Cameron’s UK-India ‘Great Partnership’ Hypocritical



Cameron: UK and India can have 'Great Partnership'

David Cameron has said the UK can forge one of "the great partnerships of the 21st century" with India, as he arrives in Mumbai to begin a three-day visit....

Meanwhile, Mr Cameron has appeared to indicate that the UK's visa process could be made easier for Indian businesses....

"Britain wants to be your partner of choice. We've only just started on the sort of partnership that we could build.

"As far as I'm concerned, the sky is the limit."
- bbc


"UK and India can have 'great partnership'", says Cameron.  But what is left unsaid but as an integral part of this statement would be -

“....but since you are not a part of the EU, we'll still have to prefer the migration of white Europeans whatever their profession, to Indians despite their profession.”

Gandhi made a big mistake telling whitey to go home because he was white. If he didn't, it might have averted the formation of the consequentially culturally/racially biased state of the EU.   

(the above was placed as a comment beneath the aforelinked article)


end comment-------


With the success of the anti-colonial nationalist movement, the British and Indians were deprived of the opportunity to see themselves part of a wider region despite that region not being ‘white’ or Indian.  There was ethnic/racial/cultural polarisation and sectarianism in the wake of the anti-colonial movement, and thereafter, it also set the foundations upon which Britain, amongst others, could consider the unification of regions, such as the EU, on the basis of a so-called ‘shared history’ and culture.

But I don’t blame Gandhi too much, he didn’t have the benefit of hindsight like we do.  He may have accessed laudable methods to oust the British, but the inevitable consequence was far from laudable.  It is only to those who do not appreciate this point whom might confuse him for a ‘Mahatma’. 



ed




7 comments:

  1. Not to mention that Gandhi was a pretty racist individual himself. Having bought into colonial discourses regarding race, he spoke of Black Africans in a disdainful and degrading manner during his stint in South Africa. In this case, both he and the British empire did share sth in common....
    In fact, his rally for independence was just a power struggle that witnessed the upper-caste Indians disgruntled with their holding a mere position of  'subjects of the British Empire'. LOL! The poor and the so-called "lower caste" beings on the other hand were just helpless spectators. In short, the entire thing was just plain farcical. 

    ReplyDelete
  2.  I don't know if Gandhi carried his racist views of the blacks to his later years.  No doubt his views were coloured by the views of the colonialists and their racist theories of that time, but he appeared to have become more enlightened in his later years.  Some say that he likened the blacks to the 'untouchables' in India, but it is also true that he later did term the 'untouchables' as 'Children of God' and spoke up for them.  This contradiction seems to be similar to Malcolm X being 'pro-black' and a black separatist in his earlier years to being more inclusive in his latter years after his trip to Mecca.  I don't know if Gandhi became similarly enlightened, but his more inclusive views later, and his own humble peasant-style lifestyle seems to argue for it rather than against it.

    Secondly, whilst his power struggle advantaged the Indian upper classes over the British upper classes, that cannot be said to be his intention.  It is quite unlikely that one desires the upliftment of one's own upper classes whilst shunning their lifestyle himself as evident in his lifestyle.

    But it is certainly true that he wasn't all that racially-inclusive or else he would have realised that kicking out the British would simply mean that the 'native' upper classes would take their place.  If he appreciated this point, he would have fought for change in colonial treatment of the natives and for a more inclusive stance on their part rather than their eviction.  In this, he would have been able to address both racism and perhaps brought about a socially more egalitarian society with his seemingly socialist stance towards things in his latter years.  But kicking out the British simply served the course of racial division between white and brown/black, and at the same time transferred privilege from white to brown hands. 

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wouldn't go so far as to describe Gandhi as "enlightened" in the subsequent years following his South African experience...more subdued perhaps but definitely not enlightened.
    Plus his exalting the Dalits by affectionately calling them the "children of God" betrays Roussearian undertones of the Noble Savage. There wasn't and there still
    isn't a middle ground when it comes to the treathment of these "untouchables." On one hand you have people who demean and disparage them. On the other hand you have Gandhi and the pseudo-intellectual Arundhati Roy who put them on a pedestal, thereby creating no room for these people to experience true equality. In fact,
    this exaltation that we speak of is a form of subjugation in itself.
    And I never said that Gandhi's intention was to overthrow the British in favour of the 'upper-caste' Indians? What I meant was that most of the protests against colonialism were dominated by the priviledged English-educated upper-class
    and that had undeniably created further alienation between them and the 'untouchables' who found the caste system more oppressive than colonialism itself.  And peasant-style lifestyle? You mean he tilled the fields and fed the chickens? :\
    Lol...that isn't an indication of his mode of thought, is it?  For he still made several confessions as to how he had the utmost admiration for the British empire.
    As for Malcom X, he just grew tired I think... plus many Black seperatists, like him, tend to be inclusive in the sense that they Africanise almost everything. I remember reading
    one of Malcom X's speeches in which he talked about how the inhabitants of the ancient Tamil land were Black. That is factually incorrect for 
    many practices and customs, as seen in many parts of South India, bear striking similarities to those in the Megalithic Middle-East.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Calling them 'children of God' betrays Roussearian undertones of the Noble Savage?  That's provided that was on his mind when he did so.  I don't have the relevant evidence to support that i'm afraid.  Given that he saw people of all local faiths as brothers, i would say that supports the assumption that his terming the 'untouchables' as 'Harijan' was well-intentioned and not condescending in nature. 

    Hmmm....Looks like there's no pleasing you ;).  Speaking ill of the 'untouchables' is bad, putting them on a pedestal is bad.  Have you thought that putting the disadvantaged on a pedestal is simply an attempt to elevate or embellish their status over others as a compensatory strategy to make up for the past, and to generally just get people to respect them?  It is easier to fight for equality for the disadvantaged after establishing great or greater respect for them.  All movements tend to do that to bring to light their unique contributions, and to broaden the way the advantaged determine what is worthy of respect.

    Yes, certainly, the Indian bourgeoisie certainly took the helm in the fight for 'independence' as they would certainly have more to gain - as has been the case in most revolutions.  But the intelligentsia would usually have to take the lead in any revolution given that the masses would have been underdeveloped by the preceding state of affairs and hence have a very superficial appreciation of what true change requires.  It's just unfortunate that the 'intelligentsia' were pretty much bourgeois in orientation. 

    As for the alienation between the upper caste/class and the 'untouchables', i would not exonerate the classes betwixt the two from greater complicity given that they have more to immediately and directly gain from the subjugation of the 'untouchables' than do the upper castes/class wouldn't they.

    "He tilled the fields and fed the chickens....that isn't an indication of his mode of thought is it?"

    Yes, it is an indication of his mode of thought especially when he could have joined the rest of the privileged amongst the Congress like Jinnah and Nehru.  As for his admiration of the British empire, i would like to know exactly what it comprised, and when it was stated.  Whatever the case, i'd say he deserves some credit for living the way he chose despite being able to choose the advantaged path.  This does not take away from my statement that his eviction of the British was still nationally fascist and racist.

    Even though many of the practices and customs of the South Indians might have Megalithic Middle-Eastern connections, that doesn't mean that they weren't still 'black'.  My using chopsticks to eat noodles doesn't make me Chinese does it.  But genetically speaking, some south Indians have been found, according to some studies, to be one of the closest relatives to the Africans.  Though i don't know much about the connections cultural connections between the Dravidians and the Africans.  But i am interested to know why Malcolm X thought that.  Perhaps you could enlighten.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Though it may be "well-intentioned" the very act of romanticizing a particular group of people reduces the romanticized into objects and thus has them defined and categorized according to the modes of perception of the priviledged. In fact it solidifies the already existing social as well as economic disparaties rather than propelling a disadvantaged group of people towards emancipation, as this whole idealization  thingy does little to draw attention to their miserable situation.
    " It is easier to fight for equality for the disadvantaged after establishing great or greater respect for them."-You're not instilling a sense of equality into society by doing that. Why, by one deeming them the "children of God", the very structure itself remains intact for though they may have  their social position elevated that in itself  is but a position nonetheless!
    " i would not exonerate the classes betwixt the two from greater complicity given that they have more to immediately and directly gain from the subjugation of the 'untouchables' than do the upper castes/class wouldn't they."
    -Uh obviously....when you have institutionalised exploitation, one would think it is in his/her own self-interest to perpetuate the subjugation of the classes lower than that of theirs.
    "Whatever the case, i'd say he deserves some credit for living the way he chose despite being able to choose the advantaged path."-In case you aren't aware, he was indeed living a quite an affluent lifestyle until his being thrown off a train in South Africa jolted him back to reality...after which he decided to go, in ur own words, "peasant". LOL! My point is that the radical shift from being an advocate of the British Empireto being  an opponent of colonialism was pretty unhealthy. For example, he was against the idea of English being the national language of India when its adoption could have easily served as a unifying factor.
    "But genetically speaking, some south Indians have been found, according to some studies, to be one of the closest relatives to the Africans. "-I believe you're referring to the study carried out by a certain Spencer Wells or whatever his name is who happened  to take genetic samples from a small group of people and that too those who were distributed along the coastal regions. It's pretty ignorant and ludicrous to assume(not saying that you are though) that the entire region is populated by peoplewho belong to a specific racial group. There were several waves of migration into South India and the most significant one consistedof people who were proto-Mediterrenean. I have observed this myself... the structure of the temples reflects architectural featuresthat were prevalent in the Eastern-Mediterrenean region...plus the defication of fallen warriors reminds me of Ancient Sumer. Why Malcolm X thought that? That's because his reasons for doing so were pretty superficial...he drew links between African society and Southern India on the basis ofphysical characteristics when in fact the former is matriarchal and more passive in nature. On the other hand the latter is overwhelmingly patriarchal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Though it may be "well-intentioned" the very act of romanticizing a
    particular group of people reduces the romanticized into objects...."

    That's pretty textbook in approach and does not consider real world  effects and vagaries unfortunately.  Superficially, yes it does turn, but not necessarily 'reduce', them into objects.  However, to speak well of them for the sake of emancipating them from reduced perceptions does not pander to the interests of the privileged does it? 

    As i have said, when you look at most emancipatory movements, they do begin by turning themselves into 'objects' of appreciable value so as to emancipate themselves from perceptions of reduced value by the privileged.  The structure does not remain intact unless we are saying, 'let's respect them as they are and leave them as they are'.  Was that what Gandhi was after?


    "he was indeed living a quite an affluent lifestyle until his being thrown off a train"

    That does not take away from the point that his humbler lifestyle thereafter was still a matter of choice, and hence, indicative of his approach, or 'mode of thought'.


    "My point is that the radical shift from being an advocate of the British
    Empire to being  an opponent of colonialism was pretty unhealthy."

    I don't see why such 'radical shifts' should be perceived as unhealthy.  St Paul's shift was radical, but pretty good all the same;)


    "he was against the idea of English being the national language"

    I'm not surprised given that he wanted the British out because they weren't Indian - pretty fascist that.  But i don't know if making English as the national language would be a good idea at that time given that that would be more assimilationist than integrative.


    "It's pretty ignorant and ludicrous to assume(not saying that you are
    though) that the entire region is populated by people who belong to a
    specific racial group."

    Yes, it certainly would be given that enough wars and migrations within India would have diluted much close genetic relations to our African counterparts.  However, such links were still found, and i wonder to what degree that would be the case elsewhere, save Australia.


    "the structure of the temples reflects architectural features that were prevalent in the Eastern-Mediterrenean region"

    Well, the south-indians had been having interactions with people of the said regions from before the time of Christ or the Buddha if i recall correctly.  And given that links have been found between the ancient Indian civilisations of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa up north, and Dravidian civilisation, what you're saying makes sense - some have said that the aforementioned civilisation might have been Dravidian given the scripts found there. 

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ok Mr betwixt, how is that "textbook in approach" when it isn't the least bit cliched? What you need is for the whole system to be revolutionized...not for one oppressed group people to have a label, which has connotations of divinity, slapped onto them. It does not take an elevation of the oppressed to entail a new way of seeing things...a whole new consciousness. Politically speaking, it is possible for them to have their position elevated but you have to take into account the fact that the class system is sth that has been deeply entrenched in the minds of the people. No offence but your attitude is pretty much characteristic of the elite world which loves to aestheticize everything that reeks of sadness and misery.
    "St Paul's shift was radical, but pretty good all the same;)"That's a pretty abstract example. "I don't see why such 'radical shifts' should be perceived as unhealthy."Let me illustrate this with an example which might register better in your male mind: A straitjacketed woman morphing into an all-out Jezebel. Even though most men would be in favour of it, I believe that deep down inside they'll be really scared. Ok, that was a joke but my point is two extremes complement each other and hence why society will always remain inert and changeless. There is no middle ground when it comes to politics and he was a reflection of that... in the sense that he substituted one train of oppressive thought with another...from being subservient to being downright defiant. And that explains the reason the world has witnessed revolution after revolution without having a proper solution offered.St Paul's shift was radical, but pretty good all the same;)"That's a pretty abstract example. "I don't see why such 'radical shifts' should be perceived as unhealthy."Let me illustrate this with an example which might register better in your male mind: A straitjacketed woman morphing into an all-out Jezebel. Even though most men would be in favour of it, I believe that deep down inside they'll be really scared. Ok, that was a joke but my point is two extremes complement each other and hence why society will always remain inert and changeless. There is no middle ground when it comes to politics and he was a reflection of that... in the sense that he substituted one train of oppressive thought with another...from being subservient to being downright defiant. And that explains the reason the world has witnessed revolution after revolution without having a proper solution offered.

    ReplyDelete

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo