Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

"India had the first democratically elected female prime minister in the developing world."

Sirimavo Bandarnaike must have lived so long ago that she's forgotten now.

(Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, 1960–65, 1970–77 and 1994–2000.)

Cultures change with education and financial security too.

The sort of thing you get with a westernized society.

Great article from the guardian. Thank you for the link mrgin.

I would also like to add that India had the first democratically elected female prime minister in the developing world. Indian parliament sets aside at least one third of its seats for women.
As for the eve teasing. It is largely due to illiteracy. If you go to the south of India, where there is almost 98% literacy, this happens seldom. It's more prevalent in larger cities where there is a whole hotchpotch of cultures and levels. Its like us walking past building sites here expecting not to be whistled at.
Cultures change with education and financial security too.

Found this in a Guardian article about the EIC here

" The wills of East India Company officials, now in the India Office library, clearly show that in the 1780s, more than one-third of the British men in India were leaving all their possessions to one or more Indian wives, or to Anglo-Indian children - a degree of cross-cultural mixing which has never made it into the history books. It suggests that, 200 years before Zadie Smith made it on to the telly and multiculturalism became a buzzword politically correct enough to wake Norman Tebbit and the Tory undead from their coffins at party conferences, the India of the East India Company was an infinitely more culturally, racially and religiously mixed place than modern Britain can even dream of being.

The wills of the period also suggest perhaps surprising ties of intense affection and loyalty on both sides, with British men asking their close friends to be executors and to care for their Indian partners, referring to them as "well beloved" or "worthy friend", and even - as Kirkpatrick's will has it - "the excellent and respectable Mother of my two children for whom I feel unbounded love and affection and esteem"."

whatmeworry I did not compare it to the mogul conquest as the moguls came into India to 'rule' but in general became a part of India. They did not loot and send all the money back to wherever they came from. They largely also made huge attempts to accept the diversity (look up Akbar).
tt I was answering cresentmoons question. Also, you cannot talk about Gandhi by ignoring India and the British. Re. Rights of females, I am trying to put this into perspective for you. That where 60years ago, the natives did not have human rights, what of the rights of women?!

SiliBiliMili, I don't know why you keep going on about India. The issue is how women are treated in India, and whether they're respected equally with men. I believe the answer is "no". What do you say about that (goddesses aside)?

Eve teasing? It seems to be really prevalent, and there's no sign of an end to it. On thing I know is that they have special railway carriages for women on the Mumbai commuter trains, to protect women on their way to work.

No, if the west were so civilised, they would have been like the Parsis of Iran who came to India

The Parsis are more like the Quakers, a better comparison with a full blooded Western colonial movement would be the Moghul conquest of India.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army#First_World_War

And this from the BBC

"More Indians volunteered to fight for Britain in World War I than all the Scots, Welsh and Irish combined and more than the sum total from all the rest of Britain's colonies and dominions. If that comes as a surprise to you, you're not alone. The contribution of the 1.27 million Indian volunteers has been almost completely neglected by British and Indian historians and they have remained no more than ghosts on the landscape of history."

Above number is only for WWI.

For WWII,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

2.5 million men were fighting for the Allies from what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Cresentmoon

"its not high ideals, the enlightenment, liberal democracy, christianity et al that won or even still win it for the west, it is the superiority in applying organised violence"

Yes I agree. I also agree with another poster that violence is not limited to the West alone. This is similar to what China is currently doing in Tibet. (What the East India Company did to the Indians/Pakistanis and Bangladesis.) But then, if you look at Chinese history, China was circumnavigating the globe in 1500s. They did not attack anyone then even when they knew they were a mightier power than the Portuguese were at that time.

To another poster, that western style democracy is the only way is again a flawed statement. India through Hinduism, through its acceptance of Budhism, through acceptance of Jainism, Sikhism in its lands although was ruled politically by principalities, everyone co-existed. All gods were even. according to the Gita, all paths lead to God. Hinduism having many many deities, already had ingrained the concept of 'democracy' in the fabric of Indians. Therefore I will argue that the west did not 'discover' democracy.

Hinduism is a very secular religion and its fundamental nature is democratic. Open discussions are a norm. Critiques are welcomed. There is no leader at the top like the Pope. There are no restrictions and regulations. There are female priests, and heads of sects.

"what i always found interesting about the indian struggle for independence was its non violence. was that really what won it silibilimili? i read frantz fanon's the wretched of the earth, which he wrote after he took part in the anti colonial struggle of algeria. he wasnt pro violence but he was anti non violence, he believed the coloniser was there only by sheer military strength and so the only way to resist him was by violence."

Wow, this is a profound discussion and I am so loving it.

Hmm. I think the Indians tired out the British with its civil dis-obedience movement. The British were getting frustrated with the Indians. Therefore massacres like the Jallian Wala Baug happened (where a British general opened fire on innocent men women and children. Killing hundreds) These violent outbursts from the British put a moral pressure on them and through the international community. On another side the British were also loosing a battle against Hitler. They were financially and morally bankrupt.

India supplied a lot of men during WWI. By WWII not many Indians were fighting for the British against Hitler (civil disobedience). The deal was done that if India supplies its men to fight for the British, the British will quit India.

This is a very short history of India became independent of the British.

Thanks for this thread, I'm enjoying reading it.

wickety by civilised, I meant it to mean 'at a higher plain, morally developed, polite and well mannered'.
mrgin yes, that's right. Then greed took over.

I remember hearing ( prob radio 4 ) about the East India Company early on, and how initially some of ttheir staff married local women which understandably created good relations.

The practice was then banned by the EIC which led to much less harmony ( understatement )

"As any decent historian will tell you, if the West didn't do it, someone else would have. We got guns and steel first is all. Also, don't forget our germs, conquered America for us."

No, if the west were so civilised, they would have been like the Parsis of Iran who came to India.

"There are many legends of how the Parsis were allowed to settle in India. The priestly leaders were brought before the local ruler, Jadi or Jadhav Rana, who presented them with a vessel "brimful" of milk to signify that the surrounding lands could not possibly accommodate any more people. The Parsi head priest responded by slipping some sugar into the milk to signify how the strangers would enrich the local community without displacing them. They would dissolve into life like sugar dissolves in the milk, sweetening the society but not unsettling it."

Hinduism is older than Christianity by atleast a 1000 years. There have been many notable 'female' saints in Hindu mythology and legends. So if you are implying that it was the ROmas who paved the way here too, I disagree.

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do

As any decent historian will tell you, if the West didn't do it, someone else would have. We got guns and steel first is all. Also, don't forget our germs, conquered America for us.

Note also, the groups most often help up as being unlike "civilised Westerners" are often the people most screwed over by the West, the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia being big examples of this

Nomads/Hunter Gatherers have been screwed over by every more advanced civilisation going, from the beginning of agricultural civilisation. Its not a Western thing, its a Human thing.

What Western countries did do which was different to nearly all before*, was bring modern inftrastructure and techniques, laws, and to local squabbles and warlords - not perfectly, and not always nicely - which did jump start a lot of countries.

The Christain church has a LOT of women in positions of power until about the 3rd century AD, after which St Augustine et al squeezed it down do The menz..

*As in "What have the Romans ever done for us...."

?I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.?

Gandhi

Always loved that quote.

Mcgin You clearly know your Christian history.

Re. your post on the resurrection. Here are the possibilities:

1. It happened when Mary Magdelene was about because we know Jesus believed in her. He trusted her.
2. It did not happen but Mary was very clever to give people that hope when all was lost.

We can also put a negative stance on it which perhaps non-believers may try to do.

But it does not really matter does it? Mary gave the people who believed in Jesus hope. His teaches still survive today. What about the doubters ansd the people who called her a prostitute? Di we even know their name? No.

Thats what matters.

Gandi, awesome dude. I can dig that.

Thanks SiliBiliMili I've enjoyed reading your posts. You clearly know your Gandhi.

Brainsurgeon

@ 'awesome dude'

cresentmoon I will now remember to use the word 'Prescient' when I mean 'before his time'.

I think he was an 'awesome' dude and would have enjoyed our discussions on mumsnet!!

On a visit to London in 1931, for a conference on determining India?s political future, Gandhi was asked by a British journalist what he thought of Western civilization. ?I think it would be a good idea,? he replied.

How Witty!!

So we could argue that he saw the British as un-civilised. but the truth is more complex than that.

Here is another example of what Gandhi thought about western ideals.

"In 1946, Yusuf Meherally was in the United States. He was dying of tuberculosis, and had come to rest from his labours in India. His past ten years had been spent mostly in prison, yet Bertram Wolfe, his host in New York, found his friend in an unusually mellow mood towards the British.
On earlier visits, Meherally had been full of righteous indignation about the evils of colonialism, but this time around, he was even willing to offer the British some praise. Wolfe was puzzled at this change, this 180-degree shift in tone and attitude. He asked for an explanation. They are leaving, answered Meherally. Any day now, we will be free. Gandhiji says that now that they are going, we must remember the best of British civilization the rule of law, their sense of fair play, and so on. Remember it, and keep it."

Gandhi did not reject western civilisation outright. In his autobiography, he claims to be an Anglophile. He made lots of English friends during his time in England. What he loathed what what the Western civilisation were doing to his beloved South Africa and India.

I quote:

"England has got successful competitors in America, Japan, France, Germany. It has competitors in the handful of mills in India, and as there has been an awakening in India, even so there will be an awakening in South Africa with its vastly richer resources ? natural , mineral and human. The mighty English look quite pigmies before the mighty races of Africa. They are noble savages after all, you will say. They are certainly noble, but no savages and in the course of a few years the Western nations may cease to find in Africa a dumping ground for their wares."

Gandhi admired a lot of Christian thought of Charity and forgiveness.

"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err."

To quote *TeiTetua "There have been good and bad things and people, and we ought to recognize them all."

Exactly. THerefore I do not believe the western way to be more supirior to another way.