Did the British Raj represent Greater India?

[Dinner]

In a purely nationalist sense one cannot say the Britsh Raj represented a Greater India but if one looks dispasionately at the facts it is clear that the British Raj did incorporate many elements of an Indian golden age. At its height the British Indian included India, Pakistan, Bengladesh, and Burma while the Governor General in New Dehli officially also controlled Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal. Officially Nepal and Bhutan were subjects of the British crown who were granted home rule but who could not independently conduct foreign policy which was solely vested with the British government (meaning the crown's representative, the Governor General, in New Dehli) including the ability to declare war or make peace.

The Raj was certainly the largest territorial exent Indian ever experienced with Pakistan, India, Bengladesh, and Burma all being officially part of India and with several other countries being subjegated to India. So what do you think? Was the Raj the high point for India?

[Barnabas]

The indian subcontinent had never been unified under a single ruler before the british If I recall correctly, that is something good they (the british ) did.

[Solly]

Does it matter? We bettered their curries for them.

[Verto]

India, enduring the bitterness created by the Departure of their Great British Overlords, must surely weep in despair.

[Solly]

Where are the Indians?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The indian subcontinent had never been unified under a single ruler before the british If I recall correctly, that is something good they (the british ) did.

QFT.

India has been deeply affected by all invaders, from the Aryans to the Muslims to the British. Elements of all of their cultures have been incorporated into a unique and vibrant result that we can be proud of today.

[LordShiva]

Re: Did the British Raj represent Greater India?

Originally posted by Oerdin
Was the Raj the high point for India?

No; even if we do assume that the Raj was a monolithic entity comprising the territories you listed (which is inaccurate) I'm sure we are all more than happy to have given up some of it for the right to rule ourselves, to devolve power to more local institutions, and for the various other benefits that derive from not being a darkie-inhabited colony.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


QFT.

India has been deeply affected by all invaders, from the Aryans to the Muslims to the British. Elements of all of their cultures have been incorporated into a unique and vibrant result that we can be proud of today.

I do not consider the Aryans invaders, because Aryan was simply the name the local people gave themselves. Remember that Ravana once accused Rama of being un-Aryan.

Secondly - the Muslims never have considered themselves part of the continuity of this country, and probably never will. Can you please tell me even a single instance of the contribution of people who were patronised by Muslim kings to Sanskrit literature or Indian classical music or Indian philosophy? A pathetic attempt to copy the architecture of Shah Abbas' Persia does not constitute an attempt to enrich India. Mughal architecture looks pathetic when compared to what inspired it.

And the wilful destruction of the indigenous architecture which was done by the Muslims is unforgivable, in my book. I cannot forgive Islam for that. Did you know that 25 temples were quarried for their stone to build the Qutub Minar? You can still see the statues of deities sticking out like a sort thumb from the base of the structure. Did you know that this was standard practice? The mosque they built on top near the minar is aptly named "Strength of Islam", or "Quwwut-ul-Islam". From the point of view of the Hindus, the Muslim invasion was as much of an imperialist intrusion as was the British. All sorts of social evils crept in during that time.

I do not consider a forcedly bastardised culture a "vibrant" one. I'll be happy when Sanskrit is revived and resurrected and is used again as the language of literature, and Old India is reborn. Until then, it is but a phase of the cultural digestion of rubbish.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by aneeshm


lol i h8 muslims LOL

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Tacc

lol i h8 commie idiots who mistakenly think i h8 muslims lol LOL

[aneeshm]

Re: Did the British Raj represent Greater India?

Originally posted by Oerdin
In a purely nationalist sense one cannot say the Britsh Raj represented a Greater India but if one looks dispasionately at the facts it is clear that the British Raj did incorporate many elements of an Indian golden age. At its height the British Indian included India, Pakistan, Bengladesh, and Burma while the Governor General in New Dehli officially also controlled Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal. Officially Nepal and Bhutan were subjects of the British crown who were granted home rule but who could not independently conduct foreign policy which was solely vested with the British government (meaning the crown's representative, the Governor General, in New Dehli) including the ability to declare war or make peace.

The Raj was certainly the largest territorial exent Indian ever experienced with Pakistan, India, Bengladesh, and Burma all being officially part of India and with several other countries being subjegated to India. So what do you think? Was the Raj the high point for India?

I don't think it was, because of two things.

The "You're brownie scum we're going to civilise" bit, and the "We're going to rape your resources and destroy your institutions" bit, which rather tend to spoil golden ages.

The attitude of the Brits is best summed up by Lord Macaulay, who said, in an infamous speech to the British Parliament, February 2nd, 1835,

[10] I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.

[11] It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.

And this is not all. He goes further, to say:

[34] In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

Do you still think that rule by people like this can be called a high point?

[Elok]

Of course it can, Aneeshm. Look at the ecthy quote in LS's sig--wait, did he remove his sig? Pshht.

[Seeker]

I wish we were still a colony. Then you can blame everything on the Brits and not have to pay for anything.

Independence sucks.

[TheStinger]

Re: Re: Did the British Raj represent Greater India?

Originally posted by aneeshm


I don't think it was, because of two things.

The "You're brownie scum we're going to civilise" bit, and the "We're going to rape your resources and destroy your institutions" bit, which rather tend to spoil golden ages.

The attitude of the Brits is best summed up by Lord Macaulay, who said, in an infamous speech to the British Parliament, February 2nd, 1835,



And this is not all. He goes further, to say:






Do you still think that rule by people like this can be called a high point?

And your point is?

[Cort Haus]

I'm not sure that Lord Macaulay really represented the wider body of British opinion or just his own, moronic, bigoted ignorance.

That said, the quote was worth posting as an example of how bad some of the imperialists were.

And tass wants to live in teh caliphate. hehe