Sir Imran Khan?? Why not??

[Furball]

Hmmm, Aborigines that complain about their past treatment are anti-Australian are they?

Given India's colonial history.

 

[Sanz]

Given India's colonial history, I don't see how anti-imperialist and anti-British differ in the slightest.

They are if the context of the discussion is Pre-1947 (india-England) or some Imperialist sign. Other than I do not consider myself anti-British.

 

[pskov]

See, that's what I like about the honours system.

I'd regard myself as fairly left wing and republican, but at the same time I like the sense of history and tradition that comes with being made a Knight or given the Order of the British Empire. It may be an utterly meaningless title but I like the sense of history that goes along with it.

Might just be because I'm a historian though.

I like history as well - that's why I find the imperial sentiment distasteful. In this country a lot of people have some fairytale view of how the British Empire was great and did a lot of good in the world bringing progress etc. It's a load of bull****. The British Empire brutally slaughtered countless thousands, perhaps millions, and culturally ravished and economically enslaved whole continents.

Imho, the only reason we shouldn't depose the monarchy tomorrow and institute a republic is that it'd be more trouble than it's worth. I'll settle for a fully elected upper chamber and proportional representation. And regarding the royals, if they want to keep their special tax exempt status, let alone the public money they are paid each year simply by virtue of coming out of the correct womb, they have to let English Heritage open their palaces up to the public for 12 weeks of the year and they have to loan their art collections to the Tate, Barbican, National Portrait Museum and other regional art galleries on permanent rotation. At least that way we'd get something tangible for our subsidy.

Sorry, rant over.

 

[jeevan]

Given India's colonial history, I don't see how anti-imperialist and anti-British differ in the slightest.

There are some Indians who would regard the whole pre-1947 thing with anti-imperialist eyes but would consider the British only as the worst thing to have happened to India, except for the (other imperialist) alternatives. Given the political mess that the land that is now united as India was in, some sort of slavery was almost inevitable.

Taking a civilizational view of things, what Gokhale, Gandhi and numerous others achieved will probably be far greater than the imperialist phase. And while I don't know if to ascribe a mid-wife's role to the British on this, it can be said that they were the prison maternity nurse who did not choke the baby when the common practice might have been to do precisely that.

Plus, we now have the worlds best cricket team at the end of that sequence of events.

 

[Jono]

Given India's colonial history.

Understand that, but I don't believe being anti-Imperial, or having strong feelings against the past actions of a nation's previous power immediatley makes you anti the country.

Anyway way off topic so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Shri]

Given India's colonial history.

It was not just the British who colonized India. There were the French, the Dutch and the Portugese who had colonies in India too. Being anti-imperialistic isn't necessarily being anti-british. Anti-european? Maybe.

 

[nightprowler10]

Hard not to agree with Sanz and Jono, but I don't detest anybody from Pakistan getting a Knighthood. It simply doesn't matter anymore. I'd covet a Wisden Player of the Year title far more than a knighthood anyway.

 

[jeevan]

It was not just the British who colonized India. There were the French, the Dutch and the Portugese who had colonies in India too. Being anti-imperialistic isn't necessarily being anti-british. Anti-european? Maybe.

Except the Japanese imperialist regime was no better either. And once got as close as Burma.

 

[Sanz]

No my point was that you can't tar everyone with the same brush. There are plenty of bad apples who achieve honours in any country. Perhaps a more balanced view might be to take into account the truly honourable recipients of that award, such as those I've mentioned.

The person in question isn't considered one of the 'Bad Apples'. Another example that you gave was of Winston Churchill, British held him in very regard as a politician, I do not. And I challenge you to read his stance on Imperialism, Gandhi, attitude towards Indian Freedom Struggle. I have read it all and from my perspective it is not hard to dislike him or at least not have any respectful feeling at all.

Everyone is perfectly entitled to their opinions but there's a nasty little anti-British undertone to some of the posts in this thread. It's not particularly attractive and doesn't have any place on a cricket site of this sort. Thread doomed.

There is no anti British undertone in my post.

 

[Pratters]

but I don't detest anybody from Pakistan getting a Knighthood. It simply doesn't matter anymore. I'd covet a Wisden Player of the Year title far more than a knighthood anyway.

Well said.

 

[zaremba]

The person in question isn't considered one of the 'Bad Apples'. Another example that you gave was of Winston Churchill, British held him in very regard as a politician, I do not. And I challenge you to read his stance on Imperialism, Gandhi, attitude towards Indian Freedom Struggle. I have read it all and from my perspective it is not hard to dislike him or at least not have any respectful feeling at all.

Fine - you can think what you like about Churchill, but you can take your pick from thousands of extraordinarily worthy winners of knighthoods. Instead you've chosen to associate a Knighthood with a single event (abominable though it was) from 90 years ago. It seems, with respect, a rather narrow-minded view of things. Anyway Stapel's post summed up my thoughts on the matter and I wouldn't really try to improve on it.

Not sure, by the way, why you consider that O'Dwyer isn't considered a "bad apple" - from the little I've read it seems that he was relieved of his duties following the reaction to the massacre and was subsequently condemned by the Sectretary of State for India. Is he a person held in high esteem by many in Britain or Ireland? Not as far as I can tell. But I freely admit that I'm far from an expert on Indian history in general or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in particular.

 

[Sir Alex]

Sir Adam Stanford In fact I am not a big fan of any honorary title.

 

[zaremba]

Sir Adam Stanford In fact I am not a big fan of any honorary title.

Yeah not a great one, him. Nor Emperor Hirohito or Nicolae Ceacescu...

 

[Sanz]

Zaremba, This isn't the place to discuss history. If you are willing to debate/discuss this, I will be more than happy to engage in OT.

I have said my opinion on this matter and I don't think I need to discuss it anymore.

 

[zaremba]

Zaremba, This isn't the place to discuss history. If you are willing to debate/discuss this, I will be more than happy to engage in OT.

I have said my opinion on this matter and I don't think I need to discuss it anymore.

!!!

1. You raised this particular historical issue in the first place;

2. You chose to respond to my post (in which I mentioned Churchill) not once but twice. I rather took it that you wanted a reply.

Anyway I will happily agree with you that this isn't the place to discuss history.

 

[Anil]

Fine - you can think what you like about Churchill, but you can take your pick from thousands of extraordinarily worthy winners of knighthoods. Instead you've chosen to associate a Knighthood with a single event (abominable though it was) from 90 years ago. It seems, with respect, a rather narrow-minded view of things. Anyway Stapel's post summed up my thoughts on the matter and I wouldn't really try to improve on it.

for me, much more than whether the winners were worthy of the award, it's whether the award and its donor have any worth whatsoever...giving even symbolic significance to that family and their awards is disgusting to me, that's all...and there is nothing anti-british about that..it's just being anti-monarchy and anti-imperialism...and more than that it is just my opinion, strong though it is...

 

[zaremba]

for me, much more than whether the winners were worthy of the award, it's whether the award and its donor have any worth whatsoever...giving even symbolic significance to that family and their awards is disgusting to me, that's all...and there is nothing anti-british about that..it's just being anti-monarchy and anti-imperialism...and more than that it is just my opinion, strong though it is...

Well like any country's honours, a knighthood is given by the State on behalf of the people. Britain is a monarchy and therefore the State is embodied in the person of the Queen. Until we get rid of the monarchy (sadly that'll never happen) we're stuck with that. For me that doesn't fatally undermine the honours system. Obviously your view of the British monarchy and of British awards is a matter for you, and I respect that.

 

[jeevan]

!!!

1. You raised this particular historical issue in the first place;

2. You chose to respond to my post (in which I mentioned Churchill) not once but twice. I rather took it that you wanted a reply.

Anyway I will happily agree with you that this isn't the place to discuss history.

Yeah, this isn't the place to actually discuss history. It is the place just to take one line potshots at historical figures .

p.s. You are quite right about Jalianwala Bagh. There were several very bad (to India) British imperial policies, a couple of which had evil consequences on an extremely significant scale. But downright massacres like Jalianwala were not the norm on the part of the British. Same as, it was not the norm on the part of the Indian nationalists to engage in violence like Chauri Chaura.

What is remarkable is how these two adversaries, the British Empire and the Indian nationalists - had behavioral traits that would not have worked quite the same way with almost any other opponent - and how that set of traits was crucial in obtaining the modern Indian state (of which I am enormously proud). They also set a benchmark for those that followed (MLK would be the most famous example) and for all this, I would think students of history will acknowledge both sets of people as being ahead of their times.(Yes, I am actually praising the imperial British and building railway lines has little to do with it though that too has turned out very well).

 

[jeevan]

Well like any country's honours, a knighthood is given by the State on behalf of the people. Britain is a monarchy and therefore the State is embodied in the person of the Queen. Until we get rid of the monarchy (sadly that'll never happen) we're stuck with that. For me that doesn't fatally undermine the honours system. Obviously your view of the British monarchy and of British awards is a matter for you, and I respect that.

We sometimes have cows that park themselves in the street that no one wants to shoo away, and you have the queen that some people kneel in front of. Sounds even to me.

 

[Faisal1985]

Why is it such a big deal anyway.....Imran was Imran and the world knows what he did on the field....to me a Sir to his name will not bring or take away anything from Imran.