Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Who funds Indian Media

Discussion in 'National Politics' started by abirbec04, Oct 25, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    It is a Malayalee gentleman Manmohan, don't buy into that American identity nonsense. Look at the user ID... -mallu- owl. Probably a South Indian technological export to the US. Indic faiths are numerous, I bet Buddhism is easily a viable substitute to Christianity, given evangelism, but they quickly adopt these identities and when they head on to the west, they realise they are still where they were.

    There is more than enough alternatives within the Indic school of thought - though conversions are personal choices in which we have no business interfering with, 'faith-for-bread' needs challenging if you ask me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
    1 person likes this.
  2. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    Well he is a American now talking like that about his own people,
    No longer a Indian in my View :angry:
     
  3. malluowl

    malluowl FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    5
    So you are saying India was a great center of learning. Yea, that it was, once upon a time. what happened since then?
    What is happening now? For all your ostentatious language you did not articulate why then millions of Indians (Hindus) find their way to a Christian dominated country for higher education, even in India, why do you go to Christian owned schools and universities if you hate us so much.

    Why do you Hindus keep taking pot shots at the Christians, Muslims & Dalits for every little thing. May be you have a little pee wee! But we cannot help you with that.

    If you are not happy with the Christian founded schools, universities, and hospitals do not use or study in them. We do not put a gun to your head and make you sit in the class, do we?
    Then what is the problem here, the gentleman who saw the 'low caste' Indian Christians in Canada, I wish you never have to see that sight with your brahmanical eyes. Oh wait, were you not in a Christian majority country, why did you cross the 'seven seas' to go through that ungodly sight?
    Who is insulting who here? Did that statement have anything to do with the post, absolutely none, but the haters here always have to say something about non-hindus and you expect us to keep quiet.

    I have noticed that the Hindu right wingers here keep insulting every community and every problem whether be it Political or Social it always finds its way back to Dalits, Muslims and Christians. Not to say, all the people in our community are godly, but not every issue in India is their fault only. Then why the hate messages, if its so because you think we will not respond to your arrogance and hatred, we will.
    Maybe your RSS & Bajrang Dal brethren went on killing rampages that the Muslims & Dalits rarely could defend themselves, but does that mean they will get away with it always. I bet not. Time are changing, even the Dalits are fighting back.

    And about me, I am a proud Nazrani and No I do not claim that all Kerala Christians are good. Some of them are ten times more evil than you Hindus, specially the ones in Kerala Police, but I do not tolerate hatred towards the Dalits and Muslims and I shall oppose it everywhere.
     
  4. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    Why is religion suddenly a part of this debate,
    wasn't it about media this thread.
     
  5. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Because they do not possess that kind of competitive fire in them to compete for the best schools in India? I am sorry to add, the best university-level institutes are not evangelist schools, they are the IITs, IIMs, the IISc, DU, BHU (A hindu but secular university). Based on common rankings of course. Care to please shed some light on this issue, you say the best schools are of Christian origin, I don't buy this. Evidence, if you may. About Christianity and it's position to pass wisdom, I see not wisdom but lies, nothing but lies. It's as informing as any other religion is. It is you who has something to prove, Indian civilization is still alive after 3000 years of onslaught.

    Whether HIndu, Muslim, SIkh, Buddhist, Jain or whatever, South Asia is still standing. It was not Christianity that gave the world it's science, it is what gave the world the dark ages. Read history.

    What can you teach Asia anyways?

    Besides, America is *not* a Christian nation. Name me one Christian country that is in the position to teach someone anything other than lessons on the inquisition or how the Roman Church supported Hitler's genocide of the Jews...

    What can that culture teach the East? How to lie, cheat, steal and enslave? You do know why the European dark ages are called dark ages, right? It was due to the advent of Christianity.

    Evidence, please and a little less of the rhetoric. What can India learn from Christianity?

    So it's you the spokesperson for the West, is it now? Last I checked, Malayalees are not white skinned, dear man. You're stuck with the brown skinned people for this lifetime, unfortunately. Unless of course, you do a Michael Jackson. So, what do you call yourself now, John? Or Mark? Matthew? Hysterical - while I am not a right winger, it's pot calling the kettle black from where I see it.

    You're a right winger alright, a Christian right winger (with brown skin). That would make one right winger against another - luckily we're not in America else the guns would sling out by now!

    Nope, just don't lie your way into the heads of these converts - when you state that Jesus is the *only* truth, I have a problem with that. Your entire story of the virgin birth, the resurrection and the attempted plagiarism of the Jewish religion is a problem to me - Christianity is unscholarly, it's plagiarism. It's one big giant fat lie.

    As I said, the best universities in India are not missionary-run universities. They are state funded. English is a post norman tongue, part of the Indo-European language family. Christian scriptures were once in Latin, people have died trying to read Christian literature in English - they wouldn't allow any translation from Latin - you call that civilized?

    How is that different from the Indic Sanksrit affair - oh wait, it's different because you're on the receiving end? That's hypocrisy.

    You are, and will be, on racial terms, a South Asian - the engineering feats of the west due to science and technology belong to the west, by changing your name and calling yourself 'John' does make you a 'John'. People like Dinesh Desouza, who I am sure you know of (if you're really in the US), are short sighted people with the intellect as quick as rabbit droppings.

    I sure do support your right to evangelize - all I add is - do not lie about it all. That the Earth is 5,000 years old or that a man lived in a whale, or that there was a garden, the Earth was created in 6 days - it's all a bunch of lies. Let there be light and there was light? Lies.

    When you convert people - tell them that it's all been disproven - let them decide. You do not have the truth, don't pose as such. Level the playing field, let truth prevail.

    Don't tell them Hindu/Buddhist systems are demonic, tell them that Christianity has been disproven, be truthful about it.

    I am surprised you never mentioned Satism - the point here is that Indians have always had reform movements within, the Arya Samaj etc were always there, are you telling me that America, just about 60 years ago, didn't employ blacks as slaves? Christian farm owners of America didn't have slaves? Why do you think the civil war was fought? You, my friend, are suffering from myopia.

    What about slavery, Gandhiji getting thrown out of the train was, perhaps, a manner of teaching Indians to civilize? Hypocrisy, Mr. Mallu Owl.

    Which team do you support, friend? And what is your identity in all of this? Lost, I bet. Gone with the wind. The trouble with your kind is that you can see all the faults in the indigenous easy targets - but in the West, I bet they'd send you packing once you try the same kind of accusations there.

    Why don't you head on to the American system and question them of their past policies? Oh yes, I forgot, you wouldn't dare - India is a easy target, I bet.

    Are you a dalit convert? Probably it's the background you're trying to erase, I understand your grievances and support your efforts for a respectworthy identity - however, bad mouthing an entire civilization is not the way. Like it or not, for this lifetime, you're a Indian - it's going to be stuck to you whether you name your self 'John Doe' or Ronald McDonald.

    I think as a Dalit you might have followed Dr. Ambedkar's advise and elected Buddhism instead... why Christianity, of all religions?

    I am in full support of Indian Christians and your kindself, however, my only qualm being is that when spreading the word, spread the truth as well - that Christianity is as much in the murky water as the other religions.

    Give them the choice, empower people - and think rationally. India is a diverse country, it has all kinds of schools of thoughts, even the right wingers - even you're a right winger based on the strength of your response (although the metric might probably be measured on Dalit rights). Freedom to the people but truth must prevail - empower people with knowledge, don't divide people based on lies and prejudices. Stuff like how you claim that all top schools are Christian funded missionary schools - no they aren't. Please no lies. I am in support of your grievances as you're an ex. dalit and have probably experienced discrimination, but no lies.

    Stick together, make India more than it is - but no lies. India is a easy target, I understand but the least you can be is honest about it. And do note, Brahminism is what gave India it's culture, with literature - Kalidas's infamous plays or Chanakya's Arthshastra or Kapil's philosophy or Sayana and his commentary on Indic philosophy... so in your fury, know which class of Brahminism to criticise.

    As far I understand, I know Kerala's Brahmin community is extremely orthodox, maybe you people might want to narrow down your targets to more realistic scope levels. Nothing is all bad or all good - anything which says as such is a lie.

    You speak just like the Hindu right wing - that because Babur pillaged Somnath, they have some divine right of hating all muslims - know your quicksand.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2011
  6. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16

    Rss never killed anyone stop spreading bullshit lies


    BTW yes many Hindus live in the west like Canada, USA etc but look at the stats and you will see them outperforming their counterparts when it comes to education, jobs, status etc so what does that mean?
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2011
  7. kingsiyaka

    kingsiyaka 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    34
    The Europeans came.

    They owe us for everything they did.

    Whats the "We" here, huh?
    Do you run a missionary school?
    If no, then refrain from this "We, Our" BS, you are just an NRI who does not deserve an internet connection.

    And yet, you waste no time in criticizing the Evil Brahmin in every forum.
    Hypocrisy, much?

    Stop fvcking generalizing.
    Btw, the killing rampages you talk about were kind of a norm under the queen. But your brain is hot wired for selective comprehension, isn't it?

    Hope you never return to India.

    Good riddance.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341

    What exactly happened in the 1500 years in between? Give the devil his due, if it wasn't for the Europeans (the British actually), India would still be in the dark ages. Sure, they came for their own selfish reasons but they did us more of a favour than you seem willing to give credit for.
     
  9. kingsiyaka

    kingsiyaka 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    34
    Come on, do you really buy that BS?(no disrespect).

    Barbaric invasions!!!!

    That's what they want us to think.
    Btw, what did they give us, exactly?
    Roads? Bridges? this joke of a bureaucracy? or the fabled proficiency in English language?
    You think we wouldn't have gotten all that if weren't invaded?

    Check this out, by the 19th(or 18th?) century we contributed towards 25% of worlds economy and when the Euros left we were 2%, a few roads and bridges are a small compensation for what they did to us.
    We fueled their wars, we paid the price of their expansion with famines.

    And regarding the "Dark Ages"
    The Imperials didn't really leave us in the best of conditions to be fair, we were divided on 2 fronts with numerous princely states that existed within the Dominion, it was a recipe for an English Orchestrated disaster, they WANTED us to fail, it was the dexterity of our rulers that guided us at that time and it is our own labor and hard work that is steering us forward.
    There is no silver lining to the dark cloud that was the Raj. Even now they don't leave any stone unturned to portray us as their incompetent former colony deliberately ignoring the fact that they are directly responsible for half of our problems today.


    There is NOTHING they did for us that we couldn't have done on our own if they hadn't leeched all our wealth.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16

    Actually India was richest country b4 the British invaded us so if the favour was looting then i'd agree
     
  11. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16
    By this time India again had the largest economy in the world, with a (24.4%) share of world GDP, followed by Manchu China and Western Europe
     
  12. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    No disrespect taken but you are the one being taken in by the revisionist bull, not me.

    .

    Doesn't matter what they want you to think, does not make it any less true.

    All that & more, most importantly they gave us a nation. As for getting that without being invaded, well that's all up in the air. Maybe, maybe not but most likely over a much longer period. India was incredibly slow to accept & adapt inventions. In the 17th century Indians were still primarily using the primitive plane & bucket method as opposed to the Persian wheel, a technological backwardness first noticed by the Greeks 2000 years before & one that had changed little 2000 years later. (Babur mentions some use of the wheel in Punjab & even in 1660, only 1.7% of wells in merta in Rajasthan used the Persian wheel). Indian claims for inventions had mostly ceased since the early times & India was deeply entwined in a very,very dark age. To suggest otherwise is to be both mischievous & cussed.

    True & false at the same time. Yeah India was rich but the vast majority of its population were incredibly poor. In Shah Jahan's time (at the peak of India's "richness"), 36.5% of the entire assessed revenue of the empire was assigned to 68 princes & amirs & a further 25% to the next 587 officers, so that 61.5% of the total revenue 0f 220 million rupees was arrogated by just 655 individuals.( revenue claim of the state was between 33% & 50% of gross national produce meaning that 25% of Mughal empire's GNP was appropriated by less than 700 persons out of a population of 120 million) - The Mughal World (Abraham Eraly)

    The conditions of ordinary folk was terrible, a fact mentioned by every chronicler who visited India. India was periodically racked by famine & the wretched condition of the common folk was far too gruesome to recollect here. Farming output actually fell because of the fall in the number of cultivators.



    What I have said above should suffice here, All of whose wealth?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2011
  13. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    I'd be careful with that - the British did historically help modern India unite, no question that India might have been broken up and remained broken but the British and their arrival - however, they did *not* bring enlightenment with them. Why, because:

    1. They could only succeed by restricting science and technology from their territories, not spread it. The biggest weapon they had was science, the gun power and the artillery - they did not establish world class research centres. There is sufficient evidence of this as India only began it's major institutes of higher learning (well ranked within global top 500s on THES ARWU) post Britain. It basically started from scratch after the Brits left.

    India is basically poor because it's assets were taken back to Britain - the reason why the British gold reserves and currency value is twice is because about a quarter of it's wealth is probably of Indian origin.

    2. Democracy came at a huge cost, since India was a very rich country and the only source for diamonds in the world at that time, the British didn't come in to enlighten, they came in to colonize.

    3. It was called the British Raj, under a monarch - not Indian. Do not paint colonization in a glorious light.

    4. The core strategy of Europe was to keep science and technology out of the hands of natives in all continents. They made Arabs fight, gave them guns but no artillery. Their strategy to divide and make the natives fight for them is a old strategy, this has been covered in history and media well, probably watch Laurence of Arabia if need be.

    Britain started the dirty politics of mutual interest. Before that, it was genuine adherence to some values and principles, but political science got it's selfishness due to the British policies. Read up, they gave the world evolution too which was a boon, but they also gave the world the East India Company, the first evil corporate, and the smelly duality we find in politics today.

    Do also note, around during the WW2, a woman was hanged for being a witch in Britain - this is historical fact, hardly stuff you expect out of enlightened countries.

    Colonialism cost India more than it gave - however, one cannot deny that India could never have united had there not been a common adversary seen in the Brits. They helped unite India, but not so to enlighten it, as the British did say, they conquered India not for India or the benefit of the Indians, but the British crown.

    3 million bengalis have died in hunger during a famine when during the second world war, under Churchill, all Indian food stock was transferred to the UK - they simply let Indians die of hunger... taking *their* food stock away. How can anyone, in the right mind, defend that?

    And note, not all 'upper caste Hindus' support the Hindu nationalist movement. Don't generalize and don't white wash facts. Even in Britain, there is a right wing movement which opines that the colonialists were benign - they are categorized in the same slot as the Indian right wing - so, this historical white-wash is right wing stuff.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2011
    1 person likes this.
  14. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    Not my argument, you seem to misconstrue my points. The argument was that it was the British who were responsible for India's sad state, my reply was that India was already in a pitiful state before they came. No one is defending British colonialism but they did do a lot of things in their attempts to consolidate their rule that helped Indians enormously. They established a modern judiciary &the rule of law, introduced modern education & democratic practices (even if limited), and created the infrastructure - roads, telegraph, railways which was essential for the political & economic integration of the country.

    True, the motive, primarily was to consolidate their power & exploit Indian resources but British rule was infinitely better than the morass & anarchy India found itself after Aurangzeb where people were largely subject to corrupt, capricious & whimsical rule of decadent Rajas & Sultans. It was not as if India was a thriving democracy or even a benevolent autocracy when the Europeans came.

    The British were also responsible for many social reforms in India curbing evils like Sati, infanticide, the despicable & inhuman treatment of the outcastes etc. The British, inadvertently were the external stimulation that was so desperately necessary for India to evolve as a modern nation from the precipice of descent to terminal chaos that looked India in the face in the chaotic world that India found itself after the reign of Aurangzeb.

    The Bengal famine was clearly one of the the biggest blots on British rule & was almost certainly man made to the extent that the British could certainly have mitigated its terrible effects but chose not to do so going with Churchill's assertion that this was how it was always in India. It is however true that famines in India were common even before the British came & it is ironically, only our view of the British being better than those who ruled before, that we hold them responsible for the tragedy (rightly so).

    I never said that all upper caste members were in favour of Hindu Rashtra; the mere fact of India being a free, secular democracy belies that idea since almost all members of the INC were generally of the upper caste. You are the one guilty of misconstruing & generalising here.

    It is not necessary that one has to believe every revisionist idea, right wing or otherwise & I reject your attempt to compartmentalise my thoughts as belonging to one view or the other. White washing & black washing are done by people who are similar in their idea of propagating only their view. History is neither black or white, remaining primarily in shades of gray & very open to subjective viewpoints. What you see depends very much on where you see it from.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2011
  15. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    India was indeed in a bad state because the Moghul empire was failing and was at it's weakest due to division. I agree - however, the technology they brought was for the crown, not the Indian people.

    That's where we differ - you probably credit them on things they have done for Indians, not on things that better facilitated their colonization of India. They did so for colonization, nothing more and nothing less.

    They ridiculed the nationalist independence movement.

    Yep, no one can deny that. I agree that the British Raj was considerably 'benign' in comparison. And their advent helped India be rid of Islamic influences for good (because of their orthodoxies).

    Agreed - but perhaps you might want to take a look of their view on the caste system. They have been very supportive of it, initially. They justified it on the basis of their monarchy - read up on their orientalist movement. Look at the plays written by Delibes (Lakme) or what Voltaire and Schopenhauer had to say about Indic philosophy and the caste system after the well-publicized translation of Indic philosophy.

    On Satism, agreed, a blight to Indian school of thought - though you may want to note that at a point of time, due to indigenous reform, it only became restricted to the Rajputs. It wasn't as common a practice as people believe it as so. Likewise, I might want to add the Indian treatment of poor widows, orphans and the class of dev dasis. These are not traits that fills one with Indian pride - but they are facts of Indian short comings, nonetheless.

    But reform has always existed even before the British, this is also a reality. You can't deny indigenous revolutionary ideas their space in the light.

    Basically, Churchill, the British hero, is and should be what Hitler is to the Jews for Indians. 3 million people starved to death on an occasion when they didn't even need the food stock. And, during partition, they didn't even enforce law and order, for some reason. Even the British historians point out that they made some genuine mistakes (Michael Wood, I think).

    I like the British system, love their culture, their actors (Atkinson, Fry, Laurie/BlackAdder et al) - but for an Indian, the losses incurred during the rule far outweigh the gains.

    They basically united India as an adversary - not as an inspiration, that is probably my entire point. Indians weren't inspired by the Brits, they grew weary of them. Jinnah's first issue was how and why Indians couldn't even be commissioned as officers.

    Isn't that basically a caste system? That Indians couldn't be commissioned?

    I never said that all upper caste members were in favour of Hindu Rashtra; the mere fact of India being a free, secular democracy belies that idea since almost all members of the INC were generally of the upper caste. You are the one guilty of misconstruing & generalising here.

    Nope, instead, I reject your idea of attempting to paint a benign picture to British rule.

    Point is, British rule in India was never accountable - even today, it's part of history. However, to over-glorify their advent due to the ideas they brought, not for the benefit of India or Asia, but to better facilitate their colonilzation is revisionism, in essence, true revisionism worthy of condemnation.

    Credit them for inadvertent import of ideas, because unless you're british, there was nothing positive they have done for India for the sake of Indians. Reform movements have always existed indigenously, this is like saying Hitler's reich was benign because he initially brought technology and manufacturing capabilities to Russia - before invading it.

    We agree on a host of issues but not the final conclusions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page