Our indian CEOs really surprise me. The moment I think that they are the best intelluctuals available in the country, they do something or the other to change my opinion.The great NRN proved that he is another please-all by proposing reservations in the private sector.Bang...all the respect I had for him vanished in a giffy.
There was a column by Jerry Rao ( CEO of Mphasis) in the New Indian express dtd:26th May 2005. The topic attracted my attention as it is about one of the suckers in the past..namely Thomas MaCauly of British India. Some of the points made by the authror really surprised me. Has he written the article himself? Has he done his homework well before making those statements??
When a Technocrat writes an article in a newspaper, people attatch lot of credibility to it. The wirting can influence differnt people given the present socio-economic conditions of the country.
Let me quote some of the points he made.
"Macaulay was not even a governor-general or viceroy. He was a humble “member of the governor-general’s council”.
sir, Harikishan Singh Surjeet is not even a memeber of Parliament. Still he execrcises more power than our Prime Minister. After some 50 years when our grand children read history, they would definitely wonder how a man like Harikishan Singh Surjeet influenced the policy making.
"He thought of Indians as primitive, childish people. The closest comparison he had was to untutored Russians before Peter the Great transformed them."
Wrong, I mention here a letter written by Thomas Macauly:
" I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and , therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation’ (this letter can be seen at the British museum in London, UK)."
"I, for one, am grateful to Macaulay. Without his gift to us, so many of us would be lesser individuals, not just different individuals"
This really amazes me. Had there been no British invention, India would be a much better nation than what it is now. For that matter, had there been no Moslem invasions , India would still be the richest country in the world. so, saying that without someones's contribution this present wont be there is an asinine statement. Presnt development doesnt justify past mistakes and atrocities.
Have yu bothered to verufy any stats sir??
If you look at the statistics in 1820, India's share of world production was 19%, and England's share was 9%, please note that Britain was deep into the industrial revolution at that time. 18% of the world trade was in Indian hands at that time whereas 8% was the figure for Britain and 1% for US. When 80% of the American population was engaged in agriculture, India had 60% of the population engaged in non-agricultural occupations. This is supposed to be an index of development. All these statistics can be found in Paul S. Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of Great Powers".
"English is not just a medium or a means to an end; it is part of our very consciousness. The interesting thing is even while writing on completely Indian subjects, this consciousness has been a powerful force.Just consider the individuals and their writings: Vivekananda on Vedanta, Coomaraswamy on Indian Art, Aurobindo Ghose on Vedic Mysticism, Radhakrishnan on the Hindu View of Life, Krishnan on Indian Wildlife, Srinivas on Caste, Zakaria on Indian Muslims, Sircar on Indian History, Guha on Indian Cricket, Nandy on Indian Science, Kakkar on Indian Sexuality, Khushwant Singh on Indian Gossip. The list is endless.
Isnt this statement superflous? English language might suite well for Kakkar and Kushwant Singh but the langauge pales when you read those works of ancient sages translated to this language. Bernard Shaw himslef acknowledged that English is not enough to express all the sounds that exist.
We are speaking english because we were conquered by english.That is it.Look at Germany, they dont speak an iota of english. Still the way they emerged as a technology force is something great. Look at China, they hardly speak any english. Still the have been a successful nation. The reason I think these nations are successful is they are never colonised. India was colonised and our minds are still colonised whatever walk of life we are in.
"In short, a revisionist view of our British imperial legacy is overdue. Indira Gandhi can be our Dalhousie-putri (they both impoverished maharajas and nawabs); Jaswant Singh can be our Curzon-putra (they both worried about our security in a dangerous neighbourhood); and we can all be proud Macaulay-putras"
Not all Indians are that shameless dear Technocrat!!
PS: Where did the author get time to write articles for news papers?? I really wonder!!!!