Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Indian self-government, anyway. | |
Author: Nick (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:05:54 01/13/05 Thu In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "Churchil was a great man - a great war leader, but he was wrong in opposing Indian independence" on 16:00:30 01/13/05 Thu [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Talking about Indian Independence | |
|
Author: G.Singh [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:18:01 01/13/05 Thu This is a bit of a thorny issue, but I personally think that had the British been more accomadating of the Oxbridge educated Indian men,(and dropped the racism) like Gandhi), who actually supported the ideals of Britain, rule of law, democracy, free spech etc etc, then I think India would have probably had self-government, instead of independece. The fact that the British backed off the Ilbert Bill and other measures which would have allowed Indians to be properly engaged in the governance of India things would have been different. I was reading something couple of months ago which talked of how when Queen Victoria died, a delegation of Indians came to London and requested to pay respects to what they rightfully called 'our empress'-but they were denied that request. I know for a fact that were many Indians who held Britain close to their hearts, but things happened which changed that. Can you imagine what could have been! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Racism is always a tragic error - enormously destructive, in this case | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:59:31 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The British upper class discriminated against anyone who they considered to be 'beneath' them | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:28:43 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That commit generalises to a gross extent | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:52 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: EDIT: That comment generalises to a gross extent | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:43:20 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's how it was in pre-war Britain and the Empire. British middle class administrators were far more accommodating | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:40:13 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not a very helpful generalisation | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:12:40 01/14/05 Fri I think this is a C20th class-ist prejudice that you're going to have to support with a bit more evidence, Jim. I can see room for a bit of legitimacy in what you're saying, but I don't really think you're coming at things from the right angle. The British Empire was hierarchical. I think that's about the extent of it. Hierarchy has its good points and bad points. Race did not prevent one from being recognised as being of the 'ruling class' and therefore being respected. But society was run by an elite along 'elitist' lines, and in many ways was the better for it. There were upper class administrators who were very much against racism, or even a rigid social hierarchy, and there were middle class administrators who were fiercely racist. I don't think making a distinction is particularly helpful. At best it's grossly simplistic. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You are probably right, but this is what I was taught in Canadian schools. Thanks for the enlightenment. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:44 01/14/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:36:37 01/14/05 Fri The snag with your theory, Mr Singh, is that we tried that in Africa. In Africa, we abandonned our policy of working through the traditional but modernised elites in favour of the lucky few who had been educated at the LSE in the 1930s, and they invariably turned into Marxist dictators. Kenyatta, Nkrumah, Nasser, all that mob, and we have never been forgiven for turning Africa over to an intellectual elite who thought that They Knew Best how to run their countries, and who therefore had little time for popular opinion. In India, on the other hand, we completely marginalised the lucky few, and instead chose to work through the Rajas and Maharanas and all the traditional hierarchy of Indian society, and we have never been forgiven for thwarting the legitimate claims of educated Indians to the right to rule their own country. One of the troubles with imperialism is that the imperial power can never win. The Americans are currently discovering this for themselves. They were castigated for not removing Saddam Hussein in 1991, and now they are castigated for starting a war to remove him. Going further back to the 1960s, the hippies used to demonstrate against the government for refusing to take a stand against marxist dictators in South America, and then trying to topple marxist rule in Vietnam. Mind you, that was our fault: if we hadn't done so well in the Malayan Crisis they never would have tried! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indian Empire | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:46:17 01/14/05 Fri I think there are two issues here. One is the nature of British power in India, which was quite different from Arfica, in that it was built largely with the co-operation of the Princes and direct British sovereignty only extended over about 1/3 of the continent and even then only after the British government ousted the East India Company which had been the driving force behind the Empire and which had had no desire to govern India. The second issue is timing. If British India had taken a different path after the Empire was proclaimed in 1877 and acted on the better intentions of those who had argued for direct Crown government to better the lot of the ordinary Indian, then the Marxists of the 1930s might have had a lot less success in recruiting Indian intellectuals or gaining the support of the masses. The African empire was built too late in Imperial history terms to be given a fair chance of establishing a true and loyal anglified elite. I still doubt that things would have ended up much differently, though, because the Empire as a whole was too entrenched in racist philosophy by the early C20th and the World Wars would still have fatally undermined British power. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's ironic then... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:08:35 01/14/05 Fri "the Empire as a whole was too entrenched in racist philosophy by the early C20th and the World Wars would still have fatally undermined British power." It's ironic then that Britain sacrificed her empire in order to save a race from extermination. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not quite the thing. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:37:46 01/14/05 Fri It is ironic, but then the type of racism favoured in Britain in 1900 didn't involve gas chambers or the imposition of jack-boot ideology. The average Briton would probably have felt that the average Indian wasn't really ready to govern himself, because he was an unwashed heathen and clearly, since he wore nappies and lived in a hut, was a bit on the simple side. Just as one wouldn't really want one's servant to read 'Lady Shat-terleys Lover', or one's dippy wife to stand for parliament. However, that didn't give one the right to go round murdering one's servants or chaining women to railings. That sort of nonsense just wasn't done by Englishmen. Not quite the thing, you see. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |