British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   India (https://britishexpats.com/forum/india-169/)
-   -   Inglorious Empire (https://britishexpats.com/forum/india-169/inglorious-empire-932177/)

scot47 Apr 12th 2020 5:00 pm

Inglorious Empire
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire

Listening to this as an audiobook. A reminder of the Infamies of Imperialism.

Bipat Apr 12th 2020 6:05 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by scot47 (Post 12837578)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire

Listening to this as an audiobook. A reminder of the Infamies of Imperialism.

So many books have been written about the 'Empire'-----Shashi Tharoor is somewhat 'inglorious' also!!:lol: Desperately needed money when he wrote the book.

scot47 Apr 12th 2020 7:04 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
But most people in these islands are quite unaware of the Infamies of Empire - in India and elsewhere.

Elgin1983 Apr 19th 2020 10:20 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
You can't judge things that happened centuries ago by the norms of today. All empires were brutal: the Mughal Empire, which the British replaced in India, was much worse (particularly to the majority non-Muslims). And then there were such little matters as banning sati, the burning of widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre, and the creation of the railway system. Of course certain people just enjoy criticising the West and pretending everyone else sat around making daisy chains and singing kumbaya till the terrible white man showed up.

prestonjohn Apr 20th 2020 9:03 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
Its not just the railways and architectural structures that the Raj left behind but the system of government and the rule of law, the civil service and the armed servies and schools & Colleges are the real and benefits that have stood the tests of time.You can cite famines and massacres and blame the British to high heaven for any number of crimes committed but the foundations of modern India were laid down during the Raj period, not during the days of The East India Company. They are still as strong today as when they were first formulated over a hundred years ago.

Bipat Apr 20th 2020 9:18 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by prestonjohn (Post 12841291)
Its not just the railways and architectural structures that the Raj left behind but the system of government and the rule of law, the civil service and the armed servies and schools & Colleges are the real and benefits that have stood the tests of time.You can cite famines and massacres and blame the British to high heaven for any number of crimes committed but the foundations of modern India were laid down during the Raj period, not during the days of The East India Company. They are still as strong today as when they were first formulated over a hundred years ago.

This is a topic that could be discussed for 'ever'-----As Tharoor has said India was one of the world's wealthiest areas but when the British left the poorest, with low literacy, no health system for the poor etc etc.
The rail system was built for the British themselves, it is totally different now.
Yes it was not all bad ----those with a background of previous education did better and the political system has remained similar for the most part. (Still going through British laws needing to be repealed!!)
The schools and colleges are totally different from those of the British time.
Remember the history of India one of the earliest learned civilisations, people were living sophisticated lives when the British were still in caves!!:lol:

Bipat Apr 20th 2020 9:31 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Elgin1983 (Post 12841127)
You can't judge things that happened centuries ago by the norms of today. All empires were brutal: the Mughal Empire, which the British replaced in India, was much worse (particularly to the majority non-Muslims). And then there were such little matters as banning sati, the burning of widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre, and the creation of the railway system. Of course certain people just enjoy criticising the West and pretending everyone else sat around making daisy chains and singing kumbaya till the terrible white man showed up.

The Mughal Empire was not all bad. The Emperors varied and unlike the British the Mughals intermarried with locals and the countries wealth remained in India not shipped of to a country on the other side of the world via taxation.
Emperor Ashoka is still revered today (on the flag).
Always people bring up sati----it was terrible yes just took place in certain remote areas.

scot47 Apr 20th 2020 2:02 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
Those Brits who venerate the Empire are unlikely to read this book. They should. It might give them some perspective

scot47 Apr 21st 2020 9:27 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ional_Congress

Returning to this theme and refreshing my memory on History.

morpeth Apr 21st 2020 10:52 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by scot47 (Post 12837578)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire

Listening to this as an audiobook. A reminder of the Infamies of Imperialism.

The author is hardly a Historian and there so are so many inaccuracies and overt bias behind his supposed 'conclusions' the book is virtually worthless for a serious analysis- I have read it cover to cover.

His comments about India's proportion of the world's economy in 1700 could equally be applied to China, and both countries hardly had the foundation the West had for industrial revolutions.His rather bizarre idea that the Empire accounted most of the economic productivity growth in the UK in the 19th century, or even the majority of profits Britain derived from overseas trade and investment is simply sheer economic ignorance. I am always amazed such drivel is taken seriously.

One can debate the numerous advantages or disadvantages of British rule, but the sort of nonsense of this author hardly grounds for rational debate.




morpeth Apr 21st 2020 11:21 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Elgin1983 (Post 12841127)
You can't judge things that happened centuries ago by the norms of today. All empires were brutal: the Mughal Empire, which the British replaced in India, was much worse (particularly to the majority non-Muslims). And then there were such little matters as banning sati, the burning of widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre, and the creation of the railway system. Of course certain people just enjoy criticising the West and pretending everyone else sat around making daisy chains and singing kumbaya till the terrible white man showed up.

Criticising the West is so politically correct all reason or logic or objectivity gets thrown out the window. If one looks throughout Asia, whether former colonies or independent nations, or what the situation was before the West arrived, the situation is much more complex. Yet one can make almost any unsubstantiated assertion such as in the book referred to,and without much thought accepted by many.

Throughout the 19th century the bulk of British foreign investment and foreign profits came from outside colonies such as India, whether outside the Empire such as the USA or Argentina, or if within the Empire settler colonies such as Australia or Canada.

Would India have done better if not colonized ? An interesting question- one would assume one would look at the factors behind the industrial revolution, whether a university system with advanced pure research and a commercial system that provided incentive and means to commercialize scientific advances,geographic/climate/cultural differences, and numerous other factors. ,Such 'what if' questions interesting, but should have some sort of logic applied.

India has been invaded throughout its history, the British were not the first. There were definite advantages the British brought to India, and also one can identify some disadvantages with the oft cited example of the effect on the local textile industry.There has been much criticism of British handling of famines in the 19th century India ( let alone during World War II) as well. I am unsure that the Mughal Empire represents a high level of efficiency in its declining years to assume they would have done better.On taxation certainly one would want to consider hard statistics though the bulk certainly stayed in India just the nature of the elite changed, and certainly distinct differences between policies of the East India Company and the British Raj.

India certainly in the 50's,60's and 70's responsible for the continued massive poverty- yet in recent decades especially under the current government economic growth has greatly accelerated, yet with hundreds of millions in dire poverty and by some social statistics India is behind countries such as Indonesia or the Philippines. But trying to blame the British easier than taking responsibility for their own actions.

Bipat Apr 21st 2020 12:18 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12841877)
Criticising the West is so politically correct all reason or logic or objectivity gets thrown out the window. If one looks throughout Asia, whether former colonies or independent nations, or what the situation was before the West arrived, the situation is much more complex. Yet one can make almost any unsubstantiated assertion such as in the book referred to,and without much thought accepted by many.

Throughout the 19th century the bulk of British foreign investment and foreign profits came from outside colonies such as India, whether outside the Empire such as the USA or Argentina, or if within the Empire settler colonies such as Australia or Canada.

Would India have done better if not colonized ? An interesting question- one would assume one would look at the factors behind the industrial revolution, whether a university system with advanced pure research and a commercial system that provided incentive and means to commercialize scientific advances,geographic/climate/cultural differences, and numerous other factors. ,Such 'what if' questions interesting, but should have some sort of logic applied.

India has been invaded throughout its history, the British were not the first. There were definite advantages the British brought to India, and also one can identify some disadvantages with the oft cited example of the effect on the local textile industry.There has been much criticism of British handling of famines in the 19th century India ( let alone during World War II) as well. I am unsure that the Mughal Empire represents a high level of efficiency in its declining years to assume they would have done better.On taxation certainly one would want to consider hard statistics though the bulk certainly stayed in India just the nature of the elite changed, and certainly distinct differences between policies of the East India Company and the British Raj.

India certainly in the 50's,60's and 70's responsible for the continued massive poverty- yet in recent decades especially under the current government economic growth has greatly accelerated, yet with hundreds of millions in dire poverty and by some social statistics India is behind countries such as Indonesia or the Philippines. But trying to blame the British easier than taking responsibility for their own actions.

Morpeth I was reluctant to join in this discussion (even though it was regarding my own home) because I knew you would join in!!!!!!
Poverty in the 50s-70s-----It is not possible to eliminate 90% poverty in 20 years!
I have personally seen poverty reducing year by year.
You always select out certain statistics from Philippines etc without understanding the context, the reality and the actuality of gathering such statistics.

At least we can agree regarding Shashi Tharoor as a person if not as a writer and speaker. I am not sure if he is still on bail----but the charges will never stick!!!!






scot47 Apr 22nd 2020 6:52 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
Morpeth probably believes that The Slave Trade was carried out solely to provide a better life for the unfortunates who were transported to The Americas !

morpeth Apr 23rd 2020 6:09 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by scot47 (Post 12842711)
Morpeth probably believes that The Slave Trade was carried out solely to provide a better life for the unfortunates who were transported to The Americas !

By all means it would be interesting your opinion based on history or common sense on the three substantive points I made, one can always learn from discussion.

If instead one wishes to hold some fashionable politically correct view without having an open mind considering reality evidence or probability, not much serious discussion possible,

morpeth Apr 23rd 2020 6:35 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12841939)
Morpeth I was reluctant to join in this discussion (even though it was regarding my own home) because I knew you would join in!!!!!!
Poverty in the 50s-70s-----It is not possible to eliminate 90% poverty in 20 years!
I have personally seen poverty reducing year by year.
You always select out certain statistics from Philippines etc without understanding the context, the reality and the actuality of gathering such statistics.

At least we can agree regarding Shashi Tharoor as a person if not as a writer and speaker. I am not sure if he is still on bail----but the charges will never stick!!!!

hi bipat, it is always an interesting discussion.

actually the experience of several countries in the far east ( which started after the war with a smaller industrial base than india) saw rapidly declining poverty, and India's rapid growth in recent years, show with proper economic and other policies poverty can be reduced substantially in the world economic environment post world war II. almost every foreign or Indian economist has severely criticised the policies followed in the decades following 1947- just has the changes in policies the last 20 years have resulted in tremendous growth for a third world country the size of India.

my reference to the social measures used by universities, world organizations, economists and so forth are the statistics we have available. your doubt of hard evidence because it doesn't suit your wish to portray India in the manner you prefer can equally be applied to the countries mentioned in terms of data collection etc anecdotally form my own observations admittedly dated, but also of people I know who in recent years have been in India and Indonesia the extent of dire poverty remaining in India is worse and more extensive in India, villages and cities than what one finds in Indonesia. That doesn't negate the tremendous progress India has made in recent years which is extraordinary and a testament that if the Indian government and elites gets out of the way, the intelligence, diligence and commercial acumen present in India can achieve economic wonders under recent economic conditions.

Tharoor actually I find quite engaging and personable as a speaker, but his writing historical and economic ignorance catering to a point of view that is fashionable without much careful scrutiny.

I always find curious that you seem to feel it has some economic or other real significance that the Mughals intermarried with the locals which you often bring up.

(In any case it is heartbreaking to see the scenes of the Indian migrant workers trying to flee the cities these days, and reports of attacks on health workers being attacked or threatened with evictions,or today a report that an Indian hospital - claiming a 'misprint'- demanding Muslim patients show proof they do not have the Corona virus. I do hope these sort of sensationalist stories not the norm and that India gets through this period better than most ! The BBC showed film clips of the migrant workers which I found quite astonishing the numbers and some of the stories the workers gave. Friends in Pakistan tell me an even worse but under reported situation there).

Bipat Apr 23rd 2020 8:27 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12842897)
hi bipat, it is always an interesting discussion.

actually the experience of several countries in the far east ( which started after the war with a smaller industrial base than india) saw rapidly declining poverty, and India's rapid growth in recent years, show with proper economic and other policies poverty can be reduced substantially in the world economic environment post world war II. almost every foreign or Indian economist has severely criticised the policies followed in the decades following 1947- just has the changes in policies the last 20 years have resulted in tremendous growth for a third world country the size of India.

1) my reference to the social measures used by universities, world organizations, economists and so forth are the statistics we have available. your doubt of hard evidence because it doesn't suit your wish to portray India in the manner you prefer can equally be applied to the countries mentioned in terms of data collection etc anecdotally form my own observations admittedly dated, but also of people I know who in recent years have been in India and Indonesia the extent of dire poverty remaining in India is worse and more extensive in India, villages and cities than what one finds in Indonesia. That doesn't negate the tremendous progress India has made in recent years which is extraordinary and a testament that if the Indian government and elites gets out of the way, the intelligence, diligence and commercial acumen present in India can achieve economic wonders under recent economic conditions.

2) Tharoor actually I find quite engaging and personable as a speaker, but his writing historical and economic ignorance catering to a point of view that is fashionable without much careful scrutiny.

3) I always find curious that you seem to feel it has some economic or other real significance that the Mughals intermarried with the locals which you often bring up.

4) (In any case it is heartbreaking to see the scenes of the Indian migrant workers trying to flee the cities these days, and reports of attacks on health workers being attacked or threatened with evictions,or today a report that an Indian hospital - claiming a 'misprint'- demanding Muslim patients show proof they do not have the Corona virus. I do hope these sort of sensationalist stories not the norm and that India gets through this period better than most ! The BBC showed film clips of the migrant workers which I found quite astonishing the numbers and some of the stories the workers gave. Friends in Pakistan tell me an even worse but under reported situation there).

Morpeth your usual long posts.

1) You mean the view of India you prefer!!!! Yes Congress Governments did not move fast enough regarding poverty however having travelled and lived north to south of India over the past 50 years seen that there was a gradual decrease in the poverty of British times ----accelerated under present Government.
50% of population now free healthcare and medicines! etc.
Travellers to India see large city slums on arrival (visible by air!) and just remember those----I presume you know those rehoused from the Mumbai slum sold their new flats and moved back!
Of course there are millions of poor when there is a billion + population!

2) Again Tharoor ---just because you want to push your own view about a 'glorious empire'-----presume you have read about his diplomatic and literary career.
The book concerned here----67 pages of references----20 pages of bibliography. Are the latter all wrong!!
(Certainly an unpleasant character known locally as the 'crook'---presently 'problems' regarding the possible contract killing/possible suicide of his very wealthy third wife.)

3) The fact that the Mughals made India their home not just ruling from an ignorant distance. As I said Ashoka still revered.

4) Not sure what you meant by "migrant" workers. It is obvious street workers and daily wage earners would want to go back to their villages on lockdown---it was probably underestimated the numbers and inadequate buses etc initially.
There have been problems of Muslims insisting on gathering in large numbers for festivals and not obeying lockdown-----I thought this might be just 'sensationalist but whatsapps from people that I know have no prejudices confirm this. (We returned to UK in March to give moral support to our medic children -on the front line--).

India has been praised internationally for their pandemic handling------I could put numerous references.
Even our rural home ----work on paving our back garden was stopped ----police patrolling. Now some let up in rural areas for farmers etc. but yesterday a spike in cases.



scot47 Apr 23rd 2020 8:27 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
One word for Morpeth and the other "Empire Loyalists" - AMRITSAR.

morpeth Apr 24th 2020 11:33 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12842932)
Morpeth your usual long posts.

1) You mean the view of India you prefer!!!! Yes Congress Governments did not move fast enough regarding poverty however having travelled and lived north to south of India over the past 50 years seen that there was a gradual decrease in the poverty of British times ----accelerated under present Government.
50% of population now free healthcare and medicines! etc.
Travellers to India see large city slums on arrival (visible by air!) and just remember those----I presume you know those rehoused from the Mumbai slum sold their new flats and moved back!
Of course there are millions of poor when there is a billion + population!

2) Again Tharoor ---just because you want to push your own view about a 'glorious empire'-----presume you have read about his diplomatic and literary career.
The book concerned here----67 pages of references----20 pages of bibliography. Are the latter all wrong!!
(Certainly an unpleasant character known locally as the 'crook'---presently 'problems' regarding the possible contract killing/possible suicide of his very wealthy third wife.)

3) The fact that the Mughals made India their home not just ruling from an ignorant distance. As I said Ashoka still revered.

4) Not sure what you meant by "migrant" workers. It is obvious street workers and daily wage earners would want to go back to their villages on lockdown---it was probably underestimated the numbers and inadequate buses etc initially.
There have been problems of Muslims insisting on gathering in large numbers for festivals and not obeying lockdown-----I thought this might be just 'sensationalist but whatsapps from people that I know have no prejudices confirm this. (We returned to UK in March to give moral support to our medic children -on the front line--).

India has been praised internationally for their pandemic handling------I could put numerous references.
Even our rural home ----work on paving our back garden was stopped ----police patrolling. Now some let up in rural areas for farmers etc. but yesterday a spike in cases.

Well is there something with ‘long posts’ trying to answer a question properly?

1) “You mean the view of India you prefer!!!!” No just a vision based on logic and evidence not partisan pro-India, pro Hindu nationalism and anti- British feelings.



“Yes, Congress Governments did not move fast enough regarding poverty was a gradual decrease in the poverty of British times ----accelerated under present Government.


There was a gradual decrease in poverty in many Third World nations post World War II for a variety of reasons.

“Of course, there are millions of poor when there is a billion + population!

As with other Third World nations the issue is the depth of poverty and the percentage of population living in such conditions- and of course what I find the amazing acceptance and lack of empathy of middle class and elite Indians concerning poverty.

2) “ Again Tharoor”

That was the subject of the thread. We have discussed before the numerous inaccuracies and plain ignorance of economics and history displayed in his book- and I even looked up a few references that certainly did not buttress or prove his points. For example evidently in his books and most particularly his Oxford lecture he hasn’t the slightest understanding of 19th century economic history as evidenced by his ignorance of the productivity drivers of the British economy, or British investment and rates of return on British foreign investments and where they were made.

3) “The fact that the Mughals made India their home not just ruling from an ignorant distance.”



I am unsure where an invading ruled from is necessarily significant, and in any case most decisions during the Raj were made in India not in London. Most history shows the Mughal Empire in decline, and hardly in the slightest any evidence they were capable of or embarking on a path of industrial revolution and setting up of the type of universities or political economic structure necessary for modernization. I am not sure how ‘ignorant’ you claim the British were, looking at the advances in Sanskrit studies (such as by William Jones and the Asiatic Society of the 18th century in Calcutta) they could not have been too ignorant.


4) You may wish to look at the videos posted on the BBC about the thousands of day workers in Indian cities overwhelming transports or having to walk back to their villages, that is what I was referring to. The stories certainly sensationalist of the hospital in India refusing Muslim patients not tested but accepting Hindus is what I referred to, and reports from India of attacks on health care workers or landlords trying to evict healthcare workers. While how various governments handling the situation, I think too early to judge, I have the same impression that India appears overall to be handling well and decisively and a damn pity this situation interrupts the steady economic progress India has been making.


morpeth Apr 24th 2020 11:34 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by scot47 (Post 12842933)
One word for Morpeth and the other "Empire Loyalists" - AMRITSAR.

Well by all means look forward to your specific responses to the original post I made, as presumably we all looking for productive discussion to advance knowledge.

Bipat Apr 24th 2020 12:15 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12843484)
Well is there something with ‘long posts’ trying to answer a question properly?

1) “You mean the view of India you prefer!!!!” No just a vision based on logic and evidence not partisan pro-India, pro Hindu nationalism and anti- British feelings.



“Yes, Congress Governments did not move fast enough regarding poverty was a gradual decrease in the poverty of British times ----accelerated under present Government.


There was a gradual decrease in poverty in many Third World nations post World War II for a variety of reasons.

“Of course, there are millions of poor when there is a billion + population!

As with other Third World nations the issue is the depth of poverty and the percentage of population living in such conditions- and of course what I find the amazing acceptance and lack of empathy of middle class and elite Indians concerning poverty.

2) “ Again Tharoor”

That was the subject of the thread. We have discussed before the numerous inaccuracies and plain ignorance of economics and history displayed in his book- and I even looked up a few references that certainly did not buttress or prove his points. For example evidently in his books and most particularly his Oxford lecture he hasn’t the slightest understanding of 19th century economic history as evidenced by his ignorance of the productivity drivers of the British economy, or British investment and rates of return on British foreign investments and where they were made.

3) “The fact that the Mughals made India their home not just ruling from an ignorant distance.”



I am unsure where an invading ruled from is necessarily significant, and in any case most decisions during the Raj were made in India not in London. Most history shows the Mughal Empire in decline, and hardly in the slightest any evidence they were capable of or embarking on a path of industrial revolution and setting up of the type of universities or political economic structure necessary for modernization. I am not sure how ‘ignorant’ you claim the British were, looking at the advances in Sanskrit studies (such as by William Jones and the Asiatic Society of the 18th century in Calcutta) they could not have been too ignorant.


4) You may wish to look at the videos posted on the BBC about the thousands of day workers in Indian cities overwhelming transports or having to walk back to their villages, that is what I was referring to. The stories certainly sensationalist of the hospital in India refusing Muslim patients not tested but accepting Hindus is what I referred to, and reports from India of attacks on health care workers or landlords trying to evict healthcare workers. While how various governments handling the situation, I think too early to judge, I have the same impression that India appears overall to be handling well and decisively and a damn pity this situation interrupts the steady economic progress India has been making.


1) No the vision I actually know----- not just read about in newspapers without any knowledge of the politics as you do.

Why are you so upset by the fact that the majority of the population follow Hindu philosophy. Is the UK Christian nationalist???
The government is certainly not anti-British.

Percentage in poverty?------Do you know the percentage of UK in poverty? Homeless--foodbanks-- etc.

Indians below a certain income limit ALL get basic food practically free---subsidised gas cylinders, free medicines and treatment in PRIVATE hospitals for 50% of the population related to income. Bank accounts without a deposit revolutionised the lives of rickshaw drivers, they could borrow for new vehicles-----just one example. Unlike you we talk to such people daily.

Yes there is still along way to go------how do you know what middle class think or do????
Yes as in UK there are billionaires who could do a lot more.

2. I have explained the character of Tharoor. Presume you have at least SOME knowledge of his diplomatic and political career!!

3) The British Raj was under the control of the British Government-----"The Jewel in the Crown"----why were they there----charity??
As I have said before relationships 'on the ground ' could be very good----British workers in India also suffered.

4) Yes I have seen the videos---Yes there was an under estimate of the numbers going back to villages. There have been similar stories in UK of landlords evicting.
I have pointed out to you the minority of Muslims insisting on large festival gatherings and increasing infection rate.
We have WhatsApp messages several times a day from areas north and south of India so we DO actually have first hand knowledge.

There has been international praise for India's immediate lockdown, travel restrictions. visa bans, police help and amusing people. Other forum members even in TIO have put posts regarding this but Morpeth just wants to search for anything negative!!!!!!!


scot47 Apr 24th 2020 1:10 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
The official line was that they were in India for just that - charity. Nonsense of course. Both "John Company" and the Raj proper were there to get rich !

I suggest people do a bit of reading - the title here and some of the books by William Dalrymple - my fellow-Scot, albeit from a different caste.

Elgin1983 Apr 24th 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12841299)
The Mughal Empire was not all bad. The Emperors varied and unlike the British the Mughals intermarried with locals and the countries wealth remained in India not shipped of to a country on the other side of the world via taxation.
Emperor Ashoka is still revered today (on the flag).
Always people bring up sati----it was terrible yes just took place in certain remote areas.

There wasn't much intermarriage because there weren't many British there. No large-scale settlement, just the thin white line. But for the first 150 years there was intermarriage, which produced the Anglo-Indians. Only after the 1857 rebellion were things changed. As for Mughal "intermarriage", did they allow Hindu men to marry Muslim Mughul women and produce Hindu children? Nope. As is always the way in Islam, Mughul Muslim men took Hindu women, converted them to Islam and had Muslim children, which is really just another form of conquest. Some of the Mughul emperors also imposed the notorious jizya tax on non-Muslims.

As for economics, India's proportion of the world economy was no doubt larger in 1700 than in 1900, but that was because the overall size of the world economy was so much smaller in 1700, before the industrial revolution. The living standards of most Indians were raised significantly during British rule thanks to the things prestonjohn mentioned, such as the railways and other infrastructure, civil service, rule of law, organised system of government, schools and colleges; not to mention the removal of Mughul jizya and oppression of non-Muslims.

I enjoyed reading morpeth's learned posts, many thanks.

kimilseung Apr 24th 2020 3:47 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Elgin1983 (Post 12841127)
You can't judge things that happened centuries ago by the norms of today. All empires were brutal: the Mughal Empire, which the British replaced in India, was much worse (particularly to the majority non-Muslims). And then there were such little matters as banning sati, the burning of widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre, and the creation of the railway system. Of course certain people just enjoy criticising the West and pretending everyone else sat around making daisy chains and singing kumbaya till the terrible white man showed up.

yes you can, although apologists always claim you cant. I am not negating that cultures and norms change, but what we see is that there are always voices against atrocities, what we see over history is not a change in individual opinion but in the power of hegemony and the source of that hegemony. The main opposition I have to 'it was a different time' is the complete nullification of the voice of the victim, whose voice was always clear that what was being done was wrong.

kimilseung Apr 24th 2020 3:55 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
A book I read recently(ish) on India, that I would recommend, particularly as Amritsar has been mentioned is
"The Patient Assassin" by Anita Anand.
Follows the killer of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the man with ultimate responsibility for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. It helps paint a picture of the opposition to British rule that is often overlooked because of the shadow of Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patient_Assassin

Bipat Apr 24th 2020 4:14 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Elgin1983 (Post 12843609)
There wasn't much intermarriage because there weren't many British there. No large-scale settlement, just the thin white line. 1)But for the first 150 years there was intermarriage, which produced the Anglo-Indians. Only after the 1857 rebellion were things changed. As for Mughal "intermarriage", did they allow Hindu men to marry Muslim Mughul women and produce Hindu children? Nope. As is always the way in Islam, Mughul Muslim men took Hindu women, converted them to Islam and had Muslim children, which is really just another form of conquest. Some of the Mughul emperors also imposed the notorious jizya tax on non-Muslims.

As for economics, India's proportion of the world economy was no doubt larger in 1700 than in 1900, but that was because the overall size of the world economy was so much smaller in 1700, before the industrial revolution. 2)The living standards of most Indians were raised significantly during British rule thanks to the things prestonjohn mentioned, such as the railways and other infrastructure, civil service, rule of law, organised system of government, schools and colleges; not to mention the removal of Mughul jizya and oppression of non-Muslims
I enjoyed reading morpeth's learned posts, many thanks.

1) The Anglo Indian Community for the most part came about by wealthy British taking Indian servant girls as concubines and producing children. Subsequent generations married each other. It is still a community proud of its heritage.

2) How can you possibly know about the British improving living standards? Were you there? Were you there in 1947?
The railways and infrastructure were for the British to use themselves, they expected to stay.

Haven't you read about the taxation (most Western people have at least heard about salt tax and bans.) My middle class coastal family had and some still have salt pans-----their income totally ceased They educated children from their land sales. They could manage ---the poor with small coastal patches---starved.
Presume you know about the famines----taxation or compulsory purchase of land and grain and export meant no money for machinery, no money for storage. Animals also died so no milk etc.
The poor did not benefit from hospitals or any medical help. ( The wife of one Viceroy built a hospital for the poor----it had 37 beds!!!!))

A country with thousands of years of history was reduced to hand to mouth living----there are still those alive who remember.

I think the evidence of parents, grandparents, great grandparents uncles, aunts etc.etc. those now in their 80s and 90s is more valuable than reading books written by those who read others books, who also read others books!! Then pronounce they are experts on a country that they don't live in.



Elgin1983 Apr 24th 2020 6:25 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843645)
1) The Anglo Indian Community for the most part came about by wealthy British taking Indian servant girls as concubines and producing children. Subsequent generations married each other. It is still a community proud of its heritage.

2) How can you possibly know about the British improving living standards? Were you there? Were you there in 1947?
The railways and infrastructure were for the British to use themselves, they expected to stay.

Haven't you read about the taxation (most Western people have at least heard about salt tax and bans.) My middle class coastal family had and some still have salt pans-----their income totally ceased They educated children from their land sales. They could manage ---the poor with small coastal patches---starved.
Presume you know about the famines----taxation or compulsory purchase of land and grain and export meant no money for machinery, no money for storage. Animals also died so no milk etc.
The poor did not benefit from hospitals or any medical help. ( The wife of one Viceroy built a hospital for the poor----it had 37 beds!!!!))

A country with thousands of years of history was reduced to hand to mouth living----there are still those alive who remember.

I think the evidence of parents, grandparents, great grandparents uncles, aunts etc.etc. those now in their 80s and 90s is more valuable than reading books written by those who read others books, who also read others books!! Then pronounce they are experts on a country that they don't live in.

And of course there was no taxation or repression under the Mughuls, when the entire population lived in mock-Tudor mansions with two Range Rovers each.

Elgin1983 Apr 24th 2020 6:28 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by scot47 (Post 12842933)
One word for Morpeth and the other "Empire Loyalists" - AMRITSAR.

More people were killed in the Amritsar massacre under Indira Gandhi than the one during British rule. Which ought to tell you something if you think hard enough.

Bipat Apr 24th 2020 7:58 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Elgin1983 (Post 12843710)
More people were killed in the Amritsar massacre under Indira Gandhi than the one during British rule. Which ought to tell you something if you think hard enough.

#

Indira Gandhi was responsible for far more atrocities than that! She was punished for it---assassination!!! You might remember that Margaret Thatcher was a particular friend of Indira!

The British were foreign occupiers for nearly 100 years. Until present day memory.
The famines killed millions.The apartheid, the poverty that British rule has produced has taken decades to eliminate.
May I ask how much time have you actually spent in India and how many States do you know well??

Bipat Apr 24th 2020 8:23 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Elgin1983 (Post 12843707)
And of course there was no taxation or repression under the Mughuls, when the entire population lived in mock-Tudor mansions with two Range Rovers each.

Presume you know the dates of the Mughals. I presume you know the early history of England at that time.
You are trying to compare two totally different times in history. The British were in India in living memory and they are still remembered. (I can remember the "no natives" signs on doors!)

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 7:57 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843645)
1) The Anglo Indian Community for the most part came about by wealthy British taking Indian servant girls as concubines and producing children. Subsequent generations married each other. It is still a community proud of its heritage.

2) How can you possibly know about the British improving living standards? Were you there? Were you there in 1947?
The railways and infrastructure were for the British to use themselves, they expected to stay.

Haven't you read about the taxation (most Western people have at least heard about salt tax and bans.) My middle class coastal family had and some still have salt pans-----their income totally ceased They educated children from their land sales. They could manage ---the poor with small coastal patches---starved.
Presume you know about the famines----taxation or compulsory purchase of land and grain and export meant no money for machinery, no money for storage. Animals also died so no milk etc.
The poor did not benefit from hospitals or any medical help. ( The wife of one Viceroy built a hospital for the poor----it had 37 beds!!!!))

A country with thousands of years of history was reduced to hand to mouth living----there are still those alive who remember.

I think the evidence of parents, grandparents, great grandparents uncles, aunts etc.etc. those now in their 80s and 90s is more valuable than reading books written by those who read others books, who also read others books!! Then pronounce they are experts on a country that they don't live in.

I think your post says it all Bipat, that you reject all historical and economic analysis by both Indian and foreign experts, and only hearsay,folk memories and opinions by people trained in history and economics. Furthermore , as you have indicated in prior posts, you only accept the folk memory of Indians as opposed to the British or other foreigners there at the time.

Many of the issues of the effect of British rule have been studied and much is still being debated by historians.So when you make assertions it is hard often to accept when they contradict evidence, or do not acknowledge areas that are still unclear- but your response to any evidence that contradicts your ideological viewpoint, your only response is evidence of what you have heard from your family.

That the Indian economy grew during British rule is accepted by any serious economist or historian, just as it didn't grow as fast as most Western countries.This was equally the case for Asian countries that were not colonized (eg. Iran, Thailand). Equally regardless of the motivations, the English establish transportation and communication advances which cost far more than any taxation revenue sent to Britain ( the majority of tax revenue was spent in India), and in 1947 India had the strongest industrial base of any country in Asia. The growth in population during British rule was significant, obviously having an effect on living standards, though there appears some debate as to the extent of per capita income growth as opposed to absolute growth. There is ongoing debate on the effect of this or that British economic policy, such as the effect on the textile industry in India, just as one can debate Indian policies the first 30 years of independence.Of coruse for an overall assessment one should consider the 'what if' question of what India was like before the British and what India may have turned out like without British rule The Mughal Empire by the 198th century hardly a stellar example of a progressive and stable rulers who were on teh verge of prompting a scientific and industrial revolution.

So when you throw out comments about British taxation, it would seem normal to determine what that taxation was, where it was spent, how significant it was in terms of the overall economy etc etc. When I provided actual statistics concerning this, instead of disputing with evidence or logic, the response as usual is that based on family recollections only, taxation was excessive and drained wealth from India. This recent post confirms that approach to analysis.

My mother was in British India, and from correspondence and discussion I know the efforts she made to train Indian medical personnel, and the care she put into her work and care for the people, and her views of the benefits the British were giving the Indians. She also was in India in the late 1960's , and I was there as a child, and had a basis for comparison. My father also was in India numerous times in the 1940's through the 1980's, and I have very close Indian and Pakistani friends whose families lived during the British Raj and built significant enterprises dating back to the early 20th century, in banking and textiles. Surely such anecdotal evidence provided from conversation is useful, but certainly for a full understanding one would want to consider the views of historians and economists even if they were born after 1947.

However it is helpful for this thread to understand why you reject any serious analysis as a basis for opinion.

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 7:59 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843752)
#

Indira Gandhi was responsible for far more atrocities than that! She was punished for it---assassination!!! You might remember that Margaret Thatcher was a particular friend of Indira!

The British were foreign occupiers for nearly 100 years. Until present day memory.
The famines killed millions.The apartheid, the poverty that British rule has produced has taken decades to eliminate.
May I ask how much time have you actually spent in India and how many States do you know well??

There you go again, the Mughals and many others were foreign occupiers throughout Indian history.

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 8:12 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843510)
1) No the vision I actually know----- not just read about in newspapers without any knowledge of the politics as you do.

Why are you so upset by the fact that the majority of the population follow Hindu philosophy. Is the UK Christian nationalist???
The government is certainly not anti-British.

Percentage in poverty?------Do you know the percentage of UK in poverty? Homeless--foodbanks-- etc.

Indians below a certain income limit ALL get basic food practically free---subsidised gas cylinders, free medicines and treatment in PRIVATE hospitals for 50% of the population related to income. Bank accounts without a deposit revolutionised the lives of rickshaw drivers, they could borrow for new vehicles-----just one example. Unlike you we talk to such people daily.

Yes there is still along way to go------how do you know what middle class think or do????
Yes as in UK there are billionaires who could do a lot more.

2. I have explained the character of Tharoor. Presume you have at least SOME knowledge of his diplomatic and political career!!

3) The British Raj was under the control of the British Government-----"The Jewel in the Crown"----why were they there----charity??
As I have said before relationships 'on the ground ' could be very good----British workers in India also suffered.

4) Yes I have seen the videos---Yes there was an under estimate of the numbers going back to villages. There have been similar stories in UK of landlords evicting.
I have pointed out to you the minority of Muslims insisting on large festival gatherings and increasing infection rate.
We have WhatsApp messages several times a day from areas north and south of India so we DO actually have first hand knowledge.

There has been international praise for India's immediate lockdown, travel restrictions. visa bans, police help and amusing people. Other forum members even in TIO have put posts regarding this but Morpeth just wants to search for anything negative!!!!!!!

No offense but it is weird what your sources of information in. I have no heard 1 single story in the Uk of landlords targeting NHS staff for evictions.No I didn't 'search' for anything, news stories appear on the BBC which I look at. I do not specifically look fro anything negative, I have often commented on many aspects of progress in India the last 10 years in particular. And yes I raised the question to get some first-hand knowledge.And my impressions far is India seems to me handling the Corona situation as well as can be expected.

No rational person would consider the issues of poverty in terms of depth and extent remotely comparable between Britain and India.

Bipat Apr 25th 2020 8:44 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12843912)
I think your post says it all Bipat, that you reject all historical and economic analysis by both Indian and foreign experts, and only hearsay,folk memories and opinions by people trained in history and economics. Furthermore , as you have indicated in prior posts, you only accept the folk memory of Indians as opposed to the British or other foreigners there at the time.

Many of the issues of the effect of British rule have been studied and much is still being debated by historians.So when you make assertions it is hard often to accept when they contradict evidence, or do not acknowledge areas that are still unclear- but your response to any evidence that contradicts your ideological viewpoint, your only response is evidence of what you have heard from your family.

That the Indian economy grew during British rule is accepted by any serious economist or historian, just as it didn't grow as fast as most Western countries.This was equally the case for Asian countries that were not colonized (eg. Iran, Thailand). Equally regardless of the motivations, the English establish transportation and communication advances which cost far more than any taxation revenue sent to Britain ( the majority of tax revenue was spent in India), and in 1947 India had the strongest industrial base of any country in Asia. The growth in population during British rule was significant, obviously having an effect on living standards, though there appears some debate as to the extent of per capita income growth as opposed to absolute growth. There is ongoing debate on the effect of this or that British economic policy, such as the effect on the textile industry in India, just as one can debate Indian policies the first 30 years of independence.Of coruse for an overall assessment one should consider the 'what if' question of what India was like before the British and what India may have turned out like without British rule The Mughal Empire by the 198th century hardly a stellar example of a progressive and stable rulers who were on teh verge of prompting a scientific and industrial revolution.

So when you throw out comments about British taxation, it would seem normal to determine what that taxation was, where it was spent, how significant it was in terms of the overall economy etc etc. When I provided actual statistics concerning this, instead of disputing with evidence or logic, the response as usual is that based on family recollections only, taxation was excessive and drained wealth from India. This recent post confirms that approach to analysis.

My mother was in British India, and from correspondence and discussion I know the efforts she made to train Indian medical personnel, and the care she put into her work and care for the people, and her views of the benefits the British were giving the Indians. She also was in India in the late 1960's , and I was there as a child, and had a basis for comparison. My father also was in India numerous times in the 1940's through the 1980's, and I have very close Indian and Pakistani friends whose families lived during the British Raj and built significant enterprises dating back to the early 20th century, in banking and textiles. Surely such anecdotal evidence provided from conversation is useful, but certainly for a full understanding one would want to consider the views of historians and economists even if they were born after 1947.

However it is helpful for this thread to understand why you reject any serious analysis as a basis for opinion.

So the memories of indigenous India people are "folk memory"------including those still alive such OH (at this moment Whatsapping to a neighbour, whatever they are discussing is 'hearsay' ----wonder why they are wasting their time!!
I presume the family salt pans were not put out of use by the British they were not taxed, small owners did not starve---OH's father did not have to sell land to finance his children's education at great cost in colleges run by the kindly British.
I presume farmers all over India did not have their land taken, vast quantities of grain exported, cotton etc. nothing to store for famines!!!!!

In contrast certainly the memories of your mother a non-indigenous Indian are valuable because she is British.




Bipat Apr 25th 2020 8:48 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12843913)
There you go again, the Mughals and many others were foreign occupiers throughout Indian history.

I pointed out that the British were there within living memory.

(That means It is possible to discuss the occupation with people who remember it! not just read about in books written by people who have read other books by people who read books!!)

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 8:54 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843930)
So the memories of indigenous India people are "folk memory"------including those still alive such OH (at this moment Whatsapping to a neighbour, whatever they are discussing is 'hearsay' ----wonder why they are wasting their time!!
I presume the family salt pans were not put out of use by the British they were not taxed, small owners did not starve---OH's father did not have to sell land to finance his children's education at great cost in colleges run by the kindly British.
I presume farmers all over India did not have their land taken, vast quantities of grain exported, cotton etc. nothing to store for famines!!!!!

In contrast certainly the memories of your mother a non-indigenous Indian are valuable because she is British.

No one denies there were taxes, no one denies that there were negative as well as positive policies then-or now.Again you avoid the central point, that repeatedly you avoid any serious evidence beyond family recollections, or that you are willing to consider different points of view. I have a very close friend whose family set up a substantial business in 1910 in India, and fleeing Hindu persecution in 1947 moved the business to Pakistan- certainly British taxation didn't preclude him making money !

One has to account for bias whether British or Indian, but the concept you have previously expressed that only Indian memories have value is hardly representative of someone with any level of objectivity.



Bipat Apr 25th 2020 9:03 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12843915)
1) No offense but it is weird what your sources of information in. I have no heard 1 single story in the Uk of landlords targeting NHS staff for evictions.No I didn't 'search' for anything, news stories appear on the BBC which I look at. I do not specifically look fro anything negative, I have often commented on many aspects of progress in India the last 10 years in particular. And yes I raised the question to get some first-hand knowledge.
2) And my impressions far is India seems to me handling the Corona situation as well as can be expected.

3) No rational person would consider the issues of poverty in terms of depth and extent remotely comparable between Britain and India.


1) Several such stories and government has banned such evictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...pread-covid-19
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/c...on-for-renters

2) Oh so good of you!!! :sarcasm:
There has been general international praise.
Just one example.

https://tfipost.com/2020/03/india-mu...t-coronavirus/


3) Do British poor get basic food for pennies? Why are there food banks that even nurses use!!
Morpeth my UK town of about 70,000 population, shop doorways people sleeping in duvets begging for money.
My Indian town of about 70,000 population -----I cannot remember the last time I saw a beggar or person sleeping on the street.

Certainly there are millions of poor and homeless in Indian cities there is a billion plus population.



morpeth Apr 25th 2020 9:05 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843930)
So the memories of indigenous India people are "folk memory"------including those still alive such OH (at this moment Whatsapping to a neighbour, whatever they are discussing is 'hearsay' ----wonder why they are wasting their time!!
I presume the family salt pans were not put out of use by the British they were not taxed, small owners did not starve---OH's father did not have to sell land to finance his children's education at great cost in colleges run by the kindly British.
I presume farmers all over India did not have their land taken, vast quantities of grain exported, cotton etc. nothing to store for famines!!!!!

In contrast certainly the memories of your mother a non-indigenous Indian are valuable because she is British.

I have said many times all evidence should be considered, not just from or another group, that applies anywhere in the world. My mother's memories are valuable because she was a professional caring woman with standards but also caring empathy for those she served which I also observed first hand in the 1960's, not because she was British, Yes because she was British I would have to consider her bias, as I would in an Indian observer, or my impression of your anti-British bias.

There have been famines in India throughout history, though there have been many criticisms by both Indian and British historians of British responses, though also considering the scale and particular circumstances I am unsure whether a Mughal administration would have necessarily handled better.

Bipat Apr 25th 2020 9:13 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12843934)
No one denies there were taxes, no one denies that there were negative as well as positive policies then-or now.Again you avoid the central point, that repeatedly you avoid any serious evidence beyond family recollections, or that you are willing to consider different points of view. I have a very close friend whose family set up a substantial business in 1910 in India, and fleeing Hindu persecution in 1947 moved the business to Pakistan- certainly British taxation didn't preclude him making money !

One has to account for bias whether British or Indian, but the concept you have previously expressed that only Indian memories have value is hardly representative of someone with any level of objectivity.

Morpeth you always have to use the word "family"!!!! Do you think that the only people I have met over the past 50 years are family members.
I also have eyes!!!


morpeth Apr 25th 2020 9:19 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843937)
1) Several such stories and government has banned such evictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...pread-covid-19
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/c...on-for-renters

2) Oh so good of you!!! :sarcasm:
There has been general international praise.
Just one example.

https://tfipost.com/2020/03/india-mu...t-coronavirus/


3) Do British poor get basic food for pennies? Why are there food banks that even nurses use!!
Morpeth my UK town of about 70,000 population, shop doorways people sleeping in duvets begging for money.
My Indian town of about 70,000 population -----I cannot remember the last time I saw a beggar or person sleeping on the street.

Certainly there are millions of poor and homeless in Indian cities there is a billion plus population.

Bipat it is useless debate with you to compare the depth and scale of poverty in the Uk compared to India since in prior discussions you reject any and all evidence from Indian and Foreign organizations , universities, governments and academia.

Your views may indicate why India has such endemic and pervasive poverty, that middle and upper class India and from a standpoint of Hindu nationalism or Indian patriotism ans sensitivity , just deny reality.A country where until a few years ago over ten percent of the population, by some estimates twenty percent, well over 100 million didn't even have toilets but defecated in the open. thousands upon thousands of day workers fleeing cities stating otherwise they would starve, hardly do circumstances in Britain compare.

Thanks for the links, I stand corrected that such idiotic landlords have also been reported here.

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 9:20 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843943)
Morpeth you always have to use the word "family"!!!! Do you think that the only people I have met over the past 50 years are family members.
I also have eyes!!!

Not at all but you emphasize often family observations.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:33 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.