Should Britain Apologise?
Italy recently apologised to Libya for its occupation of the country between 1911 and the Second Word War and offered an investment deal of $5 Billion over next 25 years towards reparation. This is largely symbolic, and investment deals could have been done without adding this moral halo. But the apology itself is an important step. The key question is one of principle, indeed. It is about whether the occupying countries do accept that their colonial exploits did enormous harm to the occupied, and whether they are ready to accept the responsibility.
As the world becomes more sensitive towards the wrongness of occupation [even George Bush was heard saying that occupation of Georgia by Russia is unthinkable in the 21st century!!], and the world justice system gears up to try the leaders causing genocide and violence, paying for past crimes - including occupation - becomes ever more relevant and important. There are several issues which are still hotly debated - slavery, for example, wherein the European colonialists displaced and dehumanized millions of Africans, needs to be answered for. Japanese have denied an apology to 'comfort women', thousands of Chinese and Korean women forced into prostitution under the Japanese occupation during the war, and Pakistan never acknowledged their genocidal practises unleashed on pre-liberation Bangladesh. However, such apologies are needed - to remind the current generations of the wrongness and futility of such practises.
On the same note, one can ask whether it is appropriate to expect Britain to apologise to India for its two hundred year long colonial rule. Given that colonial occupation is wrong, and British occupation caused untold miseries to Indians, and destroyed its economic and social structures, an apology is clearly due. However, it seems that the British believe that such apology is not necessary, because British occupation actually helped India, helped it to do away with its social evils. They further argue that the twin gifts of the empire - English Language and Democracy - are what is powering India to prosperity and prominence today.
Some of this is actually true. English Language and Democracy are both helpful, and some British colonialists played their part in reforming India's social practises and ushering in modern thinking. In all fairness, the interactions with the British changed Indians - or at least a section of India's population - and this, so far, played a prominent role in post-independence India.
However, the assertion that the effect of empire was beneficial is naive, one-sided and clearly not true. First of all, British empire destroyed India's economy. It is hilarious that some of empire's apologists claim that it is because of the British empire, India has started becoming prosperous today. India was a prosperous country - one of richest in the world - when the British set up their trading posts. The empire ruined India - of not just its jewels, but also of its industry and enterprise. The empire systematically destroyed India's village system and its agriculture. It created an unequal, unfair, favour-based system to buy off the urban gentry. While India's raw materials powered Britain's industrial revolution, India itself was left devoid of industry, through a clever mixture of trade laws, tariffs and local administrative policies.
Second, the British empire destroyed India's system of education. Elsewhere, I wrote about Lord Macaulay, and talked about his role in spreading English education. I maintained that he did Indians a favour by introducing English, though his intent was to create a subservient class of government servants, and not universal education. In the process, indeed, he destroyed universal education. Thinking on his lines, subsequent generations of Indian administrators even gave up thinking of the possibility of universal education, and channelled limited government resources towards funding expensive tertiary education. However, Indian languages, knowledge and tradition were irretrievably lost in the process. The British empire is largely responsible for limiting the scope of education in India, and creating a 'babu' class taught in the Master's language. Any effect that may have on our prosperity is purely accidental, but the damage it has caused to India is beyond doubt and limitless.
Third, though some of the leading British thinkers played a significant part in creating modern India, they were not representatives of the empire. In fact, they had to confront the empire in achieving their liberal, humanitarian goals. The overall legacy of the empire itself, on the Indian society, was one of division, strife and violence. One must not forget the most visible sign of the empire was observed in its parting - they entered the land of a mighty, unified empire and left a land divided, with millions of refugees, in the middle of the most violent communal strife in modern history. Empire's social effects must be observed with this in perspective.
Fourth, while it is true that Indian administrators learnt the art of Parliamentary democracy from the British, it isn't a gift from the empire, but an invention of the post-independence Indian leaders. They demonstrated courage and determination in allowing universal suffrage from the word go. At that time in history, the coloured did not have a vote in the United States. The Indian democracy was an act of imagination from Nehru and co., it was not a 'gift' the empire wanted to leave behind.
In summary, it is time that the British come in term with the truth - that the empire was an ugly, exploitative and unfair burden they had put on other peoples. They need to apologise and they should pay a reparation. Hiding behind the united voices of English language textbooks and biased media stories have gone on for too long. A true apology will hurt no one; but the absence of one will leave Britain a country in denial, unable to come in terms with the modern world, and surely, one day, history will overtake its vanity and it will fail its moral claim of attempting to create a better world.
As the world becomes more sensitive towards the wrongness of occupation [even George Bush was heard saying that occupation of Georgia by Russia is unthinkable in the 21st century!!], and the world justice system gears up to try the leaders causing genocide and violence, paying for past crimes - including occupation - becomes ever more relevant and important. There are several issues which are still hotly debated - slavery, for example, wherein the European colonialists displaced and dehumanized millions of Africans, needs to be answered for. Japanese have denied an apology to 'comfort women', thousands of Chinese and Korean women forced into prostitution under the Japanese occupation during the war, and Pakistan never acknowledged their genocidal practises unleashed on pre-liberation Bangladesh. However, such apologies are needed - to remind the current generations of the wrongness and futility of such practises.
On the same note, one can ask whether it is appropriate to expect Britain to apologise to India for its two hundred year long colonial rule. Given that colonial occupation is wrong, and British occupation caused untold miseries to Indians, and destroyed its economic and social structures, an apology is clearly due. However, it seems that the British believe that such apology is not necessary, because British occupation actually helped India, helped it to do away with its social evils. They further argue that the twin gifts of the empire - English Language and Democracy - are what is powering India to prosperity and prominence today.
Some of this is actually true. English Language and Democracy are both helpful, and some British colonialists played their part in reforming India's social practises and ushering in modern thinking. In all fairness, the interactions with the British changed Indians - or at least a section of India's population - and this, so far, played a prominent role in post-independence India.
However, the assertion that the effect of empire was beneficial is naive, one-sided and clearly not true. First of all, British empire destroyed India's economy. It is hilarious that some of empire's apologists claim that it is because of the British empire, India has started becoming prosperous today. India was a prosperous country - one of richest in the world - when the British set up their trading posts. The empire ruined India - of not just its jewels, but also of its industry and enterprise. The empire systematically destroyed India's village system and its agriculture. It created an unequal, unfair, favour-based system to buy off the urban gentry. While India's raw materials powered Britain's industrial revolution, India itself was left devoid of industry, through a clever mixture of trade laws, tariffs and local administrative policies.
Second, the British empire destroyed India's system of education. Elsewhere, I wrote about Lord Macaulay, and talked about his role in spreading English education. I maintained that he did Indians a favour by introducing English, though his intent was to create a subservient class of government servants, and not universal education. In the process, indeed, he destroyed universal education. Thinking on his lines, subsequent generations of Indian administrators even gave up thinking of the possibility of universal education, and channelled limited government resources towards funding expensive tertiary education. However, Indian languages, knowledge and tradition were irretrievably lost in the process. The British empire is largely responsible for limiting the scope of education in India, and creating a 'babu' class taught in the Master's language. Any effect that may have on our prosperity is purely accidental, but the damage it has caused to India is beyond doubt and limitless.
Third, though some of the leading British thinkers played a significant part in creating modern India, they were not representatives of the empire. In fact, they had to confront the empire in achieving their liberal, humanitarian goals. The overall legacy of the empire itself, on the Indian society, was one of division, strife and violence. One must not forget the most visible sign of the empire was observed in its parting - they entered the land of a mighty, unified empire and left a land divided, with millions of refugees, in the middle of the most violent communal strife in modern history. Empire's social effects must be observed with this in perspective.
Fourth, while it is true that Indian administrators learnt the art of Parliamentary democracy from the British, it isn't a gift from the empire, but an invention of the post-independence Indian leaders. They demonstrated courage and determination in allowing universal suffrage from the word go. At that time in history, the coloured did not have a vote in the United States. The Indian democracy was an act of imagination from Nehru and co., it was not a 'gift' the empire wanted to leave behind.
In summary, it is time that the British come in term with the truth - that the empire was an ugly, exploitative and unfair burden they had put on other peoples. They need to apologise and they should pay a reparation. Hiding behind the united voices of English language textbooks and biased media stories have gone on for too long. A true apology will hurt no one; but the absence of one will leave Britain a country in denial, unable to come in terms with the modern world, and surely, one day, history will overtake its vanity and it will fail its moral claim of attempting to create a better world.
Comments
Good post.
Yes, indeed - the modernization of India was carried out for the sake of administrative convenience. Besides, the route to development for India was subverted, and how can one assert that learning English was good for us, as the only advantage that English had was that it was the rulers' language.
The human costs of colonialism was enormous. It is time that the current generations accept that it was wrong, as that will help us secure the future.
I agree with the author. Bharath's (don't prefer 'India') economy during Ashoka's and then Akbar's period was far greater than China and britain during pre-british period. britain's colonial exploitation reduced Bharat's economy to rubbles during their misrule.
+ I don't agree that britain united Bharat - their intent, was 'not to unite' but to divide. Several emperors successfully united Bharat before the british - It was Ashoka who united Bharath from Afganisthan from north west to down south and east!
+ moghuls & british invaded Bharath, for it's wealth & land, and didn't come for charity.
+ It's hilarious to see britain added the title 'Great' to themselves? (For all their barabarstic attempts they did to 'rule' Bharath?)
+ why don't we, Bharath start supporting irish independence from britain?
If pope in rome apologized for their sin (for punishing Galilieo) after 300+ years, why can't britain apologize to bharat for what they did?
"+ It's hilarious to see britain added the title 'Great' to themselves? (For all their barabarstic attempts they did to 'rule' Bharath?)"
It is hilarious to see someone who has no knowledge of geography. Hint: the 'Great' has nothing to do with any notion of self aggrandisement.
A proper judicial system was introduced and employed successfully in subcontinent under British Rule. Nonetheless, it is also true that the natives were exploited; but their contribution to our people should be considered too.
A proper judicial system was introduced and employed successfully in subcontinent under British Rule. Nonetheless, it is also true that the natives were exploited; but their contribution to our people should be considered too.
From
https://indianraga.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/british-raj-and-indian-classical-music/
"When you think of Carnatic music, you think of temples, music which has retained its pristine purity over the ages and something strongly South Indian. But Carnatic music like all Indian art forms has been open to various cultural influences from all over the country and across the seas. Strange as it may sound, the British Raj and its bands have left a firm imprint on this most traditional music form. Muthuswami Dikshitar and Thyagaraja, two of the most revered composers of Carnatic music, were certainly influenced by the strange tunes from the British.
Perhaps the earliest innovation was the violin. This very Western instrument became part of the Carnatic music tradition when the family of composer Ramaswami Dikshitar moved from Tiruvarur to Madras in the 1790s. The five-year stay exposed brothers Muthuswami and Baluswami Dikshitars to the ‘airs’ that were being played by the Fort St George orchestra.
Baluswami Dikshitar learnt to play the violin from an Englishman and introduced it to the Carnatic concert platform. Muthuswami Dikshitar composed around fifty verses in Sanskrit, based on the orchestra’s music. The most famous among these is ‘Santatam Pahi Mam Sangita Shyamale’ which is set to the same tune as ‘God Save The King’! Muthuswami Dikshitar’s contemporary, Thyagaraja, composed ‘Raminsuvar Evarura’ in the Raga Suposhini, which was clearly inspired by music that accompanies march pasts.
His ‘Vara Lila Gana Lola’ in Raga Sankarabharanam, is also completely based on Western band tunes. Thyagaraja used words that had come into Telugu from English in some of his compositions. The usage of the word Landaru (from Lantern) in the kriti ‘Emi Jesite Nemi’ (Raga Todi) and Shalu (from Shawl) in the kriti ‘Jutamurare’ (Raga Arabhi) are examples.
The British were not immune to the beauty of Carnatic music. We have instances of singers such as Maha Vaidyanatha Sivan being appreciated by British officials. The antics and contortions of Sivagangai Periya Vaithi, are said to have scared at least one British Mem into hysterics.
Gopalakrishna Bharat’s Nandan Charitram moved a French official of Karaikkal to such an extent that he funded the first publication of the work. The Madras Jubilee Gayan Samaj opened its office in 1883 and among its patrons were such senior officials as Sir Charles Turner, Col McLeod and Gen S Chamier.
Programmes featuring Carnatic music were held at the Pachiappa’s Hall in George Town, Madras and many Englishmen attended these events. Patnam Subramanya Iyer, the composer who lived in Madras for 12 years, thereby acquiring the prefix Patnam (city), created the Raga Kathanakutoohalam, which can easily pass off as a melody in Western Music. His song ‘Raghuvamsa Sudha’ in this Raga is a favourite among instrumentalists, specially when they are performing to an International audience.
At the turn of the century, the Harikatha movement (story telling with music) was at its peak. Innovations were happening in this genre. Exponents such as Harikesanallur L Muthiah Bhagavatar and Tirupazhanam Panchapakesa Sastriar were in the fore front. A popular item in their repertoire was the description of Rama’s marriage to Sita. During their discourse they let their imagination run riot and even described a ‘band’ that belted out music during the wedding procession. The ever popular ‘English Note’ was created for this.