Was the expansion of the British empire justified?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Now, I come from India, which means that like every other Indian kid, I was brought up with the notion that the British rule was nothing but evil. That they were blood-sucking parasites, who would do anything for money. This is not to say that I agree with any of this. As you grow up, you can start to not be a plagiarist , and form an opinion of your own. Through the 170 years of their rule, the englishmen brought about a lot of developments, which enriched the Indian socio-economical structure. The world's largest railway web, the countless english schools, the roads, the hospitals and what not. If it weren't for them, english would still be alien to us, and we'd be in a whole different world today ( for one, I wouldn't be a Maidenfan [!--emo&:)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'smile.gif\' /][!--endemo--]). It'd be appropriate to say that they brought about a cultural revolution, slow as it was, which still exists in India.

But the British rule was clearly racist. The Indians were not allowed to sit for civil services exams. They didn't care much if the illiterate and hardworking Indians lived or died. They used to cut a huge amount of the Indians' income in the name of tax. The poorest ones were the most downtrodden. The riches weren't too happy either. They had a lot of money, but almost no power. Everything was done according to the Britisher's will. And there was nowhere to look for help either. Almost all the powerful countries were influenced by the British empire. So, we had to take matters in our hands. The Indian mutiny was astronomical in terms of duration and sacrifices. But that made them stiffen the rule further. The result: barbaric assaults, gunfires ( the Jaliyanwala Bagh), and more resentment.

We all know how it ended ( with the change of rule in England and the Indo-Pak split, whose by-product was hundreds of thousands of deaths), but my concern is, what was the view prevelent in England reguarding all this; I'm sure there must've been some major disagreements with some human-rights activists and in general, the more sensitive english layman.

And 58 years later, how this whole story is percieved in England. What does an average English teenager feel about all this? I know that today, a big part of English population is Indian ( around 2 million? ) and they are prospering there big-time, but how are they seen by the British (If 'Bend it Like Beckham' is anything to go by, there is essentially no difference between the two races, 'xept for the color of the skin)?

I eagerly look forward to your views, so do a lot of people back here in India.
 
ummm....I think you learned a much different version of British history than I did.

Allow me to debunk a few things for you.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Through the 170 years of their rule, the englishmen brought about a lot of developments, which enriched the Indian socio-economical structure. The world's largest railway web, the countless english schools, the roads, the hospitals and what not. It'd be appropriate to say that they brought about a cultural revolution, slow as it was, which still exists in India. [/quote]
All very true. But the Indian supcontinent has had a long history of foriegn rulers. The British merely did it better than most. They were the only power able to finally unite the Indian subcontinent under a single ruler. They took a collection of principalities, tribes, and the crumbling Mughul Empire, and turned it into a relatively modern and prosperous country (compare the ex-British colonies in Africa)

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]But the British rule was clearly racist.[/quote]
Well, yes. But so was the rest of the world at the time. This does not, of course, excuse it, but it does help to understand it. Things in India were not nearly as bad as they could have been. (Again, compare the treatment of native Africans by Frencha dn British colonizers)

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Indians were not allowed to sit for civil services exams. They didn't care much if the illiterate and hardworking Indians lived or died. They used to cut a huge amount of the Indians' income in the name of tax. [/quote]
The British Empire in India had a HUGE Indian civil service! there were only arouunf 600 or so British government officials. They supervised a truly gigantic Indian civil service that ran the day-to-day affairs of the colony. This large body of highly trained civil servants allowed India's independance to be transfered relatively smoothly. There were native Indians who knew how to run the couuntry. Again, compare this to Africa where the British ran things themselves. The Africans didn't have a clue how to run a country once the British left, and civil wars and ethnic killings have resulted there.
As for income tax, that's a fact of life everywhere [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]


[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The poorest ones were the most downtrodden. The riches weren't too happy either. They had a lot of money, but almost no power. Everything was done according to the Britisher's will. [/quote]
That's what being part of an empire means....the rulers make the rules.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]And there was nowhere to look for help either.
Almost all the powerful countries were influenced by the British empire. [/quote]
Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves....

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]So, we had to take matters in our hands.
The Indian mutiny was astronomical in terms of duration and sacrifices. But that made them stiffen the rule further. The result: barbaric assaults, gunfires ( the Jaliyanwala Bagh), and more resentment. [/quote]
As I recall, the major revolt in the 19th century against the Raj was sparked off by a cultural misunderstanding. The army in India consisted of a British-born officer corps and an Hindu/Muslim enlisted body. The packages in which the cartridges cam were waterproofed with animal fat to keep them dry. Naturally, the Hindus and Muslims were nervous about the fat being from beef or pork.....and they revolted against their officers. Many lives were lost on both sides. (Of note, this is the rebellion that shocked the world because of the infamous Balck Hole of Calcutta. Around 140 British officers and civillians were forced by Indians into a 12'x15' room overnight......barely 20 surrvived.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]We all know how it ended ( with the change of rule in England and the Indo-Pak split, whose by-product was hundreds of thousands of deaths), [/quote]
Splitting the Indian subcontinent along cultural lines was probably the biggest favour the British ever did for India. The Muslims had Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and the Hindus had India. Compare this to the arbitrary borders drawn up in Africa by the British, French, Belgian, and German colonizers. They had no basis in historical, cultural, or ethnic fact. In Africa, many tribes found their lands strattling 2, 3 or even 4 different countries. The resulting wars have been far more bloody than and India-Pakistan conflict. Read about Rwanda's little ethnic war, for instance.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]but my concern is, what was the view prevelent in England reguarding all this; I'm sure there must've been some major disagreements with some human-rights activists and in general, the more sensitive english layman.

And 58 years later, how this whole story is percieved in England. What does an average English teenager feel about all this? I know that today, a big part of English population is Indian ( around 2 million? ) and they are prospering there big-time, but how are they seen by the British (If 'Bend it Like Beckham' is anything to go by, there is essentially no difference between the two races, 'xept for the color of the skin)?

I eagerly look forward to your views, so do a lot of people back here in India. [/quote]

Well, I'm neither British nor a teenager. But I am a British subject, and quite proudly so. (I'm 20 years old and Canadian, for the record)

From my personal point of view, the British occupation of India was, in the long run, good. India had so much potential, it just took a little bit of outside pushing to help Indians themselves realize it. The occupation of the Indian subcontinent produced leaders like Jinnah, Nehru, and, of course, Ghandi. because of the British Raj, India is united for the first time in its 5000 year history.
Canada has a huge population of Indians (not to be confused with our aboriginal peoples, misnomered 'Indians' by Columbus!). They are just like the rest of us....you get soem good people and some assholes. I try to look beyond skin.

DISCLAIMER- This reply was written from memory. If you disagree with some fact, point it out to me and I'll check it in my sources later. Also, I have more typos than usual because it's 2:15am here.
 
Here's more information about the [a href=\'http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mblackhole.html\' target=\'_blank\']Black Hole of Calcutta[/a].
 
IronDuke, thanks for such a comprehensive assessment of the post. Frankly, I am a little embarresed for stating the fact about "civil services" wrongly. But there was a time when Indians below a certain income-level were forbidden to take the exam. Anyway, thanks for correcting me. One of the purpose of discussing such things with an outsider is that you get an impartial point of view, and hence the facts are straightened out.

Also, I would like to mention that the intent of this post is not to arouse a historical debate, but to relate the past with current perspective and the changes being brought about in the way people think about each-other. But since that's where it seems to be headed, let me clear some things out.

Now, down to business (heh-heh).
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Indian subcontinent has had a long history of foriegn rulers. The British merely did it better than most. They were the only power able to finally unite the Indian subcontinent under a single ruler. They took a collection of principalities, tribes, and the crumbling Mughul Empire, and turned it into a relatively modern and prosperous country (compare the ex-British colonies in Africa)[/quote]

Totally agree.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]That's what being part of an empire means....the rulers make the rules.[/quote]

Yes, the rulers make the rules. But the rules have to be somewhere near humane. Also, most of the governers didn't know a thing about the difficulties that the Indian farmers and labourers faced. If they had shown a little more faith in the Indian elite, things wouldn't have taken such a bad shape in the coming years. Comparing Indians to Africans is not very logical, since Indians were a lot more civilised and educated ( on an average ) than the tribal africans. And comparing a bad deed to an even worse one doesn't do anything to justify the bad one.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]the major revolt in the 19th century against the Raj was sparked off by a cultural misunderstanding.[/quote]

Let me assure you, that "misunderstanding" was just an excuse. The real motive was what paid-off years later.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]the infamous Balck Hole of Calcutta.[/quote]

Ah.. the myth that has carried the rule. Why did I see that coming? Here is a link to [a href=\'http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mblackhole.html\' target=\'_blank\']The Straight Dope [/a] webpage that'll get your facts straight.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Splitting the Indian subcontinent along cultural lines was probably the biggest favour the British ever did for India. [/quote]

I didn't intend for this discussion to be political, rather more of a mutual exchange of perspectives. So, I will not go into this. But, for those interested, [a href=\'http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2074,subcat-POLITICS.html\' target=\'_blank\']here[/a] is a link that'll put more light on the matter.

Finally, thanks a lot for the attention. I know a few people in Canada. If I happen to visit them, I hope I get to meet you. And yeah, UP THE IRONS!!:rock:
 
No, that's fine.. I can see why you would be a little offended by my first post, too. But I was just mentioning the facts. But honestly, I was expecting LooseCannon to be the one that gets back [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--].

For a major part of the Indian struggle, people back in England weren't aware of the going-ons in India. Some who were, didn't put too much weight to it. That explains the way some of the events took the world by"shock"- they didn't know what was cooking. The media, at that time was very different from today- just the newspapers. The press was in the business for making money, and India was not what people wanted to read about. But as it goes, if people don't hear you, scream. After WWI, the Indian people's faith in the British rule ( raj as they called it ) was diminishing. That's basically the time when the downfall of the British Empire begun.

It seems that people don't really have much to say about this. I'm sure there are some people on the forum whose country has been under the British rule. If they have something to share with us, that's welcome.
 
The Duke is the one to look to for British history. I'm more of a modern Europe person, and a bit of the ancient stuff.
 
Before WWI, even Gandhi thought of the British rule as something good for India. He lost that idea when the British did not treat the Indians appropriately after their services in the war. I just wanted to throw that in.
I could go on about imperialism, but I'm not from Britain, but from Germany. The Germans commited a lot of atroctities in imperialism that should be looked upon too, but that is not the topic of this thread.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jun 12 2004, 08:29 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jun 12 2004, 08:29 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Before WWI, even Gandhi thought of the British rule as something good for India. He lost that idea when the British did not treat the Indians appropriately after their services in the war. I just wanted to throw that in.
I could go on about imperialism, but I'm not from Britain, but from Germany. The Germans commited a lot of atroctities in imperialism that should be looked upon too, but that is not the topic of this thread. [/quote]
Why isn't it? Germany was a latecomer to the Imperialist race, therefore they took all their examples from the greatest imperial power, Britain. Watch how the student learned to see how the teacher behaved.
 
There was no practical need for German imperialism; in the imperialist sense (i.e. natural ressources, places of strategical interest) they ate from the trash can, to use a particularly graphic metaphor (as said, this is in the imperialist sense, it by no means tries to say a word about the countries or the people who live(d) there). They got what no-one else wanted. The only colonies which were of at least some imperialist interest were East Africa (Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi) and Kiautchou (the area around Tsingtao), to lesser extent also Cameroon and Samoa. All others merely gave the Germans presence in the concerning territories.
The use the colonies had for Germany were different. Wilhelm II used them as a valid excuse for building a great fleet. They also gave something of a boost to nationalism in Germany after inner political peace was torn apart by the quarrels between Bismarck's government and the Social Democrats and the Catholics. Politically seen, the colonies were a means, not an end.
Germany did a bit good for the colonies; infrastructure was established (example: The German-built railroad in Togo is still in use today, and it is still the only one) and there was at least something similar to wealth for some of the natives. A lot of natives were loyal to Germany (the famed Askari units, local military-police, were a loyal and tough military unit).
But all this cannot give counterweight to the genocides (yes, it was a genocide, no matter what German nationalists will tell you) in South West Africa (Namibia) and the South Seas (unknown today, the entire population of the island of Luf vanished, their only legacy being an impressive boat in the ethnological museum of Berlin).

Please give me some time because I've really got school stress right now. If you can wait for a week, I'll give you a detailed article on German imperialism. Until then, you can enjoy my two articles on the histories of Nauru and Samoa, which contain detailed descriptions on what the Germans did to these islands, at [a href=\'http://www.sanctuary.co.nr\' target=\'_blank\']http://www.sanctuary.co.nr[/a]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Silver Wings+Jun 13 2004, 06:56 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silver Wings @ Jun 13 2004, 06:56 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Shouldn´t you be more worried about pakistan right now? [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--] [/quote]
[!--emo&:eek:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/ohmy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'ohmy.gif\' /][!--endemo--] [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Silver Wings, if you were talking to me, then let me say once again, the intent of this post was not arouse any sort of debate upon who is right or wrong, but rather to get a personal point-of-view on the topic. I was impressed by the insights and interpretations of some people on these forums about historical events and what we learn from them. That's the whole point of discussing history, for if you don't learn from your past mistakes, then from where else?

As for Pakistan, I don't think you know the first thing about the matter. Me "worrying" about it isn't gonna make much of a difference. It is a very sensitive issue prevailing in the subcontinent for more than 50 years now. But things are starting to look better for a past few years.

Racism isn't something which is exclusive to our country. Such things almost never fade away, but have to be kept dealing with all the time. And wisely, too. Maybe a healthy exchange of ideas across countries through such forms is one way of doing that. But if that's too hard for you to do, then maybe you should just mind your own business.
 
Having actually done some research on this topic now, I would argue that the expansion of the British Empire was neither justified or unjustified.

I say this because of all the previous expansions that occupied India, (Persia and Mogols, Ironduke?). Their rule was no different and they kept the status quo because they did not control India long enough to change the running of it.

Therefore the only difference (ok, very arguably) between the sides was that Great Britain was the only country that managed to maintain power, that is until the 20th century (again im a little shaky on when India gained independence). Therefore anything new in Britain would be inevitably brought to India, where it was developed.

As far as living in perpetual wealth goes, certainly the British lived in it. But so did the rulers who had come before. It was from India's Treasury (in a very roundabout way) itself that the Co Y Neur (spelling?) was taken. This diamond was cut and used by Queen Victoria as the Crown Jewels' centrepiece.

So I would not argue that the British were injust - I imagine it doesnt help much that I am a Brit.
 
Quick thing, the Mongols never ruled India, but the "Mughals" sure did. In fact, they were the ones that were ruling when the British started making their influence. And that diamond you were talking about is "Kohinoor", drawn from urdu "kohi" and "noor", meaning "mountain" and "light" respectively, so "mountain of light".
 
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Mogols[/quote]

I spelt it how I would pronounce it, again I was not sure on the spelling. Mughals..... Yes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top