At the outset I must say that I respect everyone's views and their right to espouse them. However that does not mean that I'm a misfit on any group purporting to discuss the Raj when I advocate that the Raj must be discussed in its totality and not just nostalgic memories of the period or its more flattering aspects. Kipling and the ideology, values or beliefs represented by him were not a progressive force or aimed at increasing bonding between India and Britain unless it was that of master and bondsman. His espousal of imperialism cannot be but a negative input to the beliefs of the times.It took the debilitating effects of the Second World War to shake those views from their firmly entrenched foundations. As for not imposing current judgements on the ideologies, beliefs, value systems and moralities of the past,this view is unacceptable to me.The past must be judged by the values of the present otherwise how can we justify what beliefs we currently hold dear ? I don't think there can be any worthwhile or credible defence of imperialism,colonialism, racism, injustice,slavery or exploitation. Mandeep On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar < bosham@gmail.com> wrote: > First thing first. Re Mandeep's views on Kipling: > > Mandeep, dear friend, you have the full right to hold any view on any > subject and also the full right to express it. There is no doubt about > that. > > However, at the same time, you'll admit that we who love Kipling, also > have a similar right. That's why, although I respect your opinion, I must > say that I don't share it. So we agree to disagree on this and proceed > further from here. > > I don't want to clutter the list by writing at length on Kipling, as he may > not be everybody's pet subject - albeit for reasons different from yours. > There are many who dislike his heavy style and excessive use of the > jargon, the vernacular, and the dialect. Many find him overrated and, > of course, too dated. > > But despite all these truisms, the fact remains that Kipling was no > ordinary > writer. He was precocious, prescient, perspicacious, and preternaturally > poignant. But he was NOT an imperialist, IMO, in spite of Orwell's long > apologia. I have made a deep study of his works and I have come to a > conclusion that Kipling was anything but. He was much maligned and > much misunderstood and also feared. During his lifetime, he had become > a burden for the ruling classes of Britain. So it's no wonder he should > be held in disrespect in the former colonies also. The reasons are too > varied to mention here. > > I'll simply state that recent studies, done in hindsight, dispassionately, > by internationally acclaimed scholars who cherish democracy, have > suggested that Kipling's so-called imperialism was a myth, milked and > exploited by unscrupulous traders, war-mongers, colonial administrators, > and others of their ilk. They found in him a convenient peg to hang their > coats. And if he resented this, he was by then probably too old and > also dejected by the death of his only son in the first World War to react > otherwise. > > So, let's just say we both see Kipling differently and we both stick to our > views. Let's stop this here. > > Just one thing in passing. On 27 July 2008, I'd sent a mail to the list, > which quoted a letter to the TLS, in which the writer had said that India's > former philosopher-president Dr Radhakrishnan was an admirer of Kipling. > To some extent, even Mahatma Gandhi liked his works. And my other > favourite author P G Wodehouse was heavily influenced by him. So, if > I err, I err in the company of three of the greatest persons I admire. > :-) > > All said and done, Kipling merely represented the Zeitgeist of that era. > And that era was not HIS creation, he was just a product of it. > > --- Harshawardhan, stepping down from his soapbox. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Claire, I thought the List was about discussing the Raj, warts and all. If one can't talk about the somewhat less flattering aspects of the Raj is there any point in discussing it at all ? If this List is to be nothing but a vehicle for memories and hagiography then why should serious researchers like me be a part of it ? rgds, Mandeep On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Claire Bradley <claire.bradley@hotmail.com>wrote: > Mandeep, > I always read your mail and methinks you often forget the Raj List is > about the bond (underlined) created by Indian/English history of the > last couple of centuries. It's not about preserving Kipling's house per se, > but his connection with the Raj era. If one is uninterested/disinterested > in this aspect then why be part of a List which is? > > None of us should flinch from acknowledging the equally harsh actions and > reactions between England and India. But surely there are memorable > moments, which are just that: memorable. This, I believe, is why those > tiny, cash deprived societies meet once monthly with folding chair décor for > tea and samosas and/or cucumber sandwiches to preserve: memories! > > An aside: most people associate the phrase "Never Forget" with the Jews and > the Holocaust. Hasn't anyone else noticed the recent exposure and demand for > justice of past 'ethnic' abuse? Just today I read of 'musahars' in India, > who live by trapping and eating rats. No, not a joke. Just another > revelation of a despised minority who remain so because they've been hidden > and not permitted another way to earn a living! (I did say this was an > aside. John, forty lashes with a wet noodle for me.) > > Always cheery. > Claire B. > > > > > >

Mandeep said: 'As for not imposing current judgements on the ideologies, beliefs, value systems and moralities of the past, this view is unacceptable to me.' Welcome to the 21st century, Mandeep! My apologies for implying you (or I) are insensitive to opposing views, but as a stubborn 70-year old I won't surrender completely. Born in Quetta, Baluchistan (imagine if I applied for a gun permit today!), raised in Poonah in quasi-belief we were British whilst surviving on pennies per week from the UK government, why on earth would I hold an affection for this hot, disease and poverty ridden place? Well, toots, it was my HOME, as much as it's yours. And so quick is the passage of time, although I live in a "little India" area stuffed with shops carrying every and anything from India, I am met with complete disbelief as to my original home. Yeah, well . . . . Peace. Claire

Re: the Kipling discussion. I am by no means a literary critique. I am however, partial to authors who tell a good story with flair and who so brilliantly, in my humble opinion, illustrate with such a range of language and colour that one is drawn almost compulsively, into the world they create. In my senior years and being an India expatriate, I can live again in my mind's eye, wonderful stories of Kim and The Jungle Book and tales of Riki Tiki Tavi - smiling with pleasure as I recall complete, recognizable characters the master story teller draws so well. Later, I thought his poetry - even those with a political slant - were succintly, sometimes heavily, expressed and - I enjoyed to read them too. I quite obviously admire Kipling's works - he was a man for his era. Nevertheless - I can't see that preserving the Kipling home in India is money 'sensibly' spent. I do not envision the people of India visiting either for 'pilgrimage' (as would I) or curiosity and I doubt too many Kipling admirers would go out of their way to travel to Allahabad for that reason. I believe the house would be somewhat of a white elephant rather than iconic. Two bits done. Good wishes to all Sally

I've never, ever thought that Kipling's works revealed that he was an Imperialist, but the recent correspondence has made me sit up and wonder. I must have another blitz on his wonderful books, and may perhaps be able to come to a conclusion. But even if I do find examples of imperialism on his part, I shall just shrug and go on reading..! LIFE'S TOO SHORT ... (or as I rread in the cookery column of one of our newspapers, "Life's too short to stuff a mushroom!") But ,to be serious, condemning the behaviour of people from previous centuries is not really helpful. Authors of previous centuries were people of their time, and to-day's morals simply cannot be brought to bear. We goody--goody 21st century wallahs just have to take a deep breath and say, "What disgusting behaviour, but then that was then, and thank goodness it is not now!" And to go even further back, we of the 21st century love to read or to go and see Shakespeare's works in the theatre ; .but whilst reading or watching some of his wilder fancies we register that THAT WAS THEN and THIS IS NOW, THANK THE LORD. Same with some of Kipling's works. Hazel Craig.

British-era bungalows, havelis of erstwhile nawabs to get facelift by Gyan Varma Wednesday, June 25, 2008 from http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1173376 NEW DELHI: A new lease of life is in store for at least half-a-dozen old havelis of erstwhile nawabs as the authorities in Delhi have finally taken it upon themselves to restore the structures after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) declined help. The authorities in Ajmer (Rajasthan), Rampur, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) and Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh) had earlier approached the ASI to take over the structures of historical importance and help restore them, but the archaeologists did not agree. Now, after much brainstorming, the authorities have approached the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to carry out a study to determine the feasibility of restoring the old mansions. Apart from the lavish mansions of the nawabs, the CPWD would help in restoration of the houses and barracks of British officers who crushed the sepoy mutiny of 1857. CPWD officers said they would also try and rope in other professionals who could help them restore the old structures without tampering with their architecture. "It is important that such old buildings are restored in the true sense. We have decided that if there is a need, we will take help of professionals outside our organisation who could help us restore these mansions," a senior officer of CPWD said. Officials said the first batch of engineers had already started the restoration of the nawab residences in Neemuch and Ajmer. ============================ --- Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar

Sunday, May 09, 2004 Undercover brothers Snipped from http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040509/asp/look/story_3225539.asp "Yes, I think we would welcome more members from the Asian community," declares John Hamill, director of communications for the United Grand Lodge. "We would be very delighted to see an increase in members from the ethnic minorities." In his book, World Freemasonry, An Illustrated History, Hamill says: "In India, Freemasonry went from strength to strength. Increasingly from the 1830s, natives were admitted to the lodges. At first there was a problem with the admission of Hindus, because of the mistaken belief that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. An appeal was made to the Duke of Sussex (the Grand Master) who insisted that the lodges admit Hindus, knowing well that the various 'gods' of the Hindus were not separate gods but personification of characteristics of one central deity." He adds: "Freemasonry had a great appeal to Indians, who joined in great numbers. As Kipling and others were later to point out in their writings, whatever quarrels there may have been between the various Indian religious groups and between Indians and the British, they all met on an equal footing in the lodge." Some of the biggest names in society, including rajahs and maharajahs, became Freemasons. There exists a photograph of Motilal Nehru, in the colourful regalia of the "District Grand Deacon of Bengal". A Parsi, Dorabjee P. Cama, became the first Indian Grand Officer when he was appointed Grand Treasurer in 1886. The lodge at Fort William, Calcutta, appears in the Engraved List of 1730, as No. 72. "Swami Vivekananda was a Freemason of the Calcutta Lodge," exults Shah. Records do show Vivekananda was "initiated in Hope and Anchor Lodge No. 1, Calcutta, in 1884". The Indian cast list also includes W.C. Bonnerjee, Justice R. Bhattacharya, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer and Presidents Rajendra Prasad, Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. [snip] ============= --- Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar

First thing first. Re Mandeep's views on Kipling: Mandeep, dear friend, you have the full right to hold any view on any subject and also the full right to express it. There is no doubt about that. However, at the same time, you'll admit that we who love Kipling, also have a similar right. That's why, although I respect your opinion, I must say that I don't share it. So we agree to disagree on this and proceed further from here. I don't want to clutter the list by writing at length on Kipling, as he may not be everybody's pet subject - albeit for reasons different from yours. There are many who dislike his heavy style and excessive use of the jargon, the vernacular, and the dialect. Many find him overrated and, of course, too dated. But despite all these truisms, the fact remains that Kipling was no ordinary writer. He was precocious, prescient, perspicacious, and preternaturally poignant. But he was NOT an imperialist, IMO, in spite of Orwell's long apologia. I have made a deep study of his works and I have come to a conclusion that Kipling was anything but. He was much maligned and much misunderstood and also feared. During his lifetime, he had become a burden for the ruling classes of Britain. So it's no wonder he should be held in disrespect in the former colonies also. The reasons are too varied to mention here. I'll simply state that recent studies, done in hindsight, dispassionately, by internationally acclaimed scholars who cherish democracy, have suggested that Kipling's so-called imperialism was a myth, milked and exploited by unscrupulous traders, war-mongers, colonial administrators, and others of their ilk. They found in him a convenient peg to hang their coats. And if he resented this, he was by then probably too old and also dejected by the death of his only son in the first World War to react otherwise. So, let's just say we both see Kipling differently and we both stick to our views. Let's stop this here. Just one thing in passing. On 27 July 2008, I'd sent a mail to the list, which quoted a letter to the TLS, in which the writer had said that India's former philosopher-president Dr Radhakrishnan was an admirer of Kipling. To some extent, even Mahatma Gandhi liked his works. And my other favourite author P G Wodehouse was heavily influenced by him. So, if I err, I err in the company of three of the greatest persons I admire. :-) All said and done, Kipling merely represented the Zeitgeist of that era. And that era was not HIS creation, he was just a product of it. --- Harshawardhan, stepping down from his soapbox.

Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar wrote: > First thing first. Re Mandeep's views on Kipling: > > Mandeep, dear friend, you have the full right to hold any view on any > subject and also the full right to express it. There is no doubt about that. > > However, at the same time, you'll admit that we who love Kipling, also > have a similar right. That's why, although I respect your opinion, I must > say that I don't share it. So we agree to disagree on this and proceed > further from here. <very long snip> Harshawdhan - Many times in the past I have envied your turn of phrase and ability to put points across succinctly; but never more so than in your reply to Mandeep. I only wish I had half of the facility with words that you display. To bring this marginally within the ambit of family history Patty Caroline Sellon, a great grand aunt of mine, married, as his second wife, Lionel D'Arcy Dunsterville, whose son by his first marriage Lionel Charles Dunsterville had shared a study with Kipling at the Imperial Service College, Westward Ho!, and was the character that Stalkey was modeled on. A tenuous connection indeed! It so happens that I concur with those that feel the preservation of this house would not be a correct use of government funds. Yours Aye Andrew Sellon It is safest to be moderately base - to be flexible in shame, and to be always ready for what is generous, good, and just, when anything is to be gained by virtue. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. Paul's.

Dear Listers, I tend to agree with Mandeep when the question arises about applying 'today's values' to colonial behaviors. Certain values are really eternal. While it may have taken some millennia or centuries for them to be known to thinkers, they were certainly within the realm of conscience during the times we talk of. Locke spoke of 'life and liberty' in the 17th century and it is echoed in the Declaration of Independence as 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' Asserting the right of the common man against Authority started from Magna Charta. But the very people who were themselves enjoying these hard-won rights were denying them to others. The British Parliament would enthusiastically support every imperialistic move abroad, while enjoying domestic democracy for themselves. When we see this hypocrisy, is it wrong to condemn it and is it proper to condone it by saying that these are 'today's values'. They are NOT today's values. They were known even then but were brazenly ignored. Why sufficiently many thinkers did not come forward to condemn this hypocrisy at that very time is not a question that we of today should be called upon to answer. Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, August, 23, 2008.

John, Pardon my ignorance but what is '40 lashes with wet noodle'? Was it a form of punishment to truant boys in public schools of Raj days? Our 'native vernacular' school had different punishments such as standing outside the class holding your earlobes by your fingers, bending down to touch the toes, situps etc. Or was the boy given yummy Maggi noodles to eat after the administration of the lashes to soothe his hurt feelings? Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, August 23, 2008.

<snip>The Indian cast list also includes W.C. Bonnerjee, Justice R. Bhattacharya, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer and Presidents Rajendra Prasad, Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. [snip] Can I add that Sir Catchick Paul Chater (an Armenian from Calcutta) was elected District Grand Master of Hong Kong and South China in 1882 at the age of 36 years and remained in office for the next 28 years retiring in 1909. Best wishes Liz Researching Chater or Armenians in India and Hong Kong in 2008? Please go to www.chater-genealogy.com.

Here's to an under-reported & wonderful Indian network. As we sit before our screens, India's Freemasons continue a campaign through much of central/south India in organised Eye Camps staffed by travelling Masons, nurses and surgeons laid on -- eye glasses to treatment for infections/cataracts -- some in districts, others in the towns, anywhere that numbers of needy patients have been located. In western India, lodges do a great deal for children with multiple disabilities, those apt to be abandoned by poorer families. At least one of Bombay's several lodges is mainly Parsi -- known to generate crores, year after year, for ongoing and new projects. Megan S. Mills PHD198 St Helen'sToronto CDA M6H 4A1 > From: bosham@gmail.com> To: india-british-raj@rootsweb.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:33:33 +0530> Subject: [INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ] British India in World Freemasonry> > Sunday, May 09, 2004> > Undercover brothers> > Snipped from> http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040509/asp/look/story_3225539.asp> > "Yes, I think we would welcome more members from the Asian community,"> declares John Hamill, director of communications for the United Grand> Lodge. "We would be very delighted to see an increase in members from> the ethnic minorities."> > In his book, World Freemasonry, An Illustrated History, Hamill says: "In> India, Freemasonry went from strength to strength. Increasingly from the> 1830s, natives were admitted to the lodges. At first there was a problem> with the admission of Hindus, because of the mistaken belief that Hinduism> is a polytheistic religion. An appeal was made to the Duke of Sussex (the> Grand Master) who insisted that the lodges admit Hindus, knowing well that> the various 'gods' of the Hindus were not separate gods but personification> of characteristics of one central deity."> > He adds: "Freemasonry had a great appeal to Indians, who joined in great> numbers. As Kipling and others were later to point out in their writings,> whatever quarrels there may have been between the various Indian religious> groups and between Indians and the British, they all met on an equal footing> in the lodge."> > Some of the biggest names in society, including rajahs and maharajahs,> became Freemasons. There exists a photograph of Motilal Nehru, in the> colourful regalia of the "District Grand Deacon of Bengal". A Parsi,> Dorabjee P. Cama, became the first Indian Grand Officer when he was> appointed Grand Treasurer in 1886.> > The lodge at Fort William, Calcutta, appears in the Engraved List of 1730,> as No. 72.> > "Swami Vivekananda was a Freemason of the Calcutta Lodge," exults Shah.> Records do show Vivekananda was "initiated in Hope and Anchor Lodge No. 1,> Calcutta, in 1884".> > The Indian cast list also includes W.C. Bonnerjee, Justice R. Bhattacharya,> Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer and Presidents Rajendra Prasad, Dr S. Radhakrishnan> and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. [snip]> =============> > --- Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar> > > > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message> >

Okay Claire, you got it - 40 lashes - just memories, right? GRIN --Manaia ++++ --- On Thu, 8/21/08, Claire Bradley <claire.bradley@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] > John, forty lashes with a wet > noodle for me.) > > Always cheery. > Claire B.

Mandeep, I always read your mail and methinks you often forget the Raj List is about the bond (underlined) created by Indian/English history of the last couple of centuries. It's not about preserving Kipling's house per se, but his connection with the Raj era. If one is uninterested/disinterested in this aspect then why be part of a List which is? None of us should flinch from acknowledging the equally harsh actions and reactions between England and India. But surely there are memorable moments, which are just that: memorable. This, I believe, is why those tiny, cash deprived societies meet once monthly with folding chair décor for tea and samosas and/or cucumber sandwiches to preserve: memories! An aside: most people associate the phrase "Never Forget" with the Jews and the Holocaust. Hasn't anyone else noticed the recent exposure and demand for justice of past 'ethnic' abuse? Just today I read of 'musahars' in India, who live by trapping and eating rats. No, not a joke. Just another revelation of a despised minority who remain so because they've been hidden and not permitted another way to earn a living! (I did say this was an aside. John, forty lashes with a wet noodle for me.) Always cheery. Claire B.

True that Kipling portrayed the times in which he lived vividly.But those beleifs are unacceptable and by criticising him we are condemning the racism, parchialism and politically incorrect beliefs and behaviour of that era. Mandeep Bajwa On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Andrew Sellon <andrew@sellon.vispa.com>wrote: > Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar wrote: > > <snip> they are perpetually in need of the coin of the > > realm - cash, the moolah, dough! <snip> > > > Aren't we all? > > OTOH, diehard Kipling-bashers, specially in India, are likely > > to feel far from gruntled, if such a plan does materialize ... > True enough, but however hard they may be they seem to be a dying, (or > at least a shrinking), breed. It now appears less fashionable to bash > his works; people are now accepting that he portrays the feelings of his > times - however unacceptable some of them seem today. > > His: > > When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, > And the women come out to cut up what remains, > Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brain > An' go to your Gawd like a soldier. > > suddenly took on a new relevance some few years ago. > > Yours Aye Andrew Sellon. > A just and necessary war costs this country about one hundred pounds a > minute; whipcord fifteen thousand pounds; red tape seven thousand > pounds; lace for drummers and fifers, nineteen thousand pounds; a > pension to one man who has broken his head at the Pole; to another who > has shattered his leg on the Equator; subsidies to Persia; secret > service money to Thibet; an annuity to Lady Henry Somebody and her seven > daughters – the husband being shot at some place where we never ought to > have had any soldiers at all. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. > Paul's. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Right. We hate imperialists with a loathing. But that doesn't mean Kipling or his work shouldn't be studied.His work does provide invaluable information on the mores and attitudes of the time. Mandeep On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM, <Haztwin@aol.com> wrote: > OH, dear, in my ignorance, I h\d no idea that Kipling was not an O.K guy > in > India. Ah well, perhaps a bit of research is due and might result in an > article for an appropriate journal! HC > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Well done Andrew. Couldn't agree more. The opinions and rules of one era simply cannot be applied to another. I like to think that we are wiser to-day having had a lot of practice, and what would be anathema in a bygone era simply cannot apply using to-day's standards. I must not go on reiterating this opinion, so will shut up! HC

Kipling-bashers will certainly not approve of any Indian Govt or even general Indian help in preserving his heritage. Mandeep On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar < bosham@gmail.com> wrote: > I used to be a member of this Society once upon a time. > They are quite nice folks, but like all such fan clubs all over > the world, they are perpetually in need of the coin of the > realm - cash, the moolah, dough! No harm in trying, though. > > OTOH, diehard Kipling-bashers, specially in India, are likely > to feel far from gruntled, if such a plan does materialize ... > > --- Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar > > > ----- Original Message ----- from Hazel Craig > > There's a 'Kipling Society' in England devoted to keeping his name alive > and looking after the house where he lived in England. How about getting > in touch with them about saving Kipling's bungalow in Allahabad? Of course, > they may already be aware of the state of affairs. Anyway, I'll do a bit > of > scouting around and see if the Kipling Society would be interested in > helping. > --- > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

August 20, 2008 Rupees at the time of British Empire (with photographs) http://masoodmemon.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/rupees-at-the-time-of-british-empire/ --- Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar