Discussion:
The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
(too old to reply)
Gabe Menezes
2006-04-30 09:39:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2157949,00.html

The Sunday Times April 30, 2006

The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
Dean Nelson in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

THE man widely tipped to be India's next prime minister, Rahul Gandhi,
has spoken of his vision of a prosperous country with higher living
standards than Britain currently enjoys.

In an interview as he campaigned on behalf of his Italian-born mother
Sonia in a by-election, he also explained that the assassination of
his father, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, had propelled him into
politics with a desire to carry on his work.

Mobbed by voters at every village we visited Rahul, 35, whose
grandmother Indira Gandhi was also assassinated, said: "Physically,
you get used to the threat."

It was the killing of his father in 1991 by a Tamil suicide bomber, in
protest at Rajiv's decision to send Indian troops into the Sri Lankan
conflict, that made his mind up to enter the family business.

"When he died I felt he was doing certain things to modernise the
country and he was cut short. What he was doing was on the right
track. He was bridging the gap between modern India and traditional
India."

It is Rahul's desire for India to escape its grinding poverty and
surpass the western world that evidently drives his ambitions.

"India is rising, but I want to see it compete successfully with every
other country, and I want to transform what you see here ? poverty."

Many of the children in the village we were visiting have no shoes.
Water is drawn from a communal hand-pump, carts drawn by horses and
bullocks navigate mud roads and villagers cook on dung-fires.

"I would like to help these people have the same living standards you
have," he said.

In the West? "Better than in the West. We're not here to take
(British) jobs, we're here to empower ourselves.

"We're a poor country. We have a lot of people in the villages with
tremendous potential for entrepreneurship but it is denied to them.
Corruption is holding people back, caste is holding us back."

Last week Rahul announced his readiness to take on the leadership of
the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state,
while national leaders are pushing for him to lead it into the 2009
general election.

These latest moves to fast-track him to high office follow accolades
at the party's conference earlier this year where he was hailed as its
future leader.

The scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has ruled India for most
of its independence years invited The Sunday Times to join him in his
car on the campaign trail in Rae Bareli, the constituency that has
been the family's political home since Jawaharlal Nehru led local
farmers in revolt against British rule.

Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by young advisers and a phalanx of
plainclothes security men and is being driven by his father's best
friend and political confidant, former energy minister Captain Satish
Sharma. "One thousand per cent he will lead the Congress," Sharma
said.

"Manmohan Singh is a great prime minister, but after him it's Rahul.
Look out there, see what's happening. It's just destiny, it's beyond
anyone's control."

Outside, hundreds of villagers in bare feet had waited more than four
hours for Gandhi to arrive. When he did they were euphoric, chanting,
pressing in on him, desperate for a glimpse of the man they regard as
a living god.

Rahul shares his late father's glamorous looks, his pale skin sporting
designer stubble. But he comes across as serious, even bookish. He
does not like Bollywood films: he prefers to relax with books on
terrorism and business strategy, he says.

Ram Prasad, a local headmaster, explained why charisma was not
strictly necessary in a Gandhi: "Rahul is like a god," he said. "His
sister Priyanka and mother Sonia, the family are gods in Rae Bareli
and we think of them in an emotional way."

At the village of Hasnapur he was mobbed in the dark. Petitions were
thrust into his hands, arms reached out to grab him and his bodyguards
shone powerful torches into the faces of well-wishers, looking for
would-be assassins.

It was hot, there was sweat on his brow and as he got back into the
car more arms came in through the window, pushing garlands and
showering petals.

Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's
economic miracle.

Uttar Pradesh is regarded as one of the most caste-bound and corrupt
states in India. It is also one in which Congress has been denied
power for more than a decade.

Regional parties representing Muslims and untouchables have squeezed
its vote, but Congress must make headway here if it is to retain
national power. According to senior party figures, including Sharma,
Rahul is the best hope the party has.

"He is a free marketeer, he's pro-business," said Sharma. "With 10
years in government he will change the face of India. It's destiny."


--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Gabe Menezes
2006-04-30 09:39:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2157949,00.html

The Sunday Times April 30, 2006

The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
Dean Nelson in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

THE man widely tipped to be India's next prime minister, Rahul Gandhi,
has spoken of his vision of a prosperous country with higher living
standards than Britain currently enjoys.

In an interview as he campaigned on behalf of his Italian-born mother
Sonia in a by-election, he also explained that the assassination of
his father, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, had propelled him into
politics with a desire to carry on his work.

Mobbed by voters at every village we visited Rahul, 35, whose
grandmother Indira Gandhi was also assassinated, said: "Physically,
you get used to the threat."

It was the killing of his father in 1991 by a Tamil suicide bomber, in
protest at Rajiv's decision to send Indian troops into the Sri Lankan
conflict, that made his mind up to enter the family business.

"When he died I felt he was doing certain things to modernise the
country and he was cut short. What he was doing was on the right
track. He was bridging the gap between modern India and traditional
India."

It is Rahul's desire for India to escape its grinding poverty and
surpass the western world that evidently drives his ambitions.

"India is rising, but I want to see it compete successfully with every
other country, and I want to transform what you see here ? poverty."

Many of the children in the village we were visiting have no shoes.
Water is drawn from a communal hand-pump, carts drawn by horses and
bullocks navigate mud roads and villagers cook on dung-fires.

"I would like to help these people have the same living standards you
have," he said.

In the West? "Better than in the West. We're not here to take
(British) jobs, we're here to empower ourselves.

"We're a poor country. We have a lot of people in the villages with
tremendous potential for entrepreneurship but it is denied to them.
Corruption is holding people back, caste is holding us back."

Last week Rahul announced his readiness to take on the leadership of
the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state,
while national leaders are pushing for him to lead it into the 2009
general election.

These latest moves to fast-track him to high office follow accolades
at the party's conference earlier this year where he was hailed as its
future leader.

The scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has ruled India for most
of its independence years invited The Sunday Times to join him in his
car on the campaign trail in Rae Bareli, the constituency that has
been the family's political home since Jawaharlal Nehru led local
farmers in revolt against British rule.

Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by young advisers and a phalanx of
plainclothes security men and is being driven by his father's best
friend and political confidant, former energy minister Captain Satish
Sharma. "One thousand per cent he will lead the Congress," Sharma
said.

"Manmohan Singh is a great prime minister, but after him it's Rahul.
Look out there, see what's happening. It's just destiny, it's beyond
anyone's control."

Outside, hundreds of villagers in bare feet had waited more than four
hours for Gandhi to arrive. When he did they were euphoric, chanting,
pressing in on him, desperate for a glimpse of the man they regard as
a living god.

Rahul shares his late father's glamorous looks, his pale skin sporting
designer stubble. But he comes across as serious, even bookish. He
does not like Bollywood films: he prefers to relax with books on
terrorism and business strategy, he says.

Ram Prasad, a local headmaster, explained why charisma was not
strictly necessary in a Gandhi: "Rahul is like a god," he said. "His
sister Priyanka and mother Sonia, the family are gods in Rae Bareli
and we think of them in an emotional way."

At the village of Hasnapur he was mobbed in the dark. Petitions were
thrust into his hands, arms reached out to grab him and his bodyguards
shone powerful torches into the faces of well-wishers, looking for
would-be assassins.

It was hot, there was sweat on his brow and as he got back into the
car more arms came in through the window, pushing garlands and
showering petals.

Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's
economic miracle.

Uttar Pradesh is regarded as one of the most caste-bound and corrupt
states in India. It is also one in which Congress has been denied
power for more than a decade.

Regional parties representing Muslims and untouchables have squeezed
its vote, but Congress must make headway here if it is to retain
national power. According to senior party figures, including Sharma,
Rahul is the best hope the party has.

"He is a free marketeer, he's pro-business," said Sharma. "With 10
years in government he will change the face of India. It's destiny."


--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Gabe Menezes
2006-04-30 09:39:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2157949,00.html

The Sunday Times April 30, 2006

The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
Dean Nelson in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

THE man widely tipped to be India's next prime minister, Rahul Gandhi,
has spoken of his vision of a prosperous country with higher living
standards than Britain currently enjoys.

In an interview as he campaigned on behalf of his Italian-born mother
Sonia in a by-election, he also explained that the assassination of
his father, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, had propelled him into
politics with a desire to carry on his work.

Mobbed by voters at every village we visited Rahul, 35, whose
grandmother Indira Gandhi was also assassinated, said: "Physically,
you get used to the threat."

It was the killing of his father in 1991 by a Tamil suicide bomber, in
protest at Rajiv's decision to send Indian troops into the Sri Lankan
conflict, that made his mind up to enter the family business.

"When he died I felt he was doing certain things to modernise the
country and he was cut short. What he was doing was on the right
track. He was bridging the gap between modern India and traditional
India."

It is Rahul's desire for India to escape its grinding poverty and
surpass the western world that evidently drives his ambitions.

"India is rising, but I want to see it compete successfully with every
other country, and I want to transform what you see here ? poverty."

Many of the children in the village we were visiting have no shoes.
Water is drawn from a communal hand-pump, carts drawn by horses and
bullocks navigate mud roads and villagers cook on dung-fires.

"I would like to help these people have the same living standards you
have," he said.

In the West? "Better than in the West. We're not here to take
(British) jobs, we're here to empower ourselves.

"We're a poor country. We have a lot of people in the villages with
tremendous potential for entrepreneurship but it is denied to them.
Corruption is holding people back, caste is holding us back."

Last week Rahul announced his readiness to take on the leadership of
the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state,
while national leaders are pushing for him to lead it into the 2009
general election.

These latest moves to fast-track him to high office follow accolades
at the party's conference earlier this year where he was hailed as its
future leader.

The scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has ruled India for most
of its independence years invited The Sunday Times to join him in his
car on the campaign trail in Rae Bareli, the constituency that has
been the family's political home since Jawaharlal Nehru led local
farmers in revolt against British rule.

Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by young advisers and a phalanx of
plainclothes security men and is being driven by his father's best
friend and political confidant, former energy minister Captain Satish
Sharma. "One thousand per cent he will lead the Congress," Sharma
said.

"Manmohan Singh is a great prime minister, but after him it's Rahul.
Look out there, see what's happening. It's just destiny, it's beyond
anyone's control."

Outside, hundreds of villagers in bare feet had waited more than four
hours for Gandhi to arrive. When he did they were euphoric, chanting,
pressing in on him, desperate for a glimpse of the man they regard as
a living god.

Rahul shares his late father's glamorous looks, his pale skin sporting
designer stubble. But he comes across as serious, even bookish. He
does not like Bollywood films: he prefers to relax with books on
terrorism and business strategy, he says.

Ram Prasad, a local headmaster, explained why charisma was not
strictly necessary in a Gandhi: "Rahul is like a god," he said. "His
sister Priyanka and mother Sonia, the family are gods in Rae Bareli
and we think of them in an emotional way."

At the village of Hasnapur he was mobbed in the dark. Petitions were
thrust into his hands, arms reached out to grab him and his bodyguards
shone powerful torches into the faces of well-wishers, looking for
would-be assassins.

It was hot, there was sweat on his brow and as he got back into the
car more arms came in through the window, pushing garlands and
showering petals.

Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's
economic miracle.

Uttar Pradesh is regarded as one of the most caste-bound and corrupt
states in India. It is also one in which Congress has been denied
power for more than a decade.

Regional parties representing Muslims and untouchables have squeezed
its vote, but Congress must make headway here if it is to retain
national power. According to senior party figures, including Sharma,
Rahul is the best hope the party has.

"He is a free marketeer, he's pro-business," said Sharma. "With 10
years in government he will change the face of India. It's destiny."


--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Gabe Menezes
2006-04-30 09:39:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2157949,00.html

The Sunday Times April 30, 2006

The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
Dean Nelson in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

THE man widely tipped to be India's next prime minister, Rahul Gandhi,
has spoken of his vision of a prosperous country with higher living
standards than Britain currently enjoys.

In an interview as he campaigned on behalf of his Italian-born mother
Sonia in a by-election, he also explained that the assassination of
his father, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, had propelled him into
politics with a desire to carry on his work.

Mobbed by voters at every village we visited Rahul, 35, whose
grandmother Indira Gandhi was also assassinated, said: "Physically,
you get used to the threat."

It was the killing of his father in 1991 by a Tamil suicide bomber, in
protest at Rajiv's decision to send Indian troops into the Sri Lankan
conflict, that made his mind up to enter the family business.

"When he died I felt he was doing certain things to modernise the
country and he was cut short. What he was doing was on the right
track. He was bridging the gap between modern India and traditional
India."

It is Rahul's desire for India to escape its grinding poverty and
surpass the western world that evidently drives his ambitions.

"India is rising, but I want to see it compete successfully with every
other country, and I want to transform what you see here ? poverty."

Many of the children in the village we were visiting have no shoes.
Water is drawn from a communal hand-pump, carts drawn by horses and
bullocks navigate mud roads and villagers cook on dung-fires.

"I would like to help these people have the same living standards you
have," he said.

In the West? "Better than in the West. We're not here to take
(British) jobs, we're here to empower ourselves.

"We're a poor country. We have a lot of people in the villages with
tremendous potential for entrepreneurship but it is denied to them.
Corruption is holding people back, caste is holding us back."

Last week Rahul announced his readiness to take on the leadership of
the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state,
while national leaders are pushing for him to lead it into the 2009
general election.

These latest moves to fast-track him to high office follow accolades
at the party's conference earlier this year where he was hailed as its
future leader.

The scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has ruled India for most
of its independence years invited The Sunday Times to join him in his
car on the campaign trail in Rae Bareli, the constituency that has
been the family's political home since Jawaharlal Nehru led local
farmers in revolt against British rule.

Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by young advisers and a phalanx of
plainclothes security men and is being driven by his father's best
friend and political confidant, former energy minister Captain Satish
Sharma. "One thousand per cent he will lead the Congress," Sharma
said.

"Manmohan Singh is a great prime minister, but after him it's Rahul.
Look out there, see what's happening. It's just destiny, it's beyond
anyone's control."

Outside, hundreds of villagers in bare feet had waited more than four
hours for Gandhi to arrive. When he did they were euphoric, chanting,
pressing in on him, desperate for a glimpse of the man they regard as
a living god.

Rahul shares his late father's glamorous looks, his pale skin sporting
designer stubble. But he comes across as serious, even bookish. He
does not like Bollywood films: he prefers to relax with books on
terrorism and business strategy, he says.

Ram Prasad, a local headmaster, explained why charisma was not
strictly necessary in a Gandhi: "Rahul is like a god," he said. "His
sister Priyanka and mother Sonia, the family are gods in Rae Bareli
and we think of them in an emotional way."

At the village of Hasnapur he was mobbed in the dark. Petitions were
thrust into his hands, arms reached out to grab him and his bodyguards
shone powerful torches into the faces of well-wishers, looking for
would-be assassins.

It was hot, there was sweat on his brow and as he got back into the
car more arms came in through the window, pushing garlands and
showering petals.

Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's
economic miracle.

Uttar Pradesh is regarded as one of the most caste-bound and corrupt
states in India. It is also one in which Congress has been denied
power for more than a decade.

Regional parties representing Muslims and untouchables have squeezed
its vote, but Congress must make headway here if it is to retain
national power. According to senior party figures, including Sharma,
Rahul is the best hope the party has.

"He is a free marketeer, he's pro-business," said Sharma. "With 10
years in government he will change the face of India. It's destiny."


--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Gabe Menezes
2006-04-30 09:39:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2157949,00.html

The Sunday Times April 30, 2006

The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
Dean Nelson in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

THE man widely tipped to be India's next prime minister, Rahul Gandhi,
has spoken of his vision of a prosperous country with higher living
standards than Britain currently enjoys.

In an interview as he campaigned on behalf of his Italian-born mother
Sonia in a by-election, he also explained that the assassination of
his father, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, had propelled him into
politics with a desire to carry on his work.

Mobbed by voters at every village we visited Rahul, 35, whose
grandmother Indira Gandhi was also assassinated, said: "Physically,
you get used to the threat."

It was the killing of his father in 1991 by a Tamil suicide bomber, in
protest at Rajiv's decision to send Indian troops into the Sri Lankan
conflict, that made his mind up to enter the family business.

"When he died I felt he was doing certain things to modernise the
country and he was cut short. What he was doing was on the right
track. He was bridging the gap between modern India and traditional
India."

It is Rahul's desire for India to escape its grinding poverty and
surpass the western world that evidently drives his ambitions.

"India is rising, but I want to see it compete successfully with every
other country, and I want to transform what you see here ? poverty."

Many of the children in the village we were visiting have no shoes.
Water is drawn from a communal hand-pump, carts drawn by horses and
bullocks navigate mud roads and villagers cook on dung-fires.

"I would like to help these people have the same living standards you
have," he said.

In the West? "Better than in the West. We're not here to take
(British) jobs, we're here to empower ourselves.

"We're a poor country. We have a lot of people in the villages with
tremendous potential for entrepreneurship but it is denied to them.
Corruption is holding people back, caste is holding us back."

Last week Rahul announced his readiness to take on the leadership of
the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state,
while national leaders are pushing for him to lead it into the 2009
general election.

These latest moves to fast-track him to high office follow accolades
at the party's conference earlier this year where he was hailed as its
future leader.

The scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has ruled India for most
of its independence years invited The Sunday Times to join him in his
car on the campaign trail in Rae Bareli, the constituency that has
been the family's political home since Jawaharlal Nehru led local
farmers in revolt against British rule.

Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by young advisers and a phalanx of
plainclothes security men and is being driven by his father's best
friend and political confidant, former energy minister Captain Satish
Sharma. "One thousand per cent he will lead the Congress," Sharma
said.

"Manmohan Singh is a great prime minister, but after him it's Rahul.
Look out there, see what's happening. It's just destiny, it's beyond
anyone's control."

Outside, hundreds of villagers in bare feet had waited more than four
hours for Gandhi to arrive. When he did they were euphoric, chanting,
pressing in on him, desperate for a glimpse of the man they regard as
a living god.

Rahul shares his late father's glamorous looks, his pale skin sporting
designer stubble. But he comes across as serious, even bookish. He
does not like Bollywood films: he prefers to relax with books on
terrorism and business strategy, he says.

Ram Prasad, a local headmaster, explained why charisma was not
strictly necessary in a Gandhi: "Rahul is like a god," he said. "His
sister Priyanka and mother Sonia, the family are gods in Rae Bareli
and we think of them in an emotional way."

At the village of Hasnapur he was mobbed in the dark. Petitions were
thrust into his hands, arms reached out to grab him and his bodyguards
shone powerful torches into the faces of well-wishers, looking for
would-be assassins.

It was hot, there was sweat on his brow and as he got back into the
car more arms came in through the window, pushing garlands and
showering petals.

Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's
economic miracle.

Uttar Pradesh is regarded as one of the most caste-bound and corrupt
states in India. It is also one in which Congress has been denied
power for more than a decade.

Regional parties representing Muslims and untouchables have squeezed
its vote, but Congress must make headway here if it is to retain
national power. According to senior party figures, including Sharma,
Rahul is the best hope the party has.

"He is a free marketeer, he's pro-business," said Sharma. "With 10
years in government he will change the face of India. It's destiny."


--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Gabe Menezes
2006-04-30 09:39:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2157949,00.html

The Sunday Times April 30, 2006

The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
Dean Nelson in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

THE man widely tipped to be India's next prime minister, Rahul Gandhi,
has spoken of his vision of a prosperous country with higher living
standards than Britain currently enjoys.

In an interview as he campaigned on behalf of his Italian-born mother
Sonia in a by-election, he also explained that the assassination of
his father, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, had propelled him into
politics with a desire to carry on his work.

Mobbed by voters at every village we visited Rahul, 35, whose
grandmother Indira Gandhi was also assassinated, said: "Physically,
you get used to the threat."

It was the killing of his father in 1991 by a Tamil suicide bomber, in
protest at Rajiv's decision to send Indian troops into the Sri Lankan
conflict, that made his mind up to enter the family business.

"When he died I felt he was doing certain things to modernise the
country and he was cut short. What he was doing was on the right
track. He was bridging the gap between modern India and traditional
India."

It is Rahul's desire for India to escape its grinding poverty and
surpass the western world that evidently drives his ambitions.

"India is rising, but I want to see it compete successfully with every
other country, and I want to transform what you see here ? poverty."

Many of the children in the village we were visiting have no shoes.
Water is drawn from a communal hand-pump, carts drawn by horses and
bullocks navigate mud roads and villagers cook on dung-fires.

"I would like to help these people have the same living standards you
have," he said.

In the West? "Better than in the West. We're not here to take
(British) jobs, we're here to empower ourselves.

"We're a poor country. We have a lot of people in the villages with
tremendous potential for entrepreneurship but it is denied to them.
Corruption is holding people back, caste is holding us back."

Last week Rahul announced his readiness to take on the leadership of
the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state,
while national leaders are pushing for him to lead it into the 2009
general election.

These latest moves to fast-track him to high office follow accolades
at the party's conference earlier this year where he was hailed as its
future leader.

The scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has ruled India for most
of its independence years invited The Sunday Times to join him in his
car on the campaign trail in Rae Bareli, the constituency that has
been the family's political home since Jawaharlal Nehru led local
farmers in revolt against British rule.

Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by young advisers and a phalanx of
plainclothes security men and is being driven by his father's best
friend and political confidant, former energy minister Captain Satish
Sharma. "One thousand per cent he will lead the Congress," Sharma
said.

"Manmohan Singh is a great prime minister, but after him it's Rahul.
Look out there, see what's happening. It's just destiny, it's beyond
anyone's control."

Outside, hundreds of villagers in bare feet had waited more than four
hours for Gandhi to arrive. When he did they were euphoric, chanting,
pressing in on him, desperate for a glimpse of the man they regard as
a living god.

Rahul shares his late father's glamorous looks, his pale skin sporting
designer stubble. But he comes across as serious, even bookish. He
does not like Bollywood films: he prefers to relax with books on
terrorism and business strategy, he says.

Ram Prasad, a local headmaster, explained why charisma was not
strictly necessary in a Gandhi: "Rahul is like a god," he said. "His
sister Priyanka and mother Sonia, the family are gods in Rae Bareli
and we think of them in an emotional way."

At the village of Hasnapur he was mobbed in the dark. Petitions were
thrust into his hands, arms reached out to grab him and his bodyguards
shone powerful torches into the faces of well-wishers, looking for
would-be assassins.

It was hot, there was sweat on his brow and as he got back into the
car more arms came in through the window, pushing garlands and
showering petals.

Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's
economic miracle.

Uttar Pradesh is regarded as one of the most caste-bound and corrupt
states in India. It is also one in which Congress has been denied
power for more than a decade.

Regional parties representing Muslims and untouchables have squeezed
its vote, but Congress must make headway here if it is to retain
national power. According to senior party figures, including Sharma,
Rahul is the best hope the party has.

"He is a free marketeer, he's pro-business," said Sharma. "With 10
years in government he will change the face of India. It's destiny."


--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Gabe Menezes
2006-04-30 09:39:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2157949,00.html

The Sunday Times April 30, 2006

The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than Britain
Dean Nelson in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

THE man widely tipped to be India's next prime minister, Rahul Gandhi,
has spoken of his vision of a prosperous country with higher living
standards than Britain currently enjoys.

In an interview as he campaigned on behalf of his Italian-born mother
Sonia in a by-election, he also explained that the assassination of
his father, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, had propelled him into
politics with a desire to carry on his work.

Mobbed by voters at every village we visited Rahul, 35, whose
grandmother Indira Gandhi was also assassinated, said: "Physically,
you get used to the threat."

It was the killing of his father in 1991 by a Tamil suicide bomber, in
protest at Rajiv's decision to send Indian troops into the Sri Lankan
conflict, that made his mind up to enter the family business.

"When he died I felt he was doing certain things to modernise the
country and he was cut short. What he was doing was on the right
track. He was bridging the gap between modern India and traditional
India."

It is Rahul's desire for India to escape its grinding poverty and
surpass the western world that evidently drives his ambitions.

"India is rising, but I want to see it compete successfully with every
other country, and I want to transform what you see here ? poverty."

Many of the children in the village we were visiting have no shoes.
Water is drawn from a communal hand-pump, carts drawn by horses and
bullocks navigate mud roads and villagers cook on dung-fires.

"I would like to help these people have the same living standards you
have," he said.

In the West? "Better than in the West. We're not here to take
(British) jobs, we're here to empower ourselves.

"We're a poor country. We have a lot of people in the villages with
tremendous potential for entrepreneurship but it is denied to them.
Corruption is holding people back, caste is holding us back."

Last week Rahul announced his readiness to take on the leadership of
the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state,
while national leaders are pushing for him to lead it into the 2009
general election.

These latest moves to fast-track him to high office follow accolades
at the party's conference earlier this year where he was hailed as its
future leader.

The scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has ruled India for most
of its independence years invited The Sunday Times to join him in his
car on the campaign trail in Rae Bareli, the constituency that has
been the family's political home since Jawaharlal Nehru led local
farmers in revolt against British rule.

Rahul Gandhi is surrounded by young advisers and a phalanx of
plainclothes security men and is being driven by his father's best
friend and political confidant, former energy minister Captain Satish
Sharma. "One thousand per cent he will lead the Congress," Sharma
said.

"Manmohan Singh is a great prime minister, but after him it's Rahul.
Look out there, see what's happening. It's just destiny, it's beyond
anyone's control."

Outside, hundreds of villagers in bare feet had waited more than four
hours for Gandhi to arrive. When he did they were euphoric, chanting,
pressing in on him, desperate for a glimpse of the man they regard as
a living god.

Rahul shares his late father's glamorous looks, his pale skin sporting
designer stubble. But he comes across as serious, even bookish. He
does not like Bollywood films: he prefers to relax with books on
terrorism and business strategy, he says.

Ram Prasad, a local headmaster, explained why charisma was not
strictly necessary in a Gandhi: "Rahul is like a god," he said. "His
sister Priyanka and mother Sonia, the family are gods in Rae Bareli
and we think of them in an emotional way."

At the village of Hasnapur he was mobbed in the dark. Petitions were
thrust into his hands, arms reached out to grab him and his bodyguards
shone powerful torches into the faces of well-wishers, looking for
would-be assassins.

It was hot, there was sweat on his brow and as he got back into the
car more arms came in through the window, pushing garlands and
showering petals.

Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's
economic miracle.

Uttar Pradesh is regarded as one of the most caste-bound and corrupt
states in India. It is also one in which Congress has been denied
power for more than a decade.

Regional parties representing Muslims and untouchables have squeezed
its vote, but Congress must make headway here if it is to retain
national power. According to senior party figures, including Sharma,
Rahul is the best hope the party has.

"He is a free marketeer, he's pro-business," said Sharma. "With 10
years in government he will change the face of India. It's destiny."


--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Sachin Phadte
2006-05-02 10:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Very interesting article. However, only a statement of wish, there is no
mention about the programmes that Rahul has in mind. There is one statement
in the article that struck me most, which is as follows:

"Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's economic
miracle."

So, without some solid ideas, it is difficult to make a judegement. I am
asking this question in the same manner in which I had asked about the
detailed posting of the rise of Babush on the political scene in Goa.

Sachin Phadte.
Herman D'Souza
2006-05-03 07:49:43 UTC
Permalink
ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR US

ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY

This is the thinking of the west
and this is how we can surpass the best
Post by Sachin Phadte
Very interesting article. However, only a statement
of wish, there is no
mention about the programmes that Rahul has in mind.
There is one statement
in the article that struck me most, which is as
"Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we
were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far
untouched by India's economic
miracle."
So, without some solid ideas, it is difficult to
make a judegement. I am
asking this question in the same manner in which I
had asked about the
detailed posting of the rise of Babush on the
political scene in Goa.
Sachin Phadte.
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com
cornel
2006-05-04 11:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Re the often said view of India making huge economic progress to super-power
status, I can't help feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a myth
at present. However, it is a very useful myth as the growing confidence of
young Indians everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident.

Hopefully, the myth will turn to reality soon even though I cannot bear the
thought of another dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Cornel
cornel
2006-05-04 11:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Re the often said view of India making huge economic progress to super-power
status, I can't help feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a myth
at present. However, it is a very useful myth as the growing confidence of
young Indians everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident.

Hopefully, the myth will turn to reality soon even though I cannot bear the
thought of another dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Cornel
cornel
2006-05-04 11:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Re the often said view of India making huge economic progress to super-power
status, I can't help feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a myth
at present. However, it is a very useful myth as the growing confidence of
young Indians everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident.

Hopefully, the myth will turn to reality soon even though I cannot bear the
thought of another dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Cornel
Mario Goveia
2006-05-03 15:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman D'Souza
ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR US
ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY
This is the thinking of the west
and this is how we can surpass the best
Mario observes:
Herman, you have hit the nail on the head. India
would be pretty formidable if most of the country's
citizens adopted the philosophy so eloquently stated
by US President John F. Kennedy.
I wonder if the "next Gandhi" has noticed that it is
Indians that have helped make Britain "better off".
The "next Gandhi" can talk all he wants, but unless he
seriously and relentlessly addresses the issues of
civic sense at every level which leads to much of
India's disgusting squalor, now getting more out of
place amid all the shining technological and economic
progress, no progress will be made in this important
philosophical area.
I think it will come in time, but the sooner it does
the better. The emotional responses to even humorous
commentary on the incongruity of wholesale
reservations shows that large sections of "the
country" still depend on what "the country" can do for
its people.
The "best" countries make opportunities available for
all it's people and help the people help themselves.
The only comment I would quibble with is that it is
still the thinking of much of "the west". I doubt the
citizens of much of Europe subscribe to this
philosophy any more, and the riots in France and the
stagnant economies of all the larger European
countries is evidence of this.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-04 16:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Re the often said view of India making huge economic
progress to super-power status, I can't help
feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a
myth at present. However, it is a very useful myth
as the growing confidence of young Indians
everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident.
Hopefully, the myth will turn to reality soon even
though I cannot bear the thought of another
dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Cornel
Mario observes:
To see whether it is a myth or reality one has to look
at the economic growth statistics and the list of
"heavy hitters" lining up to invest in India.
Looking around at the chaos while dodging cars,
pedestrians and spitballs is misleading.
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on
straight, when compared to his Grandfather, a hero of
the freedom struggle, who then led the country down
the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
cornel
2006-05-05 08:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Mario needs to note that historically and today, many an investor has lined
up to invest in a range of projects where the anticipated mythical economic
balloon burst soon after, despite all the available statistics.

Notwithstanding the economic progress India is making, there is much,
including statistical evidence of grinding poverty among millions, severe
undernourishment of 57 million children, lack of quality control etc which
makes the hoped for economic super-power status a bit premature even though
I for one want it quite badly for India.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
Re the often said view of India making huge economic progress to super-power
status, I can't help feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a myth
at present. However, it is a very useful myth as the growing confidence of
young Indians everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident. Hopefully,
the myth will turn to reality soon even though I cannot bear the thought of
another dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Post by cornel
Cornel
To see whether it is a myth or reality one has to look at the economic
growth statistics and the list of "heavy hitters" lining up to invest in
India.
Looking around at the chaos while dodging cars, pedestrians and spitballs
is misleading.
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed onstraight, when
compared to his Grandfather, a hero ofthe freedom struggle, who then led
the country downthe primrose path that it is now recovering from.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-06 09:15:11 UTC
Permalink
..........................
Post by Mario Goveia
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on
straight, when compared to his Grandfather, a hero of
the freedom struggle, who then led the country down
the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ? Indira Gandi's
Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in mainstream Politics. Sonia
Gandhi's father is an Italian!

--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
cornel
2006-05-05 08:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Mario needs to note that historically and today, many an investor has lined
up to invest in a range of projects where the anticipated mythical economic
balloon burst soon after, despite all the available statistics.

Notwithstanding the economic progress India is making, there is much,
including statistical evidence of grinding poverty among millions, severe
undernourishment of 57 million children, lack of quality control etc which
makes the hoped for economic super-power status a bit premature even though
I for one want it quite badly for India.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
Re the often said view of India making huge economic progress to super-power
status, I can't help feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a myth
at present. However, it is a very useful myth as the growing confidence of
young Indians everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident. Hopefully,
the myth will turn to reality soon even though I cannot bear the thought of
another dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Post by cornel
Cornel
To see whether it is a myth or reality one has to look at the economic
growth statistics and the list of "heavy hitters" lining up to invest in
India.
Looking around at the chaos while dodging cars, pedestrians and spitballs
is misleading.
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed onstraight, when
compared to his Grandfather, a hero ofthe freedom struggle, who then led
the country downthe primrose path that it is now recovering from.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-06 09:15:11 UTC
Permalink
..........................
Post by Mario Goveia
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on
straight, when compared to his Grandfather, a hero of
the freedom struggle, who then led the country down
the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ? Indira Gandi's
Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in mainstream Politics. Sonia
Gandhi's father is an Italian!

--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
cornel
2006-05-05 08:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Mario needs to note that historically and today, many an investor has lined
up to invest in a range of projects where the anticipated mythical economic
balloon burst soon after, despite all the available statistics.

Notwithstanding the economic progress India is making, there is much,
including statistical evidence of grinding poverty among millions, severe
undernourishment of 57 million children, lack of quality control etc which
makes the hoped for economic super-power status a bit premature even though
I for one want it quite badly for India.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
Re the often said view of India making huge economic progress to super-power
status, I can't help feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a myth
at present. However, it is a very useful myth as the growing confidence of
young Indians everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident. Hopefully,
the myth will turn to reality soon even though I cannot bear the thought of
another dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Post by cornel
Cornel
To see whether it is a myth or reality one has to look at the economic
growth statistics and the list of "heavy hitters" lining up to invest in
India.
Looking around at the chaos while dodging cars, pedestrians and spitballs
is misleading.
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed onstraight, when
compared to his Grandfather, a hero ofthe freedom struggle, who then led
the country downthe primrose path that it is now recovering from.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-06 09:15:11 UTC
Permalink
..........................
Post by Mario Goveia
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on
straight, when compared to his Grandfather, a hero of
the freedom struggle, who then led the country down
the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ? Indira Gandi's
Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in mainstream Politics. Sonia
Gandhi's father is an Italian!

--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Mario Goveia
2006-05-06 16:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Mario needs to note that historically and today,
many an investor has lined up to invest in a range
of projects where the anticipated mythical economic
balloon burst soon after, despite all the available
statistics.
Mario replies:
Cornel needs to note that neither Bill Gates nor
Laksmi Mittal became some of the richest men in the
world, starting from average middle-income status, by
investing in a range of projects where the anticipated
economic balloon burst soon after. What crass
cynicism in the face of all the evidence.
Post by cornel
Notwithstanding the economic progress India is
making, there is much, including statistical
evidence of grinding poverty among millions, severe
undernourishment of 57 million children, lack of
quality control etc which makes the hoped for
economic super-power status a bit premature even
though I for one want it quite badly for India.
Mario replies:
Cornel needs to note that the grinding poverty and
severe undernourishment are legacies emanating from
the Fabian school of socialist economics that was a
millstone around the country's neck for it's first 50
years of independence.
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about
the outcomes being predicted by every international
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their money
behind their convictions.
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-07 04:27:07 UTC
Permalink
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Mario Goveia
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about
the outcomes being predicted by every international
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their money
behind their convictions.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-07 15:56:54 UTC
Permalink
On 04/05/06, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head
screwed on straight, when compared to his
Grandfather, a hero of the freedom struggle, who
then led the country down the primrose path that it
is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ?
Indira Gandi's Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in
mainstream Politics. Sonia Gandhi's father is an
Italian!
Mario responds:
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about
something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from
the context of my remarks about a "...hero of the
freedom struggle, who then led the country down the
primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I
was talking about the Great-grandfather, Jawarlal
Nehru.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-08 00:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about
something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from
the context of my remarks about a "...hero of the
freedom struggle, who then led the country down the
primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I
was talking about the Great-grandfather, Jawarlal
Nehru.
RESPONSE: You are always so full of yourself and always presumptuous!

You have failed your class test - clearly shown to all and sundry, now
you are further compromising yourself ! No doubt Aunty Ponty's class
report has had no effect on Mrs Govia?



--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
cornel
2006-05-08 10:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Gabe
I am amazed that Mario conceded to the excellent point you made. Is he
growing up at last?
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
On 04/05/06, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on straight, when
compared to his Grandfather, a hero of the freedom struggle, who then led
the country down the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ?
Indira Gandi's Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in mainstream Politics.
Sonia Gandhi's father is an Italian!
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from the context of my
remarks about a "...hero of the freedom struggle, who then led the country
down the primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I was talking
about the Great-grandfather, JawarlalNehru.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-08 00:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about
something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from
the context of my remarks about a "...hero of the
freedom struggle, who then led the country down the
primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I
was talking about the Great-grandfather, Jawarlal
Nehru.
RESPONSE: You are always so full of yourself and always presumptuous!

You have failed your class test - clearly shown to all and sundry, now
you are further compromising yourself ! No doubt Aunty Ponty's class
report has had no effect on Mrs Govia?



--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
cornel
2006-05-08 10:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Gabe
I am amazed that Mario conceded to the excellent point you made. Is he
growing up at last?
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
On 04/05/06, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on straight, when
compared to his Grandfather, a hero of the freedom struggle, who then led
the country down the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ?
Indira Gandi's Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in mainstream Politics.
Sonia Gandhi's father is an Italian!
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from the context of my
remarks about a "...hero of the freedom struggle, who then led the country
down the primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I was talking
about the Great-grandfather, JawarlalNehru.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-08 00:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about
something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from
the context of my remarks about a "...hero of the
freedom struggle, who then led the country down the
primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I
was talking about the Great-grandfather, Jawarlal
Nehru.
RESPONSE: You are always so full of yourself and always presumptuous!

You have failed your class test - clearly shown to all and sundry, now
you are further compromising yourself ! No doubt Aunty Ponty's class
report has had no effect on Mrs Govia?



--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
cornel
2006-05-08 10:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Gabe
I am amazed that Mario conceded to the excellent point you made. Is he
growing up at last?
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
On 04/05/06, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on straight, when
compared to his Grandfather, a hero of the freedom struggle, who then led
the country down the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ?
Indira Gandi's Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in mainstream Politics.
Sonia Gandhi's father is an Italian!
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from the context of my
remarks about a "...hero of the freedom struggle, who then led the country
down the primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I was talking
about the Great-grandfather, JawarlalNehru.
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-08 04:28:55 UTC
Permalink
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.

I don't know the answer to that quandary. When I get
the answer maybe I will be "enlightened" like Nasci.
Then again, according to Nasci I am already
"enlightened" because I can eat dukra mass and a
masala dosa with equal ease, notwithstanding my
occasional "outbursts", which can be controlled when
need be by invoking the Holy Spirit.

Elisabeth
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a
rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-07 16:57:23 UTC
Permalink
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in honest and
robust debate with inane generalities rather than with
specific facts and opinions on the issues.
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a
rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
Post by Mario Goveia
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism
about
Post by Mario Goveia
the outcomes being predicted by every
international
Post by Mario Goveia
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their
money
Post by Mario Goveia
behind their convictions.
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
cornel
2006-05-08 15:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Mario
Clearly, you are not able to tell that there is a big difference between my
stated scepticism about the imminence, repeat, imminence, of Indian economic
advancement to
super-economic status and your choice of terminology about my "relentless
cynicism about the outcomes" of Indian economic advancement ...etc. Your
interpretation of what I said cannot possibly be extrapolated from my
utterances on Goanet on this specific issue.

When will you ever learn to be rigorous about reporting a person's honest
stance instead of giving it a loaded slant, which does not exist, but suits
your peculiar warped ends?

I now refuse to pursue this specific time-wasting issue with you any more.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
A question that arises quite frequently in internet discussions nowadays
is: Can one engage in honest and robust debate with inane generalities
rather than with specific facts and opinions on the issues.
A question that arises quite frequently in internet discussions nowadays
is: Can one engage in a rational discourse without expressing varying
degrees of contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for India,
notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about the outcomes being
predicted by every international economic expert that has studied the
subject, especially those who are willing to put their money behind
their convictions.
cornel
2006-05-08 15:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Mario
Clearly, you are not able to tell that there is a big difference between my
stated scepticism about the imminence, repeat, imminence, of Indian economic
advancement to
super-economic status and your choice of terminology about my "relentless
cynicism about the outcomes" of Indian economic advancement ...etc. Your
interpretation of what I said cannot possibly be extrapolated from my
utterances on Goanet on this specific issue.

When will you ever learn to be rigorous about reporting a person's honest
stance instead of giving it a loaded slant, which does not exist, but suits
your peculiar warped ends?

I now refuse to pursue this specific time-wasting issue with you any more.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
A question that arises quite frequently in internet discussions nowadays
is: Can one engage in honest and robust debate with inane generalities
rather than with specific facts and opinions on the issues.
A question that arises quite frequently in internet discussions nowadays
is: Can one engage in a rational discourse without expressing varying
degrees of contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for India,
notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about the outcomes being
predicted by every international economic expert that has studied the
subject, especially those who are willing to put their money behind
their convictions.
cornel
2006-05-08 15:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Mario
Clearly, you are not able to tell that there is a big difference between my
stated scepticism about the imminence, repeat, imminence, of Indian economic
advancement to
super-economic status and your choice of terminology about my "relentless
cynicism about the outcomes" of Indian economic advancement ...etc. Your
interpretation of what I said cannot possibly be extrapolated from my
utterances on Goanet on this specific issue.

When will you ever learn to be rigorous about reporting a person's honest
stance instead of giving it a loaded slant, which does not exist, but suits
your peculiar warped ends?

I now refuse to pursue this specific time-wasting issue with you any more.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
A question that arises quite frequently in internet discussions nowadays
is: Can one engage in honest and robust debate with inane generalities
rather than with specific facts and opinions on the issues.
A question that arises quite frequently in internet discussions nowadays
is: Can one engage in a rational discourse without expressing varying
degrees of contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for India,
notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about the outcomes being
predicted by every international economic expert that has studied the
subject, especially those who are willing to put their money behind
their convictions.
Nasci Caldeira
2006-05-08 08:52:10 UTC
Permalink
dear Liz,

Your ourburst was wrong only because you chose to make it under an unrelated
'heading'. That is what George Pinto also does sometimes, and that is why I
take up cudgels. You could have said what ever it is that you want to vent
against the Church mischief of the past under another heading of your own,
or on another forum dealing exclusively with catholic doctrine and or
religion; but not in response to a news item where a head of the Church is
only doing his job.

My further enlightenment :-) :-) to you is: You are always free to answer or
respond to anything! Do not be afraid of loosing my invitation; it stands
regardless. :-) :-)
you have again spoken of enlightenment; completely under another heading and
surely out of context. Being in 'The Holy Spirit' could help you from making
such rash responses that seem to be, 'not in context'.

I do not wish to take the name of God in vain! I will hence forth refrain in
this, and I hope I am forgiven.

Nasci Caldeira
Post by cornel
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.
I don't know the answer to that quandary. When I get
the answer maybe I will be "enlightened" like Nasci.
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-08 16:39:50 UTC
Permalink
--- Elisabeth Carvalho <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.
I don't know the answer to that quandary.
Hi Elisabeth,

Interesting point on the relevance and profundity of
the question as it relates to internet discussions
nowadays. I think there are some opposing points of
view that a reasonably objective person can appreciate
equally well e.g. correctional schooling as opposed as
to incarceration for adult delinquents. On the other
hand there are contentious points of views that stem
from a complete misunderstanding or lack of knowledge
about the issue at hand. This is the case for instance
with regard to the spurious creationist opposition to
biological evolution.

Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing viewpoint
rather than for the viewpoint itself. On the latter
point, I think that any absurdity or misinformation
propagated in a public forum deserves to be debunked.

Cheers,

Santosh
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-09 05:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,
Although I agree with you in the main, I think the
distinction between the "viewpoint" and the "person"
who holds that viewpoint is a blurred and tenuous one.
If one holds a certain belief, I think we extrapolate
that the person acts in a certain manner consistent
with the view he/she holds. As John Mill said
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid but most
stupid people are conservative". :))

Elisabeth
PS: No offence meant to conservatives, just using the
quote to make my point.
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
Hi Elisabeth,
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint
Cheers,
Santosh
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 19:26:10 UTC
Permalink
I have no idea if John Mill really said what Elisabeth
says he said, but on the off chance that readers may
mistake John Mill for a modern political liberal, the
following are some encyclopedic excerpts to show that
John Mill was in every sense a modern political
conservative-libertarian in the mold of Ronald Reagan:
1. In the following year he was introduced to
political economy and studied Adam Smith and David
Ricardo with his father--ultimately completing their
classical economic view of factors of production.
2. One foundational book on the concept of liberty was
"On Liberty", about the nature and limits of the power
which can be legitimately exercised by society over
the individual.
3. Mill's main economic philosophy was one of laissez
faire.
4. Many cadets at the U.S Air Force Academy best
remember him for the following quotation, which is
required memorization for all fourthclassmen. "War is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself."
Mario.
--- Elisabeth Carvalho <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Although I agree with you in the main, I think the
distinction between the "viewpoint" and the "person"
who holds that viewpoint is a blurred and tenuous
one.
If one holds a certain belief, I think we
extrapolate
that the person acts in a certain manner consistent
with the view he/she holds. As John Mill said
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid but most
stupid people are conservative". :))
Elisabeth
PS: No offence meant to conservatives, just using
the
quote to make my point.
------------------------------
--- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
Hi Elisabeth,
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my
question
Post by Santosh Helekar
was directed at the reflexive display of
gratuitous
Post by Santosh Helekar
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint
Cheers,
Santosh
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 15:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint rather than for the viewpoint itself. On
the latter point, I think that any absurdity or
misinformation propagated in a public forum
deserves to be debunked.
Mario observes:
I agree with Santosh. Those who show contempt for a
person holding an opposing view, rather than the
viewpoint itself, need to be shown all the disrespect
they truly deserve, and that absurdity and
misinformation in any forum deserves to be debunked.
The problem is that often the same information can be
lead to vastly opposing opinions, based on one's
viewpoint, and absurdity can be in the eye of the
beholder. If this were not so, there would be no need
for a forum, just an encyclopedia.
I hope Santosh's close philosophical friends are
paying close attention to his sage advice.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 15:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Mario
Clearly, you are not able to tell that there is a
big difference between my stated scepticism about
the imminence, repeat, imminence, of Indian
economic advancement to super-economic status and
your choice of terminology about my "relentless
cynicism about the outcomes" of Indian economic
advancement ...etc. Your interpretation of what I
said cannot possibly be extrapolated from my
utterances on Goanet on this specific issue.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
As I have explained before, it is slant and tone, in
addition to content. In my never humble opinion, you
have gone way beyond skepticism and are deep into the
realm of cynicism about the future of India.
Not only can I extrapolate your cynicism I have done
so using you own words. A couple of obligatory
comments to the contrary cannot drown out the essence
of your expectations and concerns.
There are literally millions of Indians, and
industrialists and business people from around the
world not only expecting great things from India but
actually doing business in India, NOW, and investing
their own time and money NOW, to make Chidambaram's
vision a reality. I recently posted a video clip of
an ABC news reporter who was awestruck at the economic
activity going on amid the squalor we all know about.
No one has been a bigger critic of India's lack of
civic sense on this forum than I have. I believe that
will come with time and education and prosperity.
Britain, for example, was a smelly and squalid mess
before its Industrial revolution.
Manmohan Singh, the architect of modern Indian
economic policy, is trying desperately to keep the
"liberalization" on track against strident opposition
from the communists and socialists who want to keep
India mired in hopelessness.
You, on the other hand, want to put a negative slant
and tone on all this by reporting that "educated"
people, by which you mean people who agree with your
cynicism, think Chidambaram is dreaming, whereas
"uneducated" people, by which you mean anyone who
disagrees with you, are the only people who seem to
agree with him. I am with the uneducated people if
this is so.
You want to "wait and see". The people who will help
India achieve it's potential don't have the time to
"wait and see". They are too busy doing what needs to
be done NOW and benefitting everyone.
You are free to express whatever opinion you choose,
and I reserve the right to rebutt any opinion I choose
to as well. Isn't that what a forum is all about?
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-10 21:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mario,
It's a well-known fact that US Conservatives try to
claim as their own, heros that most certainly don't
belong to them. They do this by adding words like
compassionate and modern in front of the word
Conservative. But to claim John Mill as one of their
own is stretching the truth a bit too far.

I don't claim to know John Mill's writing in any
measure of depth. Infact, I just knew that one quote
from him. Much like you, I googled him and read about
him. John Mill was an acclaimed liberal thinker of him
time. He hated conservatives and any form of
conservatism.

As per your reference to his economic philosophy,
since when was being "laissez-faire", a conservative
monopoly? Infact, the word liberal in its earlier
connotations referred to "liberal" economists, who
advocated minimal government interference in
capitalist ventures.

Again it is only in the US, where liberals are
associated with the Democratic party; that one
associates liberals with trade unions and other forms
of government contrivance. In India for instance both
the Congress and the BJP are for the "liberalisation"
of the economy. You certainly wouldn't call the BJP or
the Congress liberals in other spheres of their
politics. Infact some of India's liberal thinkers come
from the Communist party.

Definitions are often skewed but this much I know that
John Mill would have his stomach churned if he were in
anyway associated with the US connotation of the word.
The Conservative Republican in the US, in my opinion,
singlehandedly will set American back a few decades in
terms of its thinking, ideology and not to mention its
geopolitics. And John Mill would have had nothing to
do with them.

Elisabeth
----------------------------------------
Post by Mario Goveia
I have no idea if John Mill really said what
Elisabeth
says he said, but on the off chance that readers may
mistake John Mill for a modern political liberal,
the
following are some encyclopedic excerpts to show
that
John Mill was in every sense a modern political
conservative-libertarian in the mold of Ronald
1. In the following year he was introduced to
political economy and studied Adam Smith and David
Ricardo with his father--ultimately completing their
classical economic view of factors of production.
2. One foundational book on the concept of liberty
was
"On Liberty", about the nature and limits of the
power
which can be legitimately exercised by society over
the individual.
3. Mill's main economic philosophy was one of
laissez
faire.
4. Many cadets at the U.S Air Force Academy best
remember him for the following quotation, which is
required memorization for all fourthclassmen. "War
is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is
much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by
the exertions of better men than himself."
Mario.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
cornel
2006-05-11 11:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Mario
I hope you are right about India.
Good luck to your optimism.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Mario Goveia
As I have explained before, it is slant and tone, in
addition to content. In my never humble opinion, you
have gone way beyond skepticism and are deep into the
realm of cynicism about the future of India.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-11 16:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Mario,
It's a well-known fact that US Conservatives try to
claim as their own, heros that most certainly don't
belong to them. They do this by adding words like
compassionate and modern in front of the word
Conservative.
Mario replies:
This is a "well known fact" only among modern
political liberals, who continue to promote the siren
song of failed socialist policies and cast aspersions
on conservatives to hide their failures.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
But to claim John Mill as one of their own is
stretching the truth a bit too far.
Mario responds:
I used John Mill's well known actions and words to
show that he was clearly philosophically aligned with
modern political conservatives in the US. As with
Friedrich Von Hayek, you are confusing a classic
liberal like John Mill, who abhorred government
intervention in the economy and believed in free
market economics with modern political liberals who
are virtual socialists.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
I don't claim to know John Mill's writing in any
measure of depth. In fact, I just knew that one
quote from him.
Mario replies:
That was pretty obvious:-))
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Much like you, I googled him and read about him.
John Mill was an acclaimed liberal thinker of him
time. He hated conservatives and any form of
conservatism.
Mario explains:
"Much like me"? Aren't you being a tad presumptious
in insinuating that I wasn't familiar enough with John
Mill to know he had nothing in common with modern
political liberal philosophy? I only used Wikipedia
for some specifics. The "conservatives" of his time
were quite different from modern political
conservatives.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
As per your reference to his economic philosophy,
since when was being "laissez-faire", a conservative
monopoly? Infact, the word liberal in its earlier
connotations referred to "liberal" economists, who
advocated minimal government interference in
capitalist ventures.
Mario writes:
You have just made my point that the earlier
connotations of "liberalism" are modern political
conservative philosophy. Surely you know that "minimal
government interference" is the exact opposite of what
modern political liberals espouse, who are socialists
at heart.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Again it is only in the US, where liberals are
associated with the Democratic party; that one
associates liberals with trade unions and other
forms of government contrivance.
Mario responds:
This is precisely what reconciles the difference
between what you and I are saying. When I talk about
modern political liberals I am talking about the
American Democrat party and American trade unions. I
must remember you are a temporary American resident
with an international perspective:-))
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
In India for instance both the Congress and the BJP
are for the "liberalisation" of the economy. You
certainly wouldn't call the BJP or the Congress
liberals in other spheres of their politics. Infact
some of India's liberal thinkers come from the
Communist party.
Mario responds:
We are now in the realm of Indian political semantics.
"Liberalization" in India is a euphemism for
discarding the destructive extreme-socialist-economic
policies of the previous 50 years. The last time I
checked, the Communist party in India is resisting all
of India's attempts at "liberalization" of the
economy. The BJP support economic "liberalization" in
the Indian context but are far-right religious
zealots.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Definitions are often skewed but this much I know
that John Mill would have his stomach churned if he
were in anyway associated with the US connotation
of the word. The Conservative Republican in the
US, in my opinion, singlehandedly will set American
back a few decades in terms of its thinking,
ideology and not to mention its geopolitics. And
John Mill would have had nothing to do with them.
Mario clarifies:
"This much I know"? You certainly could not arrive at
such a definitive conclusion from anything John Mill
said, or from anything that conservative Republicans
have done.
Conservative Republicans comprise about 50% of the US
electorate so they do nothing singlehandedly. Any
claim that they will set geopolitics back a few
decades can only come from the Clinton-era liberal
Democrat ideology that would have allowed the attacks
on the US that took place throughout the 90's to
continue unabated and without response, for
Afghanistan and Iraq to continue to be brutalized by
sadistic and misogynist Muslim tyrants with no hope of
freedom and democracy, for fascists to rule in the
name of Islam unconfronted while developing nuclear
capabilities and threatening on an almost daily basis
to use these to wipe Israel off the map.
As an obvious critic of conservative Republican
geopolitics you would have to have opposed the fall of
the Iron Curtain (in which conservative Pope JP-II
played a major role), the spreading of democracy in
old Soviet states and the liberation of Liberia. You
would be happy with the status quo in Darfur, and
unconcerned about the decimation of the African
continent by HIV/AIDS. Along with the previous
liberal Democrat administration you would have to turn
a blind eye to the atrocities in Rwanda and Burundi,
as well as the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
It took conservative Republicans to address the
HIV/AIDS pandemic and push a reluctant and feckless
UN, whose job it is supposed to be to address such
conflicts, to do something in Darfur, while the
liberal Europeans objected to the US proposal to label
it a genocide, which would trigger UN action.
As an obvious critic of conservative Republican
geopolitics you would oppose the long overdue pushing
by the US of dictatorial allies like Egypt and Saudi
Arabia towards political liberalization, and you would
also oppose the close working relationship developing
between the US and India.
In economics the liberal Democrat philosophy of high
taxes and government interference would have sent the
US into a deep recession from the declining economy
that President Bush inherited which was exacerbated by
the sneak attack of 9/11, made possible because
previous liberal geopolitical policies had emboldened
the Islamic terrorists. Instead, conservative
Republican policies turned the economy around in
record time and have made the US among the fastest
growing and most productive economies in the
industrialized western world with stable inflation.
Yet they have been compassionate in using the
government to improve health care for seniors, improve
poorly performing public school systems and help
minority business and home ownership to achieve
historic levels.
In conclusion, I ask you if any liberal American
Democrat could honestly say as John Mill did, "War is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself."
This is precisely what modern political Republicans
believe and the exact opposite of what the modern
liberal American Democrat party believes. By his own
testimony, there is no way that John Mill would have
been anything but a staunch Republican in modern
America.
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-12 05:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
In conclusion, I ask you if any liberal American
Democrat could honestly say as John Mill did, "War is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is
much
Post by Mario Goveia
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than
Post by Mario Goveia
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by
Post by Mario Goveia
the exertions of better men than himself."
The above "quote" of John Stuart Mill is a gross
corruption of what he actually wrote in his commentary
on the American Civil War entitled "The Contest in
America". Two disjointed sentences spaced far apart,
and separated by an emphatic and important assertion,
have been spliced together to manufacture the "quote".
The excised intervening salient assertion is the
following:

"When a people are used as mere human instruments for
firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service
and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war
degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings
against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to
their own ideas of right and good, and which is their
own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their
free choice--is often the means of their
regeneration."

-------- John Stuart Mill

In addition, the two spliced sentences have been
tampered with by inserting extraneous words for added
emphasis.

Please see the following link for the ebook article,
"The Contest in America" by J. S. Mill, to gain an
understanding of the entire context, and of the exact
nature of the splicing and tampering.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/conam10h.htm

The whole paragraph from which the two altered,
incontiguous sentences in the "quote" were lifted, is
as follows:

"For these reasons I cannot join with those who cry
Peace, peace. I cannot wish that this war should not
have been engaged in by the North, or that being
engaged in, it should be terminated on any conditions
but such as would retain the whole of the Territories
as free soil. I am not blind to the possibility that
it may require a long war to lower the arrogance and
tame the aggressive ambition of the slave-owners, to
the point of either returning to the Union, or
consenting to remain out of it with their present
limits. But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest
evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing,
but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which
thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people
are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon
or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the
selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a
people. A war to protect other human beings against
tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their
own ideas of right and good, and which is their own
war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free
choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A
man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for,
nothing which he cares more about than he does about
his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has
no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself. As long as
justice and injustice have not terminated their ever
renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of
mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is,
to do battle for the one against the other. I am far
from saying that the present struggle, on the part of
the Northern Americans, is wholly of this exalted
character; that it has arrived at the stage of being
altogether a war for justice, a war of principle. But
there was from the beginning, and now is, a large
infusion of that element in it; and this is
increasing, will increase, and if the war lasts, will
in the end predominate. Should that time come, not
only will the greatest enormity which still exists
among mankind as an institution, receive far earlier
its coups de gr?ce than there has ever, until now,
appeared any probability of; but in effecting this the
Free States will have raised themselves to that
elevated position in the scale of morality and
dignity, which is derived from great sacrifices
consciously made in a virtuous cause, and the sense of
an inestimable benefit to all future ages, brought
about by their own voluntary efforts."

Cheers,

Santosh
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-12 11:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Mario,
How long did you stay up last night to type all this
up? :) If I was your wife, I'd kick you in your
conservative pants :))
Elisabeth
----------------------------------
Post by Mario Goveia
This is a "well known fact" only among modern
political liberals, who continue to promote the
siren
song of failed socialist policies and cast
aspersions
on conservatives to hide their failures.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-12 15:25:28 UTC
Permalink
The quote I posted by John Mill was copied verbatim
from Wikipedia. If it is a distortion Santosh should
correct the Wikipedia record.
Post by Santosh Helekar
The above "quote" of John Stuart Mill is a gross
corruption of what he actually wrote in his
commentary on the American Civil War entitled "The
Contest in America".
cornel
2006-05-13 19:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Mario
I have always had reservations about material in Wikipedia and suggest you
follow suit as it does not go through the necessary kind of scrutiny/rigour
found in the established press.

I think it is important to be specific about John Stuart Mill too as he is
otherwise easily confused for his father, also a philosopher. Further, it is
not incumbent on Santosh to correct the drivel you find satisfactory. It
would be better for you to seek reliable sources rather than expect Santosh
to waste his time, on your behalf, and daft logic, which expects a
correction to be made by Santosh in Wikipedia.

I read John Stuart Mill as an undergraduate many moons ago and definitely do
not recall him as a conservative. He was definitely in the Benthamite
tradition as far as I can recall. He was included in my university reading,
among several other political radicals. However, as I do not have the time
to revisit JS Mill for now, I will side with Elizabeth and Santosh for their
more recent reading of him. I therefore continue, I'm afraid, to be as
skeptical as ever, of most things from your source.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] John Mill a Conservative?
Post by Mario Goveia
The quote I posted by John Mill was copied verbatim
from Wikipedia. If it is a distortion Santosh should
correct the Wikipedia record.
Post by Santosh Helekar
The above "quote" of John Stuart Mill is a gross
corruption of what he actually wrote in his
commentary on the American Civil War entitled "The Contest in America".
cornel
2006-05-13 19:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Mario
I have always had reservations about material in Wikipedia and suggest you
follow suit as it does not go through the necessary kind of scrutiny/rigour
found in the established press.

I think it is important to be specific about John Stuart Mill too as he is
otherwise easily confused for his father, also a philosopher. Further, it is
not incumbent on Santosh to correct the drivel you find satisfactory. It
would be better for you to seek reliable sources rather than expect Santosh
to waste his time, on your behalf, and daft logic, which expects a
correction to be made by Santosh in Wikipedia.

I read John Stuart Mill as an undergraduate many moons ago and definitely do
not recall him as a conservative. He was definitely in the Benthamite
tradition as far as I can recall. He was included in my university reading,
among several other political radicals. However, as I do not have the time
to revisit JS Mill for now, I will side with Elizabeth and Santosh for their
more recent reading of him. I therefore continue, I'm afraid, to be as
skeptical as ever, of most things from your source.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] John Mill a Conservative?
Post by Mario Goveia
The quote I posted by John Mill was copied verbatim
from Wikipedia. If it is a distortion Santosh should
correct the Wikipedia record.
Post by Santosh Helekar
The above "quote" of John Stuart Mill is a gross
corruption of what he actually wrote in his
commentary on the American Civil War entitled "The Contest in America".
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-13 04:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
The quote I posted by John Mill was copied verbatim
from Wikipedia. If it is a distortion Santosh
should correct the Wikipedia record.
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
is the link to it:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

Here is the quote with the relevant source
information, according to Wikipedia:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things:
the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is much
worse. When a people are used as mere human
instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets,
in the service and for the selfish purposes of a
master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect
other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war
to give victory to their own ideas of right and good,
and which is their own war, carried on for an honest
purpose by their free choice,?is often the means of
their regeneration. A man who has nothing for which he
is willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who
has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so
by the exertions of better men than himself. As long
as justice and injustice have not terminated their
ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of
mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is,
to do battle for the one against the other.
"The Contest in America" Fraser?s Magazine (February
1862); later published in Dissertations and
Discussions (1868) Vol.1 p. 26"

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-05-12 21:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Gabe
I am amazed that Mario conceded to the excellent
point you made. Is he growing up at last?
Mario asks:
Cornel,
Were you one of the three people from among the
thousands on Goanet, who did not figure out that I had
made a typo? Did not my detailed description
referring to a "freedom fighter who had subsequently
led India down the primrose path that it was still
recovering from" give you at least a TINY clue that I
was talking about Mr. Nehru?
Mario Goveia
2006-05-15 20:12:21 UTC
Permalink
--- Santosh Helekar wrote:
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
is the link to it:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
Mario observes:
Santosh had previously provided us with a passionate
post where he correctly pointed out something I was
not aware of at the time, that John Mill had been
quoted incompletely in Wikipedia. He also provided us
with the entire paragraph by John Mill. To my request
that Santosh correct the Wikipedia record, Santosh now
says that Wikipedia has "already provided a correct
quote". Yes and no. I see from the link above that
the "correct quote", while addressing one issue raised
by Santosh, still excludes much of the paragraph.
Nevertheless, my original conclusion still stands.
John Mill's thoughts, made during the American Civil
War on the propriety, morality and dignity of waging
war in certain instances, when added to his
association with free market philosophers like Adam
Smith and John Ricardo, and his thoughts on the limits
of the power which can be legitimately exercised by
society over the individual, all confirm my original
conclusion that John Mill would be considered a
libertarian-conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan
in modern America.
Conservatives in John Mill's day were mostly members
of the American Democrat party from the southern
states, who wanted no change in the status quo
pertaining to slavery. It was Republican President
Abe Lincoln who initiated and fought a deadly civil
war in order the change a situation that was abhorrent
and unacceptable to him. Lincoln was successful in
convincing most Democrats from the northern states to
join him in the civil war against the Confederacy.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-15 22:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
RESPONSE: Mario Goveia, you are being disingenuous and devious at the
same time...you stated quite pompously to Elizabeth that she was being
presumptuous, in stating knowledge about John Stuart Mill, being
obtained via Google, same as you. You refuted that and gave us the
impression that you were fully conversant with the man and his
standing.

To put it simply you are forever ducking and diving, I needn't say
more, your postings as always give you away.

Santosh corrected you and you stand correced! Please be man enough to say so.
--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Peter D'Souza
2006-05-19 03:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Gabe,

Don't be fooled by Santosh's long correction of Mario's citation of John
Stuart Mill. Mario, accurately it appears, obtained his quote from
Wikipedia whereas Santosh has been a little sloppy with his attribution
of sources.

Santosh's claim that "Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote" is
incorrect. Santosh's quote actually comes from WikiQuote, at least his
link points there. We need to start treating citations with scientific
rigour.

Peter
On 15/05/06, Mario Goveia
Post by Santosh Helekar
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
Santosh corrected you and you stand correced! Please be man enough to say so.
Peter D'Souza
2006-05-19 03:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Gabe,

Don't be fooled by Santosh's long correction of Mario's citation of John
Stuart Mill. Mario, accurately it appears, obtained his quote from
Wikipedia whereas Santosh has been a little sloppy with his attribution
of sources.

Santosh's claim that "Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote" is
incorrect. Santosh's quote actually comes from WikiQuote, at least his
link points there. We need to start treating citations with scientific
rigour.

Peter
On 15/05/06, Mario Goveia
Post by Santosh Helekar
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
Santosh corrected you and you stand correced! Please be man enough to say so.
Gabe Menezes
2006-05-15 22:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
RESPONSE: Mario Goveia, you are being disingenuous and devious at the
same time...you stated quite pompously to Elizabeth that she was being
presumptuous, in stating knowledge about John Stuart Mill, being
obtained via Google, same as you. You refuted that and gave us the
impression that you were fully conversant with the man and his
standing.

To put it simply you are forever ducking and diving, I needn't say
more, your postings as always give you away.

Santosh corrected you and you stand correced! Please be man enough to say so.
--
DIE DULCI FREURE,
DEV BOREM KORUM.

Gabe Menezes.
London, England
Mario Goveia
2006-05-16 15:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gabe Menezes
RESPONSE: Mario Goveia, you are being disingenuous
and devious at the same time...you stated quite
pompously to Elizabeth that she was being
presumptuous, in stating knowledge about John Stuart
Mill, being obtained via Google, same as you. You
refuted that and gave us the impression that you
were fully conversant with the man and his
standing.
Mario observes:
I have no control over the ability of some Goanetters
to understand what has been posted. This is being
exemplified by Gabe in his comments above.
As part of her post Elisabeth had said that she was
previously only familiar with the one quote by John
Mill that she had used. Then she said that "much like
me" she had subsequently googled and read more about
him. In my response to Elisabeth on May 11, here is
what I said:
""Much like me"? Aren't you being a tad presumptious
in insinuating that I wasn't familiar enough with John
Mill to know he had nothing in common with modern
political liberal philosophy?"
Nowhere did I say or even insinuate that I was "fully
conversant" with everything John Mill had said and
done. I said I was "familiar enough" with John Mill
to know that he wasn't a modern political liberal, as
anyone can see above. I then consulted Wikipedia for
more quotes and details.
Post by Gabe Menezes
To put it simply you are forever ducking and diving,
I needn't say more, your postings as always give
you away.
Santosh corrected you and you stand correced! Please
be man enough to say so.
Mario responds:
Again, a sad lack of comprehension by Gabe. Here is
what I actually said:
"Santosh had previously provided us with a passionate
post where he correctly pointed out something I was
not aware of at the time, that John Mill had been
quoted incompletely in Wikipedia."
What about my saying that Santosh had "...correctly
pointed out something I was not aware of at the
time,..." did Gabe not understand?
However, I don't expect Gabe to "be man enough to say
so".
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-20 05:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,
I'm back and missed you'll. I had over 300 mails in
the inbox and looks like I missed some robust
discussions. Dan Brown has been done to death, I see,
so we shall have to start on something new and
utterly, butterly controversial.

I'm putting my thinking cap on!! :))

Elisabeth

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-19 14:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D'Souza
Gabe,
Don't be fooled by Santosh's long correction of
Mario's citation of John Stuart Mill. Mario,
accurately it appears, obtained his quote from
Wikipedia whereas Santosh has been a little sloppy
with his attribution of sources.
The above implication that I am trying to fool the
people with my long correction, and the accusation
that I have been sloppy with my attribution of sources
are false.

My long correction provided the correct quote and
correct source of the quote, namely "The Contest in
America" by John Stuart Mill.

As far as Wikiquote is concerned, please see the
following link of Wikipedia to note how closely
Wikiquote is related to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiquote

Please also note that the main webpage of Wikipedia
refers and links to Wikiquote as its sister project.
Here is the link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Cheers,

Santosh
Sachin Phadte
2006-05-02 10:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Very interesting article. However, only a statement of wish, there is no
mention about the programmes that Rahul has in mind. There is one statement
in the article that struck me most, which is as follows:

"Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's economic
miracle."

So, without some solid ideas, it is difficult to make a judegement. I am
asking this question in the same manner in which I had asked about the
detailed posting of the rise of Babush on the political scene in Goa.

Sachin Phadte.
Herman D'Souza
2006-05-03 07:49:43 UTC
Permalink
ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR US

ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY

This is the thinking of the west
and this is how we can surpass the best
Post by Sachin Phadte
Very interesting article. However, only a statement
of wish, there is no
mention about the programmes that Rahul has in mind.
There is one statement
in the article that struck me most, which is as
"Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we
were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far
untouched by India's economic
miracle."
So, without some solid ideas, it is difficult to
make a judegement. I am
asking this question in the same manner in which I
had asked about the
detailed posting of the rise of Babush on the
political scene in Goa.
Sachin Phadte.
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-03 15:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman D'Souza
ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR US
ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY
This is the thinking of the west
and this is how we can surpass the best
Mario observes:
Herman, you have hit the nail on the head. India
would be pretty formidable if most of the country's
citizens adopted the philosophy so eloquently stated
by US President John F. Kennedy.
I wonder if the "next Gandhi" has noticed that it is
Indians that have helped make Britain "better off".
The "next Gandhi" can talk all he wants, but unless he
seriously and relentlessly addresses the issues of
civic sense at every level which leads to much of
India's disgusting squalor, now getting more out of
place amid all the shining technological and economic
progress, no progress will be made in this important
philosophical area.
I think it will come in time, but the sooner it does
the better. The emotional responses to even humorous
commentary on the incongruity of wholesale
reservations shows that large sections of "the
country" still depend on what "the country" can do for
its people.
The "best" countries make opportunities available for
all it's people and help the people help themselves.
The only comment I would quibble with is that it is
still the thinking of much of "the west". I doubt the
citizens of much of Europe subscribe to this
philosophy any more, and the riots in France and the
stagnant economies of all the larger European
countries is evidence of this.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-04 16:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Re the often said view of India making huge economic
progress to super-power status, I can't help
feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a
myth at present. However, it is a very useful myth
as the growing confidence of young Indians
everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident.
Hopefully, the myth will turn to reality soon even
though I cannot bear the thought of another
dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Cornel
Mario observes:
To see whether it is a myth or reality one has to look
at the economic growth statistics and the list of
"heavy hitters" lining up to invest in India.
Looking around at the chaos while dodging cars,
pedestrians and spitballs is misleading.
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on
straight, when compared to his Grandfather, a hero of
the freedom struggle, who then led the country down
the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-06 16:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Mario needs to note that historically and today,
many an investor has lined up to invest in a range
of projects where the anticipated mythical economic
balloon burst soon after, despite all the available
statistics.
Mario replies:
Cornel needs to note that neither Bill Gates nor
Laksmi Mittal became some of the richest men in the
world, starting from average middle-income status, by
investing in a range of projects where the anticipated
economic balloon burst soon after. What crass
cynicism in the face of all the evidence.
Post by cornel
Notwithstanding the economic progress India is
making, there is much, including statistical
evidence of grinding poverty among millions, severe
undernourishment of 57 million children, lack of
quality control etc which makes the hoped for
economic super-power status a bit premature even
though I for one want it quite badly for India.
Mario replies:
Cornel needs to note that the grinding poverty and
severe undernourishment are legacies emanating from
the Fabian school of socialist economics that was a
millstone around the country's neck for it's first 50
years of independence.
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about
the outcomes being predicted by every international
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their money
behind their convictions.
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-07 04:27:07 UTC
Permalink
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Mario Goveia
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about
the outcomes being predicted by every international
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their money
behind their convictions.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-07 15:56:54 UTC
Permalink
On 04/05/06, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head
screwed on straight, when compared to his
Grandfather, a hero of the freedom struggle, who
then led the country down the primrose path that it
is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ?
Indira Gandi's Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in
mainstream Politics. Sonia Gandhi's father is an
Italian!
Mario responds:
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about
something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from
the context of my remarks about a "...hero of the
freedom struggle, who then led the country down the
primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I
was talking about the Great-grandfather, Jawarlal
Nehru.
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-08 04:28:55 UTC
Permalink
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.

I don't know the answer to that quandary. When I get
the answer maybe I will be "enlightened" like Nasci.
Then again, according to Nasci I am already
"enlightened" because I can eat dukra mass and a
masala dosa with equal ease, notwithstanding my
occasional "outbursts", which can be controlled when
need be by invoking the Holy Spirit.

Elisabeth
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a
rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-07 16:57:23 UTC
Permalink
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in honest and
robust debate with inane generalities rather than with
specific facts and opinions on the issues.
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a
rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
Post by Mario Goveia
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism
about
Post by Mario Goveia
the outcomes being predicted by every
international
Post by Mario Goveia
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their
money
Post by Mario Goveia
behind their convictions.
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
Nasci Caldeira
2006-05-08 08:52:10 UTC
Permalink
dear Liz,

Your ourburst was wrong only because you chose to make it under an unrelated
'heading'. That is what George Pinto also does sometimes, and that is why I
take up cudgels. You could have said what ever it is that you want to vent
against the Church mischief of the past under another heading of your own,
or on another forum dealing exclusively with catholic doctrine and or
religion; but not in response to a news item where a head of the Church is
only doing his job.

My further enlightenment :-) :-) to you is: You are always free to answer or
respond to anything! Do not be afraid of loosing my invitation; it stands
regardless. :-) :-)
you have again spoken of enlightenment; completely under another heading and
surely out of context. Being in 'The Holy Spirit' could help you from making
such rash responses that seem to be, 'not in context'.

I do not wish to take the name of God in vain! I will hence forth refrain in
this, and I hope I am forgiven.

Nasci Caldeira
Post by cornel
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.
I don't know the answer to that quandary. When I get
the answer maybe I will be "enlightened" like Nasci.
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-08 16:39:50 UTC
Permalink
--- Elisabeth Carvalho <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.
I don't know the answer to that quandary.
Hi Elisabeth,

Interesting point on the relevance and profundity of
the question as it relates to internet discussions
nowadays. I think there are some opposing points of
view that a reasonably objective person can appreciate
equally well e.g. correctional schooling as opposed as
to incarceration for adult delinquents. On the other
hand there are contentious points of views that stem
from a complete misunderstanding or lack of knowledge
about the issue at hand. This is the case for instance
with regard to the spurious creationist opposition to
biological evolution.

Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing viewpoint
rather than for the viewpoint itself. On the latter
point, I think that any absurdity or misinformation
propagated in a public forum deserves to be debunked.

Cheers,

Santosh
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-09 05:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,
Although I agree with you in the main, I think the
distinction between the "viewpoint" and the "person"
who holds that viewpoint is a blurred and tenuous one.
If one holds a certain belief, I think we extrapolate
that the person acts in a certain manner consistent
with the view he/she holds. As John Mill said
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid but most
stupid people are conservative". :))

Elisabeth
PS: No offence meant to conservatives, just using the
quote to make my point.
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
Hi Elisabeth,
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint
Cheers,
Santosh
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 19:26:10 UTC
Permalink
I have no idea if John Mill really said what Elisabeth
says he said, but on the off chance that readers may
mistake John Mill for a modern political liberal, the
following are some encyclopedic excerpts to show that
John Mill was in every sense a modern political
conservative-libertarian in the mold of Ronald Reagan:
1. In the following year he was introduced to
political economy and studied Adam Smith and David
Ricardo with his father--ultimately completing their
classical economic view of factors of production.
2. One foundational book on the concept of liberty was
"On Liberty", about the nature and limits of the power
which can be legitimately exercised by society over
the individual.
3. Mill's main economic philosophy was one of laissez
faire.
4. Many cadets at the U.S Air Force Academy best
remember him for the following quotation, which is
required memorization for all fourthclassmen. "War is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself."
Mario.
--- Elisabeth Carvalho <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Although I agree with you in the main, I think the
distinction between the "viewpoint" and the "person"
who holds that viewpoint is a blurred and tenuous
one.
If one holds a certain belief, I think we
extrapolate
that the person acts in a certain manner consistent
with the view he/she holds. As John Mill said
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid but most
stupid people are conservative". :))
Elisabeth
PS: No offence meant to conservatives, just using
the
quote to make my point.
------------------------------
--- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
Hi Elisabeth,
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my
question
Post by Santosh Helekar
was directed at the reflexive display of
gratuitous
Post by Santosh Helekar
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint
Cheers,
Santosh
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 15:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint rather than for the viewpoint itself. On
the latter point, I think that any absurdity or
misinformation propagated in a public forum
deserves to be debunked.
Mario observes:
I agree with Santosh. Those who show contempt for a
person holding an opposing view, rather than the
viewpoint itself, need to be shown all the disrespect
they truly deserve, and that absurdity and
misinformation in any forum deserves to be debunked.
The problem is that often the same information can be
lead to vastly opposing opinions, based on one's
viewpoint, and absurdity can be in the eye of the
beholder. If this were not so, there would be no need
for a forum, just an encyclopedia.
I hope Santosh's close philosophical friends are
paying close attention to his sage advice.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 15:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Mario
Clearly, you are not able to tell that there is a
big difference between my stated scepticism about
the imminence, repeat, imminence, of Indian
economic advancement to super-economic status and
your choice of terminology about my "relentless
cynicism about the outcomes" of Indian economic
advancement ...etc. Your interpretation of what I
said cannot possibly be extrapolated from my
utterances on Goanet on this specific issue.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
As I have explained before, it is slant and tone, in
addition to content. In my never humble opinion, you
have gone way beyond skepticism and are deep into the
realm of cynicism about the future of India.
Not only can I extrapolate your cynicism I have done
so using you own words. A couple of obligatory
comments to the contrary cannot drown out the essence
of your expectations and concerns.
There are literally millions of Indians, and
industrialists and business people from around the
world not only expecting great things from India but
actually doing business in India, NOW, and investing
their own time and money NOW, to make Chidambaram's
vision a reality. I recently posted a video clip of
an ABC news reporter who was awestruck at the economic
activity going on amid the squalor we all know about.
No one has been a bigger critic of India's lack of
civic sense on this forum than I have. I believe that
will come with time and education and prosperity.
Britain, for example, was a smelly and squalid mess
before its Industrial revolution.
Manmohan Singh, the architect of modern Indian
economic policy, is trying desperately to keep the
"liberalization" on track against strident opposition
from the communists and socialists who want to keep
India mired in hopelessness.
You, on the other hand, want to put a negative slant
and tone on all this by reporting that "educated"
people, by which you mean people who agree with your
cynicism, think Chidambaram is dreaming, whereas
"uneducated" people, by which you mean anyone who
disagrees with you, are the only people who seem to
agree with him. I am with the uneducated people if
this is so.
You want to "wait and see". The people who will help
India achieve it's potential don't have the time to
"wait and see". They are too busy doing what needs to
be done NOW and benefitting everyone.
You are free to express whatever opinion you choose,
and I reserve the right to rebutt any opinion I choose
to as well. Isn't that what a forum is all about?
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-10 21:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mario,
It's a well-known fact that US Conservatives try to
claim as their own, heros that most certainly don't
belong to them. They do this by adding words like
compassionate and modern in front of the word
Conservative. But to claim John Mill as one of their
own is stretching the truth a bit too far.

I don't claim to know John Mill's writing in any
measure of depth. Infact, I just knew that one quote
from him. Much like you, I googled him and read about
him. John Mill was an acclaimed liberal thinker of him
time. He hated conservatives and any form of
conservatism.

As per your reference to his economic philosophy,
since when was being "laissez-faire", a conservative
monopoly? Infact, the word liberal in its earlier
connotations referred to "liberal" economists, who
advocated minimal government interference in
capitalist ventures.

Again it is only in the US, where liberals are
associated with the Democratic party; that one
associates liberals with trade unions and other forms
of government contrivance. In India for instance both
the Congress and the BJP are for the "liberalisation"
of the economy. You certainly wouldn't call the BJP or
the Congress liberals in other spheres of their
politics. Infact some of India's liberal thinkers come
from the Communist party.

Definitions are often skewed but this much I know that
John Mill would have his stomach churned if he were in
anyway associated with the US connotation of the word.
The Conservative Republican in the US, in my opinion,
singlehandedly will set American back a few decades in
terms of its thinking, ideology and not to mention its
geopolitics. And John Mill would have had nothing to
do with them.

Elisabeth
----------------------------------------
Post by Mario Goveia
I have no idea if John Mill really said what
Elisabeth
says he said, but on the off chance that readers may
mistake John Mill for a modern political liberal,
the
following are some encyclopedic excerpts to show
that
John Mill was in every sense a modern political
conservative-libertarian in the mold of Ronald
1. In the following year he was introduced to
political economy and studied Adam Smith and David
Ricardo with his father--ultimately completing their
classical economic view of factors of production.
2. One foundational book on the concept of liberty
was
"On Liberty", about the nature and limits of the
power
which can be legitimately exercised by society over
the individual.
3. Mill's main economic philosophy was one of
laissez
faire.
4. Many cadets at the U.S Air Force Academy best
remember him for the following quotation, which is
required memorization for all fourthclassmen. "War
is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is
much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by
the exertions of better men than himself."
Mario.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
cornel
2006-05-11 11:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Mario
I hope you are right about India.
Good luck to your optimism.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Mario Goveia
As I have explained before, it is slant and tone, in
addition to content. In my never humble opinion, you
have gone way beyond skepticism and are deep into the
realm of cynicism about the future of India.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-11 16:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Mario,
It's a well-known fact that US Conservatives try to
claim as their own, heros that most certainly don't
belong to them. They do this by adding words like
compassionate and modern in front of the word
Conservative.
Mario replies:
This is a "well known fact" only among modern
political liberals, who continue to promote the siren
song of failed socialist policies and cast aspersions
on conservatives to hide their failures.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
But to claim John Mill as one of their own is
stretching the truth a bit too far.
Mario responds:
I used John Mill's well known actions and words to
show that he was clearly philosophically aligned with
modern political conservatives in the US. As with
Friedrich Von Hayek, you are confusing a classic
liberal like John Mill, who abhorred government
intervention in the economy and believed in free
market economics with modern political liberals who
are virtual socialists.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
I don't claim to know John Mill's writing in any
measure of depth. In fact, I just knew that one
quote from him.
Mario replies:
That was pretty obvious:-))
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Much like you, I googled him and read about him.
John Mill was an acclaimed liberal thinker of him
time. He hated conservatives and any form of
conservatism.
Mario explains:
"Much like me"? Aren't you being a tad presumptious
in insinuating that I wasn't familiar enough with John
Mill to know he had nothing in common with modern
political liberal philosophy? I only used Wikipedia
for some specifics. The "conservatives" of his time
were quite different from modern political
conservatives.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
As per your reference to his economic philosophy,
since when was being "laissez-faire", a conservative
monopoly? Infact, the word liberal in its earlier
connotations referred to "liberal" economists, who
advocated minimal government interference in
capitalist ventures.
Mario writes:
You have just made my point that the earlier
connotations of "liberalism" are modern political
conservative philosophy. Surely you know that "minimal
government interference" is the exact opposite of what
modern political liberals espouse, who are socialists
at heart.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Again it is only in the US, where liberals are
associated with the Democratic party; that one
associates liberals with trade unions and other
forms of government contrivance.
Mario responds:
This is precisely what reconciles the difference
between what you and I are saying. When I talk about
modern political liberals I am talking about the
American Democrat party and American trade unions. I
must remember you are a temporary American resident
with an international perspective:-))
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
In India for instance both the Congress and the BJP
are for the "liberalisation" of the economy. You
certainly wouldn't call the BJP or the Congress
liberals in other spheres of their politics. Infact
some of India's liberal thinkers come from the
Communist party.
Mario responds:
We are now in the realm of Indian political semantics.
"Liberalization" in India is a euphemism for
discarding the destructive extreme-socialist-economic
policies of the previous 50 years. The last time I
checked, the Communist party in India is resisting all
of India's attempts at "liberalization" of the
economy. The BJP support economic "liberalization" in
the Indian context but are far-right religious
zealots.
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Definitions are often skewed but this much I know
that John Mill would have his stomach churned if he
were in anyway associated with the US connotation
of the word. The Conservative Republican in the
US, in my opinion, singlehandedly will set American
back a few decades in terms of its thinking,
ideology and not to mention its geopolitics. And
John Mill would have had nothing to do with them.
Mario clarifies:
"This much I know"? You certainly could not arrive at
such a definitive conclusion from anything John Mill
said, or from anything that conservative Republicans
have done.
Conservative Republicans comprise about 50% of the US
electorate so they do nothing singlehandedly. Any
claim that they will set geopolitics back a few
decades can only come from the Clinton-era liberal
Democrat ideology that would have allowed the attacks
on the US that took place throughout the 90's to
continue unabated and without response, for
Afghanistan and Iraq to continue to be brutalized by
sadistic and misogynist Muslim tyrants with no hope of
freedom and democracy, for fascists to rule in the
name of Islam unconfronted while developing nuclear
capabilities and threatening on an almost daily basis
to use these to wipe Israel off the map.
As an obvious critic of conservative Republican
geopolitics you would have to have opposed the fall of
the Iron Curtain (in which conservative Pope JP-II
played a major role), the spreading of democracy in
old Soviet states and the liberation of Liberia. You
would be happy with the status quo in Darfur, and
unconcerned about the decimation of the African
continent by HIV/AIDS. Along with the previous
liberal Democrat administration you would have to turn
a blind eye to the atrocities in Rwanda and Burundi,
as well as the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
It took conservative Republicans to address the
HIV/AIDS pandemic and push a reluctant and feckless
UN, whose job it is supposed to be to address such
conflicts, to do something in Darfur, while the
liberal Europeans objected to the US proposal to label
it a genocide, which would trigger UN action.
As an obvious critic of conservative Republican
geopolitics you would oppose the long overdue pushing
by the US of dictatorial allies like Egypt and Saudi
Arabia towards political liberalization, and you would
also oppose the close working relationship developing
between the US and India.
In economics the liberal Democrat philosophy of high
taxes and government interference would have sent the
US into a deep recession from the declining economy
that President Bush inherited which was exacerbated by
the sneak attack of 9/11, made possible because
previous liberal geopolitical policies had emboldened
the Islamic terrorists. Instead, conservative
Republican policies turned the economy around in
record time and have made the US among the fastest
growing and most productive economies in the
industrialized western world with stable inflation.
Yet they have been compassionate in using the
government to improve health care for seniors, improve
poorly performing public school systems and help
minority business and home ownership to achieve
historic levels.
In conclusion, I ask you if any liberal American
Democrat could honestly say as John Mill did, "War is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself."
This is precisely what modern political Republicans
believe and the exact opposite of what the modern
liberal American Democrat party believes. By his own
testimony, there is no way that John Mill would have
been anything but a staunch Republican in modern
America.
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-12 05:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
In conclusion, I ask you if any liberal American
Democrat could honestly say as John Mill did, "War is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is
much
Post by Mario Goveia
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than
Post by Mario Goveia
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by
Post by Mario Goveia
the exertions of better men than himself."
The above "quote" of John Stuart Mill is a gross
corruption of what he actually wrote in his commentary
on the American Civil War entitled "The Contest in
America". Two disjointed sentences spaced far apart,
and separated by an emphatic and important assertion,
have been spliced together to manufacture the "quote".
The excised intervening salient assertion is the
following:

"When a people are used as mere human instruments for
firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service
and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war
degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings
against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to
their own ideas of right and good, and which is their
own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their
free choice--is often the means of their
regeneration."

-------- John Stuart Mill

In addition, the two spliced sentences have been
tampered with by inserting extraneous words for added
emphasis.

Please see the following link for the ebook article,
"The Contest in America" by J. S. Mill, to gain an
understanding of the entire context, and of the exact
nature of the splicing and tampering.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/conam10h.htm

The whole paragraph from which the two altered,
incontiguous sentences in the "quote" were lifted, is
as follows:

"For these reasons I cannot join with those who cry
Peace, peace. I cannot wish that this war should not
have been engaged in by the North, or that being
engaged in, it should be terminated on any conditions
but such as would retain the whole of the Territories
as free soil. I am not blind to the possibility that
it may require a long war to lower the arrogance and
tame the aggressive ambition of the slave-owners, to
the point of either returning to the Union, or
consenting to remain out of it with their present
limits. But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest
evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing,
but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which
thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people
are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon
or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the
selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a
people. A war to protect other human beings against
tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their
own ideas of right and good, and which is their own
war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free
choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A
man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for,
nothing which he cares more about than he does about
his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has
no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself. As long as
justice and injustice have not terminated their ever
renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of
mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is,
to do battle for the one against the other. I am far
from saying that the present struggle, on the part of
the Northern Americans, is wholly of this exalted
character; that it has arrived at the stage of being
altogether a war for justice, a war of principle. But
there was from the beginning, and now is, a large
infusion of that element in it; and this is
increasing, will increase, and if the war lasts, will
in the end predominate. Should that time come, not
only will the greatest enormity which still exists
among mankind as an institution, receive far earlier
its coups de gr?ce than there has ever, until now,
appeared any probability of; but in effecting this the
Free States will have raised themselves to that
elevated position in the scale of morality and
dignity, which is derived from great sacrifices
consciously made in a virtuous cause, and the sense of
an inestimable benefit to all future ages, brought
about by their own voluntary efforts."

Cheers,

Santosh
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-12 11:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Mario,
How long did you stay up last night to type all this
up? :) If I was your wife, I'd kick you in your
conservative pants :))
Elisabeth
----------------------------------
Post by Mario Goveia
This is a "well known fact" only among modern
political liberals, who continue to promote the
siren
song of failed socialist policies and cast
aspersions
on conservatives to hide their failures.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-12 15:25:28 UTC
Permalink
The quote I posted by John Mill was copied verbatim
from Wikipedia. If it is a distortion Santosh should
correct the Wikipedia record.
Post by Santosh Helekar
The above "quote" of John Stuart Mill is a gross
corruption of what he actually wrote in his
commentary on the American Civil War entitled "The
Contest in America".
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-13 04:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
The quote I posted by John Mill was copied verbatim
from Wikipedia. If it is a distortion Santosh
should correct the Wikipedia record.
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
is the link to it:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

Here is the quote with the relevant source
information, according to Wikipedia:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things:
the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is much
worse. When a people are used as mere human
instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets,
in the service and for the selfish purposes of a
master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect
other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war
to give victory to their own ideas of right and good,
and which is their own war, carried on for an honest
purpose by their free choice,?is often the means of
their regeneration. A man who has nothing for which he
is willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who
has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so
by the exertions of better men than himself. As long
as justice and injustice have not terminated their
ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of
mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is,
to do battle for the one against the other.
"The Contest in America" Fraser?s Magazine (February
1862); later published in Dissertations and
Discussions (1868) Vol.1 p. 26"

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-05-12 21:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Gabe
I am amazed that Mario conceded to the excellent
point you made. Is he growing up at last?
Mario asks:
Cornel,
Were you one of the three people from among the
thousands on Goanet, who did not figure out that I had
made a typo? Did not my detailed description
referring to a "freedom fighter who had subsequently
led India down the primrose path that it was still
recovering from" give you at least a TINY clue that I
was talking about Mr. Nehru?
Mario Goveia
2006-05-15 20:12:21 UTC
Permalink
--- Santosh Helekar wrote:
Wikipedia has already provided a correct quote. Here
is the link to it:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
Mario observes:
Santosh had previously provided us with a passionate
post where he correctly pointed out something I was
not aware of at the time, that John Mill had been
quoted incompletely in Wikipedia. He also provided us
with the entire paragraph by John Mill. To my request
that Santosh correct the Wikipedia record, Santosh now
says that Wikipedia has "already provided a correct
quote". Yes and no. I see from the link above that
the "correct quote", while addressing one issue raised
by Santosh, still excludes much of the paragraph.
Nevertheless, my original conclusion still stands.
John Mill's thoughts, made during the American Civil
War on the propriety, morality and dignity of waging
war in certain instances, when added to his
association with free market philosophers like Adam
Smith and John Ricardo, and his thoughts on the limits
of the power which can be legitimately exercised by
society over the individual, all confirm my original
conclusion that John Mill would be considered a
libertarian-conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan
in modern America.
Conservatives in John Mill's day were mostly members
of the American Democrat party from the southern
states, who wanted no change in the status quo
pertaining to slavery. It was Republican President
Abe Lincoln who initiated and fought a deadly civil
war in order the change a situation that was abhorrent
and unacceptable to him. Lincoln was successful in
convincing most Democrats from the northern states to
join him in the civil war against the Confederacy.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-16 15:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gabe Menezes
RESPONSE: Mario Goveia, you are being disingenuous
and devious at the same time...you stated quite
pompously to Elizabeth that she was being
presumptuous, in stating knowledge about John Stuart
Mill, being obtained via Google, same as you. You
refuted that and gave us the impression that you
were fully conversant with the man and his
standing.
Mario observes:
I have no control over the ability of some Goanetters
to understand what has been posted. This is being
exemplified by Gabe in his comments above.
As part of her post Elisabeth had said that she was
previously only familiar with the one quote by John
Mill that she had used. Then she said that "much like
me" she had subsequently googled and read more about
him. In my response to Elisabeth on May 11, here is
what I said:
""Much like me"? Aren't you being a tad presumptious
in insinuating that I wasn't familiar enough with John
Mill to know he had nothing in common with modern
political liberal philosophy?"
Nowhere did I say or even insinuate that I was "fully
conversant" with everything John Mill had said and
done. I said I was "familiar enough" with John Mill
to know that he wasn't a modern political liberal, as
anyone can see above. I then consulted Wikipedia for
more quotes and details.
Post by Gabe Menezes
To put it simply you are forever ducking and diving,
I needn't say more, your postings as always give
you away.
Santosh corrected you and you stand correced! Please
be man enough to say so.
Mario responds:
Again, a sad lack of comprehension by Gabe. Here is
what I actually said:
"Santosh had previously provided us with a passionate
post where he correctly pointed out something I was
not aware of at the time, that John Mill had been
quoted incompletely in Wikipedia."
What about my saying that Santosh had "...correctly
pointed out something I was not aware of at the
time,..." did Gabe not understand?
However, I don't expect Gabe to "be man enough to say
so".
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-20 05:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,
I'm back and missed you'll. I had over 300 mails in
the inbox and looks like I missed some robust
discussions. Dan Brown has been done to death, I see,
so we shall have to start on something new and
utterly, butterly controversial.

I'm putting my thinking cap on!! :))

Elisabeth

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-19 14:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D'Souza
Gabe,
Don't be fooled by Santosh's long correction of
Mario's citation of John Stuart Mill. Mario,
accurately it appears, obtained his quote from
Wikipedia whereas Santosh has been a little sloppy
with his attribution of sources.
The above implication that I am trying to fool the
people with my long correction, and the accusation
that I have been sloppy with my attribution of sources
are false.

My long correction provided the correct quote and
correct source of the quote, namely "The Contest in
America" by John Stuart Mill.

As far as Wikiquote is concerned, please see the
following link of Wikipedia to note how closely
Wikiquote is related to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiquote

Please also note that the main webpage of Wikipedia
refers and links to Wikiquote as its sister project.
Here is the link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Cheers,

Santosh
Sachin Phadte
2006-05-02 10:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Very interesting article. However, only a statement of wish, there is no
mention about the programmes that Rahul has in mind. There is one statement
in the article that struck me most, which is as follows:

"Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far untouched by India's economic
miracle."

So, without some solid ideas, it is difficult to make a judegement. I am
asking this question in the same manner in which I had asked about the
detailed posting of the rise of Babush on the political scene in Goa.

Sachin Phadte.
Herman D'Souza
2006-05-03 07:49:43 UTC
Permalink
ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR US

ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY

This is the thinking of the west
and this is how we can surpass the best
Post by Sachin Phadte
Very interesting article. However, only a statement
of wish, there is no
mention about the programmes that Rahul has in mind.
There is one statement
in the article that struck me most, which is as
"Despite his dream of India surpassing the West we
were travelling
through poor, dusty farming villages so far
untouched by India's economic
miracle."
So, without some solid ideas, it is difficult to
make a judegement. I am
asking this question in the same manner in which I
had asked about the
detailed posting of the rise of Babush on the
political scene in Goa.
Sachin Phadte.
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-03 15:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman D'Souza
ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR US
ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY
This is the thinking of the west
and this is how we can surpass the best
Mario observes:
Herman, you have hit the nail on the head. India
would be pretty formidable if most of the country's
citizens adopted the philosophy so eloquently stated
by US President John F. Kennedy.
I wonder if the "next Gandhi" has noticed that it is
Indians that have helped make Britain "better off".
The "next Gandhi" can talk all he wants, but unless he
seriously and relentlessly addresses the issues of
civic sense at every level which leads to much of
India's disgusting squalor, now getting more out of
place amid all the shining technological and economic
progress, no progress will be made in this important
philosophical area.
I think it will come in time, but the sooner it does
the better. The emotional responses to even humorous
commentary on the incongruity of wholesale
reservations shows that large sections of "the
country" still depend on what "the country" can do for
its people.
The "best" countries make opportunities available for
all it's people and help the people help themselves.
The only comment I would quibble with is that it is
still the thinking of much of "the west". I doubt the
citizens of much of Europe subscribe to this
philosophy any more, and the riots in France and the
stagnant economies of all the larger European
countries is evidence of this.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-04 16:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Re the often said view of India making huge economic
progress to super-power status, I can't help
feeling, following a recent visit, that this is a
myth at present. However, it is a very useful myth
as the growing confidence of young Indians
everywhere on the sub-continent is very evident.
Hopefully, the myth will turn to reality soon even
though I cannot bear the thought of another
dynastic Gandhi making the grade.
Cornel
Mario observes:
To see whether it is a myth or reality one has to look
at the economic growth statistics and the list of
"heavy hitters" lining up to invest in India.
Looking around at the chaos while dodging cars,
pedestrians and spitballs is misleading.
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head screwed on
straight, when compared to his Grandfather, a hero of
the freedom struggle, who then led the country down
the primrose path that it is now recovering from.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-06 16:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Mario needs to note that historically and today,
many an investor has lined up to invest in a range
of projects where the anticipated mythical economic
balloon burst soon after, despite all the available
statistics.
Mario replies:
Cornel needs to note that neither Bill Gates nor
Laksmi Mittal became some of the richest men in the
world, starting from average middle-income status, by
investing in a range of projects where the anticipated
economic balloon burst soon after. What crass
cynicism in the face of all the evidence.
Post by cornel
Notwithstanding the economic progress India is
making, there is much, including statistical
evidence of grinding poverty among millions, severe
undernourishment of 57 million children, lack of
quality control etc which makes the hoped for
economic super-power status a bit premature even
though I for one want it quite badly for India.
Mario replies:
Cornel needs to note that the grinding poverty and
severe undernourishment are legacies emanating from
the Fabian school of socialist economics that was a
millstone around the country's neck for it's first 50
years of independence.
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about
the outcomes being predicted by every international
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their money
behind their convictions.
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-07 04:27:07 UTC
Permalink
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Mario Goveia
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism about
the outcomes being predicted by every international
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their money
behind their convictions.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-07 15:56:54 UTC
Permalink
On 04/05/06, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Besides, this Gandhi seems to have his head
screwed on straight, when compared to his
Grandfather, a hero of the freedom struggle, who
then led the country down the primrose path that it
is now recovering from.
QUESTION: Who is this Rahul Gandhi's grandfather ?
Indira Gandi's Husband was a Parsee, uninvolved in
mainstream Politics. Sonia Gandhi's father is an
Italian!
Mario responds:
Good point, Gabe. For once you are correct about
something.
However, every one else apparently figured out from
the context of my remarks about a "...hero of the
freedom struggle, who then led the country down the
primrose path that it is now recovering from." that I
was talking about the Great-grandfather, Jawarlal
Nehru.
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-08 04:28:55 UTC
Permalink
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.

I don't know the answer to that quandary. When I get
the answer maybe I will be "enlightened" like Nasci.
Then again, according to Nasci I am already
"enlightened" because I can eat dukra mass and a
masala dosa with equal ease, notwithstanding my
occasional "outbursts", which can be controlled when
need be by invoking the Holy Spirit.

Elisabeth
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a
rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-07 16:57:23 UTC
Permalink
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in honest and
robust debate with inane generalities rather than with
specific facts and opinions on the issues.
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a
rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Cheers,
Santosh
Post by Mario Goveia
I'm glad that Cornel says he wants prosperity for
India, notwithstanding his relentless cynicism
about
Post by Mario Goveia
the outcomes being predicted by every
international
Post by Mario Goveia
economic expert that has studied the subject,
especially those who are willing to put their
money
Post by Mario Goveia
behind their convictions.
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
Nasci Caldeira
2006-05-08 08:52:10 UTC
Permalink
dear Liz,

Your ourburst was wrong only because you chose to make it under an unrelated
'heading'. That is what George Pinto also does sometimes, and that is why I
take up cudgels. You could have said what ever it is that you want to vent
against the Church mischief of the past under another heading of your own,
or on another forum dealing exclusively with catholic doctrine and or
religion; but not in response to a news item where a head of the Church is
only doing his job.

My further enlightenment :-) :-) to you is: You are always free to answer or
respond to anything! Do not be afraid of loosing my invitation; it stands
regardless. :-) :-)
you have again spoken of enlightenment; completely under another heading and
surely out of context. Being in 'The Holy Spirit' could help you from making
such rash responses that seem to be, 'not in context'.

I do not wish to take the name of God in vain! I will hence forth refrain in
this, and I hope I am forgiven.

Nasci Caldeira
Post by cornel
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The next Gandhi: I'll make India better off than
Britain
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.
I don't know the answer to that quandary. When I get
the answer maybe I will be "enlightened" like Nasci.
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
A question that arises quite frequently in internet
discussions nowadays is: Can one engage in a rational
discourse without expressing varying degrees of
contempt for those who hold opposing points of view?
Santosh Helekar
2006-05-08 16:39:50 UTC
Permalink
--- Elisabeth Carvalho <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
I've often wondered whether I should dedicatedly
further my own point of view in a debate because I
feel it is the right view or whether I should be
capable of holding two opposing points of view in my
mind and appreciating both of them.
I don't know the answer to that quandary.
Hi Elisabeth,

Interesting point on the relevance and profundity of
the question as it relates to internet discussions
nowadays. I think there are some opposing points of
view that a reasonably objective person can appreciate
equally well e.g. correctional schooling as opposed as
to incarceration for adult delinquents. On the other
hand there are contentious points of views that stem
from a complete misunderstanding or lack of knowledge
about the issue at hand. This is the case for instance
with regard to the spurious creationist opposition to
biological evolution.

Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing viewpoint
rather than for the viewpoint itself. On the latter
point, I think that any absurdity or misinformation
propagated in a public forum deserves to be debunked.

Cheers,

Santosh
Elisabeth Carvalho
2006-05-09 05:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,
Although I agree with you in the main, I think the
distinction between the "viewpoint" and the "person"
who holds that viewpoint is a blurred and tenuous one.
If one holds a certain belief, I think we extrapolate
that the person acts in a certain manner consistent
with the view he/she holds. As John Mill said
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid but most
stupid people are conservative". :))

Elisabeth
PS: No offence meant to conservatives, just using the
quote to make my point.
------------------------------
Post by Santosh Helekar
Hi Elisabeth,
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint
Cheers,
Santosh
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 19:26:10 UTC
Permalink
I have no idea if John Mill really said what Elisabeth
says he said, but on the off chance that readers may
mistake John Mill for a modern political liberal, the
following are some encyclopedic excerpts to show that
John Mill was in every sense a modern political
conservative-libertarian in the mold of Ronald Reagan:
1. In the following year he was introduced to
political economy and studied Adam Smith and David
Ricardo with his father--ultimately completing their
classical economic view of factors of production.
2. One foundational book on the concept of liberty was
"On Liberty", about the nature and limits of the power
which can be legitimately exercised by society over
the individual.
3. Mill's main economic philosophy was one of laissez
faire.
4. Many cadets at the U.S Air Force Academy best
remember him for the following quotation, which is
required memorization for all fourthclassmen. "War is
an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself."
Mario.
--- Elisabeth Carvalho <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Although I agree with you in the main, I think the
distinction between the "viewpoint" and the "person"
who holds that viewpoint is a blurred and tenuous
one.
If one holds a certain belief, I think we
extrapolate
that the person acts in a certain manner consistent
with the view he/she holds. As John Mill said
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid but most
stupid people are conservative". :))
Elisabeth
PS: No offence meant to conservatives, just using
the
quote to make my point.
------------------------------
--- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
Hi Elisabeth,
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my
question
Post by Santosh Helekar
was directed at the reflexive display of
gratuitous
Post by Santosh Helekar
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint
Cheers,
Santosh
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet at goanet.org)
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 15:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Nonetheless, as you might have realized my question
was directed at the reflexive display of gratuitous
contempt for the person holding an opposing
viewpoint rather than for the viewpoint itself. On
the latter point, I think that any absurdity or
misinformation propagated in a public forum
deserves to be debunked.
Mario observes:
I agree with Santosh. Those who show contempt for a
person holding an opposing view, rather than the
viewpoint itself, need to be shown all the disrespect
they truly deserve, and that absurdity and
misinformation in any forum deserves to be debunked.
The problem is that often the same information can be
lead to vastly opposing opinions, based on one's
viewpoint, and absurdity can be in the eye of the
beholder. If this were not so, there would be no need
for a forum, just an encyclopedia.
I hope Santosh's close philosophical friends are
paying close attention to his sage advice.
Mario Goveia
2006-05-09 15:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Mario
Clearly, you are not able to tell that there is a
big difference between my stated scepticism about
the imminence, repeat, imminence, of Indian
economic advancement to super-economic status and
your choice of terminology about my "relentless
cynicism about the outcomes" of Indian economic
advancement ...etc. Your interpretation of what I
said cannot possibly be extrapolated from my
utterances on Goanet on this specific issue.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
As I have explained before, it is slant and tone, in
addition to content. In my never humble opinion, you
have gone way beyond skepticism and are deep into the
realm of cynicism about the future of India.
Not only can I extrapolate your cynicism I have done
so using you own words. A couple of obligatory
comments to the contrary cannot drown out the essence
of your expectations and concerns.
There are literally millions of Indians, and
industrialists and business people from around the
world not only expecting great things from India but
actually doing business in India, NOW, and investing
their own time and money NOW, to make Chidambaram's
vision a reality. I recently posted a video clip of
an ABC news reporter who was awestruck at the economic
activity going on amid the squalor we all know about.
No one has been a bigger critic of India's lack of
civic sense on this forum than I have. I believe that
will come with time and education and prosperity.
Britain, for example, was a smelly and squalid mess
before its Industrial revolution.
Manmohan Singh, the architect of modern Indian
economic policy, is trying desperately to keep the
"liberalization" on track against strident opposition
from the communists and socialists who want to keep
India mired in hopelessness.
You, on the other hand, want to put a negative slant
and tone on all this by reporting that "educated"
people, by which you mean people who agree with your
cynicism, think Chidambaram is dreaming, whereas
"uneducated" people, by which you mean anyone who
disagrees with you, are the only people who seem to
agree with him. I am with the uneducated people if
this is so.
You want to "wait and see". The people who will help
India achieve it's potential don't have the time to
"wait and see". They are too busy doing what needs to
be done NOW and benefitting everyone.
You are free to express whatever opinion you choose,
and I reserve the right to rebutt any opinion I choose
to as well. Isn't that what a forum is all about?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...