The British Imperialism in India: A Boon or Curse

[maddhan1979]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

..........

 

[urmiladuhan]

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]

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]

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