Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul Just in short…

(5) Anybody who thinks that Gandhiji believed in state controlled religion is either deluded or engaged in the worst form of deception. The term “Ram Rajya” was used symbolically, and only symbolically.

(6) Support for the Khilafat movement was VERY prevalent among large sections of Indian Muslims around the First World War, well before Gandhiji became active in INDIAN politics. Gandhiji did not bring it about. His intent in supporting it – perhaps misguided – was the notion that it would generate goodwill among Mussalmans and Hindus and coalesce into one force. To an extent it did happen – during 1919-1922, Indians were very united although a point has been made by historian Lawrence James that many of the Muslims did not believe in Gandhiji’s techniques and were only interested in using his “vehicle” of the agitation. Anybody who preaches the canard that it was Gandhiji’s support for the Khilafat movement which caused Muslim fundamentalism in India is being dishonest – the roots of that characteristic are far deeper and longer in history. The fundamentalism was there to be tapped – Jinnah tapped into it rather well and benefited in attaining his ambitions.

More in the evening, if I can get around to it.

Race to the Finish Re: # 631

Pakistan3 dear, do not underestimate my little sis' commitment to your land of birth - to the extent that she volunteers her time at a trauma center in that country.

She is genuinely grieved when she encounters slights to that land, although at times she has heaped the same aplenty!

You guys are lucky to have a well-wisher like her, too bad you all do not realize it!

A bit of racial prejudice and hypocrisy (saying one thing and doing another) is a part of our desi culture, unfortunately. It is just not admitted openly.

The Zeena is at least open with her prejudices. Take it or leave it - those are what those are!

Race to the Finish Re: # 629

Cheema sahib, please be gentle!

My little sis lives in many places.

Some right, some less so.

Some concrete, some less so.

Some real, some less so!

But rest assured - there is at least one thing about her which is always in the RIGHT place!

The heart, that is!

And from my point of view - that is the only identity which matters!

Race to the Finish And talking of identities….

Remember, little sis! You live in America and have taken an oath of allegiance to that country!

Remember, it is your solemn duty to keep your oath!

And if indeed the USA goes ahead and bombs Pakistan – like the Obama hinted (rather not so subtly) – remember, it is your sacred duty as an American to side with the Americans!

Anything less will be a disservice to your American identity!

Race to the Finish #Little sis

The kindness of heart knows no boundaries of race – and it should not!

Let the milk of your kindness flow and encompass one and all – why should you restrict your milk of kindness to Pakistanis alone? Let the whole world be saturated with that milk – and watch in wonder as those faces – even jamoon-colored faces – light up in delight!

Let your milk flow in abundance, little sis! Do not hold back!

It will make you a bigger person - at heart!

Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul Side note to Harish Hyd:

Harish, thank you for being a sane voice in this crowd of rabble-rousers!

Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul
Just so there is no misunderstanding, in #88...the parantheses are implied in the (a) below:

(a) Socialism was the new kid in town (and was considered the effective counter to the feudalism which prevailed all over the world) and was considered by many of these leaders as the best thing since Baba Adam.

Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul #various

(4) Regarding the economic system…

Yes, Gandhiji’s ideas in this area were isolationist/protectionist etc. He certainly did not believe in the supremacy of the capitalistic system. In that, he was not alone. Most of the freedom fighters of those days were believers in some mild variety of (Fabian) socialism. The reasons are understandable in retrospect:

(a) Socialism was the new kid in town and was considered the effective counter to the feudalism which prevailed all over the world and was considered by many of these leaders as the best thing since Baba Adam. Gandhiji can not be blamed for the decisions made by people who took power and implemented the socialist policies long after his death!

(b) Communism/socialism had not been proven to be a failure at that time. In fact, it was very much in ascendency. In particular, many of the "independence strugglers" were very impressed by how quickly the Reds dethroned the long-entrenched Russian czars! The evil side of communism (especially the dictatorial nature of it) was something that was yet to be experienced. Also remember that because many of the leaders were struggling against the British and the Russians were the counterweight party to the British, it was understandable that many of them looked toward the russians for inspiration.

(c) No, Gandhiji was not a communist or a socialist – but he truly believed in empowering the weakest people and empowering them not through the use of arms – but by changing the heart of their adversaries. One can argue forever if that is practical or not! After all, if your whole premise is that “all human beings have a heart” and will listen to it – well, your ideas will only work if indeed people have heart! If bunch of them refuse to admit that they have a heart then it will not work. Gandhiji firmly believed that if one offers enough sacrifice of one’s own – it will open the eyes of the other side. Perhaps it works (as in many places in the world, including during the US Civil Rights movement) and sometimes it does not (perhaps it would not have worked against Hitler) – but again, that does not make Gandhiji the villain – it only shows that he was well-intentioned – more than any of his contemporaries.

Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul #86 Cheema sahib

I understand and I agree. The kindest thing I can say of the Jinnah is that he never pretended to be a good guy, or a democrat, he was first, foremost and last a "champion of Muslims" - whatever that term means!

As if the Muslim faith were going to disappear without his intervention! Talk about being "khatre meiN!"

I will leave it at that, too!

Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul #various

(3) Annie Besant was an interesting person with strong convictions. Perhaps what she wrote about Muslim atrocities of those times IS true. But how does that make Gandhiji a villain?

Without casting aspersions on anybody, reality is that a large chunk of pre-partition Muslims did not identify with Gandhiji – perhaps many of the things he said were not things they could connect with. But how can one blame the large body of those illiterates for heeding the cries of “Islam is in danger” when “educated” bigots like the Jinnah believed nothing different?!

But only an absolute hideous hypocrite will – instead of blaming the creeps who stoked communal passions like the Mullahs (AND the Jinnah) did, turn around and start blaming Gandhiji – the one person who was trying to bring sanity back!

Fools, what would you have Gandhiji do? Turn into a Hindu Jinnah of a hypocrite?

Shame on you!

Where were your other leaders? If they felt so strong, well, why did not they push Gandhiji aside and take charge?

Why did they not rile up Hindus like the Jinnah and his gang of crooks riled up the Mussalmans?

I will tell you why. It was not for the lack of trying, for sure! They tried but Gandhiji prevailed always – because in their hearts, the vast majority of Hindustanis of those times – Hindus AND Muslims – knew that Gandhiji was right.

It was the subcontinent’s misfortune that the vast majority of the Muslims of what is now Pakistan followed the other guy – the megalomaniacal demagogue.

They followed him in haste and they and three of their generations repent that act now…

In leisure!!

Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul
#various

Jum dada, Eklavya, nkg and all the rest of the other assorted hypocrites!

You guys are so foolish I don’t know if I should even bother to interact here! But being what I am…

Let me pick individual items in random order…

(1) First, it is highly unfair to blame Gandhiji for the endemic ills of the country which we currently call India. Only an utter hypocrite or a lunatic would blame Gandhiji for such things as corruption after the British left. Give me a break! Here is a guy who felt guilty when he ate a bit of goat meat with some friend – you call him a proponent of corruption?! Get real!

Even a simpleton would know what brings around corruption. When public servants are not well-paid they supplement their income from below the table – if they can get away with it. Perhaps the Britishers were tougher on corruption – but more importantly, they set high standards for themselves – except for the early crop of East India Company wallas they were squeaky clean and honest in business dealings. That sets a good example. Corruption always starts from top – so blame the crop of leaders that came in – not Gandhiji.

(2) The same holds for other evils of the society – casteism, etc. Remember Gandhiji used to take turns at cleaning the toilet and other people in the ashram were made to do their turn! Would a casteist do what was called a “bhangee” job?! The reality is – Gandhiji was way ahead of his contemporaries on many of these ideas. For instance, can you imagine your idol – the Jinnah – cleaning his own toilet (what to say of that of others)?! Again, get real!

More points as and when I get around to those.

Race to the Finish Re: # 568

Lazy Jang!

As usual, just trying to get his butt moving on a project whose potential has probably already been exploited by Amrikkans and others - and the market already captured.

Better luck NEXT time!

Here is an idea for the next Bollywood hit song which can still be used to make some money...

"Ye dark rang, kab mujhey, chhoaDega..."

In India, Fairness Is a Growth Industry
Men Buy Skin-Lighteners in Growing Numbers as a Path to Love, Wealth

By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 4, 2008; A17

CAVELOSSIM, India He's the rugged type, with sculpted arm muscles. He rides a motorcycle and wears a trendy tank top, wraparound sunglasses and slicked-back hair. There's only one problem: His skin color is a few shades too dark. His fair-skinned love interest won't even accept his offer of a rose.

But in this popular Indian television ad, the protagonist is able to buy a magic cream that will change his status in life, turning his brown skin several shades lighter and causing his beloved to swoon.

The new product is called Fair and Handsome, and it's among the male skin-lightening creams that are exploding in popularity in small towns and cities across India. While such products are nothing new among Indian women, for whom fair skin has long been a symbol of affluence and status, sales of the product for men are growing at nearly 150 percent annually in emerging markets, according to a recent study by Ernst & Young.

"It's all lower-middle-class men who want the product now," said Ajay Gupta, 52, a pharmacist, who said the creams often sell out. "What it really means is that the young and up-and-coming Indian male wants to look fair and therefore rich. He wants to be smart and good. The cream is now part of many men's grooming routine and very popular at barbershops."

Whitening face masks, soaps and exfoliating lotions are available across Asia. In many parts of India, fair skin is seen as highly desirable. Matrimonial ads always include long descriptions of a potential mate's complexion.

Now, with India's economy soaring, more and more men from smaller cities and towns want to have their skin lightened and attract fairer-skinned brides, who often come with larger dowries in this largely dark-skinned country of 1.1 billion. Experts say the trend is a startling sign of so-called aspirational products in India's growing markets.

"In India, the poor man has a rich man's aspirations and wants to live tomorrow's life today," said V. Shantakumar, chairman of India's branch of Saatchi & Saatchi, an advertising agency that handles Olay, which puts out several whitening products. "That's reflected in the advertising with the social mobility dream of wanting cars, washing machines, air conditioners and, of course, skin-lightening creams."

The creams often cost about $1, or half a day's wages for many Indians. Despite the expense, the creams might as well be liquid gold for some young men, who believe pale skin will lead to well-paid jobs and wealthier mates.

Vinod Kumar, 18, a dark-skinned cigarette salesman, said he buys Fair and Handsome every month. "I want to be rich and fair like my film hero," he said. "To be pale would make me be so smart."

Some companies have started to produce tiny packages of the cream so that poorer Indians who can't afford an entire tube can still strive toward lighter skin.

"A guy taking his girlfriend out for a film today has all the aspirations of a richer man and will spend money on a shampoo or a skin-lightening cream in a small packet," said Anant Rangaswami, editor of Campaign India, an advertising magazine. "There is more disposable income in the hands of young people today, and the lower-middle classes are dreaming big."

Some say those dreams shouldn't include lighter skin. The products are seen by critics as reinforcing long-held discrimination against darker skin, especially in northern India, where it is often linked to lower-caste professions.

"It's something we have internalized, and it's propagated by everyone since we still have this colonial hang-up that white is better, white is wealth, white is someone rich enough to never toil in the sun," said Nikki Duggal, a New Delhi-based graphic artist who created T-shirts that say "Dark and Lovely" and "Fair and Ugly" -- which in many ways mirror the "Black Is Beautiful" T-shirts that became a symbol of empowerment in the United States. "It's so prevalent in India that fair equates to more success in life. There is a very sad message that if you are dark, you are doomed."

Cosmetic companies say there is nothing nefarious about marketing the idea of lighter skin. They often defend the standard of beauty in India by pointing to the West's fixation on wrinkles or weight.

Other advertising analysts say the growth in male skin creams simply shows that Indians in smaller towns and cities have increasing purchasing power and the same materialistic dreams as residents of New Delhi or Mumbai.

"The new India story is completely about aspirations in the smaller cities. It's no longer an ad for motorbikes that shows a woman getting her sari crushed on a bus. Now it's an ad about owning a car -- and not just any car, a big car," said Jagdip Bakshi, the head of the Contract Advertising agency. "Skin-lightening creams are just one aspirational product among a long list that those in the smaller cities are now spending their money on. The market is unstoppable."

Ads that target the lower middle class and play to desires for upward mobility can be seen round-the-clock on Indian TV these days. In one ad, for the satellite provider Dish Network, Bollywood megastar Shahrukh Khan laments that Indians are too "content" with what they have already.

"We are content even if there's no water, no electricity. Even if our cable is showing us only a few channels," he says.

"Pleeeez, don't be santusht," he continues, using the Hindi word for "content." "Wish some more, Dish some more."

Khan, known as the King of Bollywood, recently appeared in another ad. It was for Fair and Handsome cream.

Race to the Finish
Looks are superficial. They are alterable. Make up, facial bleaches, talcum powders, blushes, mascara, and countless other provisions are employed by mankind (mostly womenkind) to change their looks.

But such changes are only skin deep!

Little sis, you ought to go deeper than skin deep.

Therein lies the essential identity.

And it is one identity!

Race to the Finish Re: # 533

Little Sis, most Pakistani mussalmans are the same race as the Hindu Indians. That is simply a fact of life!

Your genes did not fall out of the sky, they originated in the same land as India!

It does not matter if you hide inside a burqa or wrap a saari!

Sorry!

And BTW, desi discriminations based on shades of color are no different than the ugly racism that we desis encounter all over the world!

And Jackie Robinson did in his time!

Race to the Finish Re: # 531

Little sis, welcome back from your sleep.

Need I remind you that sweeping generalizations of the kind you express in #531 are highly racist in nature. Kindly cease and desist. Racism does not suit a kind-hearted soul like yours.

By the way, Pakistanis are not a separate race, you all are the same race as the Indians. And let me assure you, some of our Madrasis are no less deep-complexioned than the black Americans who you badmouth so freely in your interact!

Race to the Finish What some may mistakenly attribute to nature may in reality be caused by nurture – excessive nurture, in fact!

US eats 5 times more than India per capita
4 May 2008, 0100 hrs IST,Subodh Varma,TNN

Even as the world spins into a global food crisis, a popular theory — voiced by the likes of US President George W Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice — is that the Chinese and Indians are responsible. The 'logic': due to zooming incomes, they are eating more, causing worldwide shortages. But is that true?

Due to their huge populations, countries like India and China may appear to consume gigantic amounts of food. But the real elephant in the room that nobody is willing to talk about is how much each person gets to eat. And the answer will shock many.

Total foodgrain consumption — wheat, rice, and all coarse grains like rye, barley etc — by each person in the US is over five times that of an Indian, according to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007.

Each Indian gets to eat about 178 kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046 kg.

In per capita terms, US grain consumption is twice that of the European Union and thrice that of China. Grain consumption includes flour and by conversion to alcohol.

In fact, per capita grain consumption has increased in the US — so actually the Americans are eating more. In 2003, US per capita grain consumption was 946 kg per year which increased to 1046 kg last year.

By way of comparison, India’s per capita grain consumption has remained static over the same period. It’s not just grains. Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78 kg per year for each person in the US, compared to 36 kg in India and 11 kg in China.

Vegetable oils consumption per person is 41 kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11 kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yogurt and milk powders which are consumed in huge proportion in the more advanced countries.

A significant proportion of India’s population is vegetarian, and so, this is all the food that they get, apart from vegetables and pulses. But the source of carbohydrates and fats is mainly derived from food grains and oils.

As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6 kg per person per year, compared to a mere 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. In the US, 45.4 kg poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared to just 1.9 kg in India.

Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6 kg pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7 kgs are consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so over 35 kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey.
All these comparisons are for powerful economies, whether of the west or the east.

But the story would not be complete without mentioning the plight of Africa, where foodgrain consumption in 2007 was a mere 162 kg per year for each person, or about 445 grams per day. Don’t forget they are not getting any meat or milk products out there.

Perhaps, it is time to include the lifestyle choices of the West in the whole feverish debate on how to tackle the global food crisis.

These figures are collated by the US Department of Agriculture. US per capita grain consumption rose from 946 kg in 2003 to 1046 kg last year. India’s per capita consumption remained static in this period.