Vignettes from the Cellular Jail

GT in #51 <<< Asadi:

There were good things also..... >>>

Actually the industrialization that was taking root in India long before the British was set back centuries by the British, the ``good things`` were far outweighed by the bad and had the bad been taken care of or not existed, the effects of the ``good`` would have been negligible at best. There were benefits to the house slaves during the slavery era too, the lived around the same mansion as the master, ate the same food and so on but that is no justification for slavery. The colonized mind thinks in terms of these crumbs. It is time we gave it up and sought our independance.

Ref VRV #55

[In my Dept, both the Economics Professors of Indian origin are Bengalis. You can go to any Economics department in any part of the world and u find Bengali professors. Even you can see the research journal www.jstor.org and access, what you find are Bengali professors! Amartyada, Kaushik Basu, Amit Bhaduri, Debraj & Ray, Bardhan, Prajit Dutta, the list is long.... all are bongs[:)]. ]

Precisely why Economics is called the Dismal Science!

Harry Truman once said that he would like to have some one-armed economists because of the tendency of economists to hedge their bets by saying ``on the one hand..... but on the other.....``. I am all for chopping off one hand from each economist!

Re: # 31

Mr. Majumdar

In my Dept, both the Economics Professors of Indian origin are Bengalis. You can go to any Economics department in any part of the world and u find Bengali professors. Even you can see the research journal www.jstor.org and access, what you find are Bengali professors! Amartyada, Kaushik Basu, Amit Bhaduri, Debraj & Ray, Bardhan, Prajit Dutta, the list is long.... all are bongs[:)].

Whenever I am in Aldwych, I always peep into to LSE to see Amrtyada`s photograph as one of the erstwhile staff of LSE who won the Nobel Prize. I dont understand the tirade of some guys here!

Ref friend #27

[Can we use Andman prisoner list as any indicator of true ratio of different communities participation in freedom struggle after 1857?]

Yes, you can and should.

You would notice that people named Sangilikkaruppan, Sudalaikkannu, Masanamuthu, Karuppannasamy, etc., are notoriously absent in the list.

While firebrand revolutionaries in the South were generally sentenced to long jail terms in local jails and/or escaped to French possessions such as Pondicherry, a search of the records would fail to turn up names such as Masanamuthu. Sedition was the usual charge against patriots like Subramania Bharathi, Subramaniam Siva, etc., while those who challenged the commercial interests of the British such as V O Chidambaram Pillai were also generally charged with sedition for their pro-independence activities and sentenced to hara labor.

Masanamuthus who hail the leadership of Doctor Artist Leader Chief Minister the Fund of Compassion (Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu) tend to forget the fact that he and his cohorts took out a black flag procession on August 15, 1947 protesting the grant of Indian independence.

Ref echoboom $47

[Urstruly:

Bahadur Shah Zafar was in his late 90`s; he was `I think 103 when he died.]

Bahadur Shah Zafar was born in 1775 and died in 1862. That would make him 82 years old when the Mutiny started in 1857 and 87 when he died.

[The rot had already set in. The real culprits in the whole game were the Anglicised ``reformers`` bothe among hindus & Muslims.]

You are correct about the rot having set in. Bahadur Sha II and several of his predecessors were addicted to opium and wine and couldn`t care less about governing the empire. That is why people like Siraj-ud-Daula could refuse to pay tribute to Delhi which the Mughal Emperor continued to demand and finally the Mughal emperor (an earlier predecessor to Bahaur Shah II) sold the rights to tax revenues from Bengal to the East India Company for, if memory serves me correctly, 5 million pounds sterling. In turn, the British demanded that Siraj-ud-Daula pay them the dues and when Siraj-ud-Daula refused, the British annexed Bengal after the Battle of Plassey in 1757.

I don`t think anybody in the Mughal Court or in the various sultanates was anglicized or was a reformer. In fact, the Muslim nawabs were known to convert by force captured Europeans to Islam and regularly bugger any European male under the age of 12.

Ref majumdar #31

[Harimau,

(The British tortured, killed and maimed but they kept adequate records and were fair and transparent in whom they tried and imprisoned and hanged. )

If you become the PM of India, try, imprison and hang the author, but do maintain proper records. Quality certification, you know.]

The quotes that offend you were written by the author. You might want to direct your post at him if you have disagreements about the adequacy of records, or fairness or transparency of the process.

However, if I become PM of India, I shall keep in mind your request while I try and hang all the worthless adult bongs whose comprehension level is below that of Standard I students. You shall be among the very first.

Re: # 49

Asadi:

There were good things also. For starters, in India and amongst Hindus, the colonial organization induced certain dominant classes to let go (not fully though) their hold on education. The British influence rekindled the spirit of scientific materialism and this in turn helped challenge many of the prevailing politico-moral dogma. The downfall of feudal ethics also started during the British period. These are just a few, but important, starts that the Brits induced. I agree that there is a long way to go.

Regards.

Hi ! By the way, I am a Chrstian from India !

I am sure you all know why tahmed is missing from this discussion. In his view colonization was a very good thing for which we should all be grateful to the ``Anglo Saxon`` ethos that rubbed off on mere mortals with dark skin. On the other thread his holiness is arguing that community service will fix global poverty, and when I mention that we need viable economic and state institutions to elimiate the current system that generates povery, he says, it is like blaming the US elite for not washing your face with soap. Know clearly that these are the people, they and their ilk with a colonized mind that are ensuring that our people, and all people of the `third world` stay in their subordiate position in the global arena. Recognize them well for they often cry crocodile tears in showing concern for the poor but due their policy recommendations stab those very people in the back.

Netizen

I would agree with Echo that rot had been set up way before Zafar. I think your position is not any different. I think on mega scale it was the failure of a political system that had already outlived it use. Probably after Ashok until Bahadurshah zafar, the local population failed to establish a nationalism based on a federated Hindustan. So it is safe to say that Hindustan was a large land mass with many ``countries`` with in itself. Mughals did manage to keep them under one flag but failed to develop a feeling of nationaism across the board. This nationalsim only emerged after the indegenous population had lost everything.

The British conquest of Hindustan is unique in the history of mankind that, it was a corporate interest and not a nation state that conquered a country. This phenomenon helped Adam Smith write his treatise on laissez faire. So the East India Company first corrupted that treasurers, then patwaris (land clerks), and (Mohtamim) public accountant to weaken a polity from inside. Then they appeared as rescuers by lending huge amount of money to Rajas, and in the end toppled them by using minimum of military force.

The neoclonialism uses the same technique. For example, appointment of a foreign bankers as the head of state of Paksitan and Lebanon, who weaken the state by disastrous economic policies; neocolonialists appear as rescuers with generous aid; and then the final blow.

Urstruly:

Bahadur Shah Zafar was in his late 90`s; he was `I think 103 when he died.

The rot had already set in. The real culprits in the whole game were the Anglicised ``reformers``
bothe among hindus & Muslims.

Nowhere in the world any societ has tried to jumpstart & fastforward their culture to eagely become the white-man`s slave.

Colonisation essentially IS slavery. The master wants the fruit of their labor but DOES not want to see hear the laborer. It is far easier tocolonise the minds than ``rule`` thru physical presence.

The house-niggas Control the Field Niggas.

NaSyed Ahmed ( SirSyed to ghulaamaani-Farangi) was the top House Nigga. Ever notice tha in Slaveland he is above reproach? Even Quaid is faigame--not him.

Ever thought why?

Re: # 45

urstruly:

``I think the 1857 failed because of poor leadership on part of Bahadur Shah Zafar.``

there are many reasons for the failure of the uprising.
few of them being it was not a coordinated, preplanned rebellion but was more of a outburst affecting only a handful of north indian cities. south iidia was not at all involved. they would have cared less for this rebellion.
for many indian kingdoms brits were an ally against their indian neighbour.
many native groups sided with the brits to subjugate the rebellion.
even after having an upper hand initially they could not have taken the full might of brit military force, provided there were many natives who fought for the brits.

bahadur shah was just a nominal head. it was his misfortune that he accepted the offer to lead.

Re: # 43

I think the 1857 failed because of poor leadership on part of Bahadur Shah Zafar. He was too old, too tired, and probably too incompetent. But most of all he was accustomed to getting ``pension`` from British for doing nothing.

In Iqbal`s words:

Aey Tair-e-Lahooti, uss rizq say maut achi
Jis rizq say aati ho, parwaz main kotahi

#37
Dear HP
You win man!! No one knows history better than you. Indians didn`t fight enough to win your respect. But now nothing can be done to change that. So be happy with your own idea of history.

Have a nice night.

Re: # 41

``I don`t think that British used to take pleasure in torturing indigenous people. If that was the sole objective then they could have very well done it right on the Indian soil. ``

i am not claiming that. they would care less about any native as long as their interests are not compromised. they didn`t send any tom, dick and harry to andaman but people who were major ``instigators``, potential to create mischief for them. like the commies sending people to siberia.

``The stategy was successful. It was all a part of psychological warfare - else it was impossible for mere 16,000 whites (including military and all) to rule a country of 60 million. ``

these 60 million people were not united as one. there were many fissures that the brits had to only take advantage of.
also the brits relied on diplomacy as much as they did on military.
thats how the british came to rule them in the first place. why do you think the 1857 mutiny was not a success. it was not due to any psychological war. but everyone was looking for his/her own interests. some saw their interests lying along with the brits whereas others clashed with the brits. many also bet on the winning horse.

Re: # 41
urstruly:

cellular jail was no ordinary prison.

it was meant to break the spirit of a person. by humiliaiton, hunger, torture, merciless beating, hard labor with nowhere to go and no one to come visit you.

may be they could not have done all this in mainland india.

people if not broken would go mad in the jail.

it was meant to break the body and mind of the rebels.

hence it was not about crossing water but the hardship that people were subjected to that created despair and fear about it.