• Monday, December 9, 2019

History and its interpretation

Discussion in 'World Affairs' started by Pramurta DebBarma, Jun 24, 2014.

  1. Pramurta DebBarma

    Pramurta DebBarma FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Jun 24, 2014
    +0 / 1 / -0
    United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
    History of British Raj and its alternative interpretation

    There is dark cloud in the Indian History, people usually refer it as to the British Raj. Acoording to general concepts "the Brits were thugs who looted India of its wealth". But this is a wrong notion and no one has stood up against it. Neither Brits nor Indians. But I am now standing against this general notion and bringing up certain facts that will make you question yourself and you will take up your history books again.

    A number of historians both India and foreign writers and historians have started justifying the empire and even asking USA to take up the “White Man’s Burden” to bring civilizations and justice to the dark world of the dark skinned people. The views of the Western historians like Neil Ferguson or Michael Ignatief are being reflected by their Indian counterparts like Triankar Roy, Dipak Lal, or even Man Mohan Singh in his lecture in Oxford University recently. The surprising matter is that even the Sangha Parivar writers like M.S.Menon, and Priyadarshi Dutta are also propagating the benefits that the British rule has brought to India.

    (I would ask all my mates who will follow article to follow the works of the above mentioned researchers and writers)

    people just follow the beginning and the end but makes conclusion from those. But they miss out the all important invervening part!
    Before the British came, India was one of the richest countries in the world. In 1800, India, China and Egypt (and probably many of the kingdoms of central Africa) were economically more developed than Britain. Indeed the British had nothing for sale that was of interest to the Indians or Chinese. When the British left in 1947, India was poor and industrially backward.
    Britain did bring free trade to India and China. Britain had extracted large surpluses from India, and forced it into a free-trade pattern, which obliged India to export commodities and become a dumping ground for British manufactures. Historians estimate that the net transfer of capital from India to Britain averaged 1.5 percent of GNP in the late nineteenth century. The wealth transfer was financed by a persistent trade surplus of India, which was sent back to Britain or spend to expand the British Empire. India’s export-import ratio was 172.5 percent in 1840-69, 148 percent in 1870-1912, and 133.4 percent in 1913-38. This export orientation was a tool of colonial exploitation, and free trade a British ploy to force its manufactures on India and crush domestic industry.

    Instead of enriching the world, the British Empire impoverished it. The empire was run on the cheap. Instead of investing in the development of the countries they ruled, the British survived by doing deals with indigenous elites to sustain their rule to extract maximum amount of revenues for Britain itself, which the British historians now deny.

    But there is a better side of the coin,
    The fact of integration of India as a single united nation!
    It is true that the British government might have taken this step for their own cause but it was an universal help to all! The British had implemented the use of English which had facilitated the communication of the North and South,the East and west. During the British Raj several steps were taken to link the industrially resourceful areas to the ports by the the means of railways. Many would argue saying "even Indian govt. or respective rulers would have done the same". The answer is simply NO! If we look at the North Eastern states,places like shillong became a hillstation and tourist destination. It was highly developed in those days but places like Tripura(self ruled by kings) weren't that much developed(YES NOW IT IS DEVELOPING BUT its nearly 60 years now) places untouched by British govt. remained obscure even many years after the Indian independence!
    The British dominance also brought about a sense of unity among the diverse population in India. People irrespective of caste,creed or religion called themselves Indians. Now this driving force is absent and India is now again breaking apart into fractions of different communities. More importance is given to respective castes and communites than the nation itself. A few days ago the murder of a north eastern student was flashing. Reason was simple it was a case of building up racism. Even now under the tags of pseudo secularism riots take place among different religions. Even today the rigid caste system supports the birth right practices over talent.
    If anybody pointed out one more big step which is now the favourite words of the politicians,yes "women empowerment". In the male dominated Indian society there was a time where female births were frowned upon and even practices like sati took place,is now in a lot better place. Female education was introduced,the evil practices of sati and polygamy were abolished and widow remarraige was established. So, the foundation roots were laid in the british Indian period on which the stems and branches grow today.
    Industrialisation without any doubt was the biggest positive aspect of the British Raj.
    And according to the laws India became a sovereign country only after 1950 so it wasn't wrong for Britain to step in India and establish her empire. Because it was not illegal.
    Priyadarsi Dutta, parliamentary secretary to Balbir Punj, the chairman of the BJP’s think-tank, wrote in The Organizer, the organ of the R.S.S on 28 May 2006, that the British rule was only a learning process emphasizing the positive aspects of the British empire as written in the history text books in Britain. Thus, they are suggesting that thousands of our heroes and heroines of the freedom struggle who had sacrificed their lives to liberate India were all very stupid. This is the indication of cultural imperialism, which is bound to take place in India along with the ‘globalization’, and the ‘economic reforms’ put forward by no other than the Anglo-American economists and policy-makers.