With my layman knowledge in this vast topic let me submit the following:
- The colonists in America had to engage in bloody battles with the British army to win freedom. According to a conservative estimate about 50 K had to sacrifice lives because of war and war related (disease for example) reasons. Thus I see a similarity between Indian struggle for independence and American revolutionary war.
- The colonists came from Europe (mainly Britain). Many of them were adventurists, many were here for business, and many were fortune seekers. Among them were "baape-taaraano maaye-khedano" and even convicts. They had to fight two phases of war. In first phase they had to defeat (plunder, kill, and drive away) the American Indians. The second phase was the war for independence from Britain. Because of the rivalies between various colonial powers, the settlers got help from France and other countries in their fight against Britain (this happened in case of Indian struggle for independence too). So, ultimately it was the Europeans who became the owners of America, which means they became Americans.
- We see a basic difference in case of India. The British (first in the form of East India Company) came to India for business with the sole purpose of exploitation (milder word is "profit"). Although eventually British crown took over, they never wanted to become an integral part of the "Kala aadmis". They came to loot (that's what basically a colonial power does) and stayed here as long as the circumstances allowed them to do so. Because of her rich civilization it was not easy to win India completely as was possible in case of the American Indians.
- Was it really indispensable for India to go through a colonization process to become an India as we see her today? Not an easy question at all. Scholars in this field can provide valued opinions. But I want to mention Japan as an Asian country which hardly went through this painful process and yet could emerge as one of the few number-one countries in the world in many respects.
- A word of caution here: Vehement criticism of the roles played by the colonial master does not mean that we must not accept any thing from them. "Poshchim aaji khuliyachhe dwar, setha ho'te sobe aane upohar, dibe aara nibe----" Rennainssance in India owed to the greatest minds that Europe produced. The same minds influenced American revolution also. Rabindranath has talked about exchanges of ideas and thoughts; it could not be merely a one way traffic. These great minds had to face tough resistances in their own countries. All these countries had to go through long processes of reformation.
- All countries had monarchs. Many of them (particularly the European ones) used fruits of new inventions to industrialize their countries and expand territorially by finding new colonies. Question is: why did the Indian monarchs fail to follow a similar route of socio-economic development.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
| Pre-British history of India is not well-known. That is a blind-spot in the Indian history. We know intricate details about British era, but not much about Mughal era. It could be due to lack of documentation or resources at the time. British ruled many other parts of the world, including part of North America, which fought a full-fledged battle against British. How come they do not have such strong resentment against British? How come other parts of the world, ruled by British, also do not possess such sentiment against them as Indians do? Indians tend to blame everything on British rule. We blame British for our thinking, we blame British for our administrative bureaucracy, we blame British for our education system, judicial system, communication system, etc. etc. I know what happened in 1919 during the Jallianwallabag massacre, in which British troops opened fire on unarmed civilians in a mass gathering, protesting British rule. This was the time when Gandhi started his anti-British movement, and that's the price we paid to force British out of India. How much price Indians paid during Mughal rule, especially during Babar and Awrangzeb? Anybody has a clue? That is not my point of discussion. My point is - would India be better off without British rule? Let's extrapolate continued Moghal rule for another 200 years and contrast it with the India left behind by British rulers, and analyze the situation. I will appreciate your inputs on this point. Jiten Roy --- On Wed, 10/5/11, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
__._,_.___
