonder this breed of Indians feel such pride in calling themselves
'English'.
Shoumyo Dasgupta
Akhtar Siddique wrote:
> Abhijit, is this reference to John Kenneth
> Galbraith, an inhabitant of our universe or is this John Bhangsevak
> Galbraith who inhabits the parallel Nachiketa-universe that is formed
> through the fecund gobar-enhanced imaginations of the bhang-parivar where
> the "purging" of the Jews by Guru Hitler are still doubted (in SCI and SCB
> as well) and Sachesenhausen is a resort and not only that Mir Jumla the
> New Lazarus is resurrected from his death in Assam and travels in a
> time-machine back to the "Great City of Cooch Behar" to destroy the temples?
What a sentence ! :)) I could never compose one like this one. Kudos
also becuase you echo my thoughts on the subject...
Shoumyo.
Abhijit Mitra
sidd...@acpub.duke.edu (Akhtar Siddique) writes:
>I just have one question, Abhijit, is this reference to John Kenneth
>Galbraith, an inhabitant of our universe or is this John Bhangsevak
>Galbraith ...
I found this article on SCI and I thought it was interesting so I reposted it
here. I didn't write it myself so asking me what the author means is really
quite pointless. If you have anything constructive to say, either in favor or
in opposition to the author, please do so - but irrelevant jabs at Nachiketa or
the Sangh Parivar will get you nowhere.
>Galbraith is still alive, right? Do you know where he said such a thing,
>is it in conversations, or Anatomy of Power or some other book?
Since you have raised this question, I WILL try to find out.
:)
-A.M.
Supratik Das
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Shoumyo Dasgupta wrote:
> Akhtar Siddique wrote:
> > Abhijit, is this reference to John Kenneth
> > Galbraith, an inhabitant of our universe or is this John Bhangsevak
> > Galbraith who inhabits the parallel Nachiketa-universe that is formed
> > through the fecund gobar-enhanced imaginations of the bhang-parivar where
> > the "purging" of the Jews by Guru Hitler are still doubted (in SCI and SCB
> > as well) and Sachesenhausen is a resort and not only that Mir Jumla the
> > New Lazarus is resurrected from his death in Assam and travels in a
> > time-machine back to the "Great City of Cooch Behar" to destroy the temples?
> What a sentence ! :)) I could never compose one like this one. Kudos
> also becuase you echo my thoughts on the subject...
Are you sure that there isn't a permemnant echo inside your head which you
mistook for thoughts considering that you are licking too much off that
idiot Akhtar?
Abhijit Mitra
sidd...@acpub.duke.edu (Akhtar Siddique) writes:
>The accolytes of the Bhangparivar do seem to have a facility for manufacturing
>history.
So you are insinuating that this article, specifically the reference to him
calling himself the last Englishman to rule India, is manufactured history?
Perhaps. The history books are replete with instances of manufactured, or at
the very least, biased, accounts of history.
However, you will have to show us how it is a manufactured piece. If you can do
that, then I will be the 1st to accept it.
In the meantime, I plan to look up Galbraith, see if he wrote any books or
memoirs at all - if the quote is indeed a lie, then I will let you know if I
find out.
[rest of the irrelevant, yet interesting, post by Akhtar deleted]
-A.M.
Anindya Ghoshal
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> Here is a very interesting article I found in the HVK archives... what kind of
> nation are we if our first PM was such a sell-out ?????
So where is the sell-out?????????
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Title: Nehru: India's last English PM!
> Author: D P Sinha
> Publication: The Observer
> Date: November 12, 1997
>
> In a passing moment of emotional weakness, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
> Prime Minister of Independent India, shared a deep secret with the then
> American diplomat John Galbraith, who said: "It did not especially surprise
> me, when once in a relaxed' moment he (Nehru) said - well, you know I am
> the last Englishman to rule in India".
Quotation and citations please??
> To believe this is difficult. Is it possible that India's first Prime
> Minister, a man who defiantly challenged the British rule, belligerently
> criticised its policies and went to jail again and again, could claim to be
> an Englishmen? And that, too, with an unmistakable stamp of pride. An
> irony indeed!
>
So if JN is proud to be an Englishman..it is his own individual opinion of
himself.What's wrong in it??
> The developmental patterns of any person and what direction these patterns
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> will unfold are pretty much determined during a person's childhood and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Haven't heard more idiotic and naive statements before! If that is true then nobody
would change with experience, wisdom and time. Ashoka would remained
a king who loved wars and killings, Ajatshatru would have hated Buddhists
throughout his life..Buddha would have remained in his palace and become
a king as his childhood and early youth education demanded of him and so on..
> early youth. Take the example of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, former Prime Minister
> of Pakistan. Bhutto's anti-Hindu psychology first evolved in his
> adolescence. At 17, he wrote to Muhammed Ali Jinnah: "Muslims should
> realise that the Hindus can never and will never unite with us, they are
> the deadliest enemies of our Koran and Prophet..."
By that example nobody
>
> Young Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to his father from England: "Indians were
> bound to have self-government but ... not before a few aeons of geological
> time! This may mean anything between a few million years and wholly
> incomprehensive period. The chief difficulty was the want of education and
> some million generations will be required to educate them (Indians) up to
> the colonial standard".
500 millions of Indians today are illiterate. Nearly 70% of our women folk
wouldprobably never see the door of primary school after 50 years of independence.
I do not find anything wrong in what young JN wrote. Looks Mr. Sinha doesn't
know what he is writing about! Of course what to expect of an Observer columnist!
>
>
> This letter written at the age of 21 clearly establishes the fact that
> young Jawaharlal was deeply aware of the 'supremacy' of the British, and,
> all his life, suffered from pangs of inferiority in relation to the white
> rulers.
>
What a conclusion!
> In his court trial of 1922, Nehru himself stated: "Less than ten years, I
> returned from England after a long stay there ... I had imbibed most of
> prejudices of Harrow and Cambridge and in my likes and dislikes I was
> perhaps more an Englishman than an Indian. I looked upon the world almost
> from a Englishman's stand point ... as much prejudiced in favour of England
> and the English as it was possible for a Englishman to be".
>
> The independence movement in India did witness a sartorial change in Nehru,
> but not of heart. Like a first love, Nehru's romance with the English and
> all that is English continued to influence his heart and mind and
> manifested itself at the slightest opportunity. In the year 1946 as Prime
> Minister of the interim government, Nehru embarked on his flight
> resplendent in traditional Indian attire - sherwani, chooridar and
> 'Gandhi-cap'. But, Nehru arrived in England every inch an English,
> gentleman, fitted out in tweeds, tie, hat and a smoking cigar in his hand.
> This journey had somehow transformed the humble son of India into a dashing
> gallant with his clothes dictated by prevailing tastes, Savoir-faire
> demeanor, a native returning home. By the time Nehru reached the British
> Isles, he had himself become British. He did let go of his Park Avenue
> acquired wardrobe only after his actions were criticised back home in the
> print media.
>
So???
> Discarding his English outfit was easy enough. But, Nehru remained to the
> core an awestruck admirer of the English quintessence. According to B R
> Nanda, "In the Indian Constituent Assembly, he threw his weight in favour
> of Parliamentary democracy on the British model and as Prime Minister, did
> all he could to evolve traditions conforming to established practices in
> Britain".
Mr. Sinha has anything better to offer than Parliamentary democracy? Why don'the
speak up?? Right-o how about kings, maharajahs, brahmin priests ruling India
again! Back to the days of Manu-smriti!
>
>
> After years of slavery, when people revolt, a nation is reborn. The prime
> mission of the new government is nation building. Such government is
> infused with revolutionary vigour and intellectual boldness. It dares to
> lay down its own agenda which may be entirely different from that of the
> now expelled rulers.
Looks like Mr. Sinha is talking something surprisingly similar to CommieCultural
Revolution ! Wow in China in 60s everything that was remotely
connected including monasteries, books et al were burnt and destroyed.
The Naxals also tried that ..now what are we infer from the above!
>
>
> But Jawaharlal Nehru did not conceive of independent India's new fledged
> government as an insurrectionary government with all its inherent potential.
He didn't ..why didn't Mr. Sinha, his predecessors in RSS couldn't suggestan
alternative and defeat Nehru in the elections?
> The anti-Hindu policy is another heirloom from the white rulers which the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^talk about
who is suffering from inferiority complex!
| Nehru government wholeheartedly followed.
Just becoz. Jawaharlal Nehru brought forth the Hindu Code Bill in 1955, he becomes
anti-Hindu...why Mr. Sinha or his RSS buddies spell out what was the standpoint
of RSS and Hindu Mahasabha against the Hindu Code Bill in 1955!!!
> In August 1947, Dr Rajendra Prasad, who was the chairman of the Constituent
> Assembly wrote to Nehru about cow slaughter and the fact that a majority of
> Hindu sentiments run high against the cow slaughter.
> Jawaharlal Nehru responded that he is well aware of the Hindu
> sentimentality and, yet he would much rather resign from the prime
> ministerial position than bow before it.
JN protected the rights of minorities including Muslims and Christians..It isthe
most honorable thing to do as the leader of a nation in a democracy!
>
>
> The man who can derive pleasure from the weakening and fragmenting of the
> Hindu society can hardly be a Hindu himself. Disclaiming his Hindu
> identity, Nehru declared that by education he was an Englishman, by culture
> a Muslim and by accident of birth, a Hindu. It is a mere throw of the dice
> that he was born to a Hindu couple, otherwise he had no undertaking with
> the Hindus.
Who gets to determine who is a Hindu, Sir? The RSS, or the Shankacharya or
BajrangDal..??.
>
>
> Albeit, it is a different matter that to remain the beloved Prime Minister
> of a Hindu majority electorate, Nehru stuck to his Brahmanical title
> 'Pandit' pretty much in the same way as he stuck to the Gandhi cap on his
> bald head: Both lending him validity and at the same time functioning as
> tools to hoodwink Hindu masses. It was the same exigency that compelled
> him to accept anti-cow slaughter as one of the Directive Principles of our
> Constitution.
> Two questions can be asked here. First, that if Nehru was such an ardent
> fan of the British life-style, why did he, in the first place, participate
> in a movement against the British? Secondly, what made him such a British
> enthusiast?
>
This so much stupid and so much naive that it is beyond belief..Looks like
Mr.Sinha lost his brain to those brainwash of RSS..to chose a lifestyle to lead is
an individual choice..if Mr. Nehru chose an English lifestyle to lead in his
personal
life..it is his individual liberty as enshrined in a democratic society! To have
one's
country ruled by the British is totally a different matter. This should explain why
JN fought for independence of India. It looks like Mr. Sinha and his RSS education
can't tell the difference between the governance of a nation and personal choice
of a lifestyle in private life !!..No wonder so many idiots come out of that blind
alley
in Nagpur!
> Jawaharlal Nehru was an ambitious father's ultra ambitious son. He had a
> dream. A dream of leading an independent India as its very first Prime
> Minister. To make his dreams a reality Nehru did what was the need of the
> hour. He opposed the British rule, even went to jail.
>
> Yet throughout all this, at a deep, more personal level, Nehru continued to
> experience a humbling respect and love for the British culture. Upon
> analysis of Jawaharlal Nehru's behaviour it is clear that to him there was
> no apparent conflict between love for all things English and an active
> struggle against the English.
>
Mr Idiot doesn't understand the difference between British culture and to haveIndia
under British governance...! Ahh well ..then since when Organizer had posted
articles written by people who can use their brains!
> For a deeper understanding we need to go back further. In the early years
> of 19th century, in East India Company, there was a debate on the education
> policy for Indians.
>
Whack your brains folks,here come the history as taught by RSS schools!
> While some believed that Indians should be formally instructed in their
> native language of Sanskrit and Persian, the public instructions committee
> headed by Lord Macaulay recommended that Indians should be taught in the
> western traditions and the medium of instruction should be English.
Firstly there was a strict policy of the Brits of non-interference in local
traditions,religions and education. It took years of persuasion by Rajaramohum Roy
to even
get Sati banned. There were two sides in this great education debate. The pack led
Rev. Alexander Duff wanted the medium of instruction to be native languages. If
they had their way, Mr. Sinha and his RSS would be singing hymms in the praise of
Jesus today. Lord Macaulay, Charles Trevalyan on the other hand was strongly
influenced by RajaRammohun Roy, Dwarkanath Tagore, Derozians and other Indians who
wanted the medium of instruction to be English as they taught Western education at
tha
t point of time in India would be beneficial in bringing the Renaissance and
reforming Hinduism.
Whether Mr. Sinha or his RSS liked it or not, it did happen ..contrary to popular
belief
it was liberal Indians like RajaRammohun Roy who was instrumental in bringing the
medium of instruction. Lord Macaulay happened to side with them after been
persuaded by their arguments! Unfortunately for Mr. Sinha, his BhangParivar folks,
Sati was banned, widow remarriage act was passed, women education was actively
promoted much to the consternation of the Kanshi Brahmins and other votaries
of Orthodox Hinduism! I'm glad that people like RajaRammohun Roy, Derozions,
Vidyasagar, Tagore and others were born to kick those orthodoxies out of Hinduism!
Folks should understand now why Mr. Sinha, his Bhangparivar associates are so much
peeved with Western education in India!
>
>
> Macaulay wrote that the aim of English education is "to create a class who
> would act as interpreters between us and the millions we govern, a class of
> Indians in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals
> and in intellect".
Lord Macaulay goes on to write in 1835 "..as the spectre of governance wouldbe
passed onto Indians.." ...just by quoting parts out of place doesn't help much..
does it..so much the BS of the creation of English speaking clerks out of Indians
as a conspiracy hatched by Macaulay!
>
>
> East India Company adopted Macaulay's suggestions and teaching in English
> language began in India.
>
> Merely hundred years later, India was abound with 'black British' who were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Never in Lord Macaulay's writings had I ever found the
term "black British"
to define an Indian! It is a mere cheapshot of Mr. Stupid Sinha ..as his whole
article is!
> only by 'blood and colour' Indians.
>
> Apart from their 'blood and colour' nothing in them remained Indian.
Why don't Mr. Sinha tell us what he means by an Indian??
>
>
> No wonder this breed of Indians feel such pride in calling themselves
> 'English'.
No wonder this breed of Indians (Mr Sinha and his Bhangparivar folks)feel such
pride in been such idiots!
Anindo.
Akhtar Siddique
mi...@romulus.rutgers.edu (Abhijit Mitra) writes:
>sidd...@acpub.duke.edu (Akhtar Siddique) writes:
>In the meantime, I plan to look up Galbraith, see if he wrote any books or
>memoirs at all - if the quote is indeed a lie, then I will let you know if I
>find out.
Galbraith has written more than 30 books and an extremely large number of
articles! I have not read all but have read a fair number. Anatomy of Power
is extremely famous. From my readings the Bhangsevak quote seems unlikely
or taken extremely out of context.
--Akhtar Siddique
Abhijit Mitra
sidd...@acpub.duke.edu (Akhtar Siddique) writes:
>From my readings the Bhangsevak quote seems unlikely or taken extremely out of
>context.
Its possible... I'll see if I can find it. Of course, im not going to deny that
it IS a possibility that he was taken out of context...
-A.M.
Abhijit Mitra
Anindya Ghoshal <ani...@teamqsi.com> writes:
>So where is the sell-out?????????
Assuming the article is true - that Nehru did consider himself an Englishman,
then I think his being a sell-out is pretty obvious. If you dont get it, then
I'm not going to waste my time telling you.
>So if JN is proud to be an Englishman..it is his own individual opinion of
>himself.What's wrong in it??
He was the 1st PM of independent India. It is hardly appropriate.
>I do not find anything wrong in what young JN wrote.
So do you still think India is not ready for self-rule? If you do, then you are
ignoring the past 50 years of tumultous, YET STABLE, democracy that we've
enjoyed. Trust me, a lot of the credit goes to the people of India. Just
because so many people are illiterate doesn't mean they dont have the wisdom to
make their own choices.
>Looks Mr. Sinha doesn't know what he is writing about!
Looks like Mr. Ghoshal doesnt know what he is writing about either? Of course,
what to expect from a brainwashed leftist!
>Mr. Sinha has anything better to offer than Parliamentary democracy? Why don't
>he speak up??
On this point, I agree with you... However, what do you think about an American
style or even French style Presidential form of govt?
Do you think it would work?
>JN protected the rights of minorities including Muslims and Christians..It
>isthe most honorable thing to do as the leader of a nation in a democracy!
How is banning cow slaughter an infringement on the rights of Muslims and
Christians?
While I personally do not support a ban on cow slaughter, because I do not
believe its any of the govt business, I do not see how it is an infringement on
minority rights. It is an infringement on individual rights, not exclusively
minority ones.
>I'm glad that people like RajaRammohun Roy, Derozions, Vidyasagar, Tagore and
>others were born to kick those orthodoxies out of Hinduism!
Very few people feel otherwise. The fact that Hinduism was in need of reform,
and still is, is not up to debate. Everyone know that, and is thankful for the
fact that it happened.
-A.M.
Anindya Ghoshal
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> Anindya Ghoshal <ani...@teamqsi.com> writes:
>
> >So where is the sell-out?????????
>
> Assuming the article is true - that Nehru did consider himself an Englishman,
> then I think his being a sell-out is pretty obvious. If you dont get it, then
> I'm not going to waste my time telling you.
You don't get it Mr. Mitra. Whether Nehru considered his personal life-style to be
English,Kashmiri, Pandit or what have you is his personal individual choice!!
Anybody who has
any inkling of a little background in Sociology would tell you what part individual
liberty
plays in a democratic society. Nobody is telling you or BhangParivar people to be
something
different until the Bajrang Bali guys walk down the streets of Bombay and kill
thousands
of Muslims.
>
>
> >So if JN is proud to be an Englishman..it is his own individual opinion of
> >himself.What's wrong in it??
>
> He was the 1st PM of independent India. It is hardly appropriate.
Who are you or BhangParivar people to comment on what's appropriate for apersonal
choice of life-style of an individual. His choice of life-style has nothing to with
being
the First PM of India. Like Mr. Sinha, it seems you too are unable to distinguish
between governance of a country and personal choice of life-style of an individual.
>
>
> >I do not find anything wrong in what young JN wrote.
>
> So do you still think India is not ready for self-rule? If you do, then you are
> ignoring the past 50 years of tumultous, YET STABLE, democracy that we've
> enjoyed. Trust me, a lot of the credit goes to the people of India. Just
> because so many people are illiterate doesn't mean they dont have the wisdom to
> make their own choices.
>
I still repeat what I said before. Nehru didn't write anything to do with India
beingready self-rule. Guess you've problems reading things in proper perspective !
As of choices go! Hmm..well it doesn't speak much of the todays MPs and MLAs. Mr.
Mitra is referred to the CNN online to see our representatives in UP Bidhan Sabha
in session last month! Back in 1929 in Young India, Gandhiji wrote that in a
democracy,
the people themselves are responsible for the leaders they choose, the choice of
leaders are representative of the people themselves. Now if the present bunch of
leaders are any set of example, we Indians are not doing that well, Mr. Mitra. And
BTW who told you that democracy exists in its true spirit in India? Have you any
idea
of how elections are conducted even in WB leave alone places like Bihar or UP? Be
it
CPI(M) on the left to the other hoodlums on the right including Congress and BJP
who gets elected, our electoral process had been made mockery of time and again..
anyway I guess there is no point in discussing it.
> >Looks Mr. Sinha doesn't know what he is writing about!
>
> Looks like Mr. Ghoshal doesnt know what he is writing about either? Of course,
> what to expect from a brainwashed leftist!
>
hah! Is BhangParivar people supplying their supporters with too much of Bhangsand
Ganjas these days! How do you know whether I'm leftist or not?? Being a supporter
of free market economy and global trade ( I consider Drucker to be my economic guru
) I
strongly believe in secularism. If that's leftism for you, then either you're
halucinating
or you've lost your tweaky little pea-sized brain to the BhangParivar dance!
> >Mr. Sinha has anything better to offer than Parliamentary democracy? Why don't
> >he speak up??
>
> On this point, I agree with you... However, what do you think about an American
> style or even French style Presidential form of govt?
So?? I haven't read RSS or the BhangParivar people ever coming with the
alternativeof Presidential form of governance!
>
>
> Do you think it would work?
It may or may not work..We need to be careful as we don't want another IG on
board..neither do I have much faith in the present bunch of politicians across the
spectrum from
left to right.
>
>
> >JN protected the rights of minorities including Muslims and Christians..It
> >isthe most honorable thing to do as the leader of a nation in a democracy!
>
> How is banning cow slaughter an infringement on the rights of Muslims and
> Christians?
>
I guess it is beyond your reasoning power to understand it. No point in trying to
explainit.
> While I personally do not support a ban on cow slaughter, because I do not
> believe its any of the govt business, I do not see how it is an infringement on
> minority rights. It is an infringement on individual rights, not exclusively
> minority ones.
An individual himself can be a minority! So can a group of people ..
>
>
> >I'm glad that people like RajaRammohun Roy, Derozions, Vidyasagar, Tagore and
> >others were born to kick those orthodoxies out of Hinduism!
>
> Very few people feel otherwise. The fact that Hinduism was in need of reform,
> and still is, is not up to debate. Everyone know that, and is thankful for the
> fact that it happened.
I don't think BhangParivar is..I guess you may enlighten us of what
BhangParivarthinks of RajaRammohun Roy, Vidyasagar, Derozians et al. Why don't you
tell
how the Hindu Orthodox reacted to the reformation movement. And BTW why are
you silent on Hindu Mahasabha, BhangParivar and rest of rightist Hindu fundees
stand of Hindu Code Bill 1955. That should tell you why reformation in Hinduism was
an anathema to the fundees!
>
>
> -A.M.
A+
A.
.
Abhijit Mitra
Anindya Ghoshal <ani...@teamqsi.com> writes:
>You don't get it Mr. Mitra. Whether Nehru considered his personal life-style
>to be English,Kashmiri, Pandit or what have you is his personal individual
>choice!!
A Prime Minister of a newly independent nation is expected to act as a role
model for the rest of the nation, to guide it along the path which he/she
believes it should go on. What kind of a role model is it to young Indians to
have a PM who thinks hes an Englishman?
To take this to the extreme, what if the Prime Minister of India loved going
to whorehouses... would that be okay with you too since thats a personal
individual choice?
>Nobody is telling you or BhangParivar people to be something different until
>the Bajrang Bali guys walk down the streets of Bombay and kill thousands of
>Muslims.
Irrelevant to this discussion. Why bring the Sangh Parivar into every
discussion, especially with someone who has derided the Sangh Parivar on many
occassions (i.e.,me) ?
>Who are you or BhangParivar people to comment on what's appropriate for a
>personal choice of life-style of an individual.
Firstly, this pointless involvement of the "BhangParivar" is irrelevant.
Secondly, what I said was my opinion about what is appropriate and what is not.
The last time I checked, I was allowed to express an opinion, as are you.
>His choice of life-style has nothing to with being the First PM of India.
On the contrary, he should have served as a role model to the youth of the
nation. Instead, he chose to be a British sycophant.
>Nehru didn't write anything to do with India being ready self-rule.
Au contraire... check this out -
"Young Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to his father from England: "Indians were
bound to have self-government but ... not before a few aeons of geological
time!"
Now, Im assuming you know what the phrase 'geological time' means?
>Mitra is referred to the CNN online to see our representatives in UP Bidhan
>Sabha in session last month!
That was a shame. But cases like that don't happen all the time, do they? More
often than not, the system works, although not nearly as efficiently as it
should. For example, all indicators of Indias well being like infant mortality
rates, literacy rates, crop production, per capita GDP... are all UP. Maybe not
as up as we would like them to be, but things have improved since independence,
- so you can not say that the system isnt working at all...
>Now if the present bunch of leaders are any set of example, we Indians are not
>doing that well
True again. But what reason do you have to believe that any alternative to
democracy would be more effective?
>Have you any idea of how elections are conducted even in WB leave alone places
>like Bihar or UP?
Yes, I am aware of rampant election rigging... however, again, can you suggest
a better alternative to democratic rule?
>So?? I haven't read RSS or the BhangParivar people ever coming with the
>alternativeof Presidential form of governance!
That was my question to you. Not the RSSs :)
>It may or may not work..We need to be careful as we don't want another IG on
>board..neither do I have much faith in the present bunch of politicians across
>the spectrum from left to right.
Your skepticism is not unwarranted. However, assuming the current bunch of
politicans stay in power, would any other form of government make a difference?
In particular, would a directly elected President help, in any way, in
resolving the gridlock that is so much of a part of our coalition govt?
>An individual himself can be a minority! So can a group of people ..
Ok, then banning cow slaughter is an infringment on EVERYONES rights, not only
on Muslim or Christians... correct? That is what I meant by it being an
infringement on individual rights (i.e., everyones rights) and not only on
minority rights.
>I guess you may enlighten us of what BhangParivarthinks of RajaRammohun Roy,
>Vidyasagar, Derozians et al.
Why should I? :-) Who died and made ME the spokesperson for the Sangh Parivar?
>Why don't you tell how the Hindu Orthodox reacted to the reformation movement.
From what I understand, they didn't like it as it was a threat to their power
and authority. I don't see the relevance of this, though...
>And BTW why are you silent on Hindu Mahasabha, BhangParivar and rest of
>rightist Hindu fundees stand of Hindu Code Bill 1955.
Why should I say anything at all about them? Am I, or was I ever, a member, or
a sympathiser of the Hindu Mahasabha? No. As for the Sangh Parivar, while I DO
support certain aspects of their agenda (its not ALL bad), I can not honestly
say I support them for national power. Although my distaste for the CPM leads
me to believe they'd be a good choice in WB... come to think of it, anyone
would ;-)
Anindyo, while you raise from really good points, I think we both should try
to stop this pointless labelling. I won't call you a leftist, and I advise you
refrain from irrelevant jabs at the Sangh Parivar.
-A.M.
sayan bhattacharyya
Anindya Ghoshal <ani...@teamqsi.com> wrote:
>Back in 1929 in Young India, Gandhiji wrote that in a
>democracy,
>the people themselves are responsible for the leaders they choose, the choice of
>leaders are representative of the people themselves. Now if the present bunch of
>leaders are any set of example, we Indians are not doing that well, Mr. Mitra. And
>BTW who told you that democracy exists in its true spirit in India? Have you any
>idea
>of how elections are conducted even in WB leave alone places like Bihar or UP? Be
>it
>CPI(M) on the left to the other hoodlums on the right including Congress and BJP
>who gets elected, our electoral process had been made mockery of time and again..
>anyway I guess there is no point in discussing it.
>
Without at least a modicum of economic equality, there can be no meaningful
democracy, because the people with power and money will always find ways
and means to subvert the democratic process and buy off politicians. This
is why, under the present socio-economic stage of the world, there exists
not a single true democracy on the planet, but only varying degrees of
dictatorship (dictatorship of the rich over the poor).
The recent failure of the legislative bodies in the USA to take ANY
meaningful steps towards campaign finance reform clearly demonstrated
this.
Pran Lal
Anindya wrote:
>Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>
>> Here is a very interesting article I found in the HVK archives... what kind
>of
>> nation are we if our first PM was such a sell-out ?????
>
>So where is the sell-out?????????
>
>>
>>
>>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>>
>> Title: Nehru: India's last English PM!
>> Author: D P Sinha
>> Publication: The Observer
>> Date: November 12, 1997
>>
>> In a passing moment of emotional weakness, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
>> Prime Minister of Independent India, shared a deep secret with the then
>> American diplomat John Galbraith, who said: "It did not especially surprise
>> me, when once in a relaxed' moment he (Nehru) said - well, you know I am
>> the last Englishman to rule in India".
>
>Quotation and citations please??
No quotations for you.
>> To believe this is difficult. Is it possible that India's first Prime
>> Minister, a man who defiantly challenged the British rule, belligerently
>> criticised its policies and went to jail again and again, could claim to be
>> an Englishmen? And that, too, with an unmistakable stamp of pride. An
>> irony indeed!
>>
>
>So if JN is proud to be an Englishman..it is his own individual opinion of
>himself.What's wrong in it??
>
>> The developmental patterns of any person and what direction these patterns
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> will unfold are pretty much determined during a person's childhood and
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Haven't heard more idiotic and naive statements before! If that is true then
>nobody
Well, looks like the author is doing a Freud, here. Or is that
not true? So go blame Freud. However, your point is well
taken. But then, Shri SInha does has a point that your future,
to atleast some extent depends on your past. Or does it not?
>> early youth. Take the example of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, former Prime Minister
>> of Pakistan. Bhutto's anti-Hindu psychology first evolved in his
>> adolescence. At 17, he wrote to Muhammed Ali Jinnah: "Muslims should
>> realise that the Hindus can never and will never unite with us, they are
>> the deadliest enemies of our Koran and Prophet..."
>
>By that example nobody
>
>>
>
>> Young Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to his father from England: "Indians were
>> bound to have self-government but ... not before a few aeons of geological
>> time! This may mean anything between a few million years and wholly
>> incomprehensive period. The chief difficulty was the want of education and
>> some million generations will be required to educate them (Indians) up to
>> the colonial standard".
>
>500 millions of Indians today are illiterate. Nearly 70% of our women folk
>wouldprobably never see the door of primary school after 50 years of
>independence.
>I do not find anything wrong in what young JN wrote.
I am not surprised about your reaction. However, JLN's
words, [the ones given above] are the words of a loser.
If you feel that it will take a few aeons to liberate India,
then you sure are a loser. It is a shame that such a person
became our first bhagya vidhaataa.
> Looks Mr. Sinha doesn't
>know what he is writing about! Of course what to expect of an Observer
>columnist!
And of course, what could be expected of you. Abuse
and characterization by diktat.
>>
>>
>> This letter written at the age of 21 clearly establishes the fact that
>> young Jawaharlal was deeply aware of the 'supremacy' of the British, and,
>> all his life, suffered from pangs of inferiority in relation to the white
>> rulers.
>>
>
>What a conclusion!
When you are 21, you should typically be a revolutionary.
You should be a person with hope. The words of Nehru,
however signify that he was really an old haggard man, at
the age of 21. That sure to me is a sign of a loser.
>> In his court trial of 1922, Nehru himself stated: "Less than ten years, I
>> returned from England after a long stay there ... I had imbibed most of
>> prejudices of Harrow and Cambridge and in my likes and dislikes I was
>> perhaps more an Englishman than an Indian. I looked upon the world almost
>> from a Englishman's stand point ... as much prejudiced in favour of England
>> and the English as it was possible for a Englishman to be".
Read these lines. Here, Nehru himself is accepting
what Shri SInha's contention.
>> The independence movement in India did witness a sartorial change in Nehru,
>> but not of heart. Like a first love, Nehru's romance with the English and
>> all that is English continued to influence his heart and mind and
>> manifested itself at the slightest opportunity. In the year 1946 as Prime
>> Minister of the interim government, Nehru embarked on his flight
>> resplendent in traditional Indian attire - sherwani, chooridar and
>> 'Gandhi-cap'. But, Nehru arrived in England every inch an English,
>> gentleman, fitted out in tweeds, tie, hat and a smoking cigar in his hand.
>> This journey had somehow transformed the humble son of India into a dashing
>> gallant with his clothes dictated by prevailing tastes, Savoir-faire
>> demeanor, a native returning home. By the time Nehru reached the British
>> Isles, he had himself become British. He did let go of his Park Avenue
>> acquired wardrobe only after his actions were criticised back home in the
>> print media.
>>
>
>So???
What is this SO??? about???
>> Discarding his English outfit was easy enough. But, Nehru remained to the
>> core an awestruck admirer of the English quintessence. According to B R
>> Nanda, "In the Indian Constituent Assembly, he threw his weight in favour
>> of Parliamentary democracy on the British model and as Prime Minister, did
>> all he could to evolve traditions conforming to established practices in
>> Britain".
>
>Mr. Sinha has anything better to offer than Parliamentary democracy? Why
>don'the
>speak up?? Right-o how about kings, maharajahs, brahmin priests ruling India
>again! Back to the days of Manu-smriti!
Now this is a good example of the Marxist-Leninist teachings,
which have been imbibed by all sorts of leftists. Abuse, and
then if at all necessary, substantitate your charge.
>> After years of slavery, when people revolt, a nation is reborn. The prime
>> mission of the new government is nation building. Such government is
>> infused with revolutionary vigour and intellectual boldness. It dares to
>> lay down its own agenda which may be entirely different from that of the
>> now expelled rulers.
>
>Looks like Mr. Sinha is talking something surprisingly similar to
>CommieCultural
>Revolution ! Wow in China in 60s everything that was remotely
>connected including monasteries, books et al were burnt and destroyed.
>The Naxals also tried that ..now what are we infer from the above!
I marvel at you and you deductive_skills. Sinha talks about pursuing the path
of "intellectual boldness" and "revolutionary vigor".
From that you infer that he was talking about Cultural revolution.
How come may I, if permitted, beg to ask, your majesty? [I am
merely following a much hallowed goraa tradition].
>> But Jawaharlal Nehru did not conceive of independent India's new fledged
>> government as an insurrectionary government with all its inherent
>potential.
>
>He didn't ..why didn't Mr. Sinha, his predecessors in RSS couldn't suggestan
>alternative and defeat Nehru in the elections?
I do not about Shri Sinha: But someone, somewhere is working
to that end. Ever heard of those "communal" forces, Ghoshal
babu.
>> The anti-Hindu policy is another heirloom from the white rulers which the
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^talk
>about
>who is suffering from inferiority complex!
Looks clear to me.
>> In August 1947, Dr Rajendra Prasad, who was the chairman of the Constituent
>> Assembly wrote to Nehru about cow slaughter and the fact that a majority of
>> Hindu sentiments run high against the cow slaughter.
>
>> Jawaharlal Nehru responded that he is well aware of the Hindu
>> sentimentality and, yet he would much rather resign from the prime
>> ministerial position than bow before it.
>
>JN protected the rights of minorities including Muslims and Christians..It
>isthe
>most honorable thing to do as the leader of a nation in a democracy!
Since when did advocacy of Hindu rights, become a synonymn
for repression of minority rights. Which verse in Bible or Koran
advocates cow killing. Even the Mughal rulers forbade it.
>> The man who can derive pleasure from the weakening and fragmenting of the
>> Hindu society can hardly be a Hindu himself. Disclaiming his Hindu
>> identity, Nehru declared that by education he was an Englishman, by culture
>> a Muslim and by accident of birth, a Hindu. It is a mere throw of the dice
>> that he was born to a Hindu couple, otherwise he had no undertaking with
>> the Hindus.
>
>Who gets to determine who is a Hindu, Sir? The RSS, or the Shankacharya or
>BajrangDal..??.
Once again, we see here that the teachings of Marx [Abuse
first and then substantiate] at work.
>> Albeit, it is a different matter that to remain the beloved Prime Minister
>> of a Hindu majority electorate, Nehru stuck to his Brahmanical title
>> 'Pandit' pretty much in the same way as he stuck to the Gandhi cap on his
>> bald head: Both lending him validity and at the same time functioning as
>> tools to hoodwink Hindu masses. It was the same exigency that compelled
>> him to accept anti-cow slaughter as one of the Directive Principles of our
>> Constitution.
>
>> Two questions can be asked here. First, that if Nehru was such an ardent
>> fan of the British life-style, why did he, in the first place, participate
>> in a movement against the British? Secondly, what made him such a British
>> enthusiast?
The answer to second question, atleast partially, has been
given by Shri Sinha. Did'nt you read that article. Or were
you busy writing your "response" to it.
The answer to the first question could be because of a variety
of factors. Hypocrisy, being one of them.
>> Jawaharlal Nehru was an ambitious father's ultra ambitious son. He had a
>> dream. A dream of leading an independent India as its very first Prime
>> Minister. To make his dreams a reality Nehru did what was the need of the
>> hour. He opposed the British rule, even went to jail.
>>
>> Yet throughout all this, at a deep, more personal level, Nehru continued to
>> experience a humbling respect and love for the British culture. Upon
>> analysis of Jawaharlal Nehru's behaviour it is clear that to him there was
>> no apparent conflict between love for all things English and an active
>> struggle against the English.
>>
>
>Mr Idiot doesn't understand the difference between British culture and to
>haveIndia
>under British governance...! Ahh well ..then since when Organizer had posted
>articles written by people who can use their brains!
Looks like that Organiser IS indeed getting to you.
>> For a deeper understanding we need to go back further. In the early years
>> of 19th century, in East India Company, there was a debate on the education
>> policy for Indians.
>>
>
>Whack your brains folks,here come the history as taught by RSS schools!
Ok let us see the RSS version of history.
>> While some believed that Indians should be formally instructed in their
>> native language of Sanskrit and Persian, the public instructions committee
>> headed by Lord Macaulay recommended that Indians should be taught in the
>> western traditions and the medium of instruction should be English.
OK. Here Sinha says that some people thought that Indian
education should be imparted thru the medium of Indian langs.
Others felt that the medium should be English. Now, is this
contention of Sinha historically accurate or not. You, the Learned
One, please tell me.
> Firstly there was a strict policy of the Brits of non-interference in local
>traditions,religions and education. It took years of persuasion by
>Rajaramohum Roy
>to even
>get Sati banned.
Where did all this come from. How does all this fit into your
response to Sinha's thesis about the language issue. Or is it
that the degree of excellence is directly proportional to the
number of words typed. No wonder, the collected works
of Marx and Engles run into some 20 [or more] volumes.
>There were two sides in this great education debate. The
>pack led
>Rev. Alexander Duff wanted the medium of instruction to be native languages.
>If
>they had their way, Mr. Sinha and his RSS would be singing hymms in the
>praise of
>Jesus today.
Why?
>Lord Macaulay, Charles Trevalyan on the other hand was strongly
>influenced by RajaRammohun Roy, Dwarkanath Tagore, Derozians and other
>Indians who
>wanted the medium of instruction to be English as they taught Western
>education at
>tha
>t point of time in India would be beneficial in bringing the Renaissance and
>reforming Hinduism.
Is this a concotion of facts or what. How does Hinduism fit into
this argument of yours. Further, you have basically echoed
the same thesis [if you delete the refs. to Hinduism and Jesus]
that two poles did exist, as far as the issue of lang. was concerned.
>Whether Mr. Sinha or his RSS liked it or not, it did happen ..contrary to
>popular
>belief
>it was liberal Indians like RajaRammohun Roy who was instrumental in bringing
>the
>medium of instruction. Lord Macaulay happened to side with them after been
>persuaded by their arguments!
Are you sure about this. That Macaulay was PERSUADED
by RRMR and others. Perhaps, it was symptomatic of this persuasion, that he
went on to say that one shelf in the library
of European texts would surpass in wisdom, the entire
accumulated wisdom of India.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sinha, his BhangParivar
>folks,
Looks like that besides Lenin [abuse and then substantiate],
Shri Akshtar Siddiqui is also one of your mentors [bhang].
>> Macaulay wrote that the aim of English education is "to create a class who
>> would act as interpreters between us and the millions we govern, a class of
>> Indians in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals
>> and in intellect".
>
>Lord Macaulay goes on to write in 1835 "..as the spectre of governance
>wouldbe
>passed onto Indians.." ...just by quoting parts out of place doesn't help
>much..
What nonsense. Your quoting of Macaulay in "total" does not
change the his [Macaulay's] vision an iota. So, India would be
ruled by Indians, who would be English in taste, morals,
intellect, and opinions. That was the **total** message of
Macaulay according to your **total** quote. What do you
say now?
I am tired by now. So I have deleted the rest of your post.
Om shanti.
nachiketa
Pran Lal
>Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>
>> Anindya Ghoshal <ani...@teamqsi.com> writes:
>>
>> >So where is the sell-out?????????
>>
>> Assuming the article is true - that Nehru did consider himself an
>Englishman,
>> then I think his being a sell-out is pretty obvious. If you dont get it,
>then
>> I'm not going to waste my time telling you.
>
>You don't get it Mr. Mitra. Whether Nehru considered his personal life-style
>to be
>English,Kashmiri, Pandit or what have you is his personal individual choice!!
Perhaps you do not get. Or do you?
The PM is more than a mere commoner. Or is he? Each and
every act of his/her is interpreted and analyzed by all the
concerned. Quite recently, the wife of Tony Blair arrived
in a Sari in one of the desi functions. Was it her mere personal
choice, or something more than that to it?
>>
>> >So if JN is proud to be an Englishman..it is his own individual opinion of
>> >himself.What's wrong in it??
>>
>> He was the 1st PM of independent India. It is hardly appropriate.
>
>Who are you or BhangParivar people to comment on what's appropriate for
>apersonal
>choice of life-style of an individual. His choice of life-style has nothing
>to with
>being
>the First PM of India. Like Mr. Sinha, it seems you too are unable to
>distinguish
>between governance of a country and personal choice of life-style of an
>individual.
The difference is indeed blurred for men holding high offices.
You would not want to shake hands, say with Dawood Ibrahim,
if you are the PM of a country. Even if that hand shake has
zero influence on your policies.
>> >JN protected the rights of minorities including Muslims and Christians..It
>> >isthe most honorable thing to do as the leader of a nation in a democracy!
>>
>> How is banning cow slaughter an infringement on the rights of Muslims and
>> Christians?
>>
>
>I guess it is beyond your reasoning power to understand it. No point in
>trying to
>explainit.
Or is it beyond your reasoning faculties to answer AM's
questions?
>> >I'm glad that people like RajaRammohun Roy, Derozions, Vidyasagar, Tagore
>and
>> >others were born to kick those orthodoxies out of Hinduism!
>>
>> Very few people feel otherwise. The fact that Hinduism was in need of
>reform,
>> and still is, is not up to debate. Everyone know that, and is thankful for
>the
>> fact that it happened.
>
>I don't think BhangParivar is..I guess you may enlighten us of what
>BhangParivarthinks of RajaRammohun Roy, Vidyasagar,
I think that RRMR figures in the list of heroes in the vision
of RSS folks. There is a RSS hymn which includes him along
with several others. Ask any RSS person about it.
>how the Hindu Orthodox reacted to the reformation movement. And BTW why are
>you silent on Hindu Mahasabha, BhangParivar and rest of rightist Hindu
>fundees
>stand of Hindu Code Bill 1955. That should tell you why reformation in
>Hinduism was
What was the reaction of Hindu Mahasabha on the issue of Hindu
bill. And what was the reaction of RSS. Also, how have these view
points changed with passing times. Please enlighten us.
Looks like you have learnt
atleast one thing from Akhtar Siddiqui, i.e: How to use bhang?
nachiketa
Anindya Ghoshal
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> Anindya Ghoshal <ani...@teamqsi.com> writes:
>
> >You don't get it Mr. Mitra. Whether Nehru considered his personal life-style
> >to be English,Kashmiri, Pandit or what have you is his personal individual
> >choice!!
>
> A Prime Minister of a newly independent nation is expected to act as a role
> model for the rest of the nation, to guide it along the path which he/she
> believes it should go on. What kind of a role model is it to young Indians to
> have a PM who thinks hes an Englishman?
There are quite a few things that I didn't like about Nehru, amongst them beinghis
role in the Partition of India (sabotaging cabinet mission plan), his betrayal of
his friend Subhas Bose in 1939, his foreign policy was a complete disaster, his
industrialization effort had complete disregard for long-term environmental
disasters, and his involvement in the dismissal of the kerala govt. in 1959
(?)..the
first of the kind to abuse democracy..but other than that, Nehru remains a
visionary,
a very educated person who was an able administrator..I have happened to talk to
elders who were youths in 50's and Nehru remains an idol for lots of them..
Perhaps you ought to define what you meant by being an Englishman and see
what JN meant by being an Englishman..the two definitions may not match at all.
>
>
> To take this to the extreme, what if the Prime Minister of India loved going
> to whorehouses... would that be okay with you too since thats a personal
> individual choice?
Don't rush to judgement so fast..just becoz. somebody went to whorehouse
doesn'tmean he/she is a horrible person..even SaratChandra's Devdas spent quite a
lot of time
there. Great writers, poets and others like John Keats, Byron, and even our Ritwik
Ghatak had
spend time there ...as I said it is a matter of individual choice..however in this
case it is
irrelevant analogy as JN hadn't being reported to have gone to whorehouses
and neither going to whorehouses had anything to do with being an Englishman in
private life.
>
>
>
> >Who are you or BhangParivar people to comment on what's appropriate for a
> >personal choice of life-style of an individual.
>
> Firstly, this pointless involvement of the "BhangParivar" is irrelevant.
It is not when Mr. Sinha is a representative of the Parivar who is writing with
hisown agenda which becomes obivious.
>
>
> Secondly, what I said was my opinion about what is appropriate and what is not.
> The last time I checked, I was allowed to express an opinion, as are you.
Of course you've every right to express your opinion..everybody does from
allspectrum of beliefs..but then being judgemental may not be appropriate l..
Ahh well, probably it just me..
>
>
> >His choice of life-style has nothing to with being the First PM of India.
>
> On the contrary, he should have served as a role model to the youth of the
> nation. Instead, he chose to be a British sycophant.
You're wrong ..Nehru was never a British sychophant..it is not easy to be a
rolemodel of 350 million people. There will be always people who wouldn't like you
or will differ than you. I, however, don't think he ever wanted to be a role model
for
anybody.
>
>
> >Mitra is referred to the CNN online to see our representatives in UP Bidhan
> >Sabha in session last month!
>
> That was a shame. But cases like that don't happen all the time, do they? More
> often than not, the system works, although not nearly as efficiently as it
> should. For example, all indicators of Indias well being like infant mortality
> rates, literacy rates, crop production, per capita GDP... are all UP. Maybe not
> as up as we would like them to be, but things have improved since independence,
> - so you can not say that the system isnt working at all...
Statistics is very dangerous game Mr. Mitra. Check the reverse sides of what you
saidin the above..the number of illiterates had increased at probably the same
rate..in India
those statistics are sometimes results of lots of jugglery..for example anybody who
can
write their name is called literate..have you checked how many have actually been
to school
upto atleast Std VIII?? The number would probably surprise you. Crop Production:
Definitely
it has increased with advancement in Genetic Eng. ..but as Amartya Sen has pointed
longtime
back, majority of Indians cannot afford a good single meal per day..if each Indian
were to
afford a good two full meals a day, our claim to self sufficiency in food
production would be
exposed as a great fraud. Per capita GDP: Have you taken into account inflation,
devaluation
of both rupees and dollar value since 1947?? Agreed that the puchasing power of the
rich
and middle class have probably increased but that of the teeming 700 millions have
probably
worsened..it is very difficult task to cite statistics and say that we have
progressed.
> >Now if the present bunch of leaders are any set of example, we Indians are not
> >doing that well
>
> True again. But what reason do you have to believe that any alternative to
> democracy would be more effective?
>
I personally think democracy, however, faulty it might be is the best tool that man
had yet devised forgovernance..so I cannot suggest anything other than
democracy..in India where half are
illiterate, more than 60-70 % are poor people..democracy had to be implemented
carefully
and with care..lest it turns to mobocracy!
> >Have you any idea of how elections are conducted even in WB leave alone places
> >like Bihar or UP?
>
> Yes, I am aware of rampant election rigging... however, again, can you suggest
> a better alternative to democratic rule?
See above..
>
>
> >So?? I haven't read RSS or the BhangParivar people ever coming with the
> >alternativeof Presidential form of governance!
>
> That was my question to you. Not the RSSs :)
>
> >It may or may not work..We need to be careful as we don't want another IG on
> >board..neither do I have much faith in the present bunch of politicians across
> >the spectrum from left to right.
>
> Your skepticism is not unwarranted. However, assuming the current bunch of
> politicans stay in power, would any other form of government make a difference?
> In particular, would a directly elected President help, in any way, in
> resolving the gridlock that is so much of a part of our coalition govt?
Difficult to say..only I wouldn't want an IG, RG or a guy like SSRay as a
President..who I think have complete disregard for human and individual rights.
give me somebody like Shastri or Radhakrishnan ..it is just great for me..
> >An individual himself can be a minority! So can a group of people ..
>
> Ok, then banning cow slaughter is an infringment on EVERYONES rights, not only
> on Muslim or Christians... correct? That is what I meant by it being an
> infringement on individual rights (i.e., everyones rights) and not only on
> minority rights.
>
Ok I agree!
> >Why don't you tell how the Hindu Orthodox reacted to the reformation movement.
>
> From what I understand, they didn't like it as it was a threat to their power
> and authority. I don't see the relevance of this, though...
>
Mr. Sinha is a representative of the Orthodox Hindus today ..so we need
tounderstand historical stance of Hindu orthodoxy to understand today's Hindu
orthodoxies which includes RSS and the Parivar..and what might be Mr. Sinha's
agenda for writing this article.
> >And BTW why are you silent on Hindu Mahasabha, BhangParivar and rest of
> >rightist Hindu fundees stand of Hindu Code Bill 1955.
>
> Why should I say anything at all about them? Am I, or was I ever, a member, or
> a sympathiser of the Hindu Mahasabha? No. As for the Sangh Parivar, while I DO
> support certain aspects of their agenda (its not ALL bad), I can not honestly
> say I support them for national power. Although my distaste for the CPM leads
> me to believe they'd be a good choice in WB... come to think of it, anyone
> would ;-)
I don't think CPM is a good choice ..their contribution to industrial anarchy in WB
isas great as the Center's indifference..however, ye,s they are better than the
hoodlums of
Congress of early 70s..but then why do I see shades of fascism creeping into CPM ?
The only time in very early 90's when I got a chance to go home to vote..I was told
by
local CPM boys in an area like Salt Lake to go back home as my vote has already
been
polled..my closest pal from High School who today heads of the most powerful
textile
powerhouses in Gujarat had their whole apartment complex's gate shut for the whole
voting
day in Lansdowne Street so that none of them could come out and vote..none of them
risked
their lives to come out..if this happened in a metropolis like Calcutta..what is
the existence
of democracy in remote village in Bihar or UP??? Today it is easy to see that
organized labor, unscruplous
industrialists and politicians who are robbers holding the whole country to ransom
like parasites
when a poor farmer from Bihar has no voice to speak ...
>
>
> Anindyo, while you raise from really good points, I think we both should try
> to stop this pointless labelling. I won't call you a leftist, and I advise you
> refrain from irrelevant jabs at the Sangh Parivar.
Thanks ! Point well taken..you've kept calm and being decent ..I acknowledge it and
wouldn't label you with the Sangh Parivar..We should be able to carry on
discussions
on differing viewpoints with decency and mutual respects..it is just that too many
years
of watching indecency in the net had probably hardened me..I apologize if you had
felt that I've insulted you in any way..however that doesn't mean I wouldn't
criticize
Sangh Parivar and their brainwashed folks out here.
> -A.M.
A+
A.
P.S. : A recent book on Nehru by Stanley Wolpert, a professor of
South Asian Studies in USC (?) is recommended incase you're interested in
reading it..he does not have a flattering viewpoint of Nehru but it is
great biography...Wolpert has an excellent biography on Jinnah and Gandhi too.
Most of his books are banned in India and Pakistan. Another good book on Jinnah
would be by Ayesha Jalal.
Abhijit Mitra
Anindya Ghoshal <ani...@teamqsi.com> writes:
>Nehru remains a visionary, a very educated person who was an able
>administrator.
Absolutely.
>I have happened to talk to elders who were youths in 50's and Nehru remains an
>idol for lots of them..
Most of these elders would be people from my parents generation.. and if the
one's Ive spoken to are any indication, while most of them admire him for his
vision (a la yourself), none of the ones I know idolize him in any way. I have
yet to meet someone who disagrees with the idea that India could have benefited
from a PM who was more in-tune with the masses than Nehru.
>Perhaps you ought to define what you meant by being an Englishman and see
>what JN meant by being an Englishman..the two definitions may not match at
>all.
Now this is just my opinion, but if the PM of India calls himself an Englishman
then no matter what definition he may have been thinking of, I still don't
think thats appopriate - just my opinion.
>Don't rush to judgement so fast..just becoz. somebody went to whorehouse
>doesn'tmean he/she is a horrible person.
Oh, I never said that they would be a horrible person. I simply said they
should not be entrusted with the leadership of a nation. A leader, in my
opinion, should be much more than simply a good diplomat - he/she should have
vision (which Nehru did) AND he/she should be of suffiecient moral calibre to
serve the nation selflessly.
To pre-empt more jabs by anyone at the Sangh Parivar, let me make clear that I
do NOT mean that the leader should be a Hindu. He can be anything as long as he
is accepted by the people of India, and is in tune with some very broad moral
precepts that are common in almost all major world religions.
>I, however, don't think he ever wanted to be a role model for anybody.
As the new PM of a newly independent 3rd world country, he should have realized
that whether he liked it or not, he would be seen as a role model nevertheless.
>anybody who can write their name is called literate..
Im aware of that.
>Crop Production: Definitely it has increased...
Right.
>but as Amartya Sen has pointed longtime back, majority of Indians cannot
>afford a good single meal per day..
That has more to do with distributive problems, doesn't it? The food is there,
it's just not getting around as much as it should. Reasons for that are many,
some of which are corruption and an inefficiencies caused by excessive govt
regulations.
>Per capita GDP: Have you taken into account inflation, devaluation of both
>rupees and dollar value since 1947??
It was my understanding that per capita GDP (PPP), after taking into account
inflation and devaluations, has risen - although the rise leaves much to be
desired.
>Agreed that the puchasing power of the rich and middle class have probably
>increased but that of the teeming 700 millions have probably worsened..
I doubt that what you say is true, although I do not have any sources by which
to prove you wrong. What are your sources, btw?
I think the purchasing power of all but the poorest of Indias poor has gone
up, and proof (??) of that would be HUGE sales of household goods such as TVs,
VCRs, etc., which are not (especually not TVs) any longer something you only
find in middle class households. There has obviously been some improvement in
purchasing powers, in my opinion, and if not that, then at the very least,
standards of living have definitely improved.
That should stand for something, shoudl it not?
>it is very difficult task to cite statistics and say that we have progressed.
No, its difficult (read 'impossible') to cite statistics and say that we have
progressed as much as we could have. India has not reached anywhere near its
potential, and for that one can blame many factors, not the least of which was
Nehruvian socialism.
>I personally think democracy, however, faulty it might be is the best tool
>that man had yet devised forgovernance..
I agree.
>..lest it turns to mobocracy!
Democracy IS mobocracy... isn't it? :-)
Question is, is that necessarily such a bad thing?
>I don't think CPM is a good choice ... their contribution to industrial
>anarchy in WB is as great as the Center's indifference..
I think they should be blamed more than the Congress for the simple reason that
they came to power to relieve us from the Congress regime. Instead, they did
what the Congress did, only this time they wore red bandanas while they did it.
>but then why do I see shades of fascism creeping into CPM ?
Theyve been in power too long, thats why. Nothing is more dangerous than a
public servant who gets used too comfortable with his/her power.
>The only time in very early 90's when I got a chance to go home to vote..I was
>told by local CPM boys in an area like Salt Lake to go back home as my vote
>has already been polled..
If I got a dime for every time I heard a story like that about the CPM.. I'd
be a millionaire ! :-)
My mama, who used to live in Ballygunj, used to tell me stories like that. The
CPM dadas never let him vote due to his well-known distaste for the CPM...
-A.M.
Arindam
Replying to Anindo's post, Abhijit, you are writing:
>? More
>often than not, the system works, although not nearly as efficiently as it
>should. For example, all indicators of Indias well being like infant
>mortality
>rates, literacy rates, crop production, per capita GDP... are all UP. Maybe
>not
>as up as we would like them to be, but things have improved since
>independence,
Just a request. When you say, rates are up, what's your reference point in
time?1947? 1971? 1991? Since what time? May I assume when you mentioned that
infant mortality rates were up, you meant they actually went down..because
when you are talking improvement, higher infant mortality rate runs contrary.
It's kind of nitpicking, but when you read something in terms of imr and all,
the eyes start tracking relevant reference points, which were missing. Now you
would be almost comparing apples and oranges if you were comparing vital stats
parameter between 47 and 97, because you then had to standardize for so many
other parameters between the two time frames.
In reality, the cross product of IMR and Maternal literacy rate, standardized
for per capita GDP (taking the Gini coefficient into consideration) which is a
known standard indicator of human development index for low human development
countries has gone down for India within the last five years. The only
country that has shown substantial improvement in that count in the Indian
subcontinent is Sri Lanka. (try surfing the UNDP web site and look for World
Development Report 1997).
According to that report, for overall human development scores, Sri Lanka is
ranked at 91, China at 108, India at 138 and Pakistan at 139. Canada tops the
list, US is 4th.
(Source page: http://www.undp.org/undp/hdro/table2.htm")
Honestly, going by the statistical indicators averaged over the last few
decades, I think Anindo was not really off the mark when he said things were
not working.
Have fun,
Arindam
sayan bhattacharyya
Arindam <ari...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In reality, the cross product of IMR and Maternal literacy rate, standardized
> for per capita GDP (taking the Gini coefficient into consideration) which is a
> known standard indicator of human development index for low human development
> countries has gone down for India within the last five years. The only
> country that has shown substantial improvement in that count in the Indian
> subcontinent is Sri Lanka. (try surfing the UNDP web site and look for World
> Development Report 1997).
Here is an excerpt from "The New Internationalist", a journal
of international economic development, to give you an idea
of what is really happening in India. This is taken from the
journal's November 1996 issue, page 25 (the author lives in
India and is in a better position to assess what is really
happening in India).
----------------------------
"Before 1990, the percentage of people living below the poverty line
was 31.4%. It is now officially 40.1% -- private sources indicate
that the Indian Planning Commission thinks it is now 44%, although it
is not prepared to make this figure public."
"It became apparent to our medical team that many participants in the
Mother and Child programme, who had been on the road to good health
in our medical charts and graphs, were now slipping back. Roopa and
Deva, the doctors running the ACCORD health program, were stunned by the
adverse new trends. It was as if five years of health work were being
wiped out. Roopa then realized that the women who used to go to the shop
to ask for a rupee's worth of "daal" were now shooed off by the shopkeeper.
Their one rupee could no longer buy them the handful of daal it
previously did. The result -- back to malnutrition.
"What Roopa and Deva also saw, with sickening regularity, was that a
malnourished child could not wait for the economy to "stabilize".
The child would simply die.
"Our pro-liberalization writers inform us in definitive terms that
there will be a `temporary' setback which will affect the unorganized,
lowest economic strata of society. What the economists do not explain is
how these people are to sustain themselves, until the promised land
finally appears, or how long the `temporary setback' is supposed to
last."
--- Mari Marcel Thekaekara in "New Internationalist",
a journal of international economic development,
November 1996.
Arindam
Thanks Sayan, for this post. This article is interesting, and I hope to go
through it. I think a couple of quick questions are in order though.
One,
>Before 1990, the percentage of people living below poverty level was 31.4%.
It is now officially 40.1% -- private sources indicate
What is the basis of the Planning Commission's "thinking" that the level is 44
percent now and not 40.1? In that case, the previous figure might as well be
more than 31.4 percent, isn't it? Unfortunately, if mum's the word with the
Planning Commission, is that ever going to help India in the long run?
The second question is with the anecdotal evidence of the slump in the growth
curve of the kids that the two physicians noted.
>Mother and Child programme, who had been on the road to good health
> in our medical charts and graphs, were now slipping back. Roopa and
> Deva, the doctors running the ACCORD health program, were stunned by the
> adverse new trends..........
..........
> Their one rupee could no longer buy them the handful of daal it
> previously did. The result -- back to malnutrition.
This suggests a situation of dyseconomies of scale affecting the market for
essential commodities, and therefore without perhaps substantial state
subsidies, these people are going to suffer more. Then the time frame by
which the economy is going to stabilize let alone be on the path to economies
of scope, becomes dicey. Are there any econometric studies that have looked
into these issues, at least in the field of health care that you know of?
Curious,
Arindam
sayan bhattacharyya
Arindam <ari...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>What is the basis of the Planning Commission's "thinking" that the level is 44
> percent now and not 40.1?
I don't know. The article does not throw any light on the subject.
> Are there any econometric studies that have looked
> into these issues, at least in the field of health care that you know of?
I'm not aware of any (there may be, but neither economics nor health care
is my field). Perhaps other netters can help you.
Arindam
Abhijit, you've written:
>Here are some data I found on http://www.undp.org.in/conthdr.htm -
>
> Infant mortality rate [per 1,000 live births]
>(SAARC countries with China and Myanma for comparison)
>
>country 1960 1994
>
>sri lanka 71 16
>china 150 43
>INDIA 165 74
>pakistan 163 80
>bangladesh 156 85
>
>India HAS improved; although not as much as sri lanka, whos improvement has
>been astounding! :-)
>
>Another VERY interesting graph I saw on the same website was a look at
>regional
>disparities in human poverty in India... while Kerala has 15% poor, Bihar has
>over 50% poor... this is at http://www.undp.org.in/conthdr.htm too.
>
>Obviously the 'system' has worked for some (kerala, punjab, etc) and not
>worked
>for many more (bihar, rajashtan, orissa, etc).
>
>
Intersting that UNDP has a separate web-site for India related affairs (or am I
mistaken because I'm thinking .in to represent India?). You live and learn.
With respect to the HDI calculation, in general, the calculation is done taking
into account three parameters - the nation's economic reserve (The GDP in case
of India), life expectancy at birth, and adult literacy rate. Now since
overall development-wise (distribution of wealth wise, because it is
surprising that India has high GDP values but when it comes to percapita
level, we are all screwed up because of our population size), India still
belongs to lowly developed nations (the exact calculation is complex and I do
not understand it all), so the UNDP devised additional criteria to refine
their classifications. The details of the three parameters differed for the
three categories of countries - the highly developed, the moderately developed
and the poorly developed. For the poorly developed countries such as India and
countries of sub-saharan Africa, the three modified criteria are infant
mortality, maternal literacy and GDP standardized for the Gini coefficient. Of
them, maternal literacy and infant mortality are the two most important
criteria and they have a lot of collineerity between them as well.
Sri Lanka and Kerala states' astounding success is because of improvement in
these areas. For a fuller discussion of these issues, see World Development
Report - 1993, focus on health (read the book). If you are interested in the
Indian perspective, particularly health related issues, it's a good idea to go
through the Swasth Hind journals (they are published in English and Hindi, I
think, at least that used to be the case two years back).
I mentioned the five year time frame because if you have a short time frame, it
becomes easy to identify population attributable risk issues in public health
(sorry for the jargon, but let's put it like knowing five years' statistics
helps you to get to the meat of the things - with 30 years improvement
records, you are likely to introduce lots of historical biases, that's not
good!). You know, the purpose of all these models is to know what the hell
screws things up, that is. :). Knowing that we are better off now than we
were 30 years ago feels good, but then that does not help much.
>That simply means that Sri Lanka and China are doing better than us. It does
>not mean we are not better off than before.
No, that's not the purpose. The null hypothesis in these cases is not that we
are not better off than before. It's a comparison between India and other
countries, in our (I mean India's) case. The concept is to find out the best
path to improve the picture of human development for India. These measurements
just help in that. Much of the scale construction is very complex, so you have
to be careful in your interpretation of what you're reading.
Does that make some sense?
Cheers,
Arindam
Abhijit Mitra
ari...@aol.com (Arindam) writes:
>I mentioned the five year time frame because if you have a short time frame,
>it becomes easy to identify population attributable risk issues in public
>health...
Well... okay. But in the same vein, 5 yrs is not a suitable time frame to
evaluate the results of public policy, since many of these changes appear after
a certain lag of time. The reason I bring this up is because this thread WAS
about the system and whether or not is has been working - or atleast thats what
its turned in to. The fact that Nehruvian socialism, for example, did not work
was something that became increasingly apparent only after his death. In other
words, a few decades of data was required before anyone knew for certain that
the policies had, for the larger part, failed.
>Does that make some sense?
It does...:)
-A.M.