I think the author's main premise of his point of view is wrong.... Sonia Gandhi was looked upon to become the PM of India NOT BECAUSE she is a white woman, but because she is the wife of Rajiv Gandhi. The "GANDHI" last name that she obtained from Mahatma Gandhi and the background of Nehru and Indira Gandhi family helped Sonia to gain the support.
I do agree that Indians should be more proud of what they are, but I would like the author recognize that we (Indians) dont necessarily care the ill-informed writings of the Western world.
I also urge all Indians to become more "learned" and move ahead.
5) I disagree with the author about the fascination of West for "brown" skin. The fascination is for "tanned" skin - not brown. The distinction is obvious when I board a plane in the US every week; the scared and/or angry stares I receive from people in a post 9/11 world - that the Average "California beach-bum" Joe with a perfect tan will never get.
Continued from previous post.. Why Sonia:Is she a smart and savvy politician?Does she understand and empathize with our masses?What does she bring to the table that others in Congress can't?Are our politicians suffering from a morbid case of colonial hangover?Or worse,is it a result of an unhealthy fascination for the Nehru-Gandhi clan?Do these politicians lack direction?Do they feel the need to be ruled?Even worse,do the masses feel that way?I hope that we have a "few good men" among these politicians culled from the best and the brightest of our generation.Do such men and women exist in that infernal arena? 4)I agree with the author on the matrimonals:every bleeding woman is labeled "wheatish"-what on earth does that word mean?I do think that this ridiculous fascination for "fair"(and I mean that in the Indian sense)skin is being perpetuated by generations of men and women who should have known better;reinforced by countless Bollywood songs.I do believe that our concept of "arranged marriages" is partially responsible:if one is going to choose one's life partner based on criteria that have nothing to do with love,then this kind of side effect,though unfortunate,is inevitable!
Having read the responses, I think (IMHO) that irrespective of whether the perception of our fascination for white skin is true or not, we DO specialize in knee-jerk reactions and think with our hearts more often that with our heads! Although I do not agree with the author on all points, I do feel his empathy, and his (almost desperate) plea for India. 1) Back to the article, it is rather unfortunate that we are perceived by the West as being brown-nosers. I agree with the author that such a perception, whether founded in reality or not, can have bad consequence for us as a nation. 2) I can only say that in all my time in India, among people of my generation (who are on the wrong side of 25), I have never ever heard anyone who thinks that Indians are in any way inferior: Au contraire, our generation have been fiercely jingoist and proud of being Indian. I have seen the same attitude even among us nomads (NRIs) abroad. 3) I can't comment on the cause for our fascination for Sonia on account of my rather poor head for politics. It does pose interesting questions though, that I'm sure have been analyzed to death...continued in subsequent post
Hope you see the irony here. Rightist in India are using a white man to convince people about their ideology!! People respect Sonia Gandhi not because she is white but because she is a Gandhi. I guess that is not a surprise.!! And please India has its own problem don't drag us into the problem of white and dark colours!!
The author mistakenly assumes the Congress Party and Congressmen to represent all Indians, and the opinions in the English media to be wholly Indian. He does not seem to know India and Indians at all. B K Nautiyal
I dont know what I feel. The first thing that comes to my mind is to congratulate you Mr. Writer. Not for praising India or Indians, but for having a neutral eye to Indians. I am in the US right now, and I am zapped by ignorance these guys have about our country. And, then there were people who have voted for Sonia and there are people who climbed on their cars with guns in their hands to see Sonia as "OUR" PM.
I have absolutely nothing against Mrs. Gandhi and I appreciate her as a widow of a national leader who lost his life in public life. But, at the same time I am not comfortable with the idea of revealing national secretes to someone of the national origin. The reason behind this is as simple as possible - even if I am in the US right now, I really wouldnt want India to suffer. The same way she wouldn't want her motherland to suffer should some kind of problem arise between say India and the EU. And there is nothing wrong in that. She is right in feeling that, it just makes me uneasy and thats why this aversion. Indians surely have craze for white skin and whatever the reason, deep inside, they hate themselves, I have seen this coming out quite often.
I agree with the theme of the article but disagree with attraction to the white skin. The drama of 18th May in favour of Sonia Gandhi was a preplanned action to repeat the godfather image of Nehru family as seen years ago during Congress ruling. Shame!!! for those who claim to be senior leaders of the country to sit on Minister's chair but feel helpless to rule without blessings of Nehru-Gandhi family. This is purely monarchy....
Hard luck for those who are so called intellectuals but do not come out of homes to caste their votes, and the illiterated people cast maximum votes and they love these kinds of dramas..
It is with a smile that I read the article. Francois, are you this naive or are you trying to convert the mentality of the indian.
Indians were whipped and made to grovel at the feet of the white man for a long time. Even now, it seems that the white man and the west are the knowledge and power for success.
My poor indian fellowmen do not understand they should pat themselves on the back for having survived the white skin and the false facade of superiority they inflict on the brown.
The west is even today telling the rest about advancement and development. The flashy homes and cars and the wonderful developed lonely world is the sparkle everyone runs for.
But just the other day I was sitting in my apartment, alone and lonely as I live in the west, watching television. There was a documentary which was actually in french. I did not understand a word but it showed India, its elephant and donkeys and goats and cows co-existing with men. Its adventures and colours; and I sat there mesmerised. When, oh when, am I going to be on a plane to India, where life is worth living, where loneliness is just a word and the elephant walking beside me on the street.
RE-The white woman and India
by Indy on Jul 28, 2004 09:04 PM
I really dont understand who is naive here, someone trying to tell you that u were wrong and suggestions to improve or someone not accepting that he was wrong. Always remember that what we are, are because of the decisions and choices we make. I cant see any reason why you would be finding pride in surviving the British backlash or the sympathy in whipping. Accept that they were smart to rule and we dumb to be ruled.
The west telling the world what not, but what have India done to uplift itself. The Britishers sowed the seed for Indo-Pak rift we are still nurturing it more than ever. Does any political group really care for its people. I am an Indian just as anyone else and I too stay in West. I would rather love to see strong leadership coming up and revolutionizing our country rather than sit lonely in my apartment and watch documentaries with hope to be on next plane and see the elephants and donkeys. Lets assume I do that, what after I see them? Is the problem solved. What you fail to see is the hidden message that Francois is trying to convey. C'mon, long have we pitied ourselves and tried to reason for comfort, just to avoid going face-to-face with the problem. Think !
This is an excellent article exposing the lies max muller and his european followers have thrusted down the throats of Indians.
The theory of Aryan Invasion is ridiciulously stupid here are some more arguments against that theory.
1. All the vedic texts mention the river Saraswati. From latest geographical surveys, the river Saraswati slowly started diminishing in 2600BC and stopped flowing in deserts of Rajasthan in 1900 BC. How can the tribes coming 400 yrs after drying river worship and write literature about that river?
2. It is common sense that it takes certain time for the culture to evolve. With Maxmuller timetable, all vedas upnishads and Geeta evolved within 300-400 yrs and reached till Jakarta before Buddha was born ? Given the slow social dynamics because of lack of fast travel means, this is almost impossible.
One single point supporting Maxmuller is that there is no "very strong" link between Harappan culture and Vedic culture. But he insisted to pull the vedic culture after Harappan culture, whereas there is no proof of evolution of Sanskrit afterwards.
