British India..was it good or bad?

[roadrunner]

Let us not forget that the British gave modern institutions to these cities, and established the modern bureaucracy, modern city planning etc. etc. The Lahore under the British was probably much more modern than the one under a hypothetical native ruler.

• Which modern Insitutions did the British Empire give to Pakistan? Educaton?
• I'm not so sure you can say that a "hypotheitical" native ruler would not have done as much as the British. The Sikhs were disgusting selfish rulers I agree with you. However, if you look at the progression of both Pakistan and India following on from Partition, you have to accept that modernization would have come to the areas themselves. I suspect you cannot look at Pakistan and say under the Sikhs it was not colonization. The Sikhs only looked after themselves, just like any other colonialist. But to say modernization would not have come to the subcontinent without the British is nonsense.
• Modern city planning is again one of those things I'd like to see proof of. How much city planning went on in Pakistan (or India) for that matter under the British). There's an area of Lahore that has the buildings designed in the shape of the British flag! How is that a "modern" design (i'll look for the area in Google Earth). But be specific..how do you mean modern? Afaik, Mughal architecture could be described as modern for its time, so i can't see your point here.

They fought well because it was in their culture to fight, not because they had any modern ideas of nationhood.

lol..Well perhaps a bit stereotypical there. But the Afghans never had an Empire where they invaded another country and took over it. Sure, some outskirtish nations were taken over, bits of Tajikistan, etc, but in fact never did the Afghans invade other countries for colonialization to the extent say Alexander did, or the Persian Empire, or any of these Empires. The infighting that's occurred recently in the area is more as a consequence of warfare and depravity than anything else.

Getting back to the point, the reason the NWFP was not developed by the British was because the British could not take over it. It's well recorded that there was resistance to British rule. Nothing to do with Buffer zones!

Ah, the just mills were factories operated by the company, and the profits left India to reach Britain. They never resulted in any prosperity for the locals.
On the other hand, the first Indian enterpreneurs in Bombay made steel and steel products, ships, agricultural equipment essentially at their own merit.

There were some Indian industries put out of business by the British because of large scale manufacturing capabilities.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
The Marathas were still a major power after the Panipat defeat. That defeat simply restricted their expansion further West.

It is arguable that they would have remained in control of most of India for a long time, considering that they had modernized the military tactics to a great extent, and also commanded a large navy.

Also, the practice of giving regional autonomy to the various chieftains would have ensured that the empire remained intact for a long time.

Of course, the Afghans, being the quintessential warriors, could have defeated them eventually....but then we really can't predict such things can we.

Would need to read some more on the Marathas really.

 

[Flintlock]

• Which modern Insitutions did the British Empire give to Pakistan? Educaton?

• 
  
  Yes Education, the ideas of citizenship, democracy, modern technology, scientific thinking...etc....etc...
  
  

  [*]I'm not so sure you can say that a "hypotheitical" native ruler would not have done as much as the British. The Sikhs were disgusting selfish rulers I agree with you. However, if you look at the progression of both Pakistan and India following on from Partition, you have to accept that modernization would have come to the areas themselves.

  
  Mughals, Sikhs, Marathas were all feudal rulers, who didn't have the concepts of a modern nation state. These modern ideas only came with the British conquest.
  The Mughals essentially considered India a colony of the Islamic empire, considered themselves foreigners, and were proud of it.
  On the other hand, the Sikhs and Rajputs were local tribes, so they can't really be considered foreign imperialists.
  
  I don't really know if Pakistan would have existed without the coming of the British, most probably we would have ended up with a European type of arrangement, with each ethnic group forming its own state, some monarchies, other democracies, still others as communist states.
  
  Examples are Nepal and Bhutan....these countries give a nice idea of what most of the subcontinent could have been like.
  
  

  I suspect you cannot look at Pakistan and say under the Sikhs it was not colonization. The Sikhs only looked after themselves, just like any other colonialist. But to say modernization would not have come to the subcontinent without the British is nonsense.

  
  It would have come, but slowly. I don't see how Pakistan and India could have been where they are today without the British influence.
  
  Sikhs were expected to look after only themselves like any other autocrats.
  
  

  [*]Modern city planning is again one of those things I'd like to see proof of. How much city planning went on in Pakistan (or India) for that matter under the British). There's an area of Lahore that has the buildings designed in the shape of the British flag! How is that a "modern" design (i'll look for the area in Google Earth). But be specific..how do you mean modern? Afaik, Mughal architecture could be described as modern for its time, so i can't see your point here.

  
  I can't say about Lahore since I haven't been there, but Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi were all given excellent infrastructure on par with British cities. Agreed that this was meant to serve the British exclusively, but still, these cities were the first truly modern cities in India.
  
  Perhaps, some princely states like Travancore, Hyderabad, Rajput states could compete with the British, but they were still far behind.
  
  

  lol..Well perhaps a bit stereotypical there. But the Afghans never had an Empire where they invaded another country and took over it. Sure, some outskirtish nations were taken over, bits of Tajikistan, etc, but in fact never did the Afghans invade other countries for colonialization to the extent say Alexander did, or the Persian Empire, or any of these Empires. The infighting that's occurred recently in the area is more as a consequence of warfare and depravity than anything else.

  
  Afghans conquered the subcontinent at various times, and the Durranis extended their empire till delhi.
  
  I think its in Afghan culture to be at war, and I am not being stereotypical here. Their philosophy hasn't changed much since the tribalism of the middle ages.
  They continually resist outside influence and have strict honour codes.
  
  
  

  Getting back to the point, the reason the NWFP was not developed by the British was because the British could not take over it. It's well recorded that there was resistance to British rule. Nothing to do with Buffer zones!

  
  The British were unable to conquer Afghanistan,
  They couldn't control the population of the Frontier Provinces, so they treated these areas as buffers to prevent Afghans from entering the subcontinent.
  
  
  

  There were some Indian industries put out of business by the British because of large scale manufacturing capabilities.

  
  Yes, of course. But then India couldn't go on forever with the old ways.

 

[roadrunner]

Yes Education, the ideas of citizenship, democracy, modern technology, scientific thinking...etc....etc...

Meaning that scientific thinking was not present in Pak before the British Empire rule? The British Empire did have modern technologies and were more capable following on from the demise of the Mughal Empire. However the modern technologies were not put to use in the subcontinent. One example was the industries that were put out of business in India by the large scale British Empire industrial technologies that were not introduced into the subcontinent.

I'm not sure how you can call 7% Pak literacy an educational achievement of the British Empire. As for the ideas of citizenship, not sure what you mean..Censuses were recorded for the first time perhaps, but then all the countries of the world started keeping records more or less around the 19th century. Give examples of how citizenships were beneficial so i can understand what you mean. As for democracy, was there even a democratic system in the subcontinent. The Raj was not a democratic title, it was more of a dictatorship. Explain what you mean a bit.

Mughals, Sikhs, Marathas were all feudal rulers, who didn't have the concepts of a modern nation state. These modern ideas only came with the British conquest.

The Mughals I'd disagree with you. Under the Mughals the subcontinent did flourish in certain areas. Quite a large share of the world's wealth came from the subcontinent. So this would be modern by those standards. The Sikhs and Marathas I'd agree though. They had no concept on how to rule.

The Mughals essentially considered India a colony of the Islamic empire, considered themselves foreigners, and were proud of it.
On the other hand, the Sikhs and Rajputs were local tribes, so they can't really be considered foreign imperialists.

The Sikhs were a minority ruling a majority. It's like a group of Africans ruling France. That's what made them bad rulers. The Mughals were foreigners, but they did not fill their governments up with lots of foreigners.

I don't really know if Pakistan would have existed without the coming of the British, most probably we would have ended up with a European type of arrangement, with each ethnic group forming its own state, some monarchies, other democracies, still others as communist states.

Noone knows. But I think Pakistan would have existed in some form separate from Bharat.

Examples are Nepal and Bhutan....these countries give a nice idea of what most of the subcontinent could have been like.

Both Nepal and Bhutan were part of the British Empire werent they?

It would have come, but slowly. I don't see how Pakistan and India could have been where they are today without the British influence.

In what way?

Sikhs were expected to look after only themselves like any other autocrats.

Like autocrats from a minority in charge of a majority.

I can't say about Lahore since I haven't been there, but Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi were all given excellent infrastructure on par with British cities. Agreed that this was meant to serve the British exclusively, but still, these cities were the first truly modern cities in India.

lol..Can you give me a reference for this?

Perhaps, some princely states like Travancore, Hyderabad, Rajput states could compete with the British, but they were still far behind.

In terms of human capital expenditure, they were.

Afghans conquered the subcontinent at various times, and the Durranis extended their empire till delhi.

I think its in Afghan culture to be at war, and I am not being stereotypical here. Their philosophy hasn't changed much since the tribalism of the middle ages.
They continually resist outside influence and have strict honour codes.

Resisting outside influences sure. Anti-colonial. But the furthest they've been is only a couple of thousand miles either side of Kabul.

The British were unable to conquer Afghanistan,
They couldn't control the population of the Frontier Provinces, so they treated these areas as buffers to prevent Afghans from entering the subcontinent.

Prevent Soviets from entering, not Afghans. They cut deals with them, independence in exchange for not allowing the soviets through, and so on. Development was not spent on the areas because of this. They didn't want anything from colonialists.

Yes, of course. But then India couldn't go on forever with the old ways.

I don't get you here. You're saying it was good that the Indian industries were put out of business by the larger British industrialization from Europe?

 

[Flintlock]

Meaning that scientific thinking was not present in Pak before the British Empire rule?

Again I can't say much about Pakistan, but in India the British built the first scientific establishments and university. The aim of these was to "anglicize" the Indians and make them culturally British, but these institutions opened new doors and introduced European ideas to the Indians, which was very important. Most top Congress leaders were British educated.

The British Empire did have modern technologies and were more capable following on from the demise of the Mughal Empire. However the modern technologies were not put to use in the subcontinent. One example was the industries that were put out of business in India by the large scale British Empire industrial technologies that were not introduced into the subcontinent.

Actually, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the British did consider the Indians as a valuable part of the empire and they contributed in several ways. Ports, Irrigation canals, roadways, railways, dams.

Also, another factor that we often forget is the concept of objective historical records. The british explorers can be given full credit for unravelling the history of the Indian subcontinent, for rediscovering ancient texts and understanding ancient indian philosophies.
This knowledge, that there had once been a great indian civilization also contributed to the rise of Indian nationalism.

I'm not sure how you can call 7% Pak literacy an educational achievement of the British Empire.

I wonder what sort of literacy rates the Mughals and others achieved. I'm sure literacy of the commoner was the last thing on their minds when they were busy leading decadent lifestyles.

The point is, whether deliberate or inadvertent, the British did end up doing several good things in the subcontinent.

As for the ideas of citizenship, not sure what you mean..Censuses were recorded for the first time perhaps, but then all the countries of the world started keeping records more or less around the 19th century. Give examples of how citizenships were beneficial so i can understand what you mean. As for democracy, was there even a democratic system in the subcontinent. The Raj was not a democratic title, it was more of a dictatorship. Explain what you mean a bit.

Well you can read up about the freedom struggle, how Indian leaders learnt about nationalism and democracy from the British and then came back to India to demand these for their own people.
The elections were held largely due to the efforts of the freedom fighters, but the ideas themselves came from Britain.

The Raj was never a democracy, but the Raj led to the spread of democratic ideas among the Indian people.

The Mughals I'd disagree with you. Under the Mughals the subcontinent did flourish in certain areas. Quite a large share of the world's wealth came from the subcontinent. So this would be modern by those standards.

I'd rate the Mughals as lowly as any other power in the subcontinent. But you can't blame them for it....their ideas were confined to the concepts available to them.

Indian peasants were as wretched as any under the Mughals.

The Sikhs and Marathas I'd agree though. They had no concept on how to rule.

Can't say much about the Sikhs, but the Marathas, atleast within what is now India, were considered as liberators from the Mughals. They abolished the dhimmitude etc. and were secular.
Another important contribution of the Marathas is that they abolished the caste system.

The Sikhs were a minority ruling a majority. It's like a group of Africans ruling France. That's what made them bad rulers. The Mughals were foreigners, but they did not fill their governments up with lots of foreigners.

Mughals were as barbaric as any. Once their rule was consolidated, they became marginally more tolerant.
Otherwise, the Islamic invasions were catastrophic for traditional Indian society.

The mere fact that Buddhism and Hinduism is completely vanished from places like Gandhara, Nalanda etc. is a testimony to the brutality of the invasions.

Sure, later on Mughals were quite cultured and civilized, but they didn't conquer the whole of India by being gentlemen.

I can't say much about the Sikhs, but I suppose they can't be much better than the Mughals.

Noone knows. But I think Pakistan would have existed in some form separate from Bharat.

I'm sure you would want it that way.
Have you considered that Pakistan could have been a part of Afghanistan today?

Both Nepal and Bhutan were part of the British Empire werent they?

They were British protectorates.

In what way?

In the modern boundaries of both nations.

Like autocrats from a minority in charge of a majority.

Yeah....

lol..Can you give me a reference for this?

Is there a need for reference? Go to Bombay. The British built excellent infrastructure, public utilities, transportations sytems like rails and trams.

Prevent Soviets from entering, not Afghans. They cut deals with them, independence in exchange for not allowing the soviets through, and so on. Development was not spent on the areas because of this. They didn't want anything from colonialists.

Exactly, which I think was a very noble thing, but ultimately led them where they are today, since they didn't benefit from the ideas propagated by the british.

I don't get you here. You're saying it was good that the Indian industries were put out of business by the larger British industrialization from Europe?

See, there are several layers to everything.

Sure, traditional ways of manufacturing were killed off, but in the long run, it proved beneficial.

Its not that the British willingly gave modern industries to India. The Indians learnt it from the British. This would have been difficult without colonization.

 

[bhangra12345]

Again I can't say much about Pakistan, but in India the British built the first scientific establishments and university. The aim of these was to "anglicize" the Indians and make them culturally British, but these institutions opened new doors and introduced European ideas to the Indians, which was very important. Most top Congress leaders were British educated.

Yet the only two who mattered Nehru and the education minister of India, AB Azad did not study in a british school in India and did not know what a worst it is. Ever wondered why EVERY national leader of any repute who studied in those schools, did one thing in common - establish an educational center, starting with Gandhi, gokhle, Bose, Patel and so on. No, it is not at all a coincidence. Unfortunately, India's luck was bad that the two who mattered did not have it. and we are still suffering from it.

Now, if you know a wee bit about this, you would be calling me an anti-macaulite, in case you dont know who he is, read about him.

Actually, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the British did consider the Indians as a valuable part of the empire and they contributed in several ways. Ports, Irrigation canals, roadways, railways, dams.

You really consider that a blessing, then you did not know how the British systematically destroyed every fig leaf of agricultural infrastructure in India. How they did not had any clue of the systems existing in India and because of the neglect from 1790's to 1870's due to their complete neglect, how the agricultural system collapsed in India.

Also, another factor that we often forget is the concept of objective historical records. The british explorers can be given full credit for unravelling the history of the Indian subcontinent, for rediscovering ancient texts and understanding ancient indian philosophies.

Another dishonest attribute to the british and the nonsense that the Indians never wrote records. The highest amount of manuscripts in a single region are from India and in sanskrit and they are as of today being neglected, because our govt refuses to give funds to the institutions. Oh! the manuscripts I said above are before 1000 AD.

The belief which you expressed just now is the reason for this, they are blind that there exists a treasure trove of wealth to do this.

This knowledge, that there had once been a great indian civilization also contributed to the rise of Indian nationalism.

such a balderdash, that I wouldnt even think of it.

I wonder what sort of literacy rates the Mughals and others achieved.

My bet is much much better what the British achieved after their 100 years of "glorious" rule.

I'm sure literacy of the commoner was the last thing on their minds when they were busy leading decadent lifestyles.

Read about clive and his loots, how the british resident in the princely states enjoyed his life, sometimes much more than the governer-general himselves.

A system of education which attracted thousands of students to India was developed in BC of nalanda and you are saying that there was no chance of propogation of education??

The point is, whether deliberate or inadvertent, the British did end up doing several good things in the subcontinent.

such as.....?? The only good thing they did is, while leaving they did not demolish everything.

Well you can read up about the freedom struggle, how Indian leaders learnt about nationalism and democracy from the British and then came back to India to demand these for their own people.

for your information, Bankim chandra wrote vandemateram much before this democracy in Britain itself, infact read up on the 1857 revolt for more information.

The elections were held largely due to the efforts of the freedom fighters, but the ideas themselves came from Britain.

which ideas of freedom and equality are from french revolution, no point giving undeserved brownies to anyone.

The Raj was never a democracy, but the Raj led to the spread of democratic ideas among the Indian people.

I kill you and by this your son thinks he needs to have freedom from me, see that freedom idea is derived from me!!! brilliant

I'd rate the Mughals as lowly as any other power in the subcontinent. But you can't blame them for it....their ideas were confined to the concepts available to them.

as which other power??

Indian peasants were as wretched as any under the Mughals.

but much better than they were under the british.

Can't say much about the Sikhs, but the Marathas, atleast within what is now India, were considered as liberators from the Mughals. They abolished the dhimmitude etc. and were secular.
Another important contribution of the Marathas is that they abolished the caste system.

Mughals were as barbaric as any. Once their rule was consolidated, they became marginally more tolerant.
Otherwise, the Islamic invasions were catastrophic for traditional Indian society.

The mere fact that Buddhism and Hinduism is completely vanished from places like Gandhara, Nalanda etc. is a testimony to the brutality of the invasions.

Sure, later on Mughals were quite cultured and civilized, but they didn't conquer the whole of India by being gentlemen.

I can't say much about the Sikhs, but I suppose they can't be much better than the Mughals.

[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you would want it that way.
Have you considered that Pakistan could have been a part of Afghanistan today?

They were British protectorates.
[/QUOTE]
You need to really really brush up your history. Pakistan(punjab and sindh) were conquered not from afghans but from sikhs. The sikhs made the afghans to run with their tails behind them. The afghan king was under the protection of sikhs.

In the modern boundaries of both nations.

Yeah....

No chance, if the british were not there, even afghanistan might have been in India under the sikhs, the marathas would be controlling the south while the sikh kingdom would have been the north. The mughal empire only existed in the figment of imagination, the marathas had thoroughly stripped of mughals of their empire, they were the mayors of delhi, but effective consolidation had not happened, it was at this time that british came into being.

Is there a need for reference? Go to Bombay. The British built excellent infrastructure, public utilities, transportations sytems like rails and trams.

Exactly, which I think was a very noble thing, but ultimately led them where they are today, since they didn't benefit from the ideas propagated by the british.

The soviets were not even a threat at that time, the czar was no threat, it was the caliphate at that time, dont superimpose today's scenario on the then scenario.

See, there are several layers to everything.

Sure, traditional ways of manufacturing were killed off, but in the long run, it proved beneficial.

kill all traditional ways of manufacturing but forget about doing the part of moving on to modern ways of manufacturing. Effectively destroy all the economy of India and make it a simple dependent on me.

Read through the industrialization of India. The major industries were developed during the world wars when the british did not had a choice but only to harness and use indian companies.

Its not that the British willingly gave modern industries to India. The Indians learnt it from the British. This would have been difficult without colonization.

Oh really! industrialization of India would have happened much much sooner, you seriously underestimate the Indian capability. Look at the small amount of window time(world wars) utilized so effectively by the indians to industrialize and then comment.

Your attitude reminds of a comment "You have killed all my family, destroyed all my wealth, raped me 100 times , removed my limbs - I thank you for not killing me and giving me a spectacle for my eyes at the end of this, because you could have done something much worse"
Thank you, I am not going to accept that comment, not in 10000 years.

If you think that the unity of India was preserved by british during 1947, not with standing the partition. Think again- I suggest you read "the story of the integration of indian states" to get an idea of it. They left 567 free countries!!!!!

 

[Flintlock]

Yet the only two who mattered Nehru and the education minister of India, AB Azad did not study in a british school in India and did not know what a worst it is. Ever wondered why EVERY national leader of any repute who studied in those schools, did one thing in common - establish an educational center, starting with Gandhi, gokhle, Bose, Patel and so on. No, it is not at all a coincidence. Unfortunately, India's luck was bad that the two who mattered did not have it. and we are still suffering from it.

Now, if you know a wee bit about this, you would be calling me an anti-macaulite, in case you dont know who he is, read about him.

Look, the fact remains that the institutions created by the British have been used extensively in modern India.

You don't have to be a brown-sahib to appreciate the contributions of the British in the formation of the modern Indian identity and society.

I don't consider Gandhi or Bose great educators. Gandhi was a great leader, but he can hardly be considered an intellectual.

Another dishonest attribute to the british and the nonsense that the Indians never wrote records. The highest amount of manuscripts in a single region are from India and in sanskrit and they are as of today being neglected, because our govt refuses to give funds to the institutions. Oh! the manuscripts I said above are before 1000 AD.

Indian literature is obviously among the most prolific.
What the British did, was interpret these in an objective fashion, bringing with them modern ways of piecing together the past.

Indians, most of them, had little concept of history at all. They simply remembered the Mahabharata and Ramayana and considered this as history.

My bet is much much better what the British achieved after their 100 years of "glorious" rule.

Nonsense...the Mughals destroyed the traditional Indian civilization and contributed nothing much in terms of technology or science. They simply built grand monuments to please themselves.

the British atleast brought European ideas to India, which under the Mughals was in steep cultural decline.

Read about clive and his loots, how the british resident in the princely states enjoyed his life, sometimes much more than the governer-general himselves.

I know very well about the plundering of India by the British, and there is no need to tell me individual instances of it.

The point is, that British rule had its benefits.

I am not thanking the British or anything of the sort. They had no intention of uplifting the Indians. But inadvertently, they played a huge role in both uniting the various kingdoms to form the modern India and giving the Indians a sense of nationhood.

A system of education which attracted thousands of students to India was developed in BC of nalanda and you are saying that there was no chance of propogation of education??

The Universities of Nalanda, Taxila had been destroyed long ago by the Islamic conquerers.

for your information, Bankim chandra wrote vandemateram much before this democracy in Britain itself, infact read up on the 1857 revolt for more information.

There is a difference between revolts against oppression and the refined parliamentary system that we got from the British.

which ideas of freedom and equality are from french revolution, no point giving undeserved brownies to anyone.

Yes, but it was transmitted to India by the british. There is no need to praise the british for this, but the facts must be kept in mind.

I kill you and by this your son thinks he needs to have freedom from me, see that freedom idea is derived from me!!! brilliant

The word isn't freedom but democracy.

You need to really really brush up your history. Pakistan(punjab and sindh) were conquered not from afghans but from sikhs. The sikhs made the afghans to run with their tails behind them. The afghan king was under the protection of sikhs.

Yes, I do know that. I was pointing out the possibility that the Afghans might have conquered the subcontinent as well.

No chance, if the british were not there, even afghanistan might have been in India under the sikhs, the marathas would be controlling the south while the sikh kingdom would have been the north. The mughal empire only existed in the figment of imagination, the marathas had thoroughly stripped of mughals of their empire, they were the mayors of delhi, but effective consolidation had not happened, it was at this time that british came into being.

From what I know the Marathas extended only till Karnataka in the south.

Also, with the advent of the 20th century, it is unlikely that without the concept of Indian nationhood, the various Indian ethnic groups would combine to form country of today.

The Maratha empire, like any other, would have eventually fallen and splintered into small kingdoms like Europe.

The freedom struggle provided this very nationalistic fabric that united the people against the foreigners.

[/qUOTE]
kill all traditional ways of manufacturing but forget about doing the part of moving on to modern ways of manufacturing. Effectively destroy all the economy of India and make it a simple dependent on me. [/QUOTE]

Look, one has to study it from a historical perspective. The British rule was nothing like the ritualized plundering of the subcontinent from various Islamic chieftains.

Read through the industrialization of India. The major industries were developed during the world wars when the british did not had a choice but only to harness and use indian companies.

So? The point is not the intentions of the british, but the effect of the British rule.

As I said, I am not a fanboy of the british.

Oh really! industrialization of India would have happened much much sooner, you seriously underestimate the Indian capability. Look at the small amount of window time(world wars) utilized so effectively by the indians to industrialize and then comment.

I don't think so. The fabric of Indian society was pretty much torn to shreds when the British came.

India isn't even properly Industrialized today, how can you say that they industrialized during the world wars.

Your attitude reminds of a comment "You have killed all my family, destroyed all my wealth, raped me 100 times , removed my limbs - I thank you for not killing me and giving me a spectacle for my eyes at the end of this, because you could have done something much worse"
Thank you, I am not going to accept that comment, not in 10000 years.

Again, I am not thanking the british for anything. Merely pointing out the advantages of British rule.

If you think that the unity of India was preserved by british during 1947, not with standing the partition. Think again- I suggest you read "the story of the integration of indian states" to get an idea of it.

Dude, there was no concept of the modern Indian state before the British arrived.
The British united what had essentially been disunited since the times of Ashoka.
Also, the formation of the Congress was essential to the development of the Indian nation, which was unlikely if there was no British rule to fight off.

 

[roadrunner]

Again I can't say much about Pakistan, but in India the British built the first scientific establishments and university. The aim of these was to "anglicize" the Indians and make them culturally British, but these institutions opened new doors and introduced European ideas to the Indians, which was very important. Most top Congress leaders were British educated.

You're getting carried away in all things anti-Islamic now. Mughal education under Akbar is well known. In fact plenty of places of study (not universities as the name is used today) were created under the Mughals for both Hindus and Muslims to study at.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=07....0.CO;2-J&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

The learning centres established by the Mughals (though you may not like the idea) were huge. The Mughal Imperial Library contained 60,000 books alone. Akbar founded big colleges in Agra, Delhi and Sikri. Shah Jahan founded the Imperial College in Delhi, in fact under Jehangir, a law was created that required all wealthy people to donate to funding colleges in the Empire.

I don't think you can claim that establishing "the first university" is a big thing, like there were no centres of learning before this time. There were plenty of educational institutions all over the subcontinent. The fact they called them schools or colleges doesn't really matter.

Actually, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the British did consider the Indians as a valuable part of the empire and they contributed in several ways. Ports, Irrigation canals, roadways, railways, dams.

Again railways and canals were only really meant for the transport of goods. Once these weren't required they fell into a state of disuse and weren't repaired. In many cases there was a problem with the silt. Again, this all stems down to production. The purpose of these canal and railways was the transport of goods. What good are such systems if your industries are killed off through competition? Or do you think that production was better under the British Empire?

Also, another factor that we often forget is the concept of objective historical records. The british explorers can be given full credit for unravelling the history of the Indian subcontinent, for rediscovering ancient texts and understanding ancient indian philosophies.
This knowledge, that there had once been a great indian civilization also contributed to the rise of Indian nationalism.

Which great Indian civilization are you talking about? If you're talking about the Indus Valley Civilization, use the term "Ancient Pakistani civilization". Not sure which ancient texts you're referrring to either. Be specific.

I wonder what sort of literacy rates the Mughals and others achieved. I'm sure literacy of the commoner was the last thing on their minds when they were busy leading decadent lifestyles.

Not so. Read about the Imperial Library established by the Mughals. The thing about the Mughals which even you cannot deny, is that they made the subcontinent a powerhouse economically. The share of the worldly GDP was 17%, by the time the British Empire had left the subcontinet it was 1%. There's a huge shift in wealth there.

The point is, whether deliberate or inadvertent, the British did end up doing several good things in the subcontinent.

I disagree, but then I am anti colonial, and dare i say it, not of the common mentaliy from India thankfully!

Well you can read up about the freedom struggle, how Indian leaders learnt about nationalism and democracy from the British and then came back to India to demand these for their own people.
The elections were held largely due to the efforts of the freedom fighters, but the ideas themselves came from Britain.

The Raj was never a democracy, but the Raj led to the spread of democratic ideas among the Indian people.

Look, you're admitting that the Raj was never a democracy, then saying that something the British never gave to the subcontinent (democracy) was something good they did! What you're saying is that Indians themselves wanted this, and brought with them the idea of democracy from elswhere and then started using it when the British left. This is not the same as the British Empire bringing the idea of democracy to the subcontinent. Democracy would have meant the end of British India so under no circumstances was it introduced.

I'd rate the Mughals as lowly as any other power in the subcontinent. But you can't blame them for it....their ideas were confined to the concepts available to them.

The Mughals were invaders, just like anyone else. But I think there was some acceptance of them, because under the Mughals the subcontinent became an economic and military powerhouse.

Indian peasants were as wretched as any under the Mughals.

Most likely. Have you got a link for life under the Mughals?

Can't say much about the Sikhs, but the Marathas, atleast within what is now India, were considered as liberators from the Mughals. They abolished the dhimmitude etc. and were secular.
Another important contribution of the Marathas is that they abolished the caste system.

There was no caste system under the Mughals.

The Marathas were not secular.

Mughals were as barbaric as any. Once their rule was consolidated, they became marginally more tolerant.
Otherwise, the Islamic invasions were catastrophic for traditional Indian society.

Good subject for another thread.

However Aurangzeb was not that bad to Hindus at all..

"During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji."

By the time of Akbar of course, the courts were full of Hindus.

The mere fact that Buddhism and Hinduism is completely vanished from places like Gandhara, Nalanda etc. is a testimony to the brutality of the invasions.

LOL! Buddhism disappeared from the North of Pakistan by choice, not through any genocide. It's an Indian myth that people were forced to convert by the sword.

Sure, later on Mughals were quite cultured and civilized, but they didn't conquer the whole of India by being gentlemen.

Neither did any colonialist, neither even the Marathas or the Sikhs. All were a bit dastardly.

I'm sure you would want it that way.

Of course. Why would I want a Hindu government in charge of a Muslim majority region?

Have you considered that Pakistan could have been a part of Afghanistan today?

Sure. So what?

They were British protectorates.

Well Nepal was a part of the BE.
In the modern boundaries of both nations.

Is there a need for reference? Go to Bombay. The British built excellent infrastructure, public utilities, transportations sytems like rails and trams.

Yes, a reference please

How exactly is this modern planning (a part of Bombay from above view)

Does it look modern to you, and well planned?

Exactly, which I think was a very noble thing, but ultimately led them where they are today, since they didn't benefit from the ideas propagated by the british.

Which ideas?

See, there are several layers to everything.

Sure, traditional ways of manufacturing were killed off, but in the long run, it proved beneficial.

Lol! How was it beneficial to kill off industries and people's livelihoods for decades? Do you not think modernization could have come to India without the aid of the British Empire bearing in mind it had a pre-British GDP of 17% of the world's GDP?

Its not that the British willingly gave modern industries to India. The Indians learnt it from the British. This would have been difficult without colonization.

Good grief! "The Indians learnt it from the British"! Dude, it was the other way round! The markets for steel and weaving and so on were taken by the British from India and industrialized on large scale. That industrialization would have come to the subcontinent if they ruled themselves! Good grief, and you guys want Pakistan to join your mentality!

 

[roadrunner]

Your attitude reminds of a comment "You have killed all my family, destroyed all my wealth, raped me 100 times , removed my limbs - I thank you for not killing me and giving me a spectacle for my eyes at the end of this, because you could have done something much worse"

I cmpletely agree with that analogy

 

[bhangra12345]

Indian literature is obviously among the most prolific.
What the British did, was interpret these in an objective fashion, bringing with them modern ways of interpreting the past.

objective, my foot! McCauley, the developer of the present education system in India These are comments given by him in 1835, the time when he was creating it. "'I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.'"

SPECIAL STORY
Remarks of the Dr.S.P.Gupta, Member on the occasion of release of Report of <b style="color:white;background-color:#880000">India</b> Vision 2020 on 23 January, 2003.


You have just seen the driving force behind the education system of India from its creator, my friend.

Regarding Max Mueller and his credentials of translating vedas with objectivity, forget about it.

Nonsense...the Mughals destroyed the traditional Indian civilization and contributed nothing much in terms of technology or science. They simply built grand monuments to please themselves.

Yet even after that "damage", you get those statements from McCauley, interesting isnt, and why dont you get this straight, when british came, the mughals were simply the mayors of delhi, so they were already in the process of replacement.

the British atleast brought European ideas to India, which under the Mughals was in steep cultural decline.

the mughal phase has ended, period! by the time, british were any force in India.

I know very well about the plundering of India by the British, and there is no need to tell me individual instances of it.

good

The point is, that British rule had its benefits.

such as....??

I am not thanking the British or anything of the sort. They had no intention of uplifting the Indians. But inadvertently, they played a huge role in both uniting the various kingdoms to form the modern India and giving the Indians a sense of nationhood.

Now repeat after me, "the british did not leave two countries, they left 567 countries" hundred times, next talk to me about unification, after discounting partition by the way.

Sense of nation hood, my foot, the mughals always india "hindustan" or its equivalent. Everyone called India, bharat or its equivalent, at no time did anyone "from" India said they were ruling only mughal kingdom or something like that. Interesting isnt it, that the british,french and others called their company "east INDIA company", hey they landed in vijayanagara kingdom or bijapur kingdom, what the hell was "India" at that time??

There was no sense of nation right, so what is India btw at that time

The Universities of Nalanda, Taxila had been destroyed long ago by the Islamic conquerers.
There was very little hope of a modern India under the Mughals.

Repeating is boring me, there was no mughals at that time.

There is a difference between revolts against oppression and the refined parliamentary system that we go from the British.

"Refined parliamentary system" - please read the book I told you about along with "transfer of power to india"-both by VP Menon, the leutanent of Patel and then please.

Yes, but it was transmitted to India by the british. There is no need to praise the british for this, but the facts must be kept in mind.

Just for your information, why would the british need to transmit this? The french were directly present at that time, we were not new to those countries.

The word isn't freedom but democracy.

which was given to us by us, not by british

Yes, I do know that. I was pointing out the possibility that the Afghans might have conquered the subcontinent as well.

So you are going to do "what if" scenarios.

From what I know the Marathas extended only till Karnataka in the south.

They had just then completely wrecked the mughal empire and did not consolidate yet in the north, they were thwarted by the afghans in that consolidation. So they could not go to the south.

Also, with the advent of the 20th century, it is unlikely that without the concept of Indian nationhood, the various Indian ethnic groups would combine to form country of today.

Again, again, "what if" scenarios, am I also permitted to do the same?

The freedom struggle provided this very nationalistic fabric that united the people against the foreigners.

Dude, British rule was catastrophic. No one is arguing against that. All I am pointing out, is that things would have been mighty different in the subcontinent if the British hadn;t come.

All you are trying to give is a bad picture of a "what if" scenario, so say now without the advent of british, the marathas consolidated in the north, then came to the south conquered them, then went into an alliance with the sikhs, yo my pretty "what if" scenario. Why couldnt this happen?

So? The point is not the intentions of the british, but the effect of the British rule.

As I said, I am not a fanboy of the british.

I don't think so. The fabric of Indian society was pretty much torn to shreds when the British came.

said who??

India isn't even properly Industrialized today, how can you say that they industrialized during the world wars.

I am just showing to you that even the mearge amount of industrialization was done during that time.

Again, I am not thanking the british for anything. Merely pointing out the advantages of British rule.

such as....

Dude, there was no concept of the modern Indian state before the British arrived.
The British united what had essentially been disunited since the times of Ashoka.

Let me guess,there was no political unity during mughals, nor during guptas nor during harshas - yet yet, none of them said they were a different country, interesting thing isnt it??

Also, the formation of the Congress was essential to the development of the Indian nation, which was unlikely if there was no British rule to fight off.

Go into history of INC, how it was meant to safety valve for the british rule, which it was, until the vandemataram movement took it out of their hands. No "what ifs" please?

 

[bhangra12345]

replying to some edits

Look, the fact remains that the institutions created by the British have been used extensively in modern India.

The institutions were created for some other purpose and we modified them to our purpose, If you create a huge building to store ammunition and later I use it for education, are you going to give credit to the person who built the building for education?

You don't have to be a brown-sahib to appreciate the contributions of the British in the formation of the modern Indian identity and society.

Exactly what are their POSITIVE contributions?

I don't consider Gandhi or Bose great educators. Gandhi was a great leader, but he can hardly be considered an intellectual.

They were simple examples, the word I used was "EVERY leader".

if you did not agree with their philosophies, fine, they were not great educators, but yet they established schools and colleges, I wonder why?

Indians, most of them, had little concept of history at all. They simply remembered the Mahabharata and Ramayana and considered this as history.

Another huge balderdash, how could tilak inspire maharashtra with Shivaji, without the common people even knowing him? If you could considered it as such with your anglicized history, do not make the mistake of thinking that the others made the same mistake

Remember the literacy rate at that time was less than 7&#37; and yet he created a huge imagery of Shivaji?

Look, one has to study it from a historical perspective. The British rule was nothing like the ritualized plundering of the subcontinent from various Islamic chieftains.

There you have sunk your objectivity!! Read history as what it is!! not what it may be? because the moment you go into "what ifs" also known as perspectives, you have sunk your objectivity down the deepest drain.

 

[Flintlock]

You're getting carried away in all things anti-Islamic now. Mughal education under Akbar is well known. In fact plenty of places of study (not universities as the name is used today) were created under the Mughals for both Hindus and Muslims to study at.

...right...and what did they teach? Islamic law?

Dude....its not how many universities were created. Its what they taught.

I don't think you can claim that establishing "the first university" is a big thing, like there were no centres of learning before this time. There were plenty of educational institutions all over the subcontinent. The fact they called them schools or colleges doesn't really matter.

Again, the point isn't whether learning centers existed. The point is what they taught.

Again railways and canals were only really meant for the transport of goods. Once these weren't required they fell into a state of disuse and weren't repaired. In many cases there was a problem with the silt. Again, this all stems down to production. The purpose of these canal and railways was the transport of goods. What good are such systems if your industries are killed off through competition? Or do you think that production was better under the British Empire?

The fact remains that they linked India through railways, without which there would have never been this great cultural exchange between people of the subcontinent.

Not so. Read about the Imperial Library established by the Mughals. The thing about the Mughals which even you cannot deny, is that they made the subcontinent a powerhouse economically. The share of the worldly GDP was 17&#37;, by the time the British Empire had left the subcontinet it was 1%. There's a huge shift in wealth there.

Sorry dude, I cannot see an Industrial revolution happening under the Mughals.

The reason for the GDP decline wasn't the fact that the British had conquered India, but that the Industrial revolution had bumped up the productivity of Europe in comparison with Asia.

I disagree, but then I am anti colonial, and dare i say it, not of the common mentaliy from India thankfully!

You don't have to be pro-colonial to accept the advantages of the British rule.

If you can accept the benefits of Mughal rule, which was 50 times worse than the British, I don't see what your problem is with the British.

The only reason I can see is that the Mughals were further back in history, and the memory of humiliation isn't as sharp as it is with the British.

Look, you're admitting that the Raj was never a democracy, then saying that something the British never gave to the subcontinent (democracy) was something good they did! What you're saying is that Indians themselves wanted this, and brought with them the idea of democracy from elswhere and then started using it when the British left. This is not the same as the British Empire bringing the idea of democracy to the subcontinent. Democracy would have meant the end of British India so under no circumstances was it introduced.

There is something called cultural exchange, which happens when two great civilizations interact.
The ideas of democracy came with the British, and anyone who denies this is simply fooling himself.

The Mughals were invaders, just like anyone else. But I think there was some acceptance of them, because under the Mughals the subcontinent became an economic and military powerhouse.

The Mughals got a thousand years to learn about Hindoostan. Considering that they subjugated India for that long, I am not surprised that the Indians "accepted" them.

Most likely. Have you got a link for life under the Mughals?

It is well know that the peasants were trampled by feudal lords, who cared about little but paying taxes to the govt.
Things changed little under the British.

There was no caste system under the Mughals.

LOL..you're kidding right? The Mughals didn't care what the Hindus did as long as they didn't build temples and payed taxes.
Occasionally, some ruler decided to fulfil his religious duty by destroying some more temples, but a few were enlightened enough (like Akbar) to stop this and understand the local customs.
Most rulers like Babur, Jehangir, Aurangzeb were tyrants who considered the natives inferior beings.

The Marathas were not secular.

Yes, they were. Shivaji's top general was a Muslim, and if you've noticed, the Marathas never defiled any Mughal monuments or mosques when the conquered mughal lands.
Infact, they refused to sack the city of Delhi when they conquered it, against the wishes of their Rajput allies.

However Aurangzeb was not that bad to Hindus at all..

"During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji."

So? That doesn't excuse the fact that he forced Sharia law, stopped music and painting, imposed religious taxes and looted temples.

The fact is that the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains were at the mercy of the generosity of the Mughals, which they withdrew whenever it suited them.

LOL! Buddhism disappeared from the North of Pakistan by choice, not through any genocide. It's an Indian myth that people were forced to convert by the sword.

Yeah rite....the plundering and massacring of Sindh and Punjab is well recorded by the conquerers themselves.

Read the account called "chachnama".

Neither did any colonialist, neither even the Marathas or the Sikhs. All were a bit dastardly.

I can't say much about the Sikhs, but the Marathas were definitely perceived as a welcome change from the Mughals.

Sure. So what?

Nothing, except it wouldn't have been a very nice place to live in, if you know what I mean.

Well Nepal was a part of the BE.
In the modern boundaries of both nations.

Yes, but they remained under their respective rulers as princely states. The rest of Indian subcontinent would be similarly divided into monarchies.

Yes, a reference please

Can't you take my word for it that the British built railways and trams in Bombay? jeez....if you don't believe me, just google it.

Which ideas?

Ideas of nationhood and citizenship, modern civil society.

Lol! How was it beneficial to kill off industries and people's livelihoods for decades? Do you not think modernization could have come to India without the aid of the British Empire bearing in mind it had a pre-British GDP of 17% of the world's GDP?

I think industrial revolution would have bypassed India, like it did in China, if it weren't for the British influence.

Good grief! "The Indians learnt it from the British"! Dude, it was the other way round! The markets for steel and weaving and so on were taken by the British from India and industrialized on large scale. That industrialization would have come to the subcontinent if they ruled themselves! Good grief, and you guys want Pakistan to join your mentality!

No it wouldn't have. Don't kid yourself. The society in the subcontinent was too poor and wretched to engineer its own industrial revolution at that time.

 

[Flintlock]

objective, my foot! McCauley, the developer of the present education system in India These are comments given by him in 1835, the time when he was creating it. "'I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.'"

What about William Jones, Charles Wilkins, Colin Mackenzie, Alexander Cunningham, John Marshall....the list goes on.
These early indologists went a long way in consolidating Indian history and creating a single narrative that is used even in today's textbooks.

It simply doesn't matter what Macaulay's intentions were. He was just like any other foreign conquerer who has come to India and tried to "civilize" its people.
Here is what Babur had to say in his Baburnama:

Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks

How is this different from the British? Today you are quick to praise the Mughals for their contributions.
If the British had ruled for a thousand years, even you would praise them as "one of us".


the fact is, both the Mughals and the British were foreigners who had no love for this land. Fortunately, the British had a more modern way of looking at the world than the mughals, and we drove them out quickly.

Regarding Max Mueller and his credentials of translating vedas with objectivity, forget about it.

Why pick on just one author?

Yet even after that "damage", you get those statements from McCauley, interesting isnt, and why dont you get this straight, when british came, the mughals were simply the mayors of delhi, so they were already in the process of replacement.

the mughal phase has ended, period! by the time, british were any force in India.

...and what were the replacements? Marathas, Sikhs, Durranis, and princely states in the South. They had none of the qualities needed to form a modern united India.

Now repeat after me, "the british did not leave two countries, they left 567 countries" hundred times, next talk to me about unification, after discounting partition by the way.

Those Princely states were officially under the British empire, who gave them the "option" of joining India.
The fact is, that even if the political boundaries did remain, the freedom movement leaders had succeded in creating a dialogue among the various ethnic groups and religions of India. This was very difficult to achieve if the British had not consolidated their rule over the subcontinent.
You must understand that the British gave this region around 300 years of relative peace, which along with modern transport and communications, and cultural exchange between the east and the west, allowed Indians to form their national identity.

Sense of nation hood, my foot, the mughals always india "hindustan" or its equivalent. Everyone called India, bharat or its equivalent, at no time did anyone "from" India said they were ruling only mughal kingdom or something like that. Interesting isnt it, that the british,french and others called their company "east INDIA company", hey they landed in vijayanagara kingdom or bijapur kingdom, what the hell was "India" at that time??

If you talked to any Indian during that time, they would identify themselves by their caste, religion and kingdom, no Indian called himself "indian".

Repeating is boring me, there was no mughals at that time.

The islamic conquests led to the formation of the Mughal Empire. What do you think would have happened if Indian freedom struggle had happened a thousand years ago? The Mughals would be considered the foreign tyrants that they were like the British are today.

There is no need to give the Mughals a pedestal simply because they ruled for a longer period.

"Refined parliamentary system" - please read the book I told you about along with "transfer of power to india"-both by VP Menon, the leutanent of Patel and then please.

Just for your information, why would the british need to transmit this? The french were directly present at that time, we were not new to those countries.

It doesn't matter if the French were there. The facts remain that Indian leaders got their ideas from Britain, as a lot of them were British educated.

which was given to us by us, not by british

Of course, I don't mean to dilute the work of the founders. However, I very much doubt that India would have had a Parliamentary system without the influence of the British.

So you are going to do "what if" scenarios.

I was doing "what if" scenarios for quite some time on this thread. Nothing wrong with it.

They had just then completely wrecked the mughal empire and did not consolidate yet in the north, they were thwarted by the afghans in that consolidation. So they could not go to the south.

Again, again, "what if" scenarios, am I also permitted to do the same?

Sure...please....you are welcome to do "what if" scenarios.

All you are trying to give is a bad picture of a "what if" scenario, so say now without the advent of british, the marathas consolidated in the north, then came to the south conquered them, then went into an alliance with the sikhs, yo my pretty "what if" scenario. Why couldnt this happen?

It could, but I really don't see the Marathas creating a nation state on the lines of modern ones. There would have been too many differences and the Marathas were already busy infighting.

More likely scenario would be the establishment of 7-8 major kingdoms in the subcontinent.

said who??

One look at the crippling poverty in North India during that time is enough for you to realize that something, somewhere, was seriously wrong with Indian society.
What was wrong was the sense of defeat that had permeated into the indian psyche.
How do you think a predominantly Hindu country was ruled by Foreigners of a different religion for a thousand years?
Why do you think Indian rulers and princes sucked up to the British?
The rulers of India did not love its people, and the people of India had little sense of historical identity.(I am refering to mainly Bengal, Bihar, and the central provinces when I say this).

Let me guess,there was no political unity during mughals, nor during guptas nor during harshas - yet yet, none of them said they were a different country, interesting thing isnt it??

Look. By Ashoka's time I was refering to Classical India under the Mauryas, Guptas etc.

I didn't get your poit about "different countries". What do you mean by that?

Go into history of INC, how it was meant to safety valve for the british rule, which it was, until the vandemataram movement took it out of their hands. No "what ifs" please?

Yes I know that very well. But what is your point? The fact remains that the formation of the Congress was a landmark moment for the formation of a national identity.
Obviously, once such an identity was created, it could no longer agree to be subjugated under a foreign power.

 

[Flintlock]

The institutions were created for some other purpose and we modified them to our purpose, If you create a huge building to store ammunition and later I use it for education, are you going to give credit to the person who built the building for education?

Thats a very bad analogy. The institutions were meant to educate the people and anglicize them, but the essential sciences, mathematics, arts, literature, remains the same no matter what the purpose of education is.

Exactly what are their POSITIVE contributions?

Just like every other foreign invasion, the British invasion also left its cultural and intellectual mark on India. Denying this is as foolish as denying that the Mughals ever left their mark on India.

if you did not agree with their philosophies, fine, they were not great educators, but yet they established schools and colleges, I wonder why?

?? What does that have to do with anything? Can't ideas flow from person to person? One doesn't have to go all the way to Europe to learn about their culture.

Another huge balderdash, how could tilak inspire maharashtra with Shivaji, without the common people even knowing him? If you could considered it as such with your anglicized history, do not make the mistake of thinking that the others made the same mistake

Remember the literacy rate at that time was less than 7% and yet he created a huge imagery of Shivaji?

I'm sure you'll agree that Marathis had little idea about archaeology and linguistics.
When I talk about history, those two things mainly.

There you have sunk your objectivity!! Read history as what it is!! not what it may be? because the moment you go into "what ifs" also known as perspectives, you have sunk your objectivity down the deepest drain.

I don't believe I made any "what if" statement in that last para. I just pointed out that the Mughals were just as foreign as the British, and twice as brutal.

 

[bhangra12345]

What about William Jones, Charles Wilkins, Colin Mackenzie, Alexander Cunningham, John Marshall....the list goes on.
These early indologists went a long way in consolidating Indian history and creating a single narrative that is used even in today's textbooks.

I did not pick on an random author or a random guy, I picked up the person person responsible for the education system in India, McCauley and the other backbone of the whole of indology studies. These people have the highest "contributions" in those fields.

It simply doesn't matter what Macaulay's intentions were. He was just like any other foreign conquerer who has come to India and tried to "civilize" its people.

It matters and matters a f*cking lot, because we are still using that bloody system, whose sole purpose has been to destroy the indian culture and education system.

Here is what Babur had to say in his Baburnama:

Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks

How is this different from the British? Today you are quick to praise the Mughals for their contributions.

Excuse me! where did I praise the mughals? Show me one statement from me. The only praise might be, they were better than the bl*ody british, if that seems as a praise to you, then I cant help you.

My sole point was the mughals were a spent force! So bringing them into the equation is not correct.

If the British had ruled for a thousand years, even you would praise them as "one of us".

with a qualifier attached, they will have to shift their alleigence to India, not british.

[/QUOTE]
the fact is, both the Mughals and the British were foreigners who had no love for this land. Fortunately, the British had a more modern way of looking at the world than the mughals, and we drove them out quickly.
[/QUOTE]
define "modernity"- you are in for a rude shock.

Why pick on just one author?

I picked on the foremost among them and it was not a random selection. I do not have the time or patience to dissect every one of them.

...and what were the replacements? Marathas, Sikhs, Durranis, and princely states in the South. They had none of the qualities needed to form a modern united India.

another "what if" scenario and blo*dy hell what is "modernity", and when did the british leave a united india? If you think, Bismark or some west person was greatest unifier, think again, it was Patel along with Menon, who combined 565 INDEPENDENT states into India, with zero violence in 562 states. and this was done with instances of being with a revolver in a point blank range.

Those Princely states were officially under the British empire, who gave them the "option" of joining India.

along with the "option" of joining Pakistan and "option" of staying independent.

The fact is, that even if the political boundaries did remain, the freedom movement leaders had succeded in creating a dialogue among the various ethnic groups and religions of India.

true

This was very difficult to achieve if the British had not consolidated their rule over the subcontinent.

another "what if", I am pretty bored of this game. Either let us go the whole hog of playing ALL "what if" scenarios or do not play at all. Dont use tidbits of information.

You must understand that the British gave this region around 300 years of relative peace, which along with modern transport and communications,

You are playing "what ifs", so I will take the liberty, which would have come
even if the british did not come, remember immediately after the mumbai train, how the princely kings actively participated in making them.

and cultural exchange between the east and the west, allowed Indians to form their national identity.

After this statement, McCauley will be proud to see his dreams of shattering Indian identity and consciousness coming to such a fruition.

If you talked to any Indian during that time, they would identify themselves by their caste, religion and kingdom, no Indian called himself "indian".

yet the mughal emperor called himself, the "hindustan ka baadshah", the england/dutch came intially to the south of the country, where no Indus flows , and call themselves "east India company". why so?

How come even a scandinavian country like portugal knew about India right from 1600 when they tried for alternate routes when constantinople was conquered by turkey? At that time, there was no India right?

The islamic conquests led to the formation of the Mughal Empire. What do you think would have happened if Indian freedom struggle had happened a thousand years ago? The Mughals would be considered the foreign tyrants that they were like the British are today.

So...?

There is no need to give the Mughals a pedestal simply because they ruled for a longer period.

did you find ANY pedestal from me?

It doesn't matter if the French were there. The facts remain that Indian leaders got their ideas from Britain, as a lot of them were British educated.

So you agree that the british acted just as a medium who did not know that it was passing this knowledge.

Of course, I don't mean to dilute the work of the founders. However, I very much doubt that India would have had a Parliamentary system without the influence of the British.

If partition had not happened, I wouldnt bet on it.

I was doing "what if" scenarios for quite some time on this thread. Nothing wrong with it.
Sure...please....you are welcome to do "what if" scenarios.

It could, but I really don't see the Marathas creating a nation state on the lines of modern ones. There would have been too many differences and the Marathas were already busy infighting.

Now SA couldnt see, so it couldnt happen. May I know why? Till the british came into scene, they worked completely under the peshwa and he was always regarded as the "emperor" for them.

More likely scenario would be the establishment of 7-8 major kingdoms in the subcontinent.

Much easier than 565 kingdoms left by the british.

One look at the crippling poverty in North India during that time is enough for you to realize that something, somewhere, was seriously wrong with Indian society.

give me the timeline you are referring to? pre british rule or during british rule. I agree with your statement for during british rule, but I express reservations pre.

What was wrong was the sense of defeat that had permeated into the indian psyche.

After the 1857 crushing, where cities were wiped out and every tree for miles had people hanging, I agree with you.

How do you think a predominantly Hindu country was ruled by Foreigners of a different religion for a thousand years?

never could even one of them peacefully rule, all the history of them will be moving from crushing from one revolt to another, only after they started giving the space to rajputs and others as minor rulers, could they take a breath.

Why do you think Indian rulers and princes sucked up to the British?
The rulers of India did not love its people, and the people of India had little sense of historical identity.(I am refering to mainly Bengal, Bihar, and the central provinces when I say this).

Did you know that even upto 1900, Bihar was referred to as the most troublesome province? Central province, frankly I lack knowledge, but wasnt the intiative for the whole INC and stuff originate in Bengal, I wonder what was Bankim chandra was sucking to when he wrote anand math?

Look. By Ashoka's time I was refering to Classical India under the Mauryas, Guptas etc.

I didn't get your poit about "different countries". What do you mean by that?

My point is there were no different countries.

Yes I know that very well. But what is your point? The fact remains that the formation of the Congress was a landmark moment for the formation of a national identity.

Obviously, once such an identity was created, it could no longer agree to be subjugated under a foreign power.

This is where I principally differ from you, you use the "formation" ,"creation" of identity - which I would at the extreme call "reawakening", though I would not prefer even this extreme.

 

[bhangra12345]

Thats a very bad analogy. The institutions were meant to educate the people and anglicize them, but the essential sciences, mathematics, arts, literature, remains the same no matter what the purpose of education is.

Thats a perfect analogy, it matters a lot. Have you heard of the term psy-ops? If you knew, you wouldnt say that any of the above is immune to it. You study mathematics in a way which is required for clerks, not to develop curiosity in you - this is a form of psy-ops. You are seeing one of the greatest psy-ops going on, that america can do everything as well as terrorists are some sort of freedom fighters- these are psyops and involve how you study arts, literature and every thing else.

Just like every other foreign invasion, the British invasion also left its cultural and intellectual mark on India. Denying this is as foolish as denying that the Mughals ever left their mark on India.

I do not deny, but I HATE that they left their imprint. If I was denying, I wouldnt be talking to you, who is consumed by it, I would have simply said nonsense and moved on.

?? What does that have to do with anything? Can't ideas flow from person to person? One doesn't have to go all the way to Europe to learn about their culture.

you know what? This was how most of the indologists studied india, they never visited india, they read the Max and other translations and formed ideas about it.

what does every prominent leader establishing his own educational institution show you? That he believed that the then present educational system was trash.

I'm sure you'll agree that Marathis had little idea about archaeology and linguistics.
When I talk about history, those two things mainly.

History doesnt mean archeology and linguisitics, it means much more. To give you a simple example of how history is manupulated, just see the indus valley civilization - No one, I mean, no one has given even an iota of proof that there was a sudden migration of aryans who destroyed the "original" inhabitants. Yet they gave out a the theory of "migration of aryans", why? Because the indology studies which were at that time concentrated in germany needed to show that they were great and viola, out of some central asia, people "aryans" came to India. How this study is taken to its actual conclusion is well know by Hitler, his symbol of swastika and use of the terms "aryan", does it ring a bell? Now why was this accepted by the british indologists?1) It perfectly suited the divide and rule policy, without an iota of proof, they said that north and south indians are different races 2) they could talk of their own racial superiority and other reasons.

This is the history you are talking about and the objectivity they brought in.

I don't believe I made any "what if" statement in that last para. I just pointed out that the Mughals were just as foreign as the British, and twice as brutal.

My simple question is, so....? if the mughals were brutal, they were brutal, this does not say that the british were not brutal. why do I need to compare, though in my opinion the damage caused by mughals is miniscule in comparision with the british.