Banner Advertiser

Sunday, October 9, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Indian NSA described Bangladesh as on the precipice



Indian NSA described Bangladesh as on the precipice


Dhaka, Oct 9 (UNB) - With Washington gradually coming around to sharing New Delhi's view regarding policy towards Bangladesh, India's then-National Security Adviser RK Narayanan met with visiting US Assistant Secretary of State (South Asia) Christina Rocca on April 18, 2005 and described Bangladesh as "on the precipice" due to poor governance, the growth of Islamist influence, and "the crisis in the Awami League".

The meeting took place in the presence of the deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in New Delhi at the time, Robert O. Blake, Jr who recounts the discussion that took place in a cable sent to Washington the next day, part of the huge cache of US embassy cables released by whistleblower site WikiLeaks.

Rocca's visit was part of a regional security dialogue taking place at the time, and cables reported by UNB on Friday show how the period coincided with Washington and New Delhi converging in their assessments of the situation on the ground in Bangladesh, with the growth of terrorist attacks disrupting public life, and also targeting the Awami League, which was in opposition at the time.

One of those cables revealed how Indian Joint Secretary Neelam Deo had already expressed her government's "satisfaction" that Washington's assessment of trends in Bangladesh had moved "closer in line" to Delhi's.

Narayanan it seems, aimed to cement this convergence, and as part of these efforts described to Rocca during his own meeting with her how rural areas in Bangladesh were becoming "badly saturated by radical Islamist forces", which in his view presented a major challenge to "fragile democratic structures" and moderate Muslims.

He described the Islamic Oikya Jote (IOJ) as "very influential", and with palpable trepidation, said the Jamaat was "feeling very, very strong". New Delhi, he said, had "very little leverage" with the BNP-Jamaat ruling alliance of the time, and whatever pressure it was able to exert was "difficult to maintain".

He then lamanted the state of the Awami League, which he said was "in crisis"- losing its best people, "offering no opposition" to the governing coalition, and "unable to decide" what to do next.

Narayanan expressed "particular concern" about the state of what he considered to be the "Bangladeshi intellectual class". Whereas once they had enjoyed vigorous interactions with their counterparts in India, Narayanan reports the then-chief minister of West Bengal (Poschimbongo) Buddhadeb Bhattacharya as having told him how he had not heard from Bangladeshi poets and writers for months, taking that to mean they had been "totally silenced".

Narayanan said this was "unnerving and could lead potentially to a black hole". He also said the assassination of former Foreign Minister SAMS Kibria had had a "chilling effect" on state structures, fearing they were "getting hijacked".

Before moving on to other matters, Narayanan also described how the Harkat Ul Jihad Al Islami terrorist network was becoming "one of the worst in Asia", and claimed that it was "very deeply involved" in India's troubled northeastern region.
http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-60960




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?




When I say I am ashamed of what our forefathers did in the past, I mean the mess they left behind in the Indian subcontinent; no matter which way we look at it – be it politics or religion. The concept of nationalism grew only towards the end of British era (1940s). Before that - Indian Saints, Philosophers, intellectuals, etc. did not have a clue about what was going on in their country. The reason was – they were not focused on that issue at all, instead they were focused on their salvation in the afterlife, and they were mostly thinking about God. That's why - I am ashamed of them, and that includes Gandhi, as I was comparing them with George Washington, who and others had a very clear vision for USA, and they have come up with a unique (4 page) document, called constitution, that made this country an envy of other nations in the world.

 

While America was bringing colonies after colonies into the confederation after independence in 1776, Indian leaders started to push them away after the independence in 1947. They did not even have the vision to look at the American model and history, even though it happened 170 years back, which has worked so well - that immigrants from all over the world were dying to come to over. After all, right around that time British colonized India (1757) also.

 
Jiten Roy
--- On Sun, 10/9/11, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, October 9, 2011, 12:09 PM

 
My comments on  Dr. Bain's observation:
  • British rule of India was obviously beneficial to Britain. One estimate says: during pre-British era combined wealth of entire Europe was less than that of India. Indian sepoys and Indian money was the  vehicle for British colonial expansion. One estimate says: 40% of British military expenditure came from India. Indian market and raw materials helped British industries flourish putting in jeopardy Indian agriculture, industry, and commerce.
  • India was benfitted too, although in a passive way. The British needed clerks, loyal bureuecrats, infrastructure, healthcare system, etc. all of which they produced as much as they needed to sustain the colonial rule.
  • Capitalism is obviously more forward looking, liberal, and hence progressive than feudalism. Frankly speaking with my very limited knowledge, I will not characterize the British rule of India as capitalistic. It was purely a case of brutal colonialism. Our monarchs were not progressive (probably Tipu Sultan was an exception). Like the colonial masters they also sucked the blood of their subjects. They led luxurious life. They were too busy with women, wine, music, dance, and mosques and temples, study of speculative philosophies, ethics, and theosophy, and building forts and palaces and memorials at the cost of the blood and sweat of the common masses. There was no unity. They fought with one another and thereby opening the doors to foreign aggressors (since time immerorial).
  • I think British rule and misrule had a positive impact on India which was divided on different lines. They gradually learned to identify themselves as an Indian nation. Again I must say that the light came from Europe.
My comments on Dr. Roy:
  • Among our forefathers there were visionaries. Let me give few examples: Ashoka, Akbar, Shibaji. I think all them were controversial. The third one was discovered by Rabindranath in a nationalistic emotional poem and is obviously controversial ("ekdhormorajyapashe khanda chhinna bikshipta bharat bendhe diba ami".) Looks like Rabindranath was in search of a voice that would unify India against the "Rajdanda" that entered India in the guise of "baniker mandanda". When time is not favorable, great scholars sometimes take refuge in history and mythologies by rewriting them in the light of the new realities. But obviously by writing this poem he risked the noncooperation from the Indian Muslims.
  • In modern time I will accept Gandhi as a near perfect visionary leader at least as far as unity is concerned. I have least confidence in his industrial policy. 
  • I will not think in terms Hindu Bengal and Hindu India. I will go by what Rabindranath believed: Rabindranath's "punya teertha" was where "kata manusher dhara durbar srote elo kotha ha'te samudre ha'lo hara". Please re-read the poem "Bharatteertha". Almost every one including the invaders became part of India to constitute "ekti biraat hiya". Alexander went back, the British went back, and went back many looters and plunderers. Can you prove that your forefathers did not come with the Senas from Karnataka to settle in Bengal and rule Bengal and to present Bengal with an orthodox social system?
  • Forget about those invaders who crossed the then Indian borders. Think about "matsanaya" when all the little kings attempted to annihilate one another. What would say about Chandashoka who orginated in very Indian land and massacred his own people before turning into Dharmaraj Asoka?            

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
 
SB said: "While I acknowledge that the British were better than the Mughals, I feel ashamed of my forefathers and the societies that they left behind."
 
This is where I can agree with you - I am also ashamed of our forefathers; they were no "George Washington."As a result, Bakhtiar Khilji conquered Bengal with only 18 horsemen. Hindus have used divide and rule principle as caste system even before British came in. This system ruined the fabric of the Indian society, and Hindus are paying the price. British have nothing to do with it.
 
Jiten Roy --- On Sat, 10/8/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 5:15 PM

 
There is a difference between admitting/acknowledging a fact and appreciating/defending a fact. I would not defend any foreign rule of my motherland. That is why, while I acknowledge that the British were better than the Mughals, I feel ashamed of my forefathers and the societies that they left behind.
 
Here are some facts for Dr. Roy and others to consider.
 
1) A so-called low caste Hindu walks by a so-called high caste Hindu; the latter has to take a bath to cleanse himself because he had touched the shadow of the former. To me, the latter here is asking for hostility from the former for no good reason. This was a custom of our society not very long ago. Did the Mughal or the British make our forefathers that stupid? To me, this kind of societies deserved to be booted by the foreigners.
 
2) A serious flood happens; animals and people die by the thousands. The so-called high-caste Hindus would not touch the rotting corps/carcasses, because they think they would lose their caste by doing so. They would live in the stench and bacteria-infested environment, but not clean up. This happened only a few years back is Orissa. To me, these barbarians do not know how to live a civilized life; they would do better being ruled by others.
 
3) The owners of buses would not allow their buses to ply the highway, because the highway is too bad in shape to drive. Tens of thousands of commuters get stranded. This happened only a few weeks back in Bangladesh. What were the governments doing to address this public safety issue before it reached such a sorry state? Good question. To me, people from this country would do better doing odd jobs everywhere in the world. Where should the intellectuals of this country focus; in forming an Odd-job Givers Appreciating Club?
 
There are a lot of other examples we could find. I hope I have gotten my points across a bit better now.
 
More later,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
 
SB Said :
"I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?"
 
Response:
 
We can be ashamed as much as we want, but that will not change the fact, and the fact is - India is better off today because of British rule, instead of Mughal rule. I have no shame to admit this fact. We have to judge the situation with proper context, and that is - India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one.
Thanks.
Jiten Roy
 
--- On Fri, 10/7/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2011, 6:55 PM

 
All indications point to India staying more backward without the British rule.
 
The Mughals probably would have made India what the Muslim-ruled countries of the world look like today - deduct the oil-wealth. The little Hindu kings probably would have either gotten extinct, or kept licking the boots of the Mughal kings while feeling superior to their desperately poor low-caste co-religionists. The mass population of all religions would probably be quite miserable today. There is no reason to believe that without the British the Hindus would be as good today in terms of their caste-system and treatment of the women.
 
Having said all this, I would not jump into the praise-squad for the British. The British certainly did not do anything out of their love for the Indians.
 
I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?
 
More later,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?



A. C. Bhaktibedanta aka Shrila Prabhupada was a poor office assistant.  His wife sold all his books on religion by weight to buy biscuits for her tea.  The resulting family feud split the family, and he left for Brindaban.  When at a later age he landed on the New York soil in 1967, he was hailed by a bunch of Jews who ultimately created ISCKON.  Please read his biographical book named, Monkey on the stick.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:21 AM, nihar singh <nihar_singh786@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

What you guys dont take into consideration is the continuous line of saints which India has produced right up to Srila Prabhupada in 1977 who have shown us the way. Even from materialistic point of view India was the richest country in the world which is why the British came to India. They looted you and you are now rooting for them what kind of logic is this.




--- On Sat, 10/8/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 4:15 PM




There is a difference between admitting/acknowledging a fact and appreciating/defending a fact. I would not defend any foreign rule of my motherland. That is why, while I acknowledge that the British were better than the Mughals, I feel ashamed of my forefathers and the societies that they left behind.
 
Here are some facts for Dr. Roy and others to consider.
 
1) A so-called low caste Hindu walks by a so-called high caste Hindu; the latter has to take a bath to cleanse himself because he had touched the shadow of the former. To me, the latter here is asking for hostility from the former for no good reason. This was a custom of our society not very long ago. Did the Mughal or the British make our forefathers that stupid? To me, this kind of societies deserved to be booted by the foreigners.
 
2) A serious flood happens; animals and people die by the thousands. The so-called high-caste Hindus would not touch the rotting corps/carcasses, because they think they would lose their caste by doing so. They would live in the stench and bacteria-infested environment, but not clean up. This happened only a few years back is Orissa. To me, these barbarians do not know how to live a civilized life; they would do better being ruled by others.
 
3) The owners of buses would not allow their buses to ply the highway, because the highway is too bad in shape to drive. Tens of thousands of commuters get stranded. This happened only a few weeks back in Bangladesh. What were the governments doing to address this public safety issue before it reached such a sorry state? Good question. To me, people from this country would do better doing odd jobs everywhere in the world. Where should the intellectuals of this country focus; in forming an Odd-job Givers Appreciating Club?
 
There are a lot of other examples we could find. I hope I have gotten my points across a bit better now.
 
More later,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
 
SB Said :
"I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?"
 
Response:
 
We can be ashamed as much as we want, but that will not change the fact, and the fact is - India is better off today because of British rule, instead of Mughal rule. I have no shame to admit this fact. We have to judge the situation with proper context, and that is - India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one.
Thanks.
Jiten Roy
 
--- On Fri, 10/7/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2011, 6:55 PM

 
All indications point to India staying more backward without the British rule.
 
The Mughals probably would have made India what the Muslim-ruled countries of the world look like today - deduct the oil-wealth. The little Hindu kings probably would have either gotten extinct, or kept licking the boots of the Mughal kings while feeling superior to their desperately poor low-caste co-religionists. The mass population of all religions would probably be quite miserable today. There is no reason to believe that without the British the Hindus would be as good today in terms of their caste-system and treatment of the women.
 
Having said all this, I would not jump into the praise-squad for the British. The British certainly did not do anything out of their love for the Indians.
 
I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?
 
More later,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 





__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] USA in the Phillipines acting like the colonial Brits of 19th century in India



   I find this sad commentary on the current affairs of the Filipino nation very interesting and to the point which we Deshis never tire of arguing. Oh! How good the British rule was! The gora rescued us from casteism and tyranny of the Mughals!  The Muslims needed a homeland! etc. etc. 
 
               Farida Majid
======================
 
 <<. . . . The present end state of continued and increased participation of Washington and Kuala Lumpur over "peace talks" in Southern Mindanao, will play out to the jollity of respective US and Malaysian interests. And before a courteous Filipino nation, often accommodating in their Oriental ways, when confronted with foreign visitors "bringing gifts," discoursive intellectuals, academicians, "peace-niks," federalists, who want to turn back the hands of time to honor ethnicities, revert to regional/tribe-nations and overturning the regalian doctrine, instead of historical caveats to celebrate our strength (republic) in oneness and unity, regardless of origin, religion, language, and color of skin. >>
 
 
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/337063/bangsa-america


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] USA in the Phillipines acting like the colonial Brits of 19th century in India



   I find this sad commentary on the current affairs of the Filipino nation very interesting and to the point which we Deshis never tire of arguing. Oh! How good the British rule was! The gora rescued us from casteism and tyranny of the Mughals!  The Muslims needed a homeland! etc. etc. 
 
               Farida Majid
======================
 
 <<. . . . The present end state of continued and increased participation of Washington and Kuala Lumpur over "peace talks" in Southern Mindanao, will play out to the jollity of respective US and Malaysian interests. And before a courteous Filipino nation, often accommodating in their Oriental ways, when confronted with foreign visitors "bringing gifts," discoursive intellectuals, academicians, "peace-niks," federalists, who want to turn back the hands of time to honor ethnicities, revert to regional/tribe-nations and overturning the regalian doctrine, instead of historical caveats to celebrate our strength (republic) in oneness and unity, regardless of origin, religion, language, and color of skin. >>
 
 
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/337063/bangsa-america


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?



Most of the Persian "Influence" came with Muslims. Now you know. :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 9:19 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?

 
"Specifically if you understand that, the name "Hindustan" was given by Muslims. "  Were the ancient Persians Muslims too?  I did not know that! 

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:23 AM, qar <qrahman@aim.com> wrote:
 
India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one.

>>>>>>>> help me understand your point here. So what India showcases today to the world the Taj mahal, Agra Fort, Jantar mantar, palaces are all "foreign"? Specifically if you understand that, the name "Hindustan" was given by Muslims. Also the modern India ( Which is the battle cry of fanatic Hindutva movement----Akhanda Bharat) is a creation of Mughal empire. Before them, India consistrd of small nation states often fighting with each other.

The British only built upon the central Delhi concept ( In fact they went back from Kolkata to Delhi) of the Muslims and modern Indians kept that system.

Most importantly when Hindus and Muslims were (Our forefathers) fighting the British Raj to kick them out of India in favor of Bahadur Shah Jafar, were those Hindus did not have the enough common sense in working for another foreign power? Why leaders of Hindu and Muslim communities found an unifying leader in Bahadur Shah Jafar IF Mughals were seen as foreigners?

Probably my knowledge is not as rich as yours, please share your wisdom with us. ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?

 
SB Said :
"I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?"
 
Response:
 
We can be ashamed as much as we want, but that will not change the fact, and the fact is - India is better off today because of British rule, instead of Mughal rule. I have no shame to admit this fact. We have to judge the situation with proper context, and that is - India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one.
 
Thanks.
 
Jiten Roy
 


--- On Fri, 10/7/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2011, 6:55 PM

 
All indications point to India staying more backward without the British rule.
 
The Mughals probably would have made India what the Muslim-ruled countries of the world look like today - deduct the oil-wealth. The little Hindu kings probably would have either gotten extinct, or kept licking the boots of the Mughal kings while feeling superior to their desperately poor low-caste co-religionists. The mass population of all religions would probably be quite miserable today. There is no reason to believe that without the British the Hindus would be as good today in terms of their caste-system and treatment of the women.
 
Having said all this, I would not jump into the praise-squad for the British. The British certainly did not do anything out of their love for the Indians.
 
I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?
 
More later,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
 
Pre-British history of India is not well-known. That is a blind-spot in the Indian history. We know intricate details about British era, but not much about Mughal era. It could be due to lack of documentation or resources at the time. British ruled many other parts of the world, including part of North America, which fought a full-fledged battle against British. How come they do not have such strong resentment against British? How come other parts of the world, ruled by British, also do not possess such sentiment against them as Indians do? Indians tend to blame everything on British rule. We blame British for our thinking, we blame British for our administrative bureaucracy, we blame British for our education system, judicial system, communication system, etc. etc.
I know what happened in 1919 during the Jallianwallabag massacre, in which British troops opened fire on unarmed civilians in a mass gathering, protesting British rule. This was the time when Gandhi started his anti-British movement, and that's the price we paid to force British out of India. How much price Indians paid during Mughal rule, especially during Babar and Awrangzeb? Anybody has a clue? That is not my point of discussion. My point is - would India be better off without British rule? Let's extrapolate continued Moghal rule for another 200 years and contrast it with the India left behind by British rulers, and analyze the situation. I will appreciate your inputs on this point.
Jiten Roy --- On Wed, 10/5/11, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Tagore wrote Jana Gana Mana For Lord Krishna - Logically Proved.
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, 7:37 PM

JitenDa
 
When you believe that "I am thankful to British for their help in rebuilding India with their modern amenities, education systems, and judiciaries. Yes, they took some wealth back to England. Why not? You do not expect everything for free. Do you? After all, they came to India for business and occupied India for 200 years. They could have taken everything without investing a penny in India", I must say that Singh is right when he/she says that "our (please read 'your') thoughts are still controlled by British."
 
They did not do any thing out of love for the Indians. Every thing good we got was spillovers. Colonial exploitation was endless. Please reflect on what you have read from a typical history book. Think about indigo and poppy cultivation. Think how they put Tajmahal on auction to sell expensive stones after robbing all the gold and other precious metals and stones. Think about Jalianwalabag massacre, the way they retalitaed the sepoy mutiny, and countless other mischiefs. They did only that much as was necessay to carry out their business. Think about in what conditions they left India before running away.   
 
Your comment or love for British rule is not surprising as many among us cherish the same view. That's why it is really thought provoking and as such can be a good topic for debate.
 
Think about a scenario: British did not colonize India. Where would India stand today? Did India really need a colonial master to be what she is today? Could she be better?
 
Please, everybody, put ypour inputs.
 
Regards.
 
-Subimal 



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] TRANSIT FOR LONG MARCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Dear All,
 
As Khaleda Zia is launching the so called LONG MARCH to save her corrupted sons and the notorious war criminals, lets urge the Indian govt. to give transit to the march to reach Pakistan peacefully so that Khaleda and the gang can live there for rest of their life !! ( HIJRAT ).
 
Regards,
Dr. Manik 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: PM Hasina is now seeking from Ma Durga



friends


THE PRESENT BA L'S BANNER WHEREIN IT IS WRITTEN :

"JOY  BANGLA     ALLAH  SORBO SHAKTIMAAAAN       JOY BONGO BONDHU " 

IT MAY BE REWRITTEN AS UNDER :

"JOY  BANGLA     ALLAH  N   MAA DURGA SORBO SHAKTIMAAAAN    JOY BONGO BONDHU " ( real secular it will look n sound).

I AM NOT AGAINST SECULARISM BUT AGAINST PUTTING IT IN STUPID WAY TAKING THE POPULACE AS DUMB BY THE IDIOT ELITES OF BAL N K. JIBIS. 

SECULARISM DOESN'T MEAN TO FORCEFULLY SUBSCRIBE RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS/TRADITION OF ANOTHER RELIGION OTHER TO RESPECT THE SAME.

IN BANGLADESH WE ARE OBSERVING FORCED SECULARISM.  CAN THE  BAL/K.JIBI SECULARS ANSWER A QUESTION THAT WHEN ALL PRINT N ELECTRONIC MEDIA IN BANGLADESH ORGANIZE DAY/DAYS LONG PROGRAMMES INCLUDING PRUDENT TALK SHOWS LIVE PUJA  ON HINDUISM THEN WHY  NOT A SINGLE SUCH MEDIA IN HINDUSTAN ARRANGE ANY PROGRAMME FOR EVEN FIVE MINUTES ON ANY MUSLIM FESTIVITY IN THE ONLY N THE ONLY SECULAR(???????????????)

THERE IS MORE HARSH TRUTH IS THAT SECULAR HINDUS DO KEEP THE SCHOOLS OPEN IN EID DAYS WHICH CREATED UPROAR IN OPAR BANGLA N THIS IS MOHAN SECULARISM THEY PRACTICE BUT THEY N THEIR CONCUBINES IN BANGLADESH WANTS US TO BE REAL SECULAR TO SWALLOW FORCED SECULARISM.

Faruque Alamgir


On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Mohiuddin Anwar <mohiuddin@netzero.net> wrote:
Capt. Chowdhury,
 
Since when you became a admirer of Ma Durga?
Hasina will like Ma Durga lovers like you  definitely.
Do you know without the preaching  of Auliahs  like Sheikh Farid, Shah Poran, Shah Mokhdum, Shah Jalal, Amanast Shah and other Islamic preachers Bangladesh could have been a
Hindu msjority land.
Thanks to those great Islamic preachers hard work. one of them defeated Gour Govinda and made Sylher Muslim Sylhet.
That's history we can't change..
Sheikh Hasina recognized Shah Jalal's contribution and named Dhaka Airport after this great Muslim Saint.
Who knows in coming days she will honor Ma Durga too. to prove his secular chatrecter. Proposed new International Airport could be named ma Durga International Airport.
 
 
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Captain Chowdhury <captchowdhury@yahoo.ca>
To: Mohiuddin Anwar <mohiuddin@netzero.net>, Khobor <khabor@yahoogroups.com>,  Sitangshu Guha <guhasb@gmail.com>
Cc: unitycouncilusa@gmail.com, srbanunz@gmail.com, manik061624@yahoo.com,  manik195709@yahoo.com, veirsmill@yahoo.com, akhtergolam@gmail.com,  obaidul.quader@gmail.com, ershad.hm@gmail.com, muntasir@gmail.com,  drmohsinali@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: PM Hasina is now seeking from Ma Durga
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 01:10:39 -0700 (PDT)

TRUST ALL ARE AWARE OF BADRUDOZZA DEMOS ON SABASH BANGLADESH ,HOLDING ONE HAND HOLY GITA OTHER HAND HOLY QURAN...JUST AFTER A WHILE HE WAS THROWN OUT FROM PRESIDENT !!!!!!!!
REMEMBER VERY HOT ITEM WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MA DURGA...or ASK YOUR FORE FATHERS WHO WERE CONVERTED FROM HINDU TO MUSLIM.....
SORRY FOLKS...HAD TO SPEAK LIKE THAT WAY...
BEARING MIND THIS IS VERY OLD RELIGION (Sanathan)
MULLAHS WILL LATE TO UNDERSTAND WITH THICK HEAD !!!
--- On Sat, 10/8/11, Sitangshu Guha <guhasb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sitangshu Guha <guhasb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PM Hasina is now seeking from Ma Durga
To: "Mohiuddin Anwar" <mohiuddin@netzero.net>, "Khobor" <khabor@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: unitycouncilusa@gmail.com, captchowdhury@yahoo.ca, srbanunz@gmail.com, manik061624@yahoo.com, manik195709@yahoo.com, veirsmill@yahoo.com, akhtergolam@gmail.com, obaidul.quader@gmail.com, ershad.hm@gmail.com, muntasir@gmail.com, drmohsinali@yahoo.com
Received: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 10:15 AM

It is PM's credit if Sangram writes against her?

Sangram is the mouth piece of Jamaat; what good we expect from it rather than hatred! The statement of 5001 political Mullahs reminds us the days of Fakistan! These Mullahs are destroying the Muslim countries around the world. What good these Mullahs did for Bangladesh?

 

Those so-called organizations have letterhead ready and one Mullah just writes what he feel like writing & send the statement to news papers. Most media dump that. Usually those statements are multiple pages and in newspaper offices journalists used to say that, 'the pin is valuable than the statement, keep the pin and dump the statement!

 

Most Mullahs were against Bangladesh and did all the odd in the name of religion and they are still doing the same! Let me finish the writing with one hard fact. I used to teach in a college in Dhaka and once a girl student told that, 'I refused to go to heaven, if these Mullahs go there!' How many Muslims are ready to go to heaven with Nizami-Sayeedi?



On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Mohiuddin Anwar <mohiuddin@netzero.net> wrote:


Subject:  PM Hasina is now seeking blessing from Ma Durga
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:23:57 -0700 (PDT)



____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
AwesomePennyStocks.com




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?



If you believe in Bankim Chatterjee, Bakhtiar had thousands more waiting in the nearby jungle.  Besides Pashupat Bhattacharya, Laksman Sen's chief minister conspired with Bakhtiar.  Moreover, there was no grass root support for the Sen dynasty.  Casteism in India, according to Ronald Inden, was a consequence of the Turkish colonization.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

SB said: "While I acknowledge that the British were better than the Mughals, I feel ashamed of my forefathers and the societies that they left behind."

 

This is where I can agree with you - I am also ashamed of our forefathers; they were no "George Washington."As a result, Bakhtiar Khilji conquered Bengal with only 18 horsemen. Hindus have used divide and rule principle as caste system even before British came in. This system ruined the fabric of the Indian society, and Hindus are paying the price. British have nothing to do with it.

 
Jiten Roy


--- On Sat, 10/8/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 5:15 PM


 
There is a difference between admitting/acknowledging a fact and appreciating/defending a fact. I would not defend any foreign rule of my motherland. That is why, while I acknowledge that the British were better than the Mughals, I feel ashamed of my forefathers and the societies that they left behind.
 
Here are some facts for Dr. Roy and others to consider.
 
1) A so-called low caste Hindu walks by a so-called high caste Hindu; the latter has to take a bath to cleanse himself because he had touched the shadow of the former. To me, the latter here is asking for hostility from the former for no good reason. This was a custom of our society not very long ago. Did the Mughal or the British make our forefathers that stupid? To me, this kind of societies deserved to be booted by the foreigners.
 
2) A serious flood happens; animals and people die by the thousands. The so-called high-caste Hindus would not touch the rotting corps/carcasses, because they think they would lose their caste by doing so. They would live in the stench and bacteria-infested environment, but not clean up. This happened only a few years back is Orissa. To me, these barbarians do not know how to live a civilized life; they would do better being ruled by others.
 
3) The owners of buses would not allow their buses to ply the highway, because the highway is too bad in shape to drive. Tens of thousands of commuters get stranded. This happened only a few weeks back in Bangladesh. What were the governments doing to address this public safety issue before it reached such a sorry state? Good question. To me, people from this country would do better doing odd jobs everywhere in the world. Where should the intellectuals of this country focus; in forming an Odd-job Givers Appreciating Club?
 
There are a lot of other examples we could find. I hope I have gotten my points across a bit better now.
 
More later,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
 
SB Said :
"I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?"
 
Response:
 
We can be ashamed as much as we want, but that will not change the fact, and the fact is - India is better off today because of British rule, instead of Mughal rule. I have no shame to admit this fact. We have to judge the situation with proper context, and that is - India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one.
Thanks.
Jiten Roy
 
--- On Fri, 10/7/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2011, 6:55 PM

 
All indications point to India staying more backward without the British rule.
 
The Mughals probably would have made India what the Muslim-ruled countries of the world look like today - deduct the oil-wealth. The little Hindu kings probably would have either gotten extinct, or kept licking the boots of the Mughal kings while feeling superior to their desperately poor low-caste co-religionists. The mass population of all religions would probably be quite miserable today. There is no reason to believe that without the British the Hindus would be as good today in terms of their caste-system and treatment of the women.
 
Having said all this, I would not jump into the praise-squad for the British. The British certainly did not do anything out of their love for the Indians.
 
I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?
 
More later,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___