The flawed comparisons: Now there is a tendency to compare powerful English nations like America, or even the British Empire, to the ancient empires like the Roman Empire, Chinese Empire etc. This is seen done not only by the scribes from the non-English nations, but also by the scholars from the English world. Actually, there is a basic flaw in this comparison. The English empires were not formed on the basis of a military march like that of Genghis Khan or even Hitler. It was a more natural progression, of liberty as enthused by the English language. And there is no comparison of American actions being similar to the Roman rampage to gain more territories or Genghis Khan’s onslaught to pursue pleasure by obliterating other tribes and their men folk, and then fornicating their wives.

If anyone does say this, it is a blatant lie; for if America had not come to the aid of Kuwait, then there would have been no independent nation in the Middle East. Even India, would have gobbled up some of them. And to claim that like all Empires, America would also lose its supremacy in a short while is to speak blasphemy; for, if the feudal language nations come to the fore, then it would be the medieval age again for the world. (Yet I would say that there is much understanding that US has to acquire, about other nations, and their inner working and there is a lot of happenings in US, that can be distinctly be described as un-English).

Need to comprehend: Yet, the problem America does face is that the decision-making persons may be yet to really understand the social philosophies of the places, it is forced to interfere in. For, in all places with feudal languages, no matter what one does to change the society, the society and its people again would arrange themselves in definite patterns, as dictated by unseen lines of forces, which lie embedded in their language. And if English nations do not strive to understand this vital factor, then they could end up making very terrible mistakes in their endeavours to strike out in favour of justice. And in this regard, I must say, ‘do not disregard the insights the earlier colonial officials, who lived in nations like India, had.’

Though there may be many compulsions to interfere in other nations to right the wrongs in those nations, America may stand to make mistakes in understanding the underlying reasons that creates dictators, megalomaniacs, tyrants etc. and the compulsions that make them do things, which from outside may seem unwarranted and unreasonable. In the long run, it may be a good policy for America to maintain an intimate relationship with English nations, and at the same time go in for an enduring policy of isolation from other nations, in political, as well as in many other things, as all interactions with the feudal nations would only bring grief to the citizens of the English nations, if not done with careful understanding of parameters.

When the English nations take sides, or go in for helping their non-English language nation allies, against subversion, revolt, revolution, terrorist-attacks from their own people, they have to give consideration to certain things. First of all, will any English native like to live in these countries, under the same government and bureaucratic systems? In other words, coming to an understanding that in its present predicament, it is a wise thing to consider all signs of revolts all round the world, against different individual nations, by their own people, as an act of violence against US, might be a most horrible mistake.

This theme may be a bit bewildering at the moment, and if not fully comprehensible, I can only leave it at that, for it may require a lot of logical and systematic build up of theory to tackle the questions involved.

Moreover, here I risk the criticism of writing too much, and revealing nothing. Yet, I must admit that I would find it difficult to convey the ideas conveyed above in crisper language, and yet deliver some meaning.

And, Hi Abm: My theme is not really on the British Empire, but about a very powerful machine, called language, which can design not only grand Empires, but also the smallest of human interaction.

Either way, thanks for the query. But do I smell a small measure of sarcasm?

Yet to reply to your delightful query, I need time.

Posted on: Apr 9 2004

Hi Abm: Yesterday when I saw your letter, I was a bit surprised and surely happy. For, I had come to stop expecting any such letters.

I have done some thinking in between. I need to answer your letter in two pieces. The first one the ‘erstwhile’ British Empire: There are certain senses in the term British Empire that can be defined as that of a misnomer. I mean in the sense of comparison with such empires as Roman Empire, Mogul Empire, and Ming Empire etc. For, British Empire was not a creation of the march of the British army. More, it was a march of the social philosophy created by the English language, and carried on by individual Englishmen, and with the active participation of the native populations.

In spite of all indoctrinations to the contrary, it remains a fact that English, and its speakers did bring in liberation to societies, which had lain suffocated for centuries of social stifling. Well, it must be admitted that this happened not because of any pre-programmed active aim of the English natives. But, more because of the inherent liberation inside the English language (this theme is the gist of my book, and cannot be discussed here for it requires a lot of words).

Again, it must be admitted that when the liberal interacting English systems, interacted with feudal social communication systems, then it also had the effect of making the Englishmen go in for a sort of aloofness from the local social systems; an affect which has been variously defined as pseudo-superiority complex, inherent inferiority complex, racial complexes etc. Yet, it was a natural affect that goes with interacting with feudal language systems. Yet this was what saved them everywhere, from an otherwise sure route to disintegration, as happened to almost all others.

Here let me quote Tony: “Where Britain went wrong, in my opinion is the exit out of these countries. The exist was badly planned and had a negative effect on the country, the region and the world, until today”.

I must say that I also do believe that the exit that the British did in many colonies had many deficiencies. But not what Tony contends. What I would point to is the fact that they did not take care to figure out what was the real mental understanding about them, among the populace of the colonies. In all feudal language nations, united minorities can create a lot of sound, pomp and show; yet there would have been many persons, actually lots, who differed from the perception of the mindless mob who are really led by cheap rhetoricians. Even in my nation, where almost every school student would parrot in perfect unison that the British were villains who looted the riches of the nation, disgraced the natives, murdered the patriotic kings and queens, and made the natives a sort of servant race, I have been amazed to have been told by many old timers that they had watched the departure of the British with unspeakable misgivings.

I must say that I really do wonder how the natives of Hong Kong bore the transfer of their citizenship to a nation with dubious historic record.

Now, I need to discuss about the second part of the query: about the word you used: symbiotic relationship. I can’t discuss this theme in detail, for it requires lengthy paragraphs. I better not risk more censure in this regard. So I will just paste here a very small part from my book. It comes in the first two paragraphs of Chapter 9, titled: Social Homogeneity.