Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?

My comments on  Dr. Bain's observation:

• British rule of India was obviously beneficial to Britain. One estimate says: during pre-British era combined wealth of entire Europe was less than that of India. Indian sepoys and Indian money was the  vehicle for British colonial expansion. One estimate says: 40% of British military expenditure came from India. Indian market and raw materials helped British industries flourish putting in jeopardy Indian agriculture, industry, and commerce.
• India was benfitted too, although in a passive way. The British needed clerks, loyal bureuecrats, infrastructure, healthcare system, etc. all of which they produced as much as they needed to sustain the colonial rule.
• Capitalism is obviously more forward looking, liberal, and hence progressive than feudalism. Frankly speaking with my very limited knowledge, I will not characterize the British rule of India as capitalistic. It was purely a case of brutal colonialism. Our monarchs were not progressive (probably Tipu Sultan was an exception). Like the colonial masters they also sucked the blood of their subjects. They led luxurious life. They were too busy with women, wine, music, dance, and mosques and temples, study of speculative philosophies, ethics, and theosophy, and building forts and palaces and memorials at the cost of the blood and sweat of the common masses. There was no unity. They fought with one another and thereby opening the doors to foreign aggressors (since time immerorial).
• I think British rule and misrule had a positive impact on India which was divided on different lines. They gradually learned to identify themselves as an Indian nation. Again I must say that the light came from Europe.

My comments on Dr. Roy:

• Among our forefathers there were visionaries. Let me give few examples: Ashoka, Akbar, Shibaji. I think all them were controversial. The third one was discovered by Rabindranath in a nationalistic emotional poem and is obviously controversial ("ekdhormorajyapashe khanda chhinna bikshipta bharat bendhe diba ami".) Looks like Rabindranath was in search of a voice that would unify India against the "Rajdanda" that entered India in the guise of "baniker mandanda". When time is not favorable, great scholars sometimes take refuge in history and mythologies by rewriting them in the light of the new realities. But obviously by writing this poem he risked the noncooperation from the Indian Muslims.
• In modern time I will accept Gandhi as a near perfect visionary leader at least as far as unity is concerned. I have least confidence in his industrial policy. 
• I will not think in terms Hindu Bengal and Hindu India. I will go by what Rabindranath believed: Rabindranath's "punya teertha" was where "kata manusher dhara durbar srote elo kotha ha'te samudre ha'lo hara". Please re-read the poem "Bharatteertha". Almost every one including the invaders became part of India to constitute "ekti biraat hiya". Alexander went back, the British went back, and went back many looters and plunderers. Can you prove that your forefathers did not come with the Senas from Karnataka to settle in Bengal and rule Bengal and to present Bengal with an orthodox social system?
• Forget about those invaders who crossed the then Indian borders. Think about "matsanaya" when all the little kings attempted to annihilate one another. What would say about Chandashoka who orginated in very Indian land and massacred his own people before turning into Dharmaraj Asoka?            

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?

 

SB said: "While I acknowledge that the British were better than the Mughals, I feel ashamed of my forefathers and the societies that they left behind."   This is where I can agree with you - I am also ashamed of our forefathers; they were no "George Washington."As a result, Bakhtiar Khilji conquered Bengal with only 18 horsemen. Hindus have used divide and rule principle as caste system even before British came in. This system ruined the fabric of the Indian society, and Hindus are paying the price. British have nothing to do with it.   Jiten Roy--- On Sat, 10/8/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule? To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 5:15 PM   There is a difference between admitting/acknowledging a fact and appreciating/defending a fact. I would not defend any foreign rule of my motherland. That is why, while I acknowledge that the British were better than the Mughals, I feel ashamed of my forefathers and the societies that they left behind.   Here are some facts for Dr. Roy and others to consider.   1) A so-called low caste Hindu walks by a so-called high caste Hindu; the latter has to take a bath to cleanse himself because he had touched the shadow of the former. To me, the latter here is asking for hostility from the former for no good reason. This was a custom of our society not very long ago. Did the Mughal or the British make our forefathers that stupid? To me, this kind of societies deserved to be booted by the foreigners.   2) A serious flood happens; animals and people die by the thousands. The so-called high-caste Hindus would not touch the rotting corps/carcasses, because they think they would lose their caste by doing so. They would live in the stench and bacteria-infested environment, but not clean up. This happened only a few years back is Orissa. To me, these barbarians do not know how to live a civilized life; they would do better being ruled by others.   3) The owners of buses would not allow their buses to ply the highway, because the highway is too bad in shape to drive. Tens of thousands of commuters get stranded. This happened only a few weeks back in Bangladesh. What were the governments doing to address this public safety issue before it reached such a sorry state? Good question. To me, people from this country would do better doing odd jobs everywhere in the world. Where should the intellectuals of this country focus; in forming an Odd-job Givers Appreciating Club?   There are a lot of other examples we could find. I hope I have gotten my points across a bit better now.   More later,   Sukhamaya Bain   From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?   SB Said : "I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?"   Response:   We can be ashamed as much as we want, but that will not change the fact, and the fact is - India is better off today because of British rule, instead of Mughal rule. I have no shame to admit this fact. We have to judge the situation with proper context, and that is - India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one. Thanks. Jiten Roy   --- On Fri, 10/7/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule? To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Date: Friday, October 7, 2011, 6:55 PM   All indications point to India staying more backward without the British rule.   The Mughals probably would have made India what the Muslim-ruled countries of the world look like today - deduct the oil-wealth. The little Hindu kings probably would have either gotten extinct, or kept licking the boots of the Mughal kings while feeling superior to their desperately poor low-caste co-religionists. The mass population of all religions would probably be quite miserable today. There is no reason to believe that without the British the Hindus would be as good today in terms of their caste-system and treatment of the women.   Having said all this, I would not jump into the praise-squad for the British. The British certainly did not do anything out of their love for the Indians.   I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?   More later,   Sukhamaya Bain

__._,_.___

****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___