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/)

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 1:46 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843986)
Yes it certainly existed.
However at the risk of personal knowledge being criticised by Morpeth it mostly didn't. The Indians knew that the local British were under their own government and British authority orders, and they mostly got on together at a personal level.
That is partly why so many emigrated to the UK ----they wanted to see what it was like! Also they expected a good response when the got there. As we know that didn't always happen!!!

This is tiresome Bipat, I am always interested in personal observations and only question why that is the only evidence to base an opinion on.

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 1:58 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12843954)
Morpeth I wondered when toilets would come up!! I pointed out to you the wording on the census form that people said they had no toilets when they had good outside toilets.
Some of 'simple' origin/ancestry in rural areas still prefer to defaecate in the open'. State authorities are trying to stop this.
Yes there is still a lot that needs to be done.
As for middle class they see present day British bathrooms as rather primitive!
Certainly far more toilets than there were in 1947!!!!! Travelling in India with small children in 1960s I would 'dream' of a decent toilet.


You seem not to understand population numbers.
There are obviously thousands of day workers going back to villages. Obviously they would starve without any income, however the various State governments are giving payments.

Bipat, as you recall when is subject discussed before I provided extensive research on the subject by Indian and foreign observers, from the media and academic studies, world institution studies and even Indian government pronouncements- you can try to explain it away or deny the situation- and as you state you have a disregard for any serious analysis- but the situation was obvious, and brought up simply in reference to the absurd idea you have often promoted that poverty in India is not of a scale and depth to that permits any remote comparison to the UK. It isn't a question of population numbers, and as Modi evidently has done very well handling that situation according to the media, there simply needed to be the willpower to address- certainly Modi didn't go to all that effort because of a question on the census form.10 or 20 percent or more of the population is significant whether in the UK or India. .

The day workers are in the thousands upon thousands, seeking to get home any way they can- such happening are another indication of the state of the people there.

The progress you often refer to under the Modi government certainly shows India's problems go much beyond simply having a large population.


Elgin1983 Apr 25th 2020 1:59 pm

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??

<snip> Anyway, you missed the point about Amritsar, which was that native Indian leaders are just as capable of carrying out massacres as "foreign occupiers", if not more so. Indeed, the Mughals themselves could be classified as foreign occupier, given that they originated in Central Asia. Never mind that someone in Assam might consider someone from Kerala a foreigners, given that they look different, speak different languages etc, despite the fact they hold the same citizenship.

As to your point about Mughul intermarriage with Indians, Mughul men took non-Muslim women, converted them to Islam and had Muslim children with them. Did Mughul Muslim women marry Hindu men and have Hindu children? Nope. That is more like conquest than intermarriage.

As for "the apartheid and poverty the British rule has produced", was everyone driving Ferraris before the Brits rocked up in 1700? And did India have a rigid caste system, often enforced by violence, long before the first white man ever set foot there? Don't blame the British for problems that were there long before. In many cases British rule improved these problems, ie with better infrastructure and removal of the jizya tax by Muslims on non-Muslims.

Elgin1983 Apr 25th 2020 1:59 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by scot47 (Post 12843959)
A few months ago I haerd a programme on BBC Radio 4. Reminiscences of British people who lived and worked in India, before and after 1947

I was horrified at the levels of racism expressed by most of the speakers.

Such as?

Bipat Apr 25th 2020 2:23 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12844053)
You may wish to re-read my post as nothing in the post indicates I do or do not understand the details of how the famine was handled, therefore your question has no relevance except simply that India has experienced has famines throughout its history, and to judge the British handling of famines takes an understanding of the circumstances at the time-though as I have said several times it seems many who have looked at the period have been critical the British handling of the matter.As far as governments while there were relatively few British civil servants in India, less than 5,000 at independence, certainly quite felt there were contributing to the betterment of the Indians and India whether you agree or not, and certainly an administrative achievement to be able to rule the subcontinent with so few.

Morpeth at least replying to your posts breaks the boredom of trying to get on-line grocery deliveries in the UK.
(A message today to us is that our Indian town/( 'city' in Indian terms) has ended lockdown today due to excellent management of pandemic in Karnataka State!! So all shops are now open there and rickshaws are trading (our usual form of transport!)

People in India were born into the situation of British Rule. They took jobs to earn a living----they had no choice. What else would they do??
As you know the civil servants had good salaries. So did lawyers and other professionals.
You also know that the British had guns. Any disobedience was dealt with. Yes there were few soldiers at any one place but increase could be summoned at any one time and also from Britain itself.
Presume you supported the last war? Or would you have enjoyed greater wealth under German 'rule'?

(Yes I know exactly where the soldiers were stationed in our southern town. Their barracks became a hotel (not much used) and gone now via freeway road building.
I also know where the 'No Natives' signs were hung, to prevent entry by locals, including those in professional posts.)



Bipat Apr 25th 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12844060)
Bipat, as you recall when is subject discussed before I provided extensive research on the subject by Indian and foreign observers, from the media and academic studies, world institution studies and even Indian government pronouncements- you can try to explain it away or deny the situation- and as you state you have a disregard for any serious analysis- but the situation was obvious, and brought up simply in reference to the absurd idea you have often promoted that poverty in India is not of a scale and depth to that permits any remote comparison to the UK. It isn't a question of population numbers, and as Modi evidently has done very well handling that situation according to the media, there simply needed to be the willpower to address- certainly Modi didn't go to all that effort because of a question on the census form.10 or 20 percent or more of the population is significant whether in the UK or India. .

The day workers are in the thousands upon thousands, seeking to get home any way they can- such happening are another indication of the state of the people there.

The progress you often refer to under the Modi government certainly shows India's problems go much beyond simply having a large population.

Morpeth why do you find it surprising that there are thousands of day workers in cities of millions population?????
Yes the transport needed was underestimated at the beginning of lockdown.

(You might accept that at least they are protected from the pandemic!)

I haven't looked up the care packages by Individual States, however the PM-Cares Fund has started. Along with other measures.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/coro...n-dollars.html

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/let...umbai/22736282
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/74848539.cms

(Modi himself was a tea-seller -----a fact frequently 'mentioned' by the opposition!!)

PS ---Just as an aside a Keralan man was airlifted (at presumably his great expense) today from the UK to home to get needed treatment for an ongoing illness. Presumably he feels safer there.

nonthaburi Apr 25th 2020 2:47 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
:popcorn:
Don't stop. This is good .

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 6:10 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. 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.

I have never quite understood why in an appraisal of the advantages or disadvantages of British rule Bipat has found it of some importance the degree of intermarriage between the British and the locals. Though certainly the degree of distance the British maintained as compared to Spanish and Portuguese practices and the to a degree the French is distinctive.

The caste system certainly a harsh one, and I would assume to a degree the influence of British and Western concepts have been beneficial in modern India's views of the caste system and fairness to the untouchables. While one rarely hears about Christians in Pakistan, who are quite discriminated against, Pakistani Christians have told me that historically many converted to Christianity to escape the Hindu caste system. A close Parsi friend made the same observation about some conversions in India. To what extent that was the reason for conversions or some conversions in India proper I do not know, but Bipat puts extraordinary reliance on hearsay so I assume it must be true.

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 6:15 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12844095)
Morpeth why do you find it surprising that there are thousands of day workers in cities of millions population?????
Yes the transport needed was underestimated at the beginning of lockdown.

(You might accept that at least they are protected from the pandemic!)

I haven't looked up the care packages by Individual States, however the PM-Cares Fund has started. Along with other measures.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/coro...n-dollars.html

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/let...umbai/22736282
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/74848539.cms

(Modi himself was a tea-seller -----a fact frequently 'mentioned' by the opposition!!)

PS ---Just as an aside a Keralan man was airlifted (at presumably his great expense) today from the UK to home to get needed treatment for an ongoing illness. Presumably he feels safer there.

Not surprising to me, but surprizing considering your attempts to downplay poverty in India, whether comparing to the UK or prior posts that you actually believe that India is not comparable to countries like Indonesia and the Philippines in terms of poverty and various social measures.

morpeth Apr 25th 2020 6:23 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by scot47 (Post 12843959)
A few months ago I haerd a programme on BBC Radio 4. Reminiscences of British people who lived and worked in India, before and after 1947

I was horrified at the levels of racism expressed by most of the speakers.

You would then be horrified by the levels of racism expressed worldwide at the time.

The had a Chinese business partner for a few years , describing how white people often referred to as 'long noses' and 'white ghosts' by the Chinese, the Indonesians can be horribly racist against the Chinese, and the Japanese many say racist against everyone. I have sat at a table with Muslims discussing how white people have no souls if they are not converted because looking at how decrepit they said older Europeans looked. Lots to be horrified about everywhere and every time.

Bipat Apr 25th 2020 8:31 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12844190)
I have never quite understood why in an appraisal of the advantages or disadvantages of British rule Bipat has found it of some importance the degree of intermarriage between the British and the locals. Though certainly the degree of distance the British maintained as compared to Spanish and Portuguese practices and the to a degree the French is distinctive.The caste system certainly a harsh one, and I would assume to a degree the influence of British and Western concepts have been beneficial in modern India's views of the caste system and fairness to the untouchables. While one rarely hears about Christians in Pakistan, who are quite discriminated against, Pakistani Christians have told me that historically many converted to Christianity to escape the Hindu caste system. A close Parsi friend made the same observation about some conversions in India. To what extent that was the reason for conversions or some conversions in India proper I do not know, but Bipat puts extraordinary reliance on hearsay so I assume it must be true.

#
I am always surprised at the ignorance of people claiming to know everything about India and their view of 'caste'. It was a social 'class' system associated with work, with surnames given appropriately. As Thatcher, Carpenter, etc.
Yes the lowest social class 'untouchables' (Dalits), they originated as the group that emptied toilets so could have passed infection -----there were no antibiotics in early times!!! So touching them could be dangerous------think pandemic!!!!!!!!
Yes there was terrible cruelty against them. Suggest you read the books of Elizabeth Gaskell and the equivalent in the UK Victorian society.

Other 'castes' work groups are proud of their origins they have clubs--group get togethers etc.
(The Brahmins if actual priests often live in poverty!!) I presume you know that recent Presidents of India have been Dalits.

Castism and any discrimination is illegal in India.
Yes there will be discrimination and violence to those in lower social groups as anywhere and local pockets of this in certain areas.
Other 'Dalits' run top businesses etc.
Yes some change their names most don't.

Regarding religion I assume you know about the torture of Hindus in Goa unless they converted and took Portuguese names. Burning of Hindu libraries and documents in Delhi etc. by the British. The conversions to Christianity of the poor on promise of food for their children!!

History is violent Morpeth world over, why can you not see this!!!! Yes certainly some lower classes might do anything to hide their origins (In UK they take elocution classes to speak BBC English).

(Regarding Parsis they segregated themselves in the sense that it is forbidden to marry out and remain a Parsi. That is why they are prone to certain inherited diseases as are strict orthodox Jewish people. They emigrated to Indi to avoid Muslim persecution. I am sure your Parsi friend explained this.)













morpeth Apr 26th 2020 6:23 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12844235)
#
I am always surprised at the ignorance of people claiming to know everything about India and their view of 'caste'. It was a social 'class' system associated with work, with surnames given appropriately. As Thatcher, Carpenter, etc.
Yes the lowest social class 'untouchables' (Dalits), they originated as the group that emptied toilets so could have passed infection -----there were no antibiotics in early times!!! So touching them could be dangerous------think pandemic!!!!!!!!
Yes there was terrible cruelty against them. Suggest you read the books of Elizabeth Gaskell and the equivalent in the UK Victorian society.

Other 'castes' work groups are proud of their origins they have clubs--group get togethers etc.
(The Brahmins if actual priests often live in poverty!!) I presume you know that recent Presidents of India have been Dalits.

Castism and any discrimination is illegal in India.
Yes there will be discrimination and violence to those in lower social groups as anywhere and local pockets of this in certain areas.
Other 'Dalits' run top businesses etc.
Yes some change their names most don't.

Regarding religion I assume you know about the torture of Hindus in Goa unless they converted and took Portuguese names. Burning of Hindu libraries and documents in Delhi etc. by the British. The conversions to Christianity of the poor on promise of food for their children!!

History is violent Morpeth world over, why can you not see this!!!! Yes certainly some lower classes might do anything to hide their origins (In UK they take elocution classes to speak BBC English).

(Regarding Parsis they segregated themselves in the sense that it is forbidden to marry out and remain a Parsi. That is why they are prone to certain inherited diseases as are strict orthodox Jewish people. They emigrated to Indi to avoid Muslim persecution. I am sure your Parsi friend explained this.)

It would be extremely helpful Bipat that you were more careful in reading the posts you respond to as evidently there is either a language issue or you are responding to what you wish someone had said to be better able to refute what you think they said. That is why it is challenging these discussions.

Read carefully- you stated people “claiming to know everything about India and the caste system.” However, what I wrote was “To what extent that was the reason for conversions or some conversions in India proper I do not know.” The exact opposite to what you have written.

Then you bring up treatment of Hindus in Goa, please do explain what on earth does this have to do with how members of castes were treated in India as a whole? This is quite common in your posts- whenever a subject arises ( and I did not bring up originally the caste system) , part of your response is to denigrate the British or Europeans as if for some bizarre reason you seem to believe this helps deflect comments about a subject.

Whether the Dalits would agree with your approach to explain and condone the caste system, and the effect of the caste system effects in India today, I haven’t a clue. I do know if I researched this any foreign source you would discount as either (a) anti Indian propaganda (b) non-Indian views can’t be relied on ( you have written this specifically several times) (c) or if someone doesn’t actually live in India they cannot understand. If I found Indian sources (a) they don’t understand enormity of India (b) they are members of the Congress party.

Then you write History is violent Morpeth world over, why can you not see this!!!!” This is equally a weird statement- I went back over my post and cannot identify a single thing that would indicate I would disagree with you.

(Yes, I know about elocution lessons being taken in UK for that reason- my mother during her Nurse’s training was told during one six-month study period down south to drop her Northumbrian accent when speaking to patients. A cousin from Newcastle told not to speak Geordie at work as if a London client heard on the phone, they would assume my cousin was ignorant.)

I appreciate you bring up some interesting observations in your post and always of interest situation on the ground so to speak in India these days. It would be more productive if you read posts more carefully and consider the meaning of words. It is a bit hard to respond to your posts sometimes when you are stating someone said something when they did not.

Bipat Apr 26th 2020 8:41 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12844318)
It would be extremely helpful Bipat that you were more careful in reading the posts you respond to as evidently there is either 3) a language issue or you are responding to what you wish someone had said to be better able to refute what you think they said. That is why it is challenging these discussions.

Read carefully- you stated people “claiming to know everything about India and the caste system.” However, what I wrote was “To what extent that was the reason for conversions or some conversions in India proper I do not know.” The exact opposite to what you have written.

Then you bring up treatment of Hindus in Goa, please do explain what on earth does this have to do with 1 )how members of castes were treated in India as a whole? This is quite common in your posts- whenever a subject arises ( and I did not bring up originally the caste system) , part of your response is to denigrate the British or Europeans as if for some bizarre reason you seem to believe this helps deflect comments about a subject.

2) Whether the Dalits would agree with your approach to explain and condone the caste system, and the effect of the caste system effects in India today, I haven’t a clue. I do know if I researched this any foreign source you would discount as either (a) anti Indian propaganda (b) non-Indian views can’t be relied on ( you have written this specifically several times) (c) or if someone doesn’t actually live in India they cannot understand. If I found Indian sources (a) they don’t understand enormity of India (b) they are members of the Congress party.

Then you write History is violent Morpeth world over, why can you not see this!!!!” This is equally a weird statement- I went back over my post and cannot identify a single thing that would indicate I would disagree with you.

(Yes, I know about elocution lessons being taken in UK for that reason- my mother during her Nurse’s training was told during one six-month study period down south to drop her Northumbrian accent when speaking to patients. A cousin from Newcastle told not to speak Geordie at work as if a London client heard on the phone, they would assume my cousin was ignorant.)

I appreciate you bring up some interesting observations in your post and always of interest situation on the ground so to speak in India these days. It would be more productive if you read posts more carefully and consider the meaning of words. It is a bit hard to respond to your posts sometimes when you are stating someone said something when they did not.




1) Every Hindu is a member of a caste (social/original work group) unless they have changed their name. ( Presume you will realise that women are not always so defined as their surname will change if they marry differently. Although as world over people tend to marry within their own social group.)
This is the same in the UK although as social class is not defined by a name you would not know a person's social origins.

2) Dalit origin people in India receive various benefits and job reservations etc by law. This has caused some controversy as millionaire Dalits get the same benefits.

Yes, as world over those thought to be of low social class can be persecuted by others ---and this tends to happen in India more in rural villages and the misery of children being defined by their names is unforgiveable.
(Have you read any of Elizabeth Gaskells books that I mentioned? Spoke out about the misery of the lower social classes/Dalits of England in Victorian times-- Raj time!!!)

PS-3) Yet again you mention "language" ----I have told you I am British, I speak and understand English.:lol: Would there be a problem if I wasn't??
Many of my replies to your posts are intended to be sarcastic, responses to your general attitude and regarding the 'glorious Empire'----- I just avoid too many emojis.


scot47 Apr 26th 2020 10:29 am

Re: Inglorious Empire
 
Listening to analyses of the life of George Orwell. His 5 years as a servant of The Raj influenced him greatly. Reading Orwell and thinking about his experiences should be compulsory reading for all those Empire Loyalists out there. Orwell was no working class revolutionary. His father had worked in The Opium Department of the Indian Government. The Raj actively encouraged the production, use, and export of Opium. Think about that !

morpeth Apr 26th 2020 2:11 pm

Re: Inglorious Empire
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12844353)
1) Every Hindu is a member of a caste (social/original work group) unless they have changed their name. ( Presume you will realise that women are not always so defined as their surname will change if they marry differently. Although as world over people tend to marry within their own social group.)
This is the same in the UK although as social class is not defined by a name you would not know a person's social origins.

2) Dalit origin people in India receive various benefits and job reservations etc by law. This has caused some controversy as millionaire Dalits get the same benefits.

Yes, as world over those thought to be of low social class can be persecuted by others ---and this tends to happen in India more in rural villages and the misery of children being defined by their names is unforgiveable.
(Have you read any of Elizabeth Gaskells books that I mentioned? Spoke out about the misery of the lower social classes/Dalits of England in Victorian times-- Raj time!!!)

PS-3) Yet again you mention "language" ----I have told you I am British, I speak and understand English.:lol: Would there be a problem if I wasn't??
Many of my replies to your posts are intended to be sarcastic, responses to your general attitude and regarding the 'glorious Empire'----- I just avoid too many emojis.

Again you ignore the comments that your write in responses about things I have never said or even implied, hence why sometimes whether there is a language issue. I write I don't know something , then you respond about people claiming they know everything. Not being sarcastic just logical.

The issues of the English class system of course are well known, I am unaware of anyone who would claim the treatment of the lower classes in the UK would approach the level of treatment of the lower castes in India,


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:56 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.