British Rule and Commonwealth
  • Dear All,

    India is is a member of British Commonwealth.

    Is continuing in British Commonwealth is accepting the erstwhile British Rule?

    Can we initiate a discussion on this?
  • Sure, our colonial past is also history.And though we rightly
    rejected ritish rule, to deny our past is foolishness.

    As to commonwealth, first we need to know what it entails, before
    going into pros and cons of it.
  • one of my favourite quotations

    THOSE WHO FORGET TO REMEMBER LESSONS OF HISTORY ARE FORCED TO REPEAT
    IT

    I think it was santayana who said this.

    our history, whether palatable or not is something we must chose to
    recognize.


    and whats wrong in being a member of the common wealth. the british
    were not so bad to us

    see germany and usa or usa and japan. they nearly bombed one another
    into virtual oblivion and today they are best of friends

    venketesh
  • Agreed,We are not going to erase our past by leaving from commonwealth.
    Infact,i would look commonwealth is as an yet another forum between
    the countries and not as the British Empire colonies...
  • Dear All
    Being part of the Commonwealtha doesnt mean the Queen is our Head Its still the President of India as We are a Republic.
    We still are part of the British Common Wealth for trade and bilateral relations
  • That is what I had asked, "What does it mean to be in Commonwealth?"

    If it is only an grouping based on shared history, economic
    relations.. then no harm in it.

    In fact we ought to use such forums to correct the wrongs of the
    past, for example reclaim wealth like Kohinoor, the Chagos archipalgo
    etc.,
  • -if somebody lays a legitimate claim to the kohinoor it could only
    be the pakistanis.
    lahore was its last residence.

    venketesh
  • Lahore or Kabul, think the brits would have taken it from Abdul shah
    Abdali's descendents.

    Anyway it would be the case of looters looting from other looters, so
    legitimacy I should think should be with the current owners of the
    orginial source, hence GOI, unless there has been a transaction
    involving trading of objects, legitimacy can't be claimed is my
    opinion, I do not know what the law says.

    We can debate this forever

    But as with history might is right, if India can club a strong claim,
    then England might have to yield.

    Pakisthan having legitimate claim, horrible! they did not even exist
    when Malikafur looted warangal, when Nadir shah looted Delhi and when
    British looted the NW.
  • the brits took it from dileep singh the last son of ranjit singh the
    lion of pujab

    the poor guy converted to cristianity travelled all the way to
    london and 'presented' the kohinoor to victoria

    later he married an half egyptian or so and settled in england itself
  • Resolving these ownership issues can be extremely difficult with no
    real right answers.. I dont think Chagos can be claimed exclusively
    by India.. Southern Africa, Maldives, etc may also lay claim.

    I wonder if the solution is to have a world body (maybe an UN
    organization) take ownership of contentious property/land. For eg,
    UN can make Chagos a world tourist destination with all the profits
    going to fund their programs like unicef, who, etc.

    But the problem is where to stop.. do we only consider historically
    contentious properties like Chagos or even modern PoK/Gaza type
    land?
  • Oh! well I do not have facts about the gems story. But any case can't
    accept that the current legitimate claim is by pakis. I am absolutely
    prejudiced about that. Also believe that there is justice to my bias
  • Sure there could be multiple claimants to these still colonial
    colonies, but first step should be to get the colonists recognize it
    is not theirs, then worry about the inheritors. there are many
    examples of such cases, Falklands, Diego Gracia(?)

    The UN solution may not be agreeable, for still the Mightis right
    powers would dominate the show, probably Halliburton would still get
    the contracts to in Chagos UN island. Even then SAARC is a better
    option than UN, (finally it would get something useful to do)

    And see why we should donate to charity before attempting to resolve
    the issue.

    One solution for the inheritance would be to give autonomy to such
    territories within a loose fedaration. Say an Federation of India
    Oceanic States including Maldives, Seychelles, Chagos etc.,

    POK/Gaza would fall in different category, they are being fought over
    by people native to the land itself, unlike some Brit lording over
    islands which are distant from them in every possible way.
  • kohinoor and the jagannath temple at puri
    The spectacular Kohinoor, or the Mountain of Light, was part of the
    booty of Sikh warrior Ranjit Singh, obtained during a campaign in
    Afghanistan in the 19th century.
    Ranjit Singh later crowned himself as the ruler of Punjab and willed
    the Kohinoor to a Hindu temple in Orissa while on his deathbed.
    But after his death the British administrators failed to execute his
    will.
    there are many claimants to the treasure and they are prepared to go to
    court for it. In 2002, the Jagannath temple in Puri had staked its
    claim on the Kohinoor, stating that prior to Dalip Singh taking
    possession of the diamond, it was the temple's property. Its lawyers'
    claim that they have documentary proof that Maharaja Ranjit Singh had
    bequeathed the diamond to the temple before his death in 1839. For
    this, the temple lawyers, quote from a letter preserved in the National
    Archives of India.
  • I really dont want to talk politics here but as someone with a
    different opinion, just wanted to express. I have no intention of
    taking this argument beyond the expression of these opinions.

    While I appreciate the nationalistic fervor of the writer, a
    federation of India including Maldives, Seychelles, Chagos will only
    be a dream and in the worst case a joke (I wonder why Srilanka was
    left out!!). We need to consider whether the local population there
    wants to have anything to do with India, in case of Chagos there is
    NO local population. Ofcourse, they like the tourism dollars we
    bring, but beyond that whether they want to be included in a
    federation is just a dream. While we consider the nationalistic
    expressions of our state, I think it is equally important for us to
    consider the same in others also. Otherwise, we become the
    colonisers we so much deride. Falklands is another case of an
    uninhibited island settled by the British sailors which wants to
    retain its British roots. Before supporting Argentina's claims, we
    need to understand that Argentina as a country did not exist when
    the British settled it first. Now, how can a non-existent country
    lay claim on an island which is not even in its sovereign waters?.
    We can go into Argentina's history to find that it is settled by the
    Conquistadors of another imperial power, Spain and so they have only
    a rival colonistic claim versus an legitimate one.

    While I support that the notion that the colonisers should accept
    responsibility for the looting they did, I just feel that all the
    wrong examples were given to support it. Honestly, I cant figure how
    Halliburton comes into picture unless one hear lots of 'Air America'
    or read 'Hindu' regularly. In a globalized world, a company has the
    right to venture into business in any part of the world and I dont
    think if Halliburton is ready with a billion dollars to invest in
    India, I think we will be rolling the red carpet for them. In a
    capitalistic world, it is the capital that speaks and I do not see
    anything wrong with it, morally or otherwise.

    My take on Koh-i-noor is that just keep telling the British that its
    ours. I remember the hurdles Vijay Mallaya was made to go through
    when he bought the sword of Tipu Sultan. So if it is there in the
    crown of Victoria, no issues with that. Italians dont feel bad that
    the 'Mona Lisa' is hung in the Louvre than in Rome or Milan. What I
    am actually worried is the art theft that goes on in our temples in
    a large scale and we need to be worried and focus our efforts on
    that.

    Sorry for moving so much away from the intentions and the subject of
    this group, but someone has to answer otherwise the stated stuff
    becomes the fact. Please note that I will not be drawn into a
    discussion on the finer points of this argument.


    http://sibipranav.blogspot.com
  • If you do not want debate or discussion on this, why express an
    opinion at all. The whole point of the e-group is to have an
    interactive discussion, wherein we can opine, correct and be
    corrected in our opinions and facts.

    To avoid it is to request that your opinions be ignored. If so, so be
    it.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Top Posters