Getting Into It With Niall Ferguson: Facts About Empire

« Colonized clothing · Main · Free HIV Drugs in India »

June 30, 2006

I know Priyamvada Gopal slightly from Cornell, and I’m always happy to read something she’s written. A recent editorial she published on neoconservative imperial historians in the Guardian provides lots of food for thought. I think she makes some important points about the current conservative fad for praising British imperialism, but I wanted to supply some quotes from Niall Ferguson’s book Empire that might challenge some of Gopal’s assertions. My own goal is to use this discussion as a learning opportunity, rather than a chance to throw around more polemical language; there’s been quite enough of that as it is.

(Incidentally, there are quite a number of intelligent comments in respone to Gopal’s essay at the Guardian site linked to above [check out especially the the comments by “Sikanderji”], as well as a lively discussion at Pickled Politics.)

Let’s start with Gopal’s substantive, factual claims:

More famines were recorded in the first century of the British Raj than in the previous 2,000 years, including 17-20 million deaths from 1896 to 1900 alone. While a million Indians a year died from avoidable famines, taxation subsidising colonial wars, and relief often deliberately denied as surplus grain was shipped to England.

Tolerance? The British empire reinforced strict ethnic/religious identities and governed through these divisions. As with the partition of India when 10 million were displaced, arbitrarily drawn boundaries between “tribes” in Africa resulted in massive displacement and bloodshed. Freedom and fair play? In Kenya, a handful of white settlers appropriated 12,000 square miles and pushed 1.25 million native Kikuyus to 2,000 restricted square miles. Resistance was brutally crushed through internment in detention camps, torture and massacres. Some 50,000 Kikuyus were massacred and 300,000 interned to put down the Mau Mau rebellion by peasants who wanted to farm their own land. A thousand peaceful protesters were killed in the Amritsar massacre of 1919. (link)

One thought I have in response to this is to point out that Empire operated differently from place to place, and any discussion of its possible benefits ought to take that into account. I beleive the British Raj in India did have some benefits along with its many negatives, but it’s hard to say that the British presence in Africa, from the Slave trade up through formal colonization in the 1870s, had very many positive effects at all. India entered independence in relatively good shape, and largely adopted the British industrial and legal infrastructure when it established a new state; the African states, by contrast, had far less to work with. Also, it’s worth noting that most of the bloodier incidents in the history of the British empire actually took place outside of India (the massacre at Amritsar, while bad, is not of the same order as the suppression of the Mau Mau that Gopal mentions).

Secondly, I have my doubts about blaming the British for the Partition of India, though I concede I am not an expert on the nitty-gritties of that process. Third, “Sikanderji” has some interesting comments on the question of famines and the Indian textile industry:

A few other points: 1) The British regime was the first to make some comprehensive attempt at famine prevention in India, by vastly extending irrigation networks and building railways lines to famine-prone areas, as well as introducing famine codes in most provinces (though not, tragically, in Bengal). The historical record is insufficiently complete for any historian to be able to compare the levels of famine under the British with those under preceding regimes, but it is extremely unlikely to have been higher, given that by the latter half of the 19th century it had at least become possible to move grain and rice to areas stricken by shortage from areas of surplus using the railways. 2) India’s textile industry would have been destroyed with or without British rule, as it was largely export driven, and could not compete with industrial production in Lancashire, which would have taken over its exports anyway. India did eventually industrialise from the 1880s onwards, and the nationalist grievance is that protection of the industry through tariffs did not happen until the 1890s. (link)

I do not know whether all this is correct, and I’m willing to be educated by readers who know the details about the famines and the Indian textile industry (especially ones who come armed with links to actual facts!).

But since this debate concerns Niall Ferguson, I would encourage people participating in this debate to actually go read his book Empire. It’s true that he tells the history of Empire from the British side, but there is really an impressive amount of knowledge on display in the book. Here is a passage from Ferguson’s book specifically on the question of the effect of the British presence on India’s economy. It addresses some of Gopal’s points:

[E]ven Curzon once admitted that British rule ‘may be good for us; but it is neither equally, nor altogether, good for them.’ Indian nationalist agreed wholeheartedly, complaining that the wealth of India was being drained into the pockets of foreigners. In fact, we now know that this drain — the colonial burden as measured by the trade surplus of the colony — amounted to little more than 1 per cent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930. That was a lot less than the Dutch ‘drained’ from their Indonesian empire, which amounted to between 7 and 10 per cent of Indonesian net domestic produce in the same period.

And on the other side of the balance sheet were the immense British investments in Indian infrastructure, irrigation and industry. By the 1880s the British had invested &270 million in India, not much less than one-fifth of their entire investment overseas. By 1914 the figure had reached &400 million. The British increased the area of irrigated land by a factor of eight, so that by the end of the Raj a quarter of all land was irrigated, compared with just 5 per cent of it under the Mughals. They created an Indian coal industry from scratch which by 1914 produced nearly 16 million tons a year. They increased the number of jute spindles by a factor of ten. There were also marked improvements in public health, which increased the Indian average life expectancy by eleven years. It was the British who introduced quinine as an anti-malarial prophylactic, carried out public programmes of vaccination against smallpox — often in the face of local resistance — and laboured to improve the urban water supplies that were so often the bearers of cholera and other diseases… .

True, the average Indian had not got much richer under British rule. Between 1757 British per capita gross domestic product increased in real terms by 347 per cent, Indian by a mere 14 per cent. (from Ferguson’s Empire, 215-216)

After enumerating these economic benefits of Empire in India, Ferguson does go on acknowledge the role of the indentured laborers, as well as the bad British economic policies that exacerbated the famines of 1876-8 and 1899-1900. All in all, a fairly balanced picture. It’s not exactly the story Marxists want to hear, and it’s certainly not quite as bad as what Gopal describes Ferguson doing (“Colonialism—a tale of slavery, plunder, war, corruption, land-grabbing, famines, exploitation, indentured labour, impoverishment, massacres, genocide and forced resettlement—is rewritten into a benign developmental mission marred by a few unfortunate accidents and excesses.”).

I quote Ferguson here not to exonerate him for the kinds of things he said on the radio during the recent BBC interview (which I haven’t heard), nor for other comments he’s made along the way. In fact, I agree with many of Gopal’s criticisms of the smug, celebratory version of Imperial history that is currently in vogue in some circles. But Ferguson’s actual book on the subject of Empire is generally more learned than smug; it’s also well-written and decently documented. I’d rather discuss historical facts and maybe learn a thing or two than simply re-declare that Imperialism was bad, or continue on in the endless bloggy “bartering of positions” that the blogger Rage recently lamented. Once we get past blanket generalizations, the history of the British Empire is both fascinating and thoroughly complex.

History

POSTED BY amardeep @ 1:09 PM

135 comments

1 · Ennis on June 30, 2006 1:24 PM · Direct link

Funny, our posts go together.

2 · badmash on June 30, 2006 1:39 PM · Direct link

I met her at a conference at Trinity College a while back. Very sharp mind and witty!

Amardeep as to where the responsibility for the violence surrounding parition goes, I find a pretty strong resonance with Iraq today. A great deal of the violence directed at colonial subjects in India was not through direct action from the British authorities (although that too did happen, especially in the early days) but rather throuh decisions at a higher administrative/strategic level which then snowballed at a societal level. For example, the forced growing of jute in the place of cash crops which resulted in a lack of adequate food, which resulted in sporadic and desperate acts of (subaltern) violence. Drawing a parallel with today, the lack of adequate strategic planning for a post-war Iraq is largely responsible for the security situation there now. True, the gangsters who commit the violence are directly responsible, but the government is also culpable when it not only planned poorly but even turned a blind eye towards the security concerns of a subject people.

2) Indias textile industry would have been destroyed with or without British rule, as it was largely export driven, and could not compete with industrial production in Lancashire, which would have taken over its exports anyway. India did eventually industrialise from the 1880s onwards, and the nationalist grievance is that protection of the industry through tariffs did not happen until the 1890s.

I disagree! India was a source for dirt cheap raw materials (and also a market for finished goods). The early industrialization of the Indian textiles was also greatly hindered by the protections offered to the industry in England.

In fact, we now know that this drain the colonial burden as measured by the trade surplus of the colony amounted to little more than 1 per cent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930.

Mmmm, Dietmar Rothermund's volume has a different take on this.

the smug, celebratory version of Imperial history that is currently in vogue in some circles

It's amazing how far these circles actually extend. During my entire grad year in the UK, there was never once a mention of the fact of colonial brutality in departmental seminars, although that of Hindu nationalists or the Mughal state was all abuzz!

3 · Ikram on June 30, 2006 2:02 PM · Direct link

Amardeep wrote:
Fergusons actual book on the subject of Empire is generally more learned than smug; its also well-written and decently documented

Actually, I thought Ferguson'S polemic on Empire (because it was more a political argument than a history) was extremely one-sided. Look up his description of the Younghusband expedition to Tibet -- even Winston Churchill condemned it, but Ferguson makes it sound anodyne. I wouldn't recommend Ferguson's book to anyone as an introduction to the British Empire.

4 · Divya. on June 30, 2006 2:03 PM · Direct link

India entered independence in relatively good shape, and largely adopted the British industrial and legal infrastructure when it established a new state

Relative to your examples only. Certainly not relative to what it was before the Brits got their money-grubbing hands on the country. Prior to the British, India had 25% of the share of world trade. This was decimated by the British. As for the legal system, I think it's a great pity we adopted it. If it wasn't for the redeeming features of the indigenous panchayat system that India has had for centuries, the inherited system would be the grossest form of injustice to a nation as diverse as India.

And as noted in the comment above, the textile industry was destroyed by the British. It is no wonder that they called India the jewel in their crown. Not only did they loot a lot of its wealth, they also found a readymade industrial infrastruce which was greatly beneficial in helping kick start their own industrial revolution.

5 · Amitabh on June 30, 2006 2:27 PM · Direct link

Partition was the fault of the Muslim League/Jinnah et. al. AND of course the British. The accompanying violence was the result of two notoriously militant communities (Punjabi Muslims and Punjabi Sikhs) trying to destroy each other. Punjabi Hindus by and large simply fled (and committed violence only when in a very comfortable majority).

6 · Mathematiker on June 30, 2006 2:28 PM · Direct link

Could someone please be kind enough to explain in layman's terms what the sentence

"In fact, we now know that this drain the colonial burden as measured by the trade surplus of the colony amounted to little more than 1 per cent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930"

means?

Thanks.

7 · Amitabh on June 30, 2006 2:28 PM · Direct link

I meant notoriously militant in a good way...both communities largely made up of soldiers and farmers. They were the backbone of the British Army in India in its later days.

8 · badmash on June 30, 2006 2:30 PM · Direct link

Partition was the fault of the Muslim League/Jinnah et. al. AND of course the British

What about Congress??? Ok, let's not start this discussion again ;)

9 · Anindo on June 30, 2006 2:35 PM · Direct link

And Amitabh how does your theory explain the violence in Bengal during the partition?

Regards,

10 · Amardeep on June 30, 2006 2:40 PM · Direct link

Ikram, I looked it up (on p. 316 of Ferguson's book). It looks like he mentions it more as an example of Imperial administrators "quietly cracking" than as a case of Imperialism At Its Benevolent Finest. It's a section called "Doubts," which is all about Brits who criticized Imperialism after witnessing it firsthand.

Ferguson begins the paragraph with Leonard Woolf, who worked in Ceylon:

Leonard Woolf, husband of the novelist Virginia Woolf, had joined the Ceylon civil servie in 1904 and was sent to govern a tousand square miles up-country. He had resigned even before the war, convinced of the 'absurdity of a people of one civilization and mode of life trying to impose its rule upon an entirely different civilization and mode of life.' The most an imperial administrator could hope to do, he concluded, was to 'prevent people from killing one another or robbing one another, or burning down the camp, or getting cholera or plague or smallpox, and if one can manage to get one night's sleep in three, one is fairly satisfied . . . ' As a young man, Francis Younghusband had crossed the Gobi Desert, witnessed the Jameson Raid and in 1904 led the first British expedition to the Dalai Lama's court at Lhasa. By 1923, however, he had been converted to the idea of free love and had taken to referring to himself as Svabhava, 'a follower of the Gleam'

In other words, these are imperialists who dropped out of the game (later in the section he goes on to talk about E.M. Forster, George Orwell, and T.E. Lawrence). Here he's not trying to tell the story of the British invasion of Tibet so much as develop a pattern of what happened with imperial administrators who "burnt out."

I did read a bit more about Younhusband's Tibet mission here, and it's definitely an interesting story. (The really sickening part is what happened in 1904 -- the Maxim gun as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.) Ferguson may be remiss in not telling that part of the story, but he is thorough on some other British military misadventures.

I'm not saying that Ferguson's book is the greatest thing ever, but it's more than mere neocon polemic.

11 · Saurav on June 30, 2006 2:59 PM · Direct link

Id rather discuss historical facts and maybe learn a thing or two than simply re-declare that Imperialism was bad, or continue on in the endless bloggy bartering of positions that the blogger Rage recently lamented. Once we get past blanket generalizations, the history of the British Empire is both fascinating and thoroughly complex.

A brave and noble effort, my friend :) A few points:

1. History is built on records and access to it and, most of all, their existence. Therefore, any claims that compare the number of famines in the last three hundred years or so to the number in the 1700 years before should, imo, be dismissed outright--unless there's some treasure trove of evidence or a way that the person found another method (the way carbon dating is analogously used to date biological material).

2. The framework for comparison is as important as the actual substance of debate. The commenter you're quoting above who defends the British Empire makes his/her points without really considering the broader context of the world--e.g. Britain was financially, organizationally, and militarily in a better position (i.e. more technologically advanced) to both exploit its empire and to engage in famine prevention regimes (if those actually occurred) than previous realms that enjoyed less technology. This as much a function of the fact that Britain and South Asia both operated within a Eurasian sphere where technologies like gunpowder and the printing press and numbering systems went back and forth to different loci of technological advancement at different times. Similarly, to argue that the textile industry would have collapsed anyway is ridiculous, because there was a world economy which existed prior to European colonization and one that existed afterwards--ignoring that transition is foolhardy.

3. On a factual level, the idea that Britain was the "first" to engage in famine prevention regimes, as with Gopal's point about how there were more famines, strikes me as a gross overgeneralization built more on what the author wants to see than what's actually arguable from the evidence. If Britain instituted such a great famine prevention regime, then why did the famine of Bengal happen in 1943, almost at the end of British rule, and due to political reasons as much as natural (Amartya Sen's argument, not mine). Similarly, to argue that the Indian export trade would have died out anyway is to ignore the nationalist historians' arguments--which need to be dealt with--that the British actually structured the economics to protect their own trade while undermining the export industry in India. This circumstantially makes a lot of sense and is hardly implausible, though you'd have to look at several decades worth of primary sources (or works that have in a fair way) to actually figure out what the British policy towards textiles was.

4. The argument that the British were not responsible for Partition misses the boat, imo. The British constructed their empire in South Asia on the principle of Divide and Rule--this is documented. If you use this idea for at least 90 years, the politics of the resistance and the society is going to developin particular ways, and one of those ways is institutionalized identity politics to which notions of sovereignty are tied--i.e. competing nationalist movements based on identities that are pitted against one another. In the broadest and most important, imo, sense of the term, the British laid all the groundwork for partition--to argue otherwise is analogous to arguing that the American slave system had no impact on the development of American sharecropping after the Civil War. The British also did their fair share in making these divisions rigid in other ways--e.g. imposing the Census, which eliminates a lot of social fluidity. You could, I suppose, argue that these are features of mass society, but the two terms are largely equivalent here, as the only mass society colonial india knew was the British Raj.

Also, let's remember there were three partitions--the partition of India/Pakistan, Punjab into two, and Bengal into two. These had different dynamics. A book by Joya Chatterjee makes the argument that the Partition in Bengal was, in the short term, (as opposed ot the broader dynamics I talked about above), primarily driven by the Hindu aristrocracy, not the Muslim League. The argument is that the former would rather have had a province to rule of their own than to be second tier elites in a majority Muslim Bengal. Again, I can't vouch for the veracity, but it's certainly a tenable argument.

12 · mostlymoi on June 30, 2006 3:03 PM · Direct link

I think more interesting than the accuracies/ inaccuracies of Niall Ferguson's account of the colonial encounter - (which can be endlessly debated) is Gopal's characterisation of him as a 'neocon ideologue'. It seems to me what she is pointing to are the recent writings in the field of International Relations (Ppl like Max boot,Robert Kagan, Dinesh D'souza, Michael Ignatieff etc) by US writers which specifically characterise US as an empire and justify US occupation of Iraq on grounds similar to the colonial justification of empires(either self regarding- that is national security, continuance of US as a state- or human rights and rescue of the 'other' ie a civilizing mission). What I think she is saying Fergusson is doing (and I don't disagree with her) is rewriting history to exonerate British Empire of it's violence and racist foundations, much as these writers are doing in the field of contemporary International relations. This move makes it difficult for critics of US foreign policy to make the (morally loaded) acussation that US is behaving like an Imperialist, colonial power ( a favourite form of Left wing critique)- because according to Fergusson "What's wrong with empires anyway? look at the fine things they gave us - like capitalism , and the English language etc"!

13 · Saurav on June 30, 2006 3:04 PM · Direct link

Oh, for a reasonably decent introductory book, you could try Wolpert's history of india (or maybe it was modern india or south asia or something). One of the best histories I've read of India was Sumit Sarkar's History of Modern India, but that's very fact specific and might be boring to someone without a deep interest in history. Chapati Mystery has a post on good books, but I can't find it.

14 · badmash on June 30, 2006 3:13 PM · Direct link

Sumit Sarkar's History of Modern India

Hear hear!!! A brilliant piece of work, thoroughly researched and balanced.

15 · mostlymoi on June 30, 2006 3:24 PM · Direct link

Priyamvada Gopal's rather angry open letter to Andrew Marr (the presenter of the show in question) is available here. The blog also has a link to a recording of the actual show. The transcript of the phone in that Priyamvada is more incensed about in the open letter is also being circulated on email , and I have it - in case ppl are interested let me know and i'll mail it to you.

16 · Amardeep on June 30, 2006 3:30 PM · Direct link

Saurav, lots of points, and I only have time to respond to a couple of things right now:

to argue otherwise is analogous to arguing that the American slave system had no impact on the development of American sharecropping after the Civil War.

I don't see why that should be so. The beneficiaries of the sharecropping system were, by and large, former slaveholders and their descendents. The "beneficiaries" of partition were the formerly colonized. I think agency has to mainly go to the Indians -- Jinnah (and co.), Gandhi/Nehru (and co.), and Savarkar (and co.).

The British also did their fair share in making these divisions rigid in other ways--e.g. imposing the Census, which eliminates a lot of social fluidity. You could, I suppose, argue that these are features of mass society, but the two terms are largely equivalent here, as the only mass society colonial india knew was the British Raj.

I think the case for the importance of the census as an means of fomenting division has been somewhat overstated. I've never seen anyone cite the census in support of two nations theory. The hardening of religious identity in the Indian subcontinent was an inevitable consequence of the introduction of European ideas about the definition of "religion."

I have some comments on your points #2 and #3, but it will have to wait until after various real world errands have been accomplished...

17 · Ikram on June 30, 2006 4:10 PM · Direct link

This is what Lawrence James -- a recent defender of Ferguson -- says about the Younghusband expedition:

The .. invasion of Tibetan has been very well chronicled. ... the men on the spot bulldozed the British government into a frontier war which it had tried to avoid ... [a newspaper writer] was astonished by how the primitively armed Tibetans faced up to machine gun and artillery fire. Trusting in their own talismans and faith, they were 'unterrified by the resources of modern science and war....' The result was a number of massacres and the campaign was denounced in the Indian native press and in the Commons, where Winston Churchill ... spoke for the right of Tibetans to defend their homeland

I would say Ferguson seriously misrepresents this invasion.

Here's what I wrote about Ferguson when I first read his book:

As history, it's a well written and engaging story that decidedly one-sided in its presentation of the facts ... [but] the book is not primarily a work of history; it is a political polemic. The parts of British Imperial history that do not bolster Ferguson's case are simply left out.

Ferguson shows ... selective presentation in telling the story of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. And he leaves the 1943 Bengal famine out of his book entirely

Ferguson'S book is not a balanced picture. Not one bit.

(As for partition, everyone -- meaning all my old uncles with too much ear hair -- know that it was Nehru's fault.)

18 · Amitabh on June 30, 2006 4:11 PM · Direct link

Anindo:

The violence in Bengal was several orders of magnitude less than what took place in Punjab. In Bengal, there was some heavy Muslim violence against Hindus in certain districts of eastern Bengal (Naokhali, etc). By and large western Bengal did not see very heavy Hindu-on-Muslim violence and the best testimony to that is there was no MASSIVE migration of populations...western Bengal retained a large Muslim minority and eastern Bengal retained a significant Hindu minority (which has dwindled in the ensuing decades). In the case of Punjab, western Punjab was almost entirely cleansed of Hindus/Sikhs, and eastern Punjab almost entirely cleansed of Muslims. 10-12 million people migrated to the other side and started new lives. An estimated 1 million died. I think the culture and martial character of Punjab played a big role in that.

19 · Amitabh on June 30, 2006 4:12 PM · Direct link

Sorry, that last post (#18) was from me not Anindo.

20 · duh on June 30, 2006 4:44 PM · Direct link

Shame. Shame. By narrowing down the discussion of empire to just the two items of famine and partition, you are doing a great disservice to everyone. The central theme of any discussion of empire should be FREEDOM. It is every human's right and all the specious arguments you can put forth to justify imperialism cannot take that away.

I suspect neither Niall Ferguson nor you, Amardeep have lived as an adult in conditions where your life was controlled/dictated by another. Where you chafed under the absolutist rules imposed by a master for his own benefit. Where your life and the lives of your children and all their descendants were, as a foregone conclusion, dedicated in the service of this master and his children and all their descendants. Where you coud not aspire to anything other than servitude. I am NOT talking about slavery. I am talking about imperialism.

What slavery does to an individual, imperialism does to an entire society.

It is the enemy of freedom.

21 · duh on June 30, 2006 4:53 PM · Direct link

In the words of Arundhati Roy, "debating the pros and cons of imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape."
In my words, "exploring the beneficial effects of imperialism" is a bit like expecting her to be grateful that you wore a condom.

22 · Amardeep on June 30, 2006 5:01 PM · Direct link

Duh, no one here is arguing that imperialism was in and of itself a good thing -- so let's leave your cheap/polemical rape metaphor out of it, shall we?

Historical events are rarely moral. They happen as they do, and we can condemn them (as I would condemn imperialism) or rejoice in them (independence). But if you have a certain intellectual mentality you want to at some point move beyond that, and actually understand the details of what transpired. How did the empire work? How did a few thousand ICS officers run a country with several hundred million people? How did the economics of it work? What are its lasting consequences?

That's why I posed this post as an attempt to talk about facts and share knowledge, not as yet another chapter in "save the world through blogging." For saving the world or putting the British in their place, blogging is pretty damn useless.

23 · Ponniyin Selvan on June 30, 2006 5:22 PM · Direct link

Amardeep, nice blog..

I wonder what people think about monarchy / whatever system that existed before the Brit imperialism.. Do they seriously think those monarchs/kings/sultans cared about human rights of an ordinary citizen more or less than a Brit imperialist??..

(As for partition, everyone -- meaning all my old uncles with too much ear hair -- know that it was Nehru's fault.)

LOL.. yeah right..

24 · razib_the_atheist on June 30, 2006 5:36 PM · Direct link

What slavery does to an individual, imperialism does to an entire society.

societies have inalienable rights?

i predict this argument will devolve into the russian dolls. man has never been truly free.

25 · P.G. Wodehouse on June 30, 2006 5:48 PM · Direct link

Consider the Mughals. Their original native place was Turkmenistan. But they emigrated to India, and did not think of going back to Turkmenistan.

In contrast, the British went back to Britain after serving for a certain number of years in India.

Why is this important? Because it determines where the money is rotated. The Mughals rotated the money they made in India, not Turkmenistan. The British rotated the money they made in England.

26 · Whose God is it anyways? on June 30, 2006 5:49 PM · Direct link

"I wonder what people think about monarchy / whatever system that existed before the Brit imperialism.. Do they seriously think those monarchs/kings/sultans cared about human rights of an ordinary citizen more or less than a Brit imperialist??.."

that reminds me of this line from the movie "gandhi.":

"Mr. Kinnoch, I beg you to accept that there is no people on Earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power. "

i always wondered if he actually said that, or was that just a line created for the movie?

27 · Manju on June 30, 2006 5:57 PM · Direct link

My own (anecdotal) impression, based on conversations with my father and uncles of his generation--who actually remember colonialization and often talk of Independence Day as "the greatest day of my life;" is that they have both tremendous respect for the British yet remain staunchly proud of India.

Sometimes they'll say things that'll completely baffle me (like; "The Queen was the most beautiful woman I ever saw") and my mind will turn to very modern concepts like "the internalization of colonial values;" only to then hear them wax poetic about the greatness of Indian civilization.

I guess its a product of Gandhi's methodology and in many ways mirrors Nehru's own complicated relationship with the British.

But never have I heard a person of this generation say something like Arundhati Roy's, "debating the pros and cons of imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape." I daresay, you'd have to be extremely "westernized" to say something like that.

28 · duh on June 30, 2006 6:00 PM · Direct link

How did the empire work? As long as it is an academic exercise, sure, nothing wrong in that. It's like forensic science. But should we hand over this forensics expertise to organized crime? When imperialists like Donald Rumsfeld sponsors a study of how empires work, and people like Niall Ferguson eagerly sell their expertise, should they be considered intellectuals? Or imperialists? How do you treat a forensic scientist who helps organized crime fool the police?

The rape metaphor was A Roy's, not mine. That should have been crystal clear from the first line. And yes, it is not only an apt metaphor, it is bang on the dot. Why should we leave it out? If anything that needs to be left out, it is your pretense of "a certain intellectual mentality".

29 · Ponniyin Selvan on June 30, 2006 6:01 PM · Direct link

Consider the Mughals. Their original native place was Turkmenistan. But they emigrated to India, and did not think of going back to Turkmenistan.

Yeah, because they did not have efficient and quick transport in those days.. :-)

I don't believe in the BS about Mughals being natives.. No one of those rulers ever thought high of the native cultures/languages/people.. What is the court language of the Mughals??.. Check Babar's Babarnama on what he thinks about India.. :-)

30 · P.G. Wodehouse on June 30, 2006 6:23 PM · Direct link

No one of those rulers ever thought high of the native cultures/languages/people

The people don't need their ruler's respect. They need the ruler to rotate the money.

31 · indianoguy on June 30, 2006 6:46 PM · Direct link

here is Niall Ferguson's presentation at UC Berkley

32 · razib_the_atheist on June 30, 2006 7:11 PM · Direct link

and did not think of going back to Turkmenistan.

i believe this is false. the mughals tried to conquer, and did, afghanistan multiple times. they came to india for plunder, but they were also driven out by the uzbek warlords.

33 · suresh on June 30, 2006 7:28 PM · Direct link

The problem with trying to answer questions like "was the british empire good?" -- apart from the fact that "good" is ill-defined -- is that one can't do controlled experiments in social sciences. Scientifically, the proper way to answer such a question is to take two copies of the Indian sub-continent at the beginning of the 18th century; put one copy under British rule for 200 years (or however long the empire lasted) and then compare the outcome against the "control."

This inability to do controlled experiments makes the question "was the british empire good?" much more complicated to answer. Let me give two examples. First, some people say that things like Railways were some of the good consequences of British rule. This assumes that Railways would not have developed had the British not come to the subcontinent. How does one know this? Here's where the importance of experimental control is important. The point is that *if* the Railways would have come to India in the absence of British rule, then Railways cannot be counted as a contribution of British rule. Only, if it can be demonstrated that the Railways would not have come to India without British rule can it be counted as a contribution. Since there are examples of countries adopting Railways without the benefit of British rule, it is possible that Railways could have come to India even without colonialism. True, it is likely that the Railway system that developed would be different but it then means that comparing having a railway system to a situation without one is not the right comparision.

Second, some have argued that famines etc. as a negative consequence of British rule. Again, this is too facile. Is one sure that there would have been lesser famines in the absence of British rule? On what basis does one make such conclusions? If famines of equal or greater magnitude would have been there anyway, why must this be added to the deficit column of the British raj?

Not very surprisingly, most attempts to answer such questions fall back on the trivial: "It had its good and bad points, etc. etc. Anyway, to conclude this overly long comment, I personally don't find the question "was the british empire good?" very interesting. There are, to be sure, interesting questions about British rule and its legacy (we in India are still facing the consequences of the choices made by the British raj) but this particular question is not one of them. I think this question is more important for some -- not all -- British people.

Suresh.

34 · desitude on June 30, 2006 7:33 PM · Direct link

This is what Abraham Eraly - a very readable historian, and certainly not a 'nationalist' - had to say about India before the advent of the British:

But few could see the obvious, being blinded by the glitter of the Mughal emperors mountainous hoard of gold and gems, his marble palaces, the Peacock throne, the Taj. But behind the imperial façade there was another scene, another life people in mud hovels, their lives barely distinct from those of animals, wretched half-naked, half-starved, and from whom every drop of sap had been wrung out by their predatory masters, Muslim as well as Hindu
At the height of Mughal splendour under Shah Jahan, over a quarter of the gross national product of the empire was appropriated by just 655 individuals, while the bulk of the approximately 120 million people of India lived on a dead level of poverty. No one gave a thought to their plight. Famine swept the land every few years, devouring hundreds of thousands of men, and in its wake came, always and inevitably, pestilence, devouring hundreds of thousands more. In Mughal India the contrast between legend and reality was grotesque.

I would say a question such as, "Was the British Raj good or bad?" must be pondered in light of what the subcontinent was like before their arrival.

35 · razib_the_atheist on June 30, 2006 8:20 PM · Direct link

At the height of Mughal splendour under Shah Jahan, over a quarter of the gross national product of the empire was appropriated by just 655 individuals

yes, but they were brown. sort of (i recall mughals referred to indian muslims as 'black' so i don't know how brown turco-persians really are :) the key for some is clearly cultural freedom. all "complex" cultures have elites, but what is especially onerous is when an alien elite rules. as long as the foot is the same color (even if a lighter shade) and the insult is intelligible in your native language (even if with an aristocratic accent & diction), the pain of the indigenously crafted boot being driven into your back is not deemed imperialism.

36 · Divya. on June 30, 2006 8:55 PM · Direct link

At the height of Mughal splendour under Shah Jahan, over a quarter of the gross national product of the empire was appropriated by just 655 individuals, while the bulk of the approximately 120 million people of India lived on a dead level of poverty.

I seriously doubt this. The influence of the Mughal empire was largely urban. Perhaps the above quote was true of the town folk. The villages of India were prosperous at the time. There was nearly 100% literarcy both among men and women. All of this has been recorded in the British archives themselves. As we know the British loved recordkeeping. Historians on the other hand are less reliable and often have dubious motives.

Unlike the Mughals who were content with their riches and did not venture deep into the heartland, the Brits scoured the length and breadth of India in order to squeeze it of every last drop they could. With their taxation policies they completely destroyed the support structure that maintained the education and culture within a few decades of coming to power. The country has never recovered from this.

37 · razib on June 30, 2006 9:20 PM · Direct link

There was nearly 100% literarcy both among men and women.

LOL. fuck, ROFL.

38 · razib on June 30, 2006 9:21 PM · Direct link

still ROFL.

man, divya needz a spoorlam.

39 · razib on June 30, 2006 9:27 PM · Direct link

nevermind, i just realized, divya is her own spoorlam :)

sorry if i'm being mean guyz, i'm checking out thread at this point so you can keep the tone elevated.

have a good wkd & peace.

40 · RC on June 30, 2006 10:02 PM · Direct link

The book accompanying Ferguson's current Channel 4 series on 20th-century history, The War of the World, tells us that people "seem predisposed" to "trust members of their own race", "those who are drawn to 'the Other' may ... be atypical in their sexual predilections" and that "when a Chinese woman marries a European man, the chances are relatively high ... that only the first child they conceive will be viable." Not far from the pseudo-scientific nonsense that once made it possible to punish interracial relationships.

What about the above nugget from the Guardian article ??

41 · Dark Knight on June 30, 2006 10:11 PM · Direct link

Wow Amardeep, I'm still waiting for your assertion that colonialism was good. I've been reading your stuff for over a year, and you inch closer and closer with your defense of colonialist tradition and the idiotic tendency aong educated NRI's to worship the British. Perhaps your support for Dalrymple and his ilk and your repeated assertions that "scholarly" written works by western academia are somehow superior to the homegrown testimonials by Indian writers are a byproduct of your position in academia. At any rate, the argument you have used before about how studying a culture makes you qualified to comment on it could be extended to neo-con historians who think the British Empire was a great benefit to both Africa and India. I'm sure these men have all the requisite degrees, must we therefore accept their conclusions as true? Or must we acknowledge that they are still biased and bigoted in their views, regardless of how many years of grad school they've attended. You could learn something from Gopal; she has obviously not lost her perspective due to her education.

42 · Dark Knight on June 30, 2006 10:18 PM · Direct link

Also Amardeep,

Historical events are rarely moral. They happen as they do, and we can condemn them (as I would condemn imperialism) or rejoice in them (independence). But if you have a certain intellectual mentality you want to at some point move beyond that, and actually understand the details of what transpired. How did the empire work? How did a few thousand ICS officers run a country with several hundred million people? How did the economics of it work? What are its lasting consequences?

So does that logic apply to the Holocaust? Khmer Rouge? Andrew Jackson's program of genocide? Does your "intellectual mentality" extend you to being able to better understand the brilliant economics behind the mass murder of thousands? We must admit, they were tremendous accomplishments, each of those three examples. Each lead to significant advancements in the art of subjugation. Much like the British Empire. You're quote is basically you saying that you are smarter than us, because some of us choose to blame the British for their actions, while academics like you can somehow "understand" them despite being born far after any of the action took place. You should tell my grandmother about this; she hates the British. She was also arrested for three years and sat in their jails, simply for trying to assist in village uplift. I'm sure you could make her see the good in colonialism.

43 · Divya. on June 30, 2006 10:22 PM · Direct link

nevermind, i just realized, divya is her own spoorlam :)

Whatever. You'll simply have to go to London to check the British archives. Unless you're content to believe the historians. Literacy isn't exactly an education and nothing to be incredulous about. The fact is that there were schools of all sorts which were supported by local patrons and people in the villages in no way experienced the crushing poverty that they do now.

There's a book called The Beautiful Tree by Dharampal which is based on the data gathered from these archives and it talks in depth about this.

44 · Amardeep on June 30, 2006 10:45 PM · Direct link

You're quote is basically you saying that you are smarter than us, because some of us choose to blame the British for their actions, while academics like you can somehow "understand" them despite being born far after any of the action took place.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm only saying it's a subject worth knowing in detail. If you're only ever going to evaluate something at a moral level, your need to continue learning stops. I only claim to be a curious person, not one who is smarter than anyone else. Many of the comments on this thread have suggested that Indians of that generation themselves manage to respect the British Raj even though they would never, ever trade their freedom.

In my post I was clear that there are certain elements of this I don't know perfectly well, and I invited readers to share what they know. Some of the comments have already taught me things -- but they were generally the ones that brought up specifics (like Younghusband in Tibet).

So does that logic apply to the Holocaust?

In fact, something like the Holocaust would be an appropriate point of comparison. There is a whole subdiscipline of history known as "Holocaust Studies," composed of people who exclusively study the forces that led to the Holocaust, how it literally happened, and how it was tolerated. They are all obviously unanimous in their condemnation of it morally (which isn't true of the British empire), but the questions it raises nevertheless need to be addressed in detail. The field is, I should note, dominated by people who are themselves of Jewish descent.

45 · sleepy on June 30, 2006 10:58 PM · Direct link

Dark Knight,
"So does that logic apply to the Holocaust?"
I think it does, I took two classes in college on the Holocaust. I don't think we ever needed to state the fact that the Holocaust was morally reprehensible, it was assumed. Our purpose was to learn the facts about it because they were horrific enough that they couldn't be blamed on one person and left at that. That would be simplifying it too much and I believe that the Holocaust shouldn't be reduced to a mere slogan.

Another personal example :), I did my senior thesis on women in the Indian Nationalist movement. I started out with a very starry eyed opinion of how accepted women were within this movement etc. I ended up with a much more complicated idea of how Feminism and Nationalist don't always mesh. Did this make me less proud of how much people contributed and gave up for Independence? Of course not, I started out admiring them and I ended up admiring them. It was just that they weren't a faceless mass of greatness anymore, they had faces and they had real issues with the ideologies driving independence. That in no way means that the British empire was not based on racist ideologies and exploitative economics, it just means that our predecessors that fought for Indepedence were independent people with diverse opinions. We can only respect that diversity if we study it. My two cents.

46 · sleepy on June 30, 2006 11:00 PM · Direct link

Sorry Amardeep, I didn't realize you had already posted on Holocaust Studies. I took a while commenting and I guess you posted before I refreshed. Sorry Sorry.

47 · Dark Knight on June 30, 2006 11:00 PM · Direct link

I'm sure that many Indians of the generation do respect the British Raj. As I have continuously stated, I believe that this tendency among Indians is probably our greatest failing and is most a result of the British-based education system that most of them were indoctrinated within. Rest assured, there are also just as many who believe the opposite.

Also, your point about Holocaust studies is fair and I don't dispute the interest of Jewish peoples in the discipline. The key element is this:

They are all obviously unanimous in their condemnation of it morally (which isn't true of the British empire), but the questions it raises nevertheless need to be addressed in detail.

This the great challange, and you dismiss it like it's a given. There was a long time when the Holocaust wasn't "universally morally condemned" or even recognized as happening. If it hadn't been for the Jewish scholars that had pushed forward the truth, our contemporary understanding could have been much different or more tempered, much like our current view of colonialism. If we want further generations to understand the horror of the British occupation, then that must be pressed forward by our scholars, an option you personally have but choose not to exercise. that's fine, everyone should act as they believe, but why brown people take the apologist slant, when there are so many white people pressing that view already? At this rate, British colonialism will be viewed as the same old kind of aw-shucks "accident" that gets one paragraph in a history book, much like the decimation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. At least they have almost no one to speak for them; what will our excuse be?

48 · Dark Knight on June 30, 2006 11:06 PM · Direct link

And yes, I don't think there is any gray area here. I think one major goal of South Asian historians should be to get British imperialism to be universally condemned as morally wrong. I explain why here.

49 · razib on June 30, 2006 11:11 PM · Direct link

This the great challange, and you dismiss it like it's a given. There was a long time when the Holocaust wasn't "universally morally condemned" or even recognized as happening.
...
At this rate, British colonialism will be viewed as the same old kind of aw-shucks "accident" that gets one paragraph in a history book, much like the decimation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. At least they have almost no one to speak for them; what will our excuse be?

both these assertions seem off to me. the recent emphases of both the native american die off and the holocaust are new, it it seems much to contend that the holocaust wasn't condemned (nuremberg trials?) or that the history books now neglect the native americans.

of course, that's the problem with history. anyone can say anything (e.g., "indians were 100% literate").

anyway, white people suck!

50 · Amardeep on June 30, 2006 11:32 PM · Direct link

What Razib said. Also:

At this rate, British colonialism will be viewed as the same old kind of aw-shucks "accident" that gets one paragraph in a history book, much like the decimation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

I don't know what you're talking about -- the book in contention in this post is like 500 densely printed pages long, and it raises lots of interesting issues.

51 · Dark Knight on June 30, 2006 11:41 PM · Direct link

I think one way you might have misunderstood me is what arena we are dealing in. I don't claim to be nearly so learned as all you folks, with youre wide-encompassing world views. I am only myself, and for that reason, extensive intellectual debates are probably wasted on me. I am not seeking some deep seated knowledge about the dynamics of colonial India. I'm interested in how brown people, like myself, are viewed and reacted to in normal, modern western society where I live. I'm interested in what the average person in America (or europe I guess) thinks of India and Indian history, and the way it's presented in pop culture and mainsteam media. I know that there are many people who understand brown people much better than I do, apparently some white people know more about what it is to be brown than us brown people, or at least that's what I was told by my professors I've already been to college and heard all the bullshit about how complex every issue under the sun is and how there is no such thing as absolute knowledge or morality etc. I know there are many white people who spend their whole lives documenting the atrocities of white people, and really feel bad about it. I don't care. If can tell me in all honesty that the general perception of the British occupation of India is in line with a realistic appraisal of the colonial dynamic, then I will stop writing on here. Because obviously nothing is being accomplished.

52 · Dark Knight on June 30, 2006 11:47 PM · Direct link

And is the genocide of Native Americans really that focused on, outside of hyper-liberal universities? Because I went to public school in Michigan, and we never heard anything about it until some prof. at Cornell launched into a polemic against Andrew Jackson. It's very glossed over in most popular depictions of american history, usually the indigenous people are pigeonholed and exoitcized for their ancient practices and love for nature, but always with the implication that they somehow faded away because they were unable to cope, and not because they were systematically destroyed using false treaties and biological warfare. Sound familiar? Reminds me, with some variation, of the manner that the Raj is treated (they "prepared us for deomcracy" ) Sorry. I don't buy it.

53 · Manju on July 1, 2006 12:02 AM · Direct link

Dark Knight:

And yes, I don't think there is any gray area here. I think one major goal of South Asian historians should be to get British imperialism to be universally condemned as morally wrong

Things like this are judgment calls. But I think equating colonialism with the holocaust is a bit of a stretch. For example, it's been often noted that Gandhis methodology would never work against Hitler, b/c he could not appeal to any inherent liberal leanings. By not recognizing these leanings w/i the British I think you're doing a disservice to the brilliance of Gandhi and Nehru and to the many Indians who cheered the Raj as it left.

I know how you feel. I'm often frustrated by how Communism is still respected while Nazism is Taboo, despite pol pot, the Cultural Revolution, the Ukrainian famine, etc. But Communism is still not Fascism since it was born out of a sense of idealism. Even w/i communism, Castro is not PolPot. there are distinctions. Likewise, Mussolini could be reasoned with, Hitler could not.

In todays world, we have to recognize that musharraf is a bastard, but he's not Saddam, or kim jong, or Ahmadinejad. It's possible to keep a moral compass while recognizing distinctions between various tyrannies. Think of the cold war, which was like making sausage. I know nuance like this makes people look like hypocrites, but rest assured, every one here think colonialism is a bad thing, as amardeep has repeatedly pointed out.

54 · Dark Knight on July 1, 2006 12:10 AM · Direct link

I don't doubt that all the brown people on here think colonialism was bad. I would seriously worry if someone still doubted that. My point is, western people and Indians alike don't seem to realize how bad. The numerous atrocities, the codes of behavior, the poor treatment of the diaspora is not given nearly as much emphasis as the "legacy" that was left behind in the form of some buildings and an antiquated legal system that is poorly suited for the subcontinent. Also, the lingering roles of British involvement in Caste politics, partition, stoking the Hindu-Muslim hatred, and deeply indoctrinating the educated Indian class with a sense of western superiority is hardly discussed outside the highest circles of thinkers in India and the West. Even more, India is continuously criticized for corruption, political instability etc. that are mostly the legacy of post-emancipation poltics of a national unification that would have hardly occurred so late or taken the same shape (several different countries perhaps, which might have been better) had the British not oppressed the whole continent so thoroughly that they all decided they were better off at each other's throats than under the thumb of the British. Maybe I should go get that PhD so I can write with an agenda and pass it off as "scholarship" like all the academics referenced above. Doesn't anyone one here agree with Gopal?

55 · Amardeep on July 1, 2006 12:11 AM · Direct link

I'm interested in how brown people, like myself, are viewed and reacted to in normal, modern western society where I live.

But that's an entirely different issue. The popular understanding of anything is inevitably disconnected from what really happened. 50% of Americans think the Bible is literally true, and that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11.

I just read your post on this. I'm sorry you think my positions are "contemptible," especially since the only strong positions I took in this post were, "Niall Ferguson's book is worth a read" and "the history of imperialism is complex."

56 · Dark Knight on July 1, 2006 12:13 AM · Direct link

not referring to just this issue, but many in which I've noticed your leanings towards the "no one should ever be blamed for anything, it's all too complex" school of thought. Unless Hindu nationalists are involved. In which case all bets are off.

57 · eldiablo on July 1, 2006 12:30 AM · Direct link

For a good but scathing review of Niall Fergusion's book see Vivek Chibber's "The Good Empire" in the Boston Review, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/chibber.html.

58 · Dark Knight on July 1, 2006 12:34 AM · Direct link

Amardeep:

But that's an entirely different issue. The popular understanding of anything is inevitably disconnected from what really happened. 50% of Americans think the Bible is literally true, and that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11.

So are you then asserting that you and your scholarly buddies are somehow finding "truth"? Does that mean that either Gopal or Ferguson is telling us "what really happened"? Or are they just more dressed up, more researched versions of the same thing: a viewpoint that they are trying to perpetuate. I agree with Gopal's because of her side of the issue, is a "brown" persepective, which I like. I never claimed that hers was "true" but only that hers is the view I expected rational brown people to hold. I understand that many people would find fault both with this viewpoint as well as my use of the word "rational", but I never doubted that Ferguson's view was equally justifiable, from the perspective of a white person and representing the same Western culture that first propogated colonialism. You really are the quintessential academic, why are you so quick to dismiss the importance of educating the general public? Isn't that far more important and ambitious a goal than pandering to a tiny set of already indoctrinated self-important intellectuals? It seems to me that changing widespread public misconceptions about Indian history would be more effective than debating sticking points with the other revisionists.

59 · duh on July 1, 2006 1:11 AM · Direct link

It's simple, really. If Germany had won the war, the world would view the holocaust - which would be called something else - the same way that it views imperialism today - something distasteful, but necessary for the larger good. In fact, that is exactly how it was sold to the Christian Germans and that is why there was no great opposition from the general population. The violence and brutality involved in suppressing and killing large numbers of people can be buried without a trace if those who did the killing have the resources and leisure to do so at their own pace. The Germans did not. The British did.

It's quite amazing what indoctrination can do to a population. Just look at some of the comments over here, not to mention the original post.

60 · Manju on July 1, 2006 1:19 AM · Direct link

I agree with Gopal's because of her side of the issue, is a "brown" persepective, which I like. I never claimed that hers was "true" but only that hers is the view I expected rational brown people to hold. I understand that many people would find fault both with this viewpoint as well as my use of the word "rational", but I never doubted that Ferguson's view was equally justifiable, from the perspective of a white person and representing the same Western culture that first propogated colonialism.

I see where you're coming from Dark Knight. You remind me of myself in college. I was part of the anti-apartheid movement and one of my clever friends asked me how I could call apartheid immoral if there was no objective standard of morality. Not to mention how I could condemn Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" (when everyone knew they just had "different values") while simultaneously saying essentially the same thing about S. Africa.

Ever think about the conundrum that the mere fact your positing gopals perspective as the "brown perspective" means you are coming from a "white perspective." I mean, you read Foucault right? Think about it.

61 · Manju on July 1, 2006 1:22 AM · Direct link

Duh:

It's simple, really. If Germany had won the war, the world would view the holocaust - which would be called something else - the same way that it views imperialism today

If it's so simple, why does Communism get a pass? Or why is Slavery or Aparthied considered an unspeakable crime?

62 · Dark Knight on July 1, 2006 1:34 AM · Direct link

I don't think communism got any passes. Where I grew up, it's about the worst thing you could be. On the other hand, most people don't know what Apartheid was anymore. And no, I don't consider myself coming from the "whtie perspective". I find the very notion laughable. Unlike seemingly half the people on this website, I was raised by educated, politically aware and artistically inclined parents who taught me to be proud of being brown and ignore the bigots and idiots around me. We were raised knowing that Indian culture was the equal of any other, but economic opportunity was not possible as long as the license Raj was in place and the medical system was dependent on connections rather than quality. I realize I come from a more privileged background than is normal, but unlike most Indian elites, my parents understood that being Indian was not a stereotype but something worth celebrating. They never tried to piegonhole us into any career or marriage or any of the other negatives that I find you guys constantly complaining about. And we hung out with an Indian circle of similarly cosmopolitan people, both in India and michigan. The only narrow-mindedness, ignorance and political apathy I saw growing up was from the white people around me. Minorities are educated in the school of reality by necessity; only the majority have the luxury of naivete.

63 · Dark Knight on July 1, 2006 1:39 AM · Direct link

point being, there are some indian people that have always held the views I am holding. I am not some "ABCD" who is taking offense at things that "real indians" do not care about. most of my views come from my grandparents, who all lived in India and experienced the events we all just talk about. Now my grandmothers were a lawyer and a doctor respectively, and my grandfather a high court judge, so I realize that this is not typical. but just because you not might be exposed to the vast, indignant coalition of anti-British educated Indian people from previous generations does not mean they don't exist.

64 · Manju on July 1, 2006 1:51 AM · Direct link

I don't think communism got any passes. Where I grew up, it's about the worst thing you could be

You grew up in a more sophisticated place than London, New York, or Boston.

On the other hand, most people don't know what Apartheid was anymore.

Really?

And no, I don't consider myself coming from the "whtie perspective". I find the very notion laughable. Unlike seemingly half the people on this website, I was raised by educated, politically aware and artistically inclined parents who taught me to be proud of being brown and ignore the bigots and idiots around me.

In your zeal to position those you disagree w/ as having a "white perspective" have you neglected to look at what cultural tradition your own assumptions come from. I sense a strong strand of western relativism, No? Not that it makes it wrong. "Proud to be brown;" you say. What are the real origins of this phrase?

65 · Jai on July 1, 2006 7:00 AM · Direct link

The influence of the Mughal empire was largely urban.....Unlike the Mughals who were content with their riches and did not venture deep into the heartland,

Considering the deep influence of Mughal-derived Islamic mores and social customs/attitudes in India right down to the village level, especially amongst the "higher" castes (the legacy still exists today to some extent), I would have to politely but strongly disagree.

Anyway, slightly off-topic. Carry on.

66 · RC on July 1, 2006 9:07 AM · Direct link

1) The British regime was the first to make some comprehensive attempt at famine prevention in India, by vastly extending irrigation networks and building railways lines to famine-prone areas, as well as introducing famine codes in most provinces (though not, tragically, in Bengal).

So let me get this straight. The British conquered India to give them famine prevention? and build them roads?

I know Amardeep mentioned in his post that the book is from a British perspective, but I want to underline that and point out that all history is with a point of view.

67 · Dark Knight on July 1, 2006 10:18 AM · Direct link

I say brown becuase that is term that is in vogue. i could say I was raised to be proud of being who I am, which is a Tamil/Andhra/Punjabi Hindu from Madras. At any rate, your assumption that any type of nationalist sentiment or racial pride is automatically a "western" mind set is pretty ridiculous. Does that mean that the BJP is from a "western" mindset and the Congress are somehow "Indian"? You comments seem to get more patronizing, Manju. Maybe you shouln't assume you know anything about me personaly, because you obviously do not.

68 · Dark Knight on July 1, 2006 10:21 AM · Direct link

And I didn't imply that the place I grew up (michigan) was in any way more sophisticated than London or New York. Quite the opposite; among intellectuals and the upperclass, Communism was in style during various points during the 20th century. American writers used to hold meetings where they praised Castro and Lenin, even people I respect like Maya Angelous and James Baldwin were involved. On the other hand, most regular americans, the ones that had to fight the wars and listen to the government propoganda, were raised to fear Commies like Nazis. For a crude, but funny a relevant example, see Red on "That '70s Show". His attitude reflects my friends' Dads and my high school teachers' views on Commies pretty accurately

69 · hammer_sickel on July 1, 2006 11:03 AM · Direct link

That was a lot less than the Dutch drained from their Indonesian empire, which amounted to between 7 and 10 per cent of Indonesian net domestic produce in the same period.

It was even lesser than what was 'drained' from Africa, which amounted to 50-60 per cent of South African net domestic produce. So? Point is - illogical comparison - first point out the difference between Indian and Indonesian domestic produce and then compare them.

British had invested &270 million in India, not much less than one-fifth of their entire investment overseas

How much was schiffoned of from others in the first place? British were in those contries for the long haul. Thus, the investment was not for those countries per se, but for their own long term interests - I'm sure half of it went in creating the Delhi parliament house and surrounding areas!

So is the case with Indian railways, introduced by the British - not for India but to easily transport the loot.

They created an Indian coal industry from scratch which by 1914 produced nearly 16 million tons a year.

Cheap labor, nothing more.

70 · Manju on July 1, 2006 2:18 PM · Direct link

your assumption that any type of nationalist sentiment or racial pride is automatically a "western" mind set is pretty ridiculous

That's not what I'm saying. Obviously, racial/nationalist pride is a primitive instinct inherent in all societies.

But the perspectival view of truth (Ferguson's view was equally justifiable, from the perspective of a white person) is clearly a product of the western intellectual tradition. So when someone like you tries to dismiss a point of view as white while simultaneously using the white tradition of relativism (I never claimed that hers was "true" but only that hers is the view I expected rational brown people to hold) and multiculturalism to do so, I like to point out the contradiction.

71 · Floridian on July 1, 2006 8:21 PM · Direct link

My predecessors have already addressed all the difficult issues. I will stick to the simple.
1. How ironical that a debate on British colonization rages on a site called Sepia Mutiny. I did not read any postmortem of, or even a reference to, the infamous Sepoy Mutiny, either.
2. I know three ex-British colonies initimately. India has been well covered here. Hong Kong was British colonization at its best in that it was totally hands-off. Even the English language is a rarity in the forever Chinese Hong Kong.
3. Trinidad was India-lite. The same system but on a smaller, simpler scale. Surprisingly, in a country of one million strong, there was no dissent, no anti-British movement. The empire left simply because it was time to leave.
4. I liked Amardeep's retort to Arundhati Roy's remark that analyzing the pros and cons of colonization is like analyzing the pros and cons of rape. That woman has uttered so many inanities on so many different subjects that she reminds me of Jesse Jackson - a counter balance at best, a rabble rouser at worst, but never a person you could trust.

Now I am going to get myself a "chota peg" before my "tiffin."

72 · a more original name on July 1, 2006 9:36 PM · Direct link

So when someone like you tries to dismiss a point of view as white while simultaneously using the white tradition of relativism (I never claimed that hers was "true" but only that hers is the view I expected rational brown people to hold) and multiculturalism to do so, I like to point out the contradiction.

...and so we get to the meat of the matter. Am I the only one here who's noticed that were arguing with each other in [dun dun dun] English?

73 · razib on July 1, 2006 9:40 PM · Direct link

Am I the only one here who's noticed that were arguing with each other in [dun dun dun] English?

you can't tear down the master's house unless you use the master's tools....

74 · Amardeep on July 1, 2006 11:16 PM · Direct link

Floridian, we talked about the Mutiny earlier in the week.

And "a more original name", the Authenticity Police only operates in England and the US, where it has been born and raised. So naturally the name-calling is conducted in English only!

75 · Chandi on July 2, 2006 1:51 AM · Direct link

Dark Knight,
You are so off, I don't even know where to begin. If Priya Gopal had half of Amardeep's patience and poise, not to mention ability to READ texts, she would be someone to respect. But she is usually too busy ranting and getting hysterical. Nothing gets more attention than a hysterical brown woman calling other people names. And wow, Cornell certainly did a number on you.

76 · saurav on July 2, 2006 5:30 AM · Direct link

Amardeep, I disagree with this formulation that you made: "The beneficiaries of the sharecropping system were, by and large, former slaveholders and their descendents. The "beneficiaries" of partition were the formerly colonized. I think agency has to mainly go to the Indians -- Jinnah (and co.), Gandhi/Nehru (and co.), and Savarkar (and co.)." I think this is deeply oversympathetic to a very simplified notion of what Independence meant. There was a transfer of the state apparatus from the British to an Indian upper class and a number of other changes, but that doesn't mean that there was any substantive or immediate improvement in mass democracy in the sense of actually having policies that reflect the popular will.

I could definitely be wrong in this analysis, but this is what I currently believe.

On the second point you make:

The hardening of religious identity in the Indian subcontinent was an inevitable consequence of the introduction of European ideas about the definition of "religion."

I agree that the census wasn't the only thing--I was presenting it as part of a system of indoctrination and political and cultural development among the populace through tools like the census, the introduction of "Western education" (and consequently anthropological and racial theories), the dismissal of prior ideas as a normative step, etc. So I would include your "introduction of European ideas about the definition of religion" as very much what I'm talking about.

77 · TheMutinyNeedsFreshBlood on July 2, 2006 7:50 AM · Direct link

You go Dark Knight!! The mutiny needs you. The rubbish people say under the guise of being "fair and balanced" leaves the same sick taste as those other famous fair and balanced loonies. Go get that Ph.D while Amardeep keeps busy trying to pass Sikandarji off as a pandit and his ilk applaud his "poise and patience"!!

78 · Ponniyin Selvan on July 2, 2006 8:03 AM · Direct link

I think this is deeply oversympathetic to a very simplified notion of what Independence meant. There was a transfer of the state apparatus from the British to an Indian upper class and a number of other changes,

True..

but that doesn't mean that there was any substantive or immediate improvement in mass democracy in the sense of actually having policies that reflect the popular will.

Not true.. One man / one vote democracy has really been succesful in India.. Power has been gradually transferred to all the sections of the society.. Independence movement has mostly been led by Congress dominated by upper caste Hindus, (many with good ideals).. I was trying to compare the caste composition of the leaders of that generation with who we have now.. Ambedkar / Jagjivan ram were there but not as powerful as the modern day Mayawati / Yadavs / various southern leaders.. There were definite improvements over the last 60 years in a lot of areas..

79 · desitude on July 2, 2006 9:10 AM · Direct link

Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts is a mine of data about the British government's negligence during the El Nino famines of the late 19th century; its also has quite a bit of data on the decline of the Indian economy under British rule.

Here is Amartya Sen's review.

80 · Saurav on July 2, 2006 10:31 AM · Direct link

Ponniyin--sorry, I should have clarified that I meant in the near-term (i.e. in terms of my analogy of the act of independence vs. the act of reclassifying the American slaves as free).

81 · tashie on July 3, 2006 8:08 AM · Direct link

razib on July 1, 2006 09:40 PM · Direct link Am I the only one here who's noticed that were arguing with each other in [dun dun dun] English?
you can't tear down the master's house unless you use the master's tools....

Wow, you're not an atheist anymore?...

Firstly, great post Amardeep, and I think it's very important that you really took a look at both sides of the argument. This is really hard to do when you know you might have someone accuse you of pulling a BrownSahib on us, and I really think it's necessary to have an honest and open discussion about empire and colonisation without descending into polemics. There's always a place for passion, but it's good to have reason too.

Yes, people like DarkKnight, I think there is nothing more disgusting than Neocon/Neo-Nazi fads for imperialism, colonisation and genocide sugar coated and repackaged as history.

...except it's just as yucky to see unquestioning glorification of one's own culture done by extremist factions within the 'oppressed' themselves, to the point where everything is celebrated 'cos it's 'authentic', including internally-caused injustices like creating and manipulating the caste system, conducting pogroms against minority groups, and cultural practices that violate people's basic human rights.

Listening to people go on blindly about the glories of everything about Indian civilisation gives me my SpoorLam withdrawal symptoms. If people have got to resort to that old trick, then calling out white people for sugarcoating their own history looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

82 · razib on July 3, 2006 8:43 AM · Direct link

Wow, you're not an atheist anymore?...

of course i'm an atheist! i'm just no longer with the same cookie :) remember, atheism is the null hypothesis!

77 · TheMutinyNeedsFreshBlood on July 2, 2006 07:50 AM · Direct link

You go Dark Knight!! The mutiny needs you.

alas, the goths are at the gates.

83 · Divya on July 3, 2006 9:51 AM · Direct link

Taashie- I agree it is important to look at both sides of an argument. Except when one decides to throw common sense out the window. Sort of like inviting the flat-earthers to a conference on the solar system just so we can have both sides of the issue. Weve been inundated with one side of the story for centuries to an extent that none of the postcolonial and postmodern studies really makes a visible dent.

Rather gratuitously you drag in the caste system to underscore your point, as if anyone ever glorified the injustices associated with it. This is the reverse of the brown sahib ploy you denounce. The caste factor is liberally used to shut up those that happen to belong to castes. What's worse is that your stance does not take into consideration that on paper at least India has bent over backwards to get rid of these injustices. At this point in time, its only the rich arm-chair intellectuals who put up a one-sided fight against the caste system without making any attempt to understand it better. The poor cling to their caste and do not want to dispense with it. This phenomenon needs to be seriously studied. But those who take up the task of questioning the received wisdom on caste would probably be dismissed by you as unquestioning glorifiers. All of this is simply to point out that you refute your own point about not accepting things unquestioningly.

This is mostly off-topic and I do not want to continue a discussion on the caste-system or pograms. But if you make a claim that it is important to look at both sides of an issue, broadly speaking, you are simply stating the obvious. It would be helpful to show how it applies to this particular example where people have disputed this claim. You have not done that but have rather distastefully dragged in the eternally useful trump card - the caste system (and pograms).

84 · Jai on July 3, 2006 10:08 AM · Direct link

Divya,

I think Tashie was just using the caste system as a random example. To my understanding, her point was that many Indians are also guilty of unquestioningly glorifying Indian "culture" en masse, including various negative traditions, cultural practices and attitudes, along with making self-serving rationalisations and excuses for these negative behaviours.

The same principle would also apply to people wishing to make excuses for the British Empire (and the Mughal Empire, for that matter) by drawing attention to the perceived benefits of these historical institutions, of course, regardless of the unethical and unjust basis for these Empires in the first place.

I'm not going to go into too much detail here regarding my own thoughts on the topic, in the interests of not wishing to repeat myself -- anyone wishing to hear my views can read the handful of posts I submitted on the related Pickled Politics thread referenced by Amardeep in his main article at the top of this page.

85 · RC on July 3, 2006 10:09 AM · Direct link

Taashie- I agree it is important to look at both sides of an argument. Except when one decides to throw common sense out the window. Sort of like inviting the flat-earthers to a conference on the solar system just so we can have both sides of the issue.

This is exactly what Bill O'Reilly does on his show. He purports to represent "both sides" of issues, sometimes which have only one side. Such as Global Warming. The purported attempt of represnt both sides is in such cases, an excuse to mask the shortcomings of their argument (or their denial that their argument is flat out false). Stephen Colbert did a great satirical thing, by saying, the jury is still out .. and ..agree to disagree ..john about Global warming.

The truth is not always "somewhere in the middle" but preety far on one side.

86 · RC on July 3, 2006 10:51 AM · Direct link

In my opinion that guy, Lennon (I dont know the first name) ws great. I think he was the quickest amongst all players on the pitch at any given time of that match. Also I think England was playing better than Portugal for the most part. Thats why I felt bad when England lost. Besides it sucks so much to lose in penalties.

Portugal will be easily defeated in the semis.

87 · RC on July 3, 2006 10:52 AM · Direct link

OOps wrong thread

88 · Divya on July 3, 2006 11:20 AM · Direct link

Jai -

Many on this board would lump me in with the Indians you talk about. As a matter of fact I do see benefits in the caste system. This does not mean I am blind to the injustice of it. But my point was that the caste system is equal to the Nazi analogy. It is used once too often, in effect to simply shut hindus up since such a morally reprehensible society cannot possibly have anything going for it. Most of what gets labeled hindutva is simply a backlash to this type of thinking, imo.

As for your earlier post about not being convinced that the mughal rule largely had an urban influence, I'm going to try and google this. Of course, the Mughals did tax the villages through the local hindu kings, but not in a systematic way like the Brits who had the entire country worked out in grids. George Everest, in honor of whom the mountain is named, was the Surveryor General who undertook this task and there has never been such a detailed survey ever since. At least in the mountains we still use the British survey. A benefit of the empire? I don't think so because it doesn't do much for the locals at this point in time.

89 · Jai on July 3, 2006 12:10 PM · Direct link

Divya,

I will let Tashie respond to your statements about the caste system, as she was the person who originally mentioned it. However, I do not think commenting on the negative aspects of caste necessarily implies a simultaneous condemnation of a society or a religion as "worthless" in its entirety.

Regarding the influence of the Mughals, I was referring to the impact on social attitudes and cultural practices. I have no idea how much exposure you have had to north Indian villages, or people whose parents/grandparents are from such places, but several centuries of Islamic rule has indeed left a lasting impact on the mores of people originating from these villages. Whether this occurred through direct interaction with the Muslim "ruling class" or via the trickle-down effect (Hindu aristocracy emulating Islamically-derived practices, which the rest of the community subsequently adopt) probably depends on the specific location and the specific family.

90 · Amitabh on July 3, 2006 12:36 PM · Direct link

Jai:

I think you have a valid point, but (and we've discussed this before) I still wonder if pre-muslim village society in northern India might not have had many of the conservative social elements that you attribute to the muslim influence. Do you think Rajputs in the pre-muslim era had a lot of freedom for their women? Brahmins? Vedic society itself may have been quite conservative, and 'patriarchic'. An analogy would be Pakhtun (Pathan) society...some scholars say that even before becoming muslim, they were culturally very similar to how they are today, in terms of treatment of women, and the basic 'pakhtunwali' (the code they live by). Islam happened to be a good fit for their pre-exisiting culture and mind-set and they adopted it readily. As opposed to say Malaysia or Indonesia, where the original culture was quite different from Islamic mores and had to be modified and parts of it abandoned entirely in order to become muslim (a process that is still occuring).

91 · Amitabh on July 3, 2006 12:43 PM · Direct link

Which is not to say there was not a profound Muslim influence as well...my mother remembers that when she was a girl, whenever the girls in her family were driven in their car, the curtains on the car windows would always be drawn. Quite a few Hindu families also adopted the practice of purdah. These are clearly Islamic practices. No doubt the 1000 years of Muslim rule did change and modify society a lot. But there are some really remote and deep villages in northern India, far from centers of Mughal power, and they still display that typical conservatism.

92 · Saurav on July 3, 2006 12:43 PM · Direct link

As opposed to say Malaysia or Indonesia, where the original culture was quite different from Islamic mores and had to be modified and parts of it abandoned entirely in order to become muslim (a process that is still occuring).

I understand what you're saying about the extent to which cultures adapt preexisting traditions vs. adopting new ones wholesale (though it's arguable how much of the latter ever occurs) and there may be some core set of notions that make up "Islam." However, I still think it's problematic to argue that societies that become predominantly Muslim are gradually moving towards some essential Islam. The interpretations of how Islam and politics should intersect have differed over the centuries and what you're looking at today are many different varieties of how that plays out, just as there have been many different varieties in the past.

And of course we haven't gotten in to the many kinds of Islam :)

93 · Divya on July 3, 2006 1:02 PM · Direct link

Jai - I mostly agree. I was looking at it more from the economic perspective. It's likely that due to the taxation policies there was a breakdown of the support structure and patrongage of arts and education which flourished prior to muslim rule. It's hard to imagine that a miniscule percentage of the population could otherwise impose their customs on the masses. But a collapse of indigenous culture through lack of funding would probably have had regressive consequences.

94 · Jai on July 3, 2006 1:14 PM · Direct link

Amitabh,

I'm sure we've discussed all this previously on Sikhnet, or at least you've been an observer on similar threads there which I may have participated in ;)

I'm certainly not going to buy any claims that Hindu society was a paradise before our uninvited friends from the northwest came along. However, to answer your specific questions about Rajput society, women definitely did not veil their faces in front of men outside their immediate family, and they were also free to choose their own husbands (the "Swayamvar" ceremony was still used during the time of Prithviraj Chauhan). As to how patriarchal and conservative pre-Islamic north Indian society was (I won't use the term "Vedic" because I'm not sure if it's applicable here -- the country had already passed through a massive Buddhist phase before the Rajputs rose to power), it's very difficult to say; pre-Islamic Indian historical records are comparatively sparse, although I'm not going to accept the propaganda in some quarters about the "Laws of Manu" etc (you can sometimes see this on Sikhnet) considering that the existence of such teachings doesn't mean they were necessarily widely followed in all/most of India, at least by the 11th/12th centuries.

We're talking about a span of about 1000 years between the first major Islamic influx and the present day. Indian society has also been through an absolutely huge transformational phase due to the Delhi Sultanate and (especially) the Mughal period, with the associated Middle Eastern influence. We're looking at this through the prism of a millenium's gap (not so easy to accurately and objectively do). Pathan society may have been closer to (their interpretation of) Islamic mores which they adopted (or, perhaps more accurately, had imposed on them), but that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of subcontinental society was. Again, it's very difficult to say; all we can do is assess whatever historical records exist, along with what we know of Hindu religious teachings at the time which Indians presumably followed to some degree or another (and comparing it to Islamic teachings and trying to correlate them to the customs and attitudes of Indians in regions which we know were significantly within the "sphere of influence" of Muslim rulers, either directly or "by proxy" via Hindu royalty/aristocrats who themselves were vassals of/subservient to the Muslim aristocracy). In the case of the former, there are detailed accounts by foreign travellers to India both before and during the Islamic/Mughal period, and their observations on the seismic shifts in customs and general way of life make quite eye-opening reading. For example, one of the last chapters in Abraham Eraly's "The Mughal Throne" goes into quite extensive detail in this regard.

For the record (I know I don't need to tell you this, but it's worth clarifying for the sake of other SM participants anyway) I have no interest in blaming Muslims (especially the historical variety) for all of India's ills and social shortcomings; however, for the sake of veracity and accuracy, I do think it is necessary to politely disagree with factually-incorrect statements claiming that the Mughal/Islamic influence on the ideas, ways of thinking, and general behavior of Indians outside urban areas was "minimal".

95 · Jai on July 3, 2006 1:24 PM · Direct link

Divya,

It's hard to imagine that a miniscule percentage of the population could otherwise impose their customs on the masses.

It is entirely possible for this to happen indirectly if the intermediaries, ie. the Hindu aristocracy, adopt these customs themselves, which are subsequently emulated by various sections of the rest of Hindu society further down the social heirarchy.

In other cases it's probably going to depend on how much interaction the Hindu families/castes/groups had with Muslims (socially, politically, via trade etc) and whether adopting the associated customs would have had some benefit for them. Also, people often aspire to be like those in positions of power and influence, and since the dominant groups happened to be Muslim, then it's not surprising if very large numbers of Hindus in northern India also adopted these social customs and general attitudes.

96 · Jai on July 3, 2006 1:27 PM · Direct link

Also, people often aspire to be like those in positions of power and influence, and since the dominant groups happened to be Muslim, then it's not surprising if very large numbers of Hindus in northern India also adopted these social customs and general attitudes.

A modern-day version of this is the global influence -- and adoption of -- American culture, although there are of course often other reasons too (greater freedom for women, for example).

97 · razib_the_atheist on July 3, 2006 1:53 PM · Direct link

These are clearly Islamic practices.

this was in reference to purdah, but many muslims will offer that these were elite persian & byzantine traditions adopted by the hellenized ummayyads during the early caliphal periods. i just bring this up to offer that these complicated issues must be addressed with an open and sincere heart. many people here have that, and so the dialogue is very fruitful, but some do not and unfortunately less is not more :(

as for miniscule numbers, 30% of south asians are now muslims. if you assume a 1% defection rate per generation from hinduism to islam, 25 years per generation, you get 35 generations or 875 years to hit 30% muslim within south asia (assuming constant rates of growth, etc., which are not correct).

as for saurav's point about 'essentializing' islam, well, i'm on record as a nominalist when it comes to religion. but, it seems to be social consensus in a globalized era, where local ummah have a sense of worldwide islamic consenses, is resulting in a rather unitary religious 'orthodoxy.' i don't believe that islam is easily derivable for texts or traditions, but i do believe that people who do believe such can agree upon a consensus by simply making sure they are going with the herd.

98 · Divya on July 3, 2006 1:56 PM · Direct link

A modern-day version of this is the global influence -- and adoption of -- American culture, although there are of course often other reasons too (greater freedom for women, for example).

But that was the age of the bullock-cart. Most people lived and died within a 50 mile radius. American culture has the benefit of television (and your point about emulating the powerful).

99 · Jai on July 3, 2006 2:03 PM · Direct link

Divya,

1. "Trickle-down" effect.
2. Due to conversion, migration, and the direct Hindu-Muslim interaction I mentioned in post #95, there was a much greater influx of Muslims into the rest of Indian society compared to their British successors. Also, Muslims did not just settle in cities; there are still huge numbers of villages in northern India with large Muslim populations, along with non-Muslims living in the same locale.

100 · Divya on July 3, 2006 2:08 PM · Direct link

as for miniscule numbers, 30% of south asians are now muslims. if you assume a 1% defection rate per generation from hinduism to islam, 25 years per generation, you get 35 generations or 875 years to hit 30% muslim within south asia (assuming constant rates of growth, etc., which are not correct).

There are actually statistics available for the percentage of muslims at the time. The trusty Brits must have figured it all out. I remember hearing the figure 10% thrown around at the time of Independece. So the Mughal period must have had half that(5%), even if you balance it out for the areas of heavy concentration. Sounds like a miniscule percentage to me.

101 · Amitabh on July 3, 2006 2:50 PM · Direct link

It is true that most villages in northern India, even extremely rural ones, have Muslims in them. Certainly every district does. This has presumably been the case for a few centuries at least since large-scale active conversion to Islam stopped a while ago. And it is easy to forget that Punjabi districts like Hoshiarpur, Jallandhar, etc. were 35% to 50% Muslim just 60 years ago. So in that sense the Muslim influence was widespread. But on the other hand, somewhat along the lines of what Saurav said, the version of Islam practised by most was a syncretic, 'folk' Islam with a lot of indigenous, pre-muslim elements, a lot of local Hindu influence, and would not have been recognized as Islam by Arabs for example. Conclusion? It's VERY hard to say for certain how much each factor influenced the overall social picture or how much Hindus were influenced by Islam. I do concede the possibility that it may have been a fair bit.

102 · razib_the_atheist on July 3, 2006 2:58 PM · Direct link

It's VERY hard to say for certain how much each factor influenced the overall social picture or how much Hindus were influenced by Islam. I do concede the possibility that it may have been a fair bit.

i think it can be argued that hinduism, as a way of life, and islam, as a way of life, in northern india emerged in a coevolutionary fashion. a non-south asian 'orthodox' form of islam always existed for the non-south asian origin elites. in the 19th, and especially 20th century, muslims whose origins were predominantly hindu (converts) began to transition away from 'folk' islam through a simultaneous push from without (transnational movements) and within (groups like the tableegh) which standardized south asian islam and brought it in line with world 'best practices,' so to speak.

I remember hearing the figure 10% thrown around at the time of Independece. So the Mughal period must have had half that(5%), even if you balance it out for the areas of heavy concentration. Sounds like a miniscule percentage to me.

10% within post-partition india. remember than india until 1947 included what is now bangladesh and pakistan, and both these regions had many hindus (bangladesh at independence was 25% hindu). anyway, the concentration wasn't equal. some regions were bireligious, while others, like orrisa, were all hindu. this seems so obvious i'm a bit confused as to why this is news or contentious.

103 · RC on July 3, 2006 3:41 PM · Direct link

What about the dress "Salwar-Kameez" that is called Indian-Pakistani dress today actually originated in Turkic area. How about that for a significant impact on culture ?

104 · razib_the_atheist on July 3, 2006 3:57 PM · Direct link

hot chili peppers are post-1500 new world introduction. as are potatos.

105 · desitude on July 3, 2006 4:29 PM · Direct link

Razib is correct. i believe the figure - taking the subcontinent as a whole - was like 23-24% muslim at time of partition. I also believe the rate of conversion to Islam slowed during British rule as well.

106 · razib_the_atheist on July 3, 2006 5:07 PM · Direct link

I also believe the rate of conversion to Islam slowed during British rule as well.

i have read the reverse, but i would like citations. i suspect the difference is quantitative, of degree, than qualitative.

107 · Kumar N on July 3, 2006 5:55 PM · Direct link

Lot of interesting and quite useful comments.

I am with Dark Knight, Divya et al on this issue.

Amardeep, you wanted some links, right?

Hope you have heard of and read some works by Dharampal.If you have not, I recommend that you get his books on Indian History.

Here's a link to his profile.

Ok, I will save our readers the trouble of finding this excerpt. Read it please.

What next? Yes, there is an article on India's educational system during the pre-British days.If not the 100% literacy rate claimed by Divya, it was quite high compared to today's literacy rate.Moreover, education was not restricted to upper castes alone (as it became during the high point of British rule).

I am not a scholar; just a curious person like most of us here are. So, I looked at the local self government in UK and compared it to historical proof about India's heritage of local self government, and the maturity of our democratic process way back in 10th century CE.

I think I have given enough links for now. The point is: the argument about the benefits of imperialism/colonialism on India is an outdated topic. What is more intersting to me, is why, in the past decade or so, there has been a resurgence in books trying to paint the 'Empire' in a good light. I read a news item recently that the UK Government wants to teach its students in detail about the 'Empire'. Here's the link (the last one in this post, I promise!).

So, why do you think some of the former colonial powers want to attempt once again, to build consensus about the beneficial impact of colonialism, in the guise of taking a 'balanced view'? It will be interesting to know what you think about this 'trend'. I have my theory on this, and I will share it by and by.

Cheers,
Kumar

108 · razib_the_atheist on July 3, 2006 6:22 PM · Direct link

"It has to be remembered that the dominant European instinct is that of a killer."

from one of the links noted above. whose the essentializer now???

there are problems with scholarship, and knowledge is a process. but there is no excuse for slanted propoganda.

109 · razib_the_atheist on July 3, 2006 6:23 PM · Direct link

and just to be clear, i find this idea that the "european instinct" as a "killer" as offensive as the idea of the african with a ring in his nose and a dish of stewed man flesh.

110 · razib_the_atheist on July 3, 2006 6:36 PM · Direct link

and yes, i know south asians learned their tricks of communal violence at the feet of the british (*wink*).

111 · tashie on July 3, 2006 7:25 PM · Direct link

Many on this board would lump me in with the Indians you talk about. As a matter of fact I do see benefits in the caste system. This does not mean I am blind to the injustice of it. But my point was that the caste system is equal to the Nazi analogy. It is used once too often, in effect to simply shut hindus up since such a morally reprehensible society cannot possibly have anything going for it. Most of what gets labeled hindutva is simply a backlash to this type of thinking, imo

This is mostly off-topic and I do not want to continue a discussion on the caste-system or pograms. But if you make a claim that it is important to look at both sides of an issue, broadly speaking, you are simply stating the obvious. It would be helpful to show how it applies to this particular example where people have disputed this claim. You have not done that but have rather distastefully dragged in the eternally useful trump card - the caste system (and pograms).

DIVYA...

Firstly, I think you're getting a bit oversensitive chicky, I was not targeting 'people like you' (assuming you got this from my whitey sounding name which means you didn't think I was Hindu). JAI, above, did get my point that I was saying that unquestioning glorification of one's culture is what allows neo-Imperialists to parade their theories around like they're the best thing since sliced bread...on BOTH sides of the fence.

Secondly, just as you see benefits in the caste system, which was a race-based segregation system which stratified indigenous people at the bottom of the heap and was effectively a system of social control...so people like Niall Ferguson see benefits from British imperialism. You yourself said that you are not blind to the injustices of the caste system, and similarly, reasonable, educated people who point out that colonialism did have some benefits are coming from a parallel angle. I personally disagree with both you about the caste system and imperialism-groupies. I was just pointing out that to me Amardeep was calling for reason on both sides of the debate.

In fact, if you look at the language you're using and your own discourse, honey, I think you'll see that calling me out for throwing 'trump cards' like the caste system and religious pogroms at you is pretty much the same thing as what a racist person says to minority groups when they play their own 'race card.'

I was not using those examples as an excuse to denigrate you or to disassociate myself from them, as an Indian they are part of my own history too. I was just saying that it's harder for anyone to be critical of their own culture than of others. So maybe instead of guilt-tripping and emotionally blackmailing white people into feeling sorry for colonialism, we could all sit down and have a reasonable discussion about it and then injustice would be apologised for. I believe that the injustice of British imperialism is terrible enough to stand up as a rational argument without having to resort to guilt-tripping others or getting defensive about yourself.

112 · duh on July 4, 2006 2:24 AM · Direct link

"we could all sit down and have a reasonable discussion about [colonialism]".

These people are a product of the western media. They simply parrot the talking points they uncritically absorbed from the carefully edited media they are exposed to. They are simply incapable of seeing the West as bad guys. Even when western countries invade another country without cause, systematically loot and plunder it, brutally put down the resistance - torturing and executing anyone even remotely suspected of supporting the resistance - in effect declaring everyone a terrorist, exploit the natural faultlines in the society to divide the people, impose their vasals to rule with an iron fist, and then - here comes the best part - announce to the world that it was all for the good of the people whom they conquered!

Do you know what I'm talking about - India in the 18th and 19th centuries or Iraq today?

Tragically, certain chosen ones among us buy into the Big Lie put out by the colonizer! Enough to praise the wisdom of colonialism in "reasonable discussions", emphasizing quite earnestly, that it was all ultimately for the good of those who got raped. Tch-tch-tch, if only the rest of the natives weren't so bloody ungrateful!

These certain chosen ones who are so eager to be understanding of the white man's crimes suffer a bout of apoplexy when discussing similar crimes committed by one group of Indians against another (Godhra, riots, caste system, and any number of things that are wrong with India). Whither goes their "reasonableness and enlightened understanding" and their deep intellectual insights? Why descend into polemics, huh? Why buy into the polemics put out by the western media against the native resistance, huh?

113 · Meena on July 4, 2006 3:49 AM · Direct link

See, the thing is, I really don't see the point of being hung up on our colonial history 50 years after Independence. Yes, it had a lot of negative effect on India, as well as a few positive ones.(You have to remember that species such as the tiger were far better protected under British rule than in an independent India.) But there has been a fifty-year gap to improve the state of the country and I really don't see any point in blaming the British for everything that has gone wrong since. Aside from that, British do have a dismal record of recognising the damage inflicted upon the colonies. To contrast: though arguably the Dutch were far more brutal in their treatment of 'natives' than the British ever were, in this country during highschool years we received extensive education on the colonial history of Indonesia and the negative impact on the people. Even in France did I come across a plaque in the Notre Dame de Paris, honouring fallen soldiers of Indian origin during the Second World War.

And European killer instinct?? WTF??

114 · Jai on July 4, 2006 6:22 AM · Direct link

Do you know what I'm talking about - India in the 18th and 19th centuries or Iraq today?

All of the points concerned also apply to India in the 11th, 12th, and 15th-18th Centuries. The British Empire wasn't exactly the first "foreign colonial" period in the subcontinent.

British do have a dismal record of recognising the damage inflicted upon the colonies.

Not exactly. One of the reasons why the Empire was taken off (or at least significantly reduced from) the British educational syllabus was to counteract what had been perceived as glorification of this period in previous decades. I would agree that there needs to be a little more honesty in some quarters about the downside of the Empire, but to imply that the average Brit is some kind of jingoistic imperialist constantly harking back to the heady days of the Raj is inaccurate, and certainly outdated.

It's one of the reasons why the Union Jack flag (hijacked by right-wing extremists) has such controversial connotations in modern-day Britain, and why there has recently been such a social push towards flying the English flag (St George's cross) at every opportunity instead (eg. current sporting events) -- it's because the latter doesn't have the right-wing, racist imperial connotations that the former is percieved to have.

115 · Jai on July 4, 2006 6:31 AM · Direct link

What about the dress "Salwar-Kameez" that is called Indian-Pakistani dress today actually originated in Turkic area. How about that for a significant impact on culture ?

Exactly. The impact goes far beyond that -- clothes, obviously, but also food, language, music, along with quite a few social customs and attitudes (especially involving women and interaction between the sexes).

It's not just restricted to Punjab; anyone who has had any direct experience of villages and small towns in Rajasthan, UP, Gujarat etc could confirm this, especially if they have relatives living in such areas (and/or their own ancestry originates there, via parents/grandparents etc).

These people did not (and indeed, do not) exist in some kind of pre-Islamic "bubble" where their way of life and ways of thinking were/are exactly the same as their Hindu ancestors 1000 years ago. Possible exceptions, to some extent, are "banjarans" (gypsies) and various "tribal" groups, eg. "Meher" (sp ?) caste people etc.

116 · Jai on July 4, 2006 6:48 AM · Direct link

It has to be remembered that the dominant European instinct is that of a killer.

This author is suffering from some kind of neurosis, or at least has a major case of racism against Europeans which is severaly warping his judgement.

It would probably be more accurate to say that "the killing instinct" can become dominant in humans in general if a combination of social sanction, environmental factors, and psychological issues (dare I say "psychiatric issues") facilitate this.

During the course of human history, violence against one's fellow man/woman and imperialism have hardly been confined to the European continent and its inhabitants.

117 · tashie on July 4, 2006 6:49 AM · Direct link

Dear duh:

I think you got the wrong end of the stick about what I wrote. I fully agree with you that British imperialism and colonisation itself is a terrible injustice whose horrors should never be forgotten. Having just returned from the first NZ screening of Mistress of Spices, I couldn't agree with you more when you say that its impact (through negative stereotypes) is very deeply ingrained. And painful for those watching.

The reason I supported Amardeep's call for trying to move away from polemics was not to whitewash racism...but it's just that for some of us multiculturalist and postcolonial debates seem to have been a bit hijacked by people who do not seem to support its true aims. To use an example totally removed from Indians since that seems to get people thinking of trump cards...in NZ at the moment there's been a murder/child abuse case of twin babies that is part of an endemic problem of child abuse within Maori/indigenous families.

Instead of trying to raise awareness about this issue or to look for constructive solutions, many self-seeking Maori community leaders often use issues like this to highlight the evils of British imperialism and use it as an excuse to get state money for their own private enterprises and businesses.

I am a total supporter of affirmative action and more substantial forms of historical redress for colonialism, but when I see them being so rampantly abused by a few self-seeking leaders who are only out to milk white guilt for themselves, it gets me worried. Just as Indian politicians who were freedom fighters in another life and are now corrupt bastards in this one get me worried too. Neocons are disgusting (and I'm part of a defiantly lefty blog to prove it) but making sure that we don't move to that other extreme of a blind 'white man always bad, brown man always good' mantra is important too.

118 · suresh on July 4, 2006 6:57 AM · Direct link

The British Empire wasn't exactly the first "foreign colonial" period in the subcontinent.

I think what distinguishes British colonialism in the subcontinent from its predecessors is the fact that an elaborate ideology of "justification" was developed to assert that colonialism was "in the best interest of the natives." Statements by British administrators reflecting such sentiments are not very difficult to track down. In effect, this ideology asserts that Indians (and others fortunate enough to be colonized) are less civilized and need to be brought up to the standards of "western civilization."
To the best of my knowledge, there is no equivalent to this in prior Indian history. None of the Mughals made any such claim. Babar's "Babarnama" is full of detail about the unattractivness of India and Indians but it makes no moral claim about the necessity of his rule for the benefit of Indians.

It is not difficult to see why this argument would be offensive. Equally, it is not difficult to see why the strongest reaction would be from "westernized" Indians; that is, those who have had exposure to this argument. I suspect that the strong reaction to Niall Ferguson is in part because of the suspicion that his argument is only a sophisticated version of the old colonial argument. That might be completely unfair to Ferguson: I have to confess that I have not read his book so all this is just wild speculation on my part. (Be gentle on me. :-)) I believe, though, that Ashis Nandy has examined the "internal psychological wounds" of colonialism in his somewhat polemical work "The Intimate Enemy." That might be relevant in understanding what is going on here.

Suresh.

119 · Ponniyin Selvan on July 4, 2006 8:06 AM · Direct link

I think what distinguishes British colonialism in the subcontinent from its predecessors is the fact that an elaborate ideology of "justification" was developed to assert that colonialism was "in the best interest of the natives."

Yeah, because "Babar"/other Kings/Sultans/emperors need not justify their actions to the electorate back home in turkey/turkmenistan(??) etc.. :-)

In those days they can just use their military might to go, capture and subdue foreign lands and people.. No need for an elaborate ideology of "justification". If anyone questions they can just kill them..plain and simple..

But the Brit colonialists or for the current "democracy spreading invasions" you need to put a "justification" spin so as to convince the electorate back home..

So there is really no difference between British colonialism / Mughal aristocracy / with the various other kings/emperors.. I bet none of them cared more for people's interests than their own self interests. Not that the current democratic leaders are the "noble" ones. Atleast now people have a choice in changing the rulers..

120 · Divya on July 4, 2006 10:23 AM · Direct link

Tashie I wasnt thrown off by your name. I actually know two Tashies, plus one Lhasa Apso pup by the name :-) In any case, I somehow assume everyone on this site is a desi of some sort.

You say the caste system is a race-based segregation system which stratified indigenous people at the bottom of the heap. Not even the Indologists refer to it in this manner! It is not an organized system at all. It is just a tenacious part of Indian culture that simply refuses to go away in spite of centuries of effort and waves upon waves of reform movements, including Buddhism, Sikhism, Arya Samaj, the umpteen gurus all over India, onslaughts by liberals, giants like Ambedkar, the Indian Constitution, and relentless criticism from assorted interest groups.

Caste had mostly to do with profession and in some form or the other exists all over the world. In New York specially you can see it rather clearly and no-one calls it a segregation system. Most of the cabbies here are South Asian, the carts selling nuts are mostly Argentenian, the financial world is mostly Jewish, the jewelry business is Jewish and Indian, the grocery stores are mostly Korean, the diners mostly Greek. Such caste groupings form naturally. Moreover, I am not at liberty to visit certain temples such as the Harvard Club or the Explorers Club at my leisure. From your perspective this too should be considered a form of segregation in that case.

It is also not accurate to claim that certain groups have been deliberately marginalized for millennia. Tribals by definition are marginalized because they live in remote places, jungles, deserts, and rugged mountains. This too is natural and to be expected. Now, certain communities denigrate and abuse other communities and this is the part that is troubling. Nobody glorifies this. In India such atrocities take on their own unique form of expression. But the implication in your and most peoples criticism is that there is some form of system that is deliberately and forcefully held in place. This is simply not the case and never has been. And when you consider that segregation by caste exists in different forms all over the world the hindu criticism of caste begins to sound rather arbitrary. That is the reason I do not believe you can draw a parallel between imperialism and caste. And I still maintain that caste is used rather indiscriminately to counter any and every argument put forth by hindus and it is flashed like a trump card along with the full force of moral superiority.

121 · suresh on July 4, 2006 12:01 PM · Direct link

But the Brit colonialists or for the current "democracy spreading invasions" you need to put a "justification" spin so as to convince the electorate back home..
So there is really no difference between British colonialism / Mughal aristocracy / with the various other kings/emperors.. I bet none of them cared more for people's interests than their own self interests. Not that the current democratic leaders are the "noble" ones. Atleast now people have a choice in changing the rulers..

I think you are mistaken. I am not saying that the arguments of the British colonialists did not have an element of self-serving justification but my impression is that many of them honestly believed in the moral case for colonialism. It might give comfort to Indians (of whom I am one) to believe that the colonialists were all thorough b***s but that does not appear to have been the case. Certainly, some of them were but there were also idealists and others somewhere inbetween.

In any case, the "democracy" of Britain 200 years back was very elitist...Only landowners had the right to vote (which excluded most of the population) and women did not have the right to vote until 1920s. And there was nothing like TV or saturated media coverage...I therefore find your claim that the element of justification arose out of a need to convince the electorate unpersuasive. I do not where this impulse came from; it would be interesting to know this.

I am not a historian so I really don't want to continue this argument; perhaps someone can clarify?

Suresh.

122 · chandi on July 4, 2006 1:06 PM · Direct link

Suresh, Tashie, right on. I think what distinguishes British colonialism from other forms is an obssessive justification of its benevolence (which doesn't mean that it was so). But that many of them were driven by "a moral case" for it is also correct. Did these people ignore economic and other structural inequalities? Yes. Were the native ruling class in India benevolent? Mostly not. I think it is very important to understand colonialism and its legacies, and any attempt to muzzle people who do so is no different from other forms of repressive name calling. It seems to have escaped the understanding of some people here that those who study imperialism are neither for it, nor defending it, but often come out with the best analyses, exposes, critiques of empire. Instead of hysteria, they muster up arguments against the likes of Ferguson. I'll sign off now--got to finish that manuscript on (against) British imperialism.

123 · razib on July 4, 2006 1:09 PM · Direct link

muslims have often argued it is better to be a dhimmi that live as a free kuffir. this is in fact part of the argument you will hear from transnational islamists: that non-muslims should welcome the rule of god and god's true faithful as it is preferrable to the rule of man. when akbar engaged in syncretism some of the ummah accused him of apostacy and rolling back islamic hegemony, which they argued was good for muslims and non-muslims. the scale doesn't equal what the british did though because of course justification was more toward themselves than those they conquered.

124 · Meena on July 4, 2006 1:33 PM · Direct link

Jai - I don't contend that the average Brit is jingoist - far from that. I'm sorry there has been a misunderstanding.

125 · Ponniyin Selvan on July 4, 2006 1:46 PM · Direct link

In any case, the "democracy" of Britain 200 years back was very elitist...Only landowners had the right to vote (which excluded most of the population) and women did not have the right to vote until 1920s. And there was nothing like TV or saturated media coverage...I therefore find your claim that the element of justification arose out of a need to convince the electorate unpersuasive. I do not where this impulse came from; it would be interesting to know this.

It is true that their democracy was elitist 200 years back... I could also argue that once their democracy stopped being "elitist" to include everyone from poor people / women etc.. from 1920s.. we gradually see the loosening grip of imperialism / colonialism etc..

Anyways I'm not an apologist for imperialism / colonialism.. I just want to put things in the perspective of comparing Brits to the other rulers/sultans/emperors.. Even during the imperial days, people in British India had more rights than the people who lived in the princely states..

126 · razib on July 4, 2006 2:04 PM · Direct link

one can have justice & liberty without democracy. in fact, in many situations democracy is inimical to liberty. remember that the british campaign against the slave trade predated universal sufferage. sometimes moral arguments are the real arguments and we don't need to scry the materialist intent.

127 · razib on July 4, 2006 2:23 PM · Direct link

btw divya, i happen to agree with some of the things you are saying about caste (though not all). you seem capable of some subtely and precision.

so, i have to ask, why the hell do you see incapable of not expressing laugh-out-loud inanities when they align with your own political biases? i mean, seriously, you seemed averse to 3rd grade math in some of the comments above regarding numbers for muslims (though i guess mean & variance are more middle school levels, though perhaps in india this is taught in 1st grade, i don't know).

i'm not trying to be insulting, i really don't get it.

128 · Ikram on July 4, 2006 3:24 PM · Direct link

Razib wrote:

muslims have often argued it is better to be a dhimmi that live as a free kuffir

Were these arguments ever used by the Mughal empire itself, or at the time of the Empire? I had thought they were more recent.

As for the Brits, we're mostly Macaulay's Minutemen here ( a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect) and some of us are still subjects of the Queen (Happy 4th of July to the rest of you) -- it's obviously a treacherous topic.

129 · Divya on July 4, 2006 3:38 PM · Direct link

Razib - Don't know what exactly you're referring to in the comment above. Whether I was incapable of figuring out the percentage of Muslims in South Asia? You're right, I'm not mathematically inclined and I only skim through most calculations including the one provided by you in this case. I'm also an oldie and have long forgotten third grade math. To me the important point was that the percentage of Muslims was miniscule. Does it matter whether it was 5 percent or 10 percent when all we're interested in is trying to figure out how such a small percentage of people could succeed in spreading their culture? You may have worked out the right percentage but the exchange just ended up revolving around numbers instead of the real issue which was the dynamic of the cultural spread (by a miniscule percentage of people).

And you, monsieur, also leave me befuddled with your comments. Its so easy to write off parts of the world as hell holes - which is how I think you referred to Bangladesh a couple of months ago. Which pretty much sums up your attitude with regard to SA in general. I don't dispute the claim as such except that you make it sound like this was always the case. Like there never ever was a "sonar bangla". Like the west is truly the best. To me it is more interesting to try and figure out what happened to the famous bengali brain. How can B'desh and W. Bengal have been reduced to such abject levels of misery. I don't see you address any such issues and I do detect a strong unquestioning western bias in your comments.

130 · razib on July 4, 2006 3:40 PM · Direct link

Were these arguments ever used by the Mughal empire itself, or at the time of the Empire? I had thought they were more recent.

yes, most of them are more recent, but i have seen references toward these sort of arguments from the ulema at the time of akbar's operational apostacy. in other words, the above poster is correct that the mughals didn't need to justify themselves, but the clerical classes needed to do something with their time....

131 · razib on July 4, 2006 3:46 PM · Direct link

To me the important point was that the percentage of Muslims was miniscule. Does it matter whether it was 5 percent or 10 percent when all we're interested in is trying to figure out how such a small percentage of people could succeed in spreading their culture? You may have worked out the right percentage but the exchange just ended up revolving around numbers instead of the real issue which was the dynamic of the cultural spread (by a miniscule percentage of people).

you use the word 'minsicule' differently than i do. e.g.,

as for western bias, yes, i have one. as for wondering how bangladesh turned into a hell hole, it has some interest for me, but not a great one. i'm american. i'll leave it to those who are interested, but, that doesn't mean that those individuals have carte blanche to make shit up!

132 · Jai on July 5, 2006 4:49 AM · Direct link

in other words, the above poster is correct that the mughals didn't need to justify themselves, but the clerical classes needed to do something with their time....

Aurangzeb was pretty outspoken about his desire to Islamicize the entire subcontinent, and both his motivations and his actions were supported by the ulema/clergy of the time. He was even referred to as "Zinda Pir", ie. Living Saint.

133 · tashie_rethinks on July 5, 2006 8:16 AM · Direct link

Divya:

Behind such talk and the embrace of the broadcasters is the insistence that we are being offered gutsy truths that the "politically correct" establishment would love to suppress. This is the neo-conservative as spunky rebel against liberal tyranny.

This is from Gopal's article. The whole reason I brought up negative aspects of our own culture (and yes, I still stand by what I think of the caste system and my belief that overall it was and is a negative feature of Indian culture) and why I supported Amardeep's call to move away from polemics was because no-one can afford to suppress neocons with their disgusting views, or worse, use weaker tools like guilt/emotional blackmail to fight imperialism-groupies when there's enough bloody evidence and cold hard facts to show how negative British colonialism was for Indians.

I don't live in the US but the last election was a classic case of what happens when you suppress neocons - they go for the stupid people. It doesn't matter how many educated people we think there are out there, (I mean look at the comments on this blog and the commenters are articulate and have some knowledge of history, anthropology, sociology etc...) refusing to examine simple messages because they're stupid is not a good idea because there's enough stupid people out there who like simple messages.

I hate racism disguised as a 'PC message' more than anything but I think it's dangerous to assume that enough people out there will ignore racist views or have enough of a moral conscience to turn against them when racists style themselves into 'rebels' who claim they are just 'speaking the truth that white-apologists are too guilt-tripped to admit to...'

I think we're both on the same page about the fact that empire was a negative thing, as for caste, I know that it's a loaded topic. But when you talk about class discrimination in the west, caste systems basically entrenched that in India - different professions and skills reserved for different people. To me the existence of other forms of discrimination around the world does not make historical discrimination in India less severe or 'arbitrary', I chose it because it's a form of discrimination relevant to Indian culture. If we were talking about another country then other class issues would be discussed.

Also I don't think that the caste system was a random way to organise people who were already in the 'natural professions', as if there was a bunch of priests and then a bunch of shit-sweepers who naturally lived in a society and then a caste system just rocked up one day in someone's head like a vague idea to explain it all. I still think that ideas of which people can do which jobs are definitely culturally created and maintained. The detailed nature of the caste systems into sub-groups etc. makes it seem like a pretty organised system to me. Yes, it developed incrementally but all systems change with time.

Also I hope that puppy was really cute 'cos that sounded like a bit of an online b****-slap to me! Hope it wasn't. Was just muckin' around online so hope you just see views on here as a discussion, I'm not trying to assert the gospel truth and am v open to change my ideas when others that I like better around.

134 · Divya on July 5, 2006 9:35 AM · Direct link

Also I hope that puppy was really cute 'cos that sounded like a bit of an online b****-slap to me!

The pup is adorable (must be big now). And it just came to my head right off the bat, wasn't meant to be mean at all.

I don't agree with your assessment of how caste was organized but cannot get to it today. Anyway, this topic is bound to come up again sooner or later.

135 · Omar Khan on July 5, 2006 12:21 PM · Direct link

To this quote,

The British regime was the first to make some comprehensive attempt at famine prevention in India, by vastly extending irrigation networks and building railways lines to famine-prone areas, as well as introducing famine codes in most provinces (though not, tragically, in Bengal). The historical record is insufficiently complete for any historian to be able to compare the levels of famine under the British with those under preceding regimes, but it is extremely unlikely to have been higher, given that by the latter half of the 19th century it had at least become possible to move grain and rice to areas stricken by shortage from areas of surplus using the railways

I can only refer to Michael Davis Late Victorian Holocausts which shows how comprehensively British policies, especially building the railways, contributed to famines. Tens of millions of people died in a number of Indian provinces due to these policies, and many British commentators at the time were horrified by how British policies from pricing to administration contributed to these deaths. Famines in British times were much worse than before, and Bengal in the 1940s is an excellent example of how callous these policies could be.

The past is over, there was a lot of bad stuff in India before the British and they did bring some very good things, often in spite of themselves (or in discord among themselves), but please let us try to get the facts straight.

Add a comment

Name:
Email:	*
Web site:	*
Remember me?	Yes No
	* (optional)
To prevent comment spam, please type the word brown:
Please don't feed the trolls.	Requests for celebrities' contact info or homework assistance; racist, abusive, illiterate, content-free or commercial comments; personal, non-issue-focused flames; intolerant or anti-secular comments; and long, obscure rants may be deleted. Unless they’re funny. It’s all good then.
Comments:


If you don't see your comment yet: Wait 15 seconds and refresh your browser, don't post a duplicate. Posting, please wait ·····