So you disagree with their interpretation of Indian history? What exactly is it that you dislike about the current system?
yup.
A lot, for instance, the way, the exams are conducted for the sake of just rot memory instead of using the brains.
They were a lot worse than the British infact. The only reason they seem better is perhaps some form of mass Stockholm syndrome.
Nope, no stockholm syndrome atleast for me. But I recognise, what lead to what, The mughals who were with zero sophistication for brutality, gave rise to Indians who gave a common front to them and were thus eliminated from the picture by us, whereas the british used sophistication to the other extreme, it is these layers of sophistication which is the actual essense of our conversation. They did not try to crush Indians like the mughals did, they have tried to crush Indian spirit. The behavior of Nehru at 1962 might have suprised everyone except those who understand how the british were successful in creating those layers. The divide and rule policy, the indology studies, our education system are some of the tools they used as a matter of sophistication.
Perhaps, but I have made another point that the Mughals were principally responsible in crushing traditional indian society.
but the revolt of sikhs and marathas who overthrew the mughals clearly shows that the indian society was still capable of rejuvenating itself.
Civil society, rule of law, citizenship, academic temper....
citizenship - what role does citizenship have in modernity?
civil society - what role did the civil society play during the british rule?
rule of law - is this the same rule of law which applies to jallianwallabagh? Arent the movements of civil disobedience, quit india, in essense breaking this rule of law?
academic temper - what sort of academic temper was there in a society with 11% LITERATE (that is read and write) population?
What you call as modernity does not include citizenship, civil society, rule of law? Academic temper-yes, but not what was developed under Mccauley's system.
Karl Marx was German btw. And I don't see why you ignore the dozens of British explorers who took pains to string together the story of india. There is nothing wrong in recognizing their contributions.
Regarding facts, yes, - theories, no.
This sort of writing history was not uniquely done by the british, there was a rajatarangini written 1000's itself.
Those 565 princely states were all British protectorates. I don't see how any of them were Independent at all. After Mountbatten was on India's side, I don't see how any princely state could have possibly remained separate from India.
Read the book by VP Menon, you will see, how almost every reasonable state tried to become independent and how it was done.
For a better understanding, try to imagine a similar effort 500 year ago. It would have been impossible because the people didn't see themselves as a whole.
hey, read the delhi sultanate history and how it had most of the country under them. It was done before, except in a not-so-nonviolent fashion.
what if the train never came?
another what if...?
Oh please....ignoring the cultural and intellectual contributions of the british is just plain conceit.
No, I do not want to ignore those "contributions", I want to actively undo them. and what does Marx have to do with that?
What does a title have to do with anything?
A lot. It tells us what they perceive themselves to be, in short their identity. Will the president of India ever get the title "emperor of norway"? no is the answer, but why no?
It is what the ordinary people think that matters. Foreigners knew the land as India, that too more as a continent, as the "lands of India", on the same note as "lands of Europe".
it tells us what they perceive the other person to be. no, they did not come as europeans, each of them came as british, french, spanish but not european,
Again, they knew india not as a country, but a different world altogether.
huh!!
Considering them better than the British is putting them on a pedestal. They were much, much worse in so many different ways.
As I said before, in balance the damage I think of british is more.
The British knew of course. How can one remain ignorant of the changes taking place in ones colony.
But you may call it inadvertent, or perhaps natural, inevitable.
You wouldn't bet on what? that india would have had a parliament if there was no partition?
parliamentary system, there would have been a total of three parliaments(one for hindu majority, one for muslim majority, one for whole), I do not know what to call that system.
Look. Lots of things are needed to form a modern nation state. A solid penal code, justice system, public institutions, roadways, railways. The Marathas weren't doing any of that as far as I can see.
Penal codes and justice systems exist from BC itself. The quran has one, the arthasastra details one. Roadways - if you remember your history lessons, the major expansion of roadways occured not during british but during the grand trunk road, i.e. sur dynasty. Railways was a invention in 1840's, do you expect them to be launched before that?
Public institutions- like libraries, police stations existed from long ago.
7-8 disparate kingdoms at war with each other are much much more difficult to unite than 500 subservient princely states who have little choice but to obey.
Do you know that during integration it were the smallest of states which created most of the problem?
I'm talking about the Period just after the Mughals consolidated their empire, all the way till the British left and even a few years into Independence.
wouldnt agree on this, the major difference, the mughals benefited by having industries in india whereas british benefited by shutting down and transporting them to manchester.
That, and now, think of the same story repeated, again and again, over a thousand years.
no doubt, but the dent put on psyche was less
True, but you can understand the horrible effect such a malevolent rule has on the population.
Talent gets wiped out. Artisans, craftsmen, warriors, leaders are periodically put to the sword, so that the voices of opposition get wiped out.
Again you forget an important difference, whereas for these rulers after consolidation, they depended on these artisans, craftsmen and others and thus did not have an incentive to kill all of them at one go, So during capture, huge killings but after consolidation, they had to protect them, these were the people who gave taxes and others.
the british intention was to kill these persons economically.
The rise of Hindu Nationalism with Bankim Chandra's narrative are indeed very important events. These along with reform movements, Rammohunroy, Vivekananda, etc. played a huge role in getting the dignity back that had been wiped out.
This was for the british period, the mughals damage was already in the process of cleaning up when the british intefered with marathas and sikhs.
Even, I would prefer reawakening actually, only, a reawakening after a long, long period of time.
As I said, for me it is extreme, as for me there were consistently efforts for rejunevating all through out the mughal period whereas it was deliberately crushed during the british period.
