The Corporation That Changed The World

Re: HP # 28

[The British had already embarked upon the industrial revolution before they set foot in India. It was natural for them to take advantage of the resources available to them in India.]

The first English envoy arrived in Delhi in 1600 with the aim of establishing trade between India and England. Working over a period of some years, these envoys obtained a firman allowing them to establish a trading post in Surat.

The dirst cotton mill was established in England around 1733. This would have of course been powered by a water wheel since Watt's steam engine was developed around 1774 only.

Records of exports from India (as detailed in Anandarangam Pillai's diaries} show textiles as the major export. Even though the textiles were made in handlooms, the situation in England was no different at that time.

[I am not sure I am convinced about the Indian textile Industry. Hand looms and Jolahay did cater to local needs but they never reached the level where they could be described as textile industry.]

India did not need an organized industrial sector to produce vast quantities of cloth. It just needed a large workforce, which it had.

The word 'calico' comes from a type of cloth produced at that time in Calicut, Kerala. Indian muslin (no, it is not a typo; the word is muslin, not Muslim) was famous in England for its extraordinary lightness.

You need to read history (the real one, not the one taught in madrassahs or in Jwahirullah Nehru University) before you start spouting off.

Asadi,

I don't dispute much of what you said in #26. However, The British had already embarked upon the industrial revolution before they set foot in India. It was natural for them to take advantage of the resources available to them in India.

I agree that organized colonialism did much damage to the colonized nations than the accidental colonialism of the central Asians but they(asians) too never considered India their home and pretty much were not interested in any kind of development.

I am not sure I am convinced about the Indian textile Industry. Hand looms and Jolahay did cater to local needs but they never reached the level where they could be described as textile industry.

The racism is well documented though it is practiced with less vigor now.

In #26 read "and a see of darker skin underdeveloped countries,"

as "and a sea of darker skin underdeveloped countries,"

It is erroneous to say that the British were "superior" to the Indians pre colonization. In fact Indian textile industry was at par with the British and was meticulouly destroyed by them, their war industry with first use of rockets was also at par with the British. India was is decline due to division which the British took advantage of. The effects of colonization and the meticulous rape of Indian resources fed the origin of the Industrial machinery in England, resulted in its development while at the same time pushing back India by a century, and sekwing its institutions which were adopted verbatim moreso by Pakistan, the effects of which we see to this day. Rural struggle against the British Raj is the reason why India today has some semblance of a democracy, which Pakistan has military dictatorship, due to its resistance-less translation from colonization to neo colonization... Colonization fckd up the world, and resulted in today's world of a few developed "caucasian" countries and a see of darker skin underdeveloped countries, such a pattern is witnessed both within developed nations (where underdeveloped pockets of dark skinned folk exist) and among the nations. When killing people based on "race" and legitimizing those continent wide conquests based on "the Father, son and Holy Ghost" become the norm as among the colonial elite you cannot talk of "cultural superiority". When due to regional autonomy of India, a plethora of cultures existed that resulted in division, does not mean that "civilizing the uncivilized" based on an ethnocentric view (as practiced by the colonials) was "superior culture". Colonization was the worst catastrophie that happened to our parts of the world, whose effects we face till today and will face for a long time into the future...

The British India and China were the economic superpowers in the year 1500 (as per GDP adjusted to PPP).

In whole of Asia it's India, China and Japan & In Europe it's France, Italy and Germany were the superpowers.

http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=160

We have now South Asia bachchas (Pakistanis) who had this allergy to say India or British India (despite his acidic nature, HP is honest and there4 an exception here) are trying to club Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Burma with British India.

Jang,

All of a sudden Mir Waiz has realised that Dogra King of Kashmir was a tyrant! This supplements ur point abt an imaginery Hindu king in 1857 (post 20).

Kedar, you are right that some of us are just too naïve and get carried away with American propaganda. Thanks for enlightening us. You are a genius :)

Wow, so you believe that Gandhi, Nehru and other leaders were totally responsible for our democracy and Anglo-Saxon concept of democracy that Anglos had been working on for over 170 years in 1947, had no inspiration or effect on our founding fathers, that our leaders were educated in our own Ashrams in Indian languages only and were fully inculcated with democratic values from deep studies of Ramayan, Mahabharat, Vedas and Purans. In fact you must be of the opinion that they traveled and lived overseas just for vacation and not for their education. You sir, are a piece of work.

Americans treated their blacks very badly but don’t forget that they were brought in as slaves with total alien culture and race, and that’s why it took them so many years to correct this horrendous act. In India, on the other hand, we treated our own local low-caste residents who were our neighbors, co-religionists and racially same folks in a worst manner than any blacks were treated here (blacks were their household cooks while in India we would not let those unfortunate guys near our own shadow). It was not until the influence of Muslims or evil British that our leaders were motivated enough to correct this historical injustice. You need to read a bit about Lincoln and see how much debate and pain these guys went though to put an end to slavery. If you do not start looking at world events critically and see our own faults then you are just another version of Jihadis who are source of entertainment for Indian interactors here on Chowk.

My friend, it was relatively easy for Ambedkar (Ph D from Columbia) and other enlightened leaders to take bits and pieces of the best ideas of the world (socialism from Soviets, democracy from UK/USA), put them in our constitution and feel superior to every one (that said they still did great job). The real test will be creating some thing that others can emulate (In that regard I have high regard for Mahatma Gandhi for his non-violent approach to problems). Other than that, time will tell whether we have lived up to the standards of the 1947 leadership or not.

Another recommendation – do not give credit to our superior culture for all the material progress of 60 years. However, when time comes for shortcomings (e.g., law and order) blame old system set up by British and that we are just poor innocent victims of their evil system and had no time to make changes.

What I detest from bottom of my heart is when folks like you have this huge arrogance about our old rotten culture that achieved nothing for so many centuries and finally when we are at a stage when things are looking some what better, you do not give any credit to those who contributed to the building blocks and thought processes simply because the inspiration and ideas came from non-Hindus. This is very selfish and evil. Per people like you, the greatest civilization of 5000 years was interrupted “briefly” by evil folks in 7th century and we came back alive in 1947 and that 1200+ years bad dream is over and we are the best again.

This is my last post and you can have the last word. See you next time on some other board :).

Father of a Troubled Son
A debut feature film explores how Gandhi's ideals may have built a nation but fractured his own family.

By Jessica Au
Newsweek International

Aug. 6, 2007 issue - Mohandas Gandhi's son Harilal lies drunk and destitute on a dirty Mumbai street. A couple of passersby find him and cart him off to a nearby hospital. There a doctor prods him to name a family member they can contact. But Harilal can barely remember his own name. Eventually he whispers: "Gandhi." Impatiently, the doctor tells Harilal that Gandhi is father to the whole Indian nation. "What is your father's name?" he asks.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
Click here for great deals from Dell!

The poignant scene dramatizes the central tension in the new film "Gandhi, My Father," a gripping account of the stormy relationship between one of the world's greatest political icons and his rebellious eldest son. Based on the biography "Harilal: A Life," by the Gujarati scholar Chandulal Dalal, "Gandhi, My Father"—shot in Hindi and English—sheds light on the human side of the mahatma, whose nonviolent resistance to British rule helped win India its independence in 1947. First-time film director Feroze Abbas Khan and Bollywood star turned producer Anil Kapoor blend sweeping sets and colorful costumes to create an emotionally charged period piece that occasionally verges on melodrama but is also sprinkled with genuine moments of comedy. "This is a story about a clash of principles between father and son," says Khan, who first tackled the subject in his play "Mahatma vs. Gandhi." "Harilal carried his Gandhi identity like a curse around his neck. It was something that he just couldn't shake off."

The film recounts Harilal's lifelong struggle with his father's idealistic principles and refusal to favor his own children above anybody else's. Gandhi encourages his four sons, raised in South Africa, to explore a range of blue-collar careers, from farmer to weaver—only to be disappointed by Harilal's bourgeois desire to become a barrister like his father. The seeds of contention are further sown when Gandhi gives a distant nephew, rather than Harilal, a scholarship to study abroad. Determined to forge his own path, Harilal returns to India. But after he loses his wife and young son to cholera, his despair leads him to alcoholism, brothels and money laundering. In an act of rebellion against his Hindu father, Harilal converts to Islam, adopting the name Abdullah. Gandhi strikes back by publicly condemning and disowning his son. Later, Harilal converts back to Hinduism but continues to live the life of a derelict. He dies just five months after Gandhi is assassinated.

Veteran actor Darshan Jariwala gives a refreshing portrayal of a man whose cast-iron morality could transform a nation yet failed to save his own son. Shefali Shah ("Monsoon Wedding"), who plays Gandhi's wife, Kasturba, and Bhumika Chawla as Harilal's wife, Gulab, give powerful performances as women caught in the cross-fire between father and son. Bollywood star Akshaye Khanna, who lost 20 kilograms for the part, delivers a fine performance as the harrowed Harilal, stumbling from pillar to post, bottle to brothel, in search of his identity.

Not everyone is embracing Khan's debut as a filmmaker. Some Indians have called for a ban of the film—just weeks ahead of its scheduled premiere in Johannesburg on Aug. 3, which Nelson Mandela and South African President Thabo Mbeki are expected to attend. Protesters in the eastern state of Bihar have urged the Indian government to halt the film's release for fear of tarnishing their national hero's image. But Tushar Gandhi, the 47-year-old grandson of Manilal Gandhi, the second of Gandhi's four sons, says people should reserve judgment until they see it. "The film remains sincere to the subject," he says, admitting it made him shed a few tears. "It is as though somebody has understood the pain of what our family went through."

Khan is meticulous in his effort to deliver a balanced narrative, painting neither Gandhi nor Harilal as the villain. Previous films on the subject—like Richard Attenborough's Oscar-winning epic "Gandhi"—portray the great man as a political saint. "Gandhi, My Father" upends this notion, depicting the mahatma as a difficult patriarch whose ideals shaped a nation but hurt his family. As Khan points out: "He loved his son and family, but he loved the nation more." It's a distinction that makes for a compelling film.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

Pardesi, your history of India seems to be just the last sixty years and hence those snide remarks. In post #16 you said

[quote]USA is way ahead of others in offering opportunities to all and others can learn and improve themselves.[/quote]

Are you aware that not too long ago, separate but equal was an acceptable practice and in fact a law in a sizeable number of states. Muhammed Ali threw his Olympic Gold Medal in the Mississippi river because as a Black Man he could not enter a restaurant. Pentagon has twice the number of restrooms than required. Why? Because it is located in Virginia and during the segregation days it was required to have separate restrooms for Blacks and Whites. In its entire history it has had only two Black governors and so forth. The Native Americans of whatever were left after the genocide fared no better. Asians (Chinese, Indians, etc.) fared somewhat better but went thru their own dose of discrimination especially in California. It seems after a railroad project, Chinese workers used to be killed so that they do not intermingle with the local population.

The British and the other Anglos had their own dose of discrimination. It just so happens that unlike the Americans they did not let in non-Whites into their own country for a long, long time. In fact, most of the immigration to the UK started after India became independent. I once met an elderly Chinese gentleman who said that during the days when they were ruled by the Europeans it was common to see signs on clubs "Dogs and Chinese not allowed".

India is a young country in modern times (only sixty years independent). Yes, there are lots and lots of things I want to change. First and foremost is having a good law and order situation. However, it is the system that we inherited from the British. The judicial and police system that we inherited was less interested in justice for the common man but more interested in keeping the masses in control to perpetuate the Raj. Unfortunately, our leaders post-independence kept the same structure for their own benefit but slowly but surely things will change.

As to your talk about democracy, is pure bullshit to attribute it to the British. If India is a democracy thank heavens that in 1947 we had really wise men like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Rajgopalachari, Kriplani, Lohia similar to what the US had in 1776 (Jefferson, Adams, Lee, Franklin). Most of the colonies that became independent post-WW2 don't have democracy. Democracy is an exception rather than a norm including most of the British Commonwealth nations. In fact even our subcontinental nations (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal) have had bouts with dictatorship and India and Sri Lanka are handful of nations that have had continued democracy for a long time.

Even amongst the European and American nations universal suffrage is a recent thing. Women in America and Britain got to vote only in the 20th century. However, their media is very good at spinning the yarn that they are champions of democracy and it does not take much for sheep like Pardesi and Jang to start bleating the same.

Again, the foundational stuff – democracy - came with the evil British :).

I do not know if any of the princely states (Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim) had a system in 1750-1840 that elected every 4-5 years, the most powerful ceo for the state. Right around that time in 1776, USA and France were fighting for representative governments. In India Sikhs/Muslims, Marathas/Muslims were still settling old scores with each other at that time.

Let's agree on this - We were dumb and divided and British took full advantage of us. However we also got something out of it - a sense of what's out there in the world e.g., democratic institutions, law and order for every one, science and technology (in fact did we not started winning noble prizes and other honors even before 1947?), social justice for lower castes and equal treatment of women.

I am not saying that we should start awarding Bharat Ratna to Lord Clive (those kind of honors should be saved only for own "heroes" like Indira and Rajiv), but we must judge our past objectively so as to learn from our mistakes.

Remember, history may not repeat itself, but it frequently rhymes.

somehow i think that if the mutiny had selected a hindu king, bulleya might have a different opinion..just IMO ;-)

from what i understand, the EI Company hardly ever made any money for its investors..it was mostly lost in corruption.

that we have done better in 60 years AFTER british left does not mean that when they came we were a shithole. i am not arguing that the british rule was the best thing or they were benevolent in nature..simply that they offered something better .. pretty easy thing to do for a nation in such a bad shape in the fields of industry, agriculture, law-n-order, education (well, pretty much take your pick).

IMO was good slap in the face ... its to be yet seen what happens in the future.

an easy criteria is to check where south asia is today, in comparison with the rest of the world and where it was when the british arrived.....i.e. what did the british leave behind......

according to the human development index, south asia of today is the second worst area to live in the world, after sub-saharan africa (despite all the tall claims made by us south asians, these are the facts)........

palestine is ranked 100 on the hdi, while india is at 126 and pakistan is at 134........

things were probably worse in 47 than they are today......so the condition of south asia was even lower, despite the english language and the justice system and the railways etc. that the british had built......

now where was south asia in comparison to the rest of the world, when the british arrived.......despite all its problems and decaying societies, was south asia the second worst place to live, in the world, when the british started coquering it from 1750 to 1840s - starting from madras/bengal to punjab......

i highly doubt it.....

pakistani areas of today benefitted.....bengal was decimate by the british......and the areas of india were affected negatively also......

people who conquer a land, without becoming a part of it, would only have interests in exploiting it.......not in advancing it.......the only advancements would be those, which are needed to exploit it......

in 1857, literally the whole british army sepoys revolted and claimed loyalty to the mughal king, who had zero power....why would they do that if they adored the east india company.......

Its ridiculous to argue on this topic. Just compare the progress India has made in the 60 years since independence and compare it to the previous 60 years before that. Its a heaven and hell difference. Today, Indians are dreaming of becoming a second tier economy like Taiwan or South Korea and eventually joining the first world. In our cities, middle class people are now owning a car, even two cars. Just to go Gurgaon or Noida outside Delhi and your head will spin at the affluence visible.

The ba$tard british had reduced us to the state of beggars - in 1947 we were a bunch of brown beggars fighting to preserve access to government jobs which led to partition. We couldnt even manufacture a needle. Today most people in India wouldnt even piss on a government job. I feel so happy to see that british being bombed and facing terror. It serves them right since they are criminally liable for devastating India's economic and social vitality. Its divine retribution. Now when I go to UK and see their small houses and cars, I feel like laughing considering that upper middle class people in Delhi have a much better life than these so-called rulers of the past.

Kedar # 13

“don't give up your day job and try your hand at comedy. You will fall flat on face“

Your recommendation is too late my friend :)

There are two broad determinants that ultimately decide how far a culture will go:

1. Foundation - Justice for all, opportunity for all of its inhabitants, pride to defend its honor

2. Visible Part - Policies conducive to rational/scientific experimentation and building of wealth

Foundational Part - before the Brits came, what was our score in this category? Very very low. You can blame all you want others that they came and robbed our place. That’s true and that’s the way it works. It’s jungle out there. No one owes anyone anything. We were cowards who could never defend ourselves. Blame lies with us. If they were responsible for our 5% return rather than 40%, it was our fault because we were stupid and coward.

We had caste system with huge part of society non-productive, we had Sati system, over 500 princely states. We burned ghee and grains on havans rather then feeding and helping our poor masses. We did not have equivalent of Newton and Galileo equivalents (can’t blame brits for that). Don’t blame Arabs also since the answer will be same – we were cowards not to defend ourselves.

The other part – here, humanity is evolving. USA is way ahead of others in offering opportunities to all and others can learn and improve themselves. India’s progress so far shows what Indians are capable of achieving. That’s not the same thing as saying it will definitely become one of the greatest and powerful civilization. It all depends upon if a) there is law and order and justice for all b) it continually offers opportunities not just to ‘haves’ but ‘have nots’ too. No one has monopoly on great ideas and in my opinion India can teach as much to others as it can learn from others. Net net - yes, we are now doing good and hopefully will keep doing good.

The most important point is the FOUNDATIONAL piece. Remember, we use to have Somnath but it’s all gone. We had Harappa/Mohenjodero – all gone. If people do not have pride and ability to defend themselves, everything else becomes worthless. You can not live on history and false pride. Ability to defend your self comes from making sure that you provide law and protection to all – the minorities and other weaker segments of society. The jury is out on this issue.

British came to India when Europe was already at the threshold of the Industrial revolution and during the whole time they were establishing an Indian colony, their support system in England was helping them materially by way of better education and better means of production.

British just happened to emerge in India when their achievements in every walk of life, far exceeded the Indian achievement throughout the History. They were the only outside rulers of India who, actually in every walk of life, were superior to Indian. Before them the Afghans, the Turks, Persians or whosoever conquered India, were in every which way-cultural, educational and even in value system- were behind Indians of that time.

Expecting that nomads would have helped Indian progress is expecting too much from people who barely had a settled life in their own environments.

Let us however, not nurture any grandiose theories about Indian cultural superiority. Before the Central Asians descended on India, the cultural progress in India was already stunted and a few bright spots in history never became a trend.

There is no doubt that India was relatively a materially rich country, but that richness never translated in to cultural richness. Indians did establish some schools for superior education but their impact was limited.

The Central Asian rulers or Muslims as they are known in India came from cultures where the concept of education and progress was non existent. For them the means to become rich was conquering the neighboring areas. So they first fought with each other and then turned towards India.

For them, education was never a priority; the reason for developing better means of production had no currency as there was already enough for these conquerors.

For a period of almost 1000 years before the British, no scholar emerged out of India. No university was created and no system for education was developed. First Turkish and then Persian were the official languages and remained so until the last days of the Mughal Empire.

The Greeks in a very short period of time left a lasting impact on some parts of India, simply because the Greeks of that time were culturally superior to the Indians.

Being conquered and ruled by the cultural inferiors was perhaps the reason that some of us today feel a little better about what the British gave us.

Re: # 13 Posted by kedarnathji on July 28, 2007 10:52:25 am

Well said, Sir. Thank you.