Home
Publications
Search
Register
Log inDo you agree with this view
+5
MaxEntropy_Man
bw
Idéfix
Petrichor
doofus_maximus
9 posters
Page 1 of 1
Do you agree with this view
by doofus_maximus Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:22 pm
http://hawkeyeview.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-question-of-loyalty-1.html
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012
A question of loyalty - 1
I have this really whacky theory and I am curious to find out how far this flies.
We all know that the British occupation of India started with the idea of doing business and then they up-leveled their relationship to make themselves rulers of the area. Since the British were fewer in number, they were majorly assisted by native Indians to perform administrative, police and military tasks. So these natives became clerks, jawans, administrators and police personnel. These people served the British loyally for 200+ years. For many natives of Indian subcontinent born in 1700s and 1800s - their reality and normalcy was defined as serving the British. This is because their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers had served them. That was the only way of life known to them as their lifetime was spent under British rule. Their loyalty was to the crown. They were people of good integrity and loyalty and so were very sincere to their masters and showed excellence in that sincerity by getting titles like 'dubash' etc. Given this it was natural that these people on the payroll of British government initially resisted and were even aghast at the early rounds of the Indian freedom struggle. One could make an argument that if this large workforce was less cooperative with the British rulers, Indian freedom could have been achieved much earlier.
History looks upon these Indians (largely belonging to a group of upper castes) - who served the British loyally - with considerable disdain. These people have been regarded as traitors and as selfish. Looking at their own interests instead of the interests of the nation. No historical footnote has been added to mitigate their evilness. It has not been mitigated by the fact that there was no unifying concept of a nation at that time. There was no concept of India. These were people who were serving the numerous chieftains and kings who existed before the British and were slowly merged into the British government as the chieftains surrendered to the British. By virtue of serving British for generations it was logical to assume that these natives (delusionally) thought that they were an integral part of the British government and loyal subjects of the crown - just like any other white guy. They might've allowed themselves the luxury of calling Britain, the King/queen and its colonies as 'our' country, 'our' majesty etc. Now can you find fault these people? Are they really bad. They were accused of fighting their own brothers and fellow 'Indians' and accused of abetting the British to try and extinguish the freedom struggle. Most Indians cringe at this knowledge. On the surface it seems like heinous and stupid thing to do. But at a detailed level, in a very micro view of things - they were just doing their duty and what they thought was 'ethically right' (i.e. to be loyal to their country, crown and those who paid them). Like any other generation they had their free will manipulated by their ruler's perception of what was 'right' and what was 'wrong'. But at a macro level, with a lot of hindsight they were wrong. They missed the point and couldn't see the forest for the trees.
The recent US elections has allowed me to form a theory and I really want to write it down before I forget it. This is not to poke fun. Just that this opportunity to observe US based desis (with vote or no vote) at election time has allowed me to make observations about a category of people who may have similarities with certain categories of people from history. Most 1st generation Indians who have immigrated to the US and obtained citizenship refer the US, its president as 'my' country, ''my' president etc. Strangely, even people with no citizenship afford this luxury. In the event of conflict of interests (i.e. a situation that benefits US but is detrimental to India) these Indians - largely belonging to same caste groups as that of the people who served the British - use the 'loyalty' card to express support to USA. Again, these people aren't evil or inherently bad. They get paid and live in a country and are being loyal to that setup.Their notions of right and wrong has probably undergone similar 'free will' manipulation. The difference is these people have grown up in a unified India. They are aware of the country called India. Unlike their historical counterparts.they have reaped significant benefits from the country (decent life, democracy, right/access to education, rich supply of food, recognized education system, consulates, diplomatic relationships with other countries, basic infrastructure such as airports to passports). Yet at a micro level they are quick to support the US. They cite several 'logical' reasons to support (i.e. they have a US passport, have taken a oath to serve the country, Obama is doing the right thing for his people, this is good for the US and it is not necessary that they should consider what is good for India as my priority etc etc). The question is - how will history judge these people?
I understand that nothing significant has happened between US and India that tests the strength of the loyalty of Indian immigrants. But if we take the liberty of extrapolating current behavior to projected behavior in a confrontational situation - my guess is you will find more than a handful of people expressing support to the US and state several micro level 'logical' reasons in favor. My theory is less on taking a dump on Indian immigrants but mostly on the subject of how confusing the concept of 'micro level loyalty' can be. If you decide the correctness of each individual issue at a micro level without a sense how those issues tie up at a macro level - how good is your overall ethics? On the other hand, does macro level ethics trump the need to be correct at each individual micron level issue?
p.s:1: I am not particularly patriotic. I don't see myself going out of my way to express love for India or do awesome deeds to show my patriotism. But I don't see myself causing harm to India or acting against its interests as well.
p.s.2: I understand that these analogies aren't perfect and the situations aren't necessarily congruent. But I have a strong sense that they do have similarities. I am just wondering how big is the common denominator is between these two categories.
p.s.3: I do not consider people living in India to be inherently more or les patriotic than NRIs or immigrated Indians. Just that the latter set are put in a more vulnerable position. Chest-thumping patriotic Indians would change behavior once they become NRIs. Infact I think the early Comp Sci based immigrants were instrumental in India becoming a software superpower.
Posted by Hawk Eye at 8:16 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012
A question of loyalty - 1
I have this really whacky theory and I am curious to find out how far this flies.
We all know that the British occupation of India started with the idea of doing business and then they up-leveled their relationship to make themselves rulers of the area. Since the British were fewer in number, they were majorly assisted by native Indians to perform administrative, police and military tasks. So these natives became clerks, jawans, administrators and police personnel. These people served the British loyally for 200+ years. For many natives of Indian subcontinent born in 1700s and 1800s - their reality and normalcy was defined as serving the British. This is because their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers had served them. That was the only way of life known to them as their lifetime was spent under British rule. Their loyalty was to the crown. They were people of good integrity and loyalty and so were very sincere to their masters and showed excellence in that sincerity by getting titles like 'dubash' etc. Given this it was natural that these people on the payroll of British government initially resisted and were even aghast at the early rounds of the Indian freedom struggle. One could make an argument that if this large workforce was less cooperative with the British rulers, Indian freedom could have been achieved much earlier.
History looks upon these Indians (largely belonging to a group of upper castes) - who served the British loyally - with considerable disdain. These people have been regarded as traitors and as selfish. Looking at their own interests instead of the interests of the nation. No historical footnote has been added to mitigate their evilness. It has not been mitigated by the fact that there was no unifying concept of a nation at that time. There was no concept of India. These were people who were serving the numerous chieftains and kings who existed before the British and were slowly merged into the British government as the chieftains surrendered to the British. By virtue of serving British for generations it was logical to assume that these natives (delusionally) thought that they were an integral part of the British government and loyal subjects of the crown - just like any other white guy. They might've allowed themselves the luxury of calling Britain, the King/queen and its colonies as 'our' country, 'our' majesty etc. Now can you find fault these people? Are they really bad. They were accused of fighting their own brothers and fellow 'Indians' and accused of abetting the British to try and extinguish the freedom struggle. Most Indians cringe at this knowledge. On the surface it seems like heinous and stupid thing to do. But at a detailed level, in a very micro view of things - they were just doing their duty and what they thought was 'ethically right' (i.e. to be loyal to their country, crown and those who paid them). Like any other generation they had their free will manipulated by their ruler's perception of what was 'right' and what was 'wrong'. But at a macro level, with a lot of hindsight they were wrong. They missed the point and couldn't see the forest for the trees.
The recent US elections has allowed me to form a theory and I really want to write it down before I forget it. This is not to poke fun. Just that this opportunity to observe US based desis (with vote or no vote) at election time has allowed me to make observations about a category of people who may have similarities with certain categories of people from history. Most 1st generation Indians who have immigrated to the US and obtained citizenship refer the US, its president as 'my' country, ''my' president etc. Strangely, even people with no citizenship afford this luxury. In the event of conflict of interests (i.e. a situation that benefits US but is detrimental to India) these Indians - largely belonging to same caste groups as that of the people who served the British - use the 'loyalty' card to express support to USA. Again, these people aren't evil or inherently bad. They get paid and live in a country and are being loyal to that setup.Their notions of right and wrong has probably undergone similar 'free will' manipulation. The difference is these people have grown up in a unified India. They are aware of the country called India. Unlike their historical counterparts.they have reaped significant benefits from the country (decent life, democracy, right/access to education, rich supply of food, recognized education system, consulates, diplomatic relationships with other countries, basic infrastructure such as airports to passports). Yet at a micro level they are quick to support the US. They cite several 'logical' reasons to support (i.e. they have a US passport, have taken a oath to serve the country, Obama is doing the right thing for his people, this is good for the US and it is not necessary that they should consider what is good for India as my priority etc etc). The question is - how will history judge these people?
I understand that nothing significant has happened between US and India that tests the strength of the loyalty of Indian immigrants. But if we take the liberty of extrapolating current behavior to projected behavior in a confrontational situation - my guess is you will find more than a handful of people expressing support to the US and state several micro level 'logical' reasons in favor. My theory is less on taking a dump on Indian immigrants but mostly on the subject of how confusing the concept of 'micro level loyalty' can be. If you decide the correctness of each individual issue at a micro level without a sense how those issues tie up at a macro level - how good is your overall ethics? On the other hand, does macro level ethics trump the need to be correct at each individual micron level issue?
p.s:1: I am not particularly patriotic. I don't see myself going out of my way to express love for India or do awesome deeds to show my patriotism. But I don't see myself causing harm to India or acting against its interests as well.
p.s.2: I understand that these analogies aren't perfect and the situations aren't necessarily congruent. But I have a strong sense that they do have similarities. I am just wondering how big is the common denominator is between these two categories.
p.s.3: I do not consider people living in India to be inherently more or les patriotic than NRIs or immigrated Indians. Just that the latter set are put in a more vulnerable position. Chest-thumping patriotic Indians would change behavior once they become NRIs. Infact I think the early Comp Sci based immigrants were instrumental in India becoming a software superpower.
Posted by Hawk Eye at 8:16 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
doofus_maximus- Posts : 1903
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Petrichor Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:56 pm
I'll take a 'whack' at this...
There are Chinese-Americans, Iranian-Americans, and all other hyphenated categories. They all trooped in, clutching their passports into a nondescript building and raised their right hands, looked awkwardly at their other neighbors and swore a friggin' oath. They said, in effect, we are willing to subsume our other facets of identity to that overarching one in glorious Red, White and Blue. The battle may involve physical combat or just an economic one or even just one of ideas and in the sphere of culture. They said, if "we" are threatened by an 'outsider' even if that outsider was a relative, we will lean favorably towards our 'countrymen'.
America is an idea - and it is a salad bowl of interests and loyalties but ultimately it is an idea that mutates one's dna even at the cost of consigning everything of the past, misdeeds and misanthropes, into the dustbowls of the indo-gangetic plains.
In short, get on with the program...and hope Uncle Sam will always like uncle Swami.
(I hope I get a A- like an Asian-American instead of a Gentleman's C like that WASP, for this nonsense
)
There are Chinese-Americans, Iranian-Americans, and all other hyphenated categories. They all trooped in, clutching their passports into a nondescript building and raised their right hands, looked awkwardly at their other neighbors and swore a friggin' oath. They said, in effect, we are willing to subsume our other facets of identity to that overarching one in glorious Red, White and Blue. The battle may involve physical combat or just an economic one or even just one of ideas and in the sphere of culture. They said, if "we" are threatened by an 'outsider' even if that outsider was a relative, we will lean favorably towards our 'countrymen'.
America is an idea - and it is a salad bowl of interests and loyalties but ultimately it is an idea that mutates one's dna even at the cost of consigning everything of the past, misdeeds and misanthropes, into the dustbowls of the indo-gangetic plains.
In short, get on with the program...and hope Uncle Sam will always like uncle Swami.
(I hope I get a A- like an Asian-American instead of a Gentleman's C like that WASP, for this nonsense
)
Petrichor- Posts : 1725
Join date : 2012-04-10
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Idéfix Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:07 am
I don't see myself getting a US passport -- I am happy with my Indian passport. However, as a taxpayer in this country, I feel vested in the political process, and certainly care about the outcomes of that process. In confrontations between the US and India, say over emissions caps at the UN or over WTO negotiations, I have observed my sympathies are usually with India's case.
I disagree with one point the writer makes. He says that people who collaborated loyally with the British are looked upon with "considerable disdain" by history. This is not true. Unlike Europe in WWII when "collaborator" became a bad word, India's collaborators did very well. Even our history books paint those collaborators in a positive light; remember than the Indian National Congress was a loyal organization that supported the idea of empire up until the Lahore Declaration of 1929. Most of the national leaders who are treated favorably by history were collaborators or descendants of collaborators. The descendants of those collaborators are still the social, political and economic elites of India.
I disagree with one point the writer makes. He says that people who collaborated loyally with the British are looked upon with "considerable disdain" by history. This is not true. Unlike Europe in WWII when "collaborator" became a bad word, India's collaborators did very well. Even our history books paint those collaborators in a positive light; remember than the Indian National Congress was a loyal organization that supported the idea of empire up until the Lahore Declaration of 1929. Most of the national leaders who are treated favorably by history were collaborators or descendants of collaborators. The descendants of those collaborators are still the social, political and economic elites of India.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Do you agree with this view
by bw Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:20 am
once a person has decided to move to another country, raise a family there and perhaps die there, what's the big deal if they feel more involved with that country on the political front as well?
sitting afar in a country that one sought, largely for materialistic reasons, and thumping one's chest about one's patriotism to the land abandoned is far more hypocritical and deserves ridicule.
sitting afar in a country that one sought, largely for materialistic reasons, and thumping one's chest about one's patriotism to the land abandoned is far more hypocritical and deserves ridicule.
bw- Posts : 2922
Join date : 2012-11-15
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Idéfix Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:29 am
I agree; I am wary of the notion of patriotism in general -- whether in the context of the US or India. It is often used to justify actions that cannot be justified by appealing to shared human values.bw wrote:once a person has decided to move to another country, raise a family there and perhaps die there, what's the big deal if they feel more involved with that country on the political front as well?
sitting afar in a country that one sought, largely for materialistic reasons, and thumping one's chest about one's patriotism to the land abandoned is far more hypocritical and deserves ridicule.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Do you agree with this view
by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:18 am
atcg wrote:
In short, get on with the program...and hope Uncle Sam will always like uncle Swami.
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:28 am
doofus_maximus wrote:http://hawkeyeview.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-question-of-loyalty-1.html
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012
A question of loyalty - 1
I have this really whacky theory and I am curious to find out how far this flies.
Posted by Hawk Eye at 8:16 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Whoever wrote this must be a lower caste quota man who was brought up hating the upper castes - read Brahmins.
First, the brahmins were the one group that knew how to read/write forever, and natural mediators between the Brits and the overwhelmingly, selfish, fighting chieftains. What could these upper caste do caught between the guns and the swords?
Second, the leaders at the forefront of the fight against the Brits were mostly upper caste people - of course, the lower caste were prisoners of community and could not have led the revolt.
Third, there is no need to criticize India just bcz one gets a US passport. That is a misguided assumption of the wannabe westerners. Desis Americans are no more or no less patriotic to US and no more or less attached to their birth countries than other immigrants.
Besides, those with OCI cards can easily get back their Indian citizenship by simply applying for one after staying in India for 1 year. So while they may be US citizens, they are actually true dual citizens emotionally, culturally, economically, and financially.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar- Posts : 17675
Join date : 2011-04-30
Age : 110
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:30 am
Can patriotism, loyalty etc be categarized as some kind of noble characters/values? I have my doubts on that. Hitler was a great patriot too.
If it's a great character to be loyal to a country because one happened to have been born there and raised there, then there's nothing wrong in being loyal to a religion into which one is born and brought up with those values.
The peeve that hyderabadi hindus have against hyderabadi muslims is that the hydi muslims aren't patriotic enough. For them, loyalty to their religion comes before the loyalty to their country. The constant complaint is that hydi muslims support the Pakistani team in the event of a cricket match between India and Pakistan. I remember a time when communal crashes erupted and several ppl killed when some muslims were distributing sweets to the passerby to celebrate the victory of the pakistani team over the indian team.
But when you watch the cricket matches in England, Australia or New zealand, you can see the NRIs in those countries cheering for the Indian team and celebrating its victory over the country of which they are citizens of. Isn't their loyalty to India as bad as the loyalty the hydi muslims have for pakistan? Are they as much traitors as the hydi muslims?
Where should the loyalty of the kids born in US or other countries outside india be with? To India or the country in which they were born, raised, and are citizens of?
Just random thoughts....
If it's a great character to be loyal to a country because one happened to have been born there and raised there, then there's nothing wrong in being loyal to a religion into which one is born and brought up with those values.
The peeve that hyderabadi hindus have against hyderabadi muslims is that the hydi muslims aren't patriotic enough. For them, loyalty to their religion comes before the loyalty to their country. The constant complaint is that hydi muslims support the Pakistani team in the event of a cricket match between India and Pakistan. I remember a time when communal crashes erupted and several ppl killed when some muslims were distributing sweets to the passerby to celebrate the victory of the pakistani team over the indian team.
But when you watch the cricket matches in England, Australia or New zealand, you can see the NRIs in those countries cheering for the Indian team and celebrating its victory over the country of which they are citizens of. Isn't their loyalty to India as bad as the loyalty the hydi muslims have for pakistan? Are they as much traitors as the hydi muslims?
Where should the loyalty of the kids born in US or other countries outside india be with? To India or the country in which they were born, raised, and are citizens of?
Just random thoughts....
Last edited by kinnera on Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:40 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : added a lil something)
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:35 am
bw wrote:once a person has decided to move to another country, raise a family there and perhaps die there, what's the big deal if they feel more involved with that country on the political front as well?
sitting afar in a country that one sought, largely for materialistic reasons, and thumping one's chest about one's patriotism to the land abandoned is far more hypocritical and deserves ridicule.
spot-on, bw!
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:47 am
Don't care for politics of the country left behind or newly adopted, as long as they give me my basic rights and freedoms. If not, then I'm out. Overall just follow the rules of wherever you live, and be a good contributing citizen.
Just hope the two never go on a war, real or cold. That's when I will be in real dilemma. Until then, all is well.
Just hope the two never go on a war, real or cold. That's when I will be in real dilemma. Until then, all is well.
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:48 am
also, i don't understand why the blogger draws parallels between the loyalty of indians towards the britishers who were occupiers and the loyalty of the NRIs towards the country of which they chose to be citizens of. Both are so totally different.
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Propagandhi711 Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:50 am
Natalia Romanova wrote:Don't care for politics of the country left behind or newly adopted, as long as they give me my basic rights and freedoms. If not, then I'm out. Overall just follow the rules of wherever you live, and be a good contributing citizen.
Just hope the two never go on a war, real or cold. That's when I will be in real dilemma. Until then, all is well.
you'll be loyal to bollywood, tv serials and youtube. forever and forever.
Propagandhi711- Posts : 6941
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:56 am
Propagandhi711 wrote:Natalia Romanova wrote:Don't care for politics of the country left behind or newly adopted, as long as they give me my basic rights and freedoms. If not, then I'm out. Overall just follow the rules of wherever you live, and be a good contributing citizen.
Just hope the two never go on a war, real or cold. That's when I will be in real dilemma. Until then, all is well.
you'll be loyal to bollywood, tv serials and youtube. forever and forever.
All that is global. Guess so am I now. Am sure there are many more like me.
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Idéfix Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:56 am
In my observation, this is one of those self-perpetuating rumors that is not really based in fact, but gets a lot of play because it sounds believable. I have spent time in the old city during and after important matches, and the overwhelming majority there roots for Team India. After all, local Muslim boy Azhar was captain of that team! When Pakistan plays Australia or England, many people used to cheer Wasim, Waqar, and Imran, and those guys were personally popular. But when they played India, the crowd celebrated their losses, not wins.kinnera wrote:The peeve that hyderabadi hindus have against hyderabadi muslims is that the hydi muslims aren't patriotic enough. For them, loyalty to their religion comes before their loyalty to their country. The constant complaint is that hydi muslims support the Pakistani team in the event of a cricket match between India and Pakistan. I remember a time when communal crashes erupted and several ppl killed when some muslims were distributing sweets to the passerby to celebrate the victory of the pakistani team over the indian team.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Propagandhi711 Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:02 am
Natalia Romanova wrote:Propagandhi711 wrote:Natalia Romanova wrote:Don't care for politics of the country left behind or newly adopted, as long as they give me my basic rights and freedoms. If not, then I'm out. Overall just follow the rules of wherever you live, and be a good contributing citizen.
Just hope the two never go on a war, real or cold. That's when I will be in real dilemma. Until then, all is well.
you'll be loyal to bollywood, tv serials and youtube. forever and forever.
All that is global. Guess so am I now. Am sure there are many more like me.
global aunty, I like that
Propagandhi711- Posts : 6941
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:09 am
We have heard fire crackers from Muslim areas on Paki wins in my hometown. It's not a hyped thing. Doesnt mean there are no exceptions. Of course there are patriotic Muslims.
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:10 am
Propagandhi711 wrote:Natalia Romanova wrote:Propagandhi711 wrote:Natalia Romanova wrote:Don't care for politics of the country left behind or newly adopted, as long as they give me my basic rights and freedoms. If not, then I'm out. Overall just follow the rules of wherever you live, and be a good contributing citizen.
Just hope the two never go on a war, real or cold. That's when I will be in real dilemma. Until then, all is well.
you'll be loyal to bollywood, tv serials and youtube. forever and forever.
All that is global. Guess so am I now. Am sure there are many more like me.
global aunty, I like that
Global aunty. I like too.
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:26 am
panini press wrote:In my observation, this is one of those self-perpetuating rumors that is not really based in fact, but gets a lot of play because it sounds believable. I have spent time in the old city during and after important matches, and the overwhelming majority there roots for Team India. After all, local Muslim boy Azhar was captain of that team! When Pakistan plays Australia or England, many people used to cheer Wasim, Waqar, and Imran, and those guys were personally popular. But when they played India, the crowd celebrated their losses, not wins.kinnera wrote:The peeve that hyderabadi hindus have against hyderabadi muslims is that the hydi muslims aren't patriotic enough. For them, loyalty to their religion comes before their loyalty to their country. The constant complaint is that hydi muslims support the Pakistani team in the event of a cricket match between India and Pakistan. I remember a time when communal crashes erupted and several ppl killed when some muslims were distributing sweets to the passerby to celebrate the victory of the pakistani team over the indian team.
Not true. I saw with my own eyes, the hydi muslim guys cheering and supporting the pakistani team and celebrating pak's win over india. Kapil was the captain then and azhar wasn't around. After the communal clashes, they became increasingly aware of showing their public support for Pakistan.
That said, i feel it is not fair. India is a free country and one should have the freedom to support whoever they want to. There should be no fear to express themselves. One shouldn't be forced to display their patriotism and loyalty to India.
Last edited by kinnera on Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by doofus_maximus Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:30 am
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:doofus_maximus wrote:http://hawkeyeview.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-question-of-loyalty-1.html
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012
A question of loyalty - 1
I have this really whacky theory and I am curious to find out how far this flies.
Posted by Hawk Eye at 8:16 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Whoever wrote this must be a lower caste quota man who was brought up hating the upper castes - read Brahmins.
First, the brahmins were the one group that knew how to read/write forever, and natural mediators between the Brits and the overwhelmingly, selfish, fighting chieftains. What could these upper caste do caught between the guns and the swords?
Second, the leaders at the forefront of the fight against the Brits were mostly upper caste people - of course, the lower caste were prisoners of community and could not have led the revolt.
Third, there is no need to criticize India just bcz one gets a US passport. That is a misguided assumption of the wannabe westerners. Desis Americans are no more or no less patriotic to US and no more or less attached to their birth countries than other immigrants.
Besides, those with OCI cards can easily get back their Indian citizenship by simply applying for one after staying in India for 1 year. So while they may be US citizens, they are actually true dual citizens emotionally, culturally, economically, and financially.
it has nothing to do with what he wrote or what you wrote. But Hawkeye is an ultra-refined TamBrahm.
doofus_maximus- Posts : 1903
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Idéfix Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:33 am
We are talking about different times, then. I was referring to the mid-90s through early 2000s. May be, as you say, the riots of the early 90s and before sensitized people to not support Pakistan against India.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Do you agree with this view
by doofus_maximus Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:33 am
to add my input: I thought the article was distasteful and the blogger has also written something about Indians having an opinion about recent US elections which at least had some credence to it.
To Panini Press: I agree with your view about Lahore declaration, but I think hawkeye was talking about the collaborators from early 1700s to 1800s.
To Panini Press: I agree with your view about Lahore declaration, but I think hawkeye was talking about the collaborators from early 1700s to 1800s.
doofus_maximus- Posts : 1903
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:35 am
[quote="doofus_maximus"]
The author specifically mentioned, 'upper castes' as the ones who were loyal to the british and later as the ones who emigrated to other countries and loyal to the respective counties. He was blaming the upper castes.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:doofus_maximus wrote:http://hawkeyeview.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-question-of-loyalty-1.html
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012
A question of loyalty - 1
Whoever wrote this must be a lower caste quota man who was brought up hating the upper castes - read Brahmins.
it has nothing to do with what he wrote or what you wrote. But Hawkeye is an ultra-refined TamBrahm.
The author specifically mentioned, 'upper castes' as the ones who were loyal to the british and later as the ones who emigrated to other countries and loyal to the respective counties. He was blaming the upper castes.
Guest- Guest
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Jeremiah Mburuburu Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:34 pm
have you assigned refinement scores to all the castes and subcastes?doofus_maximus wrote:Hawkeye is an ultra-refined TamBrahm.
Jeremiah Mburuburu- Posts : 1251
Join date : 2011-09-09
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:41 pm
bw wrote:once a person has decided to move to another country, raise a family there and perhaps die there, what's the big deal if they feel more involved with that country on the political front as well?
sitting afar in a country that one sought, largely for materialistic reasons, and thumping one's chest about one's patriotism to the land abandoned is far more hypocritical and deserves ridicule.
Mother, mother tongue and motherland all extract similar sentiments from (most) people.
Should men and women also ignore mother after marrying and setting up their own world? Should Flimmy - sorry make that MAX - give up and not care for Tamil after falling in love with English and its greatness?
Same thing also holds when it comes to Countries.
IOW - I disagree.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar- Posts : 17675
Join date : 2011-04-30
Age : 110
Re: Do you agree with this view
by bw Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:52 am
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:bw wrote:once a person has decided to move to another country, raise a family there and perhaps die there, what's the big deal if they feel more involved with that country on the political front as well?
sitting afar in a country that one sought, largely for materialistic reasons, and thumping one's chest about one's patriotism to the land abandoned is far more hypocritical and deserves ridicule.
Mother, mother tongue and motherland all extract similar sentiments from (most) people.
Should men and women also ignore mother after marrying and setting up their own world? Should Flimmy - sorry make that MAX - give up and not care for Tamil after falling in love with English and its greatness?
Same thing also holds when it comes to Countries.
IOW - I disagree.
the situation is more like this. a kid, not happy with what his parents are able to offer chooses to leave home and get adopted by another family. the new family is able to give the child all that he desires. he treats the new family as his home, calls them mum and dad etc. he visits his old family every now and then, bags filled with gifts but has no intention of going back, living with them or taking care of them. what's the point feeling loyal to the old family when he has willingly walked away?
bw- Posts : 2922
Join date : 2012-11-15
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:37 am
bw wrote:
the situation is more like this. a kid, not happy with what his parents are able to offer chooses to leave home and get adopted by another family. the new family is able to give the child all that he desires. he treats the new family as his home, calls them mum and dad etc. he visits his old family every now and then, bags filled with gifts but has no intention of going back, living with them or taking care of them. what's the point feeling loyal to the old family when he has willingly walked away?
really not true. This is more like a woman getting married to start a new life of dreams, fantasy, and expectations - then puts up with the new life and husband no matter what. Does not go back to mom for social stigma and fear of the unknown. Does not mean she hates her mother or cannot talk about her mother.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar- Posts : 17675
Join date : 2011-04-30
Age : 110
Re: Do you agree with this view
by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:58 pm
bw wrote:
the situation is more like this. a kid, not happy with what his parents are able to offer chooses to leave home and get adopted by another family. the new family is able to give the child all that he desires. he treats the new family as his home, calls them mum and dad etc. he visits his old family every now and then, bags filled with gifts but has no intention of going back, living with them or taking care of them. what's the point feeling loyal to the old family when he has willingly walked away?
surely this is a more complex and nuanced issue than the way you have portrayed it here. i doubt very much that even you believe this rather naive picture. hyphenated americans would not exist if that weren't so. where do people who have dual citizenships (and it's a fairly long list of countries) sit in this worldview you would have us buy into? people have several layers of identities, some acquired through birth, some by cultural association, and some through migration. to insist that the one acquired through migration trumps everything else is neither practical, nor very useful in an age where people travel incessantly.
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Petrichor Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:16 pm
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: people have several layers of identities, some acquired through birth, some by cultural association, and some through migration. to insist that the one acquired through migration trumps everything else is neither practical, nor very useful in an age where people travel incessantly.
The identity acquired through a legal procedure after an arduous wait must necessarily weigh with gravitas on behavior especially at times of conflict of interests. To shirk this duty is akin to treachery. As much as we reproach Uncle Sam for quarantining Japanese-Americans for good reason, we must equally be ready to cast this expectation on new arrivals at Ellis Island. Of course this is lot more relevant to the Indian-Americans in the US armed forces and visceral but the guiding principle should generally hold for the Indian-American with a US Passport working for an Indian IT company subcontracting indirectly to NSA (if that is even possible) on US soil and facing an opportunity for intellectual property theft that will benefit India strategically and economically.
Petrichor- Posts : 1725
Join date : 2012-04-10
Re: Do you agree with this view
by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:26 pm
within the boundaries prescribed by legality there is a vast mental landscape where multiple simultaneous identities comfortably exist in the same person. special cases are interesting in mathematics and science, not so much in describing your average immigrant indian in america.
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Petrichor Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:36 pm
Your average immigrant indian will hopefully never face a "conflict of interest" (the situation addressed by the OP's blogger). When he does, he will discreetly move his dish to the right azimuth settings for getting his regular spiel from NDTV and surreptitiously read the screeds from India online. He will be a schmuck to all his neighbors.
Petrichor- Posts : 1725
Join date : 2012-04-10
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Hellsangel Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:40 pm
atcg wrote:Your average immigrant indian will hopefully never face a "conflict of interest" (the situation addressed by the OP's blogger). When he does, he will discreetly move his dish to the right azimuth settings for getting his regular spiel from NDTV and surreptitiously read the screeds from India online. He will be a schmuck to all his neighbors.
Your average Indian immigrant is your average Costco shopper. Not your average Walter Mitty.
Hellsangel- Posts : 14721
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Do you agree with this view
by Petrichor Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:50 pm
Wait..are you saying Professors = Costco Shoppers = Schmucks now?!!
Petrichor- Posts : 1725
Join date : 2012-04-10
Re: Do you agree with this view
by bw Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:28 pm
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:bw wrote:
the situation is more like this. a kid, not happy with what his parents are able to offer chooses to leave home and get adopted by another family. the new family is able to give the child all that he desires. he treats the new family as his home, calls them mum and dad etc. he visits his old family every now and then, bags filled with gifts but has no intention of going back, living with them or taking care of them. what's the point feeling loyal to the old family when he has willingly walked away?
surely this is a more complex and nuanced issue than the way you have portrayed it here. i doubt very much that even you believe this rather naive picture. hyphenated americans would not exist if that weren't so. where do people who have dual citizenships (and it's a fairly long list of countries) sit in this worldview you would have us buy into? people have several layers of identities, some acquired through birth, some by cultural association, and some through migration. to insist that the one acquired through migration trumps everything else is neither practical, nor very useful in an age where people travel incessantly.
the original post was critical of indians in the US who refer to US as their country. to me, it is the most natural thing to do. i understand people being still attached to their roots and it defining their identity etc. but where should your loyalty be if you have to make a choice?
for example, outsourcing has been a very good thing for india but at the same time, it has really affected the middle-class of the US and taken away a lot of their jobs. for an indian living in the US, where should his/her sympathies be? yes, for corporate america, it is very good - more profit, less cost, 1%ers thrive even more. what about the rest of the people esp those who are losing opportunities?
if people are living in another country just as mercenaries and do everything in favour of their homeland, i think they do deserve contempt and in any case, have no business looking down at others who have chosen to adopt the land as their true homeland.
bw- Posts : 2922
Join date : 2012-11-15
Re: Do you agree with this view
by bw Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:25 am
atcg wrote:Wait..are you saying Professors = Costco Shoppers = Schmucks now?!!
i have a feeling that he is calling you a Walter Mitty, for reasons i am not sure of.
bw- Posts : 2922
Join date : 2012-11-15
Similar topics» Sanghis and Chaddis agree to Rahul's demand and agree to hold a discussion on communal riots (allegedly orchestrated by them) in parliament
» Room with a view: Tejpal's new living quarters in Goa's Central jail has an ocean view
» i agree
» JM, do you agree with this?
» KV, do you agree with this?
» Room with a view: Tejpal's new living quarters in Goa's Central jail has an ocean view
» i agree
» JM, do you agree with this?
» KV, do you agree with this?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|