🚀 go-pugleaf

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

> 
> 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

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.

> 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"

>
> 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
.

>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

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

> 
> >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

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.

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

> 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!

> 	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

  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