Correcting “History”: One Step at a Time
A few weeks ago, my attention was drawn to a discussion on Guardian UK’s website regarding the new British Govt’s policy towards aid. I was prompted to join the debate due to a particular reference to the “Universities” established by the British in India – ahead of any other Asian country (pl see comments at the bottom of the page). While this was true from a narrow perspective of contemporary history, India – as we know – has had an ancient tradition of institutes and “Gurukuls” of higher learning. Below are my responses to the debate…and my own humble attempt at correcting “History” – one step at a time.
@MoveAnyMountain: This is with reference to your comment dt 4th Jun (946am):
You said: “The author tries to down play what achievements the British did make. For example, India had three Universities by the handover in 1858. That is, before any such institutions in Japan, or Africa, or China.
India has millenia old traditions of institutes of higher learnings and “universities” – much before Britain came into existence (As two examples, Takshashila and Nalanda). We did not need the British to help us realise the importance of education.
Next, you say that “Whatever else you can say, the British left India vastly richer than when it arrived“…
Three extracts on this. First from “India’s Deindustrialisation in the 18th and 19th Centuriesâ€, by David Clingingsmith and Jeffrey G Williamson : “While India produced about 25 percent of world industrial output in 1750, this figure had fallen to only 2 percent by 1900.“ (also see this post)
Second from Varnam’s blog: “When Clive of India came to Bengal, he described it in a way all visitors of the time did as “extensive, populous and as rich as the city of London.†It was a place of such “richness and abundance†that “neither war, pestilence nor oppression could destroy†it.
But within a century of British occupation, the population of its largest city, Calcutta, fell from 150,000 to 30,000 as its industries were wrecked in the interests of the mother country. By the time the British left, Calcutta was one of the poorest places in the world.”
Third from Nick Robins and “Loot: in search of the East India Companyâ€. He says, “In essence, the Honourable East India Company found India rich and left it poor.”
Finally, I will not say that the British did not do anything for India or that colonial rule did not bring about any benefits at all. My point is did the benefits really outweigh the costs? Would India have been better off without the British?
Pl also have a look at The Myth of a Benevolent “Rajâ€
I would welcome a debate on all these points on my blog.
***
Image Courtesy: Wikipedia (Copyright with W H Allen and Co.)
My second comment was in response to a remark on “Sati”.
@lefthalfback: This is with your reference to your comment dated 4 Jun 2010, 8:53PM.
You wrote: “well, whatever else happened in India during the Raj, Britain can take credit for stopping Suttee.”
Yes and No.
The British were neither the first – nor the last ones to oppose “Suttee” (or “Sati”).
More than a 1000 years before the British, the Alvars (in south India) were amongts the earliest to raise their voice against Sati. Theyw ere followed by saints of the Vainshnava nd Bhkati movements; then the Mughals and the Sikhs.
And then of course Raja Ram Mohan Roy was at the forefront of campaign against Sati. The British ban came more than 10 years after he started the campaign against Sati.And let us not forget that British attitude(s) towards Sati were at least partly motivated by desire to convert the natives.
By the way Sati continued to remain legal in some princely states and this snipped from New York Times (1868) suggests that it may have been revived in later days.
I would also like to mention the role of other reformers like Swami Dayanand Saraswati and later on Mahatma Gandhi in the campaign against Sati.P.S. As for the film, I guess you mean “Gandhi”?Thanks.
***
I would like to end this with a request to all of you: Next time you see something that is demonstrably wrong, please write back, respond, quote references and cite links…Don’t let a falsehood pass unchallenged. Pl do your bit to correct these distortions. Thank You.
Related Posts:
“Defalsify India’s History†by Subramanian Swamy – Excerpts
I find the demand for repayment by Moveanymoutain hilarious. How about returning Kohinoor to India as a start.
Anupam
dear shantanu,
you said
“The British were neither the first – nor the last ones to oppose “Suttee†(or “Satiâ€).
More than a 1000 years before the British, the Alvars (in south India) were amongts the earliest to raise their voice against Sati. Theyw ere followed by saints of the Vainshnava nd Bhkati movements; then the Mughals and the Sikhs.”
i wonder who&why were the mughals opposed to sati.probably you mean their sense of loss at not being able to lay their hands on hindu women who preffered johar to slavery.
Britishers settled in large cities like calcutta. making their base their, but the prosperity was all in the villages which was the strength of India. So the Britishers build the Railways which would carry the produce to cities and towns to feed the superior yield to the white niggards. The villages were rendered poor and blame goes to RAILWAYS.
The foundation of this strong economy was agriculture.
The evidence of damage British did to India is immense. Wish indians started naming the Elephant in the room.
@ ashwani.
that is exactly the reason why muslims opposed sati. it is mentioned somewhere here in this article… http://www.ariseindiaforum.org/misconceptions.php?type=63
Shantanu,
Is this “moveanymountain” dude British? It appears so from his spelling of Sati (“Suttee”). If that is the case, you can try to clear his mind, but you would fail most likely. At the risk of unfair generalization, west Europeans, particularly French and British, today resemble the families of old kings and prince in the new democracy. It is only 60 years they left the colonies and already lost all the wealth they looted. The economy tumbled, pride did not. It is this pawn-less tooth-less pride that makes them come to different places in the web and demand that they have performed the great civilising mission. Mission they have performed, it was for themselves only.
madhu,
thnx for reffering to a beautiful site.
The british of course have a lot ot do with sati.
The legalised it in the first place, the pride and honour of the act going to Richard Wellesley. They then made a huge hue about it with the help of Rammohun Roy. And finally banned it in 1829. William Bentinck is accredited with banning it, but the purpose of the british was completed. Their aim was to degrade and display the Hindu civilisation as barbaric was achieved.
Going into the next decade, the british might as well commence female killing, what with the onslaught of the later day Mughal ghazis, the British ummah, marching on.
Thanks All for the comments…will respond over the weekend (am travelling at present)
The prevalence of Sati was deliberately overhyped by missionaries. There were rarely, if ever, any case of Sati in the whole of 19th century. This is what I read in John Keay’s recently written history of India. The rest of the book is, of course, a load of crap.
@ Sanjay: Is this the book you are talking about?
http://www.amazon.com/India-History-John-Keay/dp/0802137970
Thanks
I am not sure what Hindus would have expected the British to do following their conquest, or rather India falling like a ripe apple in to their lap. I understand the gripe the about the benevolence of British rule when in profits was the driving force. Let us however keep things in perspective, the British impoverished the American colonies no less than India. The difference with the Americans was that they threw off the British yoke, and the Indians suffered it for a further century and half when the British finally recognised that the cost of keeping India exceeded any benefits to them. Again, it needs to be remembered that Britain and Gaul (now France) was meted out even great brutality when they were conquered by Rome. I have not seen bleeding hearts going about how bad the Romans were to them (although that was about 2,000 years distant as memories go for them). Quite the contrary, they learned from the Romans how to become a conquering power in their own rights. India owes it to the British though not quite an intact, though near enough an administration which India did not have in the preceding 2,500 years. Instead of protesting ad infinitum about past slights, I expect India to show the spirit that it should have imbibed from the British (and Muslim conquerors of old) and deal deadly blows in return for attacks on it. Instead all I hear is how earnest India wants to be loved for all its seeming weakness. It is not even the way to win a ladies heart! I expect Indians to be honed as well in their killing skills as much as in the arts of love.
Shantanu, here’s an take on Sati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)
Shri. Pavan.K.Varma in his book “Becoming Indian” gives a good description as well as some interesting statistics about Sati.
1) In 1813 British legalises Sati.
2) In 1829 British abolished Sati.
“The Incidence of Sati was largely limited to certain castes, even families, and was almost unknown outside parts of eastern and northern India. Between 1815 and 1828, 63 percent of all recorded acts of Sati took place in Calcutta Division(Interestingly, this was then the seat of colonial power)” (Lata mani, 1998)
“In 1824,looking at the data compiled by British themselves, of the 250,000 women who became widows in the Bengal Presidency, the number of those reported to have burned themselves was 600 – that is, 0.2 percent of the overall number of widows” (Anand.A.Yang, 2008).
“The data for Varanasi,…. is even more revealing…….only 125 cases had occurred in the nine years between 1820 and 1828” (Anand.A.Yang, 2008)
Must read: How history was made up at Nalanda by Arun Shourie, June 28, 2014 excerpted from
from which these concluding lines:
…In a word,
+ There is a Tibetan text written five hundred years after the destruction of Nalanda
+ Sarat Chandra Das annotates it, and includes in his Index a summary in English of a passage in the text – the summary naturally leaves out telling components of the original passage
+ Yadava looks only at the summary in the Index — “non-Buddhist beggars†becomes “Hindu fanaticsâ€
+ Yadava notes that the account is based on a “doubtful traditionâ€
+ Jha omits the word “doubtfulâ€
+ And we have a presidential address to the Indian History Congress!
Given what we have seen of Marxist historians even in this brief book, the brazen-faced distortions — to the point of falsehood — do not surprise me.
What does surprise me is that no one looked up either the source that Jha had cited or the text.
Indeed, in concluding his section, Yadava had stated:
“A great blow to Buddhism was, no doubt, rendered by the Turkish invasions, leading to the destruction and desertion of the celebrated Buddhist monasteries of Magadha and Bengal. Many Buddhist scholars fled to Tibet and Nepal.â€