I tend to think a certain kind of Indian nationalist, BKs not far off, would like to drive India back to backward, supersistious agrarian villages of which they were the all powerful Brahmin heads ... keeping it - and especially the women - dumbed down, disempowered and fearful. The BKs do not "empower women", except to elect themselves as the new Brahmin caste, training a few junior Brahmins and turn the rest into dumb followers.
Looking at the history of BKism, I think you can see the village educated Lekhraj Kirpalani struggling to deal with his envy and admiration for the British Raj and, grudgingly, finding a place within his world philosophy for them ... from being a British Royalist in the beginning - is it suited his financial interests - and only adopting Indian Independence/supremacism later after the political winds changed, they rejected him. ("God" Lekhraj Kirpalani wrote his mad letters and sent books and posters etc to the King, would be Queen, Royal family, Viceroy, Gandhi etc. None of them wrote back).
His condemnation of them, echoed in BK Pakka's attitude, was merely a way of downplaying that rejection to his primary audience ... the gullible and naive Bhaibund women.
Arbit wrote:For example, India did not have jatis, but had "gnyatis", which pertains to knowledge domain.
Actually, it had both. I chose Jati because it emphasises rank or position according birth, while Gnati emphasises it according to connections or community. However, I think you're being a little pedantic because, equally, you could say both are the same thing and are used interchangeably. They just different spellings (that's from Gujerati).
You might say "the British
used the word "Caste", instead of Jat or Varna" but they did not invent "caste" either (
that goes back to the Manu Smriti in 2nd century BCE). By the same logic, you might even say "the British invented "Hinduism"" ... which they did and did not (
I'd give the Mughals the credit) but you'd really just talking about administrative categorisations. You could even argue "the British made India" uniting the chaos of many into one.
And Newton's Laws are not "false", they work perfectly well within their specific realm.
But if Newton's Laws are "false", does that not debunk the idea of a so called "Law of Karma" too?
Say what you like about the "Evil Whites" but the British-Indian civil service and its civic works were acts of genius. Rarely have so few ruled so many with so little effort, done so much good and created so much order and structure. It probably betters the Roman Empire.
Pakka's Indian nationalism reminds me of the Monty Python sketch, "What have the Romans ever done for us?". You could do another one, "What have the British ever done for us?".
The answers would be tirelessly many ... legal system, an efficient police force, an apolitical army and civil service, tree lined roads, the railways (the British built more railways in India than America, France, Germany and other European colonialists built in all their colonies, bridges, schools and universities, they brought the industrial revolution, modern medicine (immunization) ...
tea and cricket ... a common language. The list could go on and on.
During British paramountcy, the population increased 250% ... suggesting for the ordinary people, it was a very good thing.
So let's add create "the world's biggest democracy" to the list too.
I would be interesting to compare that question with, "What have the Indians ever done for India?".
Even the BKs heaven on earth is going to be built -
allegedly - by the "Christian" scientists.