British Raj did more harm than good in Indian subcontinent: UK Supreme Court debate

[Blademaster]

Doesn't explain the bloodlust between the BIA and the IJA.

Take a look at other battles and you would see the same bloodlust.

[Albany Rifles]

I find it troubling, yet not the least bit surprised, that in a history thread those in the discussion are guilty of the dual sins of incorrect historiography and misplaced historicism.

That is the examining the events of history through the mores, values and experiences of the interpreter. In graduate school it is drilled into a student from Day 1 not to judge individual’s actions in the 17th Century based on what we have learned since then and how believe today. I must fight this regularly as I move from the 19th to the 18th to the 20th and back to the 19th Centuries again and again.

You can interpret much from primary sources but you still have to fight from over generalization.

To the overall topic at hand….everyone needs to understand that a lot of what is at issue here has to be realized against the background that all of what we call the European nations of today were expansionist during the Age of Empire. It was an outgrowth of the city states to nation building. It also took place during the time of the Divine Right of Kings…as it was called in Europe. But the primacy of the feudal lord was unquestioned throughout the world, both East & West. I don’t think any can dispute this.

I don’t pretend to know much about the history of the Subcontinent. But I do realize that the British subjugation came by both military & diplomatic means. Britain followed the smaller ally foreign and defense policy up to the 20th Century. It was no different than how the Empire conquered and ruled India…it was divide and conquer.

In Latin America the Spaniards used fire, sword and disease to subjugate the native populations. Very little alliances were asked for or given.

My own country was born during this time as an aberration…a refusal to recognize the Divine Right of Kings and to follow the thinking of first great political philosophers. So we had a 9 year armed insurrection which finally tired Great Britain out. We formed a government and society which was less than perfect…in fact it was pretty fucking horrible if you were a slave, a poor woman or a Native American.

That said, it was a hell of lot better than most other forms of government around.

Did my country grow to be a continental power by land grab, namely from the Mexicans and Native Americans? Yup. And there were many who fought the Mexican War who disagreed with it but continued because their country ordered them to. Many believed the blood of the Civil War was the payment for that land grab. At the turn of the 19th to 20th Century we became imperialists….and found we were not very good at it. Within 50 years we had turned the countries back over to the native populations.

So to the central question regarding the British Raj….Indian was birthed into a very turbulent time. Britain was broke and the world had been ravaged by a long and brutal war. Into that world India was thrust, along with Pakistan, and was immediately forced to take side in the East v West political tension. India chose a neutral path which irritated some in the West…and seemed to align with the USSR. What many did not see was that alignment had more to do a counterbalance to Red China than an embrace of Stalin. From that India has forged its own path into the 21st Century. There is a lot of baggage in your history regarding Great Britain and the impact of the Raj.

So against all of that despite all the warts, blemishes, tragedies and brutality of the Raj, the British rule gave you one great gift….they gave you the gift of democratically elected government and the traditions of personal freedoms which allows you to participate in an internet debate with an international audience.

THAT is the greatest outcome of the Raj.

[Blademaster]

So against all of that despite all the warts, blemishes, tragedies and brutality of the Raj, the British rule gave you one great gift….they gave you the gift of democratically elected government and the traditions of personal freedoms which allows you to participate in an internet debate with an international audience.

THAT is the greatest outcome of the Raj.

That is what we disagree on. I am saying that the British Raj did not give us the gift of a democratically elected government. Otherwise they would have banned the hundreds of kingdoms and princedoms that occupied half of India and held elections all over India. They didn't. They only had elections in 14% of the population of India and Pakistan and that was in 1937 the first election ever held. And the British promptly ignored all decisions made by that assembly, leading everyone to think it was a joke and a sham.

We took 3 years after the British left in 1947 to come up with a constitution and a system of democratically elected government and a constitutional guaranteed list of personal freedoms. There were no such things during the day of the British Raj. The freedoms that Indians got were at the probation of British "generosity" and "good will" or at its fickle pleasure and convenience but by no means, it was enshrined in law or guaranteed.

We came up with widespread elections for all of India and made sure it was not a sham democracy or election. That was not the gift of the British Raj. That was the gift of people who fought for independence and sought to ensure that their sacrifices would not be in vain.

If you still subscribe to the idea that British Raj gave the gift of democratically elected government and traditions of personal freedoms, then I am very well in my right to categorically say that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 235 years of democracy that US enjoyed was a gift from the British. I dare you to find one American who would agree with that statement.

[Officer of Engineers]

Take a look at other battles and you would see the same bloodlust.

After the fall of Burma, BIA soldiers no longer surrendered. Before then, 45,000 surrendered to the Japanese. Something changed.

[Blademaster]

After the fall of Burma, BIA soldiers no longer surrendered. Before then, 45,000 surrendered to the Japanese. Something changed.

BIA didn't surrendered to the Afghans.

[astralis]

BM,

See the Government Act of 1935. Under the guise of dominion and self rule, they sought to protect British interests at the expense of Indian interests and sought to retain India under British control. The concept of self rule was an illusion.

if you look at the Act, it represented further devolution. again, not as fast as Indians wanted, but -real- further devolution.

note that at this point in time even the Conservatives in the british parliament envisioned an autonomous Indian Dominion after, of course, a period of "tutelage". and as per the Statute of Westminister 1931, once the Dominion title was conferred the British government would have no further say in the Dominion's political affairs. Labour, of course, wanted to go further in terms of decolonization.

there were very real changes in the outlook of the British that you're not acknowledging.

My point was that there was still sufficient majority support in the British to quell down any dissension or talk of independence movement in India. The idea of dominionship for India was never a popular thought. It only became a popular thought after the end of WWII when the British realized they could not hold onto India without incurring even more expensive costs and it may be more costly than WWII in itself and they were fed up with war. So they moved with great speed to get out of India. That was not the prevalent feeling before WWII. They still harbored strong feelings and thoughts that they could keep India.

actually, the sea-change was the interwar period. prior to the First World War, only a few intellectuals, British or Indian, envisioned India as an independent Dominion. by the time the 1930s rolled around, even the dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives acknowledged that India -would- get Dominion status. that was a huge change in British public/elite opinion.

and of course after WWII, everything changed given the huge shift in power (America calling the shots) and the bankruptcy of the British.

They thought that they could get more leverage by working within the system and changing it to get what they wanted. The British people didn't want to do it but allowed Indians in out of necessity and those Indians tried very hard to change the system to get what they wanted. It didn't worked out as they wanted hence the stronger movement for Independence. Dominion was not on the cards afterwards.

i agree (this, by the way, is closer to the truth than the more mercenary 'they were all poor and needed the money.' one doesn't volunteer to fight in the trenches for money!).

again, though, what i'm saying is that the British DID change the relationship, both with the Dominions and with India. not enough for the Indians but that does not mean the British didn't try, or that everything was a sham.

They supported Indian self government because they had their own problems to deal with and didn’t want to deal with it anymore and they knew that they couldn’t get any more money from India.

minor quibble, not really the money (which came from trade anyways), but the manpower. also after the advent of the US as a superpower and the nuclear shield, the british didn't need the manpower anymore.

the british saw this much more clearly, for instance, than the french.

[Officer of Engineers]

BIA didn't surrendered to the Afghans.

Those soldiers were long dead and they earned their bloodlust. Just like the Japanese.

[Albany Rifles]

Blademaster, you TOTALLY missed my point.

The British gave you the tradition of democaracy. You took that and improved it.

Just like we did. When our country was formed you had to be a land owning white male, and outside of Maryland and Rhode Island, Protestant. But the tradition of representative government we got from the British and refined and built on it over the years.

My point was the tradition of democratically elected government your got from the British. I never said the Raj disappeared as a result of a national plebiscite in India.

[Blademaster]

BM,

if you look at the Act, it represented further devolution. again, not as fast as Indians wanted, but -real- further devolution.

How was it a real further devolution when the British insisted on the right to intervene as they see fit?

note that at this point in time even the Conservatives in the british parliament envisioned an autonomous Indian Dominion after, of course, a period of "tutelage". and as per the Statute of Westminister 1931, once the Dominion title was conferred the British government would have no further say in the Dominion's political affairs. Labour, of course, wanted to go further in terms of decolonization.

If you looked at 1935 Act, you would see that everything Indians did would be subject to veto by the British and the British had a right to intervene. For instance, the Viceroy declared war on behalf of India without even consulting the elected members and put India on a course and obligation to support the war machine financially and manpower. It was at that time, everybody thought the devolution was a sham and hence the Quit India movement.

there were very real changes in the outlook of the British that you're not acknowledging.

Sure maybe at the imperial level but not on the ground, the Indians surely didn't see that way. They thought that the British were going back on their word and lying to them and hence the Quit India movement and the rise of the INA.

actually, the sea-change was the interwar period. prior to the First World War, only a few intellectuals, British or Indian, envisioned India as an independent Dominion. by the time the 1930s rolled around, even the dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives acknowledged that India -would- get Dominion status. that was a huge change in British public/elite opinion.

Fine, let's go by your theory. How long were the Conservatives expecting the dominion status to be implemented? How long before it actually get implemented?

and of course after WWII, everything changed given the huge shift in power (America calling the shots) and the bankruptcy of the British.

I would say that the sudden huge shift in power had to do with the fact that INC so quickly put down the Indian Naval Mutiny and told the BIA not to mutiny but go back to their barracks. The British could no longer control BIA without the consent of INC and Muslim League.

i agree (this, by the way, is closer to the truth than the more mercenary 'they were all poor and needed the money.' one doesn't volunteer to fight in the trenches for money!).

Well how do you explain the Gurkhas regiments? Yes a large majority of the soldiers were quite mercenary in nature. You have to examine the local conditions at the time and compare to the opportunities offered by service in the BIA.

again, though, what i'm saying is that the British DID change the relationship, both with the Dominions and with India. not enough for the Indians but that does not mean the British didn't try, or that everything was a sham.

Only when forced to. Not out of their free will or doing.

minor quibble, not really the money (which came from trade anyways), but the manpower. also after the advent of the US as a superpower and the nuclear shield, the british didn't need the manpower anymore.

the british saw this much more clearly, for instance, than the french.

They tried to keep on the rest of the Empire without India and quickly found out that they couldn't so they let go of all their overseas possessions with the exception of a few. That is when they didn't need the manpower and relied upon the US nuclear shield.

[Blademaster]

Blademaster, you TOTALLY missed my point.

The British gave you the tradition of democaracy. You took that and improved it.

Just like we did. When our country was formed you had to be a land owning white male, and outside of Maryland and Rhode Island, Protestant. But the tradition of representative government we got from the British and refined and built on it over the years.

My point was the tradition of democratically elected government your got from the British. I never said the Raj disappeared as a result of a national plebiscite in India.

How would you define the tradition of democratically elected government from the British? at national level? local level?

[Albany Rifles]

BM,

At what point in their history?

The shire? The fief? The parish? The riding? The Parliament of 1295? Cromwell?

I am not saying the British gave you a democracy starter kit out of the box. Like us you looked at their form of representative government and used it for the basis of what works uniquely for India. As we took ours from our colonial legislatures, our national government did not look like the British since we had a single house. The articles of Confederation taught us the folly of that and we modified it. that is what worked best for us.

So is it your contention that exposure to the British and a tradition of representative democracy had zero influence on the Indian political system prior to and at the time of your independence?

[Blademaster]

BM,

At what point in their history?

The shire? The fief? The parish? The riding? The Parliament of 1295? Cromwell?

I am not saying the British gave you a democracy starter kit out of the box. Like us you looked at their form of representative government and used it for the basis of what works uniquely for India. As we took ours from our colonial legislatures, our national government did not look like the British since we had a single house. The articles of Confederation taught us the folly of that and we modified it. that is what worked best for us.

So is it your contention that exposure to the British and a tradition of representative democracy had zero influence on the Indian political system prior to and at the time of your independence?

My contention is that British was not the sole source of traditions of representative democracy. In fact, the idea of representative democracy was around India a lot longer than western historians believed. Ever heard of the panchayat system? It declined under the British rule.

Local self-government in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And British was not the only source of democratic ideals. For three years starting in 1947, Indian leaders and drafters would visit a lot of countries, including US and Latin America and examine the concepts of democracy in practice and theory and take the best of what each system had to offer. They didn't exactly copy verbatim from the British Parliamentary rules and applied them word for word. They had to figure out what worked and what did not worked and they didn't do it under the guidance of British.

Sure the British may have some influence on the ideas of democracy, but it wasn't the sole inspiration. Indians had other sources to draw up, some native, some elsewhere in US and Latin America. So it is a huge difference from the claim that the British gave democracy and democratic institutions to India. They didn't. India had to build those things nearly from scratch. They had to convert a governance machinery that was designed from the get go to suppress any dissension or Indian independence and largely serve British interests at the expense of Indian interests to a system that serve largely the interests of Indians, not anyone else.

[Albany Rifles]

Again, I did not say they gave you democracy at a national level...but they exposed you to it. Your country found your own path. In the US our local government in many ways differs based on the kind of colony you were....joint stock, royal, etc. that is why we have town meeting(New England) local villages (New York) townships (Pennsylvania). But our national government modeled after the you did not go the way of so many other independence movements. You rapidly grew to a mature democracy and not into massive failed state (see most of Africa).

All that said a review of the Wiki shows a government set up amazingly similar to the British government.

So you went your own path....but I think a total denial of British influence is disingenuous.

But I guess we will agree to disagree.

[astralis]

BM,

How was it a real further devolution when the British insisted on the right to intervene as they see fit?

because the original policymaking would be planned and implemented by the Indian government, which was no longer in the hands of appointed officials from the UK. policies were no longer created by london.

it is true the power to overturn a decision was still available to the Viceroy, but creating policy and having a veto power on it is quite different. it dramatically raised the political cost of vetoing. IE, if the british wanted to overturn a decision it had to very publicly be done by the Viceroy...and everyone would know who to blame.

For instance, the Viceroy declared war on behalf of India without even consulting the elected members and put India on a course and obligation to support the war machine financially and manpower.

yup, and accordingly he paid a very high political price for it.

but in the context of 1939-1940 indian participation in the war was a life and death matter for the UK. there was no way the UK, an island nation, could fight two continental powers at once without India. and had the Viceroy put it to a vote, there would been stalemate at best, rejection at worst (Muslim League was for the war, the INC was split-- which reflected Gandhi's confused 'i support the fight against fascism but i reject war as a means of doing so' stance).

note that the british KNEW that there was going to be significant pushback and almost instantly tried to negotiate:

August Offer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

followed by the Cripps Proposals.

see how different the British response was compared to their more slow evolution during the First World War.

the Indians surely didn't see that way. They thought that the British were going back on their word and lying to them and hence the Quit India movement and the rise of the INA.

more accurately, SOME indians didn't see it that way. actually the main crux was not Indian mistrust of the British word, but that the INC position was rock-solid and would not be negotiated with: full independence. (that, by the way, was relatively new: as late as 1932, the INC and Gandhi were negotiating parameters of being a Dominion.)

more fought for the British than for the INA, and the Quit India movement faced considerable dissent even within the ranks of the INC. of course indian muslims disagreed with this altogether.

The British could no longer control BIA without the consent of INC and Muslim League.

probably too absolute of a statement, i think, although you're right about the lack of control. there would certainly have been a huge split. officers tended to side with the British while the NCOs and grunts were definitely, well, disgruntled. in the Navy Mutiny the mutineers threw Indian naval officers out when they tried to order them to stand down.

Yes a large majority of the soldiers were quite mercenary in nature. You have to examine the local conditions at the time and compare to the opportunities offered by service in the BIA.

feh, then why the difference in enthusiasm between WWI and WWII? i'm sure some went in for the money, but is it really that hard to admit that there was a time when there was considerable sympathy/loyalty for the idea of India being a part of the Empire? remember, Gandhi himself didn't become a supporter for independence, full stop, until WWII.

Only when forced to. Not out of their free will or doing.

sure, they moved fastest when circumstances forced their hand. but even prior to the wars, the relationship between the British and her subject peoples had been changing. not out of some noble sense of good will, but because of simple self-interest: the costs of an Empire in an age where growing political self-consciousness became too much to bear.

[Blademaster]

All that said a review of the Wiki shows a government set up amazingly similar to the British government.

Yes and that was only after a long debate (3 years) before they decided on the British Parliamentary system. Believe me there were serious considerations to go for a US styled presidential/republic system. And I wouldn't say that the government is amazingly similar to the British government. For instance, there is no House of Lords. We have the upper House which are elected by the assembly states respectfully and we have a President and Vice President and despite the ceremonial role of the President, the President do have powers in which the Queen does not have. It is actually an hybrid system.

So you went your own path....but I think a total denial of British influence is disingenuous.

I am not denying British influence. After all, we have English, the judiciary which is modeled after the english judiciary and many laws on the books are still from the days of the British Raj. What I am denying is that the British had every bit to do with the success of Indian democracy. They didn't. They didn't have a hand in the implementation of democracy nor putting the ideals of democracy into practice and ensuring that it still works and ensuring that the military didn't rise up and overthrow the government. In fact, the only commendable contributions that the British gave I can recognize and accept is the BIA and its regimental history and institutions and to a lesser extent, the bureaucracy system, the IAS (keep in mind that after independence, the IAS was largely expanded beyond its scope and modified to serve the interest of the Indian people) but they were not successful soley at the hands of the British, it still required active Indian participation and hard work and sacrifice after Independence to be made into something we recognize today, a professional competent Army and a viable functioning still serving the interests of Indians bureaucracy.

But I guess we will agree to disagree.

Don't worry. We will find something to agree upon.