Page 1 of 13 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 185

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

  1. #1
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314

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

    MODS may change this to the appropriate section, if this isnt the right one.


    British Raj did more harm than good in Indian subcontinent: UK Supreme Court debate
    PTI Sep 21, 2014, 09.58PM IST


    Tags:
    William Dalrymple|UK Supreme Court|Shashi Tharoor|Indian subcontinent|British Empire

    (Indo-British Heritage…)
    LONDON: The British Raj did more harm than good in the Indian subcontinent, this was the conclusion of a historic debate that put the mighty empire on a mock trial at the Supreme Court here.

    The Indo-British Heritage Trust organised the debate as the inaugural event to mark the 400th anniversary of formal relations between India and Britain back in 1614.



    The motion before the house was, "The Indian sub-continent benefited more than it lost from the experience of British Colonialism".

    The team against the motion, eloquently led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor and including fellow authors William Dalrymple and Nick Robins, clinched a decisive victory.

    "No wonder the sun never set on the British Empire, even God couldn't trust the English in the dark," said Tharoor as part of his arguments which focused on the economic ruin of India at the hands of the East India Company.

    "The might of Britain was built in the 18th and 19th centuries on the ruination of India - where India went from a 23 per cent share of the global economy to 4 per cent," he added.

    Dalrymple, author of 'White Mughals' and 'The Last Mughal', echoed the sentiment from the perspective of a prospering Mughal Empire which 'haemorrhaged' under the British.

    "It is impossible even to consider this motion seriously without noting how far behind the West was for 90 per cent of our history...the British went to India to get a bit of action in the Mughal Empire which was then immeasurably richer than anything London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Milan put together...Britain, with its mastery of cannon and artillery, drained India and the money came to Europe," he said.

    The debate, which coincided with the Scottish referendum vote on Thursday, was chaired by senior Indian-origin MP and chair of the House of Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz, who deftly managed proceedings for and against.

    Speakers for the motion included arts editor of 'Newsweek' Pakistan Nelofar Bakhtyar, former British politician and BBC war correspondent Martin Bell, and Kwasi Kwarteng, Conservative Party MP and author.

    Their side failed to win over the audience with their arguments in favour of the English language, rule of law, railways and cricket as positive legacy of the Empire.

    "The fact that we seized upon the English language for our own liberation is to our credit and not by British design," countered Tharoor, who ended on a lighter note saying, "Cricket was an Indian game accidentally discovered by the British".


    The debate is the first in a series of events to be organised by Project 400, an initiative by the Indo-British Heritage Trust, founded by historian Kusoom Vadgama.

    It was 400 years ago in 1614 that King James I dispatched Sir Thomas Roe as ambassador to the court of Mughal Emperor Jahangir to arrange for a commercial treaty and obtain security assurances on behalf of the East India Company.

    In the same year, the first Indian man set foot in Britain - an unnamed worker from Surat who was brought over in an East India Company vessel by a company chaplain and christened "Peter" by King James I.

    Vadgama launched Project 400 alongside her co-chair Michael Blacker to mark this official start of the India-UK relationship 400 years ago.

    "Project 400 is a monument to the 400-year-old Indo-British relationship. It is also an opportunity to put on record the much neglected history of India in Britain to the same level of detail as that of the history of the British in India," she said.

    "No history of the British Empire is complete without the history of its people. I never thought that one day I will put the mighty Empire on trial of all places in the Supreme Court," she said
    British Raj did more harm than good in Indian subcontinent: UK Supreme Court debate - Economic Times

  2. #2
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314
    This isnt even the tip of the iceberg 10 Evil Crimes Of The British Empire - Listverse

  3. #3
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,571
    had heard about this debate and Tharoor being involved.

    Timing ? make nice sounds so as to get Indian business.

    Also about 400 hundred years. Up to american independence the Brits were not really into rule and divide mode. Relations were good.

    Then the battles of conquest started. Indians become less than equal.

    Kinda funny the connection US & India have. US was discovered in the quest to find a route to India.

    US wins independence and India starts to lose it.

    The debate, which coincided with the Scottish referendum vote on Thursday, was chaired by senior Indian-origin MP and chair of the House of Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz, who deftly managed proceedings for and against.

    Speakers for the motion included arts editor of 'Newsweek' Pakistan Nelofar Bakhtyar, former British politician and BBC war correspondent Martin Bell, and Kwasi Kwarteng, Conservative Party MP and author.
    What ? No Niall Ferguson ? or was he conflicted over the Scottish referendum.

    "The fact that we seized upon the English language for our own liberation is to our credit and not by British design," countered Tharoor, who ended on a lighter note saying, "Cricket was an Indian game accidentally discovered by the British".
    I don't understand that underlined part.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Sep 14, at 17:10.

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Mar 09
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon5 View Post
    Their side failed to win over the audience with their arguments in favour of the English language, rule of law, railways and cricket as positive legacy of the Empire.
    Cricket? Freaking cricket?
    That's what they have to show against 200 years of servitude and events like Bengal famine?
    Haven't watched the video but they should have mentioned unification of India as a positive too.

  5. #5
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,926
    fanciest college BS session i've ever seen.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  6. #6
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 11
    Location
    God's own country
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    fanciest college BS session i've ever seen.
    Yup, I agree. Just that they are talking about trillions dollars stolen, a nations future stolen, millions killed and raped.

  7. #7
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,571
    It was supposed to be three hours long but there's only an hour.

    The ones for the motion ie india benefitted more than it lost were arguing future. This line from martin bell was hilarious.

    And speaking of Dr Tharoor, I would make the point – that he is personally a standing refutation of the case he is trying to make.


    First heard of shashi when he was with the UN, thought he was a brit, then i found out he wasn't and the real bombshell was he was actually a malyali. I NEVER met a malyali that spoke like that

    An upper class english accent from the 50s. English don't talk like that any more but you will find many of his age and older in India that do. An english friend of mine who visited said it was like entering a time machine.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Sep 14, at 17:46.

  8. #8
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by ajhax View Post
    Haven't watched the video but they should have mentioned unification of India as a positive too.
    That's a myth. British sought all along to keep India divided and weak. They would play one ethnicity or caste against one another in order to prevent any unity. Well they failed and Indians united despite British efforts and only with British chutzpah inherent in their genes, the British decided to take credit for the unity of India. When India was moving for independence, British warned that India would break into hundreds of fragments and only British could keep them together. Well after independence, it was the work of Sardar Patel and his associates that prevented that and actually preserved the union. So British gets no credit for that.

  9. #9
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Mar 09
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    That's a myth. British sought all along to keep India divided and weak. They would play one ethnicity or caste against one another in order to prevent any unity. Well they failed and Indians united despite British efforts and only with British chutzpah inherent in their genes, the British decided to take credit for the unity of India. When India was moving for independence, British warned that India would break into hundreds of fragments and only British could keep them together. Well after independence, it was the work of Sardar Patel and his associates that prevented that and actually preserved the union. So British gets no credit for that.
    Never said they made us stronger. They kept us weak and divided, yes. But then, we were a divided people anyways. There is a reason why we fell so easily.
    Now there is no guarantee that India would have evolved as a united nation without Britishers occupying and forcing different Indian provinces to be together for more than 200 years. So in a way they can take some credit. It does not wash away any of their sins though.

  10. #10
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,926
    ajhax,

    Now there is no guarantee that India would have evolved as a united nation without Britishers occupying and forcing different Indian provinces to be together for more than 200 years. So in a way they can take some credit.
    frankly without the british, there would be no india as we know it.

    at best, a Marathan-descended Hindustan, which is not the same thing. most likely a collection of post-Maratha Empire factional states based on the Marathan Confederacy, with foreign Great Power support for their own client states.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,010
    The least we can do is thank the Brits for fish&chips, gonorrhoea and the Sex Pistols. God save the Queen; the facist regime.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    ajhax,

    frankly without the british, there would be no india as we know it.

    at best, a Marathan-descended Hindustan, which is not the same thing. most likely a collection of post-Maratha Empire factional states based on the Marathan Confederacy, with foreign Great Power support for their own client states.
    Sir, please - a Maratha descended Hindustan? Even the Mughals kept away from us in Assam.

  13. #13
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Mar 09
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    ajhax,



    frankly without the british, there would be no india as we know it.

    at best, a Marathan-descended Hindustan, which is not the same thing. most likely a collection of post-Maratha Empire factional states based on the Marathan Confederacy, with foreign Great Power support for their own client states.
    Agree with the first sentence that it would have been very different. Not so much with the second. Marathas were not even able to defend themselves against afghans. So I wouldn't expect too much from them anyways. Lot's of things can happen in 200 years. We could have balkanized into several states. Or maybe we would have united anyways. Was it really impossible for India to produce it's own Garibaldi, Mao Tse-Tung etc.?
    Last edited by ajhax; 30 Sep 14, at 22:23.

  14. #14
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,571
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    frankly without the british, there would be no india as we know it.
    Do Iran or China provide any food for thought here.

    Neither ever got colonised to much extent.

  15. #15
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    ajhax,



    frankly without the british, there would be no india as we know it.

    at best, a Marathan-descended Hindustan, which is not the same thing. most likely a collection of post-Maratha Empire factional states based on the Marathan Confederacy, with foreign Great Power support for their own client states.
    So says your magic eight ball. Sure India would be different from the one you know but it still would be some form of a concept called Bharat.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29 Jun 11,, 01:05
  2. UK gets Supreme Court
    By JAD_333 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09 Oct 09,, 21:26
  3. Supreme Court Stays Reservation
    By Karthik in forum International Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30 Mar 07,, 12:19
  4. India's Supreme Court
    By Leader in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06 Dec 04,, 16:18
  5. U.S. Supreme Court Has Its Own Ten Commandments
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23 Aug 03,, 06:37

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •