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 >