tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post3506280211691659606..comments2024-03-23T08:00:26.020+00:00Comments on THE MONARCHIST: India Independence and PartitionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-63793652066163262752016-05-06T01:18:21.396+01:002016-05-06T01:18:21.396+01:00responding to:
"Let us remember that it was I...responding to:<br />"Let us remember that it was Indian independence and republicanism that put an end to the Princes of India."<br />I have found something that might interest you. please read the documents given here, than I would love to hear anyone's opinion. the role of the princes actually survived a little longer than is commonly recorded. the legislation abolishing them was not the indian independence act 1947, or the constitution of india, but the constitution (7th amendment) act 1956. the original constitution of india provided for 4 categories of states. the princes remained as the heads of the part B states, under the title of "rajpramukh". you can read the documentation yourself (and i would suggest this as it might interest you) I have the original constitution of India (before the very 1st amendment) as documentation of this, follow this link: <br />http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/E.pdf <br />the original Indian constitution is fairly long (India has the longest national constitution on the planet),but I have already read the copy provided there (it is the constitution as it stood on January 26th, 1950) so I can point you to the relevant provisions on this, which are:<br />Article 238 (pages 129-132) <br />article 259 (page 145)<br />clause 21 of article 366 (page 220) <br />article 370 (pages 225 and 226) <br />article 371 (page 227) <br />articles 385 and 386 (page 237) <br />part B of the first schedule (page 245) <br />in addition the following provisions might be of interest and either mention part B states or help to understand the above provisions: <br />clause 2 of article 1 (page 3) <br />articles 152-237 (pages 82-128) <br />article 361 (pages 213 and 214) <br />article 366 (pages 216-221) <br />article 267 (pages 221 and 222) <br />the fourth schedule (pages 256 and 257) <br />please note: most of the time the word "president" should be read as "Central government", the princely states of jammu and kashmir, mysore, and hyderabad became part B states in their own right, the other 6 part B states were formed by merging princely states that were located in the same region of India, the rajpramukhs recognized in relation to the states mentioned in sub-clause c of clause 21 of article 366 were also the former rulers of princely states, specifically they were former rulers of some of the states merged to create those states, jammu and kashmir had a special status (as it still does) and finally in many provisions (such as article 356 (pages 207-209) , or the fifth schedule(pages 258-261), but not limited to those provisions) the word "governor" now appears in those provisions but, originally the constitution of india said "governor or rajpramukh" <br />ps: even if you do not read to other article I recommended that do not directly relate to the part B states, you should read articles 152-237 as article 238 references them enough that it is hard to make sense of 238 without having read those articles, also I have put the page number after every mention of a provision of the constitution, but that page number only works if you use my exact source, I cannot guarantee that a copy of the constitution of India obtained from another source would follow those page numbers<br />tangent: I have a fascination with article 395 (page 243), if you analyze that article carefully it turns out to be something that a british lawyer would find to be a logical contradiction, but I think this was the point.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-37544206038406607332009-11-03T00:31:07.270+00:002009-11-03T00:31:07.270+00:00Mr Baltzersen may like to note that Her Majesty He...Mr Baltzersen may like to note that Her Majesty Herself referred to Mumbai as Mumbai at the recent Indian State Banquet at Windsor Castle.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-31281559157890803042009-09-20T02:38:43.810+01:002009-09-20T02:38:43.810+01:00I didn't think we had differing definitions of...I didn't think we had differing definitions of terrorism or its glorification. Would you like to substantiate on that difference?bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-91069048651877567582009-09-19T09:38:43.584+01:002009-09-19T09:38:43.584+01:00So do you still think Bhagat Singh was a terrorist...<i>So do you still think Bhagat Singh was a terrorist, or that Indians glorify terrorists?</i><br /><br />Yes, sir, but perhaps not according to your definition.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-28939700890510127282009-09-13T08:17:21.303+01:002009-09-13T08:17:21.303+01:00So do you still think Bhagat Singh was a terrorist...So do you still think Bhagat Singh was a terrorist, or that Indians glorify terrorists?bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-171748677848678852009-09-12T21:33:25.410+01:002009-09-12T21:33:25.410+01:00I trust in the exhibition you read about his upbri...<i>I trust in the exhibition you read about his upbringing during martial rule in Punjab, and how he was hanged before schedule without his family being informed, and his remains secretly chopped up and thrown into the river.</i><br /><br />I do not recall any such things. The material was limited to the written material I could take or buy and the notes I could take. I was not allowed any recording equipment in the exhibition. And then there is the online material -- as referred to in the original post. <br /><br />The flyer I have says:<br /><br /><i>The aim of the Exhibition is to inspire every Indian to remember martyrs and their sacrifices[...]</i><br /><br />So much for the government not caring about those who opposed with violence.<br /><br /><i>I hope you can now appreciate why such a comment can be offensive?</i><br /><br />Many people come here to this weblog and are offended.<br /><br /><i>Just out of curiosity, do you also insist on calling Beijing Peking?</i><br /><br />I believe Peking is the correct name, yes.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-20956397724855337432009-09-07T10:45:05.317+01:002009-09-07T10:45:05.317+01:00Whoops, I seem to have made a few typos while edit...Whoops, I seem to have made a few typos while editing my last comment.<br /><br />Back to Mumbai/Bombay, I don't think there was quite the level of animosity, or cultural displacement during Swedish rule in Finland to make Helsinki comparable to Mumbai.<br /><br />I would happily keep Bombay as an English name if English had been banished from India and an Indian language had taken the dominant place English has taken. I suppose English "naming rights" is a small compensation Indians should receive for adopting English to the extent they have.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, do you also insist on calling Beijing Peking?bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-58177655431587927062009-09-07T10:30:50.376+01:002009-09-07T10:30:50.376+01:00Yes, Bhagat Singh is a hero in India, and rightly ...Yes, Bhagat Singh is a hero in India, and rightly so. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the bomb he blew intentionally contained no chemicals/shrapnels etc and was there to "wake up the deaf" the legislators to demands for independence. It was purely for noise effects, and not to injure, much less to kill. Bhagat Singh and his comrade allowed themselves to be arrested without resistance.<br /><br />Bhagat Singh the Martyr was no terrorist. His only victim was a certain Saunders, a police official he accidentally killed when he was trying to assassinate John Simon (some senior official) in retaliation for Lala Lajpat Rai's murder. Bhagat Singh was a courageous patriot who had the strength to take up arms instead of feebly protest like many of his other co-revolutionaries. Bhagat Singh and his comrades never hurt a hair of a civilian's head intentionally, and calling him a terrorist is a very liberal use of the word that demeans its strength.<br /><br />India has troubles with terrorists because of the left-wing foreign policy and minority-appeasement policies of the (anglophile) Congress government which has virtually uninterruptedly been in power since independence. Far from glorifying terrorists, Gandhi-worshipping Indians have shunned violence to the point where it is hurting them. <br /><br />I hope you can now appreciate why such a comment can be offensive?<br /><br />I trust in the exhibition you read about his upbringing during martial rule in Punjab, and how he was hanged before schedule without his family being informed, and his remains secretly chopped up and thrown into the river.<br /><br />It is good to know a government institution was supporting Bhagat Singh. The government, and Indian history, is strongly biased towards "Mahatma" Gandhi, who did not endorse Bhagat Singh despite strong public appeal (some say Bhagat Singh's popularity competed with Gandhi's).<br /><br />As for General Dyer, it was not an obscure society, but the Morning Post (seems to have been a respectable conservative newspaper), which presented him with 26,000 pounds (quoting from Wikipedia) in direct support of his actions.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-10939425733787889852009-09-07T06:15:06.699+01:002009-09-07T06:15:06.699+01:00I never implied that. I never said violence by the...<i>I never implied that. I never said violence by the British was bad, violence by Indians was good.</i><br /><br />I was not referring to you in particular, sir.<br /><br />It might be better understood if it read:<br /><br /><i>When one's message is perceived as violence being in order[...]</i><br /><br />You, sir, said:<br /><br /><i>By the way, I'm not imposing anything on the English language[...]</i><br /><br />And I was not implying that you personally were trying to impose a change. I was referring collectively to the group that is doing so -- regardless of whether that has been their intention or not.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-76652807970913301542009-09-07T05:58:26.856+01:002009-09-07T05:58:26.856+01:00Finland is a bilingual country, sir. Road signs re...Finland is a bilingual country, sir. Road signs read both <i>Helsinki</i> and <i>Helsingfors</i>. Some Finns -- around 6 % -- have Swedish as their mother tongue.<br /><br />As for General Dyer, he was censured by the House of Commons. If I am not mistaken, he was degraded. If a society collected a pension, that might suggest that the government would not give him one because it disapproved of what he had done. You might argue, as I have said, that he got off too easy, and I think it is reasonable to think so, but he did not get off completely. (Yes, some did argue that he was punished too harshly.)<br /><br />My post was particularly about the exhibition on Bhagat Singh, which I had paid a visit. My perception was that the exhibition glorified him. Bhagat Singh blew a bomb in an assembly. Was that only against officers?<br /><br />The Supreme Court Museum in Delhi is a government institution. It is not some obscure society.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-62049171300468571032009-09-07T03:28:54.574+01:002009-09-07T03:28:54.574+01:00On the line which says Bombay(yes, Bombay as its T...On the line which says Bombay(yes, Bombay as its Trondjhem not...), I thought I read 'not Mumbai'. Pardon me, it could have been a trick of the eye.<br /><br />Thank you for the clarification on the precedent/lingual variation issue.<br /><br />As to the lingual variation of Mumbai, I think the big complication in this case is the fact that both Indians and Englishmen now speak English, and to an extent, lay claim to it. Austrians wouldn't worry about their city being called Vienna unless maybe they were a bilingual city, in which case, I suspect they would also insist on Wien for cultural pride, especailly after a period of foreign enslavement.<br /><br />The 'problem' is that English-speaking Indians have decided to rename the old English name of Bombay to a 'new' English name of Mumbai to affirm their cultural realignment. So whose English name should we accept? That imposed by native English speakers at a time of colonialism or that imposed by the now freed inhabitants of the city?<br /><br />The Finns don't impose Helsinki on the Swedish language, but then they don't speak Swedish as a lingua franca or use it as a main language.<br /><br />By the way, I'm not imposing anything on the English language (which by the way continues to be imposed in missionary schools in India today, where students can get fined for speaking in their native language outside language classes). I am simply trying to understand the reasoning behind your views, and clarifying what seems to be an inconsistency of standard.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-18822179583545748522009-09-07T03:05:30.123+01:002009-09-07T03:05:30.123+01:00Thank you for your reply Mr Baltzersen.
I had rea...Thank you for your reply Mr Baltzersen.<br /><br />I had read the original post in its entirety, but intially started debating the Mumbai/Bombay issue, and when I re-read it, I was reminded of the more offending comment on Indian revolutionaries.<br /><br />One man's freedom fighter isn't necessarily another's terrorist. I believe the term terrorist is used to describe violent militants who attack innocent civilians and civilian targets to spread their message. As I said, none of India's revolutionaries attempted that. Their targets were only ever officers (usually military) of the Raj, whom they viewed rightly as occupying forces. I doubt we would call Islamic militants terrorists if they restricted their targets to non-civilian ones. On that note, would you not agree that General Dyer was a terrorist for the causeless slaughter of countless innocents?<br /><br />I was hoping you would be able to enlighten me on how any glorified Indian revolutionaries satisfy the definition of terrorist. I am sure there would have been self-styled revolutionaries who may have killed innocent British civilians in India during the 1857 mutiny, but I can't think of any who were glorified for doing so.<br /><br />It is not the use of violence that defines one as a terrorist, rather it is the target and intent of that violence, and the circumstances under which it is used. <br /><br />"When your message is perceived as violence being in order for bringing about the present regime, whilst it is not in order to bring about an alternative to the present regime, that will be perceived as a double standard."<br /><br />I never implied that. I never said violence by the British was bad, violence by Indians was good. I was pointing out that Bhagat Singh only attempted to use violence in retaliation, and against legitimate targets. I think the clubbing to death of an unarmed Lala Lajpat Rai by police, and Jalianwala Bagh might be a better examples of terrorism. I would remind you that General Dyer was to an extent glorified by some obscure society in Britain (I can't remember the exact name), which collected a reasonable sum of money to award him a pension.<br /><br />I think ignoring such larger acts of atrocity committed by the British government, and focussing on small acts of violence by ill-fated Indian revolutionaries is a double standard.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-48781442132873206592009-09-06T18:51:08.611+01:002009-09-06T18:51:08.611+01:00With Vienna/Wien, I doubt you'd ever write &qu...<i>With Vienna/Wien, I doubt you'd ever write "Vienna (not Wien)" as you did for Mumbai in your post.</i><br /><br />Please point to, sir, where I wrote <i>not Mumbai</i>.<br /><br /><i>By the way, I thought your reason was precedent, not lingual variations?</i><br /><br />It is a question of both. Let me remind you of what you previously have said:<br /><br /><i>Calling Mumbai Bombay is different from Wien/Vienna or Bharat/India. The latter are lingual variations. However, Mumbai is the English-language name that was formally changed from Bombay.</i><br /><br />Are you merely giving priority to another language? Or are you attempting to impose a change of tradition upon the English-speaking world -- or other languages, for that matter?<br /><br /><i>The point here is that the name has been offically changed to reflect the end of British rule.</i><br /><br />And Finland does not impose <i>Helsinki</i> on the Swedish language. Who is more mature? The Finns or you?J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-41436903685144499072009-09-06T18:41:48.625+01:002009-09-06T18:41:48.625+01:00I just noticed a far more offensive statement on t...<i>I just noticed a far more offensive statement on the original post:</i><br /><br />I would greatly appreciate, sir, if you please read what you are debating before you start a lengthy debate.<br /><br /><i>Such statements certainly do not serve your purpose of trying to get Indians to look more fondly at British rule or even take a measured look.</i><br /><br />It has been said, sir, that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist -- and vice versa. Indian revolutionaries -- including Bhagat Singh -- of the time of the British Raj used violence. Some, like Mohandas Ghandi, did not, but that is beside the point. When your message is perceived as violence being in order for bringing about the present regime, whilst it is not in order to bring about an alternative to the present regime, that will be perceived as a double standard. You have a problem, regardless of whether you, sir, are offended or not.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-53265425267349794522009-09-02T15:35:43.594+01:002009-09-02T15:35:43.594+01:00With Vienna/Wien, I doubt you'd ever write &qu...With Vienna/Wien, I doubt you'd ever write "Vienna (not Wien)" as you did for Mumbai in your post. The official name of Vienna in Vienna is not Vienna. Nor was the name Vienna imposed on the Viennese when they were invaded by the British. By the way, I thought your reason was precedent, not lingual variations?<br /><br />The point here is that the name has been offically changed to reflect the end of British rule.Bharathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10437683981932491121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-79262768867952633282009-09-02T15:23:53.928+01:002009-09-02T15:23:53.928+01:00Dear Mr Baltzersen,
I just noticed a far more off...Dear Mr Baltzersen,<br /><br />I just noticed a far more offensive statement on the original post: <br /><br />"Moreover, the way terrorists of the Indian independence movement are glorified, it should come as no surprise that India has problems with terrorists."<br /><br />Such statements certainly do not serve your purpose of trying to get Indians to look more fondly at British rule or even take a measured look. <br /><br />None of the "terrorists" glorified intentionally killed innocent civilians in their quests. Bhagat Singh accidently killed Saunders when he tried to assasinate the police chief in retaliation for the murder by police of an unarmed freedom fighter who was beaten to death at a non-violent march! Bhagat Singh was hung one day before schedule and his body was chopped up and thrown into the Ravi river so there could be no funeral and no show of public support. <br /><br />It would help if you could substantiate strong statements such as the one you made by naming such "terrorists" of the Indian Independence Movement. <br /><br />It's no wonder Indians look at the British Raj as a brutally oppressive regime. Its good works, and its bequeathing of democracy and English law were eclipsed by such dastardly acts.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-69267713223516655282009-09-02T15:03:51.272+01:002009-09-02T15:03:51.272+01:00Bombay was [sic] been an anglicised aberration[......<i>Bombay was [sic] been an anglicised aberration[...]</i><br /><br />Like <i>Vienna</i> vs. <i>Wien</i>, sir?<br /><br /><i>On a seperate note, I think you would be pleased to update the list of Commonwealth Premiers on the right of the blog to include Mr John Key,the monarchist Prime Minister of New Zealand, who deposed Helen Clark in, I believe 2008.</i><br /><br />That, sir, is the domain of our editor. I am a mere scribe. :-)<br /><br />If he is following this thread and agrees with you, he may honor your request. If not, and you think too much time passes without anything happening, I suggest you e-mail the editor. You will find the address in the sidebar. :-)J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-26020331818235474722009-09-02T14:43:01.399+01:002009-09-02T14:43:01.399+01:00Thank you for clarifying the matter Mr Baltzersen....Thank you for clarifying the matter Mr Baltzersen. However, I would not take opposition from anglicised (mostly left-wing) Indian elites as 'general opposition' if I were you. Mumbai has always been the Marathi name, and Bambai the Hindi/Urdu name, even throughout British rule. Bombay was been an anglicised aberration, like Cawnpore for Kanpur, or Calcutta for Kolkata.<br /><br />On a seperate note, I think you would be pleased to update the list of Commonwealth Premiers on the right of the blog to include Mr John Key,the monarchist Prime Minister of New Zealand, who deposed Helen Clark in, I believe 2008. Mr Key recently reinstated knighthoods for NZ citizens after they were unceremoniously dumped by the republican socialist Helen Clark.bharathttp://bharatvansh.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-66847822663808258162009-09-02T07:00:13.834+01:002009-09-02T07:00:13.834+01:00As I said, sir, it is a matter of case to case bas...As I said, sir, it is a matter of case to case basis. As I understand, there is general opposition to "Mumbai," as there is general opposition to the French Revolution. So I would not count on those hundred years.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-76173217972428177272009-09-02T02:19:11.736+01:002009-09-02T02:19:11.736+01:00Dear Mr Baltzersen,
I have no wish to label you a...Dear Mr Baltzersen,<br /><br />I have no wish to label you anything, but in the absence of an argument, and the presence of (at least apparent) contradictions that was the natural conclusion. Note that I have never called you Eurocentric, having merely suggested that that could be an explanantion for your views.<br /><br />According to your logic then, I believe you will recognise Mumbai after a hundred years, when the precedent has been set for long enough, and that you would not have recognised the royal name change a hundred years ago?<br /><br />My (personal) view is that it is not time that determines when one tradition trumps the old, but a collective decision to identify with a certain tradition. Under the system of waiting for precedents to be set, there is scarcely scope for cultural revivals. It is also difficult to set a new precendent if it's only recognised after a long period of time. <br /><br />I'm not aware of the background of the Norwegian city's name change so I cannot comment on that.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-78290285218561366712009-09-01T17:07:28.925+01:002009-09-01T17:07:28.925+01:00Sir,
I do not have any nice words for the Great W...Sir,<br /><br />I do not have any nice words for the Great War, which was the conflict that destroyed the old world.<br /><br />I don't like the name change of the royal house.<br /><br />There is almost a hundred years of recent precedent now.<br /><br />That's precedent for you!<br /><br />We could introduce Icelandic as official language in Norway because that was the language "before the Danes took over," and because that was the precedent at the time.<br /><br />Exactly how long time must pass before the new tradition trumps the old varies from case to case.<br /><br />I have previously referred to a case of a "name change" of a Norwegian city.<br /><br />If you wish to label me "Eurocentric," I neither can or will stop you. Please feel free!J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-11409565173310732222009-09-01T13:41:04.255+01:002009-09-01T13:41:04.255+01:00But you haven't reconciled for preference for ...But you haven't reconciled for preference for precedents with the Saxe-Coburg Gotha situation, a name I have difficulty finding in the blog. If precedent is your reason,the contradiction still stands, and with it the likelihood that is really Eurocentricity, not a preference for precedents, that keeps you from recognising Mumbai.<br /><br />I cannot and do not seek to prevent you calling Mumbai and Bombay. However, I do seek to point out the inconsistency of standard.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-46381659091751778512009-09-01T07:01:12.773+01:002009-09-01T07:01:12.773+01:00You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, sir....You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, sir.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-22702017046753865722009-08-30T16:28:41.098+01:002009-08-30T16:28:41.098+01:00As with Saxe-Coburg Gotha and Battenberg, the peop...As with Saxe-Coburg Gotha and Battenberg, the people closest to the names and precedent choose (rightfully) whether or nor they wish to keep it.bharatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-36821773432192402292009-08-30T06:55:01.146+01:002009-08-30T06:55:01.146+01:00I am sorry, sir, but -- with all due respect to th...I am sorry, sir, but -- with all due respect to the precedent before the name <i>Bombay</i> was given -- the precedent is now for <i>Bombay</i>.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.com