|
>Nepal would have been a part of today's India if the British had
conquered Nepal.
Not necessarily I think.
Like Burma & Sri
Lanka, Nepal could have still be a separate country today.
The British policy or the Christian
West policy, I think, is to do everything right on paper or according
to the Law. So the main motto of the British, to put it bluntly, was to
create some white Laws to their advantage. If they want to attack some country, they will try to make
some treaty with that country first and then will wait for opportunity for that
country to break the treaty. Otherwise they will try to provoke that country to
give an excuse to attack. Without an established excuse
approved by all in democratic manner, they will not move an inch. I think with
Nepal the British could not provoke enough and there was in fact no
hurry. But with Tibet, they were in a hurry and were more serious because
they were afraid that either China or Russia would take over. The
British therefore were trying their best to find an excuse to attack
Tibet. There are records to show that the Chief Commissioner in
Assam started some correspondence with Tibet showing reasons why the British
were not happy with them bla bla bla. There were also several secret British
missions through NEFA to find a route to China through Assam. The main
motive of the British for taking over Assam was to make sure that they have
a free hand to find a route to China. It was because of this that they made
Sadia the center and allowed the Baptist Missionary to make Sadia the Head
Quarter. Later however this fear vanished and they could not find any
excuse. But Assam, Manipur, NEFA, Nagaland, Tripura all became easy
victims.
The same Western Christian policy
is being used by the USA today. That is why they had to create the proper excuse
on paper in a most democratic way to attack Iraq. The fear in this case
was 'the weapons of mass destruction' and the excuse was the 'breaking of
the UN Law by Iraq'.
And thus the history of
civilization repeats itself.
Now we Indians have learned the
trick and are doing better than the British. I know many Indians will not agree
with me, but I think India did that very diplomatically with
Bangladesh and are now doing with Bhutan, Sikkim and may be with Nepal
tomorrow.
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Mount Everest
Observation: Nepal would have been a part of today's India if the British
had conquered Nepal.
Question: Why didn't the British try hard to include Nepal in the empire,
like the rest of India? Why did they remain satisfied after taking Kumaon and
Garhwal from Nepal?
=========================================================== Ram
Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am pretty sure if one took a poll, most Indians would opt to keep the
name Everest.
From the history (that Barua just sent) looks like the British were the
first to take any kind of interest in the survey and calculations and also
to recognize the need for adventure.
No, I would still like the name Everest, and K-22 or whatever to
remain the same.
>Indians never really considered Nepal anything but a vassal state
>of India's. So, if it is something that is in Nepal, but is getting
>noticed by others, desis are perfectly at liberty to claim it as their
>own.
Thats a strange twist. Most Indians, I would think, don't. It could
well be the Nepali psyche thats at fault here.
Here is a story of Norgay. Born a Nepali, everything else he did in
life (and also his son) centered itself around India, and Indians.
Maybe someone will come and tell us how the Indians "stole"
Norgay.
--Ram
______
Profile of Tenzing Norgay
On May 29, 1953,
Tenzing Norgay and teammate Edmund Hillary reached the summit of Mt.
Everest. Tenzing received instant acclaim for his unprecedented achievement.
He quickly became a global ambassador for the Sherpa people. Here are a few
facts to know:
Born: 1914. This is an approximation based on the Tibetan lunar
calendar. At the time of Tenzing's birth, the Sherpas did not keep written
birth records.
Birthplace: Tsa-chu, Nepal.
Raised in: Thami, Nepal (a village near the border of Tibet, and
close to Mt. Everest).
Family: One of 13 children.
Languages: Spoke seven languages, but never learned how to
write.
Work: 1933 moved to Darjeeling, India, to work as a trekking porter.
War Years: Indian army ski instructor.
Everest Trips:
1935 First expedition, accompanying Eric Shipton.
1953 Reaches summit at age 39. After
Everest: Opened mountaineering school in Darjeeling, India, to train
other locals as mountaineering guides.
Died: May 9, 1986.
Well said!
No doubt HT proposed the name change to inculcate self-esteem among
Indians. Indians never really considered Nepal anything but a vassal state
of India's. So, if it is something that is in Nepal, but is getting
noticed by others, desis are perfectly at liberty to claim it as their
own. But mind you, it has to be something that is noticed by the world--
make it the western world. HT is obviously aware of the desi lack of
self-esteem problem. So he was suggesting that it be re-named after
Radhanath Sikdar who might very well have been the man who did the actual
calculations to determine what the colonial masters credited their man to.
Except that this whole idea,of re-naming things, or tearing down ancient
structures (built by them invaders for example) or building a bridge to
no-where or erecting statues in the imaginary likeness of historical
figures and the the like, like you point out, is well, um, not very
bright shall we say?
It is in the same vein as that light-weight general of the Hinduttwa
army attempting to build kharkhowa self-esteem by raising a statue of
Lasit Borphukon
at that military academy somewhere in Tamil Nadu. Light-weight
indeed; certain kharkhowas with abject low self-esteem going ga-ga over it
not-withstanding.
At 1:16 AM -0500 5/15/06, Barua25 wrote:
>"urge the
netters to dig out the history and discuss the matter in the
net"
When
you have proposed to rename the peak as Mt Radhanath, on the plea that
radhanath Sikdar did the calculations, there is nothing for the netters
to dig out. I hope you understand that.
I
failed to understand what right we Indians have first to rename a peak
which is even not in India, but in Nepal and Tibbet. And what we Indian
try to achieve by renaming? Any move to rename anything is political. I
hope you will understand that? If at all it has to be renamed it will
have to either Sagarmatha or Chumulunga. But why? I think the present Mt
Everest is as good a name as one can have. What is your objection
to naming Mt Everest? IncidentlyGeorge Everest himself suggested that it
should not be named after him. Read the book: "The Great Arc : The
Dramatic Tale How India was Mapped and Everest was Named"- John Keay.
I
would really understand if you would urge the netters to instead rename
Hinduism as Sindhuism. Hindu as Sindhu or India and Bharat. That will
makes more sense. Hindu and Hinduism and India are names, a you probably
know, coined by the 'mlessas'.
RB.
_______________________________________________
assam
mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam
mailing
list [email protected]http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing
list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
|
