---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sri
Subject: British Raj predicted Pakistan will prosper, India will break up
To:
Legacy of the Raj
Mihir Bose
http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2009/04/india-british-raj-pakistan
Published 23 April 2009
Born in Mumbai, Mihir Bose has won numerous awards for his
wide-ranging journalism over four decades. Now the BBC's sports
editor, he reflects here on democracy in India – and asks if the
British really wanted their former colony to survive
At one point during the recent general election campaign in India, the
leader of the BJP opposition, L K Advani, accused the prime minister,
Manmohan Singh, of being "weak". Singh and his colleagues reacted with
fury. This was an abusive term, they said, that insulted both the
office of the prime minister and the country itself.
Not to be outdone, Advani reacted by claiming he was "hurt" by the
attacks on his record, and for good measure then failed to attend an
all-party dinner in honour of the departing speaker of the Indian
parliament.
From: sri
Subject: British Raj predicted Pakistan will prosper, India will break up
To:
Legacy of the Raj
Mihir Bose
http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2009/04/india-british-raj-pakistan
Published 23 April 2009
Born in Mumbai, Mihir Bose has won numerous awards for his
wide-ranging journalism over four decades. Now the BBC's sports
editor, he reflects here on democracy in India – and asks if the
British really wanted their former colony to survive
At one point during the recent general election campaign in India, the
leader of the BJP opposition, L K Advani, accused the prime minister,
Manmohan Singh, of being "weak". Singh and his colleagues reacted with
fury. This was an abusive term, they said, that insulted both the
office of the prime minister and the country itself.
Not to be outdone, Advani reacted by claiming he was "hurt" by the
attacks on his record, and for good measure then failed to attend an
all-party dinner in honour of the departing speaker of the Indian
parliament.
... deleted
5 comments:
There seems to be some incongruencies in the article.
Bose praises Nehru for democracy taking root in India while simultaneously stating that he was the the first and longest-serving prime minister who was in office from 1947-64.
Which means that Nehru was the PM ever since India got independence till he died 17 years later.
In the next sentance he tries to substantiate this claim by saying "So well did the system embed itself that when his daughter Indira imposed emergency rule in the 1970s – the closest India has come to a dictatorship – it was ended not by tanks rolling down the streets of Delhi, but through the ballot box. The first question is, if Nehru failed to inculcate democratic values even in his own daughter, how justified is it to say that success of democracy in India owes to Nehru ?
Second, as Nehru continued to be the PM of India since independence for full seventeen years, until his death necessitated a change of leadership, which means that he was PM for life, how correct is it to say that he fostered democracy ?
Third, since Nehru's daughter and grandson also became PM in succession in a dynastic fashion, how can it be said that Nehru fostered democracy ?
Fourth, due to unforeseen deaths intervening to remove Nehru's daughter and grandsons (otherwise they too were PMs for life), Nehru's Congress party was left so rudderless in the absence of further dynastic successors that they installed his granddaughter-in-law, a foreign-born woman with no administrative or governing experience, as party president. Is this indicative of democractic principles or servility to dynastic rule ?
In the light of these glaring facts proving everything to the contrary, how correct is Mr Bose in saying that success of democracy in India owes it to Nehru.
In fact success of democracy in India is due to the liberal value system that is inherent to indian culture. It is to the credit of indian culture that democracy is thriving in India despite the dynastic rule initiated by Nehru.
The strength and resilience of this culture is evident from the fact that it has withstood some 500 years of islamic oppression, 200 years of colonialism and 50 years of dynastic rule by congress party, in succession, yet still has a vibrant democracy. The contrast is stark when one looks at Pakistan which rejected indian culture for the culture of invaders.
Mihir Bose has got his facts upside down.
In the very first para, he drags Advani down unreasonably.
He says Advani 'accused' MMS 'of being "weak"'. The next para saying "Such exchanges suggest that levels of debate in the Indian political class are not particularly elevated".
What Advani did was show up MMS 'for being weak' based on his performance or rather, lack of it, as PM.
Such criticism of non-performance of Head of Govt is the very basic principle of a democracy.
Instead of countering Advani's charge with valid reasons, MMS and his party made personal attacks on Advani.
Instead of seeing this glaring fact, Bose spins a different story.
He says "Singh and his colleagues reacted with fury. "
Instead of saying that they launched personal attack on Advani, they "reacted with fury" !
While he did not consider it necessary to give any of Advani's reasons for calling MMS weak, he gives explanations for MMS's 'reaction'. He says- "This was an abusive term, they said, that insulted both the office of the prime minister and the country itself."
So the reader is made to conclude that Advani unreasonably called MMS weak, thereby abusing and insulting the prime minister and the country itself !
He doesn't stop there.
He has to hit one more nail - "Not to be outdone, Advani reacted by claiming he was “hurt”... "
Calculated to paint a picture of child bully who claims to be 'hurt' when given back in equal measure.
He does not stop with even that - "...and for good measure then failed to attend an all-party dinner in honour of the departing speaker of the Indian parliament."
That this specimen of departing speakership thoroughly dishonoured Indian parliament throughout his tenure as speaker, particularly in the no-confidence motion on nuclear issue and therefore deserves to be booted is ignored.
Thus does Mihir Bose start his article maligning Advani. So when he says success of democracy in India owes it to Nehru, you know what stuff Bose is made of.
In the rest of the article he freely criticises Churchill, absolves Attlee of any mischief, talks of 'historic' ties between Labour party and Congress party and postulates that Congress party traditionally represented both Hindus and Muslims right from pre-independence era.
So when he ends up praising Nehru, you can conclude that he is a true blooded nehruvian socialist very much on the pay of Congress party, this 'article' timed to attempt a prevention of conslidation of Indians towards BJP during the election time, reminding them of, among other things, the cruelty of british raj, how congress party fought to free India from the cruel british, representing both Hindus and Muslims and then gave India a successful secular democracy, at the same time caricaturing Advani as abusive, insulting the country and juvenile.
No wonder this character or rather the absence of one is comfortable in BBC. Just that fact speaks volumes.
And the fellow doesn't lose any opportunity to suck up to Labour party.
The article actually reveals that MMS' govt was such a disaster that they now have to go back to Nehru and freedom struggle to get votes.
comment posted here - http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/why-the-brits-wanted-to-screw-india/#comments
This article conclusively proves that limeys sucked up to and liked Muslims and hated Hindus. They deliberately encouraged Muslim obstinacy and belligerence as they were convinced the Hindoos were evil and the Muslims were good. Limeys have always been willing to jump into bed with Muslims
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KD25Dj03.html
The article above predicts that the G-8's first sovereign bankruptcy will the the UK. Unfortunately I think that this will not be the case. Those limeys are WAY too smart to ever let it happen. They will just suck the blood out of India using their agents (viz KKKangress party)
Interestingly most pakistanis I know HATE and I mean have a BLOOD HATRED for England. So much for gratitude! God save the queen :)
To give you an example of how sneaky and smart these limeys are:
When it was known by the British Govt and by MI5 that Tata was going to bid on Jaguar and Land Rover, there was a bit of nervousness and shame on the part of most of the elite brits. Anyway, the british high commission in delhi found out from the congress party that Tata had also made a deal with the Bengal Govt to manufacture the nano. Tata had smartly planned to help finance the deal to buy jag and LR with the profits from nano.
anyway, the limeys bribed the bengal govt to create havoc for tata RIGHT AFTER Tata bought jag and LR. This way, the british govt could come in and give a "loan" to Tata to finance the deal. In essence, they have put the burden on Tata to manage the car companies, but the limeys still and always will own jag and LR!
Brilliant plan if you ask me. Compliments of the kkkangress party!
Post a Comment