I am currently doing a paper on the British Empire, and whilst it seems in the modern climate that the term empire is such a dirty wold, is this a true reflection. Therefore I'd like to ask for peoples opinions on the subject. Do people think the British shaped India for the better, or should it be condemmed to the history books as a taboo subject.
Honest answers greatly appreciated
2007-03-25 01:35:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I'm not quite sure what "the fuzzy end of a lollipop" is Kiki but I have to agree with you, many Brits do (not this one though) think of the empire as something to apologise for. I was just interested to see what ordinary people (especially Indians) thought.
Thanks for the answers
2007-03-25 01:54:22 · update #1
Have to say winter seems a bit of a biased answer, although I'll certainaly take it on board. Yes The Indian people had a long tradition but never really as a nation called India. I mean the Persian were occupants long before we were. But if you think British Rule predated the industrial revloution by about 125 years, then it cant be used as a reason for empire building
2007-03-25 03:49:56 · update #2
Hello Dalai Wiseman,
The "fuzzy end of the lollipop" would be translated into English as "the shitty end of the stick".
It is easy to examine history in the light of our modern schools of thought and therefore to be critical of our forefathers. They were doing what they believed to be right and proper and Christian.
Britain, I believe, did indeed shape India for the better, even if (as a common enemy) it pulled the Indian people together as a nation against the detested Raj.
Nothing in history should be treated as a "taboo" subject. We are none of us responsible for what happened in the past, so we should not feel the need to be apologetic for what has happened. Nor are we able to change the past - but we must study and understand it so we may learn from mistakes and understand how we arrive to where we are today.
2007-03-25 03:29:30 · answer #1 · answered by the_lipsiot 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Brits always get the 'fuzzy end of the lollipop' when it comes to talking about Empire - what the French and Belgians did in Africa far outstrips the Brits. And look at the conflict that still rages in the Congo.
2007-03-25 08:42:35 · answer #2 · answered by Kik 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like all imperial adventures the British Empire exploited colonies - but it did leave most of them with a much better base for independence than other European "empires" did - India and USA being the best example perhaps, and Australia if it ever learns to stand on its own values and interests instead of finding another apron to cling to.
2007-03-25 08:42:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No British did not shape India for the better. India was a flourishing country before they came. It was well ruled and people were happy. Indians are very proud people, proud of their race and history.
And if you look at history, what did British people give India... other than poverty, hunger and exploitation? They didn't come to India to do charity. They came so that they could get cheap raw material for their new machines, after Industrial revolution, and a bigger market.
Yes, there were several small kingdoms in India. There was no centralised government. But people in general were happier with their own kings than they were under British rule.
There were several famines in India while it was under British rule and the British rulers, unlike their Indian counterparts, didn't care. They didn't have to and most probably they didn't know, living in their Palaces in UK, about what was the real condition in their own empire.
Men were made to work as bonded labour. Women were taken advantage of. Children didn't have anything to eat. Farmers were made to sow cash crops like "Indigo" (called neel in local dialect). This was a crop that harmed the fertility of earth and was one of the causes of the famine.
But the British didn't care. They didn't have to live in India forever. As rulers they could always get their food...
India was not a poor suffering new land... it was a nation with a long history of civilization. A history longer than the British can even dream of. So they didn't need the British. But British people were just plain greedy who wanted more gold, more money, more food... but why? After all, you only need enough food to be able to live and when you die, you can't take anything with you. It was so futile. They could have lived peacefully anywhere in the world without exploiting people. But they made a choice. Like all of us do.
Anyways, if British people are complaining today that Indians are taking their jobs away because of their command of English, they know whom to blame for it. Their own ancestors!
Afterall, had the British not come to India and tried to spread their empire through imparting knowledge of English, they wouldn't have to suffer today.
Still it shouldn't be a taboo subject. It should be taught but in such a manner that one can see both sides of the coin and learn from history. Both Indians and British should learn from history so that it is not repeated and humanity prevails.
Reply to your query:
Even old Indian texts refer to India as Bharat, Bharatvarsh (the names in Indian language) and India had several great kings. A weak central power is not a big enough excuse to exploit others. It is a vicious circle.
And if you think an Indian's view is biased then don't ask the question. British empire did more harm than you can imagine. Go to Jalianwala Bagh in Amritsar to feel how it harmed India.
And regarding Persians, they came to India five hundred years before British but they became part of Indian fabric. There was an active exchange and they didn't just rule from thousands of miles away. They lived here and knew the realities. Their contribution resulted in what is known as a Ganga-Jamuni civilization. And lots of beautiful things...
But read history of India under British rule... what do Indian's remember as British India... just exploitation, violence and taking away of Indian resources. British didn't give anything in return.
2007-03-25 10:08:51 · answer #4 · answered by Winter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, if it were not for the British influence, India would be in the same shape as Pakistan or Afganistan living in the 7th century,
2007-03-25 08:39:30 · answer #5 · answered by missourim43 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While the Source ( nation of origin) of a Text will determine the slant on history it takes so will the political prejudice of the writer. best to look at multiple sources from many different sides of the equation.....then provide your own " prejudice" based on what you have learned.....Probably not what you wanted to hear
2007-03-25 08:46:22 · answer #6 · answered by wbaker777 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
agree with missuri.
the british brough civilization whereever they went.
only the fact that india is basicaly an english speaking country goes miles towards its repid progress
2007-03-25 08:43:18 · answer #7 · answered by bob j 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋