Nuanced understanding of British Colonialism

22 thoughts on “Nuanced understanding of British Colonialism”

1. A few quick thoughts:

   England “liberated India from Islamist rule”. I think we have discussed numerous times on this blog that it is factually wrong to label the Mughals as “Islamists”. You have displayed a nuanced thinking about Islam in other comments so I don’t know why you keep doing this. The Mughals weren’t driven by political Islam in the modern sense, they were trying to run an empire. Some of them were even quasi-Hindu and I think all of them celebrated Holi and Diwali. You have mentioned you are a fan of Dara Shikoh and Jahanara Begum. In what world do they qualify as Islamists? Islamists don’t translate the Mahabharata into Persian. Most conservative Muslims I know wouldn’t be caught dead near the Mahabharata, let alone translate it.
   In any case by the time the British arrived, Mughal rule was fragmenting and large parts of India were ruled by Hindus. The Marathas for one. The Sikhs were ruling Punjab. In an alternate universe without the British arrival, it is possible the Maratha Empire would have taken over more parts of India. A native Hindu dynasty ruling Bharat Mata– wouldn’t that have been nice?

   The British may have “united India” into a single country (Vikram would say you are being a “woke Hindu” in this remark). But then, they broke it also. So that kind of neutralizes that.

   Overall, I think it is fair to say that Western colonialism was not a super positive experience for the colonized. The colonizers acted in their own interests– maximizing the extraction of resources to the mother country. There were some positive byproducts of this, such as the Indian railway system (my late grandfather started his career in the Indian railways and subsequently retired from the Pakistan railways) and the fact that Indians and Pakistanis are more comfortable in English than people from some other countries. The legal system is nice too (though Section 377 is a British thing). But I don’t think people would trade away the right of self-determination for this. Self-determination is now considered a basic human right under the UN charter.

   1. Dara Shikoh and Jahanara Begum were great Sufis and not islamists. Sadly they lost to Aurangzeb.
      🙁

      Aurangzeb was an Islamist who slaughtered huge numbers of Shia, Sufi, Sikhs and Hindus. And yes I have read many authors and historians who liked Aurangzeb too. I recognize that one third of his senior nobles were Hindus; but all the good things he did cannot undo the bad.

      1. Again, “Islamist” is a 20th century term which has a 20th century meaning. Applying it to the 16th century is bad history. No professional historian worth his salt would do this.

         Aurangzeb apparently endowed many Hindu temples.

         ” Historian and principal of Serveshwari Degree College Pradeep Kesherwani made this claim based on certain historical facts. “During one of his military campaigns, Aurangzeb and his army had spent time near the temple. During the stay, he not only visited the temple but also offered grant and land for its maintenance. This fact is mentioned on the ‘Dharma Dand’ (religious pillar) situated on the temple premises,” Kesherwani told TOI. ”
         https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Aurangzeb-gave-temples-grants-land-Historian/articleshow/48940506.cms

         Aurangzeb was definitely more Orthodox than Akbar (or Dara) but he was by no means Al Qaida or something like that.

         1. Yes orthodox by the standards of the syncretic standards

         2. Good point

         3. “Aurangzeb was definitely more Orthodox than Akbar (or Dara) but he was by no means Al Qaida or something like that.”

            Just paused to check about Kashmiri Pundits and the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur. Trying to figure what is nuanced and what is spin.

            1. While you try to figure that out, you would at least concede that using a 20th century term such as “Islamist” for a 17th century ruler is a bit strange?

               “Islamist” is used for the Taliban, AQ, groups like that. Words have specific meanings. Terms can’t be applied so loosely that they lose all sense.

               From Wikipedia:
               “Other scholars point out that Aurangzeb also built many temples, Ian Copland says that he built more temples than he destroyed.[17] However, scholars like Ram Puniyani states that Aurangzeb was not always fanatically anti-Hindu, and kept changing his policies depending on the needs of the situation. He banned the construction of new temples, but permitted the repair and maintenance of existing temples. He also made generous donations of jagirs to several temples to win the sympathies of his Hindu subjects. There are several firmans (orders) in his name, supporting temples and gurudwaras, including Mahakaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umananda Temple of Guwahati and the Shatrunjaya Jain temples.[70]”

               Doesn’t sound like an “Islamist” to me. Though he was certainly a conservative Muslim and an authoritarian ruler.

            2. Yes it’s classic Hindutva to insult our ancestors..

            3. From Wikipedia: “Other scholars point out that Aurangzeb also built many temples, Ian Copland says that he built more temples than he destroyed.[17] However, scholars like Ram Puniyani states that Aurangzeb was not always fanatically anti-Hindu, and kept changing his policies depending on the needs of the situation. He banned the construction of new temples, but permitted the repair and maintenance of existing temples. He also made generous donations of jagirs to several temples to win the sympathies of his Hindu subjects. There are several firmans (orders) in his name, supporting temples and gurudwaras, including Mahakaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umananda Temple of Guwahati and the Shatrunjaya Jain temples.[70]”

               Just by reading this paragraph from Wiki one gets the impression that Aurangzeb was a patron of Hindu religion, culture and arts. Is that the way he wants to be remembered? 🙂

2. Kabir, I am open to changing my mind on the English saving India from Islamism based on new information.

   I consider the Sufi Bahadur Shah to be pro Sikh/Shia/Hindu and the last good strong Mughal emperor. I consider the Sayyid Brothers to be very negative. What do you think of the Mughal emperor Muhammed Shah? From 1739 onward the Mughal Empire and India were Persian protectorates. While I like Nader Shah in general, do not consider him an Islamist, and admire his role in saving Iraq from Salafi crazy wackos who wanted to destroy Najaf, Kerbala, Shiaism, Sufism and Kurdistan; he wasn’t nice to Indians. He sacked Delhi, slaughtered many Indians, and stole more money from Indians than the English ever did. Nader Shah is one of the reasons Indians turned to the English. From 1747, the Mughal Empire and India were Afghan protectorates.

   The third battle of Panipat in 1761 was one of the worst days in world history. No one knows how many died but it might have been hundreds of thousands. That was the day India was broken; and the honor of Marathas shattered in my eyes. To their eternal shame the Marathas allied with Salafi crazies. This caused the Nawab of Audh Shuja-ud-Daula to understandably switch from the Marathas to the Afghans.

   I consider Siraj ud-Daulah, Mir Qasim and Tipu Sultan to be Islamists.

   Tipu Sultan engaged in terrible atrocities that outraged his French advisers according to their letters. Despite Tipu’s tolerance of Shia and consultation with Sufis, Tipu engaged in horrible acts . . . which puzzles me. Tipu’s PM and people sided with the British East India Company against him during Tipu’s fall in 1799.

   In 1803-1805 the British East India Company was invited to help a faction in the Maratha civil war. This Maratha Civil War had no clear good guys or heroes. There was no one for a patriot to fight for. And so the accidental empire was formed.

   This sequence of events left the British East India Company as the dominant power in South Asia and the opaque nontransparent puppet master behind the rump Mughal orifice in 1805.

   South Asia had no clear lines of authority or accountability; the worst of all worlds for Indians. There were no qualified worthy Indian institutions to assume responsibility for India. At this point the Crown should have immediately assumed control of India (as they would later do in 1858) and start building strong pan Indian institutions in preparation for greater Indian capacity, self reliance and eventual full Indian sovereignty. English common law should have replaced Mughal Shariah law many decades sooner. Of course this didn’t happen. Many things that should have happened did not.

   However, there were many great Englishmen who I greatly admire, including William Ewart Gladstone. I see people as people, regardless of their nationality.

   1. From what I know about Muhammad Shah “Rangila”, he was a pretty cool guy. Like I mentioned in my essay, it was under his rule that Sadarang and Adarang invented khayal. The fact that he is known as “Rangila” also says a lot.

      Regarding the power (or lack thereof) of the Mughals, there is a famous couplet that goes:
      “Sultanat-e-Shah Alam
      Az Dilli ta Palam”
      (The kingdom of Shah Alam is from Delhi to Palam)
      Given that Palam is only 15 kms from Delhi, that says a lot about the effective power of the Mughals.

      I don’t think the British were interested in full Indian sovereignty. That’s not how 19th century colonialism worked. European colonial empires only broke up after World War II because they became unsustainable for the European powers–not because these powers suddenly developed some moral qualms. The Brits resisted leaving “the jewel in the crown” for a long time. The French only let Algeria go in the 1960s.

      I agree about seeing people as people. Some of the English even went “native” and became known as “white Mughals”.

      See this book:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mughals
      It’s about the relationship between James Achilles Kirkpatrick (The East India Company Resident in Hyderabad) and Khair-un-Nissa Begum. At this point in history, apparently one in three British men in India was married to an Indian woman. I don’t know how Indians are supposed to feel about that (some could view it as sexual exploitation) but clearly the firm separation between ruler and ruled only developed later, as evidenced by the building of Civil Lines and Cantonments outside the “native town”.

      1. I like most of the Anglos (White Mughals and their descendant). I have no issues with Indians voluntarily marrying Anglos and regard these as unions of equals. And I like Kirkpatrick and many other Anglos who lived long in India; and ran many colleges, schools and civil society institutions.

         This said, pan British Indian institutions (such as the ICS, Indian Army, Indian Police, Indian judiciary, Indian Railways etc.) and Indian civil society institutions should have had completely merit based promotions right from the beginning; allowing Indians to be promoted to the top of these organizations.

         The British could have and should have governed India so much better than they in fact did.

   2. “I consider Siraj ud-Daulah, Mir Qasim and Tipu Sultan to be Islamists.”

      What about the Nizam of Hyderabad Deccan who controlled a large area?

      1. The UK supported a corrupt semi incompetent ruler by supporting the Nizam and Shariah law. The Nizam’s economic policies were horrendous for his people. His governance institutions were subpar at best. The Nizam was the last remnant of the Mughal empire in India. But strange as it sounds, I am nostalgic about the fall of the Nizam in 1948 and the final end of the Mughals. Some Indians see the Nizams as traitor for supporting the UK for two centuries but I don’t think this is a complete picture. Perhaps the Nizam acted in the interests of his Andhra and Urdu people by acting as he did.

         The Nizam was far more tolerant and less Islamist than Tipu Sultan and generally well intentioned.

         History is bitter sweet. That is the irony of Itihasa. We love the flawed leaders of the past in spite of their many imperfections.

         India was full of kingdoms that voluntarily allied with the English; including the Nizam, Mughals, Travancore, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikhim, Bangalore, Kashmir (formerly a protectorate of Afghanistan). This gave the English presence some legitimacy and is yet another demonstration that Indians gave the English power in India. Most Indians to the degree they had agency voluntarily supported and worked with the English in the 1700s and 1800s. English legitimacy and the English informal social contract with Indians were not broken until after WWI, when the English refused to give dominion status as implicitly promised.

         I need to look up the exact quote; but Swami Vivekananda said that a country that cannot manufacture needles (and needed to import them) did not deserve independence. I agree with Swami Vivekananda on this. Independence, competence and capacity cannot be given; but must be earned. After competence and capacity are earned and developed, independence follows naturally. Indians are mostly responsible for not increasing Indian capacity and competence during
         English rule.

         Of course, I also strongly blame the English for many reasons described above; but most of all for their negative colonization of the Indian mind, and minds of their African colonial subjects; which is the main point of the article.

3. I hope we can reach a point where we can look at the English, for all their indifference in the face of our ancestors’ failure, and take it for what it was, a people showing remarkable creativity, initiative, and ambition , subduing a continent over the course of generations. They were impressive, we weren’t. I’ll always look back and root for my own ancestors, but they lost because they got beat by a better team. There’s nothing to feel regret or gratitude for. It’s a bit disappointing that for all those 4-5 generations of British subjecthood we only viewed the master superficially, were awed by their organization and industry but never understood the English soul, let alone experience the higher planes of Western Civilization.

4. “re-uniting India into a single united country”

   I presume you mean the geographical India, and not the nation India. Because there was no Indian nation in a political sense before the arrival of Gandhi and the independence movement.

   Even in the war of 1857, all Rajput and Sikh states allied with the British against the mutineers and the Marathas.

   1. Vikram I have significantly studied the 1856-1858 Sepoy Mutiny. The British didn’t win the war; the Indians who sided with the British won the war. And most Indians who supported the British believed in the British. Yet another reason that Indians chose the British and had agency.

      What is with fair skin worship in Asia? This is the fault and weakness of Asians rather than the English.

      Girmit, the English were impressive and they should have been admired and everyone else should have learned from the English. Sadly Indians didn’t learn from the English and weren’t inspired to transform themselves into greatness by the English as much as engaging in fair skin worship and inferiority complex. This is partly the fault of the English but mostly the fault of Indians. Colonial subjects always have agency and are always responsible for their own fate. I am not someone who blames all our problems on “them foreigners.” I find this “attitude” completely deplorable.

      “They were impressive” 100% agreed
      “we weren’t.” Most Bharatiyas weren’t. But we should remember that some Bharatiyas thrived during British rule (which they believed was better than what preceded the British) and most of these Bharatiyas focused on surging the capacity and competence of fellow Bharatiyas because they understood that Bharatiyas were not yet collectively ready for full self reliance, self governance and independence.

      “I’ll always look back and root for my own ancestors, but they lost because they got beat by a better team.” I don’t think they got beaten. They chose to put the British in power or keep the British in power because they believed this was the best way to help Indians in the short term.

      “There’s nothing to feel regret or gratitude for.” Regret for the mistakes of our ancestors is not helpful, but learning from their mistakes is. We should always feel gratitude to those who lived long ago.

      “It’s a bit disappointing that for all those 4-5 generations of British subjecthood we only viewed the master superficially, were awed by their organization and industry but never understood the English soul, let alone experience the higher planes of Western Civilization.” I think many competent Indians did understand the English soul, experienced the higher planes of Western Civilization, and had deep relationships with Anglos. But most sadly most Indians did not.
5. Pingback: Why do English nonmuslims treat English muslims so badly? – Brown Pundits

6. Here are some Indian perspectives on colonialism:
   http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/rammohan-roy-vivekananda-and-tagore-on-british-rule.html

   A quote from Vivekananda on the British:
   “No one ever landed on English soil with more hatred in his heart for a race than I did for the English, and on this platform are present English friends who can bear witness to the fact, but the more I lived among them and saw how the machine was working – the English national life- and mixed with them, I found where the heartbeat of the nation was, and the more I loved them. There is none among here present, any brothers, who loves English more than I do now”

7. More Vivekananda quotes:
   “―India has to learn from Europe the conquest of external nature, and Europe has to learn from India the conquest of internal nature.‖
   ―You have not the capacity to manufacture a needle and you dare to criticize the English,
   – fools! Sit at their feet and learn from them the arts, industries and the practicality necessary for the struggle of existence.‖
   ―They (Western people) will, no doubt, be your Guru regarding practical sciences etc., for the improvement of material conditions, and the people of our country will be their Guru in everything pertaining to religion.‖
   ―It would be better if the people got a little technical education that they might find work and earn their bread, instead of dawdling about and crying for service.‖
   ―If I can get some unmarried graduates, I may try to send them over to Japan and make arrangements for their technical education there, so that when they come back, they may turn their knowledge to the best account for India. What a good thing will that be!… There, in Japan, you find a fine assimilation of knowledge, and not its indigestion as we have here. They have taken everything from the Europeans, but they remain Japanese all the same, and have not turned European.‖

   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317253026_Economic_Thoughts_of_Swami_Vivekananda
   Vivekananda, S.. The Complete Works of the Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 1. Advaita Ashram, 1915.
   Ashokananda, “The Economic Views of Swami Vivekananda”. Prabuddha Bharata. November, 1930.

   I completely 100% agree with these quotes from Swami Vivekananda. We need to learn the best aspects of others while remaining true to ourselves; and being careful not to ingest structuralism, post modernism, intersectionality.
8. Pingback: Intellectual Dark Web – Brown Pundits
9. Pingback: What the world can do to help Palestine? – Brown Pundits

Comments are closed.