Blog | Does Britain really owe India anything?
Is this how ALL Britishers are?
Dear Mr. Tharoor…
In the past few days, thanks to social media, I could not help notice Shashi Tharoor’s recent speech about Britain owing India reparations. That it went viral as quickly as the news about his wife’s death a few months ago, is no surprise – after all, the public is non-discriminant when it comes to gossip. As a result, the same person who was ‘probably the guy who did it’ has overnight become the most eloquent orator India has ever produced. Media has indeed ensured people are as good as their last media-appearance.
Well, if you are wondering, I am not a Shashi Tharoor basher. Not even a Congress-beater. However, Mr. Tharoor’s speech and its radical embracement by the Indian media and populace largely reflects on our attitude as a country. So now we don’t just agree that Britain owes us – and owes us money or an apology? what difference does it make? – but we are also completely oblivious that its been more than six decades since things ended badly between the two nations.
Although it is to be noted that Tharoor has very cleverly chosen points to talk about and also presented them intelligently; to me, the argument of ‘reparations due’ sounds very flimsy and superficial. He may have been doing justice to the side of the argument accorded to him (for the debate) but should that also mean that we agree with just anything ever uttered against the British Raj? I remember how my history teacher corrected the attitude towards Aurangzeb as a ruler by telling us things that were not there in the history books. The British, I reckon are the current Aurangzeb. I feel there needs to be a shade more serious thinking about what is being proposed here.
Why Money?
First of all, why money? Each time there is a railway accident in the country, the Railway Minister is paraded by the media and held accountable fo
r every single technical glitch till the moment he or she announces lumps of money to be paid to the victims. I have often heard people questioning the move with a sound rhetoric – how do you put a monetary value on a person’s life? Such questions are often raised with regard to sex traders, farmer suicides and even victims of certain lawsuits. There can be no way to price a human life or an experience such as suffering. There just isn’t! Yet, it now seems like a logical thing to ask Britain to ‘pay us’ for what we think they did to us.
It will be really interesting to come down to an agreeable figure – agreeable by not just the two countries – but also agreeable to the point that the sum fairly accounts for the suffering endured by our nation for two centuries. I would not dare venture into listing the sufferings that we should be paid for (or even the rate card for the same); but purely from a financial standpoint, it will be even more interesting to see the calculations proceed. First, thanks to the time-bound value of money the value of a rupee, which was nearly the same as a dollar in 1947, has now skyrocketed 60 times. Add considerations like inflation rates, exchange rates, gold standards and pay revisions among others. Not to mention the possibility of this being asked if the exchange ever happens, “Err.. Sir, how would you like money, then? Cash or cheque? Euros or Pounds? For the Government or for the people?”
India? What India?
Besides the financial angle, what I find more intriguing is the usage of the term ‘India’ in such references. When the first foreigners came to India around 327 BC, there was no ‘India’. The subcontinent was a collection of kingdoms and tribes that were constantly warring with each other. Remember the stories of Alexander, Ambhi and Porus? Even eighteen centuries later when the more modern Vasco deGama touched the southern coast, we were still not ‘India’. We were still kingdoms and tribes when Sir Thomas Roe met the Mughals and sparked off the British rule’s beginnings. Geographically, there were no divisions of ‘countries’ then. Culturally, the similarities and differences stretched from frontiers in Afghanistan to areas around the Bay of Bengal and Burma (which was a part of the empire till 1937). Whether Sri Lanka was ever a part of ‘India’ is also dependent of the version of history you subscribe to. And what about Nepal?
Where is India?
We were “British India” for the two centuries they ruled us. Even the name ‘India’ is a reference borrowed by the Greek and popularized by Modern English in the 17th century. With so many confusions about the geography of ‘India’ as a country and as an identity, the calls for reparations seem shaky – was the ‘India’ that was ruled by the British same as the country today? If not, on what basis are we going to calculate the amounts in question? What about parts of the British Empire that are not in India anymore? What about Pakistan? Or Bangladesh? Or Burma? And what about Kashmir – who gets the money there? And will China intervene if Arunachal is considered Indian territory?
And do we deserve it?
Not only in terms of geography, but even culturally, aren’t we at a wrong corner to make such demands? The leader fighting the British then was a noble figure compared to the questionable politician today. The masses had a sense of patriotism that went down to remotest gullies and youngest of kids. Today the most patriotic fervor is seen in during cricket matches (ironically, cricket is a British sport) and Pakistan-bashing movies. As a country we are ready to ignore thousands of farmers killing themselves each year and even more housewives committing suicides with their children. We don’t pay any heed to lakhs of children that die each year due to lack of healthcare and to the thousands who fall off the Mumbai locals each year. And yet, ‘lost lives’ and ‘endured struggles’ are things which the British should pay for.
And what right do we have of demanding anything from the British for the struggles that we have not even seen? So, we want compensations to be paid for the lives lost during the freedom struggle – which lives? How many of us know which lives were lost and what pains were endured? The closest that this generation has been to ‘struggle’ was the final of the 2003 Cricket World Cup against Australia! As a country, we inherited a structured administration and high moral standards from the British – yet where do we stand now? A tattered democracy and morality dismissed as a Sooraj-Barjatya-syndrome?
Almost two decades ago, Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar wrote that during the Raj, the police caught criminals, the courts convicted them, and the civil service was both civil and rendered service. Alas, those days are gone. The police now seem incapable of catching influential criminals and the courts of convicting them. The civil service seems incapable of either civility or service. Political loot has reached such a stage that routine inspection of treasuries has ceased, the comptroller and auditor general in many states complains that papers and files are simply not available. State public sector undertakings have not submitted audited accounts for years on end. According to a senior bureaucrat, politicians now just dip their hand into the treasury and take out whatever they want, and no civil servant or policeman dares intervene. The years since our freedom have been a saga of lost opportunities and lost morality. On the economic side the opportunities lost are immense, but at least we can claim to have moved forward in absolute terms, even if we have slipped in relative terms. On the moral side, however, our decline has been absolute. If people are asked what they are most ashamed of after 50 years of independence, many will point to the political class.
And morally?
What a difference from the heady days of 1947. At that time we were justly proud of our politicians. We had won independence after a principled struggle based on nonviolence. We had triumphed over the might of the British Empire not through armed force but moral force. It mattered little that we were poor in material terms. We felt rich in moral terms. And so we held our heads high and were proud to be Indians. Today, that pride is gone. We stand exposed as poor in material terms and even poorer in moral terms. In 1947 we could claim to be fighting an epic battle to improve global morality. Today, according to Transparency International, India is the eighth most corrupt country in the world. A study conducted by them in year 2005 found that more than 62% of Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes or influence peddling to get jobs done in public offices successfully. Imagine if the British did pay us – how much do you think will reach the average man?
Yet, we are so sure that behind all the problems plaguing our country today, the British were villains and we need payback! Great, what’s next? We go to Iran and ask him to pay up for Nadir Shah. Or chronologically, do we go to the Greeks first? And if we can trace them, then Ashoka’s descendants must also pay back the families the ruler had uprooted? And while we do all of that, let Kashmiris lose lives and endure struggles as they always have… maybe their time for reparations has not dawned yet.
India yesterday
Kashmir today
About the British dragging us into wars
Tharoor also points out the two World Wars that India was dragged into. But was it really that way? Interestingly, the 2.5 million soldiers who turned up to fight for the British in WWI, make the largest volunteering army in the history of mankind. Fighting made sense in terms of better income and food – incentives no different from today. Similarly in WWII millions of Indians lined up to go to battle – the British did not drag anyone to war, only incentivized participation just like Obama did to control falling number of soldiers for Iraq.
Tharoor also points out the fall of textile trade in India during the British time. Again, to put it in the right context, the upgradation to machinery was a technological upgrade experienced worldwide – so the Europeans suffered as much as the Indians. Although I agree that before industrialization of things, the British had anyway exported away valuable resources. But does it sound logical to give every episode an intentional-touch on behalf of the British? Was the control of our resources (in a time of shredded kingdoms) so heavily responsible for the downfall of the country? Some colonies did nationalize their national resources after getting independent but failed to either revive themselves or prevail over their erstwhile rulers. (Sri Lanka and the nationalization its tea plantations in vain is the closest, though not the only, example)
So let’s weigh it again
I believe that we are wrongly looking at events that happened centuries ago, with today’s lens. Democracy, World Trade and evolving lifestyles are concepts for this age – centuries ago, when the two geographies crossed paths, it was an Empire encountering a collection of kingdoms. The Indian subcontinent was still getting civilized while the British were an imperialistic superpower. Natural selection and human behaviour prevailed enabling the stronger to prevail over the weaker – enabling the victor to script fates.
India as a nation has never initiated an attack on foreign soil (although it is debatable what’s ‘foreign’ and what’s not). But the fact is that it has never been in a position to make that choice! It was the British who came and organized as a country, as a nation. Although if we do consider the then-existing kingdoms as Indian kingdoms, then we must agree that Indians were attacking other Indians. Wars have always allowed the winners to d
o as they please – be it the World Wars, the Vietnam or the series of recent wars by the US. Why should we be any different? And are we sure we would have done things differently had we been a colonial empire?
Considering both sides of the coin that the British rule in India had its ups and its downs and that we have gained as much, if not more, as we lost. While the lost lives and families are simply beyond bracketing, the struggles and the fights with the rulers have also stitched us together as a nation. From communication to education, infrastructure to geographical connectivity, we only have the British to thank for! Granted that they built it for themselves, but eventually weren’t we beneficiaries nonetheless? While we take credit for “Indian-origin” foreign nationals doing wonderful things across the globe, we can at least give the British some credit that is due to them. Social upliftment and ideas of liberty and equality were alient to us. Today we preach broad-mindedness.
As for an apology
In my perspective, no one really wins. No one needed to. It was just how it happened (a few days ago another article reflected similar sentiments in parts). It was a case in history where things ran differently and that we can’t judge what happened yesterday, with today’s set of understandings and perspectives – if nothing else then just because we simply weren’t there. I genuinely believe that there are more important matters at hand than even bothering with Britain’s apology. (There’s been a lot of chatter by politicians before and after Tharoor’s speech about this – in both countries, worth looking into )
Morality comes higher on Maslow’s Heirarchy. There are plethora of ‘needs’ to be taken care of internally, before we look to get ‘moral’ emancipation – which doesn’t solve problems for two thirds of the population still struggling to make an end’s meet… While arguing about apologies, what are we looking to achieve out of this anyway? Feel good as a country? So if Britain says it was ‘wrong’, then what? What does it change for us? Except making us ‘feel good’..? Or quenching some political egos?
The British Perspective
From the British perspective, it was a not a win-win affair throughout either. While they also warded off other foreign powers from the subcontinent, coming from small islands and administering the length and breadth of such a large landmass and population must have been a struggle in itself. The British ably negotiated cultural extremes and pioneered modern lifestyles and luxuries. They were also drained out economically after the World Wars and maintaining colonies like India was not a child’s play or pay! Not to mention, they will forever be reminded of their histories and atrocities for as long as the British isles surface out of the waters. Cities in Britain were destroyed by Germans. Yet they have lifted themselves from it. Japan after the war chose to do the same. However, we still have an eye on the British treasury!
This should not be confused as chants of praise for the British might. I am only trying to level things down from the way we see the British. They were ‘cruel’ for the way they treated us (or at least cruel according to the depictions in movies and textbooks). But how is it any different from the way urban Indians look at people from rural and remote areas? We have slangs for people from every culture in the country, yet the British are the historical bad-mouths! And financially, the 10% of the country today is doing the same to the rest of the population (especially the three-quarters below poverty line) that the British did to their colonies.
Summing it up
History does not forget. However, history – or the way it has been written – should not also license anyone to look at things from a selective attitude. In my books, the stronger tribe prevailed over the weaker one and enjoyed the spoils of war like any other instance. Although, in the longer run, we might have gained more than we lost – Architecture, education, police, legal-systems, language and so on…
To think of it, it could also be argued that we benefited more out of the rule than we lost. Or perhaps that we may been better off still under them – or at least as a dominion. Notions of reparations like these only encourage feelings of laziness and dynamics of a blame-game. The logical thing is to learn from history and do the best with what you have at the present.
As for the British…They came. They saw. They conquered. They have also moved on. And surged ahead.
Are we Indians still waiting for their cheque?
______________________________________________________________
Hi,
You have tried to put your perspective in quite detail, but I disagree with you on more than a few points. I would suggest that you should watch the video again with an open frame of mind. You seem to be fixated upon the amount, quantifying the amount that Shashi Tharoor believes is owed to India. If you watch it carefully, he does mention that this amount cannot be quantified, you cannot put a monetary value to someone’s life. All he asks them is, to acknowledge the fact that Britain does owe reparations to India. It might even be a penny – as a token of their acknowledgment.
Its sounds immature when you say things like “That sounds as good as a 60 year old person asking his childhood friend to pay him for a candy stolen as a toddler! If not anything worse.” This is a case where the 60 year old is reminding his childhood “friend” not of a stolen candy, but of ruining his childhood, looting him (of all possible candies and more), bullying him, taking away almost everything of his. And then, this “childhood friend” is claiming to have done a good job, because otherwise this 60 year old would not even have achieved what it has today.
You say that during the British Raj, “the police caught criminals, the courts convicted them, and the civil service was both civil and rendered service”. You seem to be forgetting the case of Jallianwala Bagh massacre and how Dyer was appreciated for his heinous act. Or the way Indian prisoners were held and treated as compared to Europeans (if and when they were caught) – for which Bhagat Singh demanded equality during his jail tenure. Why did Lala Lajpat Rai suffer those police injuries in a non-violent protest? Did the police actually catch criminals?
If everything was so rosy and the Britishers were actually doing so much good than bad, then why did the much praised “real” patriots join hands in throwing them out? It could have been a “Happily Lived Ever After” story right?
Of course, as pointed out in the speech, we cannot not acknowledge the fact that there has been good out of this as well. There were infrastructure developments; we owe our law & order and administrative system to them. But then maybe these could have been adopted otherwise as well. You cannot enslave a country for 200 years, deprive it of probably better growth (you never know), and then tell them that you have gifted them Democracy.
Point is, we are not waiting for any cheque. Neither can we put any number on that cheque even if we want to. We are moving on, and at a very fast pace, given all our population and literacy limitations. But don’t expect us, the nation and its citizens, to forget the atrocities perpetrated by them. Don’t ask us to forget the sacrifices made by those heroes who fought for the country’s freedom. Don’t tell us that what the British Raj did to India was more good than bad.
In any case, it was just a point of view shared by Shashi Tharoor in a debate. That they owe reparations for all the wrong that they did. And it was well presented by facts and figures. Everyone has the right to have his or her own perspective/view, right?
PS: I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of any political party or person. The above view is based purely on my knowledge and understanding of the matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I respect your views. I even respect Mr Tharoor’s views. In my perspective, no one really wins. No one needed to. It was just how it happened (I posted another comment with a link to another article). It was a case in history where things ran differently and that we can’t judge what happened yesterday, with today’s set of understandings and perspectives – if nothing else then just because we simply weren’t there. I genuinely believe that there are more important matters at hand than even bothering with Britain’s apology. (There’s been a lot of chatter by politicians before and after Tharoor’s speech about this – in both countries, worth looking into )
And putting today’s problems before today’s people – rather than asking them to judge the past – was also my intention, and for a fair share of the post. I’d no doubt revisit the video. Would also like you to revisit my post and see just a simple thing – even I’m not talking ‘only’ about money. There’s bits – bits – of geography, anthropology, behavioural economics and politics – besides the general rant. 🙂 No fixations there. 🙂
As for views…. 🙂
LikeLike
Also, this post came out in The Guardian a few days ago. Similar thoughts. Worth a read.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/sorry-the-united-kingdom-does-not-owe-india-reparations/
LikeLike
I do not understand the crux of your argument. Are you trying to say that Britain does not owe India anything or that the current generation of Indians are not patriotic or honest enough hence they do not deserve reparations.
And a final comment on your summary. You seem to advocate the Law of the jungle – ‘ the strong and victor has the spoil’ and morality in the same essay. I will be polite and call it ironical. And you did not listen to Tharoor’s argument properly. One does need to be invaded and enslaved to learn Architecture, education, police, legal-systems, language and so on…’
An if that is the case, please send me your address, I will come and occupy your house, your property etc… and when by the time I leave, I will have taught you piano, cooking, self defense, public administration, hotel management and also gift you a research lab, perhaps.
LikeLike
Well, thanks for not getting personal at all – else that would have reflected poorly on you. 🙂
And what I meant to say was both – that Britain does not owe anyting to India. And that the current generation is far from deserving the reparations, if any. Thanks for clubbing them so effectively. 🙂
Also, just for clearing myself – I do not see things in duality like good or bad. So things like ‘law of the jungle’ and ‘morality’ are not parts of different systems but they exist in the same system in varying degrees. The degree of variance of either decides the nature of the system. Yes, the times when the British came to India, we were kingdoms against kingdoms – at the time of the ‘Law of the jungle’
Today, we are ‘countries with countries moving towards a better world’. Somthing tells me, the two are different and that we cannot apply today’s rules on something that happened yesterday when the environment was completely different.
Hope the crux – and the rest of it – is clearer now.
Also, read up a little on Maslow’s heirarchy of needs and just give this a thought – what exactly does our country needs more today : better administration at home or demands of reparations from elsewhere.
Last but not the least – and this is not to get personal – but I only saw you refute my points. Anything like a reason-based-opinions on the topic that you may have? Or is it the first time you are giving such things a thought?
Thanks, Mr “noname@gmail.com” 🙂
LikeLike
So you actually think a occupying a country and enslavement is justified if the conqueror is powerful. And also since at that time India was not a country in today’s sense and of course kingdoms or its people have no rights.
Reading up on Maslow and other fancy names are very nice, but did Tharoor say that we drop all development and growth related work and only demand reparations?
Yes, I do have an opinion. Britain became the superpower solely by siphoning money from the people of India ( or the people of various kingdoms of India, as you prefer). It funded its imperialism totally at the expense of India (east of Indus). It did so by the barrel of a gun. It is not justified. Not then, not now, not ever.
If you think that was justified, then you must as well give your sanction to holocaust. Sanction apartheid, cherokee, red indian massacres. What about racism in 19th century? Should we denounce it or fondly remember it as the follies of its times. Ok, what about Bhopal gas tragedy? What about the Oil spills by western companies in Africa? What about the human drug test in Africa by western pharmas. Or what about US militarization of Africa. That is definitely imperialism. In today’s time. Keep in mind there are no laws in African countries protecting them. Most African tribes do not have the concept of democracy or nation state. Rest of the world has, they don’t. Just like India’s case then.
And then there is your opinion that current generation of India is not moral hence do not deserve justice. It is like saying if a person drinks, gambles cheats or commits crimes he is not entitled to justice on a totally separate issue. You are snatching away human rights here. You are setting up eligibility criteria for getting justice.
I took the example of your house to use something you might easily relate to on a personal level and not to get personal. Coz it sure is difficult to imagine losing freedom in one’s own country as happened back then. By the generous use of smileys and questioning my capacity to have reason based thought, I take it, you really took it on the chin. Bravo. Very mature.
Having belief in one’s view is fine. But have an open mind too (I understand it is near impossible to change one’s opinion. We guard it like a treasure). What I genuinely think is you are playing devils advocacy. Just for the sake of it.
Simply justifying the invasion as a vogue of its time, please keep in mind it was not even a century ago. Not that far ago. Or can you for easier understanding of the less learned folks here draw a timeline in history before which ‘law of jungle’ was acceptable and after which it was not.
LikeLike
Oh my humble nameless personification of maturity, since you have so accurately infered, assumed and presumed my thoughts and opinions for me, do I even need to make any attempts? You are so bang on mate – because I sure don’t know the difference between apartheid, holocuast and the British Raj! After this, should one even bother with the rest of it?.. What can I say now… do I owe you reparations now? Or an apology? 😛
I respect the effort you’ve made to get across your views. I’d have appreciated had there been an open mind at your end to receive mine too.. but I am not trying to change your opinion or heart. Just expressing mine.
P.S. > Maslow is more than just a fancy name. Time you took a peek outside your well. 😉
LikeLike
One simple answer to a question that destroys your senselessly long post – “Why is Germany still paying reparations to Israel?”
And to consider the fact that Hitler was not even from Germany.
It doesn’t matter what is owed when. It is due. It will always be due. The British cannot atone by paying back anything, no matter what the amount, which is also what Tharoor explains at the end of the video. It’s the gesture. It’s the acknowledgement of their crimes.
Domestically what used to happen is always up for debate. Whether the kingdoms were warring or not, nobody knows for sure. History is written by the victor for the most part. How do we know that this is not the argument used to actually justify the British invasion?
In fact, what I remember from the history books is that much before the Persian invasion, all the Indian kings had rules they followed, no war, no invasion, etc. After the Persian invasion, their kings wanted to conquer the whole of India, and that is when the internal warring may have happened.
Again, it’s the gesture, a gesture that Tharoor clearly states. 1 pound a year for the next 200 years or something is not going to help India in anyway. But the acknowledgement of the atrocities committed against the people whom they conquered, raided, pillaged, looted, massacred, is the most important detail to take from his speech.
LikeLike
So what is the argument here > That we should do something because some other country is also doing it? Or that we should emulate all moves that benefit us?
And the British invasion – or any invasion for that matter – cannot be justified. Simply because the doer would not have died had he not invaded – so there is no justification for killing other to invade in any case, is it? Although I am sure that we never fall shy of praising our own rulers for their conquests – what there weren’t any rapes or killings in their victories?
And the kingdoms WERE warring – check your facts.
Lastly, there are no dues in life – dues and debts (at least of the kind we are talking about here) are only emotional concepts that the two countries can argue about like a quarreling couple and have nothingto gain. Infact what Tharoor proposed for Britain is similar to what the North East and the Kashimiris have been asking of India.. any thoughts there? 🙂
LikeLike