Indo-UK: News & Discussion

[Lalmohan]

well ajatshatru-ji, you are quick to interpret my words your way, and less excited when someone else interpret's your words in a way you don't like. if you pause and read what i have said, your 'helpful' comment about history repeating itself might seem to be a reinforcement of my statements. thank you for praising my logic, but frankly i don't need your endorsement

[Lalmohan]

i have done, thank you. given it quite a lot of thought actually. but we were addressing a different point.

[ramana]

X-posted...

http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2009/0 ... j-pakistan


Legacy of the Raj

Mihir Bose

Published 23 April 2009

Born in Mumbai, Mihir Bose has won numerous awards for his wide-ranging journalism over four decades. Now the BBC’s sports editor, he reflects here on democracy in India – and asks if the British really wanted their former colony to survive

As last viceroy, Lord Mountbatten (in white dress uniform, centre right) handed over to Jawaharlal Nehru (far right). It was Nehru’s work that made secular democracy thrive in India

At one point during the recent general election campaign in India, the leader of the BJP opposition, L K Advani, accused the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, of being “weak”. Singh and his colleagues reacted with fury. This was an abusive term, they said, that insulted both the office of the prime minister and the country itself. Not to be outdone, Advani reacted by claiming he was “hurt” by the attacks on his record, and for good measure then failed to attend an all-party dinner in honour of the departing speaker of the Indian parliament.

Such exchanges suggest that levels of debate in the Indian political class are not particularly elevated. But to be fair to the participants, they have not been helped by the historical inheritance the new state received at its birth. It may be hard to credit now, as 700 million voters go to the polls in the world’s biggest elections, but back in the 1940s the wise men of the British Raj predicted that while Pakistan would prosper, India would soon be Balkanised. Pakistan, it was thought, would become a vibrant Muslim state, a bulwark against Soviet communism. India’s predominantly Hindu population, however, was presumed to be a source of weakness and instability.

Nobody expressed this view more forcefully than Lieutenant-General Sir Francis Tucker who, as General Officer Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command, had been in charge of large parts of the country. His memoirs, While Memory Serves, published in 1950, the year India became a republic, reflected the view of many of the departing British.

Hindu India was entering its most difficult phase of its whole existence. Its religion, which is to a great extent superstition and formalism, is breaking down. If the precedents of history mean anything . . . then we may well expect, in the material world of today, that a material philosophy such as Communism will fill the void left by the Hindu religion.

Tucker was hardly alone among Raj officials. By then, it was almost an orthodoxy to believe that Hinduism was, if not an evil force, at least spent and worthless. Islam, on the other hand, was a religion the West could understand and with whose political leaders it could do business.

Rudyard Kipling, the great chronicler of the Raj, had long made clear his fondness for Muslims and his distrust of Hindus. He was appalled by the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the two great Hindu classics, and repulsed by the jumble of the faith’s beliefs. In contrast, Kipling claimed that he had never met an Englishman who hated Islam and its people, for “where there are Muslims there is a comprehensive civilisation”.

The British had seized power in the subcontinent mainly from Muslim rulers, and the crushing of the 1857 revolt, after which the last Mughal emperor was removed, put paid to any chance of Muslim revival. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, the Muslims had become the allies of the Raj as it struggled to quell the agitation for freedom led by the Indian National Congress. [b]The Raj encouraged the formation of the Muslim League and determinedly portrayed the INC as a Hindu party, despite its constant promotion of its secular credentials and advertisement of its Muslim leaders. (True, the party was mostly made up of Hindus; but as India was overwhelmingly Hindu, this was hardly surprising. The Raj just could not believe that a party made up largely of Hindus could be truly secular.)[/b]

Such was the hatred for the Hindus, particularly Brahmins, that the Raj could not be shaken from this fixation – even when the Congress Party had political victories in diehard Muslim provinces, the most remarkable of which was in the North-West Frontier Province. Today, parts of the province (which voted to join Pakistan in 1947) are adopting sharia law, but in the 1930s a secular Muslim movement had grown up there, led by Ghaffar Khan and his brother Khan Sahib. They joined the Congress Party and won successive election victories from 1937 onwards, defeating established Muslim parties.

But the Raj pictured these secular Muslims as dupes of the wily Hindus. The only consolation for Sir Olaf Caroe, considered to be the supreme Raj expert on the local Pashtuns, was that they would soon come to their senses, “It is hard to see how the Pathan [Pashtun] tradition could reconcile itself for long to Hindu leadership, by so many regarded as smooth-faced, pharisaical and double-dealing . . . How then could he [the Pathan] have associated himself with a party under Indian, even Brahmin, inspiration . . .”

What would the West not give now for such secular Muslims to return to power in this playground of the Taliban and al-Qaeda – even if under the spell of “pharisaical Brahmins”?

Such caricatures of Hindus were not uncommon (featuring, for instance, in Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop), but it was when this view was espoused by major politicians such as Winston Churchill that it became truly dangerous. When Churchill argued vehemently against Indian independence in the 1930s, his fire was directed mainly at the Hindus (in contrast, he praised Muslims, whose valour and virility he admired). As the Second World War neared its close, the British prime minister was so consumed by hatred of the Hindus that he told his private secretary John Colville that he wanted extraordinary destruction visited upon them. Colville’s The Fringes of Power records the extreme nature of his master’s feelings in February 1945, just ­after his return from Yalta:

"The PM said the Hindus were a foul race “protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due” and he wished Bert [Bomber] Harris could send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them."

Clement Attlee, who came to power within months, did not share Churchill’s Hindu-phobia. There were also historic ties between Labour and Congress. Yet his government nevertheless agreed that a separate Pakistan was vital to Britain’s global interests. By early 1947, British policymakers realised they had to withdraw from the subcontinent, but still wanted a military presence there: to protect Britain’s position in the century-long Great Game with Russia, and to protect the sea routes to Arabian oil wells. Partition, the foreign secretary Ernest Bevin told the Labour party conference that year, “would help to consolidate Britain in the Middle East”.

British strategy was also shaped by Pakistan’s wish to remain in the Commonwealth, while India wanted out. By the end of the war, what little love there had been between the Raj and Congress had long evaporated, as most of the party’s leaders spent much of the war inside British jails. They had refused to co-operate with the war effort unless their masters promised freedom when peace came. Regarding this as blackmail during the empire’s “darkest hour”, the British made mass arrests and banned the party. In such circumstances, it was understandable that the pleas of both Churchill and Attlee that the king-emperor should remain as head of state were ignored.

British hopes for the country that emerged were not high. Just before he left India in 1943, the Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, forecast that it would take Indians at least 50 years to learn how to practise parliamentary democracy. Even then, he felt it would require much tutoring from the British and other Europeans, whom he thought could be tempted to the subcontinent by the arrival of air-conditioning. (Once they didn’t have to worry about the heat, he reasoned, some six million Britons could be persuaded to settle in India to take on the task.)

That democracy took root so quickly and successfully owes much to Jawaharlal Nehru, the first and longest-serving prime minister of India, who was in office from 1947-64. So well did the system embed itself that when his daughter Indira imposed emergency rule in the 1970s – the closest India has come to a dictatorship – it was ended not by tanks rolling down the streets of Delhi, but through the ballot box. That election showed, as have many since then, that ordinary Indians, many of them poor and illiterate, value their vote (perhaps even more than the rich, who feel money can buy them influence). They queue for hours in the baking heat to cast their ballots.

Before the Second World War, the Raj’s relationship with India was like a father promising to allow his stepson to come into his inheritance at some unspecified date in the distant future. It never quite believed that there could ever be a time that this brown person would be capable of managing the estate.

This general election campaign may have exposed just how fractured the political classes are today, with numerous caste, religious and communal groups competing and doing deals with each other. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance may have completed its five-year term of office, but many of its allies, including cabinet ministers, are opposing Congress at local level. Some of them make no secret that they aspire to the prime ministership, and all of them are aware that, as the Times of India put it: “Opportunistic post-poll equations will be more important than the pre-poll pitch of the parties.”

Yet the patchwork quilt that is made up of British India and the hundreds of princely states united and survived, and still manages to do so despite all the challenges that could have led to that Balkanisation predicted by old Raj hands. The likes of Tucker, Churchill and Kipling were proved wrong: constructing the new nation of India was not, after all, beyond the Indians.

Mihir Bose will be reporting on India for “Newsnight” on 23 April (BBC2) and for BBC World and BBC News in early May

Tucker and Caroe were part of the Viceroy Study Group (VSG) and were the mentors of the new Great Game.

Looks like in one article validated many of BRF's thoughts in print. And folks were saying all this was conspiracy theory!

[Lalmohan]

there is absolutely no absolution for the sins of the past - and i did not imply it - i stated the facts. however, the more energy we now spend on righting those wrongs, the less energy we have to deal with today's clear and present danger (to mix my metaphors)

[svinayak]

there is absolutely no absolution for the sins of the past - and i did not imply it - i stated the facts. however, the more energy we now spend on righting those wrongs, the less energy we have to deal with today's clear and present danger (to mix my metaphors)

There is a danger of Hindus reverting back to the
same status as slaves again in the future. For that reason every Indian must understand this.

[Anurag]

Great article! Their overwhelming love for Islam is surely coming to haunt them!

[tripathi]

British air stewardess sacked for refusing to wear an Islamic robe

Mon, Apr 27 09:00 PM
London, Apr 27 (ANI): A British air stewardess was sacked for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia after she was ordered to wear a traditional Islamic robe and walk behind male colleagues.

Lisa Ashton, who worked for BMI, was told that she was expected to wear in public in Saudi Arabia the abaya, a long black robe that leaves only the face uncovered.

She was also told that she should walk behind male colleagues irrespective of their rank, in order to conform with the social codes of the conservative country, The Telegraph reports.shton was instructed to consider the abaya as part of her uniform when flying to Saudi Arabia, but she informed her managers that she considered the requirement discriminatory, and was worried that Saudi Arabia was not safe to travel to because of the danger of terrorist attacks.

"It's not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I'm not going to be treated as a second-class citizen," Ashton said.

"It's outrageous. I'm a proud Englishwoman and I don't want these restrictions placed on myself," she added.

Ashton, 37, had been working for the airline for nine years when they began their service to Saudi Arabia in 2005.

She was earning 15,000 pounds a year and flying to India, the Caribbean and the United States from her base in Manchester, but was horrified to read details of the regulations for staff orking on the new route. (ANI)

[Airavat]

Johann,

For some ill-informed Hindus an argument I have heard quite commonly is that "Gee thanks for the British, for they got us rid of the Mughals". Which again is patently not true. If the British had never set foot on India, Indian had already taken care of the Mughal rule.

The real story in pre-British India is the decline in military power of the Muslims. Horse-archery which had previously set them apart from the indigenous powers lay in the dustbin of history, while regular cavalry was mauled by increasingly accurate artillery and lethal infantry fire, and was useful only for plundering.

The Muslim rulers in the Gangetic plains: Nawab of Bengal-Bihar, Nawab of Awadh, and the Muslim rulers in the south: Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Carnatic, all depended on indigenous infantry officered by Europeans for their power.

The decline in the effectiveness of cavalry also affected the indigenous powers like the Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs; and even when the latter two adopted infantry formations and artillery organized on European lines, the officer class that controlled these were foreigners. But the biggest change brought about by the new system of war was EDUCATION. Our traditional warrior classes utterly despised education and book learning, while the control of munitions, increasing diversification of the artillery arm, managing a salaried class of soldiers, required officers well-educated or at least well-informed on the latest developments in science and mathematics.

By contrast our traditional warrior classes learned their military skills: riding horses, wielding sword and lance, and even using firearms, in hunting and war. Military service was paid for by grants of estates, which had to be physically occupied by the grantee, in order to collect revenue and feed himself and his followers. When the indigenous power failed to provide for its warrior class, they mounted their horses and engaged in plunder, or formed into groups that fought to dominate the failed central government. And this failure and turmoil was apparent in both the Muslim as well as the indigenous powers, which is why the 18th century in India is called the period of The Great Anarchy.

British occupation ended this anarchy, ensured internal peace, and orderly administration. The military and economic exploitation of India by the new rulers is of course well-documented but the fight against them was led by the new educated middle-class and not by the old order.

[ASPuar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7826701.stm

Prince defended by friend 'Sooty'

The prince is said to have used the nickname for many years

An Asian polo club member referred to by the Prince of Wales as "Sooty" has said Charles has "zero prejudice".

Kuldip "Kolin" Dhillon said the nickname used by his friend was a "term of affection with no offence meant or felt".

He said it was also used by other members at the Cirencester Park Polo club in Gloucestershire.

The story emerged days after Prince Harry apologised for using the word "Paki" to describe a member of his army platoon in 2006.

Clarence House refused to comment on the polo club story but said suggesting Charles was racist was "completely ridiculous".

A spokesman said they were not going to comment on the use of an alleged nickname at a private club.

He added: "Look at the work he's done here and abroad. Consistently over 30 years he's called for greater tolerance and understanding."

Mr Dhillon, a former chairman of the Schools and Universities Polo Association originally from the Punjab, emigrated to Britain in 1955.

In a statement issued from his Cheltenham office, the property developer said: "I have to say that you know you have arrived when you acquire a nickname.

"I enjoy being called Sooty by my friends who I am sure universally use the name as a term of affection with no offence meant or felt.

"The Prince of Wales is a man of zero prejudice and both his sons have always been most respectful."

Mr Dhillon's full name is Kuldip Singh Dhillon but he is said to be known under the Anglicised name Kolin.

Political correctness

A member of Cirencester Park Polo Club spoken to by the BBC said the nickname used for Mr Dhillon had not caused any offence.

He said: "I know the Prince calls him Sooty. It's not a problem on either side."

Cirencester Park Polo Club declined to comment on the reports.

But leading British-Asian businessman, Sir Gulam Noon, who has worked with Charles on many occasions, said there was no suggestion the prince had done anything wrong.

"Political correctness has gone a little bit too far," he told the BBC.

He added: "I have been working with Prince Charles for more than 20 years now and he has always been absolutely courteous and respectful to every Asian community member he has ever met."

But the Labour MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, told the BBC: "I do worry about the choice of these nicknames which they regard as terms of endearment and affection but which members of the public will regard as being offensive and distasteful."

BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the nickname clearly did not offend Mr Dhillon.

However, our correspondent said people may consider its use harks back to a time when racial attitudes were offensive and out of tune with today's Britain.

On Sunday, Prince Harry issued an apology after the News of the World published a video diary in which he calls one of his then Sandhurst colleagues a "Paki".

St James's Palace said he had used the term about a friend and without malice.

Ho ho, toadies and bootlickers forever. No wonder, we were once slaves of the British Empire. And I suspect there is scum aplenty in our country even today, which would be pleased to behave thus, in exchange for 30 pieces of nickel (not even silver), and a membership of some dud polo club.

[Gerard]

Four years, 52 dead, £100m - no convictions

Senior security officials conceded last night that it is likely no one will be brought to justice for the 7 July bombs that killed 52 people in London in 2005, despite their belief that more than 20 people were involved in the attacks. The admission came shortly after the only three men to be charged in connection with the suicide bombings were acquitted yesterday.

[derkonig]

^^
AoA. True Londonistan style. A great victory for the UKstan sekoolaars.

[Lalmohan]

the problem seems to be one of securing sufficient evidence that withstands judicial enquiry. the keedas are clearly pretty smart at maintaining their internal security - and great at scoring propaganda points. disruption and prevention might be ultimately more effective than conviction. expect similar issues with the kasab trial

[Tanaji]

the problem seems to be one of securing sufficient evidence that withstands judicial enquiry. the keedas are clearly pretty smart at maintaining their internal security - and great at scoring propaganda points. disruption and prevention might be ultimately more effective than conviction. expect similar issues with the kasab trial

Er, big difference no? The people acquitted were the four that were accused of providing "material assistance" (reconnaissance etc.) to the bombers. They were not the bombers themselves (obviously, since all of them died).

Kasab is the actual perpetrator. There is lots of footage of him committing the act, plus there is the matter of his statement where he accepted his guilt. He may deny it now, but he did it in front of a magistrate, that means legally he cant back out of it. And Ujjwal Nikam is nobody's fool. He may look like one and talk like one, but he is a very very good prosecutor. Remember he has already got multiple convictions in the 93 bombings, all that when he did NOT have video evidence. Nikam is slow, meticulous and persistent, he will methodically rip away any evidence that Kasab's lawyer puts up. I will be surprised if Kasab doesnt get convicted..... Now whether he goes free after that is another matter entirely.

But I agree with you, the keedas in Britain have gotten quite sophisticated. Especially the second gen Brit Pakistanis... very suave, intelligent and as dangerous as they come. UK is in for tough times

Just my 2p nazi thoughts...

[surinder]

The decline in the effectiveness of cavalry also affected the indigenous powers like the Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs; and even when the latter two adopted infantry formations and artillery organized on European lines, the officer class that controlled these were foreigners.

Airavat, you too?

While there were a *few* Europeans (& Americans) in Indian Armies (especially of Sikhs), that hardly justifies the saying that the entire officer class was European.

British occupation ended this anarchy, ensured internal peace, and orderly administration. The military and economic exploitation of India by the new rulers is of course well-documented but the fight against them was led by the new educated middle-class and not by the old order.

This is another view that the British are fond of perpetrating: they brought stability in a chaotic India. British actually brought in Chaos, rather than reduce it. They exploited the prevalling chaos to plant their rule (and hence suppress the Indic awakening). In the process they created much more chaos and instability.

The British are experts at painting their conquests as favors.

[Gerard]

MPs vote to give Gurkhas right to live in Britain in defeat for Gordon Brown

[Airavat]

While there were a *few* Europeans (& Americans) in Indian Armies (especially of Sikhs), that hardly justifies the saying that the entire officer class was European

The officer class were foreigners, and where such foreigners were unavailable, ordinary soldiers deserting from European armies were welcomed by Indian Kingdoms and commissioned to raise modern infantry formations. Matthew Heaney, a common soldier who deserted from the 8th Dragoons, became "Colonel O'Brien" by raising a small force for the faraway hill-state of Kangra.

Even civilians with some European blood or just Indian Christians who dressed up in military uniforms could dupe their way to becoming officers; such was the state of ignorance among our indigenous warrior class. Jadunath Sarkar writes, "Every French or Portuguese half-breed, or even a pure native Christian of Goa, when dressed in a cast-off European military costume, was believed to be a master of the new war, and was commissioned to raise a sepoy battalion for the local Hindu prince..."

There is a short list in European Military Adventurers and many more in various other books covering that period.

[surinder]

^^^

None of this shows that *ALL* the officers were Europeans.

The British surely did not like the foreigners in Indian armies: when they handed over J&K to Gulab Singh Dogra from the Sikhs, the treay of Lahore forbade him from hiring any Europeans.

[Airavat]

The British surely did not like the foreigners in Indian armies

That in itself shows the value attached to European officers in transforming Indian armies back in the 18th and 19th centuries. No such condition regarding "Indian officers" was ever imposed on our states by the British, because such a term was an oxymoron in those early days.

[Lalmohan]

there is a continual blurring of time periods in this thread which is not necessarily helpful in understanding

the role of europeans in India changed over time. There are atleast the following phases:

1. Mughals in power phase (europeans begging for trade and awed by the riches of a 'new realm')
2. Mughals in decline phase (european adventurers making it big - as per Airavat description)
3. East India company phase (exploitative, brutal, aggressive, genocidal, greedy...)
4. Victorian Imperial phase (seemingly to undo the company's evils, but... powerful, dominant, domineering, indirectly destructive, partially unintentionally genocidal)
5. between the world wars phase (struggling with bringing liberalism to the colonies and avoiding it if possible through repressive means)
6. WW2 and independence phase (in desperate trouble, need to get out without getting lynched and making concessions)

In each of these the overall mentality and roles of the europeans were quite different. interestingly, american pressure in the final stages closed down british dreams of hanging on to empire -even though many in britain itself no longer wanted to - in the same way that the british at home were critical of the East india company's excesses in the 1840's. Some authors suggest that americans behaved just as imperiously with china during the same period without any sense of hypocracy

[Lalmohan]

Ajatshatru - thanks for your devoted concern for my aspirations to knighthood. I suggest you go to your nearest library and/or bookshop and get hold of a number of different history books on the period and read them. you may have an axe to grind, i don't.

[Lalmohan]

books written by brown and white authors. most modern white authors are even more critical of the excesses and atrocities of the raj than brown ones by the way. particularly books about the 1857 events and their aftermath. most white authors these days re-open the past and re-interpret what was 'commonly known', much of it is largely unflattering to their mythical imperial pasts. what one gains from reading multiple viewpoints is perspective and understanding. and do not confuse understanding with condoning.

for the sake of clarity - max hastings in his book "nemesis" on the pacific war highlights the issue of american hypocracy regarding imperialism - whilst they were preaching to the british to leave india, their own position in china was scarcely better. raising that in no way condones the british empire, but points out the inherent flaw in imperialistic thinking.

you consistently choose to interpret my words in a specific way and continue to blur time periods to suit your agenda even though i have pointed out several times now that you are misinterpreting them. if you cannot understand me, then don't read my posts.

[Lalmohan]

no wrong

indirect - the railways project demolished hundreds of indian monuments and temples for foundation stones, more than any islamic iconoclast
unintentional - mismanagement of agricultural produce leading to large scale misery and famine - several documented

does that help you?

the reason all of these examples (not just these two) get problematic is that at all times the numbers of whites in india was rarely more than a few hundred thousand. much of these things were done by other indians at the behest of their imperial masters, which is also partly true for the islamic period (though not the direct slaughter, which was a more personal jihad based speciality)

airavat's explanation on white officers is very important - the new drilled musket infantry form of warfare was revolutionary in india and superceded the mounted archer model which in its time was revolutionary. in the aftermath of the declining mughal empire, military victory went to those that could deploy skilled musketry and artillery effectively. the europeans had cornered the market in providing these skills, just as the arabs and turks had cornered the market in horse breeding and veterenary care in the past. our beloved kshatriyas failed to learn these key capabilities, and our beloved brahmins went back time and again to the classical texts - forgetting military innovations brought about by different hindu kings and emperors.

understanding history is far more complicated than one imagines

[svinayak]

Even more so, i.e. complicated, when viewed through the prism of 'Lalmohan Logic and facts'.

Actually he is correct

[vsudhir]

x-post

UK wages collapse at fastest rate in 60 years

All the makings of a classic debt deflation spiral. Some optimism is breaking through though. For UKstan's sake, hope its the real thing and not a false dawn.

[Rahul M]

Shri Mihir Bose uvacha:

Many of the English officers delighted in dreaming up ways they could degrade the Indian rebels before killing them. Muslims, forbidden pork by their religion, would be sewn into pork skins or smeared with pork fat before being executed, high-caste Hindus, forbidden to eat beef, had beef stuffed down their throats before they were hanged. It was common for Indians to be lashed to the mouth of a cannon and then blown apart by grapeshot.

sorry for entering this discussion late in the day. as per dalrymple in last mughal, one of the favourite methods was asking the executioner to keep the length of the noose short, so that when the platform was removed there wasn't enough force to snap the neck of the condemned, forcing him or her to thrash about for an eternity for life to end.

this gruesome spectacle was thoroughly enjoyed by the "civilized officers" and they gathered in hordes to watch the executions. they even had a name for it, called it a "hang-dance" or something, one of your quaint english expressions.

frequently, the officers vied with each other to offer money to the executioner to keep the rope as short as possible.

[Lalmohan]

post edited.

[Abhi_G]

Rahul M uvacha

sorry for entering this discussion late in the day. as per dalrymple in last mughal, one of the favourite methods was asking the executioner to keep the length of the noose short, so that when the platform was removed there wasn't enough force to snap the neck of the condemned, forcing him or her to thrash about for an eternity for life to end.

this gruesome spectacle was thoroughly enjoyed by the "civilized officers" and they gathered in hordes to watch the executions. they even had a name for it, called it a "hang-dance" or something, one of your quaint english expressions.

frequently, the officers vied with each other to offer money to the executioner to keep the rope as short as possible.

Check also the torture methods in the Cellular Jail.

[Rahul M]

ajatshatru ji, I just read the last few pages of discussion and it seems to me you have responded in a personal vein from the beginning. that is surely no way to conduct a discussion.
I request you to call it a day and not carry-on with ping pong.

lalmohan ji, please edit your last post, nothing good will come of it.
Rahul.

[Rahul M]

Check also the torture methods in the Cellular Jail.

I'm sorry I'm not aware of the details.
just the regular stuff(for brits in India) like pulling out of finger nails/teeth and so on or was there something even more innovative and civilzed ?

[vsudhir]

sorry for entering this discussion late in the day. as per dalrymple in last mughal, one of the favourite methods was asking the executioner to keep the length of the noose short, so that when the platform was removed there wasn't enough force to snap the neck of the condemned, forcing him or her to thrash about for an eternity for life to end.

this gruesome spectacle was thoroughly enjoyed by the "civilized officers" and they gathered in hordes to watch the executions. they even had a name for it, called it a "hang-dance" or something, one of your quaint english expressions.

And how many of our educated aam aadmis know about this? The same ones who continue to believe that the Raj wasn't all bad etc.

Its critical that India doff this Raj era baggage and Macaulayite lenses of viewing the world. Its critical we don't forget what was visited on our forefathers by the same bunch of jolly good fellas who now take it upon themselves to expose our 'casteist prejudices' and slumdawg lives.

No gain from being apologetic or indifferent. Our narrative - "the India story that Indians tell themselves and their children" - needs to be reclaimed from macaulayite clutches. Our history hijacked to whitewash mughal era injustices and distorted to suppress the very idea of armed Hindu resistance to foreign rule is an abomination that we, 60 yrs after kicking the Brits out, should have gotten right, no?

Sure, that will seem a worthless pursuit to some, particularly those who while claiming they seek not to excuse Brit wrongdoing and then go and do exactly that.

That's OK, diversity of opinion and all that I guess.

/Have a nice day, all.

[Lalmohan]

Rahul - that is one example of many more methods in use at the time. the canon method was taken from the mughals who used it for some time previously. hanging was most commonly used since it was a 'normal' form in those days - around that period pickpockets and other petty criminals from the london slums would be hanged without too much pretence of a trial, or sent off to australia if they were lucky.

there is no question that company officers viewed extreme punishment and torturous execution as a means of imposing terror on the indian population and therefore keeping them in check, Havelock or somebody similar made it a point to be as brutal as possible. Contemporary sources, even highly biased british ones admit that.

also, it seems that the then recently recruited Sikh soldiers, who played a large part in defeating the 1857 uprising, were allowed/encouraged to settle personal scores against the muslims 'rebels' from the former Bengal Army and were allowed a free hand against them - around Lucknow if I am not mistaken. Ofcourse, the reverse had been true in the Anglo-Sikh wars.

The reason the crown took over from the company post 57 was that the crown and parliament felt that the company had gone rogue and created the problem in the first place. rule under the crown may not have been better for the average indian, but it was different - perhaps a shift from military oppression to economic oppression

the point about brutality is that the delta from our modern standards to what happened is extremely high, but the delta from the prevailing norm to what happened was less so - and therefore contemporaries may have been slightly less shocked and horrified than we may be. either way, brutality is brutality.

[Rahul M]

there is no doubt that what you say is true, the difference in reactions in england to 1857 and 1919 is perhaps proof of that. blasting in front of cannons was a common mughal execution technique. others being trampled under elephant etc.
IIRC EIC discontinued with cannoning as a cost cutting measure.

the reason I raised this point again is the fact that unlike other reigns of violence, the british one in India is often seen as benign, which is grossly unjustified.

the spanish should probably be credited much more for bringing civilization to S.America (whatever that means) than the british to India but we never hear this argument, the simple reason being the inhuman excesses and looting of the spanish are too well known by all for this argument to be presented by anyone in polite society.

this is my only motive, to establish the simple truth in the minds of people that the british were as brutal as any occupying country anywhere and not a benevolent civilizing force that many have been made to believe.

[surinder]

The Fansi, or noose, was a peculiarly British form of capital punishment. It was not there in India before their advent.

The Mughals brought with them many new and outrageous means of torture not known to Indians: Sewing someone inside the carcass of an animal, crushing by elephant's foot, dragging by horse, sawing the person in two, boiling them in big couldron's, burning them cotton, rolling them in carpet and trampling them with horses. They central asian turks learned these from the Mongols, I am told.

It is important to note pre-Mughal India was remarkably free of any sort of torture techniques. It reflects the societies norms and modes of dealings. It reflects the values and sensitivies of the society. But those who only seek do demonify Indai, never point this out. Indians never investigate this either. A good and simple historian should write A simple book on History of Torture in India.

PS: Note, Maharaja Ranjit Singh outlawed Capital Punishment when he set his empire. It is a remarkable fact, in line with the natural mode of thinking of India. The British introduced the Noose after the fall of the Sikhs Kingdom, not to mention the blowing up by cannons (with which they killed some 60-80 Naamdharis in 1880's). Apparently, blowing up by cannons is gruesomely messy, a British soldier has left accounts of that blow up.

[Lalmohan]

the Spanish were bad no doubt, but there was a fantastic book called "La Legenda Negra" which highlighted Spanish atrocities in the Americas and perhaps even "sexed them up" which is largely behind that story. no prizes for guessing that its publication and distribution was funded by British and Dutch shipping and commercial interests King Philip outlawed slavery 200 years before the French or British did, never mind the Americans, yet the legend persists...

Vasco da Gama's blood soaked sojourn and the later Inquisition in Goa don't seem to attract much attention either... and i would also ask those following this thread about their views specifically on modern India's relationship with modern Iran and modern Uzbekistan? What do you think guys? Any cause for hyperventilation there?

Rahul - you're right about the "benign" angle - it was a post independence british view of the raj, however I don't think there are many modern historians (of any colour) who would argue that it, and for that matter - any other empire, was benign

[Abhi_G]

It is important to note pre-Mughal India was remarkably free of any sort of torture techniques. It reflects the societies norms and modes of dealings.

Surinder ji, what about the shool (sooli in Hindi)? Is that Turkic introduction? I am not sure. OT, though.

[surinder]

King Philip outlawed slavery 200 years before the French or British did, never mind the Americans,

British have used their banning of slavery to score points against the Amricans. The whole purpose of banning slavery was precisely to target the Americans. Why would they ban slaves and make conquests in India to take over India to enslave Indians? Does that make sense? How do you think Indians landed in Guyana, Malaysia, Fiji, & other places?

however I don't think there are many modern historians (of any colour) who would argue that it, and for that matter - any other empire, was benign

That only indicates that you have not bothered to check with the historians. You live in UK, get the school books of history and read it. Read up on the historian named Fergusson.

[surinder]

Surinder ji, what about the shool (sooli in Hindi)? Is that Turkic introduction? I am not sure. OT, though.

I am afraid I don't quite know. If the Indian historians were not asleep, you would not have to ask me, nor would I be scratching my head. Some historians need to research it and bring out in the mainstream.

[Lalmohan]

here we go again with the selective reading!

[surinder]

here we go again with the selective reading!

Well, walk up to any UKstani and ask them piont blank: "Do you think UK was wrong in causing the death of 20 million in famines, and 1 million in partition riots." "Do you think it is OK to live off the riches extracted out of the 200 years of Indian slavery?". Ask them if they think that "Are the British better than the Nazis?".

Report back then.

[Abhi_G]

Lalmohan ji, the point is that the marks of torture by foreign invaders is very much there. We may move on but we cannot forget. I know you are not denying that. But the very fact of saying that the Brits did something good sets a motion of dialectical argument between Indics. The Brits and other invaders and those who have future imperialistic ambitions on India actually scoff at that and worse still will take advantage of that. A very common e.g., is the destruction of some viharas by one Harsha of Kashmir and you know the amount of debate it has generated and where the energy of the Indic has gone. This continuous cycle of debate gives incendiary to our enemies. The Brits may have given democracy, employment and railways but for a moment we can become a bit less Dharmic with those who never knew the concept of Dharma. We can safely stop talking about der (Surinderji used this acronym) and keep highlighting their atrocities. For they spare no chance to castigate India. I recently read about philip's comments at Jalianwala Bagh in 1997. It made me obnoxious.