Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!harvard!paturi
From: paturi@harvard.UUCP (Ramamohan Paturi)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Mountbatten's role in India
Message-ID: <709@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Feb-86 09:26:48 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.709
Posted: Thu Feb 13 09:26:48 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 02:20:29 EST
References: <687@harvard.UUCP> <802@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Aiken Comp Lab, Harvard
Lines: 39
Summary: Another instance of western prejudiced attitude.

In article <802@brl-smoke.ARPA>, wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
> Based on recent postings, I'll acceept that the PBS "Masterpiece
> Theatre" series on "The Last Viceroy" is heavily dramatized, and the
...................


	This letter by Will Matrin reflects the wertern attitude. It is not an
	exaggeration if I say western attitude = prejudiced attitude. This
	prejudice is not without its effects. It matters in a real way for 
	both the parties, but in different ways. It is true that there are 
	a number of scholars and others in the west who are more objective.
	But the perceptions that are handed down from generation to generation
	(since the time of Aristotle) have not changed that much. So much
	for my explication of western prejudice.

	It goes without saying that prejudice is concomitant with a highly
	simplified, untruthful and unrealistic (to whom) view. Let me
	correct some of the statements in Will Matrin's letter. 

	British government did not militarily force princes and kings to 
	join India. British stated that they would not militarily support 
	any prince who declares himself to be independent. This made the
	job of Indian national leaders to persuade the princes to join 
	India somewhat easier. One or two rebellious kingdoms were brought
	into line by the Indian army led my Indian national leaders. British
	are nice to the extent they did not militarily support the cause of
	the princes. How can they do otherwise?

	These princes referred to by Will Martin are not representatives of the
	people they rule. They used to spend most of the time europe indulging
	in various things. They have no support in the people. Their influence
	is very much limited to their capital city. Why did not the feudal
	lords in europe become independent?

	-Ramamohan
	paturi@harvard

	P.S: It is not my tendency to generalize from an instance. My attack
	on western prejudice is warranted since it is overwhelming.