It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua
----- Original Message ----- From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <assam@assamnet.org> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da >>First India was never such a big united country as it is now. **** Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). >>>>> First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. ***** The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. >>>>>> The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. ***** This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? >>>>>The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians are trying to make is this. First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. Then the Marathas were also out. Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India only under the British. Today India is one country not because of any unity but because of its diversity which cannot be defined under any political science. Imagnice Europe under one country because of one foreign language (say) Hindi. Can one imagine? The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. That is the point. Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" <krish_gau at yahoo.com> To: <assam at assamnet.org> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajenda What can be the point here. I see from Wiki that the Maurya India is close to today's India This was followed by Invasions by Greeks, Sakas etc when it again got disintegrated. >>>That is because they historians and thought leaders. This is a good topic one can debate long. I think they have their points. Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rajib Das" <rajibdas at yahoo.com> To: "A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world" <assam at assamnet.org>; <umesh.sh05 at post.harvard.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I fail to understand why SOME historians (and thought leaders) continue to insist that India is a country that was never meant to be. The exact political boundaries are new (as in 60 years old) - but there is enough political thought through the course of history - before the Brits came in or even before the Islamic invasion of India - to warrant the idea of India. --- Rajen & Ajanta Barua <barua25 at hotmail.com> wrote: > Umesh: > India is best described as 'an elected > dictatorship'. > Rajenda > ----- Original Message ----- > From: umesh sharma > To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam > from around the world > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:52 PM > Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After > Gandhi- Bengal democracy > > > Rajen-da > > Good example of India-Shining rhetoric. > But just becos there is peace (despite armed > militancy in 25% of India's districts- NE, Kashmir, > Bihar, Central India, LTTE South India etc etc) and > not many are dying of starvation and voting not by > reading election manifestos but by recognizing > cartoons (election symbols) of political parties . > > Even democratically elected communist govt (an > anamoly) of West Bengal is allegedly in power for > past 25 years non-stop since a nexus prevents > anyone from voting against the "party" or else > face ex-communication a-la erstwhile Pope's rule in > Europe in medieval times -as per a Bengali > researcher . > > But ofcourse noone can deny that despite is > shortcomings the India that is Bharat is growing - > despite spoofs like Hollywood's "Borat" movie > (Bharat ??) from Kazakhstan (Rajasthan???) > > Umesh > > > Rajen & Ajanta Barua <barua25 at hotmail.com> wrote: > Following may be added from another review about > the book: > > India is the country that was never expected to > ever be a country. In the late 19th century, Sir > John Strachey, a senior British official, grandly > opined that the territory's diverse states simply > could not possess any sort of unity, physical, > political, social or religious. Strachey, clearly, > was wrong: India today is a unified entity and a > rising global power. Even so, it continues to defy > explanation. India's existence, says Guha, an > internationally known scholar (Environmentalism: A > Global History), has also been an anomaly for > academic political science, according to whose > axioms cultural heterogeneity and poverty do not > make a nation, still less a democratic one. Yet > India continues to exist. Guha's aim in this > startlingly ambitious political, cultural and social > survey is to explain why and how. He cheerfully > concludes that India's continuing existence results > from its unique diversity and its refusal to be > pigeonholed into such conventional political models > as Anglo-American liberalism, French republicanism, > atheistic communism or Islamist theocracy. India is > proudly sui generis, and with August 15, 2007, being > the 60th anniversary of Indian independence, Guha's > magisterial history of India since that day comes > not a moment too soon. 32 pages of b&w illus., 8 > maps. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rajen & Ajanta Barua > To: assam at assamnet.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:42 PM > Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After > Gandhi > > > Good review of a grand 900 page book on India > recently published: > > India After Gandhi: The History of the World's > Largest Democracy by Ramachandra Guha > > From The Washington Post's Book > World/washingtonpost.com > Reviewed by George Perkovich > A toast to India on its 60th birthday: No > country has more heroically pursued the promise of > democracy. Against the odds of staggering poverty, > conflicting religious passions, linguistic > pluralism, regional separatism, caste injustice and > natural resource scarcity, Indians have lifted > themselves largely by their own sandal straps to > become a stalwart democracy and emerging global > power. India has risen with epic drama -- a > nonviolent struggle for independence followed by > mass mayhem and bloodletting, dynastic succession > and assassination, military victory and defeat, > starvation succeeded by green revolution, political > leaders as saints, sinners and sexual ascetics. And > yet, the Indian story rarely has been told and is > practically unknown to Americans. > India After Gandhi masterfully fills the void. > India needs a wise and judicious narrator to convey > its scale, diversity and chaos -- to describe the > whirlwind without getting lost in it. It needs a > biographer neither besotted by love nor enraged by > disappointment. Ramachandra Guha, a historian who > has taught at Stanford and Yale and now lives in > Bangalore, has given democratic India the rich, > well-paced history it deserves. > Much will be new to American readers. > Large-scale conflicts in India's northeast between > tribal groups and the center have been as enduring, > and in some ways as important, as the more familiar > violence in Kashmir. The framing of India's > constitution from 1946 through 1949 should induce > awe, especially in light of Iraq's post-Saddam > experience. > In the midst of Hindu-Muslim bloodshed, a > flood of 8 million refugees, starvation, and other > profound conflicts, Indian representatives worked > out constitutional provisions to protect minorities, > keep religion out of state power, correct thousands > of years of caste discrimination and redistribute > power and wealth accumulated by still-regnant > princely states. This was done with no external > guidance or pressure. The drafting committee was > chaired by an "untouchable," B.R. Ambedkar -- > analogies are inexact, but imagine if James Madison > at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention had > been a freed slave. > Specialists will quicken over insights from > the private papers of Indira Gandhi's confidant, > P.N. Haksar, who gave his papers to Guha. These > documents reveal, among other things, that it was > the Soviet Union that proposed the 1971 treaty of > cooperation and friendship between the two > countries, and that suspicion of China motivated > both nations more than was appreciated at the time. > Miniature biographies of grassroots leaders > and movements also enliven Guha's storytelling. Jay > Aprakash Narayan -- "JP" -- plays a leading role. A > onetime friend of Nehru who became the bête noir of > his daughter, Indira Gandhi, JP led a massive > movement for radical governmental reform in 1974-75, > which moved Indira Gandhi to declare a national > emergency and suspend democracy. > Some themes go under-explored: For example, > why has the Indian Army abstained from interfering > in politics, unlike the military in many other > developing countries? And why has India given short > shrift to primary education, even as it has > developed technological institutes that rival M.I.T? > Many chapters begin or end with India's future > in doubt. "India is almost infinitely depressing," > Aldous Huxley wrote in 1961, "for there seems to be > no solution to its problems in any way that any of > us [in the West] regard as acceptable." He predicted > that "when Nehru goes, the government will become a > military dictatorship." Guha records that "ever > since the country was formed there have also been > many Indians who have seen the survival of India as > being on the line, some (the patriots) speaking or > writing in fear, others (the secessionists or > revolutionaries) with anticipation." > Yet, marvelously, India's survival as a > democracy seems more assured than ever. Less clear > is the nature of its relationship with America. > Since 2005, the U.S. and Indian governments have > moved toward nuclear cooperation, reversing 30 years > of U.S. policy against nuclear assistance to > countries that refuse to sign the Nuclear > Nonproliferation Treaty. > Washington clearly views India as a > counterbalance to China's strategic power. But Guha > records an important historical parallel. > In 1962, China crossed disputed boundaries in > the northwest and northeast of India. A shocked > Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru abandoned > nonalignment and pleaded for emergency U.S. military > assistance. Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith wrote > to President Kennedy: "The only Asian country which > really stands in [China's] way is India and pari > passu the only Western country that is assuming > responsibility is the United States. . . . We should > expect to make use of India's political position, > geographical position, political power and manpower > or anyhow ask." > Four decades later, another Harvard > professor-cum-American ambassador to India, Robert > Blackwill, championed the proposed nuclear deal with > similar reasoning. As different as the presidents > they served, Blackwill and Galbraith were tempted by > strategic abstraction and a desire to raise "their" > country -- India -- in American priorities. Yet > supplying arms to India in 1962 did not make India > any more deferential to U.S. foreign policy. > Washington will delude itself again if it thinks > that nuclear India will be a pliant instrument in > its === message truncated ===> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
