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
    And finally, for all your support of their advent. Do note that the British society is not a 'caste-less' society. Theirs is organized based on high-high/middle-middle-middle-low-low - and the term coloured people is a British invention. Before you over-credit these people, remember why Gandhiji was thrown out of the train in the first place, and note, that that decision that coloured people are not equal to whites, was the officially endorsed policy of the British.

    Is this not caste? If this isn't caste, I fail to see the objective here. Distinguishing a person based on the colour of his skin is as low as a human being can go. And, the Brits, though the first country to outlaw slavery, were actively involved in enslaving Africa...
     
  2. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    Exactly the opposite. I just pointed out that what they did to further their rule also had the consequence of changing India & for the better. In the end, they were forced out by people who used pretty much everything that the British themselves introduced to further their own interests.


    Why the surprise? They were colonisers after all though the irony remains that without them, there would never have been a nation & therefore never a nationalist movement.



    Not just that, this is something that is less appreciated but the British were the primary agents for Hindu revival. Hindus before the British had been a subject people for nearly 800 years & were a people without vigour for revitalising what was a slowly decaying religion. The advent of the British gave them the much needed space to both revitalise & reform (occasionally with a British push) Hinduism. Much of what Hinduism is today was a direct outcome of those movements which would have not taken place without that space having been made available.



    I'm sure you are correct, they after all believed that the white man was superior. What was referred to was the reducing of the atrocious treatment of outcastes which was common place.

    Not really restricted to Rajputs. During Mughal rule, while not being widespread it happened reasonably commonly in Gujarat, U.P. (performed in a specially built wooden hut),Rajasthan, Deccan & western India (deep pit).

    In the 18th century as Mughal rule collapsed Sati became rampant again (the Mughals having largely restricted the practice), became widely prevalent by the close of the century & between 1815 & 1828, in Calcutta division alone, there were as many as 5099 incidents of Sati before it was abolished in British India in 1829.

    Not denying indigenous ideas of reform their space, just pointing out that the British presence gave them the space & leverage necessary to accomplish many of those reforms.
    They had to first unite India & then it was inevitable that India would unite against them. No one is mourning the loss of the British empire, only pointing out that we did benefit from that association whatever the circumstances of that happening.

    True, as i said earlier; they saw themselves as masters. However such attitude was present even among the greatest of nations - the U.S. being a prime example in their treatment of blacks. took them another 20 tears to get what the British conceded in 1947.


    Benign is such a subjective word. Benign compared to what we have today? Hardly ! However if the comparison was to the rulers & despots prior to the British, it was undoubtedly benign. Even the great Akbar, for all his tolerance was nowhere as benign as the British were.

    Not my case though I would hasten to point out that believing them as an evil people & painting them only in a negative light does very little justice either.

    Not quite the comparison i prefer but i have already said that India benefited inadvertently but benefit we did. In any case my argument involved comparisons with those before them, not in absolute terms.
     
  3. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    Again, not my argument. Where exactly have I stated that the British did not have prejudices? However, they did help in curbing the reprehensible treatment of outcastes in India.
     
  4. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Yes, but they may not in a credible light, be credited for reforms in India - especially during a time when their own society was considerbly fragmented, probably more so. I fail to draw inspiration from a culture that created the coloured-people phenomenon, I am not sure about me, but even you today fit just right based on that assessment.

    They employed slaves and you're Ok with all of that, take all that to a side, you say - nope, because for me, this position is a contemptible position to take in a debate. Please clarify.
     
  5. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Yes, but they may not in a credible light, be credited for reforms in India - especially during a time when their own society was considerbly fragmented, probably more so. I fail to draw inspiration from a culture that created the coloured-people phenomenon, I am not sure about me, but even you may probably fit just right to be ridiculed and controlled so that you're unable to climb up the ladders of social mobility, they will throw you off trains for being dark sinned - if based on that assessment. Not because you're smart, but because you simply have a certain form of skin pigment... absurd, but this is what you're endorsing.

    They employed slaves and you're Ok with all of that - because you're against all of this caste business, take all that to a side, you say - nope, because for me, this position is a contemptible position to take in a debate. Please clarify.
     
  6. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    I don't know where you are going with this argument of yours. My point is simple - the British were better than those before. that's all. We are infinitely better off today than we were under any foreign or domestic masters, the British included. As for employing slaves, I have not condoned that but however reprehensible an act may seem, when reading history one needs to keep things in perspective. There is nothing to be gained by looking at another era with present day morals. Thomas Jefferson had slaves & even Abraham Lincoln's views on blacks would be out of place today.

    To suggest that the British deserve no credit whatsoever for how India turned out is, imo plain cussedness. The British were invaders, just like the Mughals were before them & indeed many were before them. Sher Shah Suri might well have been an Afghan but does he not get credit for his administration & for his road building? I see no reason why the British should be denied their fair share in Indian history. They get plenty of brickbats but an occasional bouquet as an acknowledgement of their better acts does not make us a lesser people. We need to stop going with the schoolbook version of history & see things in a more complex light.
     
  7. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Again, I politely remind you, they didn't want to change India for 'the better' - they formalized their rule by introducing the British legal code - which, for your information, still (or until recently) considers homosexuality a punishable offense by law.

    I am fine for the inadvertent nature of their acts - however, to glorify their actions as being solely for the benefit of the indigenous, not just in India but also in China or the African/Middle East is being too foolhardy.

    I do not have to remind you what they've done in China, right? They practically enslaved that country with Opium... while it was made illegal in England later - how do you justify that, please clarify how the same regime, using drugs to enslave another country, is to be credited with all of this?

    I am sorry but you're missing the entire point of indigeneity - even if you play with words, you cannot evade the fact that if a territory is not yet organized, indigenous aspirations are still valid.

    I challenge your assertions. Clarify. India has always been a heterogenous continent, I fail to see you argument of a lack of political articulation making indigenous aspirations invalid. This is like saying that a human body can be invaded by bacterium because ultimately, a cell-based life form is irrelevant. Note that given the ecology, there are limits to which a body is considered an individual entity - there is a concept of an ecology.

    So, based on that, similar principles may be applied to the movement - as a indigenous movement, discount that at your peril. Because, in the end - if you reject indigeneity based on ecological differences, you lost your place... and basically misunderstand science.

    Again, India was a big country - states in Rajasthan were basically quasi-independent. I think Jai Singh II was the last Hindu king to have successfully conducted the Ashwamedha - based on record history, it depends on which part of India you're look at.

    As far as I remember, the South Indians were left unconquered - the Cholas were pretty prolific, as someone from Bangalore, I am sure you realise that.

    You're, in contrast, generalizing and cherry-picking to suit your understanding of history. Not forgetting, Hindu revivalism is a non-issue here, people have the choice to choose whichever identity they choose.

    So, my friend, you might want to re-adjust your hypothesis to encompass a host of issues they have influenced for the better, but they weren't the sole reform agents, mind you.

    According to a host of historical sources, it was restricted to a select number of households. Refer to this:

    Religion and Rajput women: the ethic ... - Google Books

    So that number is negligible given that the Indian population in teh 1800s-1900 was between 250,000 to 300,000. Based on these records, I'd say that recorded cases of sati practice was about 2-3%.

    So, how do you strengthen your hypothesis if the evidence you've attained just measures to 3%, at most! How is it widespread, please advise - where did you get the additional numbers from.

    INDIA: population growth of the whole country

    Agreed there.

    Agreed - but out of a 100%, I'd rate them somewhere around 25% on reforms and enlightenment. Best guessing of course.

    Exactly my point, they were racists - as a state policy too. Fine, it's history, but we can't forget all of that when according them a place in our history.

    But comparatively, the British were the most benign invaders of India, no question - historical fact. Anyone denying that needs to look into China's history - and unfortunately Nanxing.

    Agreed - but to say that they were good people with the best of intentions looking to help the world... by colonizing them and civilizing them is a little over the top.

    Fine, so much we agree.
     
  8. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    ^^^^ I'm really not sure what to make of this. You make your points be selectively quoting my lines while saying that you agree with different lines of mine which contradicts the basis of your earlier comments. You also seem hell bent on foisting an argument on me that I have not made nor inclined to make - that the British were angels. It actually makes me wonder whether you read my whole post before setting out to reply. You selection of individual lines & reading into them what is not said by me is disturbing.
     
  9. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    I doubt you could credit them for inadvertantly triggering intangibility across the populace... probably credit is a wrong word, perhaps, you could call them actors in a change. Acknowledgement is always taken, and truth should prevail - but to credit and uphold a culture which at a time was racist, used skin colour to denote a caste system of their own... nope, I wouldn't credit them.

    There is nothing to credit them with if you ask me, because transfer of knowledge was spontaneous and aligned to their colonial goals. Acknowledgement, sure, but credit... too strong of a word for me.

    Do note, that English is my strongest language and I love English food and culture (and football) - but historical facts prevail. Their hero Winston Churchill was a bigoted racist, anti-Indian alcoholic who is, for Indians he should be, equivalent to what Hitler was to the Jews. Numbers don't lie.

    So, perhaps you're right, credit due where deserved I suppose. But I do share a soft spot for Lord Mountbatten to be honest, a respectworthy figure for his contributions to the continent - until the partition and the handling of it.
     
  10. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    I've already conceded that point by saying:

    'Fine, so much we agree.'

    However, on the sati business, 3% (or, suppose 7 if we adjust it) is a fringe number over a large period of time. I have questions. Suppose if we'd divide that 300,000 number to 40% female and 60% males, since Indians and even Pakistanis and the Chinese are sexist bigots when it comes to females, that would require extensive makeup.

    Note - for it to be a majority practice, we need at least 25% > in terms of cases (for females alone). How do we classify it as a majority practice should numbers don't match up.

    Don't get this wrong, it's still a Hindu/Indian phenomenon, 1 death is as bad as 40,000-50,000 but it never was a majority practice. There is a tradition in Rajput households to enshrine the ashes of their satis - so, since satis had to be enshrined, the sheer number of urns required for accurate depiction of a cultural practice (scientific standards are high) to be noted as a 'majority practice' is huge.
     
  11. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    I don't believe that I made an argument that Sati was practiced by the majority. I'm also not sure about your figures, India's population was how much exactly ? 200 million? Percentages would be miniscule. 3% is a huge number & there were certainly not that many cases. What I meant was that Sati was being performed/forced to be performed in reasonably large numbers. Obviously every one was not doing it, in which case Sati temples would not exist. However as you said, even one is one too many & I'm glad that it was banned even though there was protests by Hindus at the ban. Sati, in any case was not the only evil that befell widows. The treatment of widows who lived was nothing to write home about. There are many dark events/practices that needs to be acknowledged & then move on from there. Examples exist all over the world, nothing particular to India. However the belief that we were somehow better off before being dragged off into the dark ages by some invader, especially the British ( since such commentary about Muslim invaders would not be deemed acceptable/prudent by those who happen to write official history in India) must be questioned & looked at dispassionately. As invaders/foreign occupiers go, it is my argument that they were the most benevolent (inspite of their atrocities) compared to those who preceded them as also to their competitors; especially the Spanish & the Portuguese. One look at what happened in their colonies reveal us to be particularly fortunate not to be the colony of any but the British. Colony, we were going to be given our political condition, we could have done worse than the British.
     
  12. Rudrakx

    Rudrakx Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    218
    Santosh Hegde favours legal regulations over media functioning

    I support it.
     
  13. uptotrix

    uptotrix Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    325
    Personally I would make drastic changes to RTI.
     
  14. Fu9it1v3

    Fu9it1v3 FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    5
    This is really stupid.... Indian media is one of the world's most transparent and unbiased media. No one is controlling them.
    Also, think for a second, even if some international powers are funding various news channels and controlling them for their policies, who is there to stop them from getting at each others throats?

    I mean it's a joke, if half of them are controlled by communists and others are by socialists and capitalists...then they will all effectively work against each other. lol... :D I don't think this is happening here.. :)
     
  15. AdityaMookerjee

    AdityaMookerjee FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    3
    Who funds J. N U.? I mean the institute where people talk about particular matters? It seems, the govt.? Perhaps not. I don't see why I should be bothered. I must mention, I do think J. N. U. is better than some overseas institutions which are similar. I do like reading many weekly journals, Indian, and I also read two overseas journals. I must be frank, how can you and I help it, if any person buys or sells material property, at a price not sensible to us? It seems illogical, to think about these matters. I must point out, Newsweek, or the Economist, do not mention these things, and I am not saying that they do, when I say that I read many Indian journals, and only two overseas journals. Why are sensible people in India, who feel bad about it, equate hunger, etc., with money? I must make an observation. A hungry man, looks at the world as he looks at himself, and he doesn't mind. A man who is not hungry, looks at the world similarly, and he doesn't mind, either. We, are not good people, if we look at ourselves, by our own measure. We are looking at what a person wears, how he is, and saying, I am sure, that this man is more unfortunate than me. A man is not decent, being a human being. If I am unhappy, I need medical or professional help. We look at people and say, they cannot read and write. We do senseless things like ask questions like why is petrol more expensive in Bangalore, and not in New Delhi, and why a person in Bangalore, didn't buy petrol in New Delhi, as a result. A man, feels he is a criminal, being himself, because of people like us. And sensible people in govt., feel they are important to us, just because they can basically see sense in themselves, and they see us as unusual. Why would I want to be a politician, when everyone is supposed to be corrupt, and only I am being blamed? A man, will find it an insult, if his father gives him Rs. 10, and he wants the traffic constable not to do his job, by giving him Rs. 10? The man will find it an insult, because he earns a lot more, and he will bribe anyone any amount he finds reasonable.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page