[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: #1 in 1750?

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Economy

 This is a little tricky. OK. This is my response to Vinay's response to 
P.Guptara's response to Arvind.                                     
Prof. Guptara never claimed that British did any favors for India or 
Indians. "If you think the British did not give us much, you are right.  
That is the reason we fought for independence. - - - The reason a 
country has colonies is not to put something into them, it is to take 
something out of them.  Overall, we provided an enormous amount of money 
to the British." Having stated that the British did what they did for 
their own reasons, Prof. Guptara went on to ask us to recognize what 
SOME of them did contribute [for whatever reasons]. I re-read his 
letters on the topic, really could find no claim that any 
health-insurance policy was instituted. All I came across was a 
suggestion that maybe their presence in India had a salutary effect on 
the health of the Indians [again, not because they were concerned about 
the natives, just because they brought along their own doctors who had 
to treat somebody when the Brits were healthy.].
Vinay wrote:                                                            "Long before British came, it was Shivaji, the great 
Maratha ruler, who spoke of a Hindu kingdom and oneness of Indians 
(about 1700 AD). He sought to align the Rajputs with him-self to oppose 
the Mughals then ruling India."
        Just a small point, the British came in India during the reign of 
Shahjahan. Chatrapati Shivaji's entire struggle was against Aurangzeb, 
the son of Shahjahan.                                     Vinay wrote:                                                          "At the time you 
talk of mythology, there were no "outsiders" in India. You don't go 
around your own house shouting, "This is my house. This is my house." Do 
you?"                                   Just wondering who the outsiders were. Just the British or the 
Mughals, or the Slave Dynasty, or the Huns, or the Aryans -- -. Anyway, 
if it the outsiders refer to the British, then prior to their arrival, 
even if some enterprising soul had gone around shouting 'This is my 
house', his house would have meant only a small part of what we today 
call India.                                         Vinay wrote:                                                                "What is so great about 
having the notion of a single country given by the British? Indians 
today are what the present Europeans will be in a 100 or 50 years hence. 
That does not mean that the different nation of Europe to day are not 
well off or are in any way deficient."                                                                 
If one was to speculate that India would have gone the way of Europe had 
the British not made their appearance, one would also need to take into 
account the wars that characterized Europe in the last century and in 
the first half of this one. USA has emotional [and financial] ties to 
the European continent. Britain lies across the channel, so carefully 
monitors the continental politics for any threatening trends. As a 
result, whenever war has ravaged Europe [quite frequently too], either 
one or both of these countries intervene. The intervention maybe aimed 
at restricting the conflict, or resolving it, or to provide economic 
assistance in the aftermath of the war. However, I do doubt that such 
assistance would have been forthcoming had it been India we were talking 
about. Chances are that such regular warfare would have resulted in much 
higher costs for the Indian sub-continent. Still, all this is in the 
realm of pure speculation.On a purely personal note, though, I do think 
that India being a single nation is a rather great notion. 

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/