Pedagogical Joke

Last year I spent the better part of a week reading Keegan's "The First World War". Today I came across this summary in 'Eastern Approaches', The Economist's blog on eastern European affairs ("If WWI were a bar fight"). Quite succint, and accurate :) 

Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria's pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria's trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium. Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper.

When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway.

Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself. By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

I only disagree with the part about America. If the US hadn't delivered the final blows, Germany would have been the only person left standing at the end of the brawl.

Stories from the 1940s

I just finished reading two very interesting books. "The Storm of War" is Andrew Roberts' superb history of WWII. Roberts is opinionated, but backs up his conclusion that "the real reason why Hitler lost the Second World War was exactly the same one that caused him to unleash it in the first place: he was a Nazi" with good arguments.

In "Churchill's Secret War", Madhusree Mukerjee investigates the role of the British Government in causing the Bengal Famine of 1943. Churchill hated India and his chief scientific adviser Lord Cherwell was an extreme racist. Together, opposing the repeated pleas of Secretary of State for India Lord Amery, Viceroy Linlithgow and Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army Lord Wavell, they delayed and denied modest but vital grain shipments to India that could have prevented a famine that killed atleast 3 million. In one dramatic moment on August 4, 1944 Lord Amery responded to a familiar tirade by Churchill against Indians by comparing him to Hitler! In a British War Cabinet Meeting, no less!

Of all the interesting - and depressing, relating to the famine - revelations in the book, the most prominent for me were the financial arrangements between the UK and the Indian colony. I somehow imagined that all war-time material requirements from India would have been obtained for free by the British. But there actually was cost-sharing, with the British government promising to pay the Indian government an agreed proportion of the costs after the war. Indeed I realised that my grasp of colonial Indian macroeconomics is extremely poor. Next stop: an economic history of modern India :)       

Akbar

Wrote the following in late Feb, 2008...somehow got published in the wrong place. Here it is :)

Saw Jodha-Akbar on Friday. The movie has many good things going for it - authentic sets, smart dialogue, good acting, (the oh-so-gorgeous Ashwariya), and dazzling camera work at times. But the whole is much less than the sum-of-parts and the story is not coherent enough to impress. I think it would have been much better had the moviemakers concentrated on narrating Akbar's remarkable story itself rather try to use it as a background to portray a historically insignificant (if not non-existent) romance.

Akbar's story is indeed remarkable. He is one of four Indians I am very fascinated by (the others being Ashok, Gandhi and Nehru - there are also Samudragupta and Kalidas, but I know too little about them). Supremely brave (the movie's depiction of him tackling aggressive elephants is probably historically accurate), intelligent (the movie's suggestion that his illiteracy resulted from lack of effort is untrue - he tried learning how to read and write, but was probably dyslexic) and wise (Marriage to Jodha and the removal of the jizyah ensured that many of his subjects became loyal to the Mughal empire out of not just fear, but admiration); Akbar and his legacy shaped the destiny of Hindustan for over two century (till the battle of Plassey in 1757 atleast). From 1556 to 1658, Hindustan was ruled by three brilliant emperors - Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jahan - who deeply imprinted their mark on India. Apart from Nehru and Indira Gandhi, I find it hard to believe that any but the most devoted scholars will recall any of the prime ministers of the first sixty years of the Indian Republic three or four hundred years later.

From the battle of Panipat where a young Akbar led by Bairam Khan fended off the challenge from Hemu, to the defeat of the Rajputs in the sieges of Ranthombore and Chittor, to the 12-day ride from Agra to Gujarat to crush the rebellion by the Sultan there, Akbar's prowess in battle was to be proven time and again. He never lost any significant battle, and kept expanding his empire throughout his 49-year reign. There must truly have developed an aura around the persona of the emperor, which later Mughals would have found indispensably useful.

His military prowess was surpassed by his administrative and political insight. Defeated enemies were co-opted and became pillars of the empire. A conscious effort was made to make it a Mughal empire where all subjects had equal rights, rather than one where being a Muslim automatically bestowed privelege. The abolition of the jizyah in 1580 ranks in my mind as the most politically astute gesture in Indian history, alongside Gandhi's disobeying of the Salt Act in Dandi in 1930. Marriage to Rajput princesses ensured that they became political partners rather than disaffected subjugated locals (If Aurangzeb had managed to similarly co-opt the Maratha deshmukhs instead of humiliating Shivaji at his court, the history of India would have been very different). Revenue reorganisation under the supervision of Todarmal ensured that the Mughal treasury had funds for both war and creating monumental architecture.

Above all the Pax Mughlai that north India witnessed for almost 150 years from 1570 to 1720 (Aurangzeb was a very competent emperor, though not a very far-sighted one) created the backdrop for sustained economic progress and population growth. India's population probably rose by 50% between 1500 and 1750 (from 150 million to 220 million), and then stagnated till 1900. Indian farmers grew crops to suit the market, Indian artisans made products exported to multiple regions of the world, Indian merchants were actively involved in Asian commerce...the Mughal economy was amongst the most prosperous pre-industrialised economies in world history.

A slightly random post, I guess...I'll edit this sometime in the future, if I have the inclination :)