Sorry to keep harping on this earlier article:
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->TOP ARTICLE | Interpretation Of Dreams
28 Apr 2009, 0000 hrs IST, <b>JEAN DREZE</b>[right][snapback]96736[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. <!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joshi describes pre-colonial India as a "land of abundance", with an "economy as flourishing as its agriculture".[right][snapback]96736[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why is the catholic parrot (Jean Dreze) not hitting out at the following French historian who described the pre-christoBrit-infested India as the "land of plenty, where milk and honey flowed"?
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/European_Imperialism.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many historians, such as Frenchman Guy Deleury, have documented the economic rape of India by the British :
"<b>Industrially the British suffocated India, gradually strangling Indian industries</b> whose finished products, textiles in particular, were of a quality unique in the world which has made them famous over the centuries. Instead they oriented Indian industries towards jute, cotton, tea, oil seeds, which they needed as raw materials for their home industries. They employed cheap labor for the enterprises while traditional artisans were perishing. <b>India, which used to be a land of plenty, where milk and honey flowed started drying</b>"
(source: Le Modele Indou, by Guy Deleury. Hachette, le Temps & les hommes. 1978).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This Guy Deleury sounds more enthusiastic in his description of pre-christoBrit India than the Indian Joshi. Ooh I know, Deleury must be Fundootva! Why do the christocommunitwits not attack him? After all, as Deleury wrote it in 1978, he may still be alive.
The following is some background on the alien ecocomic (parasiting on Hindu soil) Jean Dreze:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Dr%C3%A8ze
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jean Drèze is a Indian development Economist of <b>Belgian origin. His co-authors include Nobel laureate in economics Amartya Sen, with whom he has written on famine</b>, and Nicholas Stern, with whom he has written on policy reform when market prices are distorted.
(Of course he has cowritten with Amartya Sen.)
<b>Jean's father, Jacques, founded CORE, the Center for Operations Research and Econometrics, at the Université catholique de Louvain.</b> His brother Xavier Drèze is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
(*Of course* his dad would have been an important entity in an important catholic uni of Belgium.)
Jean is currently an honorary Professor at the Delhi School of Economics. He is a former member of the National Advisory Council of India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An alien who was a former member of the National Advisory Council and is now lying about Indian history and famines (i.e. doing the typical holocaust denial that the Vatican is also famous for), making references to Indian communist hysterians like Romila for 'authority'.
<b>ADDED:</b> Turns out he studied number-crunching ecocomics at the Uni of East Saxony:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jean Drèze, born in Belgium in 1959, has lived in India since 1979 and became an Indian citizen in 2002. He studied Mathematical Economics at the University of Essex and did his PhD (Economics) at the Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought that the catholic uni of Louvain that Dreze's dad was in =Leuven, which would then make it the same catholic uni that Elst attended? (I could be wrong...) But <i>if so</i>, well then, I will drag in an Elst quote since it seems somehow appropriate:
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/European_Imperialism.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hindusthan was always a proverbially rich country.</b> Now, mother Theresa has made it something of a synonym with poverty. But this poverty cannot be blamed on Hindu culture. <b>After the Muslims had blindly plundered large parts of the country and destroyed so much, the British made an even more systematic and profound attack on India's natural prosperity.</b> They reorganized its economy to suit their own ends, integrating it in their colonial trade system, again to the country's detriment. <b>When the British arrived, India was one of the most industrialized countries in the world, and one of its top exporters.</b> The British economical policies, coupled with the world-wide impact of modern industry on the pre-modern economies, destroyed much of India's prosperity and economical; self-reliance.
(source: Ayodhya and After - By Koenraad Elst).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. The only thing that is actually unsubstantiable in those statements of Joshi brought up by Dreze is the dubious Macaulay quote. And it is consequently the sole thing the christocommunist parrot has to launch its rabid attack on its target:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The most insidious part of the BJP manifesto's preamble is a fake quote attributed to Thomas Babington Macaulay.</b> According to Joshi: "India's prosperity, its talents and the state of its high moral society can be best understood by what Thomas Babington Macaulay stated in his speech of February 2, 1835, in the British Parliament. '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 high 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..."
This "quote" (abridged here) is a wonderful prop for Joshi's arguments. But there is a catch Macaulay never said this. The quote is a well-known fabrication, which has been the subject of many comments and articles. This does not prevent it from being publicised on numerous Hindutva websites. On a dissenting note, one of these websites advises against using this quote, as it "has a bad reputation amongst scholars of Indology who generally ridicule it". Joshi is evidently not among these "scholars of Indology", despite his emphasis on the need for the nation to "understand itself". Incidentally, Macaulay was in India on February 2, 1835, making it rather unlikely that he would have addressed the British Parliament that day.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And that is the only real error I can detect in the statements of Joshi discussed by Dreze. But Dreze wastes no time in concluding - apparently using this error to insinuate that Joshi is "therefore" equally wrong in everything else:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully, these examples suffice to show that the BJP manifesto's preamble is an exercise in obfuscation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the (presumably Hindu) Joshi ought to be totally stomped on for referring to the above unlikely "Macaulay says" before the 28th of April (going by the time Dreze's response appeared here), where is Dreze when a faithful islamic from the neighbouring Jihadi Republic of Pakistan invokes the same "macaulay quotation" in the Paki paper "The Nation" on 3 May 2009 - which is still Today in different parts of the world. I mean, if Dreze concludes that "<i>the most insidious</i> part of the BJP manifesto's preamble is a fake quote attributed to Thomas Babington Macaulay" then I eagerly await his enlightening/ecocomical words concerning the islamaniac below referring to the same (and the islamic paper that published it without correcting him). Not very Hindootva nor even BJP, is it:
www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/
Columns/03-May-2009/Barbarians-at-barbarians-doorstep/1
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Barbarians at barbarians' doorstep</b>
By Humayun Gauhar | Published: <b>May 3, 2009 </b>
[...]
To make you better understand what I am saying, let me draw your attention to an extract from an address Lord Macaulay gave to the British Parliament on February 2, 1835. "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 culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."
How did they do that? Macaulay showed the way in his minutes of February 1835: "It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population." Note the phrase "interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern."
These then were the intermediaries between the English coloniser and the natives who helped just a few thousand Englishmen rule such a vast subcontinent for so long. We belong to this engineered class for we are the progeny of these "interpreters" and intermediaries. And we still are interpreters and intermediaries between America and our people for we are still "English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect."
Get it? Quite a guy, this Macaulay!
<b>The writer is a senior political analyst.</b>
E-mail: humayun.gauhar@gmail.com<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Pakistani islamic "Senior political analyst" has kindly given his email. Perhaps Dreze will use it (instead of going all traditionally catholic on us by remaining the hypocrite) and now write on "Spurious quotations employed by Jihadistan and Jihadis to argue for islamism".
Sounds about right.
Or am I to conclude that Dreze is only hired by the Katholic Kongress Kangaroo Party in India to sit on any 'nationalist Hindu party' competition?
3. Meanwhile, what is The Atlantic doing in propagating that Jabez T. Su<b>nd</b>erland, the author of "The New Nationalist Movement", is now suddenly called Su<b>th</b>erland instead (in spite of everyone earlier having correctly referred to Sunderland as Sunderland, including the likes of Will Durant in The Case For India).
I mean, compare
- the less widely-posted version of The Atlantic's The New Nationalist Movement at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/08oct/nationmo.htm
with
- the more frequently seen version, also at The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/190810/nationalist-india
Curious, n'est-ce pas?
An "embarrassing error". Slip of the keyboard? Or conscious history-rewrite? That is, should we suspect The Atlantic of being deliberate liars? Which would make them into apologists for the christobrit empire. (I might have thought it an OCR error if it had been spelled consistently wrong. But then why does the first Atlantic link above correctly spell it Sunderland while the second says Sutherland? Also, why have they still not corrected it?) I mean, is it as 'innocent' as the number games that the christowestern media plays with the death toll from the Godhra riots - with Reuters recently declaring an all-new high?
Hmmm. One does wonder how frequently history gets rewritten in subtle ways in our time.
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->TOP ARTICLE | Interpretation Of Dreams
28 Apr 2009, 0000 hrs IST, <b>JEAN DREZE</b>[right][snapback]96736[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. <!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 28 2009, 09:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joshi describes pre-colonial India as a "land of abundance", with an "economy as flourishing as its agriculture".[right][snapback]96736[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why is the catholic parrot (Jean Dreze) not hitting out at the following French historian who described the pre-christoBrit-infested India as the "land of plenty, where milk and honey flowed"?
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/European_Imperialism.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many historians, such as Frenchman Guy Deleury, have documented the economic rape of India by the British :
"<b>Industrially the British suffocated India, gradually strangling Indian industries</b> whose finished products, textiles in particular, were of a quality unique in the world which has made them famous over the centuries. Instead they oriented Indian industries towards jute, cotton, tea, oil seeds, which they needed as raw materials for their home industries. They employed cheap labor for the enterprises while traditional artisans were perishing. <b>India, which used to be a land of plenty, where milk and honey flowed started drying</b>"
(source: Le Modele Indou, by Guy Deleury. Hachette, le Temps & les hommes. 1978).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This Guy Deleury sounds more enthusiastic in his description of pre-christoBrit India than the Indian Joshi. Ooh I know, Deleury must be Fundootva! Why do the christocommunitwits not attack him? After all, as Deleury wrote it in 1978, he may still be alive.
The following is some background on the alien ecocomic (parasiting on Hindu soil) Jean Dreze:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Dr%C3%A8ze
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jean Drèze is a Indian development Economist of <b>Belgian origin. His co-authors include Nobel laureate in economics Amartya Sen, with whom he has written on famine</b>, and Nicholas Stern, with whom he has written on policy reform when market prices are distorted.
(Of course he has cowritten with Amartya Sen.)
<b>Jean's father, Jacques, founded CORE, the Center for Operations Research and Econometrics, at the Université catholique de Louvain.</b> His brother Xavier Drèze is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
(*Of course* his dad would have been an important entity in an important catholic uni of Belgium.)
Jean is currently an honorary Professor at the Delhi School of Economics. He is a former member of the National Advisory Council of India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An alien who was a former member of the National Advisory Council and is now lying about Indian history and famines (i.e. doing the typical holocaust denial that the Vatican is also famous for), making references to Indian communist hysterians like Romila for 'authority'.
<b>ADDED:</b> Turns out he studied number-crunching ecocomics at the Uni of East Saxony:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jean Drèze, born in Belgium in 1959, has lived in India since 1979 and became an Indian citizen in 2002. He studied Mathematical Economics at the University of Essex and did his PhD (Economics) at the Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought that the catholic uni of Louvain that Dreze's dad was in =Leuven, which would then make it the same catholic uni that Elst attended? (I could be wrong...) But <i>if so</i>, well then, I will drag in an Elst quote since it seems somehow appropriate:
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/European_Imperialism.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hindusthan was always a proverbially rich country.</b> Now, mother Theresa has made it something of a synonym with poverty. But this poverty cannot be blamed on Hindu culture. <b>After the Muslims had blindly plundered large parts of the country and destroyed so much, the British made an even more systematic and profound attack on India's natural prosperity.</b> They reorganized its economy to suit their own ends, integrating it in their colonial trade system, again to the country's detriment. <b>When the British arrived, India was one of the most industrialized countries in the world, and one of its top exporters.</b> The British economical policies, coupled with the world-wide impact of modern industry on the pre-modern economies, destroyed much of India's prosperity and economical; self-reliance.
(source: Ayodhya and After - By Koenraad Elst).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. The only thing that is actually unsubstantiable in those statements of Joshi brought up by Dreze is the dubious Macaulay quote. And it is consequently the sole thing the christocommunist parrot has to launch its rabid attack on its target:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The most insidious part of the BJP manifesto's preamble is a fake quote attributed to Thomas Babington Macaulay.</b> According to Joshi: "India's prosperity, its talents and the state of its high moral society can be best understood by what Thomas Babington Macaulay stated in his speech of February 2, 1835, in the British Parliament. '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 high 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..."
This "quote" (abridged here) is a wonderful prop for Joshi's arguments. But there is a catch Macaulay never said this. The quote is a well-known fabrication, which has been the subject of many comments and articles. This does not prevent it from being publicised on numerous Hindutva websites. On a dissenting note, one of these websites advises against using this quote, as it "has a bad reputation amongst scholars of Indology who generally ridicule it". Joshi is evidently not among these "scholars of Indology", despite his emphasis on the need for the nation to "understand itself". Incidentally, Macaulay was in India on February 2, 1835, making it rather unlikely that he would have addressed the British Parliament that day.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And that is the only real error I can detect in the statements of Joshi discussed by Dreze. But Dreze wastes no time in concluding - apparently using this error to insinuate that Joshi is "therefore" equally wrong in everything else:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully, these examples suffice to show that the BJP manifesto's preamble is an exercise in obfuscation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the (presumably Hindu) Joshi ought to be totally stomped on for referring to the above unlikely "Macaulay says" before the 28th of April (going by the time Dreze's response appeared here), where is Dreze when a faithful islamic from the neighbouring Jihadi Republic of Pakistan invokes the same "macaulay quotation" in the Paki paper "The Nation" on 3 May 2009 - which is still Today in different parts of the world. I mean, if Dreze concludes that "<i>the most insidious</i> part of the BJP manifesto's preamble is a fake quote attributed to Thomas Babington Macaulay" then I eagerly await his enlightening/ecocomical words concerning the islamaniac below referring to the same (and the islamic paper that published it without correcting him). Not very Hindootva nor even BJP, is it:
www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/
Columns/03-May-2009/Barbarians-at-barbarians-doorstep/1
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Barbarians at barbarians' doorstep</b>
By Humayun Gauhar | Published: <b>May 3, 2009 </b>
[...]
To make you better understand what I am saying, let me draw your attention to an extract from an address Lord Macaulay gave to the British Parliament on February 2, 1835. "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 culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."
How did they do that? Macaulay showed the way in his minutes of February 1835: "It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population." Note the phrase "interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern."
These then were the intermediaries between the English coloniser and the natives who helped just a few thousand Englishmen rule such a vast subcontinent for so long. We belong to this engineered class for we are the progeny of these "interpreters" and intermediaries. And we still are interpreters and intermediaries between America and our people for we are still "English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect."
Get it? Quite a guy, this Macaulay!
<b>The writer is a senior political analyst.</b>
E-mail: humayun.gauhar@gmail.com<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Pakistani islamic "Senior political analyst" has kindly given his email. Perhaps Dreze will use it (instead of going all traditionally catholic on us by remaining the hypocrite) and now write on "Spurious quotations employed by Jihadistan and Jihadis to argue for islamism".
Sounds about right.
Or am I to conclude that Dreze is only hired by the Katholic Kongress Kangaroo Party in India to sit on any 'nationalist Hindu party' competition?
3. Meanwhile, what is The Atlantic doing in propagating that Jabez T. Su<b>nd</b>erland, the author of "The New Nationalist Movement", is now suddenly called Su<b>th</b>erland instead (in spite of everyone earlier having correctly referred to Sunderland as Sunderland, including the likes of Will Durant in The Case For India).
I mean, compare
- the less widely-posted version of The Atlantic's The New Nationalist Movement at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/08oct/nationmo.htm
with
- the more frequently seen version, also at The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/190810/nationalist-india
Curious, n'est-ce pas?
An "embarrassing error". Slip of the keyboard? Or conscious history-rewrite? That is, should we suspect The Atlantic of being deliberate liars? Which would make them into apologists for the christobrit empire. (I might have thought it an OCR error if it had been spelled consistently wrong. But then why does the first Atlantic link above correctly spell it Sunderland while the second says Sutherland? Also, why have they still not corrected it?) I mean, is it as 'innocent' as the number games that the christowestern media plays with the death toll from the Godhra riots - with Reuters recently declaring an all-new high?
Hmmm. One does wonder how frequently history gets rewritten in subtle ways in our time.