British Raj

[sithsaber]

Having a debate with a colleague on the british raj and its repression of Indians. He is using the angle that the British united the subcontinent and that the caste system was bad to begin with. Although this is true he also says that economic exploitation was inevitable due to the amount of public works the British gave to the Indians. He says imperialism was good and that the only reason the british left was that the indians were no longer worth the hassle. Give me the lefty response (hopefully detailing reasons why imperialism is bad)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Imperialism is never good for the "conquered" people; it literally exploits them of resources. How does your friend rationalize it being "good"? How did the Indians benefit from imperialism?

[sithsaber]

Imperialism is never good for the "conquered" people; it literally exploits them of resources. How does your friend rationalize it being "good"? How did the Indians benefit from imperialism?

He was saying that it united the country into one nation (forgot to mention pakistan though) and that it civilized certain aspects of that society. This sounds bad(ignores discrimination and economic exploitation, although he said the mughals and Brahmins were doing that anyway) but it is true thatcertain archaic practices like wife burning, and thuggery (the thugs) were discontinued under the limeys.

Please give something educated to reply with

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well its complicated. The British early on changed the land use policies in Bengal, the first area they controlled. This led to recurring famines which killed tens of millions of people.

There were later famines elsewhere in India. Before the British came, India was one of the richest areas of the world. When they left, it was one of the poorest. Empires exist to parasitically extract wealth.

I can't find better sources off hand but these are interesting.

Besides this is the British policy of playing Hindus and Muslims off aainst each other, the Amritsar Massacre, and other atrocities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

More stuff

http://karsevakindia.blogspot.com/2010/11/british-atrocities-against-indians.html

True the British did work to abolish sati, the burnin alive of widows and to surpress the thugees. Leftists say barbaric practices such as these would have disappeared anyway as India interacted with other cultures and regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770
http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/genocide/bengal-famine/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/11/08/churchills-famine-in-bengal/

Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis I think discusses a lot of this (I haven't read it yet, its definitely on my list)

There is a vast Indian "blogosphere" where some of this stuff is discussed.

[#FF0000]

He was saying that it united the country into one nation (forgot to mention pakistan though) and that it civilized certain aspects of that society. This sounds bad(ignores discrimination and economic exploitation, although he said the mughals and Brahmins were doing that anyway) but it is true thatcertain archaic practices like wife burning, and thuggery (the thugs) were discontinued under the limeys.

That is some patent buuuuuuuuullshit because the british were all about corruption when they were there and they didn't do a goddamn thing to change it. They -- like imperial powers tend to -- worked within the existing framework. That meant using existing racial/ethnic stereotypes (the British rarely used Begali people as soldiers, for example, thinking they were 'effeminate'), existing social structures, etc. etc. etc. Corruption wasn't ended at all -- and in fact the corruption one of the big points of tension between the Company and the Crown.

And the wife-burning this is ol' bullshit too, by the way. It was a rare practice that was controversial among Indians already. They didn't need to British to come over and tell them to stop it.

[HammerAndSickle1]

I am Indian and my grandparents lived under the British Raj in their youth. Honestly, from what I can tell, they speak nostalgically about the lack of corruption and the better conditions in those days. However, we have always been a well-to-do family of the educated (brahmin) caste. I don't know for sure what life was like for the proletariat and peasants though I suspect the situation was much worse.

[urstaat]

I've been wanting to participate in the community here for a while, so here's my best effort at a start.

To consider the arguments you've presented already from the other party, let's start with the notion of the gift of unity so gloriously bestowed by the venerable Englishmen. Caveat emptor: I claim no expertise in any areas of Indian history. However, the unity postulate is daft to the core. The pretense that hundreds of millions of humans - dozens, hundreds, perhaps even more, distinct cultural and linguistic formations - ought to be unified into one grotesque mega-nation full of subjects to an external crown should be dismissed in laughter.

That the caste system was bad to begin with is obvious, but does it really go without saying that the best remedy to that is more than three centuries of occupation by distant empires? And as the competing empires, ultimately the British, established a permanent presence on more and more of the land, did their own convoluted class systems provide a desirable model for the natives to emulate?

A few months ago there was a column on the BBC with a pro and contra editorial retrospective on the British colonization of the subcontinent. ("Is Britain to blame for many of the world's problems?" 7 April 2011) While I think it's fair and noncontroversial to describe the BBC as a worthwhile cultural resource with some modica of journalistic value, certain chauvinist vulgarities are present with a rather humorous consistency the more I expose myself to its content.

"By the time the British left India in 1947 they had given the subcontinent a number of priceless assets, including the English language, but also a structure of good government, local organisation and logistical infrastructure that still holds good today. Far from damaging India, British imperial rule gave it a head start." That's how the favorable arguments are first presented, and I'd imagine your colleague would agree with them. Most notable among that list is the author's cardinal example of a priceless asset: "the English language." Thereafter, "a structure of good government." Overtly, those are nationalist fanfares that could just as easily be considered burdens(as if the English structure of government is best described as "good?"), but the pro-imperial psyche is made clear as he proceeds to say "logistical infrastructure." As Lenina mentioned above, empires exist to parasitically extract wealth, and perhaps every cultural contribution Britannia made to the subcontinent was done to facilitate that process.

I hope you can argue against him with the ideas that have been presented in this thread, be sure to update us if he has or had any stronger arguments for his point.

[Regicollis]

I would ask your friend the simple question if the Indians would have been better off deciding over their own resources than having the British come and rob them.

While the British certainly did something good (like building infrastructure) this does not excuse their crimes which were numerous.

Would you accept that some foreigners came and occupied your country and stole its resources just because they built some railroads?

Another problem with imperialism in India and elsewhere is that it corrupts everybody that comes in contact with it. Try reading George Orwell's Burma Days to get an idea of the mentality of imperialism.

[l'Enfermé]

only reason the british left was that the indians were no longer worth the hassle
The British were kicked out because of decades of militant struggle by the peoples of the Indian sub-continent. Not because the British Empire's most important asset was "no longer worth the hassle".

[dodger]

Maybe your friend has not heard of what every young schoolboy was taught in England. Divide and Rule, classic. One of the methods brought to bear. Then and now.

This review is from: Notes on Indian History (Paperback)

This is a brilliant collection of articles by Marx. He details the causes of India's long struggle for national sovereignty and independence from the British Empire. He shows how the Empire used divide and rule to crush India's strivings for democracy and self-rule. He shows how colonial rule damaged India's economic and political development.

Marx describes the vicious nature of British Imperial rule. The Governor-General of India, Lord Dalhousie, wrote in 1855 that he had "has long ceased to doubt that torture in one shape or other is practised by the lower subordinates in every British province." The Report of the Commission for the Investigation of Alleged Cases of Torture at Madras, 1855, acknowledged `the general existence of torture for revenue purposes'.

Marx shows how Empire caused war. He pointed out, "the career of endless conquest and perpetual aggression in which the English are involved by the possession of India." The British government started the practice of waging war without a declaration when it attacked China in 1856, the second Opium War.

He also shows how the Empire did not shrink from land theft and expropriation of private property. Governor-General Lord Canning proclaimed in 1858, "the proprietary right in the soil of the province of Oudh is confiscated to the British Government, which will dispose of that right in such manner as as it may see fitting." Oudh is about the size of Ireland!

Marx also analyses how the methods of rule govern the methods of revolt. "There is something in human history like retribution, and it is a rule of historical retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself." A British officer admitted, "We hold court-martials on horseback, and every nigger we meet with we either string up or shoot." Marx noted, "while the cruelties of the English are related as acts of martial vigour, told simply, rapidly, without dwelling on disgusting details, the outrages of the natives, shocking as they are, are still deliberately exaggerated." The British army's sack of Lucknow in 1858 was as barbaric as its earlier sacks of Badajoz in 1812 and of San Sebastian in 1813.

[MajorGeneralPineapple]

Not only did the British frequently engage in mass murder during their occupation of India, they also planted the seeds of nearly every current crisis India is facing. The entire dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir is the result of British policies of dividing and conquering--- the disparity between the peoples and the rulers was the result of careful planning by the British to prevent a united opposition.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Even the infrastructure served as a handmaiden of the bad stuff by opening up the interior to British markets, which regressed production back to the primary sector and siphoned out food during famines.

[#FF0000]

The British were kicked out because of decades of militant struggle by the peoples of the Indian sub-continent. Not because the British Empire's most important asset was "no longer worth the hassle".

It was actually both and one factor helped the other.

I mean, shit, America's a thing now because it wasn't worth the hassle, compared to the other jewels in England's crown.

[dodger]

The British were kicked out because of decades of militant struggle by the peoples of the Indian sub-continent. Not because the British Empire's most important asset was "no longer worth the hassle".

Strong point, Borz, in addition, war in Europe ,that Churchill fought tooth and nail against, because he foresaw the loss of empire. So desperate was he to keep India he was prepared to join an alliance with France and the Soviets to hold Hitler in check, in Europe. The Jewel in the Crown was gone by '47. We in England settled down to social advances and prosperity despite dire warnings from Orwell that we would be reduced to eating Herrings, without India.

Complete tosh about 'happy to go'. The revenue needed to 'run' India was provided by The Opium Department, their biggest customer, China, was about to go too. Did people care in Britain? we couldn't give tuppence .We were enjoying the fruits of peace.

[brigadista]

try this
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj77/ashman.htm