Domminating India's Culture - True or False

[lightgigantic]

Not sure if this is the best subforum for this

http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/?action=view&current=untitled-1.jpg

so what do you think?
True or false?

(PS - yes I know I messed up the title)

[shedevilx]

what you mean dominating?? over what ??

[shedevilx]

inside or outside

[lightgigantic]

means was the idea successful

[shedevilx]

not really, the picture redirects to google mail

[lightgigantic]

really?

[Enmos]

Not sure if this is the best subforum for this

http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/?action=view&current=untitled-1.jpg

so what do you think?
True or false?

(PS - yes I know I messed up the title)

False.
I mean why the fuck would someone admit to such atrocities ? Even nicely framed and all.. wtf ?

[Sarkus]

Is there supposed to be a picture somewhere??

Otherwise, can you please explain the question.

[Enmos]

Is there supposed to be a picture somewhere??

Otherwise, can you please explain the question.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/untitled-1.jpg

[DiamondHearts]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/untitled-1.jpg

What year did this person make this observation?

[Kadark]

What year did this person make this observation?

It was part of a speech given by Lord McCauley in 1835. Whether or not it's real ...

[iceaura]

Apparently just what it sounds like, a recent propaganda concoction:

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html

The quote is usually referenced as "Macaulay, British Parliament,1835". In that year, Macaulay was actually in India, though other oft-quoted speeches by him on the same subject had indeed been delivered in Parliament, but in 1833. However, I discovered this anomaly only later in the course of the debate. What first made me suspect the spuriousness of the quotation, was not any external information but a close reading of its utterly cynical contents, quite imaginable in the private scheming of hard-nosed colonialists but rather out of style in the setting of a parliamentary debate. Politicians who try to sell a policy will normally present it as beneficial. This was especially true for that particular stage of colonial expansion, when the "imparting of civilization" and the "abolition of slavery" had become commonplace justifications for the colonial enterprise. British imperialists liked to think of themselves as bringers of light in the darkness of the primitive societies which they were about to rule and transform. Yet, here we get to hear Macaulay brutally calling for the willful destruction of a civilization which he praises to the skies and acknowledges as superior to that of Britain itself.

So, I challenged my Hindu correspondents to give a reliable reference for this strange quotation. - - -
- - -
This Gnostic Center had most likely acquired its knowledge of Macaulay from its Indian contacts, but unfortunately we have no information on that. At any rate, the quotation's publication in an American medium certainly added to its credibility among Indian readers, for that happens to be Macaulayism in action: accepting Western sources as a priori more reliable than Indian ones. From its subsequent transposition to an Indian forum onwards, all those gullible Hindus and Congress secularists and India's Muslim president have sheepishly swallowed it and relayed it to the next gullible audience.

The whole point about the Macaulay phenomenon is that for all the limitations of his Eurocentric perspective, he was quite well-meaning. He thought he was doing Indians a favour by relieving them of their superstitious native culture and introducing them to a more advanced culture. In this quotation, by contrast, he is falsely made to sound deliberately destructive and cynical. - - -

Here is a genuine quote from Thomas (Lord) Macauley, July 10, 1833 (25 years before India officially became a British Colony): 'It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilized men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages. That would, indeed, be a doting wisdom, which, in order that India might remain a dependency, would make it an useless and costly dependency, which would keep a hundred millions of men from being our customers in order that they might continue to be our slaves.'
- - -
'The laws which regulate its growth and its decay are still unknown to us. It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history.'

[S.A.M.]

Colonial ideas about India were set in stone and policy decided by a history of India, written by a man who never set foot in India. Mills. Plus there are several racist notions if one studies the works of Indologists under British rule. So it would not surprise me if such a quote had been made by Macaulay. It would fit well with his history in India.

Here is another quote attributed to him:

"It is, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England".

http://www.ochs.org.uk/publications/papersarticles/iklecture01.html

Of course, the British were absolute turds in their treatment of Indians, so any positive statements would have been hypocrisy at best, self delusion at worst.

[iceaura]

Colonial ideas about India were set in stone and policy decided by a history of India, written by a man who never set foot in India. Mills Macauley had great influence on British policy in India, regardless of what Mills wrote.

And colonial ideas about India were argued and debated among Brits who had serious disagreements in the area. They were not set in stone by any one man.

The Brits gained their hold on India by sophisticated management and provision of benefits, partly. They did not gain control by force - they didn't have enough force. They were often (even usually) better - fairer, more just - governors than those they replaced or oversaw. That was a source of their power.

[CptBork]

A modern translation of this "historical" work:

"India is rich, powerful, smart, and the people have the best morals and society I've ever seen. We inferior, savage little English pigs will have no chance of dominating these people unless we first crush their superior and deeply-rooted culture and education. Only when they start buying into the bullsh*t myth that our crappy way of life is worth anything compared to their golden civilization, will we be able to control them and make poor people wander their streets (since right now they're all rich, of course). Once this has finally been accomplished, we can then subdue India once and for all, as we have planned for centuries in the service of our Dark Lord and master, Morgodath. Bwahahahaha! :jason:"

Seeing as even I can write better, more believable propaganda than this, I give it a big

FALSE

[DiamondHearts]

The decades directly preceding British conquest of South Asia (India) were years of unprecedented chaos, anarchy, and bloodshed, the like of which had not been seen in centuries. It was an era of decay and erosion of the Great Mughal dynasty (what brought India its thousand year golden age). This man obviously knows nothing of what he is saying.

[S.A.M.]

Macauley had great influence on British policy in India, regardless of what Mills wrote.

And colonial ideas about India were argued and debated among Brits who had serious disagreements in the area. They were not set in stone by any one man.

The Brits gained their hold on India by sophisticated management and provision of benefits, partly. They did not gain control by force - they didn't have enough force. They were often (even usually) better - fairer, more just - governors than those they replaced or oversaw. That was a source of their power.

The source of their power was the zamindari or landlord system, which they instituted along the lines of what they had in Europe under various titles and their funding and arming of local warlords. Discussions aside, all British governers suppressed local Indian industry, sent food to their global military at the cost of local starvation, causing 25 famines over the course of their colonisation [resulting in the deaths of 30 million people] and destroyed the local self government system, which was more fair than any overlord.

[DiamondHearts]

The source of their power was the zamindari or landlord system, which they instituted along the lines of what they had in Europe under various titles and their funding and arming of local warlords. Discussions aside, all British governers suppressed local Indian industry, sent food to their global military at the cost of local starvation, causing 25 famines over the course of their colonisation [resulting in the deaths of 30 million people] and destroyed the local self government system, which was more fair than any overlord.

Indeed, the Mughal economic, military, and political system were very advanced for the time. The decay of the Mughal dynasty began directly after Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir's death (inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi rajioon), and was directly related to the bloodshed caused by the Marathas and Sikhs. The British used the instability to support anti-Mughal factions which resulted in the end of Mughal rule with the execution of many in Mughal royal family and exile of Bahadur Shah Zafar after the 1857 revolution.

It is rather depressing to read about British man-made famines and murder against poor South Asians. The reprisals after 1857 were equally brutal and oppressive.

[S.A.M.]

Uh Aurangzeb was a ditz, he killed his brothers and imprisoned his fathers for the throne and oppressed non-Muslims. Dara Shikhu would have been an excellent Emperor if he had survived.

One can clearly lay the decay and instability at Aurangzeb's feet.

Bahadur Shah Zafar was the man that even Hindus ran to during the 1987 uprising, the British presented his sons heads on a platter for this and sent him into exile:

Lagta nahi ji mera ujray diyaar may
Kis ki bani hai aalam-e-na paidaar may

Keh do yeh hasraton say kaheen aur ja basain
Itni jagah kahan hai dil daghdaar may

Umrey daraaz mang kay layai thay char din
Do arzoo may kat gayai do intezaar may

Kanto ko mat nikaal chaman se ke baghban
Yeh bhi gulon ke saath palay hain bahar may

Kitna hai badnaseeb Zafar dafan ke liyai
Do gaz zameen bhi na mili ku-e-yaar may

[DiamondHearts]

Uh Aurangzeb was a ditz, he killed his brothers and imprisoned his fathers for the throne and oppressed non-Muslims. Dara Shikhu would have been an excellent Emperor if he had survived.

One can clearly lay the decay and instability at Aurangzeb's feet.


Not so. Sultan Aurangzeb had more Hindus in his court than Shah Jahan or even Akbar, and more Mansabdars as well. Read the record of the Mughal court.

He was a great ruler who was just to all people and an upright Muslim as well.

[iceaura]

The source of their power was the zamindari or landlord system, which they instituted along the lines of what they had in Europe under various titles and their funding and arming of local warlords. Discussions aside, all British governers suppressed local Indian industry, sent food to their global military at the cost of local starvation, causing 25 famines over the course of their colonisation [resulting in the deaths of 30 million people] and destroyed the local self government system, which was more fair than any overlord. But that was after they had conquered, and over a period of hundreds of years.

They could never have gained or kept that kind of control over India by force alone. They took advantage of the injustices and class oppressions of Indian society, the infighting of local overlords, and provided better to at least some. To this day there are Dalits who would prefer a return of British rule, no ?

[Zephyr]

Apparently just what it sounds like, a recent propaganda concoction:

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda

British colonialism in India had enough bad aspects as it was. There's no need to fabricate more.

[S.A.M.]

But that was after they had conquered, and over a period of hundreds of years.

No, the East India Company was already doing it.



To this day there are Dalits who would prefer a return of British rule, no ?


Yeah, all the ones who did not live through it. :rolleyes:

The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another.[42] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[43] During the initial days of British East India Company's rules, caste privileges and customs were encouraged,[44] but the British law courts disagreed with the discrimination against the lower castes. However British policies of divide and rule as well as enumeration of the population into rigid categories during the 10 year census contributed towards the hardening of caste identities.[45]

During the period of British rule, India saw the rebellions of several lower castes, mainly tribals that revolted against British rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system

The British made the caste system a hundred times worse

[John99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system

The British made the caste system a hundred times worse

Of course they did....:zzz:

[S.A.M.]

Yup, before the British defined "Hinduism" it was just a set of fluid philosophies.

[John99]

The Biritish defined Hinduism?:confused:

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, Hinduism is a British word. Didn't you know that? Its what they called all the existing philosophies of India apart from Islam and Christianity [which they were familiar with]. It originated in 1829.

[iceaura]

No, the East India Company was already doing it. So the East India Company established itself without conquering, and was in a position to impose "it" without employing overwhelming military or economic force on the society as a whole. So "it" predates British political control, and later Brit political control (as earlier economic dominance) established itself by at least in part and temporarily being an improvement in some locales and for many of India's people. Illustrated, for example, here: ] During the initial days of British East India Company's rules, caste privileges and customs were encouraged,[44] but the British law courts disagreed with the discrimination against the lower castes

Yup, before the British defined "Hinduism" it was just a set of fluid philosophies. And after the British coined a colonialists term for the native gibberish, it was still "just a set of fluid philosophies".

The British made the caste system a hundred times worse Misleading exaggeration. They made things worse in general, created a need for defined victims, and the social structure kicked the misery downhill. The caste system was bad before the Brits, worse during, and well rid of whenever that happy day shall come around.

The Brits seem to have been just the latest incoming caste, anyway:
However, a 2001 genetic study, led by Michael Bamshad of the University of Utah, found that the affinity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans. The researchers believe that the Indo-Aryans entered India from the Northwest and may have established a caste system, in which they placed themselves primarily in higher castes."[8] Because the Indian samples for this study were taken from a single geographical area, it remains to be investigated whether its findings can be safely generalized.

[S.A.M.]

No, the British did make the caste system a hundred times worse. They created a framework for discrimination that changed it from the social to the religious. When there was no "Hinduism", there was no category of lower caste. Only unskilled labourers.

[iceaura]

No, the British did make the caste system a hundred times worse. They created a framework for discrimination that changed it from the social to the religious. When there was no "Hinduism", there was no category of lower caste. Only unskilled labourers. I quite agree with you that the Brit theistic approach, bringing overt religion into the matter, did harm. But the caste system predated them, and such arrangements are not as benign as you seem to be suggesting, nor without support in the local religions and among the official priesthood however named.

[S.A.M.]

I quite agree with you that the Brit theistic approach, bringing overt religion into the matter, did harm. But the caste system predated them, and such arrangements are not as benign as you seem to be suggesting, nor without support in the local religions and among the official priesthood however named.

It was not set in stone. Like gay marriages in Pakistan, what exists as an idea is different from what is practised. Make it policy and you'll see a difference immediately. e.g. before British intervention, you'd only hear about Rajput princesses committing sati, due to exaggerated Rajput notions of honour. After, it became the norm.

[iceaura]

It was not set in stone. Like gay marriages in Pakistan, what exists as an idea is different from what is practised. Make it policy and you'll see a difference immediately. e.g. before British intervention, you'd only hear about Rajput princesses committing sati, due to exaggerated Rajput notions of honour. After, it became the norm. Separation of church and state - always a good idea.

The Brits did not encourage the custom, though. At least a couple of the local Scot governors were famous for banning it, and hanging its perpetrators - an imposition of alien values on native society, and the sort of arbitrary colonial insult that made the Brits famous, no?

[S.A.M.]

Separation of church and state - always a good idea.

The Brits did not encourage the custom, though. At least a couple of the local Scot governors were famous for banning it, and hanging its perpetrators - an imposition of alien values on native society, and the sort of arbitrary colonial insult that made the Brits famous, no?

That was later, when the "government" stepped in. But structuring the religion as they did and introducing laws against homosexuality and stuff, did a lot of damage. Separation of church and state? In India? We don't give a lot of credence to laws. Its why with laws against homosexuality we have gay marriages. But put it into the religion and you've made an inroad into the society. We don't function as western societies do. The one size fits all dogma is unappealing to us.