Remembering India's Forgotten Holocaust

AVERAGE INDIAN

EXORCIST
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
3,069
Likes
3,463
Country flag


The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because of an artificial famine created by the British government, and yet it gets little more than a passing mention in Indian history books.

What is remarkable about the scale of the disaster is its time span. World War II was at its peak and the Germans were rampaging across Europe, targeting Jews, Slavs and the Roma for extermination. It took Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6 million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines.

Australian biochemist Dr Gideon Polya has called the Bengal Famine a "manmade holocaust" because Churchill's policies were directly responsible for the disaster. Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh.

Author Madhusree Mukerjee tracked down some of the survivors and paints a chilling picture of the effects of hunger and deprivation. In Churchill's Secret War, she writes: "Parents dumped their starving children into rivers and wells. Many took their lives by throwing themselves in front of trains. Starving people begged for the starchy water in which rice had been boiled. Children ate leaves and vines, yam stems and grass. People were too weak even to cremate their loved ones."

"No one had the strength to perform rites," a survivor tells Mukerjee. "Dogs and jackals feasted on piles of dead bodies in Bengal's villages." The ones who got away were men who migrated to Calcutta for jobs and women who turned to prostitution to feed their families. "Mothers had turned into murderers, village belles into whores, fathers into traffickers of daughters," writes Mukerjee.

Mani Bhaumik, the first to get a PhD from the IITs and whose invention of excimer surgery enabled Lasik eye surgery, has the famine etched in his memory. His grandmother starved to death because she used to give him a portion of her food.

By 1943 hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta, most dying on the streets. The sight of well-fed white British soldiers amidst this apocalyptic landscape was "the final judgement on British rule in India", said the Anglophile Jawaharlal Nehru.

Churchill could easily have prevented the famine. Even a few shipments of food grain would have helped, but the British prime minister adamantly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US .

Subhas Chandra Bose, who was then fighting on the side of the Axis forces, offered to send rice from Myanmar, but the British censors did not even allow his offer to be reported.

Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British troops and Greek civilians. To him, "the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks", a sentiment with which Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.

Amery was an arch-colonialist and yet he denounced Churchill's "Hitler-like attitude". Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn't died yet.

Wavell informed London that the famine "was one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule". He said when Holland needs food, "ships will of course be available, quite a different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring food to India".

Churchill's excuse — currently being peddled by his family and supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain from Australia bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean.

Churchill's hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying they "breed like rabbits". His attitude toward Indians may be summed up in his words to Amery: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." On another occasion, he insisted they were "the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans".

According to Mukerjee, "Churchill's attitude toward India was quite extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn't be held for very long." She writes in The Huffington Post, "Churchill regarded wheat as too precious a food to expend on non-whites, let alone on recalcitrant subjects who were demanding independence from the British Empire. He preferred to stockpile the grain to feed Europeans after the war was over."

In October 1943, at the peak of the famine, Churchill said at a lavish banquet to mark Wavell's appointment: "When we look back over the course of years, we see one part of the world's surface where there has been no war for three generations. Famines have passed away — until the horrors of war and the dislocations of war have given us a taste of them again — and pestilence has gone"¦ This episode in Indian history will surely become the Golden Age as time passes, when the British gave them peace and order, and there was justice for the poor, and all men were shielded from outside dangers."

Churchill was not only a racist but also a liar.



India-hater Winston Churchill blamed Indians for the famine

A history of holocausts
To be sure, Churchill's policy towards famine-stricken Bengal wasn't any different from earlier British conduct in India. In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31 serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared with 17 in the 2,000 years before British rule.

In his book, Davis tells the story of the famines that killed up to 29 million Indians. These people were, he says, murdered by British State policy. In 1876, when drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau, there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the Viceroy, Robert Bulwer-Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent their export to England.

In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported record quantities of grain. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within these labour camps, the workers were given less food than the Jewish inmates of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp of World War II.

Even as millions died, Lytton ignored all efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated on preparing for Queen Victoria's investiture as Empress of India. The highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast at which 68,000 dignitaries heard her promise the nation "happiness, prosperity and welfare".

In 1901, The Lancet estimated that at least 19 million Indians had died in western India during the famine of the 1890s. The death toll was so high because the British refused to implement famine relief. Davis says life expectancy in India fell by 20 percent between 1872 and 1921.

So it's hardly surprising that Hitler's favourite film was The Lives of a Bengal Lancer, which showed a handful of Britons holding a continent in thrall. The Nazi leader told the then British Foreign Secretary Edward Wood (Earl of Halifax) that it was one of his favorite films because "that was how a superior race must behave and the film was compulsory viewing for the SS (Schutz-Staffel, the Nazi 'protection squadron')".

Crime and consequences
While Britain has offered apologies to other nations, such as Kenya for the Mau Mau massacre, India continues to have such genocides swept under the carpet. Other nationalities have set a good example for us. Israel, for instance, cannot forget the Holocaust; neither will it let others, least of all the Germans. Germany continues to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and arms aid to Israel.

Armenia cannot forget the Great Crime — the systematic massacre of 1.8 million Armenians by the Turks during World War I. The Poles cannot forget Joseph Stalin's Katyn massacre.

The Chinese want a clear apology and reparations from the Japanese for at least 40,000 killed and raped in Nanking during World War II. And then there is the bizarre case of the Ukrainians, who like to call a famine caused by Stalin's economic policies as genocide, which it clearly was not. They even have a word for it: Holodomor.

And yet India alone refuses to ask for reparations, let alone an apology. Could it be because the British were the last in a long list of invaders, so why bother with an England suffering from post-imperial depression? Or is it because India's English-speaking elites feel beholden to the British? Or are we simply a nation condemned to repeating our historical mistakes? Perhaps we forgive too easily.

But forgiveness is different from forgetting, which is what Indians are guilty of. It is an insult to the memory of millions of Indians whose lives were snuffed out in artificial famines.

British attitudes towards Indians have to seen in the backdrop of India's contribution to the Allied war campaign. By 1943, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting alongside the Allies in Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of arms, ammunition and raw materials sourced from across the country were shipped to Europe at no cost to Britain.

Britain's debt to India is too great to be ignored by either nation. According to Cambridge University historians Tim Harper and Christopher Bayly, "It was Indian soldiers, civilian labourers and businessmen who made possible the victory of 1945. Their price was the rapid independence of India."

There is not enough wealth in all of Europe to compensate India for 250 years of colonial loot. Forget the money, do the British at least have the grace to offer an apology? Or will they, like Churchill, continue to delude themselves that English rule was India's "Golden Age"?

Remembering India's forgotten holocaust | Tehelka.com
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,749

The film is set in a village in the Indian province of Bengal during World War II, and examines the effect of the Great Famine of 1943 on the villages of Bengal through the eyes of a young Brahmin doctor-teacher, Gangacharan, and his wife, Anaga. Ray shows the human scale of a cataclysmic event that killed more than 3 million people. The film unfolds at a leisurely pace that reflects the rhythms of village life, but gradually shows the breakdown of traditional village norms under the pressure of hunger and starvation.[
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
133
Another Holocaust was 1770 Famine, but British always in Denial mood. 10 Million people out of 20 Million people of Bengal, died.

Still Indians are advocating for English medium education.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,749
Another Holocaust was 1770 Famine, but British always in Denial mood. 10 Million people out of 20 Million people of Bengal, died.

Still Indians are advocating for English medium education.
The logic is not understood.

Ghori and Ghaznavi looted India and so did the Mughal Emperors. Does it mean that Urdu should not be a medium of instructions for those who wish to study in Urdu?

The word Urdu is derived from the same Turkic word ordu (army).

From the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire until the British Raj, Hindustani, written in the Urdu script, was the language of both Hindus and Muslims.



In other words, how does historical atrocities get connected to learning a language or it being a medium of instruction?

If that is the logic, then we should not eat biriyani and kebabs. Food of those who looted India, right?
 
Last edited:

Ajesh

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
325
Likes
149
Aur Karo Angreez, Aur apnaao "English Culture" ko.. Aur Apnaao "Machester United" ko.. Sab wahi Angreezi Soch ke Padaayish hain...
 

Ajesh

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
325
Likes
149
I dont know Honestly who You are trying to Impress with Your "Secular" Posts. This is not a Parliament and Your Cancergress has been Uprooted.

The logic is not understood.

Ghori and Ghaznavi looted India and so did the Mughal Emperors. Does it mean that Urdu should not be a medium of instructions for those who wish to study in Urdu?

The word Urdu is derived from the same Turkic word ordu (army).

From the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire until the British Raj, Hindustani, written in the Urdu script, was the language of both Hindus and Muslims.



In other words, how does historical atrocities get connected to learning a language or it being a medium of instruction?

If that is the logic, then we should not eat biriyani and kebabs. Food of those who looted India, right?
 

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
133
The logic is not understood.

Ghori and Ghaznavi looted India and so did the Mughal Emperors. Does it mean that Urdu should not be a medium of instructions for those who wish to study in Urdu?

The word Urdu is derived from the same Turkic word ordu (army).

From the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire until the British Raj, Hindustani, written in the Urdu script, was the language of both Hindus and Muslims.



In other words, how does historical atrocities get connected to learning a language?
Nothing wrong with learning a language. But those people who screwed India so much, towards their culture and language our unnecessary and extra attraction seem astonishing.

Muslims looted India, true and gave much in return also. India was very rich under Muslims.

Show me a single incident when Brits gave us any thing which has nothing to with their interest.
 

Kaalapani

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
613
Likes
281
Nothing wrong with learning a language. But those people who screwed India so much, towards their culture and language our unnecessary and extra attraction seem astonishing.

Muslims looted India, true and gave much in return also. India was very rich under Muslims.

Show me a single incident when Brits gave us any thing which has nothing to with their interest.
Muslims looted Indians aln pillaged out temples and women what are you talking about..Muslims are savages and are now occupying 30% of our land.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,699
Likes
3,025
Country flag
Muslims looted India, true and gave much in return also. India was very rich under Muslims.
I'm looking for examples. When Akbar died, his huge and closely protected treasury was safe in multiple forts.
It broke no sweat for three quick famines in his "riaya" in 1573-74 , 1583-84 and 1595-99.
 

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
133
Muslims looted Indians aln pillaged out temples and women what are you talking about..Muslims are savages and are now occupying 30% of our land.
Cruelty was part and is part of war. Hindu kings too attacked civilians during warfare. During Kallinga war 100,000 people died, during Bindusara's regime Takhshasila once revolted, Ashoka put every rebel to death.

How will you explain then when 20 Million Muslims were butchered by Mongals? Timur The Lame who razed Delhi, he slaughtered Baghdad which itself was Muslim city.
@Virendra Idea of social welfare state did not exist then. Yet Mughals tried to help poor people, one must remember in regard of contemporary primitive transport system, there was little could be done, even Moreland too accepted it, unlike British who had Railway, yet they let Millions of Indian die due to starvation. Mughals opened Langerkhana to help poor people, how ever lal though Mughal empires were conscious about their duty, Government officials were corrupt.

Tajmahal, Muslims give. After all to find way to rich India, Europeans sat sail.

The list goes this way Best Hindu and Buddhist ruler(under them we enjoyed both religious and economic freedom)> Muslim rulers(we enjoyed only economic prosperity)> worst was British(we were starved to death despite having railway).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kaalapani

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
613
Likes
281
Cruelty was part and is part of war. Hindu kings too attacked civilians during warfare. During Kallinga war 100,000 people died, during Bindusara's regime Takhshasila once revolted, Ashoka put every rebel to death.

How will you explain then when 20 Million Muslims were butchered by Mongals? Timur The Lame who razed Delhi, he slaughtered Baghdad which itself was Muslim city.
@Virendra Idea of social welfare state did not exist then. Yet Mughals tried to help poor people, one must remember in regard of contemporary primitive transport system, there was little could be done, even Moreland too accepted it, unlike British who had Railway, yet they let Millions of Indian die due to starvation. Mughals opened Langerkhana to help poor people, how ever lal though Mughal empires were conscious about their duty, Government officials were corrupt.

Tajmahal, Muslims give. After all to find way to rich India, Europeans sat sail.

The list goes this way Best Hindu and Buddhist ruler(under them we enjoyed both religious and economic freedom)> Muslim rulers(we enjoyed only economic prosperity)> worst was British(we were starved to death despite having railway).
Nope they killed millions of people.Get your facts right.

See what is happening in Middle East still killing and living in Middle ages.And they fallow paedophile ,robber and murderer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,749
Nothing wrong with learning a language. But those people who screwed India so much, towards their culture and language our unnecessary and extra attraction seem astonishing.

Muslims looted India, true and gave much in return also. India was very rich under Muslims.

Show me a single incident when Brits gave us any thing which has nothing to with their interest.
I hope Virender's post has updated your knowledge,

The progress made in India under British Rule like the coming of railways, Postal System, Telegraphic communications, etc., but it also undertaken by the British Administration to facilitate their rule as did any other conqueror who did good service for the conquered.

I am a nationalist, but not a jingoist. I am pragmatic to realise that to stew in one's own juice for the past in no way helps the future. To me the future is more important so that one can leave a footprint behind that makes India truly liberated from its own insecurities and instead march into a bright future.

Patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.
 

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
133
I hope Virender's post has updated your knowledge,

The progress made in India under British Rule like the coming of railways, Postal System, Telegraphic communications, etc., but it also undertaken by the British Administration to facilitate their rule as did any other conqueror who did good service for the conquered.

I am a nationalist, but not a jingoist. I am pragmatic to realise that to stew in one's own juice for the past in no way helps the future. To me the future is more important so that one can leave a footprint behind that makes India truly liberated from its own insecurities and instead march into a bright future.

Patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.
So you think future is only blindly copying West?

We will progress keeping our culture and language ahead, not through another country's language. We are not like Americans that we will make English our own. We are Indians, we have our own civilization like Chinese. We need to promote our language instead of making English our own.

I am not saying every thing of my country is good.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,749
Nope they killed millions of people.Get your facts right.

See what is happening in Middle East still killing and living in Middle ages.And they fallow paedophile ,robber and murderer.
First try to understand what is happening in the Middle East and also know how those Mandate territory were carved out into illogical countries.

Without knowing the background, one should not pour bile since it smacks of ignorance.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,749
So you think future is only blindly copying West?

We will progress keeping our culture and language ahead, not through about country's language. We are not like Americans that we will make English our own. We are Indians, we have our own civilization like Chinese. We need to promote our language instead of making English our own.

I am not saying every thing of my country is good.
That is where you go wrong in your blind hatred for anything that is not to your way of thinking.

Only a fool is blind.

The wise learn the good so as to use it as a force multiplier, while fools remain backward because of their false and misplaced pride.

Since you think you are a great nationalist, let me tell you why the Muslims remained backward during the British Raj days.

It is because they ruled India till the British came.

The British made their lose their Empire and made them second class.

It hurt their ego and they shunned everything British.

The Hindus, seized the opportunity, learnt the British way, got the privileges and perks and laughed all the way to higher echelons of life, to include bureaucracy.

What you are suggesting as great patriotism by the manner of shunning everything modern and British is the same follow that the Muslims did.

Learn from history - social history.

Hatred is corrosive of a person's wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation's spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and block a nation's progress to freedom and democracy.
 
Last edited:

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
133
That is where you go wrong in your blind hatred for anything that is not to your way of thinking.

Only a fool is blind.

The wise learn the good so as to use it as a force multiplier, while fools remain backward because of their false and misplaced pride.

Since you think you are a great nationalist, let me tell you why the Muslims remained backward during the British Raj days.

It is because they ruled India till the British came.

The British made their lose their Empire and made them second class.

It hurt their ego and they shunned everything British.

The Hindus, seized the opportunity, learnt the British way, got the privileges and perks and laughed all the way to higher echelons of life, to include bureaucracy.

What you are suggesting as great patriotism by the manner of shunning everything modern and British is the same follow that the Muslims did.

Learn from history - social history.
I am just saying to educate Indian kids in Indian languages instead of English like South Korean kids are educated in Korean language and later they learn English as 2nd language. What ever else they do I dont give a damn.

Just teach Indian kids in Indian mother tongue so that they can be good in their mother tongue after that even if Indian housewives start to wear Jeans instead of Saree, still I dont care.
 
Last edited:

Kaalapani

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
613
Likes
281
First try to understand what is happening in the Middle East and also know how those Mandate territory were carved out into illogical countries.

Without knowing the background, one should not pour bile since it smacks of ignorance.
Itz a power war going on between sects of Muslims.And both of them justify Killings.
As long as people fallow books instead of brains and logic Middle East will always be In turmoil.

Even if one of them manage to kill another sect fully new sect will propup and the fight will go on.

It is a mafia masquerading as religion.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,749
Itz a power war going on between sects of Muslims.And both of them justify Killings.
As long as people fallow books instead of brains and logic Middle East will always be In turmoil.

Even if one of them manage to kill another sect fully new sect will propup and the fight will go on.

It is a mafia masquerading as religion.
Since you do not know the background is as evident by your post, let me give the background

The Mandate System in the Post-WWI Era Middle East

19th century European imperialism continued a long tradition common to other imperial powers: a stated desire to bring "civilization" to its colonies and conquered territories. However benign such statements might sound, they are usually proven false. Empires are formed for numerous reasons, such as economic expansion or national security, but empires are rarely (if ever) beneficial to those who are conquered. 19th century Europe was a patchwork of highly competitive states that began to form empires so that they could stand against their rivals economically, geographically, and militarily. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rising tide of nationalism and self-determination in imperial colonies began to erode the ideology of imperialism, and European powers began to dismantle their own empires.

When it became apparent that the Ottoman Empire, which was often referred to as the "sick man of Europe," could not endure much longer, European powers (primarily Britain, France, Russia) saw an opportunity to acquire new territories without the onus of conquering and subjugating other peoples. Through a series of secret negotiations, such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Britain and France divided large amounts of Ottoman territory between themselves, as well as granting Russia certain key areas. This controversial agreement was formally ratified in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, which also stripped away all territory, except for Anatolia, from Turkish control (Khater, 136). By asserting their authority in the newly-formed League of Nations, European states arranged to have themselves appointed as "mandatory powers" that would, in theory, guide and assist the former Ottoman lands in the process of development and self-government. In reality, these mandatory powers differed from the absolute powers enjoyed by previous empires in name only (Gelvin, 181).

The mandate system was indeed "thinly disguised colonialism" (Gelvin, 184). European powers were very eager to increase their power through the establishment of global empires that allowed them to take what they needed from foreign regions. The Constantinople Agreement between France, Britain, and Russia is a very clear example of this policy; France and Britain allowed Russia to claim Istanbul and the Turkish Straits, and in return France would be given a vaguely defined region termed "Syria" while Britain was granted control of most of Persia (Gelvin, 178). What the Turks, Syrians, and Persians thought about this agreement was apparently never considered. The three European powers simply decided to divide the most desirable parts of the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves. This is typical of the high-handed treatment many developing areas found at the hands of European empires of the 19th century.

The mandate system has had long-lasting effects on the Middle East. Most of the borders of these modern Middle Eastern states were drawn almost arbitrarily by European powers in ways that would benefit themselves, rather than those who would be forced to live in the new states (Gelvin, 183). Although some effort was made to ensure that each of the new nations would be economically as well as politically viable, there were so many gross oversights that economic development and politically stability in the Middle East have been severely hampered. As a result, many of these boundaries are the subjects of long-standing conflicts. Several modern states continue to claim ancestral territories such as Iraq with Kuwait and Israel and Palestine with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The nation of Iraq was artificially created out of three former Ottoman provinces with wildly disparate ethnic and religious identities (Gelvin, 183). Since its establishment as a new monarchy in 1921, Iraq has been "notorious for its political stability" (Gelvin, 184). The Shiite majority of the country was, until very recently, ruled over by a Sunni minority. The Kurds, although mostly comprised of Sunnis, were an ethnic minority who would have preferred to govern themselves rather than be ruled by Arabs (Gelvin, 184). The British ignored these problems because of the many benefits they saw in having hegemony over the region: the oil-rich northern region would provide Britain with cheap oil; the fertile plains in the central region could be exploited as a breadbasket to feed England's most important colony, India; and by including access to the Persian Gulf, Britain could easily ship Iraq's natural resources. Incidentally, Britain established Iraq with a vacancy at its head, one which they quickly filled with Faysal, an ally that the British had recently betrayed and now badly needed to appease (Gelvin, 182).


The area that now comprises Jordan, Israel, and the disputed Palestinian territory has been sub-divided several times since it fell to British control. Originally called "Palestine" by the League of Nations, it was later split by the British along the Jordan River into smaller territories called "Palestine" and "Jordan" so that the throne of the newly-created Jordan could be given to 'Abdallah, another disgruntled ally, as a political gesture of appeasement. Unfortunately, dividing the region along the natural boundary of the river may have made geographic sense but was an economic blunder, as it gave Jordan no natural economic resources. As such, it has never been able to stand on its own, depending on foreign subsidies to remain solvent (Gelvin, 183). Palestine, on the other hand, was given to the Zionists to become the new nation of Israel in 1948, a decision that is still the center of intense conflict 60 years later.

Syria is perhaps the best example of the European mandatory powers riding roughshod over local opinion. Syria elected its own parliament following WWI to decide where its boundaries lay and which nation, if any, would be given mandatory powers over it. In 1919, the General Syrian Congress formally protested the decision of the League of Nations that Syria was "among the nations in their middle stage of development which stand in need of a mandatory power" (Khater, 201). However, the League of Nations placed Syria under the control of France, a decision that was unacceptable to Syria's leaders, and stripped away large amounts of territory claimed by Syria. France diminished Syria even further by splitting off what is now Lebanon, a region largely populated by Christians, so that they would have a Christian nation in the region to rely on (Gelvin, 181).

Works Cited:

Khater, Akram Fouad. Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

Gelvin, James L. The Modern Middle East: A History. New York: Oxford University

Press, 2004.
The Shia Sunni divide is there, but then the arbitrary boundaries drawn to benefit the colonial powers and which did not cater for the Shia Sunni divide is the catalyst for the chaos.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,749
I am just saying to educate Indian kids in Indian languages instead of English like South Korean kids are educated in Korean language and later they learn English as 2nd language. What ever else they do I dont give a damn.

Just teach Indian kids in Indian mother tongue so that they can be good in their mother tongue after that even if Indian housewives start to wear Jeans instead of Saree, still I dont care.
I say educate in English and have mother tongue and Hindi as second languages.

The other way around would encourage pidgin English and that would not allow them the advantage in the global arena. And the global arena is the place to show India's prowess as the powerhouse of tomorrow.

Silicon Valley has produced Indian tycoons! And we are all proud of that, aren't we?

If India has to be a superpower, it must be ready to take on the world and beat them with their own advantages.

Here is an example of an Indian tell the Americans to buzz off.

Get off Martin's Beach, tycoon Vinod Khosla tells riffraff of San Mateo county

Vinod Khosla, a technology investor who is worth an estimated $1.6 billion, paid $40 million in 2008 for 21.5 hectares that included the only road to Martin's Beach, a secluded cove that lies about 32km west of the headquarters of Google and Facebook.

He closed the road, posted armed guards at a gate and painted over a billboard that had welcomed visitors. The beach was his alone, he claimed, and he was not willing to share it.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...an-mateo-county/story-fnb64oi6-1226957077758#
Vinod Khosla (Gurmukhi: ਵਿਨੋਦ ਖੋਸਲਾ) (born 28 January 1955) is an Indian born businessman who is currently listed by Forbes magazine as an American billionaire.[2] Khosla made his early fortune as one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems, a company which created the Java (programming language) and Network File System (NFS) after his departure as founding CEO and chairman in the early 1980s.

Khosla's father was an officer in the Indian Army and was posted at New Delhi, India.[6][7]
Khosla read about the founding of Intel in Electronic Engineering Times at the age of fourteen and this inspired him to pursue technology as a career. He went on to receive multiple degrees from the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi), India (Bachelor of Technology in Electrical Engineering), Carnegie Mellon University (Masters in Biomedical Engineering), and Stanford Graduate School of Business (MBA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla

His father was an Indian Army officer.

And so he was from an English medium school.
 
Last edited:

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
133
I say educate in English and have mother tongue and Hindi as second languages.

The other way around would encourage pidgin English and that would not allow them the advantage in the global arena. And the global arena is the place to show India's prowess as the powerhouse of tomorrow.

Silicon Valley has produced Indian tycoons! And we are all proud of that, aren't we?

If India has to be a superpower, it must be ready to take on the world and beat them with their own advantages.
One cant have respect for his mother tongue if he does not study in this. More ever in terms of %, out of 120 crore Indians, how many Indians are going to work in call center or in IT center? Very little then why should we send our kids to English medium when it is proven fact English medium education destroys a country's language?

English is more necessary to Dutch, whose country's total GDP's 75% comes from service sector, Dutch economy is heavily depended on World economy, infact Holland is base of many multinational companies, to them grabbing a job in multinational company office more urgent than us, yet they learn English as 2nd language.

All I want that is Indians please learn English as 2nd language instead of using it first language. After that Indian girls may wear Bikini for sunbath in sea beach, I dont give a damn.

Also I cant understand why Indian companies use English instead of Indian languages.

After all I cant blame them, you can get a outline of people's average IQ. Global Warming is going to ruin Human civilization, still people are ignorrant of this threat which is going to destroy their very existence.

What else Can I expect then from xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx.

Mod: :nono:
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top