Related post [1]
Also read Varnam's excellent series on Macaulay [1], [2], [3], [4]
I have a question. Is there any lower bar for being an "intellectual" India or it is any Tom Dick or Jerry who finds himself at the right place start inflicting his (questionable) wisdom on hoi polloi.
The particular Jerry that is in my mind, a self-professed Macaulay's Man, is attempting to play contrarian. Only he ends up a first rate idiotarian. (link courtesy shameless plagiarist)
To summarise our man wants us to assure that as good as our Independence (or freedom) is, first Raj was not really bad and second us, the eternal noble savages, should be grateful for the benevolence of our former masters.
Now a clarification is in order, a distinction must be made between the question that whether or not Raj was inevitable and the question that whether was beneficial.
To the former question my answer would be, at that particular point of history, the domination of India by European powers (and perhaps even colonization) was more or less inevitable.
However inevitable is not beneficial by a long stretch.
Back to the article, it is replete with one ridiculous statement after another.He attempts to establish equivalence between British Emprie with Mughal Empire. Now admittedly there are multiple view points about Mughal Empire. However all said and done Mughals ruled very much from India, hence they have irrefutable Indian identity.
This was not the case with British Empire with the power center seven seas across.Next assertion is that many prominent Indians appreciated Raj. Actually it would be more accurate to say they appreciated certain qualities of British. Of course it is a mystery that why should appreciation of some nation, howsoever great, imply appreciation of being enslaved by that nation and approval of loss of dignity which being subject to foreign ruler entails.
There were other reasons for appreciation, the emerging middle class was impressed by the ideal supposedly enshrined in British culture, and hoped that it was possible for Indians to advance by being in good books of the master. They, just like our man Jerry, were admirer of British, however even they were soon to realize that their loyalty and petitions meant nothing, and there was a huge gap between what English professed and what they actually did.
He repeats his mistake crediting Raj with exploration of Indian History. True the role of British in Indian history is significant, however this must be attributed to individuals and not to Raj which was in garb of bringing civilization to barbarians was enterprise to profit by exploiting Indians. This distinction must be made no one can deny the role of Individuals but to conflate it with Raj to balance its oppression is a grievous mistake.
Then with a flourish he expresses gratitude for Shakespeare to Indians. Which just like before somehow balances the oppression of Indians.
But this is nothing he is grateful to British for forcing English on us and thus ensuring our future. And the favourite, "British gave us railways". More on it later.
Our man reluctantly concludes that British discriminated against "Natives", but blames "pseudo-scientific" theories for that, not surprising considering his level of ignorance, because this pseudo-science (eugenics etc) was rationalization for Imperialism and racial suppression, not the other way round. English, since the beginning, always felt themselves to be superior from their subjects, which while hardly unnatural, is certainly unenlightened.
Thankfully at this point our man is exhausted of inanity and concludes with a requiem for the Raj.
However he is not the only one in his delusion, there is small number of Indians who share this delusion of benevolent Raj.At risk of repeating myself I will stress necessity of distinguishing between individual(s) who did contribute towards progress of India and Raj which was a system created with a certain objective.
First mistake is the belief that without colonization western science couldn't have been introduced. People who assert this believe that alternative course of history would have been an insular India. Even a basic awareness of Indian history would demonstrate the error of this position. Indian history is always marked by exchange, of idea, art and technology with outside world, through ways violent (i.e. invasion) as well as peaceful (trade) , without involving colonization. The western science was such a potent and radical development that to me its communication to India without colonization is more or less a certainty.
Second mistake (related to first one) is to overestimate contribution of Raj for transfer of the infrastructure and the technology. I do believe that just like science technology could have been transferred without the colonization. What is also not realized is that colonization had a large economic penalty. Through excessive taxation and coercive laws Indian farmers and craftsmen were reduced to penury, and Indian industries were ruined. Any transfer of technology must be judged against the cost involved, which, I believe, in this case exceeds the benefit.
To give example the seeds of enlightenment were transferred to west without colonization. Similarly Japan progressed without being enslaved or even without the benefit of English.
On the other every country which was colonized by the British had the "benefit" of
Third and serious than previous two is to believe that it was colonialism which created India. India has existed culturally and spiritually, in form of civilization since millennial, even administratively a significant part of her was united under various dynasties. What happened under British rule was evolution of political consciousness, the realization for political unity, and this not because British were anxious to create Indian identity, far from it, but rather a reaction to systematic exploitation and degradation of India by the system put in place by British.
Similar is the belief about democracy and judiciary. The idea behind modern body polity would have been transferred even without the trauma of being colony.
However the most serious mistake is to overlook the damage slavery inflicted to Indian psyche. This damage can not be calculated in monetary terms yet it easily overshadows the previous ones. Indian intellect withered under barrage of British indoctrination, which instilled a feeling of contempt and dismissal in it towards its identity and root, and a feeling of inferiority towards its master. A mind which is enslaved can not question or inquire. An identity which is in denial is incapable of taking stride. A civilization with an emasculated and enfeebled intellectual class can not formulate ideas which are essential for its sustenance and growth. It is here where colonialism did the most harm. Our intellectual career has been marked by the uncritical acceptance and internalization of western wisdom. It is a routine for our intelligentsia to distort reality and embellish facts to suit the narrative. The tragedy of India is that spirit of serious contemplation and inquiry is lacking,that even today its intellect is imprisoned in walls of its own making, which is denial of a organic Indian identity and servility to west. The material poverty is a direct consequence of poverty of ideas, of intellectual rigor mortis.
Dear Jerry and his ilk forget, civilization is not founded on cost arbitrage, it is founded on free spirit.
