PDA

View Full Version : The British Imperialism in India: A Boon or Curse



DrRajpalSingh
July 19th, 2013, 05:50 PM
Friends,

Some people believe it to be a boon whereas others believe it to be bane. So There is no unanimity on the role of the Imperialist occupation of India by the British which started with the battle of Plassey fought in 1757 AD and lasted in 1947 AD. The candid views/opinions of the participants on this contentious issue are invited.

Thanks.

DrRajpalSingh
July 19th, 2013, 06:22 PM
To start with we can take the post no 28 given below from the thread on Jat history :Thread: Victoria Cross Winner - Company Havildar-Major Chheluram (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?36072-Victoria-Cross-Winner-Company-Havildar-Major-Chheluram/page2)
For the convenience of the readers the same is reproduced below :


Dear Dr, Rajpal, we can take out "Bal ki Khal" but the fact remains that we are talking in "English", the clothes that u are wearing were designed in west, then why be hypocritical. We can read as many writers as we can but we have to acknowledge good and bad facts that happened due to the presence of people coming to Bharat.
Bharat has seen such a big inflow of cultures and civilizations that we can not rule anyone out. Was the muslim rule any better then rule by Britishers? Was the rule by small kings in ancient India any better then rule by Britishers? Was the rule by hindu religious identities any better then rule by Britishers?

So, if we look history in wider perspective, i think coming of British was not that bad as shown by blinded nationalistic identities?

The basic question we have to answer at this level is:
Have we ever given value to human life?
I think not? As soon as Britishers left, people again started fighting in the name of religion and Bharat was divided in the name of religion and other identities.
From Kashmir to Afghanistan to Pakistan and north west of India we come from the same tribes yet we in the worst position in terms of peace in the region, we might follow different religions but we write the same family names and we share same common tribal blood that has been passed on by our ancestors, yet we are still fighting. In this region religion still plays a major role in governing peoples lives and these people are driven by blind faith in the name of religion.

What is '' blinded nationalistic identities?'' new phrase beyond comprehension.

Moreover, the sweeping comments regarding the goodness of the British Imperialism do not present true nature of the colonial regime.

dndeswal
July 24th, 2013, 02:27 AM
These "some people" are those who are the products of convent schools where education is rendered on the pattern set by Lord Macaulay whose sole aim was to destroy our history, culture, languages, and religion, which is necessary to keep a nation slave forever. Only negative aspects of our history are taught in today's school textbooks. Not only in India, colonial empire has done havoc in other places also - African countries, Latin America, and many Asian nations. Everywhere, the local masses revolted and finally the colonial powers had to leave, except where the local population was wiped out through bullets (such as Australia, New Zealand etc.).

It is a wrong notion that modern scientific advancement in our country has been possible because of foreign rule or the English language. The economic impact of foreign rule has been phenomenal because much of our wealth was looted. During Moghul period, until Aurangzeb's rule, India's share in world trade was more than 17%. At the time of Independence, it shrank to just 2%.

maddhan1979
July 24th, 2013, 07:03 AM
These "some people" are those who are the products of convent schools where education is rendered on the pattern set by Lord Macaulay whose sole aim was to destroy our history, culture, languages, and religion, which is necessary to keep a nation slave forever. Only negative aspects of our history are taught in today's school textbooks. Not only in India, colonial empire has done havoc in other places also - African countries, Latin America, and many Asian nations. Everywhere, the local masses revolted and finally the colonial powers had to leave, except where the local population was wiped out through bullets (such as Australia, New Zealand etc.).

It is a wrong notion that modern scientific advancement in our country has been possible because of foreign rule or the English language. The economic impact of foreign rule has been phenomenal because much of our wealth was looted. During Moghul period, until Aurangzeb's rule, India's share in world trade was more than 17%. At the time of Independence, it shrank to just 2%.



Do u think, India is a free country? Can u tell me where did India get its rules and regulations? We still have rules and regulations which were made during ancient times. Today also India is ruled by politicians all of whom have some sort of criminal record.
The entire nation is running on:
1: Local development due to foreign investment. (Making housing projects, making special economic zones, etc.), this foreign investment is due to cheap human labour.
2: Rising middle class and movement of people across India although the middle class is the most exploited class of the Indian society. Their working conditions are not good, they do not have public facilities (Public facilities are pathetic and poorest, pollution, crime, jammed roads, etc form the part of their daily life.)

Local population in any place throughout the world were always fighting the oppressors in one form or other, whether they were local rulers or outside rulers.

As per the trade during Mughals. Ancient trade in north west of India was carried through routes like Silk Route, sea and other mountain passes in the Himalayas, which during the mughal rule and before them were controlled by muslim rulers and at that point of time in history the fight was about religion, as Islam started spreading around 8th century AD.

maddhan1979
July 24th, 2013, 07:10 AM
Do u think, India is a free country? Can u tell me where did India get its rules and regulations? We still have rules and regulations which were made during ancient times. Today also India is ruled by politicians all of whom have some sort of criminal record.
The entire nation is running on:
1: Local development due to foreign investment. (Making housing projects, making special economic zones, etc.), this foreign investment is due to cheap human labour.
2: Rising middle class and movement of people across India although the middle class is the most exploited class of the Indian society. Their working conditions are not good, they do not have public facilities (Public facilities are pathetic and poorest, pollution, crime, jammed roads, etc form the part of their daily life.)

Local population in any place throughout the world were always fighting the oppressors in one form of the other, whether they were local rulers or outside rulers.

As per the trade during Mughals. Ancient trade in north west of India was carried through routes like Silk Route, sea and other mountain passes in the Himalayas, which during the mughal rule and before them were controlled by muslim rulers and at that point of time in history the fight was about religion, as Islam started spreading around 8th century AD.


In ancient times, culture, religion, etc formed the links for trade in today´s context education, technology, logical reasoning, dialog will form the base for present and future trade.

maddhan1979
July 24th, 2013, 07:30 AM
In ancient times, culture, religion, etc formed the links for trade in today´s context education, technology, logical reasoning, dialog will form the base for present and future trade.

Do u think India is not a slave nation? In the name of nation and religion people living in the north west of India have been getting killed for ages. Even today the scenario is the same.
I can give u a simple example of slave mentality, India is second largest interms of population and Indians love cricket, for more then a decade a single player was the focus of the entire game: " Sachin Tendulkar". If he played good then Indian team will win, otherwise the team will loose the game. Entire media was applauding him. The cricket team is not made of one player and there are millions of cricket playing people in India, are there no better players then Tendulkar? There must have been hundreds of players better then him but the main point is "Idol Worship" has closed the minds of people and made them into real life zombies, where they could not look beyond one "Idol" and the entire nation becomes slave to such a mindset. We can see the same trend in politics, Why does everyone every time look at Nehru Gandhi family for leadership, if they have to lead the nation, they have to come out themself. This thing is happening in every phase of life in Indian mentality.

This mindset is leading to waste of present day youth and blocking their path of innovation and progress. If the change has to come, it has to come at every level of society and through every individual.
This mind set is one of the reasons we lack in innovation based research and technologies because we are still mental slaves to motion less, speech less Idols.

DrRajpalSingh
July 24th, 2013, 08:03 AM
INDIA IS A FREE COUNTRY and SO YOU ARE !

VPannu
July 24th, 2013, 08:15 AM
Friends,

Some people believe it to be a boon whereas others believe it to be bane. So There is no unanimity on the role of the Imperialist occupation of India by the British which started with the battle of Plassey fought in 1757 AD and lasted in 1947 AD. The candid views/opinions of the participants on this contentious issue are invited.
Thanks.Rajpal ji, I didn't read the Chheluram thread but since you are asking for opinions, here is mine. I think India would have been better off if the Britishers ruled for another couple of decades. I am sure they would have done better job than our present day politicians.

VPannu
July 24th, 2013, 08:19 AM
I can give u a simple example of slave mentality, India is second largest interms of population and Indians love cricket, for more then a decade a single player was the focus of the entire game: " Sachin Tendulkar". If he played good then Indian team will will otherwise the team will loose the game. Entire media was applauding him. The cricket team is not made of one player and there are millions of cricket playing people in India, are there no better players then Tendulkar? There must have been hundreds of players better then him but the main point is "Idol Worship" has closed the minds of people and made them into real life zombies, where they could not look beyond one "Idol" and the entire nation becomes slave to such a mindset. We can see the same trend in politics, I can only laugh at this analogy. This guy gets equal respect when travelling overseas and I have personally seen the whole stadium standing on their feet when he came into bat. It is his humbleness, down-to-earth attitude and diligence which have earned him so many followers not some 'idol-worship' theory.

maddhan1979
July 24th, 2013, 08:31 AM
INDIA IS A FREE COUNTRY and SO YOU ARE !


U r an educated person Dr. Rajpal, please read again, what i have written, in this thread.

Yes, we all are free and for generations, we have been free and we have been sacrificing our own brothers, sisters, families for generations in the name of this freedom.

Do u not know, how in past many Jat clans had to kill their own girl child as soon as she was born because these people were warriors and they had to go and fight the invading armies and they did not know any thing about tomorrow. As often in ancient Bharat these men were massacred as they were fighting in the name of religion and were fighting in small groups. All that was left of these people were their families in form of women, girls, kids and old people.
What happened to these left over families was again a very good thing as they were often taken as slaves to be sold off or exploited by the people who never went to fight.

Who would kill their own child? Could u not image the situation that our ancestors went through? Just in the name of some religion that spread "blood" all across the place. Same people same tribes same family names killing each other in the name of different religions?

I hope this memory makes u happy and say aloud " WE R FREE".

maddhan1979
July 24th, 2013, 08:33 AM
U r an educated person Dr. Rajpal, please read again, what i have written, in this thread.

Yes, we all are free and for generations, we have been free and we have been sacrificing our own brothers, sisters, families for generations in the name of this freedom.

Do u not know, how in past many Jat clans had to kill their own girl child as soon as she was born because these people were warriors and they had to go and fight the invading armies and they did not know any thing about tomorrow. As often in ancient Bharat these men were massacred as they were fighting in the name of religion and were fighting in small groups. All that was left of these people were their families in form of women, girls, kids and old people.
What happened to these left over families was again a very good thing as they were often taken as slaves to be sold off or exploited by the people who never went to fight.

Who would kill their own child? Could u not image the situation that out ancestors went through? Just in the name of some religion that spread "blood" all across the place. Same people same tribes same family names killing each other in the name of different religions?

I hope this memory makes u happy and say aloud " WE R FREE".


The more worst case was that of "Sati" tradition that happened in Rajasthan and other north western areas of the country.

DrRajpalSingh
July 24th, 2013, 09:24 AM
U r an educated person Dr. Rajpal, please read again, what i have written, in this thread.

Yes, we all are free and for generations, we have been free and we have been sacrificing our own brothers, sisters, families for generations in the name of this freedom.

Do u not know, how in past many Jat clans had to kill their own girl child as soon as she was born because these people were warriors and they had to go and fight the invading armies and they did not know any thing about tomorrow. As often in ancient Bharat these men were massacred as they were fighting in the name of religion and were fighting in small groups. All that was left of these people were their families in form of women, girls, kids and old people.
What happened to these left over families was again a very good thing as they were often taken as slaves to be sold off or exploited by the people who never went to fight.

Who would kill their own child? Could u not image the situation that our ancestors went through? Just in the name of some religion that spread "blood" all across the place. Same people same tribes same family names killing each other in the name of different religions?

I hope this memory makes u happy and say aloud " WE R FREE".

Friend,

This section pertains to history section not general discussion, therefore, kindly contribute your views on specific issues in concrete manner not in the manner of sweeping statements.

If you could, kindly try to follow the theme specified in the title of the thread please.

Thanks

DrRajpalSingh
July 24th, 2013, 09:26 AM
The more worst case was that of "Sati" tradition that happened in Rajasthan and other north western areas of the country.

What it had to do with the British imperialism......... !!!!!

maddhan1979
July 24th, 2013, 07:10 PM
I can only laugh at this analogy. This guy gets equal respect when travelling overseas and I have personally seen the whole stadium standing on their feet when he came into bat. It is his humbleness, down-to-earth attitude and diligence which have earned him so many followers not some 'idol-worship' theory.

Good, at least u had a laugh. I wish u best of luck for future laughs, keeps a person healthy.

malikdeepak1
July 24th, 2013, 07:38 PM
Good, at least u had a laugh. I wish u best of luck for future laughs, keeps a person healthy.

maddhan1979,

Sachin is the only sports person in India, after Lt. Dhyanchand, who has given his entire life to a sport and survived with dignity. You may call me a cricket fan, but as a sports person, he has done more than any other sports person (except Dhyanchand) in this country and won laurels for the country. Being humble, others can only think of emulating him. Rest, everyone has their own opinion. :)

DrRajpalSingh
July 25th, 2013, 07:36 PM
Rajpal ji, I didn't read the Chheluram thread but since you are asking for opinions, here is mine. I think India would have been better off if the Britishers ruled for another couple of decades. I am sure they would have done better job than our present day politicians.

Friend,

I beg to differ with you and submit my views on your stipulation as under for your kind perusal please:

In historical studies, comparisons are made among only contemporaries. Hence, the comparison between the freedom fighters and the founding fathers of the Indian nation in early years of freedom and the leaders of over six decades later does not sound valid. Moreover, we must remember the wealth drain theory adopted by the British in India treating it as a colony. Had they stayed for more time they would have made India poorer with each passing day.

Moreover, we have to keep in mind why did the british free India. In fact their policy of 'divide and rule' had pushed the country in a state of anarchy and chaos and even the ever loyal Indian Navy and Air Force showed signs of patriotism. They had no means to bring more military recruited from Britain and Europe because of their weak financial position after the World War II. The INA trials in the Red Fort further spoiled the position of the imperialists and a wave of anger among all sections of the society swept against them.

In other words, if we take an objective view of the conditions in 1947 when riot flames were engulfing the country, bureaucracy and military stood divided on religious lines and lawlessness caused by varying declarations made by the British regarding two nation theory, the position granted to the 600 odd native states either join India or Pakistan or to remain free from both of them, etc are some of the features that plunged the country in the state of anarchy. These factors in addition to some others led the British to their idea to leave India safe and sound at the earliest possible. That is what caused them preponement of the earlier declared date of granting freedom from June 1948 to 15th August 1947. So they left immediately.

All these facts do not seem to indicate that had British stayed here for some more decades, they could have done better than our leaders did accomplish to make the truncated India a great country even in a very short span of time after the attainment of freedom. Their achievements during first two three years are indeed second to none.

Moreover, there is no place for 'ifs' and 'buts' in history because whatever happened in the past is history and the British were made to go compelled by the circumstances beyond their control.

That is all !!

Thanks.

DrRajpalSingh
November 8th, 2013, 08:42 PM
The British imperialists had indirectly helped in rise of Indian awakening or renaissance as the exploitation and wealth drain led the English knowing Indians to lead the social and cultural emancipation movements which ultimately merged with Freedom movement in the long run.

The means of transport and communication like development of railways and roads, the coming of press and news papers, telegraphs, introduction of English as medium of education etc. indirectly helped growth of nationalism among the Indian people.

These and many other measures introduced by the British to strengthen their Indian Empire, by default came handy to Indian patriots to beat their expoliters with their own stick.

Thanks

urmiladuhan
November 8th, 2013, 09:24 PM
U r an educated person Dr. Rajpal, please read again, what i have written, in this thread.

Yes, we all are free and for generations, we have been free and we have been sacrificing our own brothers, sisters, families for generations in the name of this freedom.

Do u not know, how in past many Jat clans had to kill their own girl child as soon as she was born because these people were warriors and they had to go and fight the invading armies and they did not know any thing about tomorrow. As often in ancient Bharat these men were massacred as they were fighting in the name of religion and were fighting in small groups. All that was left of these people were their families in form of women, girls, kids and old people.
What happened to these left over families was again a very good thing as they were often taken as slaves to be sold off or exploited by the people who never went to fight.

Who would kill their own child? Could u not image the situation that our ancestors went through? Just in the name of some religion that spread "blood" all across the place. Same people same tribes same family names killing each other in the name of different religions?

I hope this memory makes u happy and say aloud " WE R FREE".

Selectively killing GIRL child (and not baby boy)! Does it not indicate a cultural phenomenon? In my opinion, no amount of argument can absolve people of killing children, irrespective of their sex.

rkumar
November 8th, 2013, 11:19 PM
Before answering the merits of British Raj, one should ask what all options we Indians had at the time? Were we better off with Mughals and small kings ruling us? What all did we achieve during Mughal rule ? When Europe was busy making new scientific discoveries every week, Mughals were busy constructing Mahals and Forts. Fact of the matter is that our society was decaying internally for quite some time. Our rulers had no idea what all was happening in rest of the world and how that was going to affect us. India hardly had a navy. We hardly made modern weapons to fight the invaders. Foreign rule was bound to happen. Thank God British ruled India and not Spanish or Portuguese or Dutch. WE may have lost something, but we gained a lot. WE rediscovered India and we are still a majority Hindu nation. Compare us with other countries in the region who were not ruled by outsiders. We are a way better than most of them. Inspite of all invasions and foreign rules, our culture is still very distinctively Indian. We might be wearing pants and shirts, but we have not given up Dhoti, kurta and sarees. We could have been better, however, we are not that bad either.

RK^2

maddhan1979
November 9th, 2013, 02:10 AM
Selectively killing GIRL child (and not baby boy)! Does it not indicate a cultural phenomenon? In my opinion, no amount of argument can absolve people of killing children, irrespective of their sex.

The main points that i wanted to state were :

1. How people of common origins were killing each other in name of religion.
2. The kind of bad effects these events had on their life.

maddhan1979
November 9th, 2013, 02:16 AM
The main points that i wanted to state were :

1. How people of common origins were killing each other in name of religion.
2. The kind of bad effects these events had on their life.

The main point is not about any religion, the main point is about everyday people and their lives.

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 08:26 AM
Selectively killing GIRL child (and not baby boy)! Does it not indicate a cultural phenomenon? In my opinion, no amount of argument can absolve people of killing children, irrespective of their sex.

The British Imperialism in India did not absolve killing of children. Rather a ban was imposed by the Government on killing of girls and also widows in the name of Sati.

Thanks

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 08:33 AM
The main points that i wanted to state were :

1. How people of common origins were killing each other in name of religion.
2. The kind of bad effects these events had on their life.

and


The main point is not about any religion, the main point is about everyday people and their lives.

Your comments do not seem to connect the British Imperialism in any way with the issue of killing Indians one by another fellow Indian.

Kindly also let me know what is meant by "the main point is about every day people and their lives?"
Thanks

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 08:50 AM
Before answering the merits of British Raj, one should ask what all options we Indians had at the time? Were we better off with Mughals and small kings ruling us? What all did we achieve during Mughal rule ? When Europe was busy making new scientific discoveries every week, Mughals were busy constructing Mahals and Forts. Fact of the matter is that our society was decaying internally for quite some time. Our rulers had no idea what all was happening in rest of the world and how that was going to affect us. India hardly had a navy. We hardly made modern weapons to fight the invaders. Foreign rule was bound to happen. Thank God British ruled India and not Spanish or Portuguese or Dutch. WE may have lost something, but we gained a lot. WE rediscovered India and we are still a majority Hindu nation. Compare us with other countries in the region who were not ruled by outsiders. We are a way better than most of them. Inspite of all invasions and foreign rules, our culture is still very distinctively Indian. We might be wearing pants and shirts, but we have not given up Dhoti, kurta and sarees. We could have been better, however, we are not that bad either.

RK^2


Friend,

This is the balanced approach to find the real impact of British Imperialism. Kindly permit me to add the following few words:

Though your remarks about the pre-British ruling elite are true but they fail to appreciate the indigenous nature of the rulers who did not export Indian wealth. In spite of the fact that the Mughals had foreign origin but with the rule of Akbar, the Mughal lineage was completely Indianised and they ruled as Indians first and Indian last.

It may be added that one must not miss the draining of Indian wealth by the British in various forms which was to my mind real curse of the British colonialism.

Thanks and regards

maddhan1979
November 9th, 2013, 11:38 AM
and



Your comments do not seem to connect the British Imperialism in any way with the issue of killing Indians one by another fellow Indian.

Kindly also let me know what is meant by "the main point is about every day people and their lives?"
Thanks


Kindly read the thread to which i responded by the above quoted sentence.

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 11:44 AM
The British Imperialism in India did not absolve killing of children. Rather a ban was imposed by the Government on killing of girls and also widows in the name of Sati.

Thanks
The law against murder was there in India in those times too. But for conviction, somebody had to come forward and name people and the crime.

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 11:54 AM
From what I have seen and learnt about Indian history, British were in awe of the richness of Indian art and may I add, to the religious Hindu fervor of India to some extent. I use the word 'awe' because unlike some previous conquerors, the British did not physically destroy the existing Indian art such as in temples etc. Infact, they admired it, for they took away some of the most beautiful sculptures for preservation in their museums, so their people could have access to the beauty India held, and still holds. This export May anger some Indians, and I donot blame them.


The main point is not about any religion, the main point is about everyday people and their lives.

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 12:05 PM
I am a product of convent school education and western education. Are you suggesting I am anti nationalist, anti jat culture, anti local language etc? If so, you are entitled to the views and I do not mind.




These "some people" are those who are the products of convent schools where education is rendered on the pattern set by Lord their own girl child whose sole aim was to destroy our history, culture, languages, and religion, which is necessary to keep a nation slave forever. Only negative aspects of our history are taught in today's school textbooks. Not only in India, colonial empire has done havoc in other places also - African countries, Latin America, and many Asian nations. Everywhere, the local masses revolted and finally the colonial powers had to leave, except where the local population was wiped out through bullets (such as Australia, New Zealand etc.).

It is a wrong notion that modern scientific advancement in our country has been possible because of foreign rule or the English language. The economic impact of foreign rule has been phenomenal because much of our wealth was looted. During Moghul period, until Aurangzeb's rule, India's share in world trade was more than 17%. At the time of Independence, it shrank to just 2%.

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 12:22 PM
In ancient times, culture, religion, etc formed the links for trade in today´s context education, technology, logical reasoning, dialog will form the base for present and future trade.
I agree 100% to what you have written.

May I add that the rich history of India especially it's art and indigenous religions, is a major attraction not only for some Indians (more so for the educated ones, educated in the real sense) as well as for tourists/visitors from abroad. This too brings in business/trade.

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 12:35 PM
Friend,

This is the balanced approach to find the real impact of British Imperialism. Kindly permit me to add the following few words:

Though your remarks about the pre-British ruling elite are true but they fail to appreciate the indigenous nature of the rulers who did not export Indian wealth. In spite of the fact that the Mughals had foreign origin but with the rule of Akbar, the Mughal lineage was completely Indianised and they ruled as Indians first and Indian last.

It may be added that one must not miss the draining of Indian wealth by the British in various forms which was to my mind real curse of the British colonialism.

Thanks and regards

Were the Indian kings not living a lifestyle richer than the common man? From historical evidence, the lifestyle of many of these kings was very lavish. This to me is akin to exporting wealth from common Indians. I am not being judgemental of anyone, just an observation. Hope someone can contradict and possibly correct my views if they are too stern.

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 02:31 PM
We're the Indian kings not living a lifestyle richer than the common man? From historical evidence, the lifestyle of many of these kings was very lavish. This to me is akin to exporting wealth from common Indians. I am not being judgemental of anyone, just an observation. Hope someone can contradict and possibly correct my views if they are too stern.

Yes, the Indian Kings lived life in kingly style and also spent too much to live life of pump and show and splendour befitting their ranks. But the money spent on lavish life style did not drain outside the country. The British not only took away raw material and other natural resources at throw away prices to England but also brought back factory manufactured items for their colonies and sold it at very high prices. Thus the profit was taken away to England and not invested in India.

Secondly, no investment was made in the industrial sector and the medium and cottage industries of India were destroyed to facilitate the sale of the Made in Britain products.

Thirdly, This led to de-industrialisation and spread of unemployment of artisans and workers and forced them to fall upon agricultural sector as landless labourers at meagre amount of wages.

Fourthly, the expenditure incurred on administration both internal and external and the burden of hefty amount of pensions earned by the British citizens recruited by the imperial department was also paid from the Indian Exchequer.

This caused another burden on the economy of India.

Likewise there were numerous reasons like cultural, educational, economic and social which caused resentment in the social sector and deterioration in the foreign export trade of India and deterioration in the farm product.

Thanks

VirJ
November 9th, 2013, 02:32 PM
convent schools where education is rendered on the pattern set by Lord Macaulay whose sole aim was to destroy our history, culture, languages, and religion, which is necessary to keep a nation slave forever. Only negative aspects of our history are taught in today's school textbooks. Not only in India, colonial empire has done havoc in other places also - African countries, Latin America, and many Asian nations. Everywhere, the local masses revolted and finally the colonial powers had to leave, except where the local population was wiped out through bullets (such as Australia, New Zealand etc.).

It is a wrong notion that modern scientific advancement in our country has been possible because of foreign rule or the English language. The economic impact of foreign rule has been phenomenal because much of our wealth was looted. During Moghul period, until Aurangzeb's rule, India's share in world trade was more than 17%. At the time of Independence, it shrank to just 2%.

I agree to this.

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 02:42 PM
These "some people" are those who are the products of convent schools where education is rendered on the pattern set by Lord Macaulay whose sole aim was to destroy our history, culture, languages, and religion, which is necessary to keep a nation slave forever. Only negative aspects of our history are taught in today's school textbooks. Not only in India, colonial empire has done havoc in other places also - African countries, Latin America, and many Asian nations. Everywhere, the local masses revolted and finally the colonial powers had to leave, except where the local population was wiped out through bullets (such as Australia, New Zealand etc.).

It is a wrong notion that modern scientific advancement in our country has been possible because of foreign rule or the English language. The economic impact of foreign rule has been phenomenal because much of our wealth was looted. During Moghul period, until Aurangzeb's rule, India's share in world trade was more than 17%. At the time of Independence, it shrank to just 2%.

An eye opener post for those who do not understand the exploitation of India at the hands of the British colonists.

rkumar
November 9th, 2013, 08:36 PM
Agreed that India had 17% world trade share when British took over. Agreed that British took away raw material. However, were only British responsible for our trade downfall? Industrial revolution came in Europe because of their own scientific and technical innovations. Production became many times more efficient in Europe than in India. Simple laws of commerce dictated that goods be produced where cost was lower. If we look at the history of movement of industrial hubs, it has been happening all the time. production cost dictates the location and nothing else. British established more universities and medical colleges in 100 years than we Indians did in our entire history. British built more pakka roads and railway tracks than we did. Compare their real rule of 90 years with our 66 years.

Agreed that British took away our money. How about our own people parking their money in Swiss banks? Ever thought of British officers who left England and lived in circuit houses where there were hardly any civic facilities? Ever thought of Andaman Nicobar Islands ? Could we have these Islands without British ? Ever visited Ross island, How British young officers perished there? Who stopped Indians to take ships out to unknown places and put their claims? How many Delhites will like to be posted in Guhana or even in Hapur ?

RK^2

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 09:12 PM
Agreed that India had 17% world trade share when British took over. Agreed that British took away raw material. However, were only British responsible for our trade downfall? Industrial revolution came in Europe because of their own scientific and technical innovations. Production became many times more efficient in Europe than in India. Simple laws of commerce dictated that goods be produced where cost was lower. If we look at the history of movement of industrial hubs, it has been happening all the time. production cost dictates the location and nothing else. British established more universities and medical colleges in 100 years than we Indians did in our entire history. British built more pakka roads and railway tracks than we did. Compare their real rule of 90 years with our 66 years.

Agreed that British took away our money. How about our own people parking their money in Swiss banks? Ever thought of British officers who left England and lived in circuit houses where there were hardly any civic facilities? Ever thought of Andaman Nicobar Islands ? Could we have these Islands without British ? Ever visited Ross island, How British young officers perished there? Who stopped Indians to take ships out to unknown places and put their claims? How many Delhites will like to be posted in Guhana or even in Hapur ?

RK^2


And who stopped the lavishly living Indian kings from sending missions like that of Christopher Colombus? Historically, Indians, I think, have been somewhat averse to leaving their comfort zone i.e., their motherland. Others come and discover them rather than other way around. Perhaps, that is why Indian history turned out the way it turned out.

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 09:43 PM
And who stopped the lavishly living Indian kings from sending missions like that of Christopher Colombus? Historically, Indians, I think, have been somewhat averse to leaving their comfort zone i.e., their motherland. Others come and discover them rather than other way around. Perhaps, that is why Indian history turned out the way it turned out.

Perhaps you have missed Ancient Indian History Age while writing so hard worded post as to deny their role known as greater India in that period.


Kindly do not depend upon your thinking alone; read the role of Harrappan people or Cholas in particular and Buddhist missionaries in general during the age when Purtageese or Spainards stood nowhere on the pedestal of progress and then come up with your averment please.

Thanks,

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 09:51 PM
..........

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2013, 09:52 PM
Your dismissal of the ideas of my post are very welcome. Perhaps some others may find it more to their liking.



Perhaps you have missed Ancient Indian History Age while writing so hard worded post as to deny their role known as greater India in that period.


Kindly do not depend upon your thinking alone; read the role of Harrappan people or Cholas in particular and Buddhist missionaries in general during the age when Purtageese or Spainards stood nowhere on the pedestal of progress and then come up with your averment please.

Thanks,

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 10:11 PM
Agreed that India had 17% world trade share when British took over. Agreed that British took away raw material. However, were only British responsible for our trade downfall? Industrial revolution came in Europe because of their own scientific and technical innovations. Production became many times more efficient in Europe than in India. Simple laws of commerce dictated that goods be produced where cost was lower. If we look at the history of movement of industrial hubs, it has been happening all the time. production cost dictates the location and nothing else. British established more universities and medical colleges in 100 years than we Indians did in our entire history. British built more pakka roads and railway tracks than we did. Compare their real rule of 90 years with our 66 years.

Agreed that British took away our money. How about our own people parking their money in Swiss banks? Ever thought of British officers who left England and lived in circuit houses where there were hardly any civic facilities? Ever thought of Andaman Nicobar Islands ? Could we have these Islands without British ? Ever visited Ross island, How British young officers perished there? Who stopped Indians to take ships out to unknown places and put their claims? How many Delhites will like to be posted in Guhana or even in Hapur ?

RK^2

Friend,

How many colleges and Universities were established by the British Crown in India till 1947 and what is their number today?

How many factories and Big, medium or small industries were established by the British Government in India till 1947 and what is their number today?

Coming to provision of Railway and Road transport, one cannot fail to understand that this was done not for welfare of the Indians but for using these facilities to serve their colonial interests like ensuring smooth flow of Indian Raw Material to ports and also making provision for easy transportation of military to quell the trouble, if any in vast stretch of Indian occupied empire !

The British colonial system sucked the economic and cultural fabric of the nation and showed and nourished the seeds of communalism which ultimately led to partition of India. For understanding this phenomenon kindly go through records of the Bengal Asiatic Society or the foundation of the Muslim League in 1906 with provision of separate representation of Hindus and Muslims in local self bodies provided by Government of India Act 1909. Divide and rule policy and this proportional representation continued to be widened subsequently till the British did what they wanted, the tearing off of India in three parts before granting Independence in 1948.

Not to speak of visiting, not everyone has heard the name of Ross Islands.

But it is certain that it was a bane for the Indians to be ruled by the British. The Britishers suffered at the places mentioned by you because they were always in quest of looting natural resources and wealth wherever they could lay their hands.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati has said in this regard:

VIDESHI ACCHHI SE ACHHI SARKAR SE SWADESHI BURI SE BURI SARKAR ACHHI HOTI HAI !!

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2013, 10:15 PM
Your dismissal of the ideas of my post are very welcome. Perhaps some others may find it more to their liking.

Since history cannot be changed with one's wishful thinking [whosoever he or she may be] and also that I have just disagreed with your thinking and provided you reference material to update what you have posted; now it is up to you to accept it or not.

Nonetheless, Hope sustains the world.

Thanks

rkumar
November 9th, 2013, 10:41 PM
Friend,

How many colleges and Universities were established by the British Crown in India till 1947 and what is their number today?

How many factories and Big, medium or small industries were established by the British Government in India till 1947 and what is their number today?

Coming to provision of Railway and Road transport, one cannot fail to understand that this was done not for welfare of the Indians but for using these facilities to serve their colonial interests like ensuring smooth flow of Indian Raw Material to ports and also making provision for easy transportation of military to quell the trouble, if any in vast stretch of Indian occupied empire !

The British colonial system sucked the economic and cultural fabric of the nation and showed and nourished the seeds of communalism which ultimately led to partition of India. For understanding this phenomenon kindly go through records of the Bengal Asiatic Society or the foundation of the Muslim League in 1906 with provision of separate representation of Hindus and Muslims in local self bodies provided by Government of India Act 1909. Divide and rule policy and this proportional representation continued to be widened subsequently till the British did what they wanted, the tearing off of India in three parts before granting Independence in 1948.

Not to speak of visiting, not everyone has heard the name of Ross Islands.

But it is certain that it was a bane for the Indians to be ruled by the British. The Britishers suffered at the places mentioned by you because they were always in quest of looting natural resources and wealth wherever they could lay their hands.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati has said in this regard:

VIDESHI ACCHHI SE ACHHI SARKAR SE SWADESHI BURI SE BURI SARKAR ACHHI HOTI HAI !!

We are talking same thing just with one difference. You are explaining the symptoms and I am trying to explain the underlying disease and its pathology. Let us forget about British, as if they never came to India. Let us go back to 1857 and try to trace the future course India would have taken. What do you think India of today would have been? Please try to paint a realistic picture of today's India. In my view we would have been at least 500 small countries like Singapore fighting with each other like Somalia and Ethiopia. You are talking of Buddhists era when people were travelling from India to all parts of world. Yes they were and thats why India was very strong in those days. Were we still travelling around the globe during Prithvi Raj Chauhan's period? Did our rulers have intelligence when Afghan Lashkars started from Ghazni to attack them? How come we had to fight them all on our own territories in Panipat and not in Kandhar? Fate of India can not be understood unless we understand the society of the time. Lessons of the history are not in story telling but in understand the causes of that story. Will you like to tell us the name of any university or college established by Mughals or even Prithvi Raj Chauhan ? Any university established by Raja Man Singh of Amber? Any scientist patronized by Akbar or Jahangir? Name me one significant technical innovation made by Indians from 1000 AD to 1857 AD. We can't be singing the Maurya period songs for ever. Could one mount the navigational tools of Sawai Jai Singh on a ship and go all over the globe? Could sailors rely on his solar clocks on high seas when it was cloudy?

RK^2

RK^2

rkumar
November 9th, 2013, 10:57 PM
I am a product of convent school education and western education. Are you suggesting I am anti nationalist, anti jat culture, anti local language etc? If so, you are entitled to the views and I do not mind.

Fact of the matter is that all nationalists were educated in modern schools and not in Madarsa or Ashrams of some Sadhus. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Subhash, Jinnah.... and 100s of them got their education in most modern schools. I can not think of even one prominent nationalist who was educated in the ashram of some pundit in Kashi or Haridwar.

RK^2

rkumar
November 9th, 2013, 11:03 PM
From what I have seen and learnt about Indian history, British were in awe of the richness of Indian art and may I add, to the religious Hindu fervor of India to some extent. I use the word 'awe' because unlike some previous conquerors, the British did not physically destroy the existing Indian art such as in temples etc. Infact, they admired it, for they took away some of the most beautiful sculptures for preservation in their museums, so their people could have access to the beauty India held, and still holds. This export May anger some Indians, and I donot blame them.

Its British who established institutions like Archaeological Survey of India who are responsible for preservation of our monuments. It was a British officer who saw Taj Mahal surrounded by vagitation and who protected it. In fact Ashoka the great was almost lost and only western historians brought his greatness to limelight.

RK^2

VirJ
November 10th, 2013, 08:37 AM
Friends,

Some people believe it to be a boon whereas others believe it to be bane. So There is no unanimity on the role of the Imperialist occupation of India by the British which started with the battle of Plassey fought in 1757 AD and lasted in 1947 AD. The candid views/opinions of the participants on this contentious issue are invited.

Thanks.

An interesting Topic based on hypothesis. Some people do believe that English rule was good for India. The reason they often give (and all these arguments are taught in English books) are :

1. Brit made India a political entity.
2. They brought science to India. They brought Rails, Roads and Industries.
3. They brought English language and western education.
4. They civilised Indians (claimed by English and taught in the text books prescribed by them).

People argue that if there would have been no English Raj in India, India would have still have been a country of snake charmers. Poverty would have been worse than Africa. Leave these alone there wouldn't have been any such country as India.


Lets have a look at some of the arguments one by one:

Education & Poverty :
In their own words (Lord Macaulay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Babington_Macaulay%2C_Lord_Macaulay)) :
I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

and it was then they implemented their own education system. The objective was to train us to be slaves and break our confidence, make us believe that Britishers are superior. They started their own convent school which were religious school run by nuns and priests who objective was to destroy our culture and religion. In convent schools speaking in Hindi was a punishable offense and is still in some of them. Even till now some Indians proudly claim that their son/daughter are convent school educated. So that was the time when we had no poor, no beggar. Compare this to when they left us. India was a country of beggars.

Infrastructure :
There is no doubt that they build all this infrastructure for their own needs not for our development. They build these roads and rails to effectively travel across India for better administration and to extend their own rule. There are some who argue that there would be no rail till now if there was no British Raj. It is hard to believe as there are other countries like Iran where there was no British Raj and who was culturally similar to us and look at them now they are considered an Industrial Nation now. There was no British rule in China and it was way behind us in 1940s and look at them now. They have one of the fastest rail in the world.

No entity by the name of India :
Well this is true that there might not have been a nation by the name of India. But that also doesn't mean that there would have been 1000s small nations. The boundary of India in the past kept changing. But that was same for everyone else? Historically there was no nation as Iran and Afghanistan. After the fall of Persian empire and Ottoman empire countries reorganised themselves and came up with new entities. Its hypothetical but culturally we are similar to North Pakistani and north west India and North Pakistan could have been one country. There wouldn't have been any partition based on religion. We wouldn't have lost that many people in partition. There probably wouldn't have been a border dispute with China. This region is one of the most fertile in the world and it could have been one of the richest even now.

Muslim Rule :
Some argue we might still have been ruled by Mughals. Its hard to believe as Mughals were very weak by 18th century and in Sikhs and Marathas were stronger.

But perhaps before we start this debate we need to understand the basic first that it was a foreign rule and we were no more than slave. If you were given two options live in Golden palace and be a slave for ever or live in open fields with not enough to eat I am sure all of us with little self respect with choose the latter. Why did Bhagat Singh laid his life. Just to breathe in "free air". Why did Netaji struggled and made an army against English raj? Because he couldn't see our motherland under Foreign Rule. It was a time when we treated like second class citizens in our own country. We couldn't enter their settlements , couldn't travel in first class. couldn't enter their pubs, couldn't be employed to highest ranks in administration, military and any other services. It was a time when in courts a white men's statement was worth more than all of Indians together.

I can happily live under congress goons for another 56 years but not a single minute as a slave under foreign rule.

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2013, 08:47 AM
Its British who established institutions like Archaeological Survey of India who are responsible for preservation of our monuments. It was a British officer who saw Taj Mahal surrounded by vagitation and who protected it. In fact Ashoka the great was almost lost and only western historians brought his greatness to limelight.

RK^2

Friend,

It is true.

Thanks and regards

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2013, 08:53 AM
Fact of the matter is that all nationalists were educated in modern schools and not in Madarsa or Ashrams of some Sadhus. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Subhash, Jinnah.... and 100s of them got their education in most modern schools. I can not think of even one prominent nationalist who was educated in the ashram of some pundit in Kashi or Haridwar.

RK^2

Friend,

Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Vivekanand neither attended a Public School run by the British and nor were less nationalist to anyone listed above.

This was so because 'the modern schools' run by the British Government aid were nurseries opened to teach patriotism or nationalism to Indians. It was by default that the above quoted persons and many more grew up nationalists by default on account of their own likings and dislike of the foreign rule.

Thanks and regards,

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2013, 09:25 AM
We are talking same thing just with one difference. You are explaining the symptoms and I am trying to explain the underlying disease and its pathology. Let us forget about British, as if they never came to India. Let us go back to 1857 and try to trace the future course India would have taken. What do you think India of today would have been? Please try to paint a realistic picture of today's India. In my view we would have been at least 500 small countries like Singapore fighting with each other like Somalia and Ethiopia. ...................

RK^2

Friend,

Yes, there had ushered in stagnation in Indian life by the time of advent of 18th century and India failed to develop or adopt modern scientific means to keep pace with the outside world. This aspect needs discussion separately in another post. Coming to first para of your post about the benevolence of the British to Unite India, I may be permitted to say :

Yes , they left no stone unturned to leave behind in India utter chaos and worse than Singapore, Somalia or Ethopia like scenario in 1947. Kindly see the then prevalent condition of political disunity in India; you would find it was worse than when the British entered India.

To understand the impact of colonisation of India by the British there could be no better example than to see that their policy was to 'divide and rule' and when this policy failed to fulfil their dream, they 'divided the India and quit' as the Government of India Act 1947 envisaged not only division of India in East Pakistan [now Bangladesh], West Pakistan [now Pakistan], India and right bestowed upon 600 odd native rulers [nawas, rajas and petty chiefs known as native rulers] either to remain independent from both India and Pakistan or declare their merger with India or Pakistan.

This mischievous provision lays bare the British intentions to leave India a divided house for ever. Thanks God, Sardar Patel and his team saw through this nefarious design earlier than late and got signed documents of accession from the rulers lying within the territorial jurisdiction of modern India in time except in the case of Junagarh, Hyderabad and J and K.

The first two states were made to merge by timely use of forces. Since then, the issue of J and K accession remains thorn in Indian flesh even today.
The unity of India was ensured by blood and sweat of numerous martyrs in these military actions and many more lives were lost due to communal frenzy let loose across both sides of Indian and Pakistan frontiers leading to migration of millions of people loosing their honour, property and wealth.

This was the sorry state of affairs in Indian political integration left behind the British in 1947 !

Thanks,

rkumar
November 10th, 2013, 08:47 PM
on a lighter note; how can we call British rule as foreign if all Europeans migrated from India in past ? How about if some Indian diaspora rules India in 3011 AD ? Will that be called foreign rule ?

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2013, 09:30 PM
on a lighter note; how can we call British rule as foreign if all Europeans migrated from India in past ? How about if some Indian diaspora rules India in 3011 AD ? Will that be called foreign rule ?

RK^2

Friend,

On a serious note, how one can equate the two !

Thanks and regards,

maddhan1979
February 28th, 2014, 09:48 PM
Its British who established institutions like Archaeological Survey of India who are responsible for preservation of our monuments. It was a British officer who saw Taj Mahal surrounded by vagitation and who protected it. In fact Ashoka the great was almost lost and only western historians brought his greatness to limelight.

RK^2


Rightly said. If British were not in India, things would have been worse and this place would again be another war torn nation, but again, i see dark ages coming back to India, where rule of mob, criminals, religious entities, nepotismic people, half educated people, semi educated people, people with false nationalistic thoughts and agendas that keep India away from the world, are coming to political power through propaganda, democratic power of sentimentally driven, uneducated, "do as u wish" crowd and criminals.

maddhan1979
February 28th, 2014, 10:00 PM
Friend,

Yes, there had ushered in stagnation in Indian life by the time of advent of 18th century and India failed to develop or adopt modern scientific means to keep pace with the outside world. This aspect needs discussion separately in another post. Coming to first para of your post about the benevolence of the British to Unite India, I may be permitted to say :

Yes , they left no stone unturned to leave behind in India utter chaos and worse than Singapore, Somalia or Ethopia like scenario in 1947. Kindly see the then prevalent condition of political disunity in India; you would find it was worse than when the British entered India.

To understand the impact of colonisation of India by the British there could be no better example than to see that their policy was to 'divide and rule' and when this policy failed to fulfil their dream, they 'divided the India and quit' as the Government of India Act 1947 envisaged not only division of India in East Pakistan [now Bangladesh], West Pakistan [now Pakistan], India and right bestowed upon 600 odd native rulers [nawas, rajas and petty chiefs known as native rulers] either to remain independent from both India and Pakistan or declare their merger with India or Pakistan.

This mischievous provision lays bare the British intentions to leave India a divided house for ever. Thanks God, Sardar Patel and his team saw through this nefarious design earlier than late and got signed documents of accession from the rulers lying within the territorial jurisdiction of modern India in time except in the case of Junagarh, Hyderabad and J and K.

The first two states were made to merge by timely use of forces. Since then, the issue of J and K accession remains thorn in Indian flesh even today.
The unity of India was ensured by blood and sweat of numerous martyrs in these military actions and many more lives were lost due to communal frenzy let loose across both sides of Indian and Pakistan frontiers leading to migration of millions of people loosing their honour, property and wealth.

This was the sorry state of affairs in Indian political integration left behind the British in 1947 !

Thanks,

The entire concept of "divide and rule" seems crap. Dr.Rajpal Just imagine that you go and start living in Somaliya today, how will u feel? or u go and start living in a place in Afghanistan where strong religious forces control and influence your life, how will u feel?

British came to India after they have gone through religious dark ages of Europe, their society had gone through religious dark ages and they were progressing towards science and other fields of open life. India at that time and even now is controlled by society based, unverifiable, mythological gods and goddesses that hold more value than human lives. When British arrived in India they were facing a crowd of people, who were still living many hundreds of years behind them in terms of thought and scientific progression. These were the crowd of people who were living under more than 500 feudal kings. These were the people who were fighting wars after wars in the name of religion, invaders, feudal kings and so on.

The concept of modern schooling, railway system and lot of other systems come from British, had they not been here, we would still have been fighting religious wars, feudal wars and so on.

I think there are always two thoughts in such issues, one propagated by blind nationalistic people and other thought of people who really live the life. Blind nationalism will always show u the "omnipresent greatness of things around you in life, even if leads you to starvation and fights in the name of religion and other identities. Such entities will never let people see the goodness of other identities, things and thoughts that can improve life beyond the boundaries of their own mental existence"

maddhan1979
February 28th, 2014, 10:21 PM
The entire concept of "divide and rule" seems crap. Dr.Rajpal Just imagine that you go and start living in Somaliya today, how will u feel? or u go and start living in a place in Afghanistan where strong religious forces control and influence your life, how will u feel?

British came to India after they have gone through religious dark ages of Europe. When British came to India, their society had gone through religious dark ages and they were progressing towards science and other fields of open life. India at that time and even now is controlled by unverifiable, mythological gods and goddesses that hold more value than human lives. When British arrived in India they were facing a crowd of people, who were still living many hundreds of years behind them interms of thought and scientific progression. These were the crowd of people who were living under more than 500 feudal kings. These were the people who were fighting wars after wars in the name of religion, invaders, feudal kings and so on.

The concept of modern schooling, railway system and lot of other systems come from British, had they not been here, we would still have been fighting religious wars, feudal wars and so on.

I think there are always two thoughts in such issues, one propagated by blind nationalistic people and other thought of people who really live the life. Blind nationalism will always show u the "omnipresent greatness of things around you in life, even if leads you to starvation and fights in the name of religion and other identities. Such entities will never let people see the goodness of other identities, things and thoughts that can improve life beyond the boundaries of their own mental existence"

The greatest sufferers of these continuous wars were the farmers and soldiers, who families are still paying the price of their ancestors hardships.

maddhan1979
February 28th, 2014, 10:23 PM
The greatest sufferers of these continuous wars were the farmers and soldiers, who families are still paying the price of their ancestors hardships.


These were the people who were doing farming at a time when farming was totally dependent on Nature and there was no given duration, time, months, years of wars.

maddhan1979
February 28th, 2014, 10:59 PM
The entire concept of "divide and rule" seems crap. Dr.Rajpal Just imagine that you go and start living in Somaliya today, how will u feel? or u go and start living in a place in Afghanistan where strong religious forces control and influence your life, how will u feel?

British came to India after they have gone through religious dark ages of Europe, their society had gone through religious dark ages and they were progressing towards science and other fields of open life. India at that time and even now is controlled by unverifiable, mythological gods and goddesses that hold more value than human lives. When British arrived in India they were facing a crowd of people, who were still living many hundreds of years behind them interms of thought and scientific progression. These were the crowd of people who were living under more than 500 feudal kings. These were the people who were fighting wars after wars in the name of religion, invaders, feudal kings and so on.

The concept of modern schooling, railway system and lot of other systems come from British, had they not been here, we would still have been fighting religious wars, feudal wars and so on.

I think there are always two thoughts in such issues, one propagated by blind nationalistic people and other thought of people who really live the life. Blind nationalism will always show u the "omnipresent greatness of things around you in life, even if leads you to starvation and fights in the name of religion and other identities. Such entities will never let people see the goodness of other identities, things and thoughts that can improve life beyond the boundaries of their own mental existence"


When British came to India, there were hundreds of kingdoms and when they left India, there were hundreds of kingdoms, so where does the concept of "Divide and Rule" exists?

maddhan1979
March 1st, 2014, 04:40 AM
When British came to India, there were hundreds of kingdoms and when they left India, there were hundreds of kingdoms, so where does the concept of "Divide and Rule" exists?


The entire concept of India exists on the principle of "Unity in Diversity", if people can not accept diversity and differences and try to enforce their ideologies and thoughts on other people and their families then they can not accept and respect unity.

It is essential for people of India to understand the differences and respect the differences and not force their ideologies and thoughts on other people through nationalistic propaganda. Why differences? because, the history, culture, contribution of different communities throughout India has been totally different.

maddhan1979
March 1st, 2014, 08:06 AM
Today's world is a global world we should not dwell of false nationalism.

DrRajpalSingh
March 2nd, 2014, 09:06 AM
The entire concept of India exists on the principle of "Unity in Diversity", if people can not accept diversity and differences and try to enforce their ideologies and thoughts on other people and their families then they can not accept and respect unity.

It is essential for people of India to understand the differences and respect the differences and not force their ideologies and thoughts on other people through nationalistic propaganda. Why differences? because, the history, culture, contribution of different communities throughout India has been totally different.

Rightly said, the beauty of India lies in : Unity in diversity; and, diversity in Unity !!!

DrRajpalSingh
March 2nd, 2014, 09:09 AM
Today's world is a global world ............

Ages old gospel of Indian civilisation and culture preaches :

Vasudeva kutumbkam i.e. This Globe is my Family.

But there is no dearth of people in the world who preach narrow mindedness and divisions based on petty differences.

maddhan1979
March 2nd, 2014, 09:54 AM
Rightly said, the beauty of India lies in : Unity in diversity; and, diversity in Unity !!!


The recent attacks on "North Eastern People of India" or "People of North East in Delhi", might be a reflection of such intolerance to different ways of life, thoughts and people.

This is really bad example in terms of maintaining richness of Indian diversity.

maddhan1979
March 2nd, 2014, 10:33 AM
Ages old gospel of Indian civilisation and culture preaches :

Vasudeva kutumbkam i.e. This Globe is my Family.




What is this crap? Some kind of lyniching or trapping religious organization for Indians/ NRI's located abroad?

DrRajpalSingh
March 2nd, 2014, 01:00 PM
What is this crap? Some kind of lyniching or trapping religious organization for Indians/ NRI's located abroad?

This is essence and life line of Indian Culture which has been all mankind embracing without caring for narrow dividing lines of nations and states !!!

maddhan1979
March 2nd, 2014, 01:02 PM
This is life line of Indian Culture which has been all mankind embracing without caring for narrow dividing lines of nations and states !!!

Life line of Indian culture lies in the hands of people working in fields, offices, roads and any other work everywhere else.

DrRajpalSingh
March 2nd, 2014, 01:05 PM
It seems we have lost the theme of the thread;

hence,

we must re-engage our attention to the same and

concentrate our posts only on the topic please.

krishdel
March 3rd, 2014, 03:54 PM
There can be con and pros of any rule.
I think for Jat Community british rules was helpful
1. They gave us the status of Martial Community.
2.We would never get education if British would not have come to India.
3.Education in Haryana & Rajasthan was most restricted to Bania & Brahmin.
4.Please tell me in any village how many Jats were educated before 100 years.
5. Thanks to British that they recruited our elders in Army and gave them basic education.

In earlier times Bania & Brahimins always kept JATS away from Education.



It seems we have lost the theme of the thread;

hence,

we must re-engage our attention to the same and

concentrate our posts only on the topic please.

DrRajpalSingh
March 5th, 2014, 08:42 AM
There can be con and pros of any rule.
I think for Jat Community british rules was helpful
1. They gave us the status of Martial Community.
2.We would never get education if British would not have come to India.
3.Education in Haryana & Rajasthan was most restricted to Bania & Brahmin.
4.Please tell me in any village how many Jats were educated before 100 years.
5. Thanks to British that they recruited our elders in Army and gave them basic education.

In earlier times Bania & Brahimins always kept JATS away from Education.

You have touched a good number of points to praise the positive impacts of the British rule on the Jats, but, friend every issue raised by you is very complex and needs thread bare separate reading.

For example, no doubt the modern [western] education system was introduced by the British but to say that it was aimed at benefiting the Jats only would be oversimplifying the facts about the imperialistic designs and causes that forced them to implement it {one reason was to produce white colour clerical job seekers only}.

In fact, the British colonialism and imperialistic policies were made and implemented to benefit the British and whatever indirect benefits occurred to Indians were their by-product not their benevolence to Indians or India.

maddhan1979
March 8th, 2014, 06:32 PM
The British Imperialism in India did not absolve killing of children. Rather a ban was imposed by the Government on killing of girls and also widows in the name of Sati.

Thanks


British did lot of things to improve and come over the social ailments of the society and interestingly they were good judge of people and their characteristics, one of the main reasons for that was because they had already gone through the dark ages of religion and its related atrocities. Whereas at the same time/age religion had been main reason of problems related with Indian subcontinent. People were fighting wars in the name of religion for a long time. So, they could see, exactly, what was happening, there was one section of society, who were controlling religion and having bad effects on the society because of it. Whereas there were common people, who were framers, traders, workers and so on, who were just trying to earn their daily bread in war torn time.

DrRajpalSingh
March 9th, 2014, 09:32 AM
British did lot of things to improve and come over the social ailments of the society and interestingly they were good judge of people and their characteristics, one of the main reasons for that was because they had already gone through the dark ages of religion and its related atrocities. Whereas at the same time/age religion had been main reason of problems related with Indian subcontinent. People were fighting wars in the name of religion for a long time. So, they could see, exactly, what was happening, there was one section of society, who were controlling religion and having bad effects on the society because of it. Whereas there were common people, who were framers, traders, workers and so on, who were just trying to earn their daily bread in war torn time.

Friend,

There was neither religious group controlling in the Indian society nor religious wars going in India in those days as portrayed by you; just political instability caused by scrumble for power among elite groups gradually paved way for the British.

Thanks.

DrRajpalSingh
March 19th, 2014, 04:09 PM
Though the British started varaious institutions and services to facilitate easy flow of their trade and commerce as well as to keep a strong flow of armed forces yet the British domination led to political integration of the country indirectly because the administration in British dominion and native states followed almost same pattern as regards to bureaucracy, judiciary, post and telegraph, education to certain level, railway and military services. This old edifice proved handy after the country attained freedom from the British and integration of princely native states were integreted into Union of India !

swaich
March 19th, 2014, 06:15 PM
I feel its a very mentally stimulating, but ultimately futile exercise to envision 'what-if' scenarios like the one we are discussing here. There are multiple ways to look at British rule in India and many have mentioned there are positives and negatives galore.

But the biggest political 'gift' of colonialism to India is its current boundary. The British made those boundaries as a supreme power and we are the ones facing the consequences. China doesn't recognize McMahon line; Afghanistan doesnt agree with the Durand line and we are still fighting with Pakistan over the Radcliffe line. Moreover, even the internal boundaries i.e. of states and provinces proved quite a problem. The Brits lumped them together based on either princely rulers or their own domains and seldom cared for linguistic or ethnic factors. But the latter have forced independent India to repeatedly re-organize state boundaries, sometime after a ong drawn process that proved painful for everyone involved.

DrRajpalSingh
March 19th, 2014, 06:43 PM
I feel its a very mentally stimulating, but ultimately futile exercise to envision 'what-if' scenarios like the one we are discussing here. There are multiple ways to look at British rule in India and many have mentioned there are positives and negatives galore.

But the biggest political 'gift' of colonialism to India is its current boundary. The British made those boundaries as a supreme power and we are the ones facing the consequences. China doesn't recognize McMahon line; Afghanistan doesnt agree with the Durand line and we are still fighting with Pakistan over the Radcliffe line. Moreover, even the internal boundaries i.e. of states and provinces proved quite a problem. The Brits lumped them together based on either princely rulers or their own domains and seldom cared for linguistic or ethnic factors. But the latter have forced independent India to repeatedly re-organize state boundaries, sometime after a ong drawn process that proved painful for everyone involved.

Yes, a few problems remain to be settled as regards international boundaries.

But we cannot blame the British for the present day provincial boundaries and reorganisation of states on linguistic basis because prior to implementation of States reorganisation Act 1956, the question of linguistic based states was little heard in the British times. It was the new problem created by us after attainment of independence from the British.

swaich
March 19th, 2014, 10:54 PM
Yes, a few problems remain to be settled as regards international boundaries.

But we cannot blame the British for the present day provincial boundaries and reorganisation of states on linguistic basis because prior to implementation of States reorganisation Act 1956, the question of linguistic based states was little heard in the British times. It was the new problem created by us after attainment of independence from the British.

Agree, my intention wasn't to blame and the word would be a little extreme. But I'd say the genesis of many current state boundary problems lies in how the British divided the states without accounting for the factors other than the ease of their governance. If not, then we wouldn't have required reorganization of states to account for ethnic, linguistic and other differences.

DrRajpalSingh
March 20th, 2014, 08:00 AM
Agree, my intention wasn't to blame and the word would be a little extreme. But I'd say the genesis of many current state boundary problems lies in how the British divided the states without accounting for the factors other than the ease of their governance. If not, then we wouldn't have required reorganization of states to account for ethnic, linguistic and other differences.

I do not mean that you 'blamed' anyone. The uneven size of the prevalent provinces and presidencies, division of the country into three parts with two Independent countries and 600 odd native rulers states was the political map of India on 14-15th August, 1947. The problem of organising administrative units into provinces/states got further complicated on how to merge 562 native states in the Indian Union.

To achieve the complete integration goal for the Indian Union, initially, Four categories of states were envisioned when the country became free.

Then,on the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission Report in 1956, the two categories came into form i.e. Union Territories and State.

This situation continues even today with minor adjustments made now and then.

bsbana
March 21st, 2014, 11:09 AM
1. Poverty :- I think that main reason behind poverty of India is not British Raj but very high population growth specially in Gangatic valley regions.
2. Partition :- British alone can't be blamed for partition of India, Middle and Upper class Muslims(specially aristocratic Muslims) feared that they couldn't dominate India in a democratic setup like they did in Mughal India; They resisted dominance of merchant and land-owning Hindus in Muslim majority region; Many of them wanted a sovereignty of their own ; it was a tough task to accommodate their aspiration in united India if not impossible.
3. Economy :- Even if British appropriated raw materials from India and caused unemployment in several parts of country, we have to give them credit for creating infrastructure and initiate a process of modernization. They brought capitalism to country by dismantling feudal structure of country. Bengal and Tamilnadu witnessed intellectual revolution because they were first to come into contact with British. Bengal couldn't develop because of demographic factors but Tamilnadu made a lot of progress ( urbanization, economy, political consciousness,etc) .

DrRajpalSingh
March 24th, 2014, 08:56 PM
.................................................. ...........

2. Partition :- British alone can't be blamed for partition of India, Middle and Upper class Muslims(specially aristocratic Muslims) feared that they couldn't dominate India in a democratic setup like they did in Mughal India; They resisted dominance of merchant and land-owning Hindus in Muslim majority region; Many of them wanted a sovereignty of their own ; it was a tough task to accommodate their aspiration in united India if not impossible.
...................

Regarding partition of India, though they cannot be held solely responsible yet they were major contributors to this act as they got the All India Muslim League formed as a sole representative of the Muslims in opposition to the Congress, when they were facing the united Hindu-Muslim opposition to the efforts of division of Bengal.

Thereafter they never failed to fan communal forces to grind their own axe !

amitbudhwar
August 11th, 2015, 06:19 PM
Dekho sir, nuksaan bhi hua hai aur fayda bhi. Nuksaan ye hua ki loot paat bahut hui, jaan maal ka nuksaan hua. lekin fayda ek tarah se ye bhi keh sakte ho ki itne rajwaade aur riyasatein thi. wo ladti rehti apas mie. union ho gayi country mei. Mughal raaj khatam ho gaya. nahi to wahi Raja waala raaj chalta middle east countries ki tarah. democracy mil guyi. Modern infrastructure mil gaya etc etc.