Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!nbires!isis!dmiruke
From: dmiruke@isis.UUCP (Dataram Miruke)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Mountbatten's role in India
Message-ID: <334@isis.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 04:25:27 EST
Article-I.D.: isis.334
Posted: Wed Feb 12 04:25:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 06:19:38 EST
References: <687@harvard.UUCP> <802@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: University of Denver Math and Computer Science
Lines: 119

> 
> Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it was my understanding that what is now
> India WAS a large number of separate and independent states before
> the British forced it together by military force. What would be so wrong
	I wish you had studied something about Indian history, ancient as well
as in recent times, before making the comments upon letting India get divided
in different states.
> with self-determination, and allowing those states to resume their
> former independence? Why should India be a single large country, forcing
> together many disparate language and ethnic groups, if they would prefer
> to be independent individual countries? I can certainly see that a
> politician would prefer to have power over a large country, instead of
> being the leader of a smaller state,
	You make it appear as if the indian politicians want to keep India a
single country just because they can rule a bigger country. I wish that at
least was partially true! As a matter of fact if you have been following
any politics in the last couple of decades in India
you would realize that the Indian politicians are doing exactly opposite
thing. They are the ones who are mainly dividing the country and
Indian society, taking advantage of the ethnic and social differenes so that
they can be an important force in their limited field of influence. With the
notable exception of a few politicians and the present prime minister Mr.
Rajiv Gandhi, who were/are mainly interested in the good of the entire country
as a whole, I think most of the politicians and their dirty politics that
has been responsible for dividing the country more and more along different
lines and is responsible for the chaos that is present in the country today.
Whether the differences be social, economical, political, religious, caste,
ideology, anything at all that will help them to separate a group of people from
others along these lines and exert an influenec on them, are exploited by these
$%#%&&* politicians and used to meet their own ends. British did this for three
centuries in order to meet their own ends and Indian politicians have been
following this tradition. If it were not for a few people that existed at
the time of freedom of India, it would never have been possible for the Indians
to have a free country. I still strongly feel that an armed struggle leading
to the freedom of India would have been better, though probably that would
have left country left divided. At least people would have really understood
what it means to be a free people and be citizens of a strong nation with 
extremely rich cultural heritage.

> but, speaking in simple moral

	What morals are you talking about? If leaving India a divided country
would have been morally (?) correct then I don't think you really have any
idea about the ancient and recent history of Indian continent, except for
those stupid and silly representations that all those 'old times' movies
made recently make on one. To all those, who may/are reading this
I have a question and specially indians.. Don't you think that it is important
to shed, get rid of the silly image of India as being a country of horses and
kings/queens and all sorts of other nostalgia that a lot of recent movies
seem to foster? When I came to USA, about three years back, one of the americans
asked me, whether there are still horses used for travel on the roads in
Bombay and other cities!!! His
ideas about India were formulated from such movies and what he read in some
history books. Isn't it important to create a rightful image of India as a
technologically, militarily strong and powerful nation that also has an ancient
culture ? Worse, a lot of indians seem to praise such movies! This
may seem like a diversion from the original topic of discussion but I think
such movies (like this Mountbatten crap) are the ones which are responsible
for the types of impressions that various people get. Most of these
people don't seem to have anything to do with or seemed to be concerened
with preserving that most ancient and rich culture, known as India, but
merely seem to be happy in contemplating the nostalgia that is fostered
and mainatined by such crap as these movies. I think it is high time that
Indians stopped making fun of themselves and make themselves a topic of mere
historical discussions. India is one nation, that is and that has been a nation
though not ruled by a single ruler for a while during the history, and which was
unfortunately controlled by the foreign rulers for a while. Giving too much
importance to the British rule in India will be like giving an undue importance
to the fact that the USA was originally divided into various territories. 
I think that such comments as leaving India to its fate, reflects an
attitude of not being able to assess the importance of India in the world
today, and to all the fellow Indians.. I think we ourselves are partially
responsible for such impressions on the non-Indians. I hope the Indian
government puts an end to the creation of all this crap that is generated
in the name of historical movies and start creating an image of India as
a single nation that is building a future for itself, and not a place for some
people to be nostalgic about some short rule by some foreign rulers.

> terms, it appears that the principle of self-determination should
> outweigh such desires, and that any area in which the inhabitants wished
> to be independent should have been allowed to follow that path. After

	Yeah, I guess that would have really helped the superpowers. They
could have got some more bases in and around the Indian ocean. A few more
chess pieces to move around, like the ones they already have in the southeast
asia.

> all, if these states later determined that they were not self-sufficient
> or that independent government was too much of a burden to continue,
> they always could have decided to merge later on. This seems the path of
> greatest freedom and true democracy. What was wrong with this concept?
> 
	Is this your idea of democracy and freedom? The fact that the India
is the only third world nation that has been able to maintain its freedom
and democracy in spite of all the setbacks and not-so helpful attitude on the
part of developed nations and give a 1/7 of the humanity a chance to build
their own future in the true spirit of democracy and individual freedom
does not seem to be quite important to you? Do you really believe that having
a hundred little states lying around would create an atmosphere of freedom
and democracy for the individual in the Indian society? And if it is not
the personal freedom for each individual in the society, then what freedom
that you are talking about? The freedom for the communists to take over many
of these small states? The freedom for the superpowers to build their bases
in those states? The freedom for the other nations to manipulate these small
states to meet their own ends? If the freedom and democracy cannot work for
each and every individual in the society then, I would not know what freedom
and democracy one is talking about.
	Good luck in your endeavour to understand that complex heritage and
nation known as India if you ever decide to get more knowledgeable about it.
Please let me know if I can be of any help.

						- Dattaram T. Miruke
						  Dept. of Maths and CS.
						  U. of Denver,
						  Denver, Co 80210.
						  (303) 871-3073
						  (303) 744-6045
						  dmiruke@isis.CSNET
						  dmiruke@udenva.CSNET