🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <115@Shasta.ARPA>, zerksis@syr-cis-aos.cs-net (Zerksis Umrigar) writes:

> This TV series has been  described  as  a  "Dallas  with  brown  skins";
> someone  else  said  that  Gandhi  is  portrayed as a buffoon. These are
> subjective perceptions over which we may argue  endlessly  -  I  do  not
> perceive  the  series in that way. Once I accept the historical facts of
> India's subjugation by an imperialist and racist colonial  power,  I  do
> not  see  why  a  portrayal  of  the  accompanying  attitudes  should be
> seen as a conspiracy to malign India.

  From your reply, you are implying that the net users who critiqued the
  series cannot swallow the fact that Indians were subjugated by the
  British. Since, in the following paragraph, you cite two or three sources
  for reaching the conclusion that Mountbatten single handedly subdued
  Pathans then perhaps you will be convinced by the spate of TV series on
  the "sensitive and caring British Raj" that they are nothing but a 
  nostalgic take off by the British on their glory days. And my conclusion
  about Gandhi's portrayal still stands after five episodes - He's been
  made to look like a fool.

> What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the  critics  of
> the  TV  series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where
> Mountbatten and  his  wife  almost  single-handedly  pacified  an  angry
> demonstration  by  thousands  of  armed Pathans. The critic charged that
> this scene was ridiculous - initially,  I  tended  to  agree  with  him.
> However,  I  changed  my  mind  when  I  found that the book "Freedom at
> Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an  identical  portrayal
> of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on
> pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in  Tendulkar's  biography  of
> Abdul  Ghaffar  Khan.  Hence, I have little doubt that this "ridiculous"
> incident did indeed occur and was  not  conjured  out  of  thin  air  to
> magnify Mountbatten's character in the TV series.

  To say that the entire Pathan crowd was taken in by the fact that Mount-
  batten was wearing the Muslim color (green) is indeed ridiculous. Can
  you imagine? Pathans who are supposed to be fierce warriors and who have
  seen war quite a bit in their time cannot recognize a military uniform
  when they see one!

> Collins and Lapierre interviewed Mountbatten extensively for their book
> and have reprinted their interviews in two interesting volumes published
> by Vikas. One good reason for their accepting Mountbatten's version of
> facts is that he alone, of the principals involved in the pre -
> independence negotiations (as far as I can determine), kept a precise
> record of all his meetings. Tho' Mountbatten is rather conceited (he
> himself admits that) and credits himself for being instrumental in many
> things, his perception is probably not all that distorted.

  Now who is being subjective? Should we conclude from the confessions of
  a pompous and self serving man and two authors whose books on history
  are as racy as a Jackie Collins novel that theirs is the true interp-
  retion of the tumultuous period that was the freedom struggle.

> In conclusion, I must say that I think that the  Mountbatten  series  is
> true to historical fact. It does concentrate on Mountbatten, but that is
> not too surprising considering the title. I enjoy  watching  the  series
> and would recommend it to everyone.

  Probably as true as the TATA trucks that turned up during the Pathan in-
  vasion of Kashmir (episode 5). I hope that in the future you will conti-
  ue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read
  only.

There's a book called Stillwell and the American Experience in China,
by Barbara Tuchman.  It has some interesting things to say about
Mountbatten and the general British propensity for presenting every
aspect of their history in a rosy glow.  Neither Mountbatten nor
Churchill were particularly interested in winning Burma back from
the Japanese, for instance.  There's nothing on the events just
before the independence of India, but the book might still be
worth checking out of a library by people interested in Mountbatten.
-- 
John Quarterman, UUCP:  {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET:  jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU

++
> What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the  critics  of
> the  TV  series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where
> Mountbatten and  his  wife  almost  single-handedly  pacified  an  angry
> demonstration  by  thousands  of  armed Pathans. The critic charged that
> this scene was ridiculous - initially,  I  tended  to  agree  with  him.
> However,  I  changed  my  mind  when  I  found that the book "Freedom at
> Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an  identical  portrayal
> of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on
> pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in  Tendulkar's  biography  of
> Abdul  Ghaffar  Khan...
> - zerksis.

I might be that critic.  Perhaps unfortunately, my impression of that
scene was not derived from previous knowledge of what actually happened.
Indeed, it would be ridiculous for the writers to make such an event
up, if something like it didn't really happen.  What I object to is
the fact that the writing (and maybe the acting) was so bad that the
viewer could not tell *WHY* the crowd settled down.  He didn't do
anything but wave at them!  If Mountbatten was a great man, they
certainly didn't capture that greatness.  And I know Gandhi was a
great man (from reading his autobiography) and they certainly didn't
capture his greatness either!

I watched the last episode since posting my original tirade on the
series.  Does anyone know what was going on when Mountbatten and
Jinnah were in that car; they knew someone was planning to bomb it;
you saw people in the crowd with grenades; and then the parade ended
and Jinnah claimed to have saved Mountbatten's life.  I didn't have
the slightest idea what was happening.

-Mark Garrett

>  Probably as true as the TATA trucks that turned up during the Pathan in-
>  vasion of Kashmir (episode 5). I hope that in the future you will conti-
>  ue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read
>  only.

I think that the last sentence in the above is uncalled for. The net is
there for the airing of opinions, often violently disagreeing ones. But,
opinions that essentially state that someone else should not express his
opinions on the net, go contrary to the purpose of the net. Therefore
I think one should refrain from expressing them, unless of course they are
associated with a "smiley" :-)! In any case, to claim that he will do "all of
us a favor" by not posting any articles is a bit juvenile, don't you think?

Jishnu Mukerji

> ++
> > What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the  critics  of
> > the  TV  series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where
> > Mountbatten and  his  wife  almost  single-handedly  pacified  an  angry
> > demonstration  by  thousands  of  armed Pathans. The critic charged that
> > this scene was ridiculous - initially,  I  tended  to  agree  with  him.
> > However,  I  changed  my  mind  when  I  found that the book "Freedom at
> > Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an  identical  portrayal
> > of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on
> > pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in  Tendulkar's  biography  of
> > Abdul  Ghaffar  Khan...
> > - zerksis.
> 
  I also recall  that either Lord or Lady M.
 could utter some Pushtu (one of the Pathan tongues) and this in addition
  to the Islamic color may've mollified the charged crowd. I don't
 remember if I read this in "Freedom at Midnight" or elsewhere.

--Sridhar
-- 
S. Sridhar sridhar%spy@tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

In article <1693@mtgzz.UUCP> jis1@mtgzz.UUCP writes:
>>  I hope that in the future you will conti-
>>  nue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read
>>  only.
>
>I think that the last sentence in the above is uncalled for. 

I agree.  We had a similar views expressed during the brief period
Joachim took to air to abuse Islam and its followers.  At the time
it was widely agreed that the net should not debar anyone from expressing
thier views.   Since I have had no postings to the contrary I assume that
this is still the policy.  

While posting I would like to take the opportunity to thanks all those 
guys who compile and post the News bulletin.  It's nice to know what
REALLY is happening back in India.

Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians.
Do the people really deserve them?  Or are they the dregs left behind by 
the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals?  Maybe we should have a chat 
about this.


Mukesh Patel

In article <584@epistemi.UUCP> mukesh@epistemi.UUCP (Mukesh Patel) writes:

>Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians.
>Do the people really deserve them?  Or are they the dregs left behind by 
>the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals?  Maybe we should have a chat 
>about this.
>
If by aweful you mean corrupt, then ... Yes, people really deserve them.
Don't we have plenty of corrupt administrators, corrupt civil servants,
corrupt businessmen and traders...! Corruption seems to have become
acceptable aspect in one's character and this gets reflected in the
set of politicians also. Afterall, they are selected by society and
can not have traits unacceptable to the society !  

No, they are not the dregs left behind by the huge brain drain. I can
interpret such a thought only as an exercise in self-appeasement by the
"Drained Brain".
 
There is no shortage of 'brain' in India. It takes a lot of 'brain' to
survive in Indian politics also! What we lack is a strong national
character. The causes and fixes for this deficiency is another question.

Raj Bhatnagar.