Opera FAQ's, Tips, Tricks & Tweaks

Yup, these British have really bad attitudes when they mess with other people's countries. Being my country(Greece) also a victim of these attitudes, we have made equivalent myths too, like the here famous Kissingers one:
" The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike deep into their cultural roots: perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail; thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East"

Tamil, I don't now if your quote was really true(it may was), but, afterall, its your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another colony of them. Its yours responisbility to biuld defences, and by defences I mean politcal conscience. British just do their job, they wouldnt have hundreds of colonies if they did it wrong.

its your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another colony of them. Its yours responisbility to biuld defences, and by defences I mean politcal conscience. British just do their job, they wouldnt have hundreds of colonies if they did it wrong.

that is hardly any excuse. it's not that they occupied countries, if they meant to develop them and provide peace and security for those people and maybe explore their culture, that would have been fine. a ruler is a ruler. but being motivated by a need to break a people's spirit just for domination and subjugation is what is appalling. (all this assuming there is some truth to the quote in question - it might, like you said, be an urban myth - but the evidence to the contrary is quite apparent)

Anonymous writes:

This remark,

"Tamil, I don't now if your quote was really true(it may was), but, afterall, its your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another colony of them. Its yours responisbility to biuld defences, and by defences I mean politcal conscience. British just do their job, they wouldnt have hundreds of colonies if they did it wrong."

is typical of the moral idiocy or moral bankruptcy so typical of our times, which features "the lowest common denominator" sort of mentality of our "mass culture," in which every fool has an opinion about everything and the "right" to such an opinion. Always a non-thought thinking and a simple inability to see ugliness and plain indecency when it stares one in the face, not to mention an invincible cultural ignorance and prejudice. The same sort of stupidity is in evidence in remarks defending American soldiers in the teeth of the evidence of their atrocities. Objectivity is a rare virtue.

The ancient Hindu culture failed to "protect" itself largely because it lacked guns. That it harbored human failings that could be exploited by a maximum of cunning and ill will goes without saying. The fact remains, "the East bowed before the West in deep and patient disdain," with very good reason. Unfortunately, now tht it has lost its traditional mentality, and has become another "third world" area, those in the "first world" can smugly wallow in a sense of superiority, all the more so in that we can witness the pitiful sight of India and other Asian countries trying to "develop" like the West. How wonderful it will be when everybody thinks and acts like a proletarian European or a yokel from Texas or Indiana, and the landscape is uniformly one of malls and franchises from one end of the earth to the other: "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 culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."

Anonymous writes:

Good points. The fact that the quote is spurious, as it almost certainly is, is not relevant to the moral ugliness of the person's attitude towards it, not to mention the fact that technical superiority has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of a culture. The Hindu concept of "dharma" is the true gauge, and not that of "homo economicus."

Chocolate Brownie with vanilla scoops writes:

DeadHarlequin:

Tamil, I don't now if your quote was really true(it may was), but, afterall, its your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another colony of them.

I like the deep, scientific reasoning behind your analysis. eanwhile, a few words on how we Indians should protect the dying art of eating dosas as well?

Anon #2:

The ancient Hindu culture failed to "protect" itself largely because it lacked guns

Quotes like this make me both angry and sad. Angry, because being so simplistic, because it incorporates such a deeply flawed reading military of (what the Honourable W. would call as) strategery in general, and sad, because it is next to impossible to convince people that it is so.

I shall therefore surmise by saying the following: - Please read up on medieval Indian military history before coming up with nonsense such as this. Start with "White Mughals" if you need romance to hold your attention.

Anonymous writes:

Re: Quotes like this make me both angry and sad. Angry, because being so simplistic

"Guns" here obviously was shorthand for technological superiority. The West had machinery and outgunned their enemies, the East did not. That did largely account for their military victories. The rapid colonization of the world by the Europeans is largely a phenomenon of a technolgically more developed people militarily overcoming technologically weaker ones. What do you think the chief factor was? At any rate, the colonization by the Europeans does not form part of Indian medieval history, but of modern Indian history. Unfortunately, the average man is such that he is awed by material superiority, and takes it for essential superiority. A man in a business suit getting out of a jet plane strikes him as intrinsically superior to a the Jagadguru in his dhoti. That is a true tragedy, because it is an almost invincible spiritual blindness--clearly foretold in the Puranas.

I like the deep, scientific reasoning behind your analysis. eanwhile, a few words on how we Indians should protect the dying art of eating dosas as well?


To be honest, I prefer my plain reasoning from opinions that simulate such events into physical disasters...

There isn't only the issue of guns, it's rather the issue of political and economical influence.

What I am saying is that seeking for the responsibilities of others its completely useless and nonsense. It wasn't my intention to justify such tactics.

Anyway it's true I only know very very few things about indian history.

velvetlight writes:

supposedly macaulay never said this. he was in india in 1835. for detailed info about why this is a hoax quote go to http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html

also he must have been blind to say he never saw a beggar or a thief considering that the famous gang of 'thugs' ran amok in central india.

Balaji writes:

Whatever the past was, now again India is falling victim to the western culture. Wherever you go, you can only see advertisements and notices in English only, not in local language. In most of the provinces in India, English is the communication language, not local language.

Politicians like Karunanidhi are still opposing Hindi, our national language and they promote English more than Tamil. They say to promote tamil they oppose hindi, but they inject English. Agony...........!!!!!!

Anonymous writes:

How do you know that statement above were Lord Macaulay’s address to the British Parliament in 2 February, 1835. Do you have any sources to prove this comment? If you do please advise.....

Anonymous writes:

part XVII of the constitution:
defines OFFICIAL language (NOT national lang)
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~sk4zw/india-const/p17.html

Article 345: This gives the State govt., power to decide its own "OFFICIAL LANGUAGE"
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~sk4zw/india-const/p17345.html

Article 343: This defines hindi and english to be the "OFFICIAL LANGUAGES" of union govt.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~sk4zw/india-const/p17343.html


DIFFERENCE:

NATIONAL LANGUAGE: defines the people of the nation, culture, history.

OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: used for official communication

While a National language by default can become the Official langauge, an Official language has to be APPROVED legally to become the National language.

India has NO NATIONAL LANGUAGES ONLY 23 OFFICIAL languages

to anon:
like the comments above suggest, there are a few webpages dedicated to why these quotes attributed to Lord Macaulay are nothing but mere fiction. a simple google search should pull those up.

also, as an interesting read, a simple book search about missionary work in india in the 1880's should bring up a lot of lectures and books dedicated to a study of the indian people. the search string i used was "telugu language" and it turned out to be books on the missionary work done in south india. ymmv.

point is, i don't think it's important whether this quote can be attributed to Lord Macaulay. what is is trying to understand why it should matter in the context of the world we live in right now.

thoughts?

Same s#it happens between USA and USSR...

You know, culture is not a single thing that stays the same. The only culture that stays the same is the culture that stays dead.

So what if we borrow something from other cultures? Indian culture has borrowed several things from the British and it's worked both ways.

I mean, at the end of the day, nothing is set in stone - I'd rather have a shot at interacting easily with the rest of the world at the expense of annoying our "cultural elite" than not.

*shakes head*

It turns out Macaulay never said the quoted text. As with Kissinger's case...

I will repeat my opinion that although for sure British exploited India in a way, India owes her development to the British, as does owe any misdevelopment even until today, to its own state, and furthermore to Indian people themselves.

The greatest enemy for India, as with any other country, is its introversion.

that is hardly any excuse. it's not that they occupied countries, if they meant to develop them and provide peace and security for those people and maybe explore their culture, that would have been fine. a ruler is a ruler. but being motivated by a need to break a people's spirit just for domination and subjugation is what is appalling. (all this assuming there is some truth to the quote in question - it might, like you said, be an urban myth - but the evidence to the contrary is quite apparent)

It's not an excuse, its a fact. The development comes with an exchange, is not a charity of course!
What was the progress of India after its independence? There wasnt any! Only the last years india has started gaining potential for development.

Anonymous writes:

it was unsophisticated on british's part to rule india like that.
they are the biggest hypocritc i have ever seen

Anonymous writes:

This is a hoax. Indologist Koenraad Elst had written a nice peace on this: A dubious quotation, a controversial reputation: the merits of Lord Macaulay. Lord Macaulay never said or wrote anything like that.

Anonymous writes:





The main intention behind introducing English education at Bharat was to conquer its rich culture and heritage by not allowing them to disseminate to the next generation. Even Max Muller had the same view about the education system at Bharath and wanted that to predominated by English education.



Check this article on Max Muller:

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_2/0088.html

Parasara Suta Dasa writes:

Just read the Mahabaratha and Ramyana as the history speaks for itself and read the Srimad Bhagavatam as the past, present and future is already predicted”

Proud to be INDIAN writes:

Hey.. whether the "Lord..." statement is true or not.. the main thing is that, even though after being ruled by couple of communities/kings/Britishers for hundreds/thousands years, IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT: Every time we were able to break the bonds of slavery & Now we represent one the biggest democracies of the world.

Though there are still flaws in our country, but everyone has it... but the great thing is that We are going towards development like anything. All we have to do is stick to our moral vaslues & nobody/ no country in the whole world can rule us, that way.

Anonymous writes:

A question to All of you who have posted here... ? could you tell me the map of so called Bharat in 1835? I have been a student of Indian History and can say that what we call as OUR India today or Hindustan was non existent. You had diverse states all ruled by independent monarchs - whether it be the Wonderful Rani of Jhansi ( I belong to her land) or Tantya Tope Or the Kingdom of Mysore or the Old Bahadursha Zafar - or for that matter the traitors Scindia, all rules their respective pieces of land, and the unity. I am not sure

The Map of India as we know today or even before partition was what the British Rule gave us. So before being proud of India and criticising British please realise that the British rule also gave us unity - because that was the ONLY time when we Indians rose as one against the Rule. The India that was in 1947 is already standing on the brink of falling apart. the states are in chaos, and all the Central government has done is break states into smaller states thereby creating smaller factions.

Before we criticise the Brits for their rule tell me what did the Mughals gave India? or for that Matter what have the Hindus done for India. I am proud to be a Hindu and I know that probably my ancestors went through a bad time during the Muslim rule of the country to retain their faith.

But the fact is what the Brits did to India in about 70 odd years of their rule , we have not been able to undo in 60 years of Independence. Look back over the past 60 years and tell me what has been done to improve our cultural heritage and history? Nothing. We still run on the rail Infrastructure laid by the Brits, and some of the most well planned cities were developed by the Brits ( Bangalore and Chennai for Example which have both gone to the dogs) . It is really nice to be anonymous and criticise the whole world and its ancestors for destroying India, but I strongly believe that this is India. It is the people who build it and develop it.

OK I am starting to sound as if I support the rule of the British, NO I DO NOT. but they came , and they ruled because we Indians unfortunately have always lacked the spirit to stand up and claim our rights whether it is the Muslim rule from yr 1000 AD onwards , or the British Empire. We were always slaves and we still are to the politicians who rule. The likes of Mayawati and Mulayam singh or Jayalalitha have crores in property and money... where does that come from and WHO amongst you couch critics has the guts to stand up to them and tell them not to break the cultural and econolmical backbone of India? Have you stopped watching Hindia or Enslish movies because they have western Influence? How many of you wear Dhoti Kurta, Lungi or Pyjama Kurta ? At least women still wear sarees and salwars kameez, I do not see men in traditional wear!

That is a long diatribe , but in nutshell it is the people who make or break a nation , the power is in their hands and rulers can always be removed if there is will enough to do it. For a land which has been a slave for the last almost 1000 years , that mentality has seeped in and I doubt if much can be changes. There is so much of in fighting within state wamongst politicians that it is frustrating ! and the nation is almost at the same state where the Brits found it... breaking up and ready to be conquered again...

Yes and I am a couch critic too that's all that I have learnt being an Indian... But I am proud of my nations heritage and culture, but am too busy earning money and following the west ( I speak English too as I need to interact with my British and American bosses for my fat salary) to really spend time in saving the country. Aren't you all?

"tell me what did the Mughals gave India?"

Much more than you think. (I was asked to pay 700Rs to visit Taj!)

"But the fact is what the Brits did to India in about 70 odd years of their rule"

They gathered huge collection of indian rarities in their museums.

"Look back over the past 60 years and tell me what has been done to improve our cultural heritage and history?"

Nothing. You just build a cosmodrome and make an A-Bomb.