Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Sandip-da,
Thats not an answer to Rajen-da's question.
***I do not live in the US of A :-)
Ques: Where do you live and what do you believe in life?
Did you lose something in translation?
:-)
Umesh
SANDIP DUTTA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not live in the US of A :-)
About mission - I am yet to define my mission statement. Would be glad if you
helped me - but for that you need to be clear about your own mission first :-))
Rgds,
SD
- Original Message
From: Rajen Ajanta Barua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 10:42:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
DIV { MARGIN:0px;} Where do you live and what do you believe in life?
What is your mission in life?
Rajenda
- Original Message -
From: SANDIP DUTTA
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Dear Rajen Da,
Exactly what has motivated you to start this discussion? As far as we are
concerned, you are an NRA with American citizenship residing in America. Do you
seriously think these views really matter to even a miniscule of the Indian
ruling polity? I think the discussion on maps and boundaries was settled in '47.
Even if India runs on the dirty word Vote Bank Politics, its the voter whose
opinion matters. That is why BJP got booted out after India Shining campaign. -
and Mayavati got power back in UP. So are you a voter?.
It may also be vote bank politics of a slightly different nature that
motivated Laloo to transform IR.
If the intention is to make a difference, why not come back and join Indian
politics?
Incidentally, TOI is running a campaign called Future leaders of India. A
bulk of the interested people who now want to join politics are highly paid
professionals from South India.
Rgds,
SD
- Original Message
From: Rajen Ajanta Barua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 8:10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
If you want to know the
truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of
India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly
see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were
ruled by him.
Nobody is denying that.
But that is not the whole South India.
The Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included
in Ashoka's kingdom.
During the British Raj, India was divided into many many small kingdoms.
- Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
To: assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:16 PM
Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Someone with closed eyes will not see even the
obvious.
No point in any more debate. If you want to know the
truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of
India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly
see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were
ruled by him.
Rest ... it is upto you if you want to believe History
or create your own history
As for British India .. again you can refer to
History book to get your facts straightened.
Actually, it is you who need to look for a cure for
Heartburn ... India is united and will remain united
inspite of heartburn of some.
The above does not show that
Means the above does not show that your statement
is true that it included
the south.
The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas,
Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south
were not included in
Ashoka's kingdom.
As well as the whole NE is not iincluded in Ashoka's
empire which was the
largest Mauryan empire.
In fact it shrank after that.
The present geographical area of India was never
under one country whichever
way you look at it.
Not even under the British which contained many many
small kingdoms.
Now you can split hair and try to cure your
heartburn.
Rajenda
- Original Message -
From: Krishnendu Chakraborty krish_gau at
yahoo.com
To: assam at assamnet.org
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi-
Bengal democracy
shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day
Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN.
The above does not show that
I will let netters decide that. Or you can easily
visualise it by tracing a map of India of same size
and superimposing on this map.
The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas,
Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included
in
Ashoka's kingdom.
As I said ... we were discussing APPROXIMATION. If
you exclude NE, Ashoka's kingdom included 90% of
landmass which now form presnt India (including
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
:-) - Original Message From: umesh sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 12:39:57 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Sandip-da, Thats not an answer to Rajen-da's question. ***I do not live in the US of A :-) Ques: Where do you live and what do you believe in life? Did you lose something in translation? :-) Umesh SANDIP DUTTA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not live in the US of A :-) About mission - I am yet to define my mission statement. Would be glad if you helped me - but for that you need to be clear about your own mission first :-)) Rgds, SD - Original Message From: Rajen Ajanta Barua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 10:42:34 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Where do you live and what do you believe in life? What is your mission in life? Rajenda - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Dear Rajen Da, Exactly what has motivated you to start this discussion? As far as we are concerned, you are an NRA with American citizenship residing in America. Do you seriously think these views really matter to even a miniscule of the Indian ruling polity? I think the discussion on maps and boundaries was settled in '47. Even if India runs on the dirty word Vote Bank Politics, its the voter whose opinion matters. That is why BJP got booted out after India Shining campaign. - and Mayavati got power back in UP. So are you a voter?. It may also be vote bank politics of a slightly different nature that motivated Laloo to transform IR. If the intention is to make a difference, why not come back and join Indian politics? Incidentally, TOI is running a campaign called Future leaders of India. A bulk of the interested people who now want to join politics are highly paid professionals from South India. Rgds, SD - Original Message From: Rajen Ajanta Barua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 8:10:26 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Nobody is denying that. But that is not the whole South India. The Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. During the British Raj, India was divided into many many small kingdoms. - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Someone with closed eyes will not see even the obvious. No point in any more debate. If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Rest ... it is upto you if you want to believe History or create your own history As for British India .. again you can refer to History book to get your facts straightened. Actually, it is you who need to look for a cure for Heartburn ... India is united and will remain united inspite of heartburn of some. The above does not show that Means the above does not show that your statement is true that it included the south. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As well as the whole NE is not iincluded in Ashoka's empire which was the largest Mauryan empire. In fact it shrank after that. The present geographical area of India was never under one country whichever way you look at it. Not even under the British which contained many many small kingdoms. Now you can split hair and try to cure your heartburn. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty krish_gau at yahoo.com To: assam at assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. The above does not show that I will let netters decide that. Or you can easily visualise it by tracing a map of India of same size and superimposing on this map. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
I said: South was Under Maurya kings (Ashoka et al) which was BEFORE Moghols Let us not reinvent the wheel of Indian history here. The south (the Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputras, Tambapani (Sri Lanka) etc) was never under Ashoka. We know because these are his neighboring countries where Ashoka sent goodwill ambassadors. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:28 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajen-da Seems like you are having difficulty reading . Let me try to explain one last time - You Said: the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. I said: South was Under Maurya kings (Ashoka et al) which was BEFORE Moghols You Said: The pre British aggresions took place only in the North West India , in Punjab upto Delhi. I Said: Mughal aggression (pre British) included East and South India. This is History as well as supported by you (your quote: South was UNDER Moghols) When was India a sovereign country? Under Maurya. (It is Sovereign now too). What was the name of the country? Immaterial ... there was a landmass approx equal to current political boundary which was ruled by Mauryas. If the Indians fought back, then what seems to be problem? It gives heartburn to some people who would not have existed had Indians been annihilated like the Native Indians Read it again. What is the difference between what I say (red) and what you say (blue). I think you are confused about the meaning of the English words 'before' and 'under'. These are two different words with two different meanings. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:22 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy The pre British aggresions took place only in the North West India , in Punjab upto Delhi. Read your post again Rajenda. the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. (It is in fact incorrect that South never came under Indian king before Mughal). History says that a large part of South as well as East India was under Mughals during their peak. Why the Indian could not fight back? India is a Sovereign country because they fought back .. unlike Native Americans who could not. When was India a soverign country? What was the name of the country? If the Indians fought back, then what seems to be problem? And the British never actually attacked India. The British were just happened to be there when India was falling apart-at least that is one way of looking at things. Please re-read History. Battle of Plassey, batle with Tipu . BTW, had there not been numerous aggresions (by Mughal, Brits etc) India would probably have been in a much larger country The pre British aggresions took place only in the North West India , in Punjab upto Delhi. What prevented the rest of India to stand on its own? I can't understand why Indians always blame its own downfall on foreign aggtressions in the north. Why the Indian could not fight back? And the British never actually attacked India. The British were just happened to be there when India was falling apart-at least that is one way of looking at things. Read history. You must find your own answer what happened in Indian history. Rajenda Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ___ 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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
You can check Ashoka's empire in any history book (handy reference -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Asoka) and it shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. The above does not show that I said: South was Under Maurya kings (Ashoka et al) which was BEFORE Moghols The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:25 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I thought the basis of argument was if a land mass which is APPROXIMATELY equal to present India. You can check Ashoka's empire in any history book (handy reference -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Asoka) and it shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. Sri Lanka -- give me a break we are discussing India at this level you can even bring up Malaysia, Indonesia what not !! I said: South was Under Maurya kings (Ashoka et al) which was BEFORE Moghols Let us not reinvent the wheel of Indian history here. , Tambapani (Sri Lanka) etc) was never under Ashoka. We know because these are his neighboring countries where Ashoka sent goodwill ambassadors. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty krish_gau at yahoo.com To: assam at assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:28 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajen-da Seems like you are having difficulty reading . Let me try to explain one last time - You Said: the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. I said: South was Under Maurya kings (Ashoka et al) which was BEFORE Moghols You Said: The pre British aggresions took place only in the North West India , in Punjab upto Delhi. I Said: Mughal aggression (pre British) included East and South India. This is History as well as supported by you (your quote: South was UNDER Moghols) When was India a sovereign country? Under Maurya. (It is Sovereign now too). What was the name of the country? Immaterial ... there was a landmass approx equal to current political boundary which was ruled by Mauryas. If the Indians fought back, then what seems to be problem? It gives heartburn to some people who would not have existed had Indians been annihilated like the Native Indians Read it again. What is the difference between what I say (red) and what you say (blue). I think you are confused about the meaning of the English words 'before' and 'under'. These are two different words with two different meanings. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty krish_gau at yahoo.com To: assam at assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:22 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy The pre British aggresions took place only in the North West India , in Punjab upto Delhi. Read your post again Rajenda. the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. (It is in fact incorrect that South never came under Indian king before Mughal). History says that a large part of South as well as East India was under Mughals during their peak. Why the Indian could not fight back? India is a Sovereign country because they fought back .. unlike Native Americans who could not. When was India a soverign country? What was the name of the country? If the Indians fought back, then what seems to be problem? And the British never actually attacked India. The British were just happened to be there when India was falling apart-at least that is one way of looking at things. Please re-read History. Battle of Plassey, batle with Tipu . BTW, had there not been numerous aggresions (by Mughal, Brits etc) India would probably have been in a much larger country The pre British aggresions took place only in the North West India , in Punjab upto Delhi. What prevented the rest of India to stand on its own? I can't understand why Indians always blame its own downfall on foreign aggtressions in the north. Why the Indian could not fight back? And the British never actually attacked India. The British were just happened to be there when India was falling apart-at least that is one way of looking at things. Read history. You must find your own answer what happened in Indian history. Rajenda Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ___ assam mailing list assam at
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
The above does not show that Means the above does not show that your statement is true that it included the south. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As well as the whole NE is not iincluded in Ashoka's empire which was the largest Mauryan empire. In fact it shrank after that. The present geographical area of India was never under one country whichever way you look at it. Not even under the British which contained many many small kingdoms. Now you can split hair and try to cure your heartburn. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. The above does not show that I will let netters decide that. Or you can easily visualise it by tracing a map of India of same size and superimposing on this map. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As I said ... we were discussing APPROXIMATION. If you exclude NE, Ashoka's kingdom included 90% of landmass which now form presnt India (including South). I guess 90% is a good approximation. If you talk about Exact political boundary, over half of today's countries will not pass your test. You can check Ashoka's empire in any history book (handy reference -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Asoka) and it shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. The above does not show that I said: South was Under Maurya kings (Ashoka et al) which was BEFORE Moghols The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. Rajenda Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ___ 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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Nobody is denying that. But that is not the whole South India. The Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. During the British Raj, India was divided into many many small kingdoms. - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Someone with closed eyes will not see even the obvious. No point in any more debate. If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Rest ... it is upto you if you want to believe History or create your own history As for British India ... again you can refer to History book to get your facts straightened. Actually, it is you who need to look for a cure for Heartburn ... India is united and will remain united inspite of heartburn of some. The above does not show that Means the above does not show that your statement is true that it included the south. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As well as the whole NE is not iincluded in Ashoka's empire which was the largest Mauryan empire. In fact it shrank after that. The present geographical area of India was never under one country whichever way you look at it. Not even under the British which contained many many small kingdoms. Now you can split hair and try to cure your heartburn. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty krish_gau at yahoo.com To: assam at assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. The above does not show that I will let netters decide that. Or you can easily visualise it by tracing a map of India of same size and superimposing on this map. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As I said ... we were discussing APPROXIMATION. If you exclude NE, Ashoka's kingdom included 90% of landmass which now form presnt India (including South). I guess 90% is a good approximation. If you talk about Exact political boundary, over half of today's countries will not pass your test. Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ 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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Dear Rajen Da, Exactly what has motivated you to start this discussion? As far as we are concerned, you are an NRA with American citizenship residing in America. Do you seriously think these views really matter to even a miniscule of the Indian ruling polity? I think the discussion on maps and boundaries was settled in '47. Even if India runs on the dirty word Vote Bank Politics, its the voter whose opinion matters. That is why BJP got booted out after India Shining campaign. - and Mayavati got power back in UP. So are you a voter?. It may also be vote bank politics of a slightly different nature that motivated Laloo to transform IR. If the intention is to make a difference, why not come back and join Indian politics? Incidentally, TOI is running a campaign called Future leaders of India. A bulk of the interested people who now want to join politics are highly paid professionals from South India. Rgds, SD - Original Message From: Rajen Ajanta Barua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 8:10:26 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Nobody is denying that. But that is not the whole South India. The Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. During the British Raj, India was divided into many many small kingdoms. - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Someone with closed eyes will not see even the obvious. No point in any more debate. If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Rest ... it is upto you if you want to believe History or create your own history As for British India .. again you can refer to History book to get your facts straightened. Actually, it is you who need to look for a cure for Heartburn ... India is united and will remain united inspite of heartburn of some. The above does not show that Means the above does not show that your statement is true that it included the south. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As well as the whole NE is not iincluded in Ashoka's empire which was the largest Mauryan empire. In fact it shrank after that. The present geographical area of India was never under one country whichever way you look at it. Not even under the British which contained many many small kingdoms. Now you can split hair and try to cure your heartburn. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty krish_gau at yahoo.com To: assam at assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. The above does not show that I will let netters decide that. Or you can easily visualise it by tracing a map of India of same size and superimposing on this map. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As I said ... we were discussing APPROXIMATION. If you exclude NE, Ashoka's kingdom included 90% of landmass which now form presnt India (including South). I guess 90% is a good approximation. If you talk about Exact political boundary, over half of today's countries will not pass your test. Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Where do you live and what do you believe in life? What is your mission in life? Rajenda - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Dear Rajen Da, Exactly what has motivated you to start this discussion? As far as we are concerned, you are an NRA with American citizenship residing in America. Do you seriously think these views really matter to even a miniscule of the Indian ruling polity? I think the discussion on maps and boundaries was settled in '47. Even if India runs on the dirty word Vote Bank Politics, its the voter whose opinion matters. That is why BJP got booted out after India Shining campaign. - and Mayavati got power back in UP. So are you a voter?. It may also be vote bank politics of a slightly different nature that motivated Laloo to transform IR. If the intention is to make a difference, why not come back and join Indian politics? Incidentally, TOI is running a campaign called Future leaders of India. A bulk of the interested people who now want to join politics are highly paid professionals from South India. Rgds, SD - Original Message From: Rajen Ajanta Barua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 8:10:26 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Nobody is denying that. But that is not the whole South India. The Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. During the British Raj, India was divided into many many small kingdoms. - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Someone with closed eyes will not see even the obvious. No point in any more debate. If you want to know the truth try the test which I mentioned put a map of India on map of Ashoka's kingdom and you will clearly see that presnt KArnataka, AP and parts of TN were ruled by him. Rest ... it is upto you if you want to believe History or create your own history As for British India .. again you can refer to History book to get your facts straightened. Actually, it is you who need to look for a cure for Heartburn ... India is united and will remain united inspite of heartburn of some. The above does not show that Means the above does not show that your statement is true that it included the south. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As well as the whole NE is not iincluded in Ashoka's empire which was the largest Mauryan empire. In fact it shrank after that. The present geographical area of India was never under one country whichever way you look at it. Not even under the British which contained many many small kingdoms. Now you can split hair and try to cure your heartburn. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty krish_gau at yahoo.com To: assam at assamnet.org Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy shows that Ashoka's kingdom included present day Karnataka, Andhra and parts of TN. The above does not show that I will let netters decide that. Or you can easily visualise it by tracing a map of India of same size and superimposing on this map. The above also shows that Cholas, Pandyas, Satyaputras, Kerelaputra in south were not included in Ashoka's kingdom. As I said ... we were discussing APPROXIMATION. If you exclude NE, Ashoka's kingdom included 90% of landmass which now form presnt India (including South). I guess 90% is a good approximation. If you talk about Exact political boundary, over half of today's countries will not pass your test. Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
America was founded by the Europeans. When they came they brought not only the European languages but also the European religions and cultures. Thus Christianity as well as Englsih and all other European languages are brought from Europe which make the big Western culture now. Red Indian culture has been wiped out for all practical purposes. Thus it is irrelevant to say that English language and Christianity are foreign to America. Because these were there from day one of American modern history. In America it is the mother tongue of the huge majority population. It is true that in America both Christianity as well as the English language had undergone much change. It is often said that America and England are two countries separated by one language. In case of India, it is a different ball game. The English people did not establish the Indian culture. A foreign language, English, was given to the Indians only about a hundred years ago. No Indians had any roots in English language. The British left but the Indians stuck to their language and many other English items (like Cricket, Democracy, our dress, educational institutions, civic laws etc). It is true that we are trying our best to Indianise the language so much so that it is often called Hindlish and not English. Even now there is a strong section of Indians who are opposed to Hindlish. (as well as the others). Even now English is considered a foreign language by a strong section of the Indian population. I would say in another hundred years probably Hindlish will penetrate more to the Indian culture. But I donot think it will ever go the Indian lower class; it will remain a middle class language of communication. It is probably now 20/30% Indians who speak Hindlish. May be in another hundred years, it will be 30/40% may be. But it will never be the mother tongue of any sizable section of Indians. The very fact that you, Ram and others feel offended when I point out, like a sizable section of Indians, that English is a foreign language goes to prove how much we Indians depend on Hindlish, how we Indians love Hindlish. Probably Ram and you are right. Probably, we can say of Hindlish, like the game of Cricket, is an Indian item. But we should be ready to admit that these are imported items given to us by the British. We should feel bad about it. In fact one great quality of us the Indians, unlike the Chinese, is the quality to absorb foreign things like sponge absorbs water. In the ancient times also, we absorbed many foreign elements, like idol worship, astrology etc. Rajen Barua - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:09 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, going by your logic, English is a foreign language in US too which was brought in by Europeans. That unlike India Native languages have been killed in US is a different topic. Opinions are never debatable! Facts are. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy BTW I am not looking for an response on this from you. I think this is a waste of time even to debate on this issue. It truely is a colossal waste. Just to let you know, I didn't say what I said just because I felt like it, there were very valid reasons, and your foreign comment only triggered it. and nothing more. This is a hot topic in India today. If you are interested, you might want to look into the New York Times articles from yesterday (Sept. 28th) and also about Mulayam Singh Yadav and his comments. Anyway --- I have totally lost interest in the topic by now. Thanks --Ram On 9/28/07, Rajen Ajanta Barua barua25 at hotmail.com wrote: Ram: If you insist to know my views: English is a foreign language in India because: 1) It is not rooted in India. 2) There is nothing Indian about it except the fact the middle class Indians use it to overcome the difficulty of their too many languages. 3) It was never a language in India during the last 5000 years of India's history except during the British colonial rule. 4) We even cannot say that we have been using this language for 100 years even by the middle class. 5) It can be compared only to Persian language which was also at one time imposed as a court language in India during the Moghol rules and which is dead in India now. 6) Even today, even after 100 years, it is spoken in India by only 1.5% of Indians (quoted from email net - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it-KC.) 7) Nobody in India, even the majority of middle class Indians like you, would consider English as an Indian language. and many
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Bengali is probably the only other Indian language which has Global recognition ... I would say, sure; Bengali language has global recognition by the Bengalis. Did you know that in many parts of Bangaldesh, Bhutan and Burma, people speak Assamese? Thus Assamese also has global recognition by the Assamese. That however does not make any change of the status. Barua - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:32 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy There have been enough flamewars in this forum over language so I would not jump into it . However, you might find it interesting to know that apart from Hindi and Urdu, Bengali is probably the only other Indian language which has Global recognition not because of India but because it is the national language of Bangladesh. In fact I found quite a few Bengali books and movies in Boston Public Library ! I think instead of Hindi, Govertnment of india better to declare Bengali as official language of India. Infact, if GOI able to declare it as global langauge it is even better. What do you think Mr. Sandip dutta! SANDIP DUTTA pseude at yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I think because language is involved, people get more touchy. But you can look at it in another way. In private sector companies, many a times mgmt brings in standards or practices that have to be adopted whether a section of people like it or not. Eg. GE insists that all its employees have to be Six-Sigma quality certified. Many dont understand what it is and others dont appreciate the relevance of it to their work. But GE nevertheless insists and enforces it. So forcing down something may not always be a problem but could be an oppurtunity as well. It depends how one looks at it. Also I am not speaking for the entire community, but you will have to appreciate that the younger generation is far more open to Hindi than the earlier one. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: muktikam phukan muktikamp at yahoo.co.in To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam at assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:32:35 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Dear Sri Dutta Because I m in a Govt PSU, I seen the forcible push to make Hindi Our Language. Thats why I said, don't speak for the whole assamese community. U'll be in a minority. Regards Muktikam SANDIP DUTTA pseude at yahoo.com wrote: Dear Mr. Phukan, If the deputy director of a Govt owned PSU does not recognize Hindi as the national language inspite of its official status, then its pointless to continue debating further. Best wishes. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: muktikam phukan muktikamp at yahoo.co.in To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam at assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:02:22 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Dear Sri Dutta I am with a PSU. But here ends the debate. Because u recognise Hindi as a National language and I don't. For me its just another Modern Indian Language spoken predominantly in North India. Regards Muktikam Phukan Deputy Director (NR) Petroleum Conservation Research Association Sanrakshan Bhawan,10, Bhikaiji Cama Place,New Delhi 110066 Ph: +91 11 26198856 Ext 385,Res: +91 120 2452892,Mob: +91 9818598565 email: phukanm at pcra.org , muktikamp at yahoo.co.in SANDIP DUTTA pseude at yahoo.com wrote: Because its the national language. When you say Hindi Fortnight, I assume you are in a Government Job ? Rgds, SD - Original Message From: muktikam phukan muktikamp at yahoo.co.in To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam at assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:41:27 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Dear Sri Dutta Learning new languages is definitely good. No question about that. But why specifically HINDI ? I don't see any reason behind that. Regards Muktikam SANDIP DUTTA pseude at yahoo.com wrote: I am not supposed to equate - but why? And Assam and Hindi heartland are different culturally and linguistically - is that an excuse for not picking up a new language? Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: muktikam phukan muktikamp at yahoo.co.in To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam at assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:49:17 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Yes Mr Dutta. I'd rather do business in English all the time than using Hindi in Office. Only in times like Hindi Fortnight do I use Hindi. I am not ashamed of admitting it. And pl don't equate with things back home as regards 'Hindi
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
We should feel bad about it. Correction: We should NOT feel bad about it. The Chinese donot feel bad when they say that Buddhism is a foreign religion imported to China from India. So the Japanese. Barua - Original Message - From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy America was founded by the Europeans. When they came they brought not only the European languages but also the European religions and cultures. Thus Christianity as well as Englsih and all other European languages are brought from Europe which make the big Western culture now. Red Indian culture has been wiped out for all practical purposes. Thus it is irrelevant to say that English language and Christianity are foreign to America. Because these were there from day one of American modern history. In America it is the mother tongue of the huge majority population. It is true that in America both Christianity as well as the English language had undergone much change. It is often said that America and England are two countries separated by one language. In case of India, it is a different ball game. The English people did not establish the Indian culture. A foreign language, English, was given to the Indians only about a hundred years ago. No Indians had any roots in English language. The British left but the Indians stuck to their language and many other English items (like Cricket, Democracy, our dress, educational institutions, civic laws etc). It is true that we are trying our best to Indianise the language so much so that it is often called Hindlish and not English. Even now there is a strong section of Indians who are opposed to Hindlish. (as well as the others). Even now English is considered a foreign language by a strong section of the Indian population. I would say in another hundred years probably Hindlish will penetrate more to the Indian culture. But I donot think it will ever go the Indian lower class; it will remain a middle class language of communication. It is probably now 20/30% Indians who speak Hindlish. May be in another hundred years, it will be 30/40% may be. But it will never be the mother tongue of any sizable section of Indians. The very fact that you, Ram and others feel offended when I point out, like a sizable section of Indians, that English is a foreign language goes to prove how much we Indians depend on Hindlish, how we Indians love Hindlish. Probably Ram and you are right. Probably, we can say of Hindlish, like the game of Cricket, is an Indian item. But we should be ready to admit that these are imported items given to us by the British. We should feel bad about it. In fact one great quality of us the Indians, unlike the Chinese, is the quality to absorb foreign things like sponge absorbs water. In the ancient times also, we absorbed many foreign elements, like idol worship, astrology etc. Rajen Barua - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:09 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, going by your logic, English is a foreign language in US too which was brought in by Europeans. That unlike India Native languages have been killed in US is a different topic. Opinions are never debatable! Facts are. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy BTW I am not looking for an response on this from you. I think this is a waste of time even to debate on this issue. It truely is a colossal waste. Just to let you know, I didn't say what I said just because I felt like it, there were very valid reasons, and your foreign comment only triggered it. and nothing more. This is a hot topic in India today. If you are interested, you might want to look into the New York Times articles from yesterday (Sept. 28th) and also about Mulayam Singh Yadav and his comments. Anyway --- I have totally lost interest in the topic by now. Thanks --Ram On 9/28/07, Rajen Ajanta Barua barua25 at hotmail.com wrote: Ram: If you insist to know my views: English is a foreign language in India because: 1) It is not rooted in India. 2) There is nothing Indian about it except the fact the middle class Indians use it to overcome the difficulty of their too many languages. 3) It was never a language in India during the last 5000 years of India's history except during the British colonial rule. 4) We even cannot say that we have been using
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
India is united just because of English is an absurd logic. *** It would be absurd only to those who are unable to deal with reality. Had it not been for the British colonial enterprise, there would NOT be any India. And Indians today would not be able to communicate with each other without English, and thus pretend it is a nation. India is united Heh-heh At 6:30 PM -0700 9/29/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty wrote: Rajenda, What you mean is had Indians been anihilated by British then English could have been considered as a Native Language for India ! I have no qualms if you consider English as a foreign/Indian language whatsover but to say that just because of English is an absurd logic. As far as absorption goes, in current world it is a universal phenomenon ... even Chinese are now learning English bigtime. America was founded by the Europeans. When they came they brought not only the European languages but also the European religions and cultures. Thus Christianity as well as Englsih and all other European languages are brought from Europe which make the big Western culture now. Red Indian culture has been wiped out for all practical purposes. Thus it is irrelevant to say that English language and Christianity are foreign to America. Because these were there from day one of American modern history. In America it is the mother tongue of the huge majority population. It is true that in America both Christianity as well as the English language had undergone much change. It is often said that America and England are two countries separated by one language. In case of India, it is a different ball game. The English people did not establish the Indian culture. A foreign language, English, was given to the Indians only about a hundred years ago. No Indians had any roots in English language. The British left but the Indians stuck to their language and many other English items (like Cricket, Democracy, our dress, educational institutions, civic laws etc). It is true that we are trying our best to Indianise the language so much so that it is often called Hindlish and not English. Even now there is a strong section of Indians who are opposed to Hindlish. (as well as the others). Even now English is considered a foreign language by a strong section of the Indian population. I would say in another hundred years probably Hindlish will penetrate more to the Indian culture. But I donot think it will ever go the Indian lower class; it will remain a middle class language of communication. It is probably now 20/30% Indians who speak Hindlish. May be in another hundred years, it will be 30/40% may be. But it will never be the mother tongue of any sizable section of Indians. The very fact that you, Ram and others feel offended when I point out, like a sizable section of Indians, that English is a foreign language goes to prove how much we Indians depend on Hindlish, how we Indians love Hindlish. Probably Ram and you are right. Probably, we can say of Hindlish, like the game of Cricket, is an Indian item. But we should be ready to admit that these are imported items given to us by the British. We should feel bad about it. In fact one great quality of us the Indians, unlike the Chinese, is the quality to absorb foreign things like sponge absorbs water. In the ancient times also, we absorbed many foreign elements, like idol worship, astrology etc. Rajen Barua - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:09 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, going by your logic, English is a foreign language in US too which was brought in by Europeans. That unlike India Native languages have been killed in US is a different topic. Opinions are never debatable! Facts are. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy BTW I am not looking for an response on this from you. I think this is a waste of time even to debate on this issue. It truely is a colossal waste. Just to let you know, I didn't say what I said just because I felt like it, there were very valid reasons, and your foreign comment only triggered it. and nothing more. This is a hot topic in India today. If you are interested, you might want to look into the New York Times articles from yesterday (Sept. 28th) and also about Mulayam Singh Yadav and his comments. Anyway --- I have totally lost interest in the topic by now. Thanks --Ram On 9/28/07
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
even Chinese are now learning English bigtime. Not My Physical Experience at Beijing,Shanghai,Hangzhou and the Yangtze Delta's booming Industrial Centres-- in last 2 years. You do NOT need English(or smatterings by rickshaw wallahs) for Progress! Mother-tongue is OK. You do need EFFECTIVE leadership.India lacks/lacked THAT. Bengal Democracy-this link-is not sure about Bangla/Hindi/English except that they want all the best from all fronts. mm Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:30:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, What you mean is had Indians been anihilated by British then English could have been considered as a Native Language for India ! I have no qualms if you consider English as a foreign/Indian language whatsover but to say that India is united just because of English is an absurd logic. As far as absorption goes, in current world it is a universal phenomenon ... even Chinese are now learning English bigtime.America was founded by the Europeans. When they came they brought not only the European languages but also the European religions and cultures. Thus Christianity as well as Englsih and all other European languages are brought from Europe which make the big Western culture now. Red Indian culture has been wiped out for all practical purposes. Thus it is irrelevant to say that English language and Christianity are foreign to America. Because these were there from day one of American modern history. In America it is the mother tongue of the huge majority population. It is true that in America both Christianity as well as the English language had undergone much change. It is often said that America and England are two countries separated by one language.In case of India, it is a different ball game. The English people did not establish the Indian culture. A foreign language, English, was given to the Indians only about a hundred years ago. No Indians had any roots in English language. The British left but the Indians stuck to their language and many other English items (like Cricket, Democracy, our dress, educational institutions, civic laws etc). It is true that we are trying our best to Indianise the language so much so that it is often called Hindlish and not English. Even now there is a strong section of Indians who are opposed to Hindlish. (as well as the others). Even now English is considered a foreign language by a strong section of the Indian population. I would say in another hundred years probably Hindlish will penetrate more to the Indian culture. But I donot think it will ever go the Indian lower class; it will remain a middle class language of communication. It is probably now 20/30% Indians who speak Hindlish. May be in another hundred years, it will be 30/40% may be. But it will never be the mother tongue of any sizable section of Indians.The very fact that you, Ram and others feel offended when I point out, like a sizable section of Indians, that English is a foreign language goes to prove how much we Indians depend on Hindlish, how we Indians love Hindlish. Probably Ram and you are right. Probably, we can say of Hindlish, like the game of Cricket, is an Indian item. But we should be ready to admit that these are imported items given to us by the British. We should feel bad about it.In fact one great quality of us the Indians, unlike the Chinese, is the quality to absorb foreign things like sponge absorbs water. In the ancient times also, we absorbed many foreign elements, like idol worship, astrology etc. Rajen Barua- Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:09 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, going by your logic, English is a foreign language in US too which was brought in by Europeans.That unlike India Native languages have been killed in US is a different topic.Opinions are never debatable! Facts are. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy BTW I am not looking for an response on this from you. I think this is a waste of time even to debate on this issue.It truely is a colossal waste. Just to let you know, I didn't say what I said just because I felt like it, there were very valid reasons, and your foreign comment only triggered it. and nothing more. This is a hot topic in India today. If you are interested, you might want to look into the New York Times articles from yesterday (Sept. 28th
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
What you mean is had Indians been anihilated by British then English could have been considered as a Native Language for India ! Don't try to twist meaning for nothing. It does not work that way. The British necver came to India to settle down like Europeans went to America to settle. They came to India to trade. to say that India is united just because of English is an absurd logic. Sorry I can't help it. That is the fact, India is a country united by the British with the English language. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:30 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, What you mean is had Indians been anihilated by British then English could have been considered as a Native Language for India ! I have no qualms if you consider English as a foreign/Indian language whatsover but to say that India is united just because of English is an absurd logic. As far as absorption goes, in current world it is a universal phenomenon ... even Chinese are now learning English bigtime. America was founded by the Europeans. When they came they brought not only the European languages but also the European religions and cultures. Thus Christianity as well as Englsih and all other European languages are brought from Europe which make the big Western culture now. Red Indian culture has been wiped out for all practical purposes. Thus it is irrelevant to say that English language and Christianity are foreign to America. Because these were there from day one of American modern history. In America it is the mother tongue of the huge majority population. It is true that in America both Christianity as well as the English language had undergone much change. It is often said that America and England are two countries separated by one language. In case of India, it is a different ball game. The English people did not establish the Indian culture. A foreign language, English, was given to the Indians only about a hundred years ago. No Indians had any roots in English language. The British left but the Indians stuck to their language and many other English items (like Cricket, Democracy, our dress, educational institutions, civic laws etc). It is true that we are trying our best to Indianise the language so much so that it is often called Hindlish and not English. Even now there is a strong section of Indians who are opposed to Hindlish. (as well as the others). Even now English is considered a foreign language by a strong section of the Indian population. I would say in another hundred years probably Hindlish will penetrate more to the Indian culture. But I donot think it will ever go the Indian lower class; it will remain a middle class language of communication. It is probably now 20/30% Indians who speak Hindlish. May be in another hundred years, it will be 30/40% may be. But it will never be the mother tongue of any sizable section of Indians. The very fact that you, Ram and others feel offended when I point out, like a sizable section of Indians, that English is a foreign language goes to prove how much we Indians depend on Hindlish, how we Indians love Hindlish. Probably Ram and you are right. Probably, we can say of Hindlish, like the game of Cricket, is an Indian item. But we should be ready to admit that these are imported items given to us by the British. We should feel bad about it. In fact one great quality of us the Indians, unlike the Chinese, is the quality to absorb foreign things like sponge absorbs water. In the ancient times also, we absorbed many foreign elements, like idol worship, astrology etc. Rajen Barua - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:09 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, going by your logic, English is a foreign language in US too which was brought in by Europeans. That unlike India Native languages have been killed in US is a different topic. Opinions are never debatable! Facts are. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy BTW I am not looking for an response on this from you. I think this is a waste of time even to debate on this issue. It truely is a colossal waste. Just to let you know, I didn't say what I said just because I felt like it, there were very valid reasons, and your foreign comment only triggered it. and nothing more. This is a hot topic in India today. If you are interested, you might want to look into the New York Times
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
BTW, had there not been numerous aggresions (by Mughal, Brits etc) India would probably have been in a much larger country The pre British aggresions took place only in the North West India , in Punjab upto Delhi. What prevented the rest of India to stand on its own? I can't understand why Indians always blame its own downfall on foreign aggtressions in the north. Why the Indian could not fight back? And the British never actually attacked India. The British were just happened to be there when India was falling apart-at least that is one way of looking at things. Read history. You must find your own answer what happened in Indian history. Rajenda - Original Message - From: Krishnendu Chakraborty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:07 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Had it not been for the British colonial enterprise, there would NOT be any India. * Replace the word India with America or Canada or Australia and see how true it is !!! BTW, had there not been numerous aggresions (by Mughal, Brits etc) India would probably have been in a much larger country India is united Heh-heh Except for a couple of hundred terrorists and one or two NRAs, others agree ... India is United .. as I asked you earlier ... show me 10 prominent Assamese who are willing to separate from India... unfortunately you could not :( India is united just because of English is an absurd logic. *** It would be absurd only to those who are unable to deal with reality. Had it not been for the British colonial enterprise, there would NOT be any India. And Indians today would not be able to communicate with each other without English, and thus pretend it is a nation. India is united Heh-heh Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ 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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Dear Mr Sandip Dutta
Congratulations for your proficiency in Hindi, u being , I hope , an
Assamese by birth. This is more significant as presently, being September, the
Hindi Fortnight is going on countrywide.
But please do not speak on behalf of all the assamese on their proficiency in
Hindi. I m in Delhi for the last 6 years. Due to the location of Delhi GoI
policies, I'd to improve my Hindi by compulsion. Otherwise, I'd never had tried
to improve my Hindi. As goes Assam the small towns, Hindi is still not
understood or spoken profieciently. Yes, it has improved a lot. But improvement
is not voluntary. Its because of the media being mostly in Hindi.
Regards
Muktikam
SANDIP DUTTA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hindi has about 350-400 M native speakers.
People like me are not native speakers but our Hindi is as good as any
native. Not just me - but tons of people all across India.
Official statistics difficult to locate - but there could be upto 800 M
people now who speak and understand Hindi (as per wiki)
Rgds,
Sandip
- Original Message
From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:07:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
DIV { MARGIN:0px;} In India, more than 30% are native speakers of
Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the
language. That includes many southern speakers as well
65 and 75% Indians read, write Hindi? Where did you get this statistics?
In our time hardly any Assamese knew Hindi. The GOI big brother must be doing
a good job in Assam.
Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have
proficiency in it.
The power of English.
Barua
- Original Message -
From: SANDIP DUTTA
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave
you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him.
Next you said - indian unity is because of english.
In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between
65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many
southern speakers as well.
Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have
proficiency in it.
English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it
helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you
apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin
doesnt necessarily mean government administration only.
So how can I aggree with your conclusions??
Rgds,
SD
- Original Message
From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
DIV { MARGIN:0px;} now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official
languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin.
Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn
English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today.
In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to
get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point.
So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead.
Thanks
Barua
- Original Message -
From: SANDIP DUTTA
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it
is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the
language of choice for business and admin.
Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner
you do.
Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with
English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His
recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management
consultant as well.
Hope that makes sense.
Rgds,
Sandip
- Original Message
From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
DIV { MARGIN:0px;}I myself
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Yes Mr Dutta. I'd rather do business in English all the time than using Hindi
in Office. Only in times like Hindi Fortnight do I use Hindi. I am not
ashamed of admitting it. And pl don't equate with things back home as regards
'Hindi'.
Assam the Hindi Heartland are not same cultrurally or linguistically.
SANDIP DUTTA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Mr. Muktikam Phukan,
Thanks for the valuable comments.
You are saying you have been in Delhi for 6 years and you learnt Hindi by
compulsion only because of GOI policies?
On one hand we talk of the continuous complaints on integration of other
communities in Assam.
Isnt the reverse true as well? So on the other hand we have people like you
brazenly admitting that you have never wanted to learn Hindi even though you
were in Delhi for 6 long years and will probably continue to reside there.
Thanks for the admission though :-)
Rgds,
Sandip
- Original Message
From: muktikam phukan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:03:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Dear Mr Sandip Dutta
Congratulations for your proficiency in Hindi, u being , I hope , an
Assamese by birth. This is more significant as presently, being September, the
Hindi Fortnight is going on countrywide.
But please do not speak on behalf of all the assamese on their proficiency in
Hindi. I m in Delhi for the last 6 years. Due to the location of Delhi GoI
policies, I'd to improve my Hindi by compulsion. Otherwise, I'd never had tried
to improve my Hindi. As goes Assam the small towns, Hindi is still not
understood or spoken profieciently. Yes, it has improved a lot. But improvement
is not voluntary. Its because of the media being mostly in Hindi.
Regards
Muktikam
SANDIP DUTTA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hindi has about 350-400 M native speakers.
People like me are not native speakers but our Hindi is as good as any
native. Not just me - but tons of people all across India.
Official statistics difficult to locate - but there could be upto 800 M
people now who speak and understand Hindi (as per wiki)
Rgds,
Sandip
- Original Message
From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:07:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
DIV {MARGIN:0px;}In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi
and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the
language. That includes many southern speakers as well
65 and 75% Indians read, write Hindi? Where did you get this statistics?
In our time hardly any Assamese knew Hindi. The GOI big brother must be doing
a good job in Assam.
Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have
proficiency in it.
The power of English.
Barua
- Original Message -
From: SANDIP DUTTA
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave
you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him.
Next you said - indian unity is because of english.
In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between
65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many
southern speakers as well.
Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have
proficiency in it.
English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it
helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you
apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin
doesnt necessarily mean government administration only.
So how can I aggree with your conclusions??
Rgds,
SD
- Original Message
From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
assam@assamnet.org
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
DIV {MARGIN:0px;}now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official
languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin.
Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn
English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today.
In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to
get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point.
So you should start
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Dear Mr. Muktikam Phukan, Thanks for the valuable comments. You are saying you have been in Delhi for 6 years and you learnt Hindi by compulsion only because of GOI policies? On one hand we talk of the continuous complaints on integration of other communities in Assam. Isnt the reverse true as well? So on the other hand we have people like you brazenly admitting that you have never wanted to learn Hindi even though you were in Delhi for 6 long years and will probably continue to reside there. Thanks for the admission though :-) Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: muktikam phukan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:03:35 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Dear Mr Sandip Dutta Congratulations for your proficiency in Hindi, u being , I hope , an Assamese by birth. This is more significant as presently, being September, the Hindi Fortnight is going on countrywide. But please do not speak on behalf of all the assamese on their proficiency in Hindi. I m in Delhi for the last 6 years. Due to the location of Delhi GoI policies, I'd to improve my Hindi by compulsion. Otherwise, I'd never had tried to improve my Hindi. As goes Assam the small towns, Hindi is still not understood or spoken profieciently. Yes, it has improved a lot. But improvement is not voluntary. Its because of the media being mostly in Hindi. Regards Muktikam SANDIP DUTTA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hindi has about 350-400 M native speakers. People like me are not native speakers but our Hindi is as good as any native. Not just me - but tons of people all across India. Official statistics difficult to locate - but there could be upto 800 M people now who speak and understand Hindi (as per wiki) Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:07:28 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well 65 and 75% Indians read, write Hindi? Where did you get this statistics? In our time hardly any Assamese knew Hindi. The GOI big brother must be doing a good job in Assam. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. The power of English. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him. Next you said - indian unity is because of english. In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin doesnt necessarily mean government administration only. So how can I aggree with your conclusions?? Rgds, SD - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
A/- Why do you think I have any qualm at all? I am just statiung the facts for people to acknowledge. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. Is this a fact or not? Can people just stand for the truth without any qualm? Barua - Original Message - From: Alpana B. Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Hi Barua: I didn't quite understand. Your qualm is against which - Hindi, English, or India's being a united country. What do you suggest as a solution? All states should balkanize and use their regional language as the official language? Fine. What will be the official language for Assam then? Assamese or Bodo or any other language that are spoken in different parts of the state? Even for Assamese, would it be the upper-Assamese or the lower-Assamese version of it? Trust all is well with you all. Regards, -Alpana “In order to make spiritual progress you must be patient like a tree and humble like a blade of grass” - Lakshmana Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:50:21 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him. Next you said - indian unity is because of english. In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin doesnt necessarily mean government administration only. So how can I aggree with your conclusions?? Rgds, SD - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua - Original Message
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers actually have very good (if not excellent) knowledge of English and at times local languages wherever they are posted. I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. No wonder we see most of the demands for sovereignity and seperation from foreign settled people who have got disconnected with the way this country works (and still works). Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:00:10 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy 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 This is in fact what is called 'elected dictatorship' going on in West bengal in name of democracy. 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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him. Next you said - indian unity is because of english. In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin doesnt necessarily mean government administration only. So how can I aggree with your conclusions?? Rgds, SD - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers actually have very good (if not excellent) knowledge of English and at times local languages wherever they are posted. I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. No wonder we see most of the demands for sovereignity and seperation from foreign settled people who have got disconnected with the way this country works (and still works). Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:00:10 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy 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 This is in fact what is called 'elected dictatorship' going on in West bengal in name of democracy. 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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well 65 and 75% Indians read, write Hindi? Where did you get this statistics? In our time hardly any Assamese knew Hindi. The GOI big brother must be doing a good job in Assam. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. The power of English. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him. Next you said - indian unity is because of english. In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin doesnt necessarily mean government administration only. So how can I aggree with your conclusions?? Rgds, SD - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers actually have very good (if not excellent) knowledge of English and at times local languages wherever they are posted. I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. No wonder we see most
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Hindi has about 350-400 M native speakers. People like me are not native speakers but our Hindi is as good as any native. Not just me - but tons of people all across India. Official statistics difficult to locate - but there could be upto 800 M people now who speak and understand Hindi (as per wiki) Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:07:28 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well 65 and 75% Indians read, write Hindi? Where did you get this statistics? In our time hardly any Assamese knew Hindi. The GOI big brother must be doing a good job in Assam. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. The power of English. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him. Next you said - indian unity is because of english. In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin doesnt necessarily mean government administration only. So how can I aggree with your conclusions?? Rgds, SD - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
In our time hardly any Assamese knew English. Why not pay a visit to Guwahati and any of the other smaller towns now to see the change :-). In your time, did you have the avenues to learn and appreciate Hindi? In our time, we do. GOI doesnt need to do anything. Private enterprise is driving this. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:07:28 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well 65 and 75% Indians read, write Hindi? Where did you get this statistics? In our time hardly any Assamese knew Hindi. The GOI big brother must be doing a good job in Assam. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. The power of English. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy First you said - to get into the elite, one must learn english. I gave you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him. Next you said - indian unity is because of english. In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well. Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned business and admin. Admin doesnt necessarily mean government administration only. So how can I aggree with your conclusions?? Rgds, SD - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 bw illus., 8 maps. - Original Message - From: Rajen Ajanta Barua To: assam@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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 bw illus., 8 maps. - Original Message - From: Rajen Ajanta Barua To: assam@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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
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 . This is in fact what is called 'elected dictatorship' going on in West bengal in name of democracy. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 bw illus., 8 maps. - Original Message - From: Rajen Ajanta Barua To: assam@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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers actually have very good (if not excellent) knowledge of English and at times local languages wherever they are posted. I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. No wonder we see most of the demands for sovereignity and seperation from foreign settled people who have got disconnected with the way this country works (and still works). Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:00:10 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy 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 . This is in fact what is called 'elected dictatorship' going on in West bengal in name of democracy. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 bw illus., 8 maps. - Original Message - From: Rajen Ajanta Barua To: assam@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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining elite in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua - Original Message - From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers actually have very good (if not excellent) knowledge of English and at times local languages wherever they are posted. I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. No wonder we see most of the demands for sovereignity and seperation from foreign settled people who have got disconnected with the way this country works (and still works). Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: barua25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world assam@assamnet.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:00:10 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy 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 This is in fact what is called 'elected dictatorship' going on in West bengal in name of democracy. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 bw illus., 8 maps. - Original Message - From:Rajen Ajanta Barua To: assam@assamnet.org Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:42PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : IndiaAfter Gandhi Good review of a grand 900page book on India recently published: IndiaAfter Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy by Ramachandra Guha From The Washington Post's BookWorld/washingtonpost.com Reviewed by GeorgePerkovich 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 andthe center have been as enduring, and in some ways as important, as the morefamiliar violence in Kashmir. The framing of India's constitutionfrom 1946 through 1949 should induce awe, especially in light of Iraq'spost-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
Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 bw illus., 8 maps. - Original Message - From: Rajen Ajanta Barua To: assam@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
