Heights of optimism
(this ones a replay to an news paper article written by Mr Karan Thapar supporting Dr Manmohan Singh when he praised the british rule in India at his july 2005 oxford visit, ive first posted the article headed - From Raj to Swaraj and then my replay headed - Heights of optimism.)
From Raj to Swaraj
(Karan Thapar – Sunday HT 17 July)
I suppose our dislike of British rule is understandable. What’s not is our lack of knowledge. Even less so our inability to understand the English language. Yet it seems the latter two have led astray the vast majority of critics of the prime ministers speech last week at oxford. This is why a set of sentiments which are perfectly unexceptional – if not undeniable – have become seemingly controversial. Although in all fairness I should add that the PM’s arguments could have benefited from the odd codicil or two and a little better balancing.
First lets see what the PM actually said:
“with the balance and perspective… of hindsight, it is possible for the Indian prime minister to assert that India’s experiences with the British had its beneficial consequences too.” Note the word too. It refers to the comments he made earlier in the speech about how “there is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire (have) a sound basis.” In particular quoting the historian Angus Maddison, he pointed out that India’s share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, when it was almost equal to Europe at 23.3%, to 3.8% in 1952.
At no point as the BJP erroneously claims, did the PM describe British rule as good governance. The closest he came to it was, in fact a long way off. Referring to as popular slogan of the British struggle ‘self governance is more precious than good governance’, he commented “the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance.” To conclude form this as BJP does, that Manmohan Singh was praising the Raj for its governance is, quite simply, to misunderstand his English. I’m afraid they have.
Now, let’s look at the facts. Can we deny our parliamentary democracy, independent judiciary, civil service, free press and the concept of equality of all despite caste or creed are British inherited or influenced? Can we dispute that they created the railways, the telegraph, the postal services, the army as well as our public schools and universities, our clubs and even our chota pegs? I dare no would deny that the English language that we speak – despite what we’ve done to it – is a gift from them. But what might amaze you is that the modern ‘re-discovery’ of our Sanskrit culture, including our Vedas, the Upanishads and the Manusmriti, is the work of British scholars such as Bloomfield, Burton, Carey, Colebrooke, Griffith, Monier-Williams, Rhys Davis and Wilkins.
And then there’s cricket. This dreadful game which I find a bore is, of course, a British invention. At it’s the concept of gentleman which, somewhat imperfectly, we aspire to.
Even Karl Marx, the original opponent of imperialism, praised the Raj, in essays published in 1853 in the New York Tribune; he believed British rule was essential for India’s liberation from feudalism and its translation into the modern world. To the Raj he gave the credit of India’s unity, the beginnings of a bourgeoisie and for breaking up the self-sufficient inertia of its dormant villages. The Raj was India’s shortcut to catch up with the world.
So where did Manmohan Singh go wrong? First of all, he didn’t. At least not really. However what he is guilty of is abbreviating the downside. He doffed his pugri to the economic ills of the British rule but appeared to ignore – or at least specify – its political pitfalls. The massacre at Jallianwalla and the Bengal Famine should have found mention. Their absence leaves critics to believe the atrocities they represent have been condoned. And perhaps this appraisal of the Raj – a sort of putting-in-perspective – should have been done on the home ground rather than the British soil and that too in thanks for an honorary doctorate. To me the occasion and timing don’t matter but I can see how they have mislead others.
Yet at the end of it all the Old Doc was right. 58 years after independence India must come to terms with its British past. That means acknowledging and accepting we benefited substantially from it, may be more than what we suffered, perhaps by a fair margin. Which is why it’s sad this attempt to grapple with the truth has brought forth a pack of howling ignoramuses. But they are part of our democracy. And they have a right to be heard.
Oh well, lets be British about it!
Heights of optimism
(Karan Thapar – Sunday HT 17 July)
I suppose our dislike of British rule is understandable. What’s not is our lack of knowledge. Even less so our inability to understand the English language. Yet it seems the latter two have led astray the vast majority of critics of the prime ministers speech last week at oxford. This is why a set of sentiments which are perfectly unexceptional – if not undeniable – have become seemingly controversial. Although in all fairness I should add that the PM’s arguments could have benefited from the odd codicil or two and a little better balancing.
First lets see what the PM actually said:
“with the balance and perspective… of hindsight, it is possible for the Indian prime minister to assert that India’s experiences with the British had its beneficial consequences too.” Note the word too. It refers to the comments he made earlier in the speech about how “there is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire (have) a sound basis.” In particular quoting the historian Angus Maddison, he pointed out that India’s share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, when it was almost equal to Europe at 23.3%, to 3.8% in 1952.
At no point as the BJP erroneously claims, did the PM describe British rule as good governance. The closest he came to it was, in fact a long way off. Referring to as popular slogan of the British struggle ‘self governance is more precious than good governance’, he commented “the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance.” To conclude form this as BJP does, that Manmohan Singh was praising the Raj for its governance is, quite simply, to misunderstand his English. I’m afraid they have.
Now, let’s look at the facts. Can we deny our parliamentary democracy, independent judiciary, civil service, free press and the concept of equality of all despite caste or creed are British inherited or influenced? Can we dispute that they created the railways, the telegraph, the postal services, the army as well as our public schools and universities, our clubs and even our chota pegs? I dare no would deny that the English language that we speak – despite what we’ve done to it – is a gift from them. But what might amaze you is that the modern ‘re-discovery’ of our Sanskrit culture, including our Vedas, the Upanishads and the Manusmriti, is the work of British scholars such as Bloomfield, Burton, Carey, Colebrooke, Griffith, Monier-Williams, Rhys Davis and Wilkins.
And then there’s cricket. This dreadful game which I find a bore is, of course, a British invention. At it’s the concept of gentleman which, somewhat imperfectly, we aspire to.
Even Karl Marx, the original opponent of imperialism, praised the Raj, in essays published in 1853 in the New York Tribune; he believed British rule was essential for India’s liberation from feudalism and its translation into the modern world. To the Raj he gave the credit of India’s unity, the beginnings of a bourgeoisie and for breaking up the self-sufficient inertia of its dormant villages. The Raj was India’s shortcut to catch up with the world.
So where did Manmohan Singh go wrong? First of all, he didn’t. At least not really. However what he is guilty of is abbreviating the downside. He doffed his pugri to the economic ills of the British rule but appeared to ignore – or at least specify – its political pitfalls. The massacre at Jallianwalla and the Bengal Famine should have found mention. Their absence leaves critics to believe the atrocities they represent have been condoned. And perhaps this appraisal of the Raj – a sort of putting-in-perspective – should have been done on the home ground rather than the British soil and that too in thanks for an honorary doctorate. To me the occasion and timing don’t matter but I can see how they have mislead others.
Yet at the end of it all the Old Doc was right. 58 years after independence India must come to terms with its British past. That means acknowledging and accepting we benefited substantially from it, may be more than what we suffered, perhaps by a fair margin. Which is why it’s sad this attempt to grapple with the truth has brought forth a pack of howling ignoramuses. But they are part of our democracy. And they have a right to be heard.
Oh well, lets be British about it!
Heights of optimism
(Response – From raj to swaraj – Karan Thapar - Sunday HT – July 17-05)
Imagine a drunken driver knocks you down to taste the roads & you turn all blood. You are rushed to a hospital only to know that your anatomy is in a bad structure & you’ve lost a very important part of it, your leg!
Imagine in this state of mental and physical agony you go limping to that ruthless drunkard and then to surprise of rationalism – you thank that person for not killing you!!
Hard even to imagine – the illogical and absurd side of optimism.
This egregious dimensions of optimism is what displayed by our oxford educated prime minister and his supporter Mr Karan Thapar, who says the speech would be balanced if the PM could codicil arguments of the Jallianwala and the Bengal famine –
I question - Was that enough??
“The Raj had its beneficial consequences too” -
Despite of the word ‘too’; the mention of the word ‘grievances’ and the quote of the historian Angus Maddison which reflected the economic suffering of the country at large. Even if only these figures are taken as a basis – the downfall from 22.6% to 3.8% is too steep to call the invaders rule beneficial.
Good Governance?
How can he use the words “good governance” even if he does it partially and not entirely. If it was partly a good governance then how does one explain the Taxation Act which was passed to suppress the Indian entrepreneurs; the Education Act which stated the gurukuls illegal ……. The list goes on. Even if we site some rare examples of good governance was for their own ulterior motives.
“Even a stopped clock shows correct time twice a day.”
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi -
Man Mohan Singh stated in his speech Mahatma Gandhi’s answer to the question “how far will u cut India from the empire?” which was (his answer) – “from the empire not at all. The emperorship should go and I would like to be equal partners with the british.” This lucidly states that Gandhiji was not a supporter of the empire and he wanted the emperorship to go – who has misunderstood English (or logic) Mr Thapar.
Facts - Independent Judiciary –
OK now let’s look at the true facts and not the handicapped ones. The fact is – if the then britishers wanted to rob my belongings, they would first legalise robbing and then go ahead. I may be exaggerating a bit in this example but the so called INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY is a result of such ideologies of the britishers.
Concept of equality -British inherited?
I am afraid if intellectuals like Man Mohan Singh and Mr Karan Thapar consider the “concept of equality” british inherited. My eyebrows were raised and my ‘how could they’ expression asked both the Oxford alumni – does their definition of equality include ‘Racism’. How can we forget the way we were treated worst than second grade citizens in our own country the first being the invaders and how our great prisoners shared their food with cockroaches and mice.
Railways - a british gift
Then came the thanks giving for the railways as a creation of the britishers. The famous argument by the british raj supporters, I not being one question them – would the country be deprived of the railways without the britishers? If we in the face of the great JRD TATA can introduce our pride the TATA Airlines (now the Indian Airlines) – was railway a distant dream?? If the britishers wouldn’t have suppressed Indian entrepreneurs with the illegal law of Taxation Act. How many Tata’s would the country have produced?
Schools and Universities – education system
Then the PM went on length talking about the schools, universities and the English language. These require a serious consideration. These schools and universities were built on the graveyards of our Gurukuls.
Now let’s glance through the ture facts – Mr Thapar, which are unfortunately not known to the people and the related documents are eating dust in The House of Commons Library and the India House Library – London.
Here I am talking about a document prepared and presented by Macaulay around the year 1835 in the british parliament after a survey on India before the takeover, which reveled some staggering facts. He stated after the survey - in Madras presidency alone (the whole of south India then) there were around 1.5 lakh Gurukuls (read schools and colleges), more than one college per village (according to the land revenue documents) out of which 22-25 thousand were termed as ‘Higher learning institutes’ by Macaulay. My eyes stood wide open with surprise when I read about the subjects being thought at these institutes (in Sanskrit off course) Astro Physics, Vedic Maths, Law and ethics ,Physics etc. nearly 1500 of them were surgery colleges , about 2000 colleges of architecture and if anyone doubts about the equality of education imagine the century old temples of south India. Rameshwaram in tamilnadu, the Bahubali in Karnataka….
All this came to an end with the introduction of Indian education act which declared the gurukuls illegal and hence it donor became illegal. Gradually an entity called as gurukul became an extinct species. Imagine if this system of education continued to this day-a delightful thought-only a thought thanks to the so called beneficial rule (ok partly).
The English language –
Then let’s focus on the English language the so called gift from the britishers. Mr. PM positioned the language above our national language. I regard the usage of this language as the major fallouts of independent India - we market this language as a great achievement! Why is intelligence of a person measured in terms of the language he speaks? Why is speaking regional languages treated as vernacular and down-market? Adopting a language doesn’t mean degrading our own pride. Consider this for information – our regional languages are much more profound then the English language alone Gujrathi has 40,000 original words, marathi about 38,000, Hindi has about 70,000 original words. The perceptionally sophisticated English language stands far with about 12,000 original words. The knowledge of English is considered as a symbol of growth. To clarify this perception consider only 2 names if not more Japan and France (also India before the british raj).
RE – discovery of culture -
The PM mentioned the re-discovery of the Sanskrit culture, the Vedas, the Upnishhads etc. by some british scholars. My question is if the britishers wouldn’t have destroyed the culture was there any need for Re - discovery?
The raj as the short-cut to catch up with the world -
Now somebody please explain me the statement “the raj was India’s shortcut to catch up with the world.” 200 years of immense sufferings - A shortcut???
With 23% of the world trade (nearly ¼ of the total world), were we not ahead of the world. One of the most important person of the country making such a baseless statement and intellects like Mr. Thapar supporting them have hurt the sentiments of the people who have some acquaintance about India’s struggle for her freedom.
Substantial benefits?? More than sufferings??
My frustration on this article reached to acme when I read the most pathetic statement of the article - “acknowledge and accepting we benefited substantially from it (our british past), may be more than we suffered perhaps by a fair margin.”
My pen refused to move ahead while I was rewriting the statement but I had to for reference.
Why should I acknowledge and accept?
How can a rational Indian make or even think such conclusions. Isn’t it an insult to the lacks of Indians who donated their lives for freedom?
What does this statement (conclusion) mean – The great men who donated themselves for the cause of freedom, for us to leave without any English domination – did that for a beneficial rule?
A practical example of handicapped knowledge, insane is the only word coming to my mind. If u still think, this is a grapple with truth and we are howling ignoramuses - Please be british about it.
And for others – for the reasons mentioned above and the sacrifices of great men please do not aegis the invaders.
(This is in no support or enmity for any political party)
27-07-2005
Imagine a drunken driver knocks you down to taste the roads & you turn all blood. You are rushed to a hospital only to know that your anatomy is in a bad structure & you’ve lost a very important part of it, your leg!
Imagine in this state of mental and physical agony you go limping to that ruthless drunkard and then to surprise of rationalism – you thank that person for not killing you!!
Hard even to imagine – the illogical and absurd side of optimism.
This egregious dimensions of optimism is what displayed by our oxford educated prime minister and his supporter Mr Karan Thapar, who says the speech would be balanced if the PM could codicil arguments of the Jallianwala and the Bengal famine –
I question - Was that enough??
“The Raj had its beneficial consequences too” -
Despite of the word ‘too’; the mention of the word ‘grievances’ and the quote of the historian Angus Maddison which reflected the economic suffering of the country at large. Even if only these figures are taken as a basis – the downfall from 22.6% to 3.8% is too steep to call the invaders rule beneficial.
Good Governance?
How can he use the words “good governance” even if he does it partially and not entirely. If it was partly a good governance then how does one explain the Taxation Act which was passed to suppress the Indian entrepreneurs; the Education Act which stated the gurukuls illegal ……. The list goes on. Even if we site some rare examples of good governance was for their own ulterior motives.
“Even a stopped clock shows correct time twice a day.”
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi -
Man Mohan Singh stated in his speech Mahatma Gandhi’s answer to the question “how far will u cut India from the empire?” which was (his answer) – “from the empire not at all. The emperorship should go and I would like to be equal partners with the british.” This lucidly states that Gandhiji was not a supporter of the empire and he wanted the emperorship to go – who has misunderstood English (or logic) Mr Thapar.
Facts - Independent Judiciary –
OK now let’s look at the true facts and not the handicapped ones. The fact is – if the then britishers wanted to rob my belongings, they would first legalise robbing and then go ahead. I may be exaggerating a bit in this example but the so called INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY is a result of such ideologies of the britishers.
Concept of equality -British inherited?
I am afraid if intellectuals like Man Mohan Singh and Mr Karan Thapar consider the “concept of equality” british inherited. My eyebrows were raised and my ‘how could they’ expression asked both the Oxford alumni – does their definition of equality include ‘Racism’. How can we forget the way we were treated worst than second grade citizens in our own country the first being the invaders and how our great prisoners shared their food with cockroaches and mice.
Railways - a british gift
Then came the thanks giving for the railways as a creation of the britishers. The famous argument by the british raj supporters, I not being one question them – would the country be deprived of the railways without the britishers? If we in the face of the great JRD TATA can introduce our pride the TATA Airlines (now the Indian Airlines) – was railway a distant dream?? If the britishers wouldn’t have suppressed Indian entrepreneurs with the illegal law of Taxation Act. How many Tata’s would the country have produced?
Schools and Universities – education system
Then the PM went on length talking about the schools, universities and the English language. These require a serious consideration. These schools and universities were built on the graveyards of our Gurukuls.
Now let’s glance through the ture facts – Mr Thapar, which are unfortunately not known to the people and the related documents are eating dust in The House of Commons Library and the India House Library – London.
Here I am talking about a document prepared and presented by Macaulay around the year 1835 in the british parliament after a survey on India before the takeover, which reveled some staggering facts. He stated after the survey - in Madras presidency alone (the whole of south India then) there were around 1.5 lakh Gurukuls (read schools and colleges), more than one college per village (according to the land revenue documents) out of which 22-25 thousand were termed as ‘Higher learning institutes’ by Macaulay. My eyes stood wide open with surprise when I read about the subjects being thought at these institutes (in Sanskrit off course) Astro Physics, Vedic Maths, Law and ethics ,Physics etc. nearly 1500 of them were surgery colleges , about 2000 colleges of architecture and if anyone doubts about the equality of education imagine the century old temples of south India. Rameshwaram in tamilnadu, the Bahubali in Karnataka….
All this came to an end with the introduction of Indian education act which declared the gurukuls illegal and hence it donor became illegal. Gradually an entity called as gurukul became an extinct species. Imagine if this system of education continued to this day-a delightful thought-only a thought thanks to the so called beneficial rule (ok partly).
The English language –
Then let’s focus on the English language the so called gift from the britishers. Mr. PM positioned the language above our national language. I regard the usage of this language as the major fallouts of independent India - we market this language as a great achievement! Why is intelligence of a person measured in terms of the language he speaks? Why is speaking regional languages treated as vernacular and down-market? Adopting a language doesn’t mean degrading our own pride. Consider this for information – our regional languages are much more profound then the English language alone Gujrathi has 40,000 original words, marathi about 38,000, Hindi has about 70,000 original words. The perceptionally sophisticated English language stands far with about 12,000 original words. The knowledge of English is considered as a symbol of growth. To clarify this perception consider only 2 names if not more Japan and France (also India before the british raj).
RE – discovery of culture -
The PM mentioned the re-discovery of the Sanskrit culture, the Vedas, the Upnishhads etc. by some british scholars. My question is if the britishers wouldn’t have destroyed the culture was there any need for Re - discovery?
The raj as the short-cut to catch up with the world -
Now somebody please explain me the statement “the raj was India’s shortcut to catch up with the world.” 200 years of immense sufferings - A shortcut???
With 23% of the world trade (nearly ¼ of the total world), were we not ahead of the world. One of the most important person of the country making such a baseless statement and intellects like Mr. Thapar supporting them have hurt the sentiments of the people who have some acquaintance about India’s struggle for her freedom.
Substantial benefits?? More than sufferings??
My frustration on this article reached to acme when I read the most pathetic statement of the article - “acknowledge and accepting we benefited substantially from it (our british past), may be more than we suffered perhaps by a fair margin.”
My pen refused to move ahead while I was rewriting the statement but I had to for reference.
Why should I acknowledge and accept?
How can a rational Indian make or even think such conclusions. Isn’t it an insult to the lacks of Indians who donated their lives for freedom?
What does this statement (conclusion) mean – The great men who donated themselves for the cause of freedom, for us to leave without any English domination – did that for a beneficial rule?
A practical example of handicapped knowledge, insane is the only word coming to my mind. If u still think, this is a grapple with truth and we are howling ignoramuses - Please be british about it.
And for others – for the reasons mentioned above and the sacrifices of great men please do not aegis the invaders.
(This is in no support or enmity for any political party)
27-07-2005
posted by yogesh @ 8:34 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
well!! this is the best article of all u have written u r a real insightful writer i have ever met wanna see u win the booker hope my dream comes true
nice reply.. good insight.. keep up the work..
i realy support you for opposing thapar, i dont know the reason why he is feeling so blessed by the britishers
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home