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.

Arvind is absolutely right.How can colonialism and its attendant ills be absolved through a modern day Statute of Limitations albeit reversed ? How can values and beliefs enshrined in the consciousness of humanity everlasting be classified as present day mores only ? In this List we study the Raj, its customs, history, in short all that it stood for. That does not necessarily mean endorsing or excusing it. Mandeep On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Arvind Kolhatkar <akolhatkar@rogers.com>wrote: > 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. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >