History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedThe British in India

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 05:34
Not surprising considering they were the majority of foreign troops.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 13:04
 
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Actually, GLCE2003, British rule in India can be divided into three statges, i) company raj, which was brutal, extermely brutal even by the standards of the age as attested by contemporys, ii) crown rule from circa 1860-1914, which was chracterised by a "pretend we are not here"approach, the British let the locals do whatever, if they got too big for their boots lauch a punative expedition/measures depending on area, iii) 1914 to 1947, characterised by repression like the Defense of India Act and the Rowlett Act, though incidentally it was only here that the Brits wanted India to take a role of its own, as evidenced by the creation of a national flag, and Indian embassys/ missions in most countrys. So ironically, the time when Britain wanted India more independant was when the rule was even more repressive.
 
Apart from the emotive words like extremely brutal I can agree with most of that and it's doesn't affect my point.
 
India was undemocratic under the British because it was undemocratic in the first place, and the British just took over / inserted themselves in the existing system, which was also marked for its brutality.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 17:22
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Actually, GLCE2003, British rule in India can be divided into three statges, i) company raj, which was brutal, extermely brutal even by the standards of the age as attested by contemporys, ii) crown rule from circa 1860-1914, which was chracterised by a "pretend we are not here"approach, the British let the locals do whatever, if they got too big for their boots lauch a punative expedition/measures depending on area, iii) 1914 to 1947, characterised by repression like the Defense of India Act and the Rowlett Act, though incidentally it was only here that the Brits wanted India to take a role of its own, as evidenced by the creation of a national flag, and Indian embassys/ missions in most countrys. So ironically, the time when Britain wanted India more independant was when the rule was even more repressive.
 
Apart from the emotive words like extremely brutal I can agree with most of that and it's doesn't affect my point.
 
India was undemocratic under the British because it was undemocratic in the first place, and the British just took over / inserted themselves in the existing system, which was also marked for its brutality.
 
    Well the culture of the sub-continent was certainly far less cruel than the other cultures in the world. In ancient times when human sacrifice was common among all people be it the Egyptians or Sumerians or native Americans only animal sacrifice was practiced in this region and even that didn't set very well with some people and there were a lot of reformers which tried to stop the practice.
 
     The only native excercise in Empire making of the subcontinent the Gupta empire resulted in Ashoka who disgusted by the human life cost of his empire making became a passivist.
 
      The institution of slavery never existed in the subcontinent. Some may say that the caste system is a form of that but it really was a laetr development as can be gaged by the fact that Megasethes reported no class of people which we can relate to modern dalits.
 
        Bhuddsim one of the most humane religion was a product of this culture.
 
          I am curious that which part of the culture of this region do you consider as or more barbaric than other cultures. 
 
 
      And i agree with Sparten, the British rule of the subcontinent was "extremely brutal", pretty muc like it was everywhere like in the Americas.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 17:23
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Not surprising considering they were the majority of foreign troops.
 
 Their share of honours per capita was also one of the highest, either native or foreign.  
Back to Top
HaloChanter View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HaloChanter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 19:11
Argh, I hate the Good v Evil British India debate.
 
So pointless.
Kind regards,

HaloChanter
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 20:43
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 bilal_ali_2000 wrote:

[
    Well the culture of the sub-continent was certainly far less cruel than the other cultures in the world. In ancient times when human sacrifice was common among all people be it the Egyptians or Sumerians or native Americans only animal sacrifice was practiced in this region and even that didn't set very well with some people and there were a lot of reformers which tried to stop the practice.
 
     The only native excercise in Empire making of the subcontinent the Gupta empire resulted in Ashoka who disgusted by the human life cost of his empire making became a passivist.
 
      The institution of slavery never existed in the subcontinent. Some may say that the caste system is a form of that but it really was a laetr development as can be gaged by the fact that Megasethes reported no class of people which we can relate to modern dalits.
 
        Bhuddsim one of the most humane religion was a product of this culture.
Agreed. But as a matter of fact it faded out in India itself.
Quote
 
          I am curious that which part of the culture of this region do you consider as or more barbaric than other cultures. 
I didn't actually say it was more barbaric than other cultures, simply that it was brutal. For a single, quick example though, take suttee/sati or however you want to spell it.
Quote  
 
      And i agree with Sparten, the British rule of the subcontinent was "extremely brutal", pretty muc like it was everywhere like in the Americas.
The only parts of America ruled by the British were Canada, parts of the West Indies, and the eastern part of the present USA up to 1783. I don't think any of that was particularly marked by brutality, compared to what went on in the rest of the continent and the USA post-1783. I'll grant of course slavery, but it was abolished earlier in the British colonies than elsewhere.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 22:02
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 bilal_ali_2000 wrote:

[
    Well the culture of the sub-continent was certainly far less cruel than the other cultures in the world. In ancient times when human sacrifice was common among all people be it the Egyptians or Sumerians or native Americans only animal sacrifice was practiced in this region and even that didn't set very well with some people and there were a lot of reformers which tried to stop the practice.
 
     The only native excercise in Empire making of the subcontinent the Gupta empire resulted in Ashoka who disgusted by the human life cost of his empire making became a passivist.
 
      The institution of slavery never existed in the subcontinent. Some may say that the caste system is a form of that but it really was a laetr development as can be gaged by the fact that Megasethes reported no class of people which we can relate to modern dalits.
 
        Bhuddsim one of the most humane religion was a product of this culture.
Agreed. But as a matter of fact it faded out in India itself.
Quote
 
          I am curious that which part of the culture of this region do you consider as or more barbaric than other cultures. 
I didn't actually say it was more barbaric than other cultures, simply that it was brutal. For a single, quick example though, take suttee/sati or however you want to spell it.
Quote  
 
      And i agree with Sparten, the British rule of the subcontinent was "extremely brutal", pretty muc like it was everywhere like in the Americas.
The only parts of America ruled by the British were Canada, parts of the West Indies, and the eastern part of the present USA up to 1783. I don't think any of that was particularly marked by brutality, compared to what went on in the rest of the continent and the USA post-1783. I'll grant of course slavery, but it was abolished earlier in the British colonies than elsewhere.
         Well the fact that only 1% of the population of USA is  of native extract proves my point. Compare that with the other American countries ruled by Spanish or Portugal which are largely full or partly native American.       
 
 
 
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 22:07
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[QUOTE=bilal_ali_2000][
    Well the culture of the sub-continent was certainly far less cruel than the other cultures in the world. In ancient times when human sacrifice was common among all people be it the Egyptians or Sumerians or native Americans only animal sacrifice was practiced in this region and even that didn't set very well with some people and there were a lot of reformers which tried to stop the practice.
 
     The only native excercise in Empire making of the subcontinent the Gupta empire resulted in Ashoka who disgusted by the human life cost of his empire making became a passivist.
 
      The institution of slavery never existed in the subcontinent. Some may say that the caste system is a form of that but it really was a laetr development as can be gaged by the fact that Megasethes reported no class of people which we can relate to modern dalits.
 
        Bhuddsim one of the most humane religion was a product of this culture.
Agreed. But as a matter of fact it faded out in India itself.
[QUOTE]
 
       It faded out because Hinduism adpoted its humane nature, so there was no reason for the common man to prefer Bhuddism over Hinduism. For example Bhuddism never outlawed meat completely. Bhudda 's last meal was of Pork. Ashoka in his pillars says that animals should not be killed for trivial purpsoes like for their skin or for hunting but killing them for their meat because of neccesity was allowed. Hinduism however in its adaptation to Bhuddism banned the eating of meat.  
 


Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 04-Feb-2008 at 22:09
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 22:19
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I didn't actually say it was more barbaric than other cultures, simply that it was brutal. For a single, quick example though, take suttee/sati or however you want to spell it.
 
 
 Yes there is no excuse for Satti. However looking at the history of the practice you will understnad its genesis. In the subcontinent the wives of the warrior classes used to commit suicide because then they would become concubines of the victor king. However later it became a compulsion and not jst for the warrior classes but for all classes. In the ceremony of Satti a woman would walk to the altar and all the other people around them would be shouting "Satti mata ki jai, Satti mata ki jai" (hail to the great Satti Mother) giving the impression that as if the woman who was being burned was doing it out of her own free will.  


Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 04-Feb-2008 at 22:19
Back to Top
MarcoPolo View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2007
Location: Planet Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MarcoPolo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 23:03
Originally posted by Scaevola Scaevola wrote:

It seems to me that although many decry the British rule of India as oppressive and exploitative, there would be no India at all if Britain hadn't conquered it. Wasn't it the case that the Indian subcontinent was nothing more than a plurality of warring principalities before Britain conquered (and unified) it? I know for a fact that English is the single consistently spoken language and throughout the subcontinent (probably a good thing for India and Pakistan on the world stage) and that the second most prominently spoken is Hindi, which is not nearly as prevalent. India, it seems to me, would still be a highly balkanized and unimportant region of the world (if infact it could have retained its sovereignty in a disunited state for so long) if it weren't for the British occupation and unification of the country.
 
I agree, I think the modern country called ''india'' today should be very thankful to the British for creating the country that they have right now for them..
 
Sure, various foreign rulers did form empires similar in geography as to what we see today, they were very much ''Empires'' ruled and run by non-indians. 
 
british infrastructure, government/civic developments and the culture/identity fournished by british colonial rule and then handed to the natives are often overlooked and have not been given due attention by most scholars particularly by the native inhabitants of the country itself.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 00:37
To tell you the truth, MarcoPolo, these developments would have occured over time anyways anyhow.
 
Refer to my post about the Few nations that escaped European Expansion: China, Japan, Thailand, Iran, Turkey, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Besides Afghanistan, the others were successfully able to replicate and improve on foreign technology. They run their own show without foreign Imperialism.
 
Some Indian Empires are thus:
Maghadan Empire
Gupta Empire : India's Golden Age
Rashtrakutha Empire
Pallava Empire
Hoysala Empire
Vijayanagra Empire
Chola Empire
Satavahana Empire
Pandyan Empire
 
Lastly, I have already listed the benefits of the British Empire:
1. Common Cause against British - helped different people of different ethnicities unite
2. British Technology - railroad, telegraph
3. English language - helped them communicate amongst one another, helped them in international business with Canada, UK, USA, Australia.
 
But the bad effects:
1. British disregard for Indians' self interest/religion/culture
2. British Brutality
3. British took Indian wealth and transported it into Britain; not using the wealth to make India better. As a result, India started 1947 handicapped. Whereas India was 24% of world economy (estimated) in 1700 and 16% in 1800s; in 1950 it was less than 3%.
 
I dont know what the scholars of modern day India think today; what I do know is what I listed. If they grieve British Rule (after all tehey fought against British, must mean they didnt want them there) they have multiple sources to greive from.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 00:44
Originally posted by bilal ali bilal ali wrote:

Well the fact that only 1% of the population of USA is  of native extract proves my point. Compare that with the other American countries ruled by Spanish or Portugal which are largely full or partly native American.      

No it doesn't. Britian is not responsible for US crimes. And regardless, you can't compare different colonies, because the administrations of different colonies had hugely different goals, abilities, and human rights records.
Quote [Buddhism] faded out because Hinduism adpoted its humane nature, so there was no reason for the common man to prefer Bhuddism over Hinduism. For example Bhuddism never outlawed meat completely. Bhudda 's last meal was of Pork. Ashoka in his pillars says that animals should not be killed for trivial purpsoes like for their skin or for hunting but killing them for their meat because of neccesity was allowed. Hinduism however in its adaptation to Bhuddism banned the eating of meat. 

That's just wrong basically. The buddhist population converted to islam. Haven't you noticed that the areas with large buddhist populations now have large muslim ones?
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 03:48
Hes right; all Pakistanis and Afghanis were Buddhs once.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 10:00
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 bilal_ali_2000 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The only parts of America ruled by the British were Canada, parts of the West Indies, and the eastern part of the present USA up to 1783. I don't think any of that was particularly marked by brutality, compared to what went on in the rest of the continent and the USA post-1783. I'll grant of course slavery, but it was abolished earlier in the British colonies than elsewhere.
         Well the fact that only 1% of the population of USA is  of native extract proves my point. Compare that with the other American countries ruled by Spanish or Portugal which are largely full or partly native American.       
 
 
The USA is not British.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 10:04
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 bilal_ali_2000 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[QUOTE=bilal_ali_2000]
        Bhuddsim one of the most humane religion was a product of this culture.
Agreed. But as a matter of fact it faded out in India itself.
[QUOTE] 
       It faded out because Hinduism adpoted its humane nature, so there was no reason for the common man to prefer Bhuddism over Hinduism. For example Bhuddism never outlawed meat completely. Bhudda 's last meal was of Pork. Ashoka in his pillars says that animals should not be killed for trivial purpsoes like for their skin or for hunting but killing them for their meat because of neccesity was allowed. Hinduism however in its adaptation to Bhuddism banned the eating of meat.  
Are you really claiming that the prohibition against eating meat in Hinduism postdates Gautama? I thought the whole point of the Buddhist position on eating meat was that it denied the then existing Hindu tradition (at least for Brahmins).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 12:14
I think what hes saying is that Hindic Philosophy adopted Buddhist principles into its system.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 14:00
 
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

I think what hes saying is that Hindic Philosophy adopted Buddhist principles into its system.
 
That might be true to some degree. However what he said was
Quote Hinduism however in its adaptation to Bhuddism banned the eating of meat.  
 
That's what I was challenging. Banning eating meat couldn't have been an adaptation to Buddhism, since Buddhism doesn't ban eating meat (though 'for the purpose of training' it exhorts not to kill līving creatures).
 
And I'm pretty sure the Hindu attitude to it predates Buddhism, as does Jainism.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2008 at 10:31
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 bilal_ali_2000 wrote:

         Well the fact that only 1% of the population of USA is  of native extract proves my point. Compare that with the other American countries ruled by Spanish or Portugal which are largely full or partly native American.   


Can I compare it to the first American country ruled by the Spanish, Mexico? The spanish first of all practically wiped out the capital city of the Incas and then proceeded to burn the crops of the native rural population to wipe out 90% of them.
Back to Top
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 15:46
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

What the British Empire did for India:
 
1. British/European Technology - Railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, etc
2. English Language, coincidentally only vital because America, Canada, Australia speak English; access to trade. Also keeps them united.
3. Unite Principalities and Kingdoms inadvertently by giving them belief in common cause. For example, the word "Hindu" or "Hinduism" is a British invention; designed to make it easier to talk about the various philosophies and sects and schools of thought within Hinduism as just one entity. Meaning the Pre-British Indians did not consider themselves as Hindus rather one group would call themselves "Shiva worshipper" and look down on another group who would fashion themselves "Hanuman Devotees", etc.
Originially Indians called their religion "Dharma Shastra" or "Philosophies". Indians have been a spiritual people for a long time, and their religion for all practicable persuasions can be considered what the Abrahamic Axis considers Paganism or Ancestor Worship (making rulers, princes, and kings objects of worship).
4. European Knowledge - knowledge of the Europeans; technical know how, etc.
 
What the British did wrong with the Indians:
1. Carelessness towards their beliefs: caused the Siphai Mutiny of 1857
2. Oppression: towards the beginning they were physically brutal no less than native or Tukic Empires
3. Lack of forecasting growth: Meaning the British treated India as a personal breadbasket and kept Industrialization from coming to them. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, when India gained Independence in 1947 it was only 2% of the world economy; whereas under the Mughal Empire in 1700 it was roughly 27%. Research in Software and other CSE departments in the 1980s was because of the ingenuity of the Indian to realize the future was in computers.
4. Wealth went to foreign lands: The British bred manufatured or grew their supplies in India, but sent the wealth made from business to London. Whereas other invaders would distribute the wealth in the native lands, the Indians were doing work to improve an Island nation most of them have never seen before.
 
People like to criticize China and India for its dirt and rust, but they forget that even Britain in 1880s was cloaked with hazy clouds of pollution. London of the late 1880s did not look like the London of the 1980s. And various British authors write about it, one comes to mind: Scrooge and the Three Ghosts.
 
Lastly, the British were made because of the Indians, not the other way around. China, Thailand, Tukey, Iran have shown that you dont need to be under a foreign conqueror to be culturally transfuse technology and science from them. In essence, the Indians would have gotten such technology anyways. It certainly did not help them to work for peanuts as all wealth was transported to the Kingdom.
 
Also, yes, the Indians are today because the British united them. However i dont believe they will stay that way. Looking at the habits of the South Asians, they have the highest or most extreme and prevalent forms of social stratification in the world. They also operate in bridaries or clans/guilds/groups/tribes. They are known to war with each other than act united.
 
Mostly because India has 25 major ethnicities and 18 major languages, hard to be united. English serves as a uniting force of communication.
 
Excellent post, but just from the information you've provided here it seems to me the Britain quite literally did make India. I always knew that India as a State was unified under the British, I had no idea that the Hindu religion itself underwent unification under the rule of Britain. Now, clearly Britain benefited from the resources it extracted from the Indian subcontinent but that does not mean that it would not have been a formidable power with or without India. It's also important to note that Britain actually did capture India- so what does that say about India? Clearly, if the British hadn't taken it some other colonial power may well have (such as the French) and statistically commonwealth countries have done a lot better after receiving independence.
 
What bothers me most though, is the Indian perception that the British should be hated or that the British are the cause of all India's troubles. Clearly, there have been many benefits to British rule, and I don't see why it matters to the Indian people so much that they were being exploited by a foreign autocracy rather than more petty autocratic home-rule. I feel that the Indian people owe it to the British at least to maintain a decent attitude towards them given all the benefits derived from colonial rule.
 
As to the allegation that India will soon Balkanize, I really don't think so. My family is Indian, I've been there many times and I know a lot of Indians - there's definate trans-race and language sense of nationalism for the most part. I seriously doubt that, especially with the new economic boom, India will be breaking up anytime soon.
SPQR| Alea Iacta Est
Back to Top
HaloChanter View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HaloChanter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 18:55
The thing that bugs me most about this thread, is the use of "Indian".
 
You may refer to this from the Congressional movements of the 1880's onwards, but to unify the sub-continent under the British, particularly the Company, as 'India' or 'Indians' is far too simplistic to make any kind of moral judgements (if you really have to, I personally think its a waste of time).
 
British rule was so successful in the sub-continent as it was so ethnically, culturally and religiously divided. After the break-down of Mogul authority India was far too factional to resemble a unified entity. Under the British it was kept predominantly that way. Indeed, as John Malcolm pointed out, Company policy was to retain Princely states as a tool for authority and continuity. There could be no 'India' while it remained a fractured and seperated entity.
 
So to say "Britain was mean to Indians because so and so, and Britain did this to India so its bad, etc etc" is really far too general and discriminative.
 
British policy in the Indian states, for example, was far from 'careless about Indian beliefs'.  Ritual, display and ceremony were upheld and respected in the majority of cases. Residency kitchens, for example, were kept stiffly along religious and cultural caste lines. As were military cantonments and regimental camps in the field. As well as messes in British Presidencies.
 
The causes of the Indian Mutiny of 1857 were not directly the result of disrespect for Indian religions or customs, but more the perceived threat to those factors. There was never a strong Christian missionary force at work, there was no great plan to introduce forced use of pig or cow fat in the cartridges of guns, and the enforcement of certain anti-religious or caste regulations in the military were quickly repealed.
 
Furthermore, the accusation that Britons were brutal is so general and unsupportable as to be laughable. Remember, at any one point in the British Raj there were very few Britons at all. In a population of some hundred millions, there were only ever about 150,000-200,000 British souls in the sub-continent, half of those soldiers. If you mean brutality in war, the British were benign in comparison to the Marathas, the Pathans, the Moguls, or Mysore. Outrages committed by the military of a power is a universal phenomenon, and you must remember in the case of Britisih power in India, it was predominantly composed of Indians.
 
In the cases of industrialisation or general economic trends, indeed during the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century there was a trend to enrich Britain over India. Indeed that is the pattern of every earthly empire in history. The reason it flowed out of India, however, is because the central authority of the British empire did not reside in India, but in Britain. However, from the mid-nineteenth century onward a vast amount of investment, unknown before in the history of the subcontinent, poured in through the medium of canals, irrigation, roads, bridges, telegraphs, tanks, schools, civic institutions, medicine and communication. Before British rule the Punjab was an under-cultivated, dry land. After its annexation it became the granary of the empire.
 
Anyway, I promised myself I would not get dragged in to this kind of argument. But to assume one action offended all Indians under British rule is to assume a uniform, common Indian society. What the banning of Sutti meant in Awadh is not the same as it meant in Nagpur. What the Mutiny of 1857 meant in the Delhi territories is not the same as what it meant in the Punjab.
Kind regards,

HaloChanter
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.