The consolidation of British power in western India in the eighteenth century and the emergence of Bombay as the preeminent urban centre of the west coast created favourable conditions for the growth of Parsi enterprise towards the end of the century. A section of Parsis, largely based in Bombay, achieved great success in commerce, industry, finance and shipping, thereby also contributing to the development of the city.
How different these Jamaats were from other entities such as the Parsi panchayat or Armenian network structured around law and custom is not very clear. The question is raised once in a while but never really fleshed out. The comparison seems warranted and even inevitable given that Parsis and Armenians also represented the ‘middle power’ that Sullivan talks about in explaining the extraordinary rise and success of these merchant communities. By middle power Sullivan means the co-functioning of the Sarkar and the Jamaat of which the communities were prime beneficiaries.
Geoff Ashton in his essay talks about the philosophical foundation of Asian Buddhism. There are many Buddhisms and in turn many Buddhist philosophies in Asia. He studies the Thai way of responding to Buddhist philosophical discourse. Ashton studies the philosophy of DT Suzuki and the philosophy of Buddhadasa for understanding socially engaged Buddhist agency.
Expert bodies constituted on the cusp of Independence and its aftermath imagined a blueprint for India’s development and considered ways of harnessing human knowledge to the mission. It was recognized that the choices were not pre-determined, that there were indeed ample spaces for tapping into ‘non-mainstream pathways to S&T’.
Like Nehru, Mao also came to power in 1949 convinced that he needed 15-20 years of peace in Asia to develop his own country. Mao told Stalin precisely that at their first meeting in Moscow in December 1949, and Stalin promised that he should be able to ensure that. But Nehru and Mao clearly differed on how peace was to be secured. Within six months of that conversation with Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung were seeking Stalin’s approval to reunify Korea by force of arms, and came close to doing so.
One was the reference to the strong defense mounted by Suu Kyi as the country’s then leader in December 2019 at the International Court of Justice at The Hague disputing the charge of genocide against Myanmar’s armed forces for their actions against the Rohingyas. The author notes that the people of Myanmar were full of praise for her performance, even as much of the outside world was outraged