mohan@sbcs.UUCP (Chilukuri K. Mohan) (11/11/85)
This is a reply to Mr.Yakim Martillo's attempt to attack Muslims, calling for their oppression on that account, and exalting the superiority and progressive character of western colonization, because it liberates people from "Muslim" oppression. The age-old cry: we are Good oppressors, we have come to civilize heathen. History: the current state of Israel is a post-world war II creation, NOT as a result of oppression of jews by Palestinians, but BECAUSE of the oppression of jews by sections of Western (Christian?) society. How quickly have Hitler's pogroms been forgotten to be replaced with the cry: "Muslims are bad people who oppress jews"! Subjugation by westerners is never a progressive act: it has specific economic & military goals that benefit the imperialists. The plunder of India & its impoverishment by British colonizers was no boon to Indians, Muslim or non-muslim. The traumas of partition of India in 1947, and the preceding communal riots, were skilfully engineered manipulations of the divide-and-rule policy of British colonialists. A blind eye is turned to the years of inter-religious harmony. We are well aware that rulers of some communities and their henchmen have in the name of religion (Muslim or non-Muslim) perpetrated atrocities on their peoples. The answer is not to respond with more communal hatred, but rather to separate the issue of oppression/subjugation/atrocities from the communal question & fight the atrocities irrespective of whether they are perpetrated by hindus, muslims, christians, jews or by anybody else. One-time suppression by some people of one religion (among many!) cannot justify present or future suppression of people of that religion. Of course, we mustn't ignore the feudal oppression faced even by people of the SAME community as their rulers, in several countries today. While Mr.Martillo insists on classifying people as Muslims or non-Muslims, I'd prefer to see them as human beings: communalists have done enough damage in this world. -------------------------------------------------------------------
reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/16/85)
/* Written 3:32 pm Nov 10, 1985 by mohan@sbcs.UUCP in uiucdcs:net.nlang.india */ /* ---------- "muslim_baiting" ---------- */ The plunder of India & its impoverishment by British colonizers was no boon to Indians, Muslim or non-muslim. /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.nlang.india */ Changing the topic, has it ever been established that the British plundered India? Does anybody have figures representing the rate of growth in India for a substantial period before the British arrived in India, and the rate of growth during the British rule? If the British did plunder India, what did they plunder and howmuch? I have'nt seen a detailed study of these issues, but what I have seen suggests that India progressed faster during the British rule than before it.
mcdaniel@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/16/85)
> Written 6:14 pm Nov 15, 1985 by reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU in uiucdcsb:net.nlang.india > I have'nt seen a detailed study of these issues, but what I have seen > suggests that India progressed faster during the British rule than > before it. Even if that could be shown (and I am HIGHLY dubious of such an assertion) it wouldn't prove a thing. For example, England progressed much faster under the House of Hanover (Industrial Revolution) than under the House of Plantagenet (Middle Ages). However, the Hanovers were mediocre*, and there were many capable Plantagenets (though there were a few execrable horrors). You must demonstrate that India under British rule progressed faster than India would have progressed IN THE SAME TIME FRAME without British rule. In any event, if the UK had taken less taxes and profits OUT OF India TO the UK, India would certainly have grown faster. (Note the emphasis on OUT OF and TO. If those phrases are omitted, the statement may not be true -- cf. John Maynard Keynes.) In addition, economic progress is not all. For example, if the UK were to conquer the USA now (fat chance!), subjecting us to a ruthless totalitarian regime and skimming the profits, but causing the USA to have higher growth than we would have had on our own (fat chance!), would you justify the regime on the basis of the economic growth? Would you say that the UK's skimming of the cream were justified? The economic arguments were important -- BUT the issue of Indian freedom was more important. (Letting bygones be bygones, while remaining vigilant against repetitions, is important, too!) * I consider William IV to be the last Hanoveran King, succeeded by Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Windsor.
ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) (11/20/85)
I think the article by Mr.Mcdaniel is very apt. I do not deny that British rule did make available some benifits to the then ruling class and the elite the overall impact has been to impoverish India and leave it stunted in its growth. They systematically decimated India's indigenous industries and trade to make India totally dependant on Britain for all finished consumer and industrial goods. This is the only case (colonisation by England) in the History of human race in which a nation colonised and exploited other nations for such a long period illegitimately.
biagioni@unc.UUCP (Edoardo Biagioni) (11/21/85)
In article <2624@ut-ngp.UUCP> ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) writes: > ...... This is the only > case (colonisation by England) in the History of human > race in which a nation colonised and exploited other > nations for such a long period illegitimately. > I am afraid I must loudly disagree. The History of the human race is full of examples of such things. The best known from ancient history is that of the romans. In modern history, Spain, Portugal, Holland and France (to name just the main actors) have behaved in exactly the same way as England, perhaps worse. The english domination of India lasted less than 300 years, the turkish domination of the balkans lasted over 500. Moor domination of most of Spain also lasted over 500 years. Unless these are all legitimate (when is a colonisation and exploitation legitimate, anyway?), the above is plainly wrong. Ed Biagioni decvax!mcnc!unc!biagioni seismo!mcnc!unc!biagioni
varikoot@psuvax1.UUCP (Ashok P. Varikooty) (11/30/85)
Reply to Mr. Reddys > /* Written 3:32 pm Nov 10, 1985 by mohan@sbcs.UUCP in uiucdcs:net.nlang.india */ > /* ---------- "muslim_baiting" ---------- */ > The plunder of India & its impoverishment by British colonizers was > no boon to Indians, Muslim or non-muslim. > /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.nlang.india */ > > Changing the topic, has it ever been established that the British plundered > India? Does anybody have figures representing the rate of growth in India > for a substantial period before the British arrived in India, and the rate > of growth during the British rule? If the British did plunder India, what > did they plunder and howmuch? I would suggest that Mr. Reddy read any of the books by Gunnar Myrdal a non-Indian expert on the South Asian economy. As for Indian sources he could possibly read an umpteen number of authors an instance is Dandekar.V.M. > > I have'nt seen a detailed study of these issues, but what I have seen > suggests that India progressed faster during the British rule than before it. I would like to know the basis for this comment. Myrdal has said that there is evidence of at least a one-half percent decline in growth rate due to the effects of colonisation. This is a direct figure due to transfer payments made. The indirect effects like perpetuation of a low literacy rate over 300 years, prevalence of a high infant mortality a lopsided excise and customs system to prevent development of the domestic industry has not been included. The above statistics have significantly improved after independence even with a constricing socialistic system. As I recall the growth rate during the preindependence era was less than 2%. After independence the growth rate even with restrictive social policies has been about 3.5%. It is no secret that transfer payments to the British were taking place in 1943 when millions died of starvation in Bengal. A country does not develop in a generation. While there could be a definite improvement in the current economic policies eg. elimination of the public sector in most areas, the development in the post independence era has been much better than that during over 300 years of colonisation. SO IT IS ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS TO SAY THAT INDIA MAY HAVE BEEN BETTER OF AS A COLONY OF THE BRITISH Ashok. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***