Friday, July 15, 2005

Speaking at Oxford after receiving a honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law, Dr Singh said,
"Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian prime minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too"

PM of india has said this
how can any INDIAN say this?

If being highly eduacted, having higher understanding means praising those who exploitated ur ppl, i hate to be highly educated.
i dont have proper words to express my anger.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday acknowledged the "beneficial consequences" of British colonial rule like "free press, constitutional government, professional service, modern universities and research laboratories.

how can such things be beneficial if they r smeared by blood of ur own ppl?
we dont need to learn such things from others.
we were the first in having such institutions.
even for the sake of diplomacy was it necessary to put it this way?


Vivhyd said...

Soumya.. for one I did have high regard for our PM.. but the moment even he succumbed to be a puppet in the hands of a foreigner.. I guess.. this isn't surprising.. although in broader sense.. the British did do a small amount of good in the lines he has spoken..

and then comes being nice to the hosts.. when u r the guest.. could be a case of this.. too..

Gangadhar said...

Let's hope so!!

@$#!$# said...

Dude, if you realize this with a calm head, you might as well agree that he is right.

Whatever you might have to say against them, its the British that integrated India, as u see it today. The means they used may be an issue of debate, but had they not done so, we would have had 50+ countries in our place, constantly fighting with each other.

Its important that things are seen in the right perspective. There was the bad side of foreign rule, that robbed us of our freedom, had numerous atrocities on our brethren, but there was also a good side, that helped us stand on our feet as a nation.

And as for saying that we had such institutions in the first place, let me tell u, after Akbar's rule, India was a mess...every province wanted its independence...and fought with each other. The institutions u are referring to were in Vedic era...much earlier to the British conquest.

Barath said...

I agree with @$#!$#! Kudos!!!

"Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian prime minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too"

Extremly political statment...! He can flip on both sides....! Fliting with that side by standing on this!

The Brits with what the so-called authority they had on us...could have managed without crewating a whole lot of changes in India...but to their selfish well as the general trendsettin...they made some welcome changes...which could have happened even if we were ruling...but a lil late!!

On the whole...its a politically correct statment...morally flirting with both sides...!

Ritu said...

Gawd... I tell you... the surdie has forgotten the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre....the sacrifices of our freedom fighters...Bhagat Singh, Mangal Pandey?????? It wasn't just a STUPID thing to say, it was an insult to the whole freedom strugge. If the bloody brits did our country such good, why did we ask them to leave?

Alka said...

Its interesting to read so many point of views. It often seen that we have yet to come to get rid of this gora sahib syndrome.

soumya said...

vivhyd: i agree that Mr Singh is a good human being but good ppl also commit mistakes
whatever good brit did can u accept it if it is soaked in blood of ur ppl?
being nice to hosts doesnt means nto to have self respect

ganga: ??

ashish: i cant and dont want to be calm with those who exploited us
regarding integration of INDIA u r speaking wht u have been made to speak by Macaulay's education system..try to find the truth by ur own

and INDIA was not in mess till the point britishers arrived
they destroyed whole of our economy
how u forgot the british created famines and ...list is endless

barath:morally flirting with both sides...!
morally flirting with ur own ppl

ritu: thanks for making me feel not abnormal

alka: for me this is shocking

@$#!$# said...

Ok talking of truths here, isn't it a known fact that after akbar's death, India split into lots of princely estates, each ruled by nawabs & the like. The condition of Indians under the nawabs was in no way better than that under the British.

There was poverty, famines even under nawabs...and they didn't bother as long as their coffers were full of cash.

And have u forgotten the draconian caste system that India had, or for that matter the inhuman practice of Sati that was followed ( FYI, this was abolished by the British).

Dude, I am not saying that it was good that British ruled India, they committed a lot of crimes, did a lot of atrocities etc, but isn't it unfair to rob them of the credit for the little good that they did in the 300 years rule of India.

or would you rather have had a tax collected from you had you been a lower caste person???

Don't analyse this in black & white, this has a lot more colour to it than u think.

soumya said...

dont mind but till aurangzeb mughal empire was expanding all the time from akbar's era

Sati was abolished on initiatives and insistence of indians
britishers were afraid of disturbing indian social structure becoz of the price they paid in 1857

it is totaly fair to rob britishers of all things;-) becoz all the time they were in india their intention was to exploit and intentions/feelings reign supreme and not the accidental/unintentional side effects

reg famines, before brits they were natural but later on they were man made becoz ppl lacked cash to buy food(due to total disaster of indian economics at hands of brits) even though food was available
in fact india's freedom struggle started on note of economic exploitation

plz do verify wht i have said

@$#!$# said...

dude, I am not the one to verify what u say, but remember the number of princely states that Sardar Patel had to forcibly annex after the british left India on its own....

as far as an expanding mughal empire is concerned, let me remind you that the mughals after akbar cud no no further south after konkan, east india was ruled by nawabs, the north east had its own rulers.

also, let me in brief, talk abt reason for india s struggle for independence:

1. Mutiny of 1857: Indian soldiers being forced to use cartridges that had a coating of cow's intestines on them, bolstered by a set of nawabs & kings, each of whom wanted their estates back.
Had this been successful, we would now be in a constant state of civil war, considering the number of fractions we'd be in.

2. Freedom struggle of 1920s( led by Gandhiji): this was more about gaining independence of India as a whole, and freedom from whims of Britishers. The aim was to make india & indians self reliant.

and friend, I am no one to verify facts, I simply recall them & state them as they are. Like it or not, it was the British responsible for the good that Mr. Singh mentioned at Oxford.

At least he's got the guts to give due credit to British for what they deserve....most of us can't even digest the fact that British were the one who abolished the Sati (yes, Raja Ram Mohan Roy campained a lot for it, but in the end it was a Britisher who approved it & made the Sati Act).

Twilight Fairy said...

Well, there are good things and the bad..he's just pointing out the good ones..

:-) said...

I like your tagline.

Sreekesh Menon said...

after having said something like that, if he managed to bring back the wealth looted out, i could understand....i guess time will tell.

Tarun said...

Inspite of all this you wrote your anger in the language given by British not in our own. Judging history never been a easy task for anyone. Don't get angry not good for health ;) but just one minute think calmly what happened if british never come to India.

claytonia vices said...

Sowmya, if you say that whatever the british left is blood stained, you'd better start blogging in your native language. Just look at this, would so many people be communicating these ideas in a common language otherwise??

I do admit the British were very cruel to us, they exploited us and all that but it only brought us together and made us stronger. So isn't that a good

Just coz Mr. Singh said that it does not mean that he is thanking them. He just looked at the positive aspect also...

what do u say???

Nilesh said...

claytonia vices, if someone cut ur leg and give u a walking stick. will u say that he has done good to you.

Enshin said...

i think ur views are just too strong in regards to this and are more out of emotions than actual reasoning or thinking behind them.
I dont think Mr. Singh meant to thank the britishers for what they did by his statement; he just decided to see the silver lining in the dark clouds and was tactful enough to use that silver lining to our advantage by telling that statement to them.

The Soul Doctor said...

While I understand your emotional outburst, I beg to disagree with you on many counts. I have written a detailed blog and i exhort you to read that once.

When you say that we dont need to learn anything from them and they exploited us, The "WE" and "US" you are talking about has in the first place a british byproduct. Had they not come, we would have been another islamic clergy state where the majority hindus would have been trounced and trampled.

In any case, changing your view point is not my aim. But i do suggest to look at it apathetically!!


The Soul Doctor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shikha said...

sorry for being blunt, but if u read the whole speech, u'd know what he was actually saying, not what the media interpreted and told us.

exasparater said...

hey soumya,
eventhough british looted the whole country, they made few steps to our development like introducing railways, introducing western type of education, and i wanna tell u that " india was once a not a united country there were many kingdoms and their ideas were different then british and our indian national congress joined their hands to make a united india" to give independence, otherwise we wont be a one single country we will be split into twenty-eight nations.

Anonymous said...

Looking for information and found it at this great site... Recover data reformatting hard drive

Anonymous said...

What a great site accurate forex system trading phoenix contact plotter Leena pornstar Bouwerie lane theater bond Stop the production of oxycontin Commercial hilton new paris video john edwards gay Answering machines with distinctive ring features Boobs big hands breasts lipitor and muscle pain wheelchairs for cheap