paturi@harvard.UUCP (02/06/86)
Vasant Honavar (uwvax!ai.wisc.edu!honavar) on the role of Mountbatten in India: It was not Mountbatten's job to prevent partition. His assignment, as the last British viceroy to India was to ensure the transfer of power from the British to the Indians. It is a well known fact that although the Indian National congress was the key force in the struggle for Indian independence, as it became evident that the British had decided to transfer power to the Indians, there were a number of contenders who would have loved to have their own independent states/nations. While it is accepted that Patel played a major role in unifying India, he would have found his job much more difficult without the cooperation of Mountbatten. It is again true that Gandhi was the one who strived for Hindu - Moslem harmony. But it was Mountbatten who ensured to a large extent that the country did not plunge into anarchy, which would very much have been the case considering the lack of governing experience among the Indian leaders of the day. The greatness of Mountbatten is derived from the fact that he, coming from a country that had colonised India for a long time, did more than merely handover the reigns to any arbitrary group or groups of Indians that would have liked to rule (the princes included) .He transferred the reigns to the "right" bunch of people. Any error on his part would have plunged India into a civil war of a magnitude much higher than the one caused by partition. While I personally would have liked to have a united India, it is hard to see how such a thing could be accomplished by someone in Mountbatten's role when it could not be accomplished by the greatest of Indian leaders of that time. In short, Mountbatten earned the respect of Indian leaders of the time by doing more than what his mission called for - so much so that he was asked to stay on as the first Governer General of INDEPENDENT India. We should evaluate Mountbatten based on his personal accomplishments in India during what can be called some of the most tumultous in Indian history and not on the basis of the misdeeds of a colonial power prior to the time of Independence.
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/10/86)
Based on recent postings, I'll acceept that the PBS "Masterpiece Theatre" series on "The Last Viceroy" is heavily dramatized, and the characterizations in it are not representative of the true natures of the historical personages involved. There is still one aspect that has been nagging at me while I watch it: the continued strong feelings against subdividing India into independent states. This is being portrayed as being so strong as to be "revulsion" or "hate" against the very concept. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it was my understanding that what is now India WAS a large number of separate and independent states before the British forced it together by military force. What would be so wrong with self-determination, and allowing those states to resume their former independence? Why should India be a single large country, forcing together many disparate language and ethnic groups, if they would prefer to be independent individual countries? I can certainly see that a politician would prefer to have power over a large country, instead of being the leader of a smaller state, but, speaking in simple moral terms, it appears that the principle of self-determination should outweigh such desires, and that any area in which the inhabitants wished to be independent should have been allowed to follow that path. After all, if these states later determined that they were not self-sufficient or that independent government was too much of a burden to continue, they always could have decided to merge later on. This seems the path of greatest freedom and true democracy. What was wrong with this concept? Will
dmiruke@isis.UUCP (Dataram Miruke) (02/12/86)
> > Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it was my understanding that what is now > India WAS a large number of separate and independent states before > the British forced it together by military force. What would be so wrong I wish you had studied something about Indian history, ancient as well as in recent times, before making the comments upon letting India get divided in different states. > with self-determination, and allowing those states to resume their > former independence? Why should India be a single large country, forcing > together many disparate language and ethnic groups, if they would prefer > to be independent individual countries? I can certainly see that a > politician would prefer to have power over a large country, instead of > being the leader of a smaller state, You make it appear as if the indian politicians want to keep India a single country just because they can rule a bigger country. I wish that at least was partially true! As a matter of fact if you have been following any politics in the last couple of decades in India you would realize that the Indian politicians are doing exactly opposite thing. They are the ones who are mainly dividing the country and Indian society, taking advantage of the ethnic and social differenes so that they can be an important force in their limited field of influence. With the notable exception of a few politicians and the present prime minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, who were/are mainly interested in the good of the entire country as a whole, I think most of the politicians and their dirty politics that has been responsible for dividing the country more and more along different lines and is responsible for the chaos that is present in the country today. Whether the differences be social, economical, political, religious, caste, ideology, anything at all that will help them to separate a group of people from others along these lines and exert an influenec on them, are exploited by these $%#%&&* politicians and used to meet their own ends. British did this for three centuries in order to meet their own ends and Indian politicians have been following this tradition. If it were not for a few people that existed at the time of freedom of India, it would never have been possible for the Indians to have a free country. I still strongly feel that an armed struggle leading to the freedom of India would have been better, though probably that would have left country left divided. At least people would have really understood what it means to be a free people and be citizens of a strong nation with extremely rich cultural heritage. > but, speaking in simple moral What morals are you talking about? If leaving India a divided country would have been morally (?) correct then I don't think you really have any idea about the ancient and recent history of Indian continent, except for those stupid and silly representations that all those 'old times' movies made recently make on one. To all those, who may/are reading this I have a question and specially indians.. Don't you think that it is important to shed, get rid of the silly image of India as being a country of horses and kings/queens and all sorts of other nostalgia that a lot of recent movies seem to foster? When I came to USA, about three years back, one of the americans asked me, whether there are still horses used for travel on the roads in Bombay and other cities!!! His ideas about India were formulated from such movies and what he read in some history books. Isn't it important to create a rightful image of India as a technologically, militarily strong and powerful nation that also has an ancient culture ? Worse, a lot of indians seem to praise such movies! This may seem like a diversion from the original topic of discussion but I think such movies (like this Mountbatten crap) are the ones which are responsible for the types of impressions that various people get. Most of these people don't seem to have anything to do with or seemed to be concerened with preserving that most ancient and rich culture, known as India, but merely seem to be happy in contemplating the nostalgia that is fostered and mainatined by such crap as these movies. I think it is high time that Indians stopped making fun of themselves and make themselves a topic of mere historical discussions. India is one nation, that is and that has been a nation though not ruled by a single ruler for a while during the history, and which was unfortunately controlled by the foreign rulers for a while. Giving too much importance to the British rule in India will be like giving an undue importance to the fact that the USA was originally divided into various territories. I think that such comments as leaving India to its fate, reflects an attitude of not being able to assess the importance of India in the world today, and to all the fellow Indians.. I think we ourselves are partially responsible for such impressions on the non-Indians. I hope the Indian government puts an end to the creation of all this crap that is generated in the name of historical movies and start creating an image of India as a single nation that is building a future for itself, and not a place for some people to be nostalgic about some short rule by some foreign rulers. > terms, it appears that the principle of self-determination should > outweigh such desires, and that any area in which the inhabitants wished > to be independent should have been allowed to follow that path. After Yeah, I guess that would have really helped the superpowers. They could have got some more bases in and around the Indian ocean. A few more chess pieces to move around, like the ones they already have in the southeast asia. > all, if these states later determined that they were not self-sufficient > or that independent government was too much of a burden to continue, > they always could have decided to merge later on. This seems the path of > greatest freedom and true democracy. What was wrong with this concept? > Is this your idea of democracy and freedom? The fact that the India is the only third world nation that has been able to maintain its freedom and democracy in spite of all the setbacks and not-so helpful attitude on the part of developed nations and give a 1/7 of the humanity a chance to build their own future in the true spirit of democracy and individual freedom does not seem to be quite important to you? Do you really believe that having a hundred little states lying around would create an atmosphere of freedom and democracy for the individual in the Indian society? And if it is not the personal freedom for each individual in the society, then what freedom that you are talking about? The freedom for the communists to take over many of these small states? The freedom for the superpowers to build their bases in those states? The freedom for the other nations to manipulate these small states to meet their own ends? If the freedom and democracy cannot work for each and every individual in the society then, I would not know what freedom and democracy one is talking about. Good luck in your endeavour to understand that complex heritage and nation known as India if you ever decide to get more knowledgeable about it. Please let me know if I can be of any help. - Dattaram T. Miruke Dept. of Maths and CS. U. of Denver, Denver, Co 80210. (303) 871-3073 (303) 744-6045 dmiruke@isis.CSNET dmiruke@udenva.CSNET
honavar@uwai.UUCP (Vasant Honavar) (02/13/86)
(Long - 100 lines) References: <687@harvard.UUCP> <802@brl-smoke.ARPA> In article <802@brl-smoke.ARPA>, wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > There is still one aspect that has > been nagging at me while I watch it: the continued strong feelings > against subdividing India into independent states. This is being > portrayed as being so strong as to be "revulsion" or "hate" against the > very concept. The answer to your question is contained in the question itself. A vast majority of Indians who participated in the struggle for independence did so to gain independence for a united India, not for a bunch of princely states that were being run by rulers at the beck and call of their imperialist masters. For these people who made great sacrifices to make their dream of independent India a reality, and to a great extent, to the present generation of Indians, the division of India to appease the greed of a manipulative politician who demanded seperation of India on religious grounds can be likened to severing a part of their bodies. Is there a man or woman who does not feel revulsion or hatred against the concept of cutting off a person's limbs ? > > Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it was my understanding that what is now > India WAS a large number of separate and independent states before > the British forced it together by military force. What would be so wrong > with self-determination, and allowing those states to resume their > former independence? Why should India be a single large country, forcing > together many disparate language and ethnic groups, if they would prefer > to be independent individual countries? I can certainly see that a > politician would prefer to have power over a large country, instead of > being the leader of a smaller state, but, speaking in simple moral > terms, it appears that the principle of self-determination should > outweigh such desires, and that any area in which the inhabitants wished > to be independent should have been allowed to follow that path. After > all, if these states later determined that they were not self-sufficient > or that independent government was too much of a burden to continue, > they always could have decided to merge later on. This seems the path of > greatest freedom and true democracy. What was wrong with this concept? > Even a casual study of the the history of India would be sufficient to convince one of the fallacy of this argument. There have been periods in Indian history when almost the entire territory of the Indian subcontinent was under one government. Granted, these governments were not democratic although some of them allowed limited local self government. The British entered India for ostensibly for trade at a time when the country was week and was strife-torn - a situation caused by both lack of leadership and the greed of the princes. The East India Company utilised every opprtunity to play off one princely ruler against another (it is a shame that the Indians let it happen) and in the process managed to establish control over all of India. Self determination? For whom? The greedy princes who served the British interests and who would have prefered to have their little dominions back to rule as they pleased? That is not what the freedom fighters had in mind. They wanted a united, democratic India. What they managed to attain was a divided (India and Pakistan) India of which India has remained a democracy since independence. I presume the reference to "a single large country" is a reference to the present India. It is a fallacy propagated by sections of the western press - the same people who speculated on "how long India could survive its independence" that the disparate ethnic and linguistic groups want independent countries. Of course, there are small groups of people, who, motivated by their selfish greed, spurred on by sympathetic external forces make their desire for "independence" known in various forms. It is to be expected that in a country as large and as diverse as India, there would be social and economic tensions. Name one country in the world that is free from these problems in some form or another. But the federal system that India has adopted, provides appropriate channels for the expression of peoples aspirations. It is not a perfect system but it has worked for thirty odd years since independence. It is worth noting that often the political parties that rule in the states and at the national level are different, elected based on different issues. It certainly is not hard to see the "moral principles" involved in promoting the idea of dividing India into several independent countries. Apart from the fact that the majority of the Indians did not desire it, it is quite obvious what havoc such an action would have unleashed on the Indian subcontinent. It would have, much to the delight of the prophets of doom, plunged the subcontinent into anarchy opening up opportunities for manipulative politics by the superpowers at a scale much larger than that permitted by the current political climate of the region, making India a happy playground for warring superpowers to flex their muscles against eachother at the expense of India (Latin America and Africa and even South east Asia more than provide adequate existantial proof of this statement). What is wrong with the concept of dividing India up into a number of "independent, individual countries" to realise "true freedom and democracy"? Just the fact that it is not the brand of freedom and democracy that the majority of people in India desire. India finds strength in unity amidst diversity. Sorry for the rather long reply. I could not otherwise have addressed all the points raised by Will Martins. -- Vasant Honavar honavar@ai.wisc.edu
paturi@harvard.UUCP (Ramamohan Paturi) (02/13/86)
In article <802@brl-smoke.ARPA>, wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > Based on recent postings, I'll acceept that the PBS "Masterpiece > Theatre" series on "The Last Viceroy" is heavily dramatized, and the ................... This letter by Will Matrin reflects the wertern attitude. It is not an exaggeration if I say western attitude = prejudiced attitude. This prejudice is not without its effects. It matters in a real way for both the parties, but in different ways. It is true that there are a number of scholars and others in the west who are more objective. But the perceptions that are handed down from generation to generation (since the time of Aristotle) have not changed that much. So much for my explication of western prejudice. It goes without saying that prejudice is concomitant with a highly simplified, untruthful and unrealistic (to whom) view. Let me correct some of the statements in Will Matrin's letter. British government did not militarily force princes and kings to join India. British stated that they would not militarily support any prince who declares himself to be independent. This made the job of Indian national leaders to persuade the princes to join India somewhat easier. One or two rebellious kingdoms were brought into line by the Indian army led my Indian national leaders. British are nice to the extent they did not militarily support the cause of the princes. How can they do otherwise? These princes referred to by Will Martin are not representatives of the people they rule. They used to spend most of the time europe indulging in various things. They have no support in the people. Their influence is very much limited to their capital city. Why did not the feudal lords in europe become independent? -Ramamohan paturi@harvard P.S: It is not my tendency to generalize from an instance. My attack on western prejudice is warranted since it is overwhelming.
swami@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/13/86)
> What was wrong with dividing India into two countries?
the difficulty was that the division was done on the basis of religion. this
had two side effects. A lot of Muslims felt compelled to move to Pak. and a
lot of Hindus to India, resulting in the agonies of partition. Second, it
created a lasting feeling of mutual antagonism.
swami@a.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4, pur-ee, convex}!uiucdcs!swami
"i am so full of good intentions, i MUST be on the road to hell"narayana@psuvax1.UUCP (Kuram T. Narayana) (02/13/86)
> > Vasant Honavar (uwvax!ai.wisc.edu!honavar) > on the role of Mountbatten in India: > Think of it this way.. if you were the ruler of a country, and there is a strong opposition to your rule, and you decide to leave the country, then who do you hand your country? is it to those who oppose and who has some organization or a bunch f street urchins. m'baton delivered the to country to congress requires no great intelligence. attributing that it was a great acievement is some how to belittle his role. he did play a role... but after staying 4 years in uk i never got to know what role he indeed played.... thanks...kt .
sk@duke.UUCP (Sanjaya Kumar) (02/14/86)
>When I came to USA, about three years back, one of the americans >asked me, whether there are still horses used for travel on the roads in >Bombay and other cities!!! <FLAME ON> Really? HORSES? Jesus Christ!! Did someone really ask you that?! I can't believe how ignorant some people can be! I mean to say, I have lived in Delhi (which, I would think, qualifies as an "other city") most of my life and I have never seen a single horse-driven tonga except in the movies. As a matter of fact, I understand that the ones used in the movies are specially imported from some third-world country where they still use this incredibly outmoded form of transport. You know what, I think I'll write to the producers of the TV show "That's Incredible" and ask them to go to this particular third-world country and do a story on this. Won't our friends in Delhi and Bombay be astounded when they see this spectacle of people actually travelling on one of these rickety contraptions being pulled by -- get this -- a HORSE! When I would go out on one of our 8-lane super-highways in my Ferrari Testarosa my grandfather would tell me stories of the old times when the people of the villages would travel in what he quaintly called "bullock-carts". "They would pile the cart high with produce, (like suger cane)," he would say, "and take it to the village market-place. More often than not, the whole family would be perched on top of the pile of sugar cane, for at the market there would also be a mela (fare) with rides and other rustic entertainment. They would have to start on the previous day because the fifty mile ride took a day as they travelled at a stately 5 mph. The richer farmers had two bullocks to pull the cart instead of just one and usually the animals wore a bell around their necks that tinkled as they went along." And I would look out through the tinted window of my Ferrari at farmers in their sporty four-wheel-drive trucks and scarcely knew whether to believe him, for I simply couldn't imagine animals being used for transport in 20th century India. <FLAME OFF> Sanjaya Kumar Duke University
rengaraj@uwai.UUCP (Tirumanjanam Rengarajan) (02/15/86)
In article <334@isis.UUCP>, dmiruke@isis.UUCP (Dataram Miruke) writes: > > > I wish you had studied something about Indian history, ancient as well > as in recent times, before making the comments upon letting India get divided > in different states. > > Good luck in your endeavour to understand that complex heritage and > nation known as India if you ever decide to get more knowledgeable about it. > Please let me know if I can be of any help. > I suggest that netters avoid harsh language to keep some semblance of respect for others on the net. The above message I find is particularly offensive. T.K.Rengarajan
sundar@cwruecmp.UUCP (Sundar R. Iyengar) (02/16/86)
The presence of horse or other animal drawn vehicles really depends on the place itself. In the villages, the most common mode of transport is bullock carts. I grew up in a small village and there, even today, to catch a train at the railway station, you would use one of these bullock carts to go to the station from your home. The animal drawn carts are slowly being replaced by busses. Cars are luxury items for more than 80% of the population. May be about 20% of the rest can afford have drive around a used car. Very few own foreign made cars (you have to be one of the movie stars or a big time politician to have enough money to afford a Ferrari). The flame on use of horse drawn vehicles was needless. I have indeed used such horse drawn vehicles IN Delhi. There are a couple of horse stables in the vicinity of Old Delhi railway station. sundar r. iyengar arpa: sundar.case@csnet-relay 531, crawford hall csnet: sundar@case case western reserve university uucp: decvax!cwruecmp!sundar cleveland, oh 44106
dmiruke@isis.UUCP (Dataram Miruke) (02/17/86)
> > >When I came to USA, about three years back, one of the americans > >asked me, whether there are still horses used for travel on the roads in > >Bombay and other cities!!! > Really? HORSES? Jesus Christ!! Did someone really ask you > that?! I can't believe how ignorant > some people can be! I mean to say, I have lived in Delhi I am quite aware of the fact that there are horses and horse driven carriages in major cities in india, apart from the rural parts and I have travelled in them quite sometimes. However today if you want to go to say an airport or just a market far from your place in any metropolitan city or for that matter any reasonably big city in India, what is it that one is more likely to take as his/her mode of transportation? How many of us would go to the family stable and pick their favorite horse and travel to the airport or market? Unfortunately my family could not afford even a scooter, forget a Ferrari, which seems to be your common mode of transportation, so I would generally either take either cab or bus and for your information about 99% of the population would do the same, except of course those who has had the luck of owning a Ferrari. The emphasis of mentioning the event was to indicate that the Americans many times are ignorant of many aspects of India and for that matter most of the thirld-world countries. The point does not seem to be well taken. > (which, I would think, qualifies as an "other city") most of my life > and I have never seen a single horse-driven tonga except in the > movies. As a matter of fact, I understand that the ones used in the > movies are specially imported from some third-world country where > they still use this incredibly outmoded form of transport. You > know what, I think I'll write to the producers of the TV > show "That's Incredible" and ask them to go to this particular > third-world country and do a story on this. Won't our friends By all means please do so. At least that would give an opportunity for them and possibly some Americans to learn about what India is. It is just that in spite of being a quite industrilized nation (Isn't it supposed to be tenth major industrial nation?), the main impression of an average american or for that matter many westerners, about India still should be a country of horses, tigers and elephents and maharajas, is what irks me (and many others). Isn't it time that India has a better image in todays world? Isn't the "image" of a nation is as important in the world politics, as it is for personal life? When India can handle some of the most sophisticated technology in world today, why it is that the India has to be equated with the horses and maharajas? It is true that a large part of the population is poor and below-poverty level. But why is it that only this particular aspect has to be in picture, when it comes to the image of India? Isn't India striving for uplifing the poor? Unfortunately, I could not go to any of those festivals of India, but from what I have read it does not seem that those gave a good idea to average american/westerner, about today's India, but it rather dwells on the past of India, its history and "exoticness". It is time that indians try to shed the image of exoticness and of being only historical importance, often associated with India, and start creating the image of that of a modern nation striving to become a major influence in today's world. > in Delhi and Bombay be astounded when they see this > spectacle of people actually travelling on one of these > rickety contraptions being pulled by -- get this -- a HORSE! > When I would go out on one of our 8-lane super-highways in my > Ferrari Testarosa my grandfather would tell me stories of the old times > when the people of the villages would travel in what he > quaintly called "bullock-carts". "They would pile the cart high > with produce, (like suger cane)," he would say, "and take it to > the village market-place. More often than not, the whole family > would be perched on top of the pile of sugar cane, for at the > market there would also be a mela (fare) with rides and other rustic > entertainment. They would have to start on the previous day > because the fifty mile ride took a day as they travelled at > a stately 5 mph. The richer farmers had two bullocks to pull > the cart instead of just one and usually the animals wore > a bell around their necks that tinkled as they went along." > > And I would look out through the tinted window of my Ferrari at > farmers in their sporty four-wheel-drive trucks and scarcely knew > whether to believe him, for I simply couldn't imagine animals > being used for transport in 20th century India. Not a bad picture! Except for the imaginary scenes of farmers driving in four-wheel-drive trucks it just might be true. Except for the fact that today many of those few in India who can travel in a Ferrari and all such modern "contraptions" do so by sucking the blood of a vast number of poor people and at the expense of people like me, and such people also include many of the indian politicians. I could tell you about the similar scenarios except for two things : one, I would be replacing all the four-wheel-drive trucks with bullock-carts and the ferrari with a bullock-cart...get this a BULLOCK-CART, with my uncle and me in it and also those would be true scenarios and not the imaginary like the ones you have been paintng. It is unfortunate that one could not bear to discuss about the real issues that I raised in the original article but started the discussion about some minor points that were essentially meant simply to emphasize the points under discussion. I just happen to think that the network should be used for some better purposes than this. No doubt, India is still a poor country and a "thirld-world" country. However, it is just that many of us, seem to be contended to be just that, be a "thirld-world" country! It just does not seem to be important enough for those people to have a vision for future. India has the potential to be a major power in the world and be an important influence in today's world. It is just that many people seem to happy with keeping India what it is and just that. In spite of all the greatness of non-violence and with respect to all those like Mahatma Gandhi, I still feel that a common man would have more respect and appreciation for his/her freedom if they had to sacrifice in a substantial manner for it. Many of ours and our fathers/grandfathers did sacrifice for India's freedom, but still the importance of freedom does not seem to be quite well-entrenched in the minds of most of the indians. To see this one has to just go to some rural parts (and even some big cities), during the election fever and try to observe the events. Coming to non-violence etc. however one may be proud of the way in which we got independence, it would be a mistake to say that non-violence is and was a way of life in India. I just wish it were so. Even the essense of Indian philosophy (here I do not mean just hindu India, lest that might start another of those useless discussions, but the Indian culture as a whole), Gita was born on the battlefield. This is not to be-little its importance but just to say that under some circumstance the goals are better served by the use of force than just being non-violent. - Datta Miruke dmiruke@isis dmiruke@udenva
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (02/18/86)
In article <343@isis.UUCP> dmiruke@isis.UUCP (Dataram Miruke) writes: >tenth major industrial nation?), the main impression of an average american >or for that matter many westerners, about India still should be a country of >horses, tigers and elephents and maharajas, is what irks me (and many others). >Isn't it time that India has a better image in todays world? Isn't the Maybe you're selling the average American short. My experience has been that most of them know quite a bit about India. (Perhaps a not unrelated fact is that there are more Ramakrishnans than Smiths (or Joneses :-)) in the UT CS department!) Seriously though, I think most Americans are intelligent enough to take such simplistic pictures with a pinch of salt. What irks me (and many others) is the blatant jingoism in your postings. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not Westerners perceive India as a technological terror. Nor do I lose much sleep over the prospect of a macho India wielding awesome Power. I would love to see a higher per capita income though. And as long as we are on the topic of images, I kind of like to think of Indians as intelligent and courteous.
ajei@magic.UUCP (Ajei S. Gopal) (02/19/86)
In article <4207@ut-sally.UUCP> : > In article <343@isis.UUCP> dmiruke@isis.UUCP (Dataram Miruke) writes: > >>tenth major industrial nation?), the main impression of an average american >>or for that matter many westerners, about India still should be a country of >>horses, tigers and elephents and maharajas, is what irks me (and many others). Ask the "average" Indian about the US. Or even about India. >>Isn't it time that India has a better image in todays world? Isn't the > > Maybe you're selling the average American short. My experience has been that > most of them know quite a bit about India. However social one may be, the kinds of people most of us are likely to converse with (NOT speak to!) are neighbours or those we meet at work or on campus. People who work in hi-tech places or who study at universities are definitely not average. While at grad school, I lived in a student ghetto - all my neighbours were students. Most of us probably went through or are currently in such an environment. Those of us who are working are probably making reasonable salaries, and live in neighbourhoods where most of the residents are reasonably well off (read educated). Those of us unfortunate enough to live in large cities, probably dont know their neighbours and dont care to. Are all Americans as knowlegeable about India as the cross section of the population that I (for one) have conversed with? I doubt it. > I would love to see a higher per capita income > though. ...[in India] So would we all. ajei gopal ajei@bellcore
nijhawan@bgsuvax.UUCP (Sandeep Nijhawan) (02/20/86)
> What irks me (and many others) is the blatant jingoism in your postings. > Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not Westerners perceive India as > a technological terror. Nor do I lose much sleep over the prospect of a macho > India wielding awesome Power. I would love to see a higher per capita income > though. And as long as we are on the topic of images, I kind of like to think > of Indians as intelligent and courteous. Yes, but I do lose sleep over the fact that so many fellow-netters seem to be curiously lacking in a sense of humour (all those self- righteous replies to Sanjaya Kumar's FLAME..). I believe that one of the most important ablilities of any people is the ability to laugh at yourself. Sandeep Nijhawan The opinions expressed above ARE mine and in no way reflect upon my keyboard!
raven@ihlpl.UUCP (S. R. Venkatramanan) (02/23/86)
> Not a bad picture! Except for the imaginary scenes of farmers driving ^^^^^^^^^ > in four-wheel-drive trucks it just might be true. Except for the fact that It looks like that either you have not been to india recently or you also prefered to (selectively) travel the tiniest vilages as do the westerners. Transporting agricultural produces is MOSTly by trucks (lories as they cal in indaia) I have seen both bulokS drawn carts when I was litle as wel as those having been replaced by lories now - both for long hauls and to the markets or wharehouses from the mudy fields. I don't mean to say that you can't se a cart at al in india. There is no 100% replacement. It is only the necesity that makes the decision. If acess to paved roads is not far, then, lories are used. else, carts are used to reach such acess roads. Speaking of bulok(s) drawn carts, if you are not aware, there is a program in Indian Institute of Scince, Bangalore for adapting science and technology to rural india and it is caled ASTRA. During late 70's there was a project for designing more EFICIENT bulock carts apart from the projects like cobar gas plants etc. One of the aspects of such carts was to ease the load on bulocks. In my opinion, to avoid sterotyping by people who have NEVER been to india, those who have been there should try to paint a TRUE picture if not only the rosy parts of it. > many of the indian politicians. I could tell you about the similar scenarios > except for two things : one, I would be replacing all the four-wheel-drive > trucks with bullock-carts and the ferrari with a bullock-cart...get this > a BULLOCK-CART, with my uncle and me in it and also those would be true > scenarios and not the imaginary like the ones you have been paintng. read above. > No doubt, India is still a poor country and a "thirld-world" country. > However, it is just that many of us, seem to be contended to be just that, be > a "thirld-world" country! It just does not seem to be important enough for > those people to have a vision for future. India has the potential to be a > major power in the world and be an important influence in today's world. > It is just that many people seem to happy with keeping India what it is and > just that. i think it includes you more than anybody else. S. R. Venkatramanan ihnp4!ihtnt!raven
jayasim@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/23/86)
/* Written 2:58 am Feb 17, 1986 by dmiruke@isis.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.nlang.india */ > In spite of all the greatness of non-violence and with respect to all >those like Mahatma Gandhi, I still feel that a common man would have more >respect and appreciation for his/her freedom if they had to sacrifice in >a substantial manner for it. Many of ours and our fathers/grandfathers did >sacrifice for India's freedom, but still the importance >of freedom does not seem to be quite well-entrenched in the minds of most of I'm afraid I don't understand. The two sentences seem to contradict each other. Do you mean to say that the impact of a non-violent sacrifice is not as great as that of a violent one ? >was a way of life in India. I just wish it were so. Even the essense of >Indian philosophy (here I do not mean just hindu India, lest that might start >another of those useless discussions, but the Indian culture as a whole), Gita >was born on the battlefield. This is not to be-little its importance but just >to say that under some circumstance the goals are better served by the use of >force than just being non-violent. Too often there has been the notion (and this is still prevalent) that one can tend to philosophize only when all is well. One of the significances the Gita was born in the battlefield was to essentially negate this notion. The whole point of the Gita is NOT the advocacy of violence (or non- violence for that matter). But it is of interest to note that both Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinoba Bhave, perhaps the two most ardent believers in non-violence of recent times have both been inspired by the Gita. Gandhi says, "When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and I see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad Gita and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow". Vinoba (in "Talks on the Gita" given to fellow prisoners) says, "The bond between the Gita and me transcends reason. My heart and mind have received more nourishment from the Gita than my body has from my mother's milk. I live and move in thhe atmosphere of the Gita. The Gita is my life's breath. To vary the image, I swim in the sea of the Gita when I speak of it; but when I'm alone, I dive to the depths of this ocean of nectar and there rest at ease". d n jayasimha, U of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana UUCP : ...!{ihnp4,convex,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!jayasim csnet: jayasim%uiucdcs@uiuc arpa: jayasim@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu
das@orstcs.UUCP (das) (02/24/86)
After hearing all about what Americans think (Know) about India, here is one that might have been left out, "The famous snake charmer and his Cobra". As far as riding on a horse drawn cart (chariot ?), there is an humurous article by Dharamvir Bharati (editor of Dharmayug) in Hindi, titled "Benarasi Ekka". Worth reading by anybody who wants to ride an "Ekka". The above is not an effort to deviate from the main issue, anybody who wants a divided India, :-) BANG, BANG. ------- das@orstcs