Debatable whether they are a democracy, and even if they are; that was not one of England/Great Britain/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/ United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland\s contributions. India was ruled by a Govonor General/ Viceroy answerable to London.

 

Europe doesn't quite have a caste system. Poverty on the level of Calcutta. Extreme religious divides.

 

I think that is entirely wrong. While India was certainly an important an influential colony, one can not say that Britain would have been unimportant without having conquered it. British influence in world affairs, regardless of their colonial activities, was very very real and substantial. Also keep in mind that India was only one of Britain's colonies; in her prime, the British Empire controlled one-fourth of the world's total land mass, and India was only a portion of that.

 

Originally posted by Sparten Efficient? Incorruptible? The civil service? And democracy? Ah yes, British India was never democratic.

-------------

 

1. British/European Technology - Railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, etc

2. English Language, coincidentally only vital because America, Canada, Australia speak English; access to trade. Also keeps them united.

3. Unite Principalities and Kingdoms inadvertently by giving them belief in common cause. For example, the word "Hindu" or "Hinduism" is a British invention; designed to make it easier to talk about the various philosophies and sects and schools of thought within Hinduism as just one entity. Meaning the Pre-British Indians did not consider themselves as Hindus rather one group would call themselves "Shiva worshipper" and look down on another group who would fashion themselves "Hanuman Devotees", etc.

Originially Indians called their religion "Dharma Shastra" or "Philosophies". Indians have been a spiritual people for a long time, and their religion for all practicable persuasions can be considered what the Abrahamic Axis considers Paganism or Ancestor Worship (making rulers, princes, and kings objects of worship).

4. European Knowledge - knowledge of the Europeans; technical know how, etc.

 

What the British did wrong with the Indians:

1. Carelessness towards their beliefs: caused the Siphai Mutiny of 1857

2. Oppression: towards the beginning they were physically brutal no less than native or Tukic Empires

3. Lack of forecasting growth: Meaning the British treated India as a personal breadbasket and kept Industrialization from coming to them. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, when India gained Independence in 1947 it was only 2% of the world economy; whereas under the Mughal Empire in 1700 it was roughly 27%. Research in Software and other CSE departments in the 1980s was because of the ingenuity of the Indian to realize the future was in computers.

4. Wealth went to foreign lands: The British bred manufatured or grew their supplies in India, but sent the wealth made from business to London. Whereas other invaders would distribute the wealth in the native lands, the Indians were doing work to improve an Island nation most of them have never seen before.

 

People like to criticize China and India for its dirt and rust, but they forget that even Britain in 1880s was cloaked with hazy clouds of pollution. London of the late 1880s did not look like the London of the 1980s. And various British authors write about it, one comes to mind: Scrooge and the Three Ghosts.

 

Lastly, the British were made because of the Indians, not the other way around. China, Thailand, Tukey, Iran have shown that you dont need to be under a foreign conqueror to be culturally transfuse technology and science from them. In essence, the Indians would have gotten such technology anyways. It certainly did not help them to work for peanuts as all wealth was transported to the Kingdom.

 

Also, yes, the Indians are today because the British united them. However i dont believe they will stay that way. Looking at the habits of the South Asians, they have the highest or most extreme and prevalent forms of social stratification in the world. They also operate in bridaries or clans/guilds/groups/tribes. They are known to war with each other than act united.

 

Mostly because India has 25 major ethnicities and 18 major languages, hard to be united. English serves as a uniting force of communication.

 

               In world war I and II Indian soliders amassed the highest number of military honours for foreign troops.

 

Originally posted by Sparten Actually, GLCE2003, British rule in India can be divided into three statges, i) company raj, which was brutal, extermely brutal even by the standards of the age as attested by contemporys, ii) crown rule from circa 1860-1914, which was chracterised by a "pretend we are not here"approach, the British let the locals do whatever, if they got too big for their boots lauch a punative expedition/measures depending on area, iii) 1914 to 1947, characterised by repression like the Defense of India Act and the Rowlett Act, though incidentally it was only here that the Brits wanted India to take a role of its own, as evidenced by the creation of a national flag, and Indian embassys/ missions in most countrys. So ironically, the time when Britain wanted India more independant was when the rule was even more repressive.

 

Apart from the emotive words like extremely brutal I can agree with most of that and it's doesn't affect my point.

 

India was undemocratic under the British because it was undemocratic in the first place, and the British just took over / inserted themselves in the existing system, which was also marked for its brutality.

 

    Well the culture of the sub-continent was certainly far less cruel than the other cultures in the world. In ancient times when human sacrifice was common among all people be it the Egyptians or Sumerians or native Americans only animal sacrifice was practiced in this region and even that didn't set very well with some people and there were a lot of reformers which tried to stop the practice.

 

     The only native excercise in Empire making of the subcontinent the Gupta empire resulted in Ashoka who disgusted by the human life cost of his empire making became a passivist.

 

      The institution of slavery never existed in the subcontinent. Some may say that the caste system is a form of that but it really was a laetr development as can be gaged by the fact that Megasethes reported no class of people which we can relate to modern dalits.

 

        Bhuddsim one of the most humane religion was a product of this culture.

 

          I am curious that which part of the culture of this region do you consider as or more barbaric than other cultures. 

 

 

      And i agree with Sparten, the British rule of the subcontinent was "extremely brutal", pretty muc like it was everywhere like in the Americas.

 

 Their share of honours per capita was also one of the highest, either native or foreign.  

 

So pointless.

Agreed. But as a matter of fact it faded out in India itself.

I am curious that which part of the culture of this region do you consider as or more barbaric than other cultures.

I didn't actually say it was more barbaric than other cultures, simply that it was brutal. For a single, quick example though, take suttee/sati or however you want to spell it.

And i agree with Sparten, the British rule of the subcontinent was "extremely brutal", pretty muc like it was everywhere like in the Americas.

-------------

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

 

 

 

Agreed. But as a matter of fact it faded out in India itself.

[QUOTE]

 

       It faded out because Hinduism adpoted its humane nature, so there was no reason for the common man to prefer Bhuddism over Hinduism. For example Bhuddism never outlawed meat completely. Bhudda 's last meal was of Pork. Ashoka in his pillars says that animals should not be killed for trivial purpsoes like for their skin or for hunting but killing them for their meat because of neccesity was allowed. Hinduism however in its adaptation to Bhuddism banned the eating of meat.  

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 I didn't actually say it was more barbaric than other cultures, simply that it was brutal. For a single, quick example though, take suttee/sati or however you want to spell it.

 

 

 Yes there is no excuse for Satti. However looking at the history of the practice you will understnad its genesis. In the subcontinent the wives of the warrior classes used to commit suicide because then they would become concubines of the victor king. However later it became a compulsion and not jst for the warrior classes but for all classes. In the ceremony of Satti a woman would walk to the altar and all the other people around them would be shouting "Satti mata ki jai, Satti mata ki jai" (hail to the great Satti Mother) giving the impression that as if the woman who was being burned was doing it out of her own free will.  

 

I agree, I think the modern country called ''india'' today should be very thankful to the British for creating the country that they have right now for them..

 

Sure, various foreign rulers did form empires similar in geography as to what we see today, they were very much ''Empires'' ruled and run by non-indians. 

 

british infrastructure, government/civic developments and the culture/identity fournished by british colonial rule and then handed to the natives are often overlooked and have not been given due attention by most scholars particularly by the native inhabitants of the country itself.

 

Refer to my post about the Few nations that escaped European Expansion: China, Japan, Thailand, Iran, Turkey, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Besides Afghanistan, the others were successfully able to replicate and improve on foreign technology. They run their own show without foreign Imperialism.

 

Some Indian Empires are thus:

Maghadan Empire

Gupta Empire : India's Golden Age

Rashtrakutha Empire

Pallava Empire

Hoysala Empire

Vijayanagra Empire

Chola Empire

Satavahana Empire

Pandyan Empire

 

Lastly, I have already listed the benefits of the British Empire:

1. Common Cause against British - helped different people of different ethnicities unite

2. British Technology - railroad, telegraph

3. English language - helped them communicate amongst one another, helped them in international business with Canada, UK, USA, Australia.

 

But the bad effects:

1. British disregard for Indians' self interest/religion/culture

2. British Brutality

3. British took Indian wealth and transported it into Britain; not using the wealth to make India better. As a result, India started 1947 handicapped. Whereas India was 24% of world economy (estimated) in 1700 and 16% in 1800s; in 1950 it was less than 3%.

 

I dont know what the scholars of modern day India think today; what I do know is what I listed. If they grieve British Rule (after all tehey fought against British, must mean they didnt want them there) they have multiple sources to greive from.

 

The USA is not British.

Are you really claiming that the prohibition against eating meat in Hinduism postdates Gautama? I thought the whole point of the Buddhist position on eating meat was that it denied the then existing Hindu tradition (at least for Brahmins).

 

Originally posted by Mughaal I think what hes saying is that Hindic Philosophy adopted Buddhist principles into its system.

 

That might be true to some degree. However what he said was

Hinduism however in its adaptation to Bhuddism banned the eating of meat.

 

That's what I was challenging. Banning eating meat couldn't have been an adaptation to Buddhism, since Buddhism doesn't ban eating meat (though 'for the purpose of training' it exhorts not to kill lîving creatures).

 

And I'm pretty sure the Hindu attitude to it predates Buddhism, as does Jainism.

 

 

 

Excellent post, but just from the information you've provided here it seems to me the Britain quite literally did make India. I always knew that India as a State was unified under the British, I had no idea that the Hindu religion itself underwent unification under the rule of Britain. Now, clearly Britain benefited from the resources it extracted from the Indian subcontinent but that does not mean that it would not have been a formidable power with or without India. It's also important to note that Britain actually did capture India- so what does that say about India? Clearly, if the British hadn't taken it some other colonial power may well have (such as the French) and statistically commonwealth countries have done a lot better after receiving independence.

 

What bothers me most though, is the Indian perception that the British should be hated or that the British are the cause of all India's troubles. Clearly, there have been many benefits to British rule, and I don't see why it matters to the Indian people so much that they were being exploited by a foreign autocracy rather than more petty autocratic home-rule. I feel that the Indian people owe it to the British at least to maintain a decent attitude towards them given all the benefits derived from colonial rule.

 

As to the allegation that India will soon Balkanize, I really don't think so. My family is Indian, I've been there many times and I know a lot of Indians - there's definate trans-race and language sense of nationalism for the most part. I seriously doubt that, especially with the new economic boom, India will be breaking up anytime soon.

 

You may refer to this from the Congressional movements of the 1880's onwards, but to unify the sub-continent under the British, particularly the Company, as 'India' or 'Indians' is far too simplistic to make any kind of moral judgements (if you really have to, I personally think its a waste of time).

 

British rule was so successful in the sub-continent as it was so ethnically, culturally and religiously divided. After the break-down of Mogul authority India was far too factional to resemble a unified entity. Under the British it was kept predominantly that way. Indeed, as John Malcolm pointed out, Company policy was to retain Princely states as a tool for authority and continuity. There could be no 'India' while it remained a fractured and seperated entity.

 

So to say "Britain was mean to Indians because so and so, and Britain did this to India so its bad, etc etc" is really far too general and discriminative.

 

British policy in the Indian states, for example, was far from 'careless about Indian beliefs'.  Ritual, display and ceremony were upheld and respected in the majority of cases. Residency kitchens, for example, were kept stiffly along religious and cultural caste lines. As were military cantonments and regimental camps in the field. As well as messes in British Presidencies.

 

The causes of the Indian Mutiny of 1857 were not directly the result of disrespect for Indian religions or customs, but more the perceived threat to those factors. There was never a strong Christian missionary force at work, there was no great plan to introduce forced use of pig or cow fat in the cartridges of guns, and the enforcement of certain anti-religious or caste regulations in the military were quickly repealed.

 

Furthermore, the accusation that Britons were brutal is so general and unsupportable as to be laughable. Remember, at any one point in the British Raj there were very few Britons at all. In a population of some hundred millions, there were only ever about 150,000-200,000 British souls in the sub-continent, half of those soldiers. If you mean brutality in war, the British were benign in comparison to the Marathas, the Pathans, the Moguls, or Mysore. Outrages committed by the military of a power is a universal phenomenon, and you must remember in the case of Britisih power in India, it was predominantly composed of Indians.

 

In the cases of industrialisation or general economic trends, indeed during the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century there was a trend to enrich Britain over India. Indeed that is the pattern of every earthly empire in history. The reason it flowed out of India, however, is because the central authority of the British empire did not reside in India, but in Britain. However, from the mid-nineteenth century onward a vast amount of investment, unknown before in the history of the subcontinent, poured in through the medium of canals, irrigation, roads, bridges, telegraphs, tanks, schools, civic institutions, medicine and communication. Before British rule the Punjab was an under-cultivated, dry land. After its annexation it became the granary of the empire.

 

Anyway, I promised myself I would not get dragged in to this kind of argument. But to assume one action offended all Indians under British rule is to assume a uniform, common Indian society. What the banning of Sutti meant in Awadh is not the same as it meant in Nagpur. What the Mutiny of 1857 meant in the Delhi territories is not the same as what it meant in the Punjab.

 

I am impressed with HaloChanter's last post.

 

 

 


So Wilson Hanter has succesfully argued that india under various princes was a politically conherent entity. And had British not arrived would have continued to be one.

Originally posted by HaloChanter So to say "Britain was mean to Indians because so and so, and Britain did this to India so its bad, etc etc" is really far too general and discriminative.   British policy in the Indian states, for example, was far from 'careless about Indian beliefs'.  Ritual, display and ceremony were upheld and respected in the majority of cases. Residency kitchens, for example, were kept stiffly along religious and cultural caste lines. As were military cantonments and regimental camps in the field. As well as messes in British Presidencies.

Yes  but we have to figure out why this was done. Brits understood two things :
a) Not hurt religious sentiments of the majority in India, as in breakeing temples and converting people (as was done by sultanate and mughals consequent of which mughals were *always* treated as foreign invaders by locals in India)
b) They realised indians fought well when organised on caste lines. So a sikh army would not do well if led by a dogra general and vice versa. This caused being sensitive to these groups in terms of eating habit etc.

So vested interest at work.

Originally posted by HaloChanter The causes of the Indian Mutiny of 1857 were not directly the result of disrespect for Indian religions or customs, but more the perceived threat to those factors. There was never a strong Christian missionary force at work, there was no great plan to introduce forced use of pig or cow fat in the cartridges of guns, and the enforcement of certain anti-religious or caste regulations in the military were quickly repealed.

No. The primary reason for 1857 revolt was economic exploitation by the british.  Indian kings  in bad monsoon or draught would act humanely and not collect taxes or reduce the rate. But british collectors on the other hand were not sensitive to failure of crops. Secondly brits tried to re-organize the land holdings which caused further  resntment in the landed class.  Rebellion actually started in present Madhya Pradesh in 1830's and was the pre-cursor of 1857. Reasons were purely economic.

Originally posted by HaloChanter Furthermore, the accusation that Britons were brutal is so general and unsupportable as to be laughable. Remember, at any one point in the British Raj there were very few Britons at all. In a population of some hundred millions, there were only ever about 150,000-200,000 British souls in the sub-continent, half of those soldiers. If you mean brutality in war, the British were benign in comparison to the Marathas, the Pathans, the Moguls, or Mysore. Outrages committed by the military of a power is a universal phenomenon, and you must remember in the case of Britisih power in India, it was predominantly composed of Indians.

Economic exploitation of India and large scale uprooting of indigenous business to augment the industries of England was done very brutally. In Bengal alone because of this millions died. Only crops which industries in england needed were allowed to be sold. This led to aritificially created oversupply which resulted in cheap prices for the brits of such crops e.g. indigo in bengal and local population could not even get two square meals! (because if the farmer sowed anything else brit collectors would not allow that produce to be sold). So it was subtle but very devastating.

Originally posted by HaloChanter In the cases of industrialisation or general economic trends, indeed during the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century there was a trend to enrich Britain over India. Indeed that is the pattern of every earthly empire in history. The reason it flowed out of India, however, is because the central authority of the British empire did not reside in India, but in Britain. However, from the mid-nineteenth century onward a vast amount of investment, unknown before in the history of the subcontinent, poured in through the medium of canals, irrigation, roads, bridges, telegraphs, tanks, schools, civic institutions, medicine and communication. Before British rule the Punjab was an under-cultivated, dry land. After its annexation it became the granary of the empire.

Nope. Irrigation canals were being built in India hundreds of years before Brits first stepped in India. And there is no reason to believe that if India remained in the hands of Indians Industrialization would not have taken place. What you are saying seems to be an apologists view.

 

Originally posted by HaloChanter Anyway, I promised myself I would not get dragged in to this kind of argument. But to assume one action offended all Indians under British rule is to assume a uniform, common Indian society. What the banning of Sutti meant in Awadh is not the same as it meant in Nagpur. What the Mutiny of 1857 meant in the Delhi territories is not the same as what it meant in the Punjab.

Well you can guess the dichotomy by the fact that Indians call 1857 first war of independence whether in Punjab or Nagpur while Brits call it Sepoy revolt.

 

No, anti-British feelings border on the fact Britain financially abused India, so it fell from 20% of world economy to roughly 3% at Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29

 

And before you criticize or "repudiate" understand that the general idea and general trend is the Indians were better off without the British. Turkey industrialized, China industrialized in 20 years, so when you mention in in Washington, all the Senators tinkle in their pants. Japan industrialized, Thailand, Ethiopia, Iran, you name it.

 

The only thing, and this is the only thing, the British gave India (that they never meant to) that India could not have achieved with its own hands is Hinduist Nationalism. Because the idea of nationalism sprang from Western Europe, and was set into the minds of the elite.

 

Hinduistic Nationalism because of British treatment to the Hindus. The British left India because they couldnt maintain Bharat from Pakistan to Myanmar, anymore.

 

Without the British, India wouldnt be united as it is today.

 

         Ok when we were discussing Alexander's invasion into the Punjab, the westerners were "bugged" by the use of the word Pakistan rather than India, and now when the word India is used as opposed to Pakistan or Gujrat it "bugs" westerners. The way a westerner's mind works only a westerner can understand. 

 

           Even with being an "under cultivated" "dry land" it was probably among the 5 richest lands in the world, at all times through out its history.

 

              I am pretty sure that most of Punjab at the time of Muhammad Bin Qasim was  Hindu. Sindh may have had a large Bhuddist population and Kashmir was pre-dominentely Bhuddist.

 

           Most people think that by the time of arrival of Islam here Bhuddist was on its way out, Islam may only have hastened its demise i.e Bhuddist who were about to adopt Hindusim adopted Islam instead.

 

            However south east asia is predominently Bhuddist, despite the fact that Islam went as far as Indonesia.

 

          So there you can never generalize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, just realised I posted in this thread. Will catch up this weekend but just wanted to reply to one particular post:

 

'No, anti-British feelings border on the fact Britain financially abused India, so it fell from 20% of world economy to roughly 3% at Independence. '

 

- That had far more to do with rising industrialisation in Europe from 1800-1900 than British 'plundering' of India. Had it been left to its own devices, its too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe India would have become an industrial giant and maintained its 20% pre-industrial position. As I'll post this weekend, the so called British 'plundering' of India was not to such a decisive extent, and was of a very brief period.

 

And we all know what happened in 1914.

 

 

As if India could not do any of the above without the British, this is the first time I have heard that a colonizer and mercantilist imperial power that sucked a country dry and destroyed its social fabric was good for the country. In 1700 Mughal Hindustan's GDP was 25% of worlds GDP and in 1913 British India's GDP was 7.6% of world GDP.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP )

 

Once India lost its sovereignty, it could no longer take measures to industrialize and compete in the world market, local industries were not encouraged, instead it was made into a raw material source and a market for mainly British and other European industrial goods.

 

I am curious to know what you think of Ghaffar Khan and his movement.

 

By the 1800s, much of the mixing seem to have stopped, with the White British colonists living as a separate caste to the locals, who were also divided among castes and religions.

 

When and why did this separation take place?

Were the mix-blooded descendants of the early British colonists in Indian perceived as more "native" or more "British"?

To misquote:

 

The fault, dear Omar, lies not in our women, but in ourselves if we are underlings.

 

Railroads were laid purely on military consideration. So much so, here were staffed by the British and Anglo-Indians. Same for posts and telegraphs.

 

British exploited India and siphoned its wealth to enrich England, Australia ans New ZeaLands, theit "white" dominions.

Poverty in India is widely accepted to have its origins to British colonialism. Is this information correct. Does Indian poverty have its origins to the British? How so?

 

that doesnt make any sense, widely accepted by who? If anything its the opposite.  The arrival of the British was beneficial from a poverty index point of view.  Statistics, facts and even WHO figures show otherwise. 

 

Poverty has in a matter of speaking, always been endemic to india and some other parts of South Asia.  In fact, when the British arrived to the region, they were often shocked and taken back at the degree of poverty and caste distinction/discrimination they witnessed.  Its ironic, because the British themselves like the rest of Europe where caught up in the theories of race designation/superiority, but what they saw and witnessed in india was in many ways a human tragedy in their eyes.  Having come from Europe, conquering and colonizing parts of the middle east and east asia, the degree of poverty and degradation seen in india was unparalleled. Many aid workers, social workers, philanthropists and health care professionals flooded to the British colony of india. 

 

The British, subsequently over the time of their rule, undertook several steps to enlighten and improve the conditions of the commoner and poor in the region, something that no indian or previous foreign conqueror had ever done or would have done.  They established schools, hospitals, civil policy, social programs, enacted and instituted public policy and civilian laws on a massive wholesale level, in all municipalities irrespective of the people living there, that altered indian society as a whole and that broke centuries of inherent caste based racism inbeded within indian society and the predominant hindoo faith of its people.  Those positive effects are still rippling through indian society to this day.  If anything, the endemic and continuous cycle of poverty has been minimized and a possible ''out'' achieved for the poor and destitute in india, this has all been made possible by the efforts of the British and their Administrative undertakings in india and they should be credited with it. 

 

 Furthermore, the British where able to oust the foreign empires that had conquered india for thousands of years prior to their arrival, while they at a time where conquerors themselves, as history shows they did eventually leave South Asia,  altering the social undercurrents of the region, enlarging and in essence creating the country ''india'' in the process,  infusing a new nationality that never existed before(at least not on such a scale), built institutions, railways/roads and administrative networks to run and hold such a vast territory and more importantly left the newly created and vast country in the hands of the indigenous indian people for the first time, who had only known foreign conquerors and being conquered bar a few rare historical exceptions.   I think most people would agree that india has much to be thankful for when it comes to the British.

 

and lets not even start about the Democracy and railways and so on. Democracy in the India is the achievment of the Indians. If it was the gift of the British than what about those African colonies and Pakistan? didn't the Britain give the same gift to them?

 

And railways and vaccines would have come to India even without the British rule. And not to mention that all those achievements, (many of them were partially done to secure their rule and for their own benefits and not for the purpose of welfare) seems very dull in comparison to the failures of British rule like the man made famines during the colonial era in which atleast 50 to 60 million people died. not to mention those millions of people displaced and or killed during the partition of 1947.