Ummm, there are/were different aspects to it and the changing in attitude/outlook towards women, changing mindset was one and the way BBC had gone about it and what was their real/hidden purpose was other and few of us had problems with BBC approach. Anyway, that's off topic and was discussed to lengths that time.
Colonialism in the subcontinent thread
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Stop derailing the topic, yes bbc and other western media have an agenda. Doesnt excuse some of us though.
Guardian caters to the entire spectrum of lefties here. That includes all the loonies up north that you see in comments and all three of their educated leftie comrades.
Even the loonies on the right spout the same nonsense in DM, so it appears it is more common than we have been led to believe.
Its not just western media, your own was fully complicit in it.
Yeah DM is worse but its simply not possible to draw a conclusion on opinions of masses from few hundred commentors.
These comments are entertaining, specially the aid ones. Long may it continue
Btw did anyone notice the british media didn't cover India launching there satellites into space while it had news concerning India from some obscure town.
Yeah you're proud of launching a satellite into space, while women are treated as second class citizens and subjugated. Raped, forced into marriage or having acid thrown in their faces if they so much as dare to choose how they live their lives themselves. British colonialism may have done a lot wrong in the countries it governed but it's not responsible for all of India's problems; other former British colonies don't treat their women in this way. Maybe you should scrap the space programme while you concentrate on bringing the poor out of poverty and slums and change the culture to treat women as human beings as opposed to property?
I don't really see what the relevance of the fertiliser comment is, the Indian economy is booming and it is an incentive to Indian farmers to increase productivity; it's an economic measure. The UK pays out billions in foreign aid every year. Frankly the ending sentiment summed the whole argument up in the video you praise so highly; it's not the money, it's the principle.
While I don't pretend to speak for @VidaRed, allow me to answer this. I see a lot of Brits talk about this.
1. The space programme is a tool of scientific advancement. Science is not restricted to only the rich countries. Further, we were talking about ISRO (our space agency) launching 5 British satellites earlier today; ISRO is earning quite a lot from commercial space operations. Apart from this, I also read somewhere that space satellites have helped in disaster relief measures in the event of cyclones and the like. Your Brits seem to love to pontificate on the space programme, but the fact is that the cost involved is a drop in the ocean and the programme earns a lot by itself through commercial operations.
2. How is the fact that India has a problem with gender equality, that some people have forced marriages, that rapes occur or sexual assault occurs, how is it in any way relevant to the topic being discussed? Kindly tell me, which Indian poster on this thread blamed Britain for that? It was you who came up with it.
3. What nonsense is this? Other British colonies didn't behave this way? Do you think patriarchy exists only in India? That is such an offensive thing to say. Rape doesn't occur in Britain, forced marriages, sexual assault do not occur in Britain? How ridiculous!
4. What the feck does the space programme have to do with gender equality and poverty?
You clearly didn't get it. Manure is used as fertilizer. Again, as tiresome as this is, the aid is 0.4% of our GDP; I've read somewhere that in fact the Indian government has been asking your government to stop it but your lot wants it to continue. So if you are going to rant about aid, talk to your MP, not Indians.
Lots of nonsense here, TH. Yes there are problems with how women are treated and there is a need of change in mindset and yes western world is more advanced and liberal in their thinking in general when it comes to gender equality but it is absolute bullshit to put it the way you have done, generalizing as if those things happen with women every now and then. Just look up the rape data globally and see which countries have highest % of rapes. Even if we say that many cases in India might not get reported, similar can be case in other countries and even without that the gap is huge.
@My Indian friends here, this is what I was pointing out about the BBC documentary, its actual effects and how it is not actually off topic now. This is what it does to mindset of people in other countries and their outlook towards India. Do we have problem, yes,a serious one. Is western world a place where rapes don't happen? No. If I look at the data on rape, do western countries create so many documentaries on it and telecast worldwide? Do they break rules and bribe the rapist to give interview like they did here?
There are still people in Western world who think we ride elephants daily and snake charmers can be found anywhere, even in big cities, never mind it has been banned for some time now.
About the foreign aid, it will hardly matter to India if UK stops it.
Classic. Comedy at it's best.
That's actually a pretty absurd thing to say.
Firstly, every country has its problems. And while while women's safety ranks very highly in my head as to what our priorities as a nation should be, that doesn't mean we don't have achievements and it is the only thing that defines us. This country has been moving forward and upward for awhile now. We're growing economically, globally and have a innovative and hard working young population that is extremely driven. The fact that you reduce all of it down just to women's safety issues shows pretty poorly on your part.
Secondly, it's a problem that's being worked on. And it's easier said than done as its a mindset issue that the establishment has to solve. And as horrible as it is, it's better than having a history marred with occupation, murder and racism, not of people, but of populations, by the frickin establishment itself.
I'm an indeed proud when my country does achieve something. I am also ashamed when there's a reason to be. Is Britain ashamed of its past? Or feels okay about it because it built a few schools?
Last edited:
I (not British) found out that I know almost nothing about the history of the Indian sub-continent. Can anyone recommend a decent introduction to the topic? It shouldn´t be only about the British rule, but also about the time before.
I've found Nehru's Discovery of India to be a fascinating introduction to Indian history. I've read it something like 6-7 times. It starts from the Indus Valley Civilization down to the British Raj.
Then there's The Wonder that Was India by AL Basham. This book talks about ancient India, Harappa, Mohenjadaro, ancient Indian texts, the Aryan Invasion Theory(which is now controversial since it is disputed by many people).
There's also my personal favourite, the book on India by the Arab traveller Alberuni. This book is fascinating. Alberuni was a traveller who came to India at the behest of the Persian King in the 10th or 11th Century, I don't quite remember the exact date. There are many discussions on topics as varied as philosophy, history, science, religion, etc.
You also have many other books. William Dalrymple has written many books on Mughal India, the most famous being The Last Mughal on Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Last Mughal King, who was the figurehead behind the First War of Independence in 1857. Then you have Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian which talks about Indian history and India's cultural identity.
If you're interested, there's also Kautilya's Arthashastra. Kaultilya or Chanakya was one of the intellectuals of the ancient Mauryan Empire, one of the biggest empires in Indian history. It is a book on statesmanship, economy, war; basically it talks about the entire setup of government during the Mauryan time. Of course there are plenty more that I've not included, these are the ones I've read since I was a kid.
@PedroMendez I'm pretty ignorant on much of South American history. Most of all I know is the modern history of the continent, i.e., early 20th Century onwards. I've been searching for a good book forever, could you do me the favour of recommending some for me?
@redindian1987
thank you for your response. That is really helpful. I already ordered the book from Nehru as a starting point. I´ll look into the other ones afterwards. I really appreciate your help. Sadly I can´t return the favour in similar sophisticated fashion. I am not from Latin America and I am not confident enough to make any bold recommendation. Still you can´t go wrong with Eduardo Galeano, because he is a brilliant writer. "Open Veins of Latin America" and his "memory of fire" trilogy are both great (from a fairly leftish perspective, but that itself is part of the latin american culture). Born in Blood & Fire from Chasteen is decent, but its a fairly random suggestion, because I don´t know how it compares to similar books.
thank you for your response. That is really helpful. I already ordered the book from Nehru as a starting point. I´ll look into the other ones afterwards. I really appreciate your help. Sadly I can´t return the favour in similar sophisticated fashion. I am not from Latin America and I am not confident enough to make any bold recommendation. Still you can´t go wrong with Eduardo Galeano, because he is a brilliant writer. "Open Veins of Latin America" and his "memory of fire" trilogy are both great (from a fairly leftish perspective, but that itself is part of the latin american culture). Born in Blood & Fire from Chasteen is decent, but its a fairly random suggestion, because I don´t know how it compares to similar books.
Sri Lanka was the place the British used to groom for "civilisation" they tested all the laws they implemented in India by doing it to Sri Lanka because for some reason they were deemed the more developed culture. I don't know why as I didn't study it further in university but it was quite fascinating.
Again you will hear this sort of stuff from people who have never been to India, dont know about histroy and likely know even less about economics. Not everyone thinks that way.
To say that it was entirely bad, is ignoring other facts of history. Likewise saying it was entirely good. Its always something in between, I find the idea of reperations to be silly otherwise, the Italians owe the entire of western europe bar a few countries reparations for oppressing us during the time of the Romans, or getting the North African states who were once the Barbary states to give everyone they ever raided or enslaved reparations. Its bullshit, and I have ancestry from colonial Trinidad, its pointless nationalism.
Implementing reparations across the board is an impossible task, but the amount of resources taken from colonies by European powers can be quantified. Other empires in the past lived off the conquered, but save a few empires (Roman, Mongol) the economies of scale achieved by modern colonialism and imperialism are unmatched. The acceleration of Europe into the modern age was built on the back of the rest of the world. China was plundered by European powers aroudn the turn of the 20th century, which created a siege mentality that exists to this day. America's contingent of slaves in 1860 was by far the largest economic asset in the Americas. And so on. Explains the current disparity in wealth between the first world and third world. Acknowledging that fact is a start. Determining how much money to pay third world citizens is the wrong question; however policies can be implemented that provide other countries with a clear path to prosperity. If that's possible. I have no idea.
I don't think anybody is seriously going to stretch on about reparations. Modi endorsed Tharoor's views but practically it is not going to happen. For many, it is more about issue with claims by British that it did more good. If a tobacco selling company sets up a cancer hospital too, setting up of the hospital doesn't take away the harms of tobacco. It is still a 'noble' analogy in comparison mind because people have choice whether to consume tobacco or not. British era didn't give people choice in India or elsewhere.
Anyway this topic is just for discussions in forums like the one at Oxford Union and then follow up discussion by common people on internet forums. Add to that the legendary internet warriors in Guardian comment section for amusement. In the relations between two nations, reparations is not going to be a realistic discussion point I guess.
Now, all said & done, be good boys and return our Koh-i-Noor and we can move on.
Anyway this topic is just for discussions in forums like the one at Oxford Union and then follow up discussion by common people on internet forums. Add to that the legendary internet warriors in Guardian comment section for amusement. In the relations between two nations, reparations is not going to be a realistic discussion point I guess.
Now, all said & done, be good boys and return our Koh-i-Noor and we can move on.
Think you're mistaken in thinking that comments section is representative of anything more than people who feel the need to comment on it. People who see a link to an article and think 'fair enough' probably won't even bother clicking it. People who see it and think 'how dare they!' not only click it but then vent their anger in comments.
I don't think I know anyone who's fond of praising the empire.
Give back the Queen's diamond? Right of conquest. Feck off.
Well debate them rather than try to say the brits owe you reparations.
What are these facts?
Saying and something actually happening are different things.
Thank you, that is quite helpful. My knowledge of South America is from Garcia Marquez and Che's works, that's how much of a cliche it is! Thank you again for your kind advice. I just think it is unfair that the world doesn't know more about American culture and history. When one talks about ancient civilizations, they generally talk about India, China, Egypt, Greece, Persia and the like.
Fair enough.
Yeah, maybe I've been projecting what I'd do onto others. I wouldn't comment on an article without reading it, but yes, it is unfair for me to presume that everybody would do the same.
In Tharoor's defence, he talks about it in the context of the topic of the Oxford Union debate, not a political statement even though it has been construed as such. The PM, I suspect his approval is a little bit because of internal politics. Tharoor is an MP from the Congress but unlike many in that excuse of a party, he isn't jaundiced in his criticisms.
A good standard introduction is "A Concise History of Modern India" by Barbara and Thomas Metcalf. It only deals briefly with the pre-British period though. A good standard history of the Mughal period is by John P. Richards. The Delhi Sultanate period I'm not too sure about. Babur's memoirs "The Baburnama" is available online, although he spent most of his life in Central Asia.
India's history goes way way back than Babur, Mughal or Delhi Sultanate. Also, in between Mughal's and British empire and kind of overlapping both was Maratha empire which was crucial period. Whether it is Mughal or Delhi Sultanate or British, they were in the end outsiders/invaders and are not 'the' key part of Indian history as is general conception among people outside India.
The vedic period some 1000 years BCE with Nalanda university and all was golden era and way too advanced for that time and is a fascinating part of Indian history. Perhaps the most important one for the original people of the land. Also not to forget the Indus valley civilization. India's overall history is of 1000s of years, outsiders like Mughals or British with history of few hundred years is just a part of it.
Yes I'm aware of all that, just don't know much about the pre-Muslim era. Any recommended reading on the earlier periods?
My basic knowledge of different eras is more based on what was taught during school and some occasional reading later. Discovery of India by Nehru should cover the important eras of earlier periods and give basic idea. If you are looking to go in detail, if someone from India here has major in history or has read about it in detail otherwise, should be more aware of recommended books. I also think that given the history is so vast and with so many different rulers, one would probably have to read different books on each era. For basic though, Nehru's should be OK.
My favourite modern era is Maratha empire and specifically Shivaji's era, and B.M. Purandare's book on him was something I read over & over again as kid.
'Right of conquest'. Translation: theft.
Romila Thapar is a good historian of ancient India, if you're into history properly her books would be great.
,
We had a book on the play Sakuntala by her in a course I had taken, where she mapped the changes from when it was written (many centuries BC to the 20th century) and linked them to the changes taking place in society as the play was rewritten.
EDIT: I've just borrowed this and will try to read it over the next few months.
I will be very careful to form my opinions based on works of a Marxist like Romila Thapar. Then again, leftists and Congress have constantly made attempts to re-write history per their ideologies and agendas, so she is not the only one.
Weren't they also outsiders ?
Nope. The Aryan invasion theory has been debunked as myth. Also instead of outsiders, invaders is the better word for Mughals and British. Otherwise we can go back to 1000 of years about each region and call everyone outsider. Setting up a civilization where there existed none or very primitive and invading a per-occupied territory are entirely different things, aren't they?
The significance is still there of both Mughal era and British era and those eras have their marks too on contemporary India but India's history goes way beyond that and is more vast than that and I think it is lesser known to general people outside India.
Obviously mughals were not natives of the subcontinent, they were from central asia..they say so themselves. Point is why is it controversial if its pointed out rajputs and jats for example were also from central asia, only that they entered the subcontinent before the mughals. The adivasis are the only natives, everyone came afterwards. DNA markers dont lie unless you're claiming the central asians migrated into central asia and beyond from the subcontinent.
Rajputs and Jats you are talking about era little later. I am talking about Indus valley civilization in the para above which you bolded. I am not talking about any particular caste. Also adivasis from what I know didn't exist separate or exclusively throughout India and not that they were killed or fought by some outside clan to gain control. Reference to adivasis or similar is there as far back as in Ramayanas and Ram wasn't labelled an adivasi, so adivasi only existed before some outsider came and took control in is not something I see a valid point.
I don't know what DNA markers you are talking about but there is no record as far as I know of destruction to setup the initial civilization. The Aryan invasion theory was brought in later in 19th century when there was attempt to show that every ruler in India had invaded the place. It was also use in independent India for the cast based politics to create the Aryan-Dravidian divide.
If you try to see similar culture to vedic era elsewhere in world, it won't show any evidences outside Indian subcontinent. If they were invaders from other places there has to be strong similarity elsewhere. Also all the destruction of civilizations 3000 BCE or so or later of Indus etc are with evidence due to natural causes and hence abandonment not because of wars.
So, point is simple. If there was proof of civilization 3000 BCE or so ago which is Vedic era and there isn't any proof that they settled killing inhabitants existing before, then they as far back we can look are the originals.
Indus valley and vedic empire are two different things. Im more inclined towards the migration theory than the invasion theory. Who according to you arrived first in the subcontinent after migrating out of africa ? I think i read somewhere that australian aboriginals and adivasis share genetic markers which would somewhat prove that adivasis infact were the first few to settle in the subcontinent and thus should be referred to as natives.