What do you think?
Rate this book
Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India
Inglorious Empire tells the real story of the British in India — from the arrival of the East India Company to the end of the Raj — and reveals how Britain’s rise was built upon its plunder of India.
In the eighteenth century, India’s share of the world economy was as large as Europe’s. By 1947, after two centuries of British rule, it had decreased six-fold. Beyond conquest and deception, the Empire blew rebels from cannon, massacred unarmed protesters, entrenched institutionalised racism, and caused millions to die from starvation.
British imperialism justified itself as enlightened despotism for the benefit of the governed, but Shashi Tharoor takes on and demolishes this position, demonstrating how every supposed imperial ‘gift’ — from the railways to the rule of law — was designed in Britain’s interests alone. He goes on to show how Britain’s Industrial Revolution was founded on India’s deindustrialisation, and the destruction of its textile industry.
In this bold and incisive reassessment of colonialism, Tharoor exposes to devastating effect the inglorious reality of Britain’s stained Indian legacy.
In the eighteenth century, India’s share of the world economy was as large as Europe’s. By 1947, after two centuries of British rule, it had decreased six-fold. Beyond conquest and deception, the Empire blew rebels from cannon, massacred unarmed protesters, entrenched institutionalised racism, and caused millions to die from starvation.
British imperialism justified itself as enlightened despotism for the benefit of the governed, but Shashi Tharoor takes on and demolishes this position, demonstrating how every supposed imperial ‘gift’ — from the railways to the rule of law — was designed in Britain’s interests alone. He goes on to show how Britain’s Industrial Revolution was founded on India’s deindustrialisation, and the destruction of its textile industry.
In this bold and incisive reassessment of colonialism, Tharoor exposes to devastating effect the inglorious reality of Britain’s stained Indian legacy.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2016
4,776 people are currently reading
35k people want to read
About the author
Shashi Tharoor
68 books2,937 followersShashi Tharoor is a member of the Indian Parliament from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in Kerala. He previously served as the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information and as the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs.
He is also a prolific author, columnist, journalist and a human rights advocate.
He has served on the Board of Overseers of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is also an adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva and a Fellow of the New York Institute of the Humanities at New York University. He has also served as a trustee of the Aspen Institute, and the Advisory of the Indo-American Arts Council, the American India Foundation, the World Policy Journal, the Virtue Foundation and the human rights organization Breakthrough He is also a Patron of the Dubai Modern High School and the managing trustee of the Chandran Tharoor Foundation which he founded with his family and friends in the name of his late father, Chandran Tharoor.
Tharoor has written numerous books in English. Most of his literary creations are centred on Indian themes and they are markedly “Indo-nostalgic.” Perhaps his most famous work is The Great Indian Novel, published in 1989, in which he uses the narrative and theme of the famous Indian epic Mahabharata to weave a satirical story of Indian life in a non-linear mode with the characters drawn from the Indian Independence Movement. His novel Show Business (1992) was made into the film 'Bollywood'(1994). The late Ismail Merchant had announced his wish to make a film of Tharoor’s novel Riot shortly before Merchant’s death in 2005.
Tharoor has been a highly-regarded columnist in each of India's three best-known English-language newspapers, most recently for The Hindu newspaper (2001–2008) and in a weekly column, “Shashi on Sunday,” in the Times of India (January 2007 – December 2008). Following his resignation as Minister of State for External Affairs, he began a fortnightly column on foreign policy issues in the "Deccan Chronicle". Previously he was a columnist for the Gentleman magazine and the Indian Express newspaper, as well as a frequent contributor to Newsweek International and the International Herald Tribune. His Op-Eds and book reviews have appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, amongst other papers.
Tharoor began writing at the age of 6 and his first published story appeared in the “Bharat Jyoti”, the Sunday edition of the "Free press Journal", in Mumbai at age 10. His World War II adventure novel Operation Bellows, inspired by the Biggles books, was serialized in the Junior Statesman starting a week before his 11th birthday. Each of his books has been a best-seller in India. The Great Indian Novel is currently in its 28th edition in India and his newest volume. The Elephant, the Tiger and the Cellphone has undergone seven hardback re-printings there.
Tharoor has lectured widely on India, and is often quoted for his observations, including, "India is not, as people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country, but rather, in the context of its history and cultural heritage, a highly developed one in an advanced state of decay.". He has also coined a memorable comparison of India's "thali" to the American "melting pot": "If America is a melting pot, then to me India is a thali--a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together on the same plate, and they complement each other in making the meal a satisfying repast."
He is also a prolific author, columnist, journalist and a human rights advocate.
He has served on the Board of Overseers of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is also an adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva and a Fellow of the New York Institute of the Humanities at New York University. He has also served as a trustee of the Aspen Institute, and the Advisory of the Indo-American Arts Council, the American India Foundation, the World Policy Journal, the Virtue Foundation and the human rights organization Breakthrough He is also a Patron of the Dubai Modern High School and the managing trustee of the Chandran Tharoor Foundation which he founded with his family and friends in the name of his late father, Chandran Tharoor.
Tharoor has written numerous books in English. Most of his literary creations are centred on Indian themes and they are markedly “Indo-nostalgic.” Perhaps his most famous work is The Great Indian Novel, published in 1989, in which he uses the narrative and theme of the famous Indian epic Mahabharata to weave a satirical story of Indian life in a non-linear mode with the characters drawn from the Indian Independence Movement. His novel Show Business (1992) was made into the film 'Bollywood'(1994). The late Ismail Merchant had announced his wish to make a film of Tharoor’s novel Riot shortly before Merchant’s death in 2005.
Tharoor has been a highly-regarded columnist in each of India's three best-known English-language newspapers, most recently for The Hindu newspaper (2001–2008) and in a weekly column, “Shashi on Sunday,” in the Times of India (January 2007 – December 2008). Following his resignation as Minister of State for External Affairs, he began a fortnightly column on foreign policy issues in the "Deccan Chronicle". Previously he was a columnist for the Gentleman magazine and the Indian Express newspaper, as well as a frequent contributor to Newsweek International and the International Herald Tribune. His Op-Eds and book reviews have appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, amongst other papers.
Tharoor began writing at the age of 6 and his first published story appeared in the “Bharat Jyoti”, the Sunday edition of the "Free press Journal", in Mumbai at age 10. His World War II adventure novel Operation Bellows, inspired by the Biggles books, was serialized in the Junior Statesman starting a week before his 11th birthday. Each of his books has been a best-seller in India. The Great Indian Novel is currently in its 28th edition in India and his newest volume. The Elephant, the Tiger and the Cellphone has undergone seven hardback re-printings there.
Tharoor has lectured widely on India, and is often quoted for his observations, including, "India is not, as people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country, but rather, in the context of its history and cultural heritage, a highly developed one in an advanced state of decay.". He has also coined a memorable comparison of India's "thali" to the American "melting pot": "If America is a melting pot, then to me India is a thali--a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together on the same plate, and they complement each other in making the meal a satisfying repast."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,532 reviews
December 5, 2016
In 1995, I was travelling in Tierra del Fuego where I chanced to meet a middle-aged Canadian in a coffee shop. He too, like me, was travelling in South America and we ended up chatting about colonialism. It was then that he made the following astounding statement: "...you know, of all the European countries that colonized the world - France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Britain - it was only the English who did so with the aim to modernize and develop those backward nations. The rest were mostly out to exploit, plunder and conquer." I couldn't believe that in 1995, a Canadian man in his forties would seriously believe such a thing and even more so, articulate it to an Indian. But then, he wasn't the first man to say such a thing to me during my travels. There have been many others - often Australians and Brits - who generally believed that British colonialism was humane, fair and constructive compared to the rest. It is probably not all that surprising, because, even eminent modern-day British economists and historians like Niall Ferguson and Lawrence James have recently written books, extolling the 'good' of British colonialism and pronouncing that it was ultimately a positive force in the world. James sees the Raj as a period governed by essentially idealistic, if paternalistic, rulers who impacted India deeply. India's sustained adherence to Democracy, its Railways and the system of education are seen as among the positive legacies of British rule by Lawrence James. In the 1960s, as a schoolboy, I have heard even elderly Indians remark that 'everything has gone to the dogs after the British left India'. Can it all be really true? Or is it just post-truth?
For those of us Indians, who are tired of reading Englishmen telling us that they made us into a modern and unified nation, a democracy and law-bound society as well as that British rule was benign and considerate, author Tharoor's book will come as a welcome Indian contribution in striking back at the Empire with details of the actual lived truth of colonialism. After all, the judgement has to be made based on documents telling us what really happened in the 18th and 19th centuries in India. In recent months, there have been a spate of books by British authors as well, blowing the lid off the 'post-colonial melancholia' of Raj apologists. All of them echo the conclusions that Tharoor himself has reached through his own extensive research on the 200-year rule of India by Britain. Tharoor shows that the Raj was an era of darkness for India, where rapacious economic exploitation of India was committed on an unprecedented scale. It was a time when peasants were impoverished by punishing tax laws and driven out of their lands and forced into deportation as indentured labor to far-off lands and made to suffer and die in recurrent famines. In addition, racism, wars and bad administration was rife. Everything Britain did was for its own benefit and not for that of Indians. They broke treaties at will and looted the wealth of India with abandon. The rise of Britain during the two centuries between the 18th and 20th was financed by its depredations in India.
Tharoor has marshalled impressive arguments and facts to support his indictment of the Raj. This space is too small to outline and analyze all the arguments. But the facts tell a stunning tale of exploitation and destruction. Let us look at some of them:
- India was a prosperous nation in the 18th century as documented by even the East India company's own men like Robert Clive, Macaulay and others. India's share then of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time the British left India in 1947, it was 3%.
- When Britain left India in 1947, India had a literacy of 16%, an average longevity of just 27 years and 90% of the population were in poverty.
- Between 1757 and 1900, the British per capita GDP increased in real terms by 347% while that of the Indian by a mere 14%.
- India experienced recurrent devastating famines due to the ruthless economic policies enforced by Britain. At least eleven major famines were recorded in different parts of India between 1770 and 1944. About 30 -35 million Indians died in these famines. To put it in perspective, Tharoor quotes author William Digby, who points out that in the entire 107 years between 1793 and 1900, only an estimated five million people had died in all the wars around the world combined, whereas in just ten years 1891-1900, 19 million had died in India in famines alone.
- Economist Paul Baran calculates that 8 percent of India's GNP was transferred to Britain each year.
- India exported to Britain £13m worth of goods each year from 1835 to 1872 with no corresponding return of money.
- The salary of the British Secy of State for India in 1901, paid for by Indian taxes, was equivalent of the average salary of 90000 Indians.
Tharoor deals with the known facts of Britain's 'divide and rule' policy, the destruction of India's textile industry and the ruin of its agriculture. But, India was also a great manufacturing nation before the British arrived. Its de-industrialization was systematically engineered by the British in order to capture the markets for its own producers. Tharoor shows how India's vibrant steel and ship-building industries were also destroyed by colonialism. In the early 17th century, 4000 to 5000 ships were built at 400 to 500 tonnes each in Bengal for the Bengal fleet. Between 1801 and 1839, a further 327 ships were built there, but all British-owned. Gradually, by late 19th century, both industries were only a memory.
So, how did Britain manage to bring about these horrible outcomes? It was done by employing the following methods:
- allowing tariff-free exports of British goods to India
- Fixing standards in such a way that would make Indian manufactured goods unattractive in global markets
- applying import barriers on Indian manufactured goods
- Increasing India's debt burden by manipulating the currency
- destroying competition, thereby preventing Indian businesses from challenging British ones and ensuring their monopoly
Towards the end of the book, the author looks at the question of reparations from the UK. He agrees that reparations are neither practical nor realistic or even possible. After all, if one actually computes the value of the wealth taken from India during the two centuries, it would run into trillions of dollars in today's money, much more than UK's GDP. But he says that Britain should at least atone for its devastation of India by tendering an apology. He cites the example of Chancellor Willy Brandt of Germany tendering apologies to Polish Jews and the Canadian PM Justine Trudeau for the Komagata Maru incident. Tharoor goes on to point out that British society, as a whole, has never examined its colonial past critically (except for individuals) and honestly in the way Germans have done about Nazism. He gives the example of how German children are shepherded to concentration camps to see the awful reality of what their forefathers did. Similarly, British schoolchildren must be taught what built their homeland instead of showing them just the pomp and splendour of the Raj.
The book is a little bit of a grim read even for an Indian. Certainly, it would be hard-going for a 'Raj apologist'. It is written with passionate arguments, well-referenced facts, a sprinkling of wit and sarcasm and much logical reasoning. However, the book is published at a time which seems to be the season for Raj-era re-evaluation. There are more books critically analyzing the various aspects of those two centuries by Dr. Yasmin Khan, Walter Reid, Roy Moxham and Jon Wilson. I hope to read all of them so as to get a composite picture of India's recent history. This one by Shashi Tharoor is a perfect start.
For those of us Indians, who are tired of reading Englishmen telling us that they made us into a modern and unified nation, a democracy and law-bound society as well as that British rule was benign and considerate, author Tharoor's book will come as a welcome Indian contribution in striking back at the Empire with details of the actual lived truth of colonialism. After all, the judgement has to be made based on documents telling us what really happened in the 18th and 19th centuries in India. In recent months, there have been a spate of books by British authors as well, blowing the lid off the 'post-colonial melancholia' of Raj apologists. All of them echo the conclusions that Tharoor himself has reached through his own extensive research on the 200-year rule of India by Britain. Tharoor shows that the Raj was an era of darkness for India, where rapacious economic exploitation of India was committed on an unprecedented scale. It was a time when peasants were impoverished by punishing tax laws and driven out of their lands and forced into deportation as indentured labor to far-off lands and made to suffer and die in recurrent famines. In addition, racism, wars and bad administration was rife. Everything Britain did was for its own benefit and not for that of Indians. They broke treaties at will and looted the wealth of India with abandon. The rise of Britain during the two centuries between the 18th and 20th was financed by its depredations in India.
Tharoor has marshalled impressive arguments and facts to support his indictment of the Raj. This space is too small to outline and analyze all the arguments. But the facts tell a stunning tale of exploitation and destruction. Let us look at some of them:
- India was a prosperous nation in the 18th century as documented by even the East India company's own men like Robert Clive, Macaulay and others. India's share then of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time the British left India in 1947, it was 3%.
- When Britain left India in 1947, India had a literacy of 16%, an average longevity of just 27 years and 90% of the population were in poverty.
- Between 1757 and 1900, the British per capita GDP increased in real terms by 347% while that of the Indian by a mere 14%.
- India experienced recurrent devastating famines due to the ruthless economic policies enforced by Britain. At least eleven major famines were recorded in different parts of India between 1770 and 1944. About 30 -35 million Indians died in these famines. To put it in perspective, Tharoor quotes author William Digby, who points out that in the entire 107 years between 1793 and 1900, only an estimated five million people had died in all the wars around the world combined, whereas in just ten years 1891-1900, 19 million had died in India in famines alone.
- Economist Paul Baran calculates that 8 percent of India's GNP was transferred to Britain each year.
- India exported to Britain £13m worth of goods each year from 1835 to 1872 with no corresponding return of money.
- The salary of the British Secy of State for India in 1901, paid for by Indian taxes, was equivalent of the average salary of 90000 Indians.
Tharoor deals with the known facts of Britain's 'divide and rule' policy, the destruction of India's textile industry and the ruin of its agriculture. But, India was also a great manufacturing nation before the British arrived. Its de-industrialization was systematically engineered by the British in order to capture the markets for its own producers. Tharoor shows how India's vibrant steel and ship-building industries were also destroyed by colonialism. In the early 17th century, 4000 to 5000 ships were built at 400 to 500 tonnes each in Bengal for the Bengal fleet. Between 1801 and 1839, a further 327 ships were built there, but all British-owned. Gradually, by late 19th century, both industries were only a memory.
So, how did Britain manage to bring about these horrible outcomes? It was done by employing the following methods:
- allowing tariff-free exports of British goods to India
- Fixing standards in such a way that would make Indian manufactured goods unattractive in global markets
- applying import barriers on Indian manufactured goods
- Increasing India's debt burden by manipulating the currency
- destroying competition, thereby preventing Indian businesses from challenging British ones and ensuring their monopoly
Towards the end of the book, the author looks at the question of reparations from the UK. He agrees that reparations are neither practical nor realistic or even possible. After all, if one actually computes the value of the wealth taken from India during the two centuries, it would run into trillions of dollars in today's money, much more than UK's GDP. But he says that Britain should at least atone for its devastation of India by tendering an apology. He cites the example of Chancellor Willy Brandt of Germany tendering apologies to Polish Jews and the Canadian PM Justine Trudeau for the Komagata Maru incident. Tharoor goes on to point out that British society, as a whole, has never examined its colonial past critically (except for individuals) and honestly in the way Germans have done about Nazism. He gives the example of how German children are shepherded to concentration camps to see the awful reality of what their forefathers did. Similarly, British schoolchildren must be taught what built their homeland instead of showing them just the pomp and splendour of the Raj.
The book is a little bit of a grim read even for an Indian. Certainly, it would be hard-going for a 'Raj apologist'. It is written with passionate arguments, well-referenced facts, a sprinkling of wit and sarcasm and much logical reasoning. However, the book is published at a time which seems to be the season for Raj-era re-evaluation. There are more books critically analyzing the various aspects of those two centuries by Dr. Yasmin Khan, Walter Reid, Roy Moxham and Jon Wilson. I hope to read all of them so as to get a composite picture of India's recent history. This one by Shashi Tharoor is a perfect start.
April 20, 2018
While I was reading this book, I kept thinking that one of the things people on the left could reasonably do is just make up stuff about the extent of murderousness that colonisation has involved. The reason being that it is highly unlikely anyone on the left would have the imagination to think up the horrors that were actually inflicted upon the world by the imperial ambitions of Britain or Spain – or the costs to indigenous peoples in the US or Australia. This book documents horrors upon horrors. But infinitely worse is the clear view that is left of the British who were not merely rapacious is thievery from those they pretended to be lifting out of darkness, but who did nothing to alleviate suffering when lifting the smallest finger would have saved many lives from the most horrible of deaths.
Winston Churchill does not come out of this at all well. As someone born in Ireland, he has never particularly been a hero of mine anyway – but in India his name ought to be a curse.
I’m not going to list the catalogue of crimes against humanity visited upon India by British rule – this book provides ample examples and ought to be read for that alone – however, I want to focus mostly on something that I believe still holds relevance for us today everywhere on the planet – the inhumanity of free market economics when accepted as a moral philosophy.
Marx says somewhere that we should consider capitalism as simultaneously the best and the worse system that has ever existed. As the author here points out, those in charge of India from Britain were guided by ethical principles that had two great foundations – that the market is always right and a vision of Malthus where overpopulation inevitably leads to famine. This meant that when various imposed famines occurred in India those who might otherwise have been expected to do something to reduce the suffering experienced by the people saw any such action as misguided ‘charity’ that would, in fact, merely make matters worse. That the market had spoken and the death of those people (counted in millions) was ultimately the kindest thing. Rather than divert some of the food that was being transported out of these areas where people were starving, the food continued to be moved to Europe and the people dropped like flies.
The point isn’t that such actions were the cynical excesses of a hideous regime content to merely suck the wealth and life out of India – and, there is something to this as well, of course – but rather that free market economics, with its invisible hands and its dogmatic certainties, allows people to consider their actions (or inactions) as the height of morality while millions perish. This was done to Ireland with the same callous disregard as it was to India. That the monsters who committed the crimes remain heroes is difficult to understand other than from the perspective that we still live under the sway of an ideology that still believes the market will provide and any intervention in its free action will ultimately prove counter-productive – and thus are the greatest of human tragedies visited upon the poor while the wealthy can barely count their riches.
Winston Churchill does not come out of this at all well. As someone born in Ireland, he has never particularly been a hero of mine anyway – but in India his name ought to be a curse.
I’m not going to list the catalogue of crimes against humanity visited upon India by British rule – this book provides ample examples and ought to be read for that alone – however, I want to focus mostly on something that I believe still holds relevance for us today everywhere on the planet – the inhumanity of free market economics when accepted as a moral philosophy.
Marx says somewhere that we should consider capitalism as simultaneously the best and the worse system that has ever existed. As the author here points out, those in charge of India from Britain were guided by ethical principles that had two great foundations – that the market is always right and a vision of Malthus where overpopulation inevitably leads to famine. This meant that when various imposed famines occurred in India those who might otherwise have been expected to do something to reduce the suffering experienced by the people saw any such action as misguided ‘charity’ that would, in fact, merely make matters worse. That the market had spoken and the death of those people (counted in millions) was ultimately the kindest thing. Rather than divert some of the food that was being transported out of these areas where people were starving, the food continued to be moved to Europe and the people dropped like flies.
The point isn’t that such actions were the cynical excesses of a hideous regime content to merely suck the wealth and life out of India – and, there is something to this as well, of course – but rather that free market economics, with its invisible hands and its dogmatic certainties, allows people to consider their actions (or inactions) as the height of morality while millions perish. This was done to Ireland with the same callous disregard as it was to India. That the monsters who committed the crimes remain heroes is difficult to understand other than from the perspective that we still live under the sway of an ideology that still believes the market will provide and any intervention in its free action will ultimately prove counter-productive – and thus are the greatest of human tragedies visited upon the poor while the wealthy can barely count their riches.
December 17, 2020
There are still far too many people in Britain who look back fondly on Empire and who have very little grasp of the real history of Empire. Not understanding your own history leads to delusions and in this country xenophobia and racism.
This is essentially an extended polemical essay based on Tharoor’s speech to the Oxford Union in 2015. He essentially looks at the pros and cons of British rule and addresses the alleged benefits of the Raj. There aren’t any new arguments, it’s more a condensation of those debated over the years. What is disturbing is that although they are not new to me, it was certainly not something that I was taught in school. I think that at least three quarters of my fellow Brits know virtually nothing about the history of Empire in India, even the more recent parts such as Partition.
This is not an academic text and there is no way that Tharoor can cover over two hundred years of history in detail in a book this size and nor does he attempt to do so. He does point the reader to where these sources can be found. As can be imagined there were screams of outrage in the British press. One hilarious example is an article in History Today which while recognizing famine and massacre, criticizes Tharoor for not mentioning the British contribution to Indian archaeological studies!
Tharoor runs through the history of the East India Company and the British motives in India, the destruction of local industries and argues the industrial revolution in Britain was part funded by money from India (and part from the slave trade). He looks at effects on culture, the massacres, and famines and thanks the English for tea, cricket and Wodehouse.
The British self-image involves fair play, standing up to bullies in WW2 and all that sort of thing. What they don’t teach in school are things like the Bengal famine of 1943, when between three and four million people died. There was enough food/grain in India to feed them, but this was moved to Europe on the orders of the British government. Grain ships from Australia and New Zealand passed throughout the famine. There is a direct line of responsibility here and the lives of those who died can be laid directly at the door of Britain. It isn’t comfortable to contemplate and is not part of the history curriculum and can be laid directly at the door of Churchill, who wasn’t a fan of Indians:
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion . . . Let the Viceroy sit on the back of a giant elephant and trample Gandhi into the dirt.”
The total death toll from famines over the period of the Raj probably tops thirty million (Tharoor thinks 35); that rivals Stalin and Mao.
The book isn’t without its flaws, after all it’s a polemic. Tharoor is a politician, a Congress Party MP and so has an agenda of his own. There are a few remarks about Jinnah which speak more of today’s political situation perhaps. However the thrust of the argument is clear and this book should be read by those who go on about Britain’s wonderful empire.
This is essentially an extended polemical essay based on Tharoor’s speech to the Oxford Union in 2015. He essentially looks at the pros and cons of British rule and addresses the alleged benefits of the Raj. There aren’t any new arguments, it’s more a condensation of those debated over the years. What is disturbing is that although they are not new to me, it was certainly not something that I was taught in school. I think that at least three quarters of my fellow Brits know virtually nothing about the history of Empire in India, even the more recent parts such as Partition.
This is not an academic text and there is no way that Tharoor can cover over two hundred years of history in detail in a book this size and nor does he attempt to do so. He does point the reader to where these sources can be found. As can be imagined there were screams of outrage in the British press. One hilarious example is an article in History Today which while recognizing famine and massacre, criticizes Tharoor for not mentioning the British contribution to Indian archaeological studies!
Tharoor runs through the history of the East India Company and the British motives in India, the destruction of local industries and argues the industrial revolution in Britain was part funded by money from India (and part from the slave trade). He looks at effects on culture, the massacres, and famines and thanks the English for tea, cricket and Wodehouse.
The British self-image involves fair play, standing up to bullies in WW2 and all that sort of thing. What they don’t teach in school are things like the Bengal famine of 1943, when between three and four million people died. There was enough food/grain in India to feed them, but this was moved to Europe on the orders of the British government. Grain ships from Australia and New Zealand passed throughout the famine. There is a direct line of responsibility here and the lives of those who died can be laid directly at the door of Britain. It isn’t comfortable to contemplate and is not part of the history curriculum and can be laid directly at the door of Churchill, who wasn’t a fan of Indians:
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion . . . Let the Viceroy sit on the back of a giant elephant and trample Gandhi into the dirt.”
The total death toll from famines over the period of the Raj probably tops thirty million (Tharoor thinks 35); that rivals Stalin and Mao.
The book isn’t without its flaws, after all it’s a polemic. Tharoor is a politician, a Congress Party MP and so has an agenda of his own. There are a few remarks about Jinnah which speak more of today’s political situation perhaps. However the thrust of the argument is clear and this book should be read by those who go on about Britain’s wonderful empire.
January 5, 2021
Inglorious Empire
tells the real story of the British Rule in India — from the arrival of the East India Company to the end of the Raj — and reveals how Britain’s rise was built upon its the plunder of India. Though there are several books about the British Empire, in Inglorious Empire, Shashi Tharoor attempts to explore the devastating impact of the British Empire on India.
The book is based on the speech made by the author at Oxford when the author was invited as a speaker at the Oxford Union but the book is not his written speech. This book is also not about British Colonialism as a whole or nor the history of British India. This is not an academic text but an attempt to present the reality of the 200 years of British rule over India. From conquest and deception, institutionalized racism, the policy of divide and rule, and total misgovernance that drew millions of Indians abject to poverty and death. Shashi Tharoor demolishes every “Pro” argument in favor of the British rule — from the railways to the unification of India to the rule of law — which he goes on to show how everything was designed in Britain’s interests alone.
This book covers a period from the formation of the East India Company in 1600 till India gaining independence in 1947. Tharoor uses numerous resources to prove his points and covers a wide variety of arguments. From the destruction of Indian industries to the siphoning of Indian taxes to London, the policy of divide and rule which lead to the bloody partition of the country, the systematic racism and suppression of dissent in all forms, Tharoor paints the true picture of India under British rule.
Tharoor covers all possible impacts of British rule apart from the economic argument to the socio-political sphere. Each argument is backed by facts and anecdotes. Like How India’s share in world economy dropped from around 25%. Before British rule to around 3% at the time of independence. How at least eleven major famines were recorded in different parts of India between 1770 and 1944 which killed about 30 -35 million Indians died in these famines.
As this is partly inspired by a debate, each section is a counter-argument and feels fragmented. The chapters don’t flow as well as they should, and there were parts that I found repetitive. (For e.g.: The part about rail wagons or the local industry)
As Tharoor himself says, one cannot take revenge upon history for history is its own revenge. He makes clear that hating British imperialism is not synonymous with hating all things British. But History cannot be ignored just because it’s unpleasant. Inglorious Empire is one grim but important read. It makes some well researched arguments and is backed with well-referenced facts. If you are interested in the history of British India, this one is a must-read.
Many thanks to the publishers Ingram Publisher Services and Edelweiss for the ARC.
The book is based on the speech made by the author at Oxford when the author was invited as a speaker at the Oxford Union but the book is not his written speech. This book is also not about British Colonialism as a whole or nor the history of British India. This is not an academic text but an attempt to present the reality of the 200 years of British rule over India. From conquest and deception, institutionalized racism, the policy of divide and rule, and total misgovernance that drew millions of Indians abject to poverty and death. Shashi Tharoor demolishes every “Pro” argument in favor of the British rule — from the railways to the unification of India to the rule of law — which he goes on to show how everything was designed in Britain’s interests alone.
This book covers a period from the formation of the East India Company in 1600 till India gaining independence in 1947. Tharoor uses numerous resources to prove his points and covers a wide variety of arguments. From the destruction of Indian industries to the siphoning of Indian taxes to London, the policy of divide and rule which lead to the bloody partition of the country, the systematic racism and suppression of dissent in all forms, Tharoor paints the true picture of India under British rule.
Tharoor covers all possible impacts of British rule apart from the economic argument to the socio-political sphere. Each argument is backed by facts and anecdotes. Like How India’s share in world economy dropped from around 25%. Before British rule to around 3% at the time of independence. How at least eleven major famines were recorded in different parts of India between 1770 and 1944 which killed about 30 -35 million Indians died in these famines.
As this is partly inspired by a debate, each section is a counter-argument and feels fragmented. The chapters don’t flow as well as they should, and there were parts that I found repetitive. (For e.g.: The part about rail wagons or the local industry)
As Tharoor himself says, one cannot take revenge upon history for history is its own revenge. He makes clear that hating British imperialism is not synonymous with hating all things British. But History cannot be ignored just because it’s unpleasant. Inglorious Empire is one grim but important read. It makes some well researched arguments and is backed with well-referenced facts. If you are interested in the history of British India, this one is a must-read.
Many thanks to the publishers Ingram Publisher Services and Edelweiss for the ARC.
May 16, 2023
Actual Rating 3.5
This work began with a very helpful chronology from the founding of the East India Company to the independence of India in 1947. It is divided into eight chapters that address some of the largest issues that colonialism initiated/exacerbated as well as addressing some of the arguments (some of which are still being made) for why British colonialism in India wasn’t a negative thing.
I did learn a lot from this book. It’s a topic that’s touched on often enough in World History classes during school in the U.S. but never in much depth. The details provided throughout the work are truly horrifying and it feels unreal to think that these things persisted until very recent history. I don’t think anyone who knows the facts about the British mismanagement of India could claim it was a positive thing.
That being said, this didn’t really read like a history, and I don’t know that I would necessarily categorize it as such. I was expecting it to be a bit more systematic in its consideration of the British’s time in India but instead it read as more of a meandering lecture. I’m ignorant when it comes to Indian politics, but I don’t think the author’s political agenda was necessarily separated from this work. Not a bad thing in and of itself, just something to keep in mind that the author isn’t necessarily unbiased or without agenda. While informative, this work was disjointed and a little repetitive. This didn’t make it as approachable as I’d hoped it would be, but it did serve as an interesting look into a modern Indian perspective on colonialism.
This was an interesting read overall. I learned much from it and recommend it if you’re interested in learning more about the impacts of colonialism on India. I don’t know if it’s the best place to start when looking into this topic, but it’s certainly informative. I appreciate my GR friends Rosh, Sujoya, and Srivalli for recommending this one to me!
This work began with a very helpful chronology from the founding of the East India Company to the independence of India in 1947. It is divided into eight chapters that address some of the largest issues that colonialism initiated/exacerbated as well as addressing some of the arguments (some of which are still being made) for why British colonialism in India wasn’t a negative thing.
I did learn a lot from this book. It’s a topic that’s touched on often enough in World History classes during school in the U.S. but never in much depth. The details provided throughout the work are truly horrifying and it feels unreal to think that these things persisted until very recent history. I don’t think anyone who knows the facts about the British mismanagement of India could claim it was a positive thing.
That being said, this didn’t really read like a history, and I don’t know that I would necessarily categorize it as such. I was expecting it to be a bit more systematic in its consideration of the British’s time in India but instead it read as more of a meandering lecture. I’m ignorant when it comes to Indian politics, but I don’t think the author’s political agenda was necessarily separated from this work. Not a bad thing in and of itself, just something to keep in mind that the author isn’t necessarily unbiased or without agenda. While informative, this work was disjointed and a little repetitive. This didn’t make it as approachable as I’d hoped it would be, but it did serve as an interesting look into a modern Indian perspective on colonialism.
This was an interesting read overall. I learned much from it and recommend it if you’re interested in learning more about the impacts of colonialism on India. I don’t know if it’s the best place to start when looking into this topic, but it’s certainly informative. I appreciate my GR friends Rosh, Sujoya, and Srivalli for recommending this one to me!
April 17, 2024
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I believe this is a one-line summary of the "Brutish" Raj that Tharoor talks about in this book. (And it is quite ironic that this quote was written by an Englishmen only !)
An Era of Darkness is about the sordid system of misrule that fractured the colonized of their most precious possessions with contemptuous disregard. It is about the blithe indifference with which they shook the very foundations on which the edifice of our nation was built. Tharoor also asserts that far from creating political unity for India, as has been argued, British imperial expansion was about crass commercial cupidity and the need to consolidate political power to safeguard profit. It was also about the expropriation of Indian wealth to fill the British coffers. He also discusses some unintended benefits of the Raj though they were never the priority of the race that was consistently hell-bent to govern and subjugate with implacable hostility and an insatiable desire for loot.
Moreover, Tharoor vociferously refutes historians like Niall Ferguson who proclaim that the virtues of modernity and free trade were brought about by the Raj, deliberately ignoring the demolition of the free trade that the Indians had carried on for centuries. Being a strong proponent of the view that Britain owes reparations to India, Tharoor concludes by saying that the best atonement would be a sincere apology, apart from making the British schoolchildren abreast about the awful reality of what their forefathers did.
All in all, this is a robustly and brilliantly argued narrative that clearly catalogs one of the most contested periods of Indian history.
An Era of Darkness is about the sordid system of misrule that fractured the colonized of their most precious possessions with contemptuous disregard. It is about the blithe indifference with which they shook the very foundations on which the edifice of our nation was built. Tharoor also asserts that far from creating political unity for India, as has been argued, British imperial expansion was about crass commercial cupidity and the need to consolidate political power to safeguard profit. It was also about the expropriation of Indian wealth to fill the British coffers. He also discusses some unintended benefits of the Raj though they were never the priority of the race that was consistently hell-bent to govern and subjugate with implacable hostility and an insatiable desire for loot.
Moreover, Tharoor vociferously refutes historians like Niall Ferguson who proclaim that the virtues of modernity and free trade were brought about by the Raj, deliberately ignoring the demolition of the free trade that the Indians had carried on for centuries. Being a strong proponent of the view that Britain owes reparations to India, Tharoor concludes by saying that the best atonement would be a sincere apology, apart from making the British schoolchildren abreast about the awful reality of what their forefathers did.
All in all, this is a robustly and brilliantly argued narrative that clearly catalogs one of the most contested periods of Indian history.
April 24, 2017
I'm generally sympathetic to the argument that colonialism is over and done with and there's no need to keep grievance mongering over past events. But a raft of recent nostalgic scholarship by Niall Ferguson and others has unfortunately brought the issue of British colonialism in India up for debate once again. Shashi Tharoor gave a well received speech on the impact of the colonial project on India at Oxford a few years back, and this book is an attempt to capture the spirit of that speech in written form.
Contrary to what some persist in arguing, colonialism was largely a catastrophe for Indians. Tharoor documents this well here in with an avalanche of statistics and quotes, of which there are no shortage, proving the detrimental impact of rapacious colonial administrators on the Indian people. It's hard to pick his most damning argument but his comparison of the British engineered famines to the death tolls of Stalin and Mao during their mass collectivations really seemed to hit the mark. It really was a stark reminder of how much Churchill had in common with his other mid-20th century peers, Hitler included. Other than that there are lots of self-incriminating quotes from malicious colonial officials, anecdotes about how life was ordered in pre-colonial India and rebuttals to various arguments commonly proffered by apologists for the colonial enterprise. Tharoor writes with generosity of spirit and rarely lapses into polemic. He acknowledges the good that sometimes flowed from colonial power and is not a demagogue in any sense. He also has a broad-minded conception of India that is anathema to the chauvinism of Hindu nationalists and others.
To be honest though, however much I sympathize with his perspective, I was not thrilled by this book. It was disjointed and did not move according to any particular logic. It also seemed deeply repetitive and didn't always offer a lot to a reader who is already somewhat versed in the subject. It is definitely a textbook rather than a piece of prose, which is perhaps what it was aiming for anyways.
Nonetheless I value it for what it is, a contribution to the historical record on this subject and an attempt to prevent the memory of this period from being despoiled by cynical revisionists. It's a pity though that Tharoor is not as effective in writing as he is as an orator.
Contrary to what some persist in arguing, colonialism was largely a catastrophe for Indians. Tharoor documents this well here in with an avalanche of statistics and quotes, of which there are no shortage, proving the detrimental impact of rapacious colonial administrators on the Indian people. It's hard to pick his most damning argument but his comparison of the British engineered famines to the death tolls of Stalin and Mao during their mass collectivations really seemed to hit the mark. It really was a stark reminder of how much Churchill had in common with his other mid-20th century peers, Hitler included. Other than that there are lots of self-incriminating quotes from malicious colonial officials, anecdotes about how life was ordered in pre-colonial India and rebuttals to various arguments commonly proffered by apologists for the colonial enterprise. Tharoor writes with generosity of spirit and rarely lapses into polemic. He acknowledges the good that sometimes flowed from colonial power and is not a demagogue in any sense. He also has a broad-minded conception of India that is anathema to the chauvinism of Hindu nationalists and others.
To be honest though, however much I sympathize with his perspective, I was not thrilled by this book. It was disjointed and did not move according to any particular logic. It also seemed deeply repetitive and didn't always offer a lot to a reader who is already somewhat versed in the subject. It is definitely a textbook rather than a piece of prose, which is perhaps what it was aiming for anyways.
Nonetheless I value it for what it is, a contribution to the historical record on this subject and an attempt to prevent the memory of this period from being despoiled by cynical revisionists. It's a pity though that Tharoor is not as effective in writing as he is as an orator.
December 3, 2017
As the world slept, India awoke to light and freedom on a summer night in 1947 after reeling under two centuries of British rule and seven centuries of Islamic hegemony. Undoubtedly, some beneficial aspects had been bestowed on the country from the alien rule, but there is universal consensus that on the whole, the experience had been deleterious. Shashi Tharoor, former UN bureaucrat, politician, former minister in Manmohan Singh’s cabinet and writer, presents a postmortem examination of the colonial rule. His conclusion after the exercise is evident in the title of the book – ‘An Era of Darkness’. The British period in India is usually characterized by the appearance of viable political institutions, a democratic spirit, an efficient bureaucracy and the rule of law. Tharoor attacks each and every postulate with fatuous arguments that produce much light and sound, but hardly any substance. This book is written as a sequel to his speech at Oxford where he demanded reparations for the colonial misrule. However, Tharoor is content with a symbolic one pound a year as the rate at which Britain must compensate India. The author’s deft writing style is displayed in impressive detail in this book. In fact, that is the only saving grace.
Tharoor argues that India’s GDP in 1700 CE was 27% of the world’s, which nosedived to 3% in 1947 and claims that it was as a result of British rule. It is true that the British de-industrialized India, forcing the textile industry to collapse and flooded the country with machine-made cloths. Raw materials were freely exported to Britain, at the same time imposing protective tariff against Indian exports of finished cloth. However, by the late-nineteenth century, the situation had started to reverse. Mechanized mills had somewhat recovered the position. In 1896, Indian mills produced only 8% of Indian demand, which grew to 20% by 1913, 62% by 1936 and 76% in 1945. These figures take the wind out of Tharoor’s sails. His fantastical stories of the British cutting off good weavers’ thumbs and smashing machinery are simply regurgitation of local legends and hearsay. It is felt that the author does not follow the dictum that the conduct of states, as of individuals, can only be assessed by the standards of their age, not by today’s litigious criteria.
I have to stress here a point before proceeding further. My stand is that the colonial period is a blot on the nation’s history. We’d have been better off if the foreign yoke hadn’t been bolted on to our shoulders. That said, presuming it to be worse than the preceding Islamic period is sheer hypocrisy and intellectual deceit, which Tharoor seeks to establish. He posits that even without the political unity imposed by the British, a constitutional monarchy would’ve developed in the country and political institutions built upon the Mughal administration system, as modified by the Marathas. But the Mughal system also reeked of grave discrimination against the Hindus is not mentioned by the author. He falsely claims that the monarchs the British supplanted were benign. An example cited is that of the Nawab of Oudh. And the reason for saying so? Because he played chess! Such is the incongruity of the arguments raised in this book! His criticism is only intended for criticism’s sake. The British policy of systematization of administration by framing rules and written procedures is derided because it spawned red-tapism. But a corrupt bureaucracy was a legacy of the Mughal period as well, as attested by foreign travelers who visited the country in that age. Written rules in fact made the malpractices less onerous. The chapter on political unity is simply beating around the bush, covering such wide range of topics as constitutional reforms and participation in world wars. No worthwhile discussion is seen here.
Startling it may seem, but Tharoor attacks the enforcement of Rule of Law as well, accusing it to be discriminatory and citing a few cases where justice was plainly miscarried. Then again, law was not uniform in pre-colonial India too. The Muslim law treated the majority Hindus as dhimmis, or second-class citizens denuded of much civil rights automatically granted to Muslims. The Hindu law that was in force prior to that period condemned people of lower castes to the bottom rung of society, stripping even basic human rights such as the privilege to draw water from wells or use public thoroughfares. What is really shocking is the author’s growl against the British injunction on women of some parts of the South to cover their breasts in public. Tharoor blurts out that ‘Southern Indian women, whose breasts were traditionally uncovered found themselves obliged to undergo the indignity of conforming to Victorian standards of morality’ (p.111). The author’s ignorance of south Indian history is manifest in these words. Many lower castes in Kerala had waged rebellions in the nineteenth century for the right of their women to cover their breasts and the British law was in acknowledgement of these struggles. His tirade against the British-imposed Indian Penal Code (IPC) is laughable, as a few sections of it makes homosexuality a crime and follows preferential treatment to men in the case of adultery. This is, of course, against the zeitgeist of the twenty-first century. But why then did Tharoor, himself a member of parliament, and his party which had ruled the country for six decades after the British left, didn’t amend it?
British rule boded ill for India, but heaping all blame at their door is not justified, which is what this book purports to do. Many of Tharoor’s arguments are illogical. Another broadside is that colonialism made caste what it is today. He alleges that the British used their colonial power to affirm caste as the measure of all social things. Indians in pre-colonial times were said to have lived in imprecisely defined ‘fuzzy’ communities. It was the census which started counting the people from 1872 onwards that categorized them. Tharoor goes on to add that caste competition had been largely unknown in India. Devadasi system is claimed to be an honourable one, but the British clubbed it with prostitution. Of all the postulates in this book, none is more ridiculous as those on caste. Tharoor confuses caste with Vedic varnas and clearly exposes his lack of knowledge of India’s social fabric. His unawareness of India’s caste system is masked by superfluous trumpeting of irrational ideas that assign responsibility on others. There can be no denial of the fact that the backward castes of India found their voice through education mostly in British-run schools and then demanded the fair share they deserved. Another fallacious claim is that the Shia-Sunni conflict in India began only in the British period.
The author is hard put to justify the destruction of thousands of Hindu temples in the Islamic period. It is surprising that he doesn’t condemn it, but defends it as ‘simply a phenomenon of the advancing frontier, occasioned by warfare and occurring mainly in the intense frenzy of armed conflict across changing territorial lines. A royal temple symbolized the king’s power, and so destroying it signified that king’s utter humiliation’ (p.135-6). By Tharoor’s facile logic, Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali, who had conquered the Mughal emperors at Delhi, should’ve destroyed its grand Juma Masjid, but strangely, they didn’t!
Tharoor’s wholesale blame game reaches its comic peak when he declares that advances in space and missile technology owes nothing to the colonial period, but is a product of independent India’s own efforts (p.235). This may sound serious until you remember that the space race began only in the 1950s. His blind assault on everything the British had installed extends to railway too in the assertion that railway embankments disrupted local ecology by blocking water channels and caused flood in some areas. Famines are said to have occurred only during the British period, which is outright false. There was no famine in independent India, but the pre-colonial period was replete with them. We have specific information of a great famine when the construction of Taj Mahal started in the 1630s. This is just one among many in that period. The narration falls to the level of storytelling at some points.
This book’s source of reference material is a questionable one. Little known authors are referred as authoritative faculty and Nehru’s remarks against the British are treated as clinching evidence in favour of the author’s argument. Tharoor punctures the validity of his own contentions with an immediately following vacuous disclaimer that ‘this does not mean that pre-colonial India was…’. You can argue anything with that kind of an escape route behind you. The book makes Gandhiji out to be a stupid figure, having no fixed or valid point of view on anything. Tharoor ridicules the father of the nation on his opinion on how children should be educated. The greatest slur, however, is reserved in the chronology section of the book where Gandhiji is described as ‘Indian nationalist and Hindu political activist who developed the strategy of nonviolent disobedience that forced Christian Great Britain to grant independence to India’.
The book, taken altogether, is a sheer waste of time and hence is not recommended.
Tharoor argues that India’s GDP in 1700 CE was 27% of the world’s, which nosedived to 3% in 1947 and claims that it was as a result of British rule. It is true that the British de-industrialized India, forcing the textile industry to collapse and flooded the country with machine-made cloths. Raw materials were freely exported to Britain, at the same time imposing protective tariff against Indian exports of finished cloth. However, by the late-nineteenth century, the situation had started to reverse. Mechanized mills had somewhat recovered the position. In 1896, Indian mills produced only 8% of Indian demand, which grew to 20% by 1913, 62% by 1936 and 76% in 1945. These figures take the wind out of Tharoor’s sails. His fantastical stories of the British cutting off good weavers’ thumbs and smashing machinery are simply regurgitation of local legends and hearsay. It is felt that the author does not follow the dictum that the conduct of states, as of individuals, can only be assessed by the standards of their age, not by today’s litigious criteria.
I have to stress here a point before proceeding further. My stand is that the colonial period is a blot on the nation’s history. We’d have been better off if the foreign yoke hadn’t been bolted on to our shoulders. That said, presuming it to be worse than the preceding Islamic period is sheer hypocrisy and intellectual deceit, which Tharoor seeks to establish. He posits that even without the political unity imposed by the British, a constitutional monarchy would’ve developed in the country and political institutions built upon the Mughal administration system, as modified by the Marathas. But the Mughal system also reeked of grave discrimination against the Hindus is not mentioned by the author. He falsely claims that the monarchs the British supplanted were benign. An example cited is that of the Nawab of Oudh. And the reason for saying so? Because he played chess! Such is the incongruity of the arguments raised in this book! His criticism is only intended for criticism’s sake. The British policy of systematization of administration by framing rules and written procedures is derided because it spawned red-tapism. But a corrupt bureaucracy was a legacy of the Mughal period as well, as attested by foreign travelers who visited the country in that age. Written rules in fact made the malpractices less onerous. The chapter on political unity is simply beating around the bush, covering such wide range of topics as constitutional reforms and participation in world wars. No worthwhile discussion is seen here.
Startling it may seem, but Tharoor attacks the enforcement of Rule of Law as well, accusing it to be discriminatory and citing a few cases where justice was plainly miscarried. Then again, law was not uniform in pre-colonial India too. The Muslim law treated the majority Hindus as dhimmis, or second-class citizens denuded of much civil rights automatically granted to Muslims. The Hindu law that was in force prior to that period condemned people of lower castes to the bottom rung of society, stripping even basic human rights such as the privilege to draw water from wells or use public thoroughfares. What is really shocking is the author’s growl against the British injunction on women of some parts of the South to cover their breasts in public. Tharoor blurts out that ‘Southern Indian women, whose breasts were traditionally uncovered found themselves obliged to undergo the indignity of conforming to Victorian standards of morality’ (p.111). The author’s ignorance of south Indian history is manifest in these words. Many lower castes in Kerala had waged rebellions in the nineteenth century for the right of their women to cover their breasts and the British law was in acknowledgement of these struggles. His tirade against the British-imposed Indian Penal Code (IPC) is laughable, as a few sections of it makes homosexuality a crime and follows preferential treatment to men in the case of adultery. This is, of course, against the zeitgeist of the twenty-first century. But why then did Tharoor, himself a member of parliament, and his party which had ruled the country for six decades after the British left, didn’t amend it?
British rule boded ill for India, but heaping all blame at their door is not justified, which is what this book purports to do. Many of Tharoor’s arguments are illogical. Another broadside is that colonialism made caste what it is today. He alleges that the British used their colonial power to affirm caste as the measure of all social things. Indians in pre-colonial times were said to have lived in imprecisely defined ‘fuzzy’ communities. It was the census which started counting the people from 1872 onwards that categorized them. Tharoor goes on to add that caste competition had been largely unknown in India. Devadasi system is claimed to be an honourable one, but the British clubbed it with prostitution. Of all the postulates in this book, none is more ridiculous as those on caste. Tharoor confuses caste with Vedic varnas and clearly exposes his lack of knowledge of India’s social fabric. His unawareness of India’s caste system is masked by superfluous trumpeting of irrational ideas that assign responsibility on others. There can be no denial of the fact that the backward castes of India found their voice through education mostly in British-run schools and then demanded the fair share they deserved. Another fallacious claim is that the Shia-Sunni conflict in India began only in the British period.
The author is hard put to justify the destruction of thousands of Hindu temples in the Islamic period. It is surprising that he doesn’t condemn it, but defends it as ‘simply a phenomenon of the advancing frontier, occasioned by warfare and occurring mainly in the intense frenzy of armed conflict across changing territorial lines. A royal temple symbolized the king’s power, and so destroying it signified that king’s utter humiliation’ (p.135-6). By Tharoor’s facile logic, Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali, who had conquered the Mughal emperors at Delhi, should’ve destroyed its grand Juma Masjid, but strangely, they didn’t!
Tharoor’s wholesale blame game reaches its comic peak when he declares that advances in space and missile technology owes nothing to the colonial period, but is a product of independent India’s own efforts (p.235). This may sound serious until you remember that the space race began only in the 1950s. His blind assault on everything the British had installed extends to railway too in the assertion that railway embankments disrupted local ecology by blocking water channels and caused flood in some areas. Famines are said to have occurred only during the British period, which is outright false. There was no famine in independent India, but the pre-colonial period was replete with them. We have specific information of a great famine when the construction of Taj Mahal started in the 1630s. This is just one among many in that period. The narration falls to the level of storytelling at some points.
This book’s source of reference material is a questionable one. Little known authors are referred as authoritative faculty and Nehru’s remarks against the British are treated as clinching evidence in favour of the author’s argument. Tharoor punctures the validity of his own contentions with an immediately following vacuous disclaimer that ‘this does not mean that pre-colonial India was…’. You can argue anything with that kind of an escape route behind you. The book makes Gandhiji out to be a stupid figure, having no fixed or valid point of view on anything. Tharoor ridicules the father of the nation on his opinion on how children should be educated. The greatest slur, however, is reserved in the chronology section of the book where Gandhiji is described as ‘Indian nationalist and Hindu political activist who developed the strategy of nonviolent disobedience that forced Christian Great Britain to grant independence to India’.
The book, taken altogether, is a sheer waste of time and hence is not recommended.
Read
December 27, 2023Source of book: Bought by meee
Relevant disclaimers: None
Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author.
And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful.
*******************************************
Well, this is exactly what it says on the tin. It’s a thematic recounting of all the ways Britian fucked India. It is, very explicitly, a piece of polemical writing—the author originally debated this subject at the Oxford—which is both its strength and its weakness. Polemic, by its very nature, admits of neither subtlety nor complexity. And, unfortunately, colonialism is deeply complex. Not *morally* complex, I hasten to add. But in the realpolitik sense of living in a messy, fucked up world where your ancestors have already committed a bunch of atrocities that are now inextricable from the history of other countries and other cultures, and cannot be undone or straightforwardly compensated for.
I initially picked this up as a kind of mental reset after reading Lawrence James’ Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, which… I mean. Look, this is not an area in which I have any claim to expertise, and obviously you can’t do good history from a place of performative self-flagellation, but I found James’ book uncomfortably, like, chill about whole, uh, situation. Like, it’s focused on the British side of the story to a degree that feels actively erasing of the colonised and, occasionally, lapses into a tone of what I can only call … nostalgia? Y’know, for the good old days of imperialism and exploitation. I mean, he actively describes the principles of the Raj as “unfashionable”. And … um. As far as I’m concerned there are two issues with this—the first being that, actually, no the colonialist mindset hasn’t diminished as much as I’d like, look at the fucking British government, and the second being… holy shit, how Jacob Rees Mogg do you have to be to try and pass off any sort of cultural reckoning with an imperialist past as, like, political correctness gone mad or a Twitter trend.
I’m mentioning this now (rather than just reviewing the book, which I frankly can’t be arsed to) because if it hasn’t been for Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, I wouldn’t quite have understood who Inglorious Empire was trying to talk to, since if you already agreed with it, then it’s not telling you anything you don’t know, and if you don’t, you’re probably not open to having your mind changed on the subject. And, look, I know that there’s no such thing as a neutral recounting of history but I think what’s complicated about a book like Raj is that it presents itself as neutral while being—whether the writer recognises it or not—kind of pro-Empire? Inglorious Empire is very open about its agenda and its perspective, but given we don’t seem to be in a cultural place to recognise our own agenda, and the biases inherent our perspective, then I can see why exactly it’s needed. Why it carries an edge of revelation even though it’s not telling us anything we don’t already, on some level know.
Although it turned out that I didn’t already know. At least not the sheer scale of Britain’s exploitation of India. This is a horrifying, uncomfortable-making and yet still fairly brisk read about something nobody in present day Britain should be thinking about with the romantic longing and thwarted entitlement of King George in the Hamilton musical. YIKES. Some of it is, of course, highly speculative (for example Tharoor insists that Indian unification would have happened naturally without the intervention of Britain, something that I … I mean, I don’t know, that’s quite a major assumption presented a probable fact) and Tharoor works exclusively in sources that support his claims, disregarding and occasionally actively misreading others. And while, as I’ve already mentioned, the book is very direct as regards its own rhetoric, its refusal to acknowledge literally anything good, enacted by literally anyone British, in the entire history of the occupation, creates a different set of issues. Like, I can see why Tharoor makes this choice (as a nation, we’re already far too ready to give ourselves a pass on the greatest atrocities of colonialism by pointing at trains or social policy) but at the same time it contributes to the erasure of people whose contributions to history have been consistently erased and continue to be erased (the one thing James and Tharoor have in common is that I can count the number of women they mention in their books on the fingers of one hand).
By a similar token, he takes bit of a potshot at EM Forster, claiming that Passage to India “echo[s] the idea of Empire, mostly notably in his depiction of the impossibility of friendship between an Englishman and an Indian.” He quotes the final lines of the book, where Aziz and Fielding hold each other affectionately and lament the impossibility of their being together. Tharoor continues:
Okay, so I’m not going to get into Forster’s portrayal of Aziz—I absolutely don’t have standing to discussion whether it’s a meaningful portrayal of a middle-class Muslim in occupied 20th century India—and I realise it’s complicated to imply there is a definitively “correct” reading of any text, but this exchange is really not about Anglo-Indian relations.
It gay. It gay AF.
And I think this moment kind of encapsulates the limits of polemic: by its very nature, it can admit only one point of view.
Nevertheless, Inglorious Empire presents a point a view that absolutely needs to be understood. This is a powerful, erudite, important book.
Relevant disclaimers: None
Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author.
And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful.
*******************************************
Well, this is exactly what it says on the tin. It’s a thematic recounting of all the ways Britian fucked India. It is, very explicitly, a piece of polemical writing—the author originally debated this subject at the Oxford—which is both its strength and its weakness. Polemic, by its very nature, admits of neither subtlety nor complexity. And, unfortunately, colonialism is deeply complex. Not *morally* complex, I hasten to add. But in the realpolitik sense of living in a messy, fucked up world where your ancestors have already committed a bunch of atrocities that are now inextricable from the history of other countries and other cultures, and cannot be undone or straightforwardly compensated for.
I initially picked this up as a kind of mental reset after reading Lawrence James’ Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, which… I mean. Look, this is not an area in which I have any claim to expertise, and obviously you can’t do good history from a place of performative self-flagellation, but I found James’ book uncomfortably, like, chill about whole, uh, situation. Like, it’s focused on the British side of the story to a degree that feels actively erasing of the colonised and, occasionally, lapses into a tone of what I can only call … nostalgia? Y’know, for the good old days of imperialism and exploitation. I mean, he actively describes the principles of the Raj as “unfashionable”. And … um. As far as I’m concerned there are two issues with this—the first being that, actually, no the colonialist mindset hasn’t diminished as much as I’d like, look at the fucking British government, and the second being… holy shit, how Jacob Rees Mogg do you have to be to try and pass off any sort of cultural reckoning with an imperialist past as, like, political correctness gone mad or a Twitter trend.
I’m mentioning this now (rather than just reviewing the book, which I frankly can’t be arsed to) because if it hasn’t been for Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, I wouldn’t quite have understood who Inglorious Empire was trying to talk to, since if you already agreed with it, then it’s not telling you anything you don’t know, and if you don’t, you’re probably not open to having your mind changed on the subject. And, look, I know that there’s no such thing as a neutral recounting of history but I think what’s complicated about a book like Raj is that it presents itself as neutral while being—whether the writer recognises it or not—kind of pro-Empire? Inglorious Empire is very open about its agenda and its perspective, but given we don’t seem to be in a cultural place to recognise our own agenda, and the biases inherent our perspective, then I can see why exactly it’s needed. Why it carries an edge of revelation even though it’s not telling us anything we don’t already, on some level know.
Although it turned out that I didn’t already know. At least not the sheer scale of Britain’s exploitation of India. This is a horrifying, uncomfortable-making and yet still fairly brisk read about something nobody in present day Britain should be thinking about with the romantic longing and thwarted entitlement of King George in the Hamilton musical. YIKES. Some of it is, of course, highly speculative (for example Tharoor insists that Indian unification would have happened naturally without the intervention of Britain, something that I … I mean, I don’t know, that’s quite a major assumption presented a probable fact) and Tharoor works exclusively in sources that support his claims, disregarding and occasionally actively misreading others. And while, as I’ve already mentioned, the book is very direct as regards its own rhetoric, its refusal to acknowledge literally anything good, enacted by literally anyone British, in the entire history of the occupation, creates a different set of issues. Like, I can see why Tharoor makes this choice (as a nation, we’re already far too ready to give ourselves a pass on the greatest atrocities of colonialism by pointing at trains or social policy) but at the same time it contributes to the erasure of people whose contributions to history have been consistently erased and continue to be erased (the one thing James and Tharoor have in common is that I can count the number of women they mention in their books on the fingers of one hand).
By a similar token, he takes bit of a potshot at EM Forster, claiming that Passage to India “echo[s] the idea of Empire, mostly notably in his depiction of the impossibility of friendship between an Englishman and an Indian.” He quotes the final lines of the book, where Aziz and Fielding hold each other affectionately and lament the impossibility of their being together. Tharoor continues:
Forster’s Indian protagonist, a middle-class doctor with a traditional Muslim family, was not the social or intellectual equal of his Englishman, Fielding, and perhaps true friendship between them would have been impossible even in a non-imperial India. But Forster, whose book omits all mention of the Indian nationalist movement, and who caricatures his only major Hindu character, seemingly cannot conceive of either the kind of Indian (like Surendra Nath Banerjea) who had won entry into the ICS or the kind (like Jawaharlal Nehru) whose critiques of Empire were challenging the foundations of the Raj.
Okay, so I’m not going to get into Forster’s portrayal of Aziz—I absolutely don’t have standing to discussion whether it’s a meaningful portrayal of a middle-class Muslim in occupied 20th century India—and I realise it’s complicated to imply there is a definitively “correct” reading of any text, but this exchange is really not about Anglo-Indian relations.
It gay. It gay AF.
And I think this moment kind of encapsulates the limits of polemic: by its very nature, it can admit only one point of view.
Nevertheless, Inglorious Empire presents a point a view that absolutely needs to be understood. This is a powerful, erudite, important book.
July 30, 2021
(সাড়ে চার)
উপনিবেশ এখনও প্রাসঙ্গিক, মূলত, আমাদের আলস্যের কারণে। উপনিবেশকেরা চলে গেছে, কিন্তু তাদের ছেড়ে যাওয়া খোলসগুলো পড়ে আছে, এবং সেটা গায়ে দিয়ে উপনিবিষ্টদের মাঝে যারা কেষ্টুবিষ্টু, তারা এককালীন প্রভুর ভূমিকায় অভিনয়ের চেষ্টা করে যাচ্ছে। এ কাজে তাদের সাফল্য উড়িয়ে দেওয়ার মতো নয় বলেই এমন বই পড়া জরুরি।
বিবিসির একটি প্রামাণ্যচিত্রে দেখেছিলাম, চীনে প্রাথমিক বিদ্যালয়ে অক্ষর-সংখ্যা পরিচয় শেখানোর বয়সেই ছাত্রদের জানানো হয়, কীভাবে ব্রিটিশরা চীনকে আফিমের নেশায় ডুবিয়ে কাবু করে রেখেছিলো দীর্ঘসময়, এবং কীভাবে জেসুইট পাদ্রীরা সে নেশা ছাড়ানোর জন্যে প্রথমে কোকেন এবং পরে হেরোইন দিয়ে আফিম ভোলানোর চেষ্টা করেছিলেন। কিন্তু বাংলাদেশে আমরা যখন ব্রিটিশ "শাসক"দের কথা পড়ি, তখন মনে হয় তাদের গুণমুগ্ধ কোনো চামচা এ পাঠ্যসূচি নির্ধারণ করেছে। বেতের অকৃপণ বর্ষণের তোড়ে একের পর এক বড়লাটের নাম মুখস্থ করেছি হাইস্কুলে, কেন, শিক্ষক-শিক্ষয়িত্রীরা জানাননি। মিন্টো-বেইলি-ফুলারের নামে কেন এখনও রাস্তা, জানি না। সম্ভবত কর্তৃপক্ষও জানে না।
শশী থারুরের এ বইটি ব্রিটিশশোষিত ভারতবর্ষের (আজকের বাংলাদেশ, ভারত, মিয়ানমার ও পাকিস্তান) অর্থনীতি, সমাজব্যবস্থা, রাজনীতির অক্ষ, জনমানস ও দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির বিকারসাধনের ইতিহাস সংক্ষেপে তুলে ধরেছে। এর পেছনে যে পরিমাণ গবেষণা ও শ্রম দেওয়া হয়েছে, তা প্রশংসনীয়। থারুরের লিখনশৈলীও চমৎকার। ব্রিটিশরা (অর্থাৎ ইংরেজ এবং স্কট) কী করে একটি সমৃদ্ধ উপমহাদেশের শিল্পব্যবস্থা ভেঙে নুলো করে তাকে সামন্তাশ্রিত কৃষিভিত্তিক জনপদসমাহারে পরিণত করলো, এবং কী করে তাদের প্রচলিত সমাজাক্ষকে ভেঙে নিজেদের শোষণসই নতুন অক্ষ বরাবর ঢেলে সাজালো, তার নিবিড় পাঠ প্রয়োজন এখন যে কিশোর, তারও। কারণ এ প্রক্রিয়া এখনও আমাদের দেশে ও সমাজে চলমান। এর প্রতিরোধ আর প্রতিকারের জন্যে যে আত্মশক্তি প্রয়োজন, তা নিজের দগ্ধ অতীতকে না জেনে পাওয়া যাবে না।
বইটার শেষাংশ খুব তাড়াহুড়ো করে কাঁচা হাতে লেখা, আধখানা তারা সেজন্যে রেখে দিলাম।
উপনিবেশ এখনও প্রাসঙ্গিক, মূলত, আমাদের আলস্যের কারণে। উপনিবেশকেরা চলে গেছে, কিন্তু তাদের ছেড়ে যাওয়া খোলসগুলো পড়ে আছে, এবং সেটা গায়ে দিয়ে উপনিবিষ্টদের মাঝে যারা কেষ্টুবিষ্টু, তারা এককালীন প্রভুর ভূমিকায় অভিনয়ের চেষ্টা করে যাচ্ছে। এ কাজে তাদের সাফল্য উড়িয়ে দেওয়ার মতো নয় বলেই এমন বই পড়া জরুরি।
বিবিসির একটি প্রামাণ্যচিত্রে দেখেছিলাম, চীনে প্রাথমিক বিদ্যালয়ে অক্ষর-সংখ্যা পরিচয় শেখানোর বয়সেই ছাত্রদের জানানো হয়, কীভাবে ব্রিটিশরা চীনকে আফিমের নেশায় ডুবিয়ে কাবু করে রেখেছিলো দীর্ঘসময়, এবং কীভাবে জেসুইট পাদ্রীরা সে নেশা ছাড়ানোর জন্যে প্রথমে কোকেন এবং পরে হেরোইন দিয়ে আফিম ভোলানোর চেষ্টা করেছিলেন। কিন্তু বাংলাদেশে আমরা যখন ব্রিটিশ "শাসক"দের কথা পড়ি, তখন মনে হয় তাদের গুণমুগ্ধ কোনো চামচা এ পাঠ্যসূচি নির্ধারণ করেছে। বেতের অকৃপণ বর্ষণের তোড়ে একের পর এক বড়লাটের নাম মুখস্থ করেছি হাইস্কুলে, কেন, শিক্ষক-শিক্ষয়িত্রীরা জানাননি। মিন্টো-বেইলি-ফুলারের নামে কেন এখনও রাস্তা, জানি না। সম্ভবত কর্তৃপক্ষও জানে না।
শশী থারুরের এ বইটি ব্রিটিশশোষিত ভারতবর্ষের (আজকের বাংলাদেশ, ভারত, মিয়ানমার ও পাকিস্তান) অর্থনীতি, সমাজব্যবস্থা, রাজনীতির অক্ষ, জনমানস ও দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির বিকারসাধনের ইতিহাস সংক্ষেপে তুলে ধরেছে। এর পেছনে যে পরিমাণ গবেষণা ও শ্রম দেওয়া হয়েছে, তা প্রশংসনীয়। থারুরের লিখনশৈলীও চমৎকার। ব্রিটিশরা (অর্থাৎ ইংরেজ এবং স্কট) কী করে একটি সমৃদ্ধ উপমহাদেশের শিল্পব্যবস্থা ভেঙে নুলো করে তাকে সামন্তাশ্রিত কৃষিভিত্তিক জনপদসমাহারে পরিণত করলো, এবং কী করে তাদের প্রচলিত সমাজাক্ষকে ভেঙে নিজেদের শোষণসই নতুন অক্ষ বরাবর ঢেলে সাজালো, তার নিবিড় পাঠ প্রয়োজন এখন যে কিশোর, তারও। কারণ এ প্রক্রিয়া এখনও আমাদের দেশে ও সমাজে চলমান। এর প্রতিরোধ আর প্রতিকারের জন্যে যে আত্মশক্তি প্রয়োজন, তা নিজের দগ্ধ অতীতকে না জেনে পাওয়া যাবে না।
বইটার শেষাংশ খুব তাড়াহুড়ো করে কাঁচা হাতে লেখা, আধখানা তারা সেজন্যে রেখে দিলাম।
March 8, 2022
Page 58 (my book) H. Fielding Hall (early 1900s)
“The Government of India is not Indian, it is English. It is essentially English, the more so and the more necessarily so because it is in India… England has made herself responsible for India, and she cannot shirk or divide responsibility… Government must do its work in its own way, and that is the English way. No Indian can tell what this is.”
Page 103 Nicholas Dirks
“Colonialism was itself a cultural project of control.”
In a most logical and prosecutorial manner the author destroys any thoughts one may have that Britain’s colonial empire was in any way beneficial to India.
The British first exploited and extracted from India via the East India Company in the 1600’s. This was a pure capitalist enterprise – to make London rich by using India’s wealth and produce. It was never interested in the development of India. Over the centuries the bulk of Englishmen (and it was mainly men) were not interested in putting anything back to benefit India – it was economic exploitation.
They were able to divide and subdue the sub-continent by making a census – making religious and ethnic labels on everyone – Hindu, Parsi, Muslim, …
There were several famines in India during colonial rule – the worst being during World War II which the British did nothing to alleviate, they just kept collecting taxes (more on this later). Since Independence in 1947 there have been no famines in India.
The author picks apart the supposed benefits of British rule. The railways were made to facilitate the transportation of goods back to the U.K. – not to provide passenger services. Indians were not permitted to operate the locomotives due to racism. In 1912 the British passed a law prohibiting the manufacture of locomotives in India forcing the closure of locomotive factories that had been operating for decades (page 181).
The British workers in India were well paid and when they retired, they received a pension paid for by the Indian people. All Indians were taxed for the privilege of being ruled by the Empire. This tax revenue was sent back to the U.K. – talk about taxation without representation!
Page 217
In those fifty years [prior] to Independence in 1947, while all of Britain, along with the rest of Europe and North America, was electrified, the Raj connected merely 1,500 villages of India’s 640,000 villages to the electrical grid. After Independence, however, from 1947 to 1991, the Indian government brought electricity to roughly 320 times as many villages as British colonialism managed.
The author also contrasts Japan – which was never colonized – but adapted in its own way to modernity – with its own infrastructure of railroads, airlines, and modern globe-setting industries.
In the 1920s and 1930s opium was cultivated and readily available in India, despite protests by Indian nationalists. The British government was making revenue from opium shops. Opium was banned in Britain but not in India.
The author provides us with many more convincing arguments on how the British exploited and made India a poor country. Sometimes he goes overboard when comparing the Raj to other totalitarian dictators (namely Hitler and Stalin). Gandhi, Nehru and the several opposition parties would never have been permitted to exist under those dictatorships.
Page 242
It is ironically to the credit of the British Raj that it faced an opponent like Mahatma Gandhi and allowed him to succeed.
“The Government of India is not Indian, it is English. It is essentially English, the more so and the more necessarily so because it is in India… England has made herself responsible for India, and she cannot shirk or divide responsibility… Government must do its work in its own way, and that is the English way. No Indian can tell what this is.”
Page 103 Nicholas Dirks
“Colonialism was itself a cultural project of control.”
In a most logical and prosecutorial manner the author destroys any thoughts one may have that Britain’s colonial empire was in any way beneficial to India.
The British first exploited and extracted from India via the East India Company in the 1600’s. This was a pure capitalist enterprise – to make London rich by using India’s wealth and produce. It was never interested in the development of India. Over the centuries the bulk of Englishmen (and it was mainly men) were not interested in putting anything back to benefit India – it was economic exploitation.
They were able to divide and subdue the sub-continent by making a census – making religious and ethnic labels on everyone – Hindu, Parsi, Muslim, …
There were several famines in India during colonial rule – the worst being during World War II which the British did nothing to alleviate, they just kept collecting taxes (more on this later). Since Independence in 1947 there have been no famines in India.
The author picks apart the supposed benefits of British rule. The railways were made to facilitate the transportation of goods back to the U.K. – not to provide passenger services. Indians were not permitted to operate the locomotives due to racism. In 1912 the British passed a law prohibiting the manufacture of locomotives in India forcing the closure of locomotive factories that had been operating for decades (page 181).
The British workers in India were well paid and when they retired, they received a pension paid for by the Indian people. All Indians were taxed for the privilege of being ruled by the Empire. This tax revenue was sent back to the U.K. – talk about taxation without representation!
Page 217
In those fifty years [prior] to Independence in 1947, while all of Britain, along with the rest of Europe and North America, was electrified, the Raj connected merely 1,500 villages of India’s 640,000 villages to the electrical grid. After Independence, however, from 1947 to 1991, the Indian government brought electricity to roughly 320 times as many villages as British colonialism managed.
The author also contrasts Japan – which was never colonized – but adapted in its own way to modernity – with its own infrastructure of railroads, airlines, and modern globe-setting industries.
In the 1920s and 1930s opium was cultivated and readily available in India, despite protests by Indian nationalists. The British government was making revenue from opium shops. Opium was banned in Britain but not in India.
The author provides us with many more convincing arguments on how the British exploited and made India a poor country. Sometimes he goes overboard when comparing the Raj to other totalitarian dictators (namely Hitler and Stalin). Gandhi, Nehru and the several opposition parties would never have been permitted to exist under those dictatorships.
Page 242
It is ironically to the credit of the British Raj that it faced an opponent like Mahatma Gandhi and allowed him to succeed.
December 8, 2018
What is history for most of the Indians?
A subject which they have to mug up till tenth standard to get marks and if in future any person who is preparing for any public service examinations has to memorise certain events of history in order to pass out the general studies paper . Nobody gives a damm about studying history we just memorise it and then forget.
How do they teach us history ?
I was a student of a state board school (Madhya Pradesh Board), we had a book from sixth standard to tenth standard , named as - "Social Studies" . The book consisted of three subjects - Geography , Civics and History . And in these books of Social Studies what we had on the name of history were short notes about certain people and events of history and even these events and people were repeated from sixth standard to tenth standard . For instance we studied about struggle of independence in eighth standard , yet again in the tenth standard we have to study about the struggle for independence.
The books in the CBSE schools are also no good they just have slightly more detailed things and some chapters about World Wars .
The teacher simply comes up with prepared questions and answers about the topic which is the most scoring in the exams and we the students just mug those answers up and forget them forever .
Actually we are the future of this nation who is locked in a room and what our system teaches us is looking at our past through a peephole . The fault is not completely of the system we are also not interested in our past . We are the generation who are creating a future without having any idea of our past .
In his latest book Shashi Tharoor dared to divide the grey zone clearly into black and white . With great research and the arguments which the author about how a country which was far behind us came to our nation and changed our nation forever . I don't think there is another book which clearly separates white and black so clearly . No history book never celebrates or even mentions the contribution of India in world wars , the great famines , the full story of Jalliawala Bagh massacre , and how the Britishers turned an already developed country into a developing country , how they confined a liberal thinking of a country that even today some relagious frantic fools think that those things are their traditions and they follow it blindly .
Mr. Tharoor teaches how history should be taught .
Just A Must Read .
5 Stars.
A subject which they have to mug up till tenth standard to get marks and if in future any person who is preparing for any public service examinations has to memorise certain events of history in order to pass out the general studies paper . Nobody gives a damm about studying history we just memorise it and then forget.
How do they teach us history ?
I was a student of a state board school (Madhya Pradesh Board), we had a book from sixth standard to tenth standard , named as - "Social Studies" . The book consisted of three subjects - Geography , Civics and History . And in these books of Social Studies what we had on the name of history were short notes about certain people and events of history and even these events and people were repeated from sixth standard to tenth standard . For instance we studied about struggle of independence in eighth standard , yet again in the tenth standard we have to study about the struggle for independence.
The books in the CBSE schools are also no good they just have slightly more detailed things and some chapters about World Wars .
The teacher simply comes up with prepared questions and answers about the topic which is the most scoring in the exams and we the students just mug those answers up and forget them forever .
Actually we are the future of this nation who is locked in a room and what our system teaches us is looking at our past through a peephole . The fault is not completely of the system we are also not interested in our past . We are the generation who are creating a future without having any idea of our past .
In his latest book Shashi Tharoor dared to divide the grey zone clearly into black and white . With great research and the arguments which the author about how a country which was far behind us came to our nation and changed our nation forever . I don't think there is another book which clearly separates white and black so clearly . No history book never celebrates or even mentions the contribution of India in world wars , the great famines , the full story of Jalliawala Bagh massacre , and how the Britishers turned an already developed country into a developing country , how they confined a liberal thinking of a country that even today some relagious frantic fools think that those things are their traditions and they follow it blindly .
Mr. Tharoor teaches how history should be taught .
Just A Must Read .
5 Stars.
October 29, 2017
One quote in particular by a member of the British aristocracy sums up what Tharoor speaks eloquently in book length :
The Marquess of Salisbury, using a colourful metaphor as Secretary of State for India in the 1860s and 1870s, said: ‘As India is to be bled, the lancet should be directed to those parts where the blood is congested… [rather than] to those which are already feeble for the want of it.’
As a child growing up in the late 80’s and early 90’s, I was told that the Britishers were the aliens who our national leaders drove out of the country in August of 1947. The little me watched Independence and Republic day parades held with pomp and pride in Delhi on the screen of a little monochrome television and slowly imbibed the message that I was part of something large called India. In hindsight there was no notion of nationalism or patriotism in my mind then, it was merely the sights and sounds that created a spectacle.
In school we were taught about the glory of the Indian independence movement and the sacrifices the men and women of the nation underwent to create an independent nation. Truth be told, a sleepy child learns of the Morley-Minto reforms or the Rowlatt act only out of pure coercion, they do not learn it for the purpose of knowledge but only to pass the history examination. The barbarous aftermaths of these acts passed by the British were not fully familiar to me and by me I refer again to a big group of children who were told that the British empire was brutal but not in very absolute terms. Instead you are told in abstractions that they oppressed us (but not how and in what context) and that they destroyed us (here again the extent of damage is not clear). While the heroes of Indian independence are undoubtedly men and women who gave up almost everything in their lives for the nation, I believe it is equally important that everyone learns what kind of odds they were up against in the form of the British empire.
To the YouTube viewing public, Shashi Tharoor’s speech at Oxford debating on whether Britain owes reparations to her former colonies was a literal eye opener. The simple reason behind this was : objectivity . Tharoor was able to annotate with facts and figures how much of looting the East India Company and later the British empire resorted to across the length and breadth of India. As I highlighted in the paragraph above, while most of us knew the British to have robbed us blind the full horror of this was lost on us. When the Britishers arrived in India, many an Indian was dressed in the finest clothes, wore good jewellery and was extremely self-reliant. When they finally left, the same Indian only had his loin cloth left to call his own. The acts passed by the empire created a lot of legacies for the Indians – a broken textile industry, the landless peasant, sycophantic Indian rulers, an overtaxed populace and the first seeds of a communal divide were only a few of them. While seven decades of autonomy has been able to bring about some changes in most of the other areas, the last one of these legacies has grown from a seed to a massive and well branched out tree now.
As Tharoor himself says, one cannot take revenge upon history for history is its own revenge. The contents of the book filled me with disbelief and indignation to a great extent and then again gave me a new perspective of the entire notion of India’s struggle for independence. Britain perhaps cannot be expected to give India an apology like how Justin Trudeau apologized in the House of Commons for the Komagata Maru incident or a symbolic one reminiscent of Willy Brandt’s gesture of penance at the Warsaw ghetto. Just one incident that occurred on the 13th of April 1919 at Jalian Wala Bagh in Amritsar and the subsequent way the British protected and made a hero of the infamous Reginald Dyer should be enough for anyone still unwilling to let go of the belief that the British were a loving kind of a ruler. Interestingly on October 20, 2017, Virendra Sharma who is an MP in the British Parliament has tabled a motion seeking an apology for the Jalian Wala Bagh massacre. It remains to be seen how this will play out in the parliament.
A point that Tharoor makes that the best form of reparation would be to teach undiluted colonial history to the children of Britain makes a lot of sense in a world which yearns to return to Empire 2.0 . To me it would be equally important to teach the children of India what their nation was before the British came and what kind of a mess they left in their wake in 1947 !
Tharoor is a member of the Congress party and is a member of parliament from my own home town. The debate of whether or not the Congress party could have brought in much more advancemen to the nation from their years in power is certainly a valid one but is outside the scope of this book’s contents.
Recommended if you are a lover or student of Indian history !
And here was another magnificient quote from yet another book :
Alex von Tunzelmann’s clever start to her book Indian Summer made a point most tellingly: ‘In the beginning, there were two nations. One was a vast, mighty and magnificent empire, brilliantly organized and culturally unified, which dominated a massive swath of the earth. The other was an undeveloped, semi feudal realm, riven by religious factionalism and barely able to feed its illiterate, diseased and stinking masses. The first nation was India. The second was England.’
The Marquess of Salisbury, using a colourful metaphor as Secretary of State for India in the 1860s and 1870s, said: ‘As India is to be bled, the lancet should be directed to those parts where the blood is congested… [rather than] to those which are already feeble for the want of it.’
As a child growing up in the late 80’s and early 90’s, I was told that the Britishers were the aliens who our national leaders drove out of the country in August of 1947. The little me watched Independence and Republic day parades held with pomp and pride in Delhi on the screen of a little monochrome television and slowly imbibed the message that I was part of something large called India. In hindsight there was no notion of nationalism or patriotism in my mind then, it was merely the sights and sounds that created a spectacle.
In school we were taught about the glory of the Indian independence movement and the sacrifices the men and women of the nation underwent to create an independent nation. Truth be told, a sleepy child learns of the Morley-Minto reforms or the Rowlatt act only out of pure coercion, they do not learn it for the purpose of knowledge but only to pass the history examination. The barbarous aftermaths of these acts passed by the British were not fully familiar to me and by me I refer again to a big group of children who were told that the British empire was brutal but not in very absolute terms. Instead you are told in abstractions that they oppressed us (but not how and in what context) and that they destroyed us (here again the extent of damage is not clear). While the heroes of Indian independence are undoubtedly men and women who gave up almost everything in their lives for the nation, I believe it is equally important that everyone learns what kind of odds they were up against in the form of the British empire.
To the YouTube viewing public, Shashi Tharoor’s speech at Oxford debating on whether Britain owes reparations to her former colonies was a literal eye opener. The simple reason behind this was : objectivity . Tharoor was able to annotate with facts and figures how much of looting the East India Company and later the British empire resorted to across the length and breadth of India. As I highlighted in the paragraph above, while most of us knew the British to have robbed us blind the full horror of this was lost on us. When the Britishers arrived in India, many an Indian was dressed in the finest clothes, wore good jewellery and was extremely self-reliant. When they finally left, the same Indian only had his loin cloth left to call his own. The acts passed by the empire created a lot of legacies for the Indians – a broken textile industry, the landless peasant, sycophantic Indian rulers, an overtaxed populace and the first seeds of a communal divide were only a few of them. While seven decades of autonomy has been able to bring about some changes in most of the other areas, the last one of these legacies has grown from a seed to a massive and well branched out tree now.
As Tharoor himself says, one cannot take revenge upon history for history is its own revenge. The contents of the book filled me with disbelief and indignation to a great extent and then again gave me a new perspective of the entire notion of India’s struggle for independence. Britain perhaps cannot be expected to give India an apology like how Justin Trudeau apologized in the House of Commons for the Komagata Maru incident or a symbolic one reminiscent of Willy Brandt’s gesture of penance at the Warsaw ghetto. Just one incident that occurred on the 13th of April 1919 at Jalian Wala Bagh in Amritsar and the subsequent way the British protected and made a hero of the infamous Reginald Dyer should be enough for anyone still unwilling to let go of the belief that the British were a loving kind of a ruler. Interestingly on October 20, 2017, Virendra Sharma who is an MP in the British Parliament has tabled a motion seeking an apology for the Jalian Wala Bagh massacre. It remains to be seen how this will play out in the parliament.
A point that Tharoor makes that the best form of reparation would be to teach undiluted colonial history to the children of Britain makes a lot of sense in a world which yearns to return to Empire 2.0 . To me it would be equally important to teach the children of India what their nation was before the British came and what kind of a mess they left in their wake in 1947 !
Tharoor is a member of the Congress party and is a member of parliament from my own home town. The debate of whether or not the Congress party could have brought in much more advancemen to the nation from their years in power is certainly a valid one but is outside the scope of this book’s contents.
Recommended if you are a lover or student of Indian history !
And here was another magnificient quote from yet another book :
Alex von Tunzelmann’s clever start to her book Indian Summer made a point most tellingly: ‘In the beginning, there were two nations. One was a vast, mighty and magnificent empire, brilliantly organized and culturally unified, which dominated a massive swath of the earth. The other was an undeveloped, semi feudal realm, riven by religious factionalism and barely able to feed its illiterate, diseased and stinking masses. The first nation was India. The second was England.’
May 31, 2024
As the son of Indian immigrants to the US, I am not unaware of many of the claims of this book. It is an analysis of the various ills caused by Colonialism.
Tharoor shines best when he shows the hypocrisy of what was "stated" by the authorities and the "reality" on the ground. The book tackles the claims that Colonialism is anything but exploitative for the colonized nation. Tharoor shows that India was a very wealthy nation with a highly developed culture and history.
Far from helping India develop, the colonial practices created a political culture and system that retarded India's development. Also far from improving the lives and the economy of India, the British drained India's wealth. Often manipulative, and sometimes cruel, the British authorities caused a great deal of suffering and death in the form of famines and harsh penal laws.
I do not think most of these claims are open to interpretation. ANY country that is colonized is bound to be exploited by the Colonizer. The claims of "progress" and "development" are merely a thin veneer of good intentions glossing over the oft-racist and inherently exploitative nature of colocalization.
I do not have any issue with the facts and figures presented nor with the facts and figures he presents, however, it's his arguments about a Non-British India that ring hollow. India has had a long list of invaders, ranging from the Aryans, to the Muslims, to the Mongols, as well as other European powers (Spain, France, and Portugal). The difference with the British is based around the fact that the British had no desire to intermingle their culture and stay in India as the other invaders did-in essence becoming "Indian". Actually, no. They also were invaders, who killed and exploited the natives but stayed and "integrated" with the locals, though vast parts of India viewed them (Muslims, Mongols, etc) as invaders nonetheless.
There is also the question of how a powerful, enormously wealthy country like India was toppled by a corporation (British East India Company). The answer is that India as a concept was hardly a thing. You have various Princedoms and a few that became empires (Gupta, Mauyra, Mughal, etc) yet none controlled the entire subcontinent and had an imperial core that defined it. Thus "India" is much like the concept of the "EU"- it misses the point that there are still individual nations divided by culture, religion, and language.
Also, the claims of India actually doing the things, by themselves, that they derived from British rule such as modern universities, railways, modern political systems, etc would have happened organically ring hollow for the simple fact that they DID NOT. Many of India's current problems were created by the Indians themselves. From blinkered leftist economic policies to corruption, to conflicts with "fellow Indians" over religion, to conflicts with their neighbors-these lie at the foot of India's politicians.
Thus while British rule of India was, on the whole, an exploitative and financially draining occupation, many of India's current problems are more of an offshoot of India's issues than with the ills of British colonial control which ended in 1947.
Tharoor shines best when he shows the hypocrisy of what was "stated" by the authorities and the "reality" on the ground. The book tackles the claims that Colonialism is anything but exploitative for the colonized nation. Tharoor shows that India was a very wealthy nation with a highly developed culture and history.
Far from helping India develop, the colonial practices created a political culture and system that retarded India's development. Also far from improving the lives and the economy of India, the British drained India's wealth. Often manipulative, and sometimes cruel, the British authorities caused a great deal of suffering and death in the form of famines and harsh penal laws.
I do not think most of these claims are open to interpretation. ANY country that is colonized is bound to be exploited by the Colonizer. The claims of "progress" and "development" are merely a thin veneer of good intentions glossing over the oft-racist and inherently exploitative nature of colocalization.
I do not have any issue with the facts and figures presented nor with the facts and figures he presents, however, it's his arguments about a Non-British India that ring hollow. India has had a long list of invaders, ranging from the Aryans, to the Muslims, to the Mongols, as well as other European powers (Spain, France, and Portugal). The difference with the British is based around the fact that the British had no desire to intermingle their culture and stay in India as the other invaders did-in essence becoming "Indian". Actually, no. They also were invaders, who killed and exploited the natives but stayed and "integrated" with the locals, though vast parts of India viewed them (Muslims, Mongols, etc) as invaders nonetheless.
There is also the question of how a powerful, enormously wealthy country like India was toppled by a corporation (British East India Company). The answer is that India as a concept was hardly a thing. You have various Princedoms and a few that became empires (Gupta, Mauyra, Mughal, etc) yet none controlled the entire subcontinent and had an imperial core that defined it. Thus "India" is much like the concept of the "EU"- it misses the point that there are still individual nations divided by culture, religion, and language.
Also, the claims of India actually doing the things, by themselves, that they derived from British rule such as modern universities, railways, modern political systems, etc would have happened organically ring hollow for the simple fact that they DID NOT. Many of India's current problems were created by the Indians themselves. From blinkered leftist economic policies to corruption, to conflicts with "fellow Indians" over religion, to conflicts with their neighbors-these lie at the foot of India's politicians.
Thus while British rule of India was, on the whole, an exploitative and financially draining occupation, many of India's current problems are more of an offshoot of India's issues than with the ills of British colonial control which ended in 1947.
December 12, 2016
There is a much-touted phrase "Truth lies somewhere in d middle." Does it always ?
I was reading Savarkar's famous book on 1857 mutiny and gave it up after reading 50 pages as it felt one-sided bitter criticism of d British. Surely, Lawrence James, Niall Ferguson couldnt be that wrong. Surely, the British rule had a lot of benefits ?
I too believed in d "middle" 2-3 yrs ago until I read a few stats and Amitav Ghosh's description of Opium farming and trade in India.
Shashi Tharoor, building on his famous 2015 Oxford debate speech, thankfully tears apart this "British rule was good too" notion. I summarise his arguments as under :-
A) Racism - To me the one-word case against the British. Usually, People will throw up examples of exceptions, British who loved India n Indians and were fair-minded. They will throw up examples of Indians who enjoyed success. How then does one make a racism charge stick on a govt ? Simple, read d law. The laws differentiated between d British n Indians n denied d latter equality of opportunity, dignity, justice in every sense of d word. As an example, British almost never got punished (or got punished lightly) for murders of Indians on racist arguments.
Again, look at the law and u see 50+ countries following racism and differentiation among their citizens on basis of religion even today.
B) Economic drain - The British systematically and quite openly drained India's resources and destroyed India's economy. Our GDP growth was 1% for 200 yrs. Even at a modest growth rate of 3%, we would have been 50 times richer, much richer than Britain. As for d Railways, paid in taxes by India, with an 10 times inflated cost extracted by d British.
C) Famines - An estimated 35 million ppl died bcoz of famines during d British rule. But, famines r a natural phenomena, right ? Not if d govt continues exporting food, refuses to organise relief and leaves its ppl to die. Limits of cruelty surpassed.
I was reading Savarkar's famous book on 1857 mutiny and gave it up after reading 50 pages as it felt one-sided bitter criticism of d British. Surely, Lawrence James, Niall Ferguson couldnt be that wrong. Surely, the British rule had a lot of benefits ?
I too believed in d "middle" 2-3 yrs ago until I read a few stats and Amitav Ghosh's description of Opium farming and trade in India.
Shashi Tharoor, building on his famous 2015 Oxford debate speech, thankfully tears apart this "British rule was good too" notion. I summarise his arguments as under :-
A) Racism - To me the one-word case against the British. Usually, People will throw up examples of exceptions, British who loved India n Indians and were fair-minded. They will throw up examples of Indians who enjoyed success. How then does one make a racism charge stick on a govt ? Simple, read d law. The laws differentiated between d British n Indians n denied d latter equality of opportunity, dignity, justice in every sense of d word. As an example, British almost never got punished (or got punished lightly) for murders of Indians on racist arguments.
Again, look at the law and u see 50+ countries following racism and differentiation among their citizens on basis of religion even today.
B) Economic drain - The British systematically and quite openly drained India's resources and destroyed India's economy. Our GDP growth was 1% for 200 yrs. Even at a modest growth rate of 3%, we would have been 50 times richer, much richer than Britain. As for d Railways, paid in taxes by India, with an 10 times inflated cost extracted by d British.
C) Famines - An estimated 35 million ppl died bcoz of famines during d British rule. But, famines r a natural phenomena, right ? Not if d govt continues exporting food, refuses to organise relief and leaves its ppl to die. Limits of cruelty surpassed.
January 7, 2020
জেমস মিল সাহেবের ওপর ভার পড়লো অবিভক্ত ভারতবর্ষের ইতিহাস রচনার। তিনি হিন্দু শাসনামল, মুসলমান শাসনকাল এবং ইংরেজ শাসনে ভাগ করে সাজিয়ে গুছিয়ে ইতিহাস বিষয়ক পুস্তক রচনা করলেন। 'উদারবাদী'বলে খ্যাত জেমস মিল হিন্দু রাজাদের শাসনকালকে হিন্দু শাসন বললেন। তু্র্কি আর মোগলদের শাসনামলকে চিহ্নিত করলেন মুসলমান শাসনাকাল হিসেবে। কিন্তু খ্রিস্টান ধর্মাবলম্বী ইংরেজ শাসকদের সময়কে তিনি খ্রিস্টানশাসনকাল বললেন না। এইখানেই ব্রিটিশদের চালাকি। অবশ্য শোষণ আর নিপীড়নের দুই শ বছরে র যুগকে শশী থারুর উল্লেখ করেছেন, 'অন্ধকার যুগ' বলে।
' In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the World's GDP, while India was generating 23%.'
আওরঙ্গজেবের আমলে বিশ্বঅর্থনীতির ২৭ ভাগ নিয়ন্ত্রণ করতো ভারতবর্ষ। আর ইংরেজরা যখন ১৯৪৭ সালে ভারত ছাড়ে, তখন তা নেমে এসে দাঁড়ায় মাত্র ৩ শতাংশে!
অবিভক্ত ভারতের সবচেয়ে ধনী প্রদেশ ছিল বাংলা। দুই শ বছরের শোষণের পর বিশ্বের অন্যতম গরিব ভূখণ্ড বাংলা।
ইংরেজরা আমাদের শোষণ করলেও আধুনিক শিক্ষা ব্যবস্থা, শাসনপদ্ধতি দিয়েছে। সুসভ্য হওয়ার পর দেখিয়েছে দুই শ' বছরের শাসনকালে - এমন ধারণা অনেকেই আছে৷ রাজনীতিবিদ এবং লেখক শশী থারুর এইসব মিথকেই চ্যালেঞ্জ করেছেন।
অধ্যায় হিসেবে ভাগ করেছেন পুরো বইকে। তিনি ব্রিটিশদের নির্যাতনের ও শোষণের চিত্র অত্যন্ত বৃহৎ আকারে তুলে ধরেছেন।
বাংলার অর্থনীতি ধ্বংস হলো ব্রিটেনের অর্থনীতিকে চাঙা করতে। মেকলে কেরানি তৈরি করতে ইংরেজি শিক্ষাব্যবস্থার প্রচলন করেছিলেন। মঙ্গলের জন্য নয়। রেলের যাত্রা হয়েছিল সেনাবাহিনীর জন্য। ব্রিটিশদের লক্ষ্য ছিল ইংরেজ শেয়ারহোল্ডারদের নিরঙ্কুশ সুবিধা দেওয়া। ভারতবাসীর সেবা নয়। মুক্ত সংবাদপত্র নয়। বন্দি বাকস্বাধীনতাই ইংরেজদের শেষ কথা। ধর্মের ব্যবহার করে নিজেদের শাসনকে বাঁধাহীন করাই ছিল ইংরেজদের উদ্দেশ্য।
ইংরেজদের লুটপাটের প্রসঙ্গে চলে আসে এই উপমহাদেশ থেকে চুরি করে নেওয়া প্রত্নসম্পদের কথা। ভারত এই সম্পদ ফিরিয়ে দেওয়ার প্রস্তাব রাখলে তৎকালীন ব্রিটিশ প্রধানমন্ত্রী ডেভিড ক্যামেরুনের উক্তি,
' If you say yes to one, you would suddenly find the British Museum would be empty. '
ঠিক তাই৷ চুরি আর লুটপাটে গড়া ব্রিটিশ মিউজিয়াম নয়। পুরো ব্রিটেন। ক্যামেরুনের কথাই এই সাক্ষ্য দেয়।
শশী থারুর কংগ্রেসের রাজনীতিবিদ। সাবেক মন্ত্রীও। তাই অবিভক্ত ভারতের রাজনীতির ইতিহাস লিখতে গিয়ে কংগ্রেসের পক্ষ অনেকটা খোলামেলাভাবেই নিয়েছেন। এটুকু বাদে পুরো বইটিই খুব ভালো লেগেছে। ব্রিটিশ শাসনামল অন্ধকার শাসনামল - এই কথা শুধুই কথার কথা নয়। একেই অত্যন্ত প্রামাণ্যভাবে উপস্থাপন করেছেন। যুক্তিতর্ক সবই ভালো ছিল। কিন্তু লেখায় গতি নেই শশী থারুরের। একঘেয়ে তাঁর বলার ভঙি।
' In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the World's GDP, while India was generating 23%.'
আওরঙ্গজেবের আমলে বিশ্বঅর্থনীতির ২৭ ভাগ নিয়ন্ত্রণ করতো ভারতবর্ষ। আর ইংরেজরা যখন ১৯৪৭ সালে ভারত ছাড়ে, তখন তা নেমে এসে দাঁড়ায় মাত্র ৩ শতাংশে!
অবিভক্ত ভারতের সবচেয়ে ধনী প্রদেশ ছিল বাংলা। দুই শ বছরের শোষণের পর বিশ্বের অন্যতম গরিব ভূখণ্ড বাংলা।
ইংরেজরা আমাদের শোষণ করলেও আধুনিক শিক্ষা ব্যবস্থা, শাসনপদ্ধতি দিয়েছে। সুসভ্য হওয়ার পর দেখিয়েছে দুই শ' বছরের শাসনকালে - এমন ধারণা অনেকেই আছে৷ রাজনীতিবিদ এবং লেখক শশী থারুর এইসব মিথকেই চ্যালেঞ্জ করেছেন।
অধ্যায় হিসেবে ভাগ করেছেন পুরো বইকে। তিনি ব্রিটিশদের নির্যাতনের ও শোষণের চিত্র অত্যন্ত বৃহৎ আকারে তুলে ধরেছেন।
বাংলার অর্থনীতি ধ্বংস হলো ব্রিটেনের অর্থনীতিকে চাঙা করতে। মেকলে কেরানি তৈরি করতে ইংরেজি শিক্ষাব্যবস্থার প্রচলন করেছিলেন। মঙ্গলের জন্য নয়। রেলের যাত্রা হয়েছিল সেনাবাহিনীর জন্য। ব্রিটিশদের লক্ষ্য ছিল ইংরেজ শেয়ারহোল্ডারদের নিরঙ্কুশ সুবিধা দেওয়া। ভারতবাসীর সেবা নয়। মুক্ত সংবাদপত্র নয়। বন্দি বাকস্বাধীনতাই ইংরেজদের শেষ কথা। ধর্মের ব্যবহার করে নিজেদের শাসনকে বাঁধাহীন করাই ছিল ইংরেজদের উদ্দেশ্য।
ইংরেজদের লুটপাটের প্রসঙ্গে চলে আসে এই উপমহাদেশ থেকে চুরি করে নেওয়া প্রত্নসম্পদের কথা। ভারত এই সম্পদ ফিরিয়ে দেওয়ার প্রস্তাব রাখলে তৎকালীন ব্রিটিশ প্রধানমন্ত্রী ডেভিড ক্যামেরুনের উক্তি,
' If you say yes to one, you would suddenly find the British Museum would be empty. '
ঠিক তাই৷ চুরি আর লুটপাটে গড়া ব্রিটিশ মিউজিয়াম নয়। পুরো ব্রিটেন। ক্যামেরুনের কথাই এই সাক্ষ্য দেয়।
শশী থারুর কংগ্রেসের রাজনীতিবিদ। সাবেক মন্ত্রীও। তাই অবিভক্ত ভারতের রাজনীতির ইতিহাস লিখতে গিয়ে কংগ্রেসের পক্ষ অনেকটা খোলামেলাভাবেই নিয়েছেন। এটুকু বাদে পুরো বইটিই খুব ভালো লেগেছে। ব্রিটিশ শাসনামল অন্ধকার শাসনামল - এই কথা শুধুই কথার কথা নয়। একেই অত্যন্ত প্রামাণ্যভাবে উপস্থাপন করেছেন। যুক্তিতর্ক সবই ভালো ছিল। কিন্তু লেখায় গতি নেই শশী থারুরের। একঘেয়ে তাঁর বলার ভঙি।
September 4, 2018
Among other things, this book contains the most passionate defense of the game of cricket I've ever encountered. Here Tharoor grants there were some beneficial effects of empire, albeit with a dialectical twist. What started out as a pretty straightforward case of western cultural imperialism turned into the negation of the negation as Indians developed their own athletic mastery...
*
The great Ukrainian famine of the late twenties and early thirties is usually seen as proof that communism is inherently evil, and Stalin is remembered as maybe worse than Hitler.
On the other hand, the Great Bengali famine of the forties is hardly remembered at all in the west, and Churchill is often seen as THE hero of the twentieth century.
Both were preventable, state-induced catastrophes, and a similar number of people perished in each.
Very curious discrepancy, then, in how the perpetrators are remembered.
*
The great Ukrainian famine of the late twenties and early thirties is usually seen as proof that communism is inherently evil, and Stalin is remembered as maybe worse than Hitler.
On the other hand, the Great Bengali famine of the forties is hardly remembered at all in the west, and Churchill is often seen as THE hero of the twentieth century.
Both were preventable, state-induced catastrophes, and a similar number of people perished in each.
Very curious discrepancy, then, in how the perpetrators are remembered.
July 16, 2020
In 1700, India's share of the World economy was 27%. When Britain left, her share was down to 3%. The author goes on detailing how India was sucked for its riches, its ship building decimated, divide and rule promoted and more. He also mentions the good done by the colonisers, but it mostly is about the bad, the injustices, murder, subjugation. A good educational read written by a man of letters and published by a reputable firm, Penguin. This book has instilled within me to read about our involvement in Ireland and Persia, I am sure there will be embarrassing skeletons. May all people live free and in peace.
March 20, 2018
Tharoor is an excellent orator; well-spoken, warm and articulate, his Cambridge University speech inspired this book. What is surprising is-or, on reflection, perhaps not, is as greater a orator as Tharoor is, his writing style, although well-researched and engaging, is didactic and lacks the elegance of his vocal abilities; some of his puns lose their verve without the cadence of his voice, some of his homilies became slightly platitudinous but, with that being said, “Inglorious Empire” is one of the greatest rebuttals of empire I have read, a welcome rampant against the torrent of misplaced colonial nostalgia which seems to be washing over parts of England.
Tharoor systematically dissects many of the most fundamental arguments for the British empire. Firstly that they were a benign force out to liberalise India. As Tharoor points out, prior to colonialism India was one of the foremost world economies, a country of great craftsmen and culture, the birth-place of many great religions and philosophical theories, a land which, like all others had experienced is fair share of intolerance and oppression, but still a place where a multitude of communities had co-existed in relative peace and harmony. It is therefore one of the greatest-and most insidious-myths peddled by the British that India was a bucolic backwater, whose citizens were stuck in a stupor of stupidity and ignoble idiocy, waiting to be roused by the great British liberators. In reality greed, avarice, racism and the cold calculating laws of the market and realpolitik were the motivating factors behind colonialism, to drain Indian of it’s resource, both intellectual and economical; the idea that colonialism was driven by some sort of altruistic motive, or by the ideas of the enlightenment is ridiculous.
Tharoor utilises extensive both hard economic facts and historical accounts to slowly debunk the myths of colonialism, from the English language to the railway; Tharoor uses the example of the robber stubbing their toe whilst stealing form you as the kind of specious justifications apologists usually use to justify the colonialism-a more fitting analogy perhaps is if a robber steals all your jewels inadvertently leaves a few pieces inside your house this does not justify their actions. And this is perhaps the most dangerous thing about European colonialism; they painted subjugation as deliverance, domination as liberation, oppression as freedom-it takes a febrile and fervent imagination to insinuate that in pillaging a county of its resources for two and a half centuries it was somehow doing it a favour, but it is exactly the argument which has swayed the gullible and naive, but it now finding itself on shaky ground thanks to the recovery of Indian and other colonies from imperial shackles.
Tharoor systematically dissects many of the most fundamental arguments for the British empire. Firstly that they were a benign force out to liberalise India. As Tharoor points out, prior to colonialism India was one of the foremost world economies, a country of great craftsmen and culture, the birth-place of many great religions and philosophical theories, a land which, like all others had experienced is fair share of intolerance and oppression, but still a place where a multitude of communities had co-existed in relative peace and harmony. It is therefore one of the greatest-and most insidious-myths peddled by the British that India was a bucolic backwater, whose citizens were stuck in a stupor of stupidity and ignoble idiocy, waiting to be roused by the great British liberators. In reality greed, avarice, racism and the cold calculating laws of the market and realpolitik were the motivating factors behind colonialism, to drain Indian of it’s resource, both intellectual and economical; the idea that colonialism was driven by some sort of altruistic motive, or by the ideas of the enlightenment is ridiculous.
Tharoor utilises extensive both hard economic facts and historical accounts to slowly debunk the myths of colonialism, from the English language to the railway; Tharoor uses the example of the robber stubbing their toe whilst stealing form you as the kind of specious justifications apologists usually use to justify the colonialism-a more fitting analogy perhaps is if a robber steals all your jewels inadvertently leaves a few pieces inside your house this does not justify their actions. And this is perhaps the most dangerous thing about European colonialism; they painted subjugation as deliverance, domination as liberation, oppression as freedom-it takes a febrile and fervent imagination to insinuate that in pillaging a county of its resources for two and a half centuries it was somehow doing it a favour, but it is exactly the argument which has swayed the gullible and naive, but it now finding itself on shaky ground thanks to the recovery of Indian and other colonies from imperial shackles.
September 21, 2018
Here it is, your meme-ified guide-in-progress to winning arguments with colonial apologists.
You're arguing with: The Benevolent Paternalist
Broke: Whatever its flaws, British imperialism brought modernity (railways, industry, etc) to India.
Woke: Any infrastructure the British built in India was for the sole purpose of more efficiently strip-mining the country of its assets.
Broke: The British brought political unity to an impoverished land of warring factions and corrupt despots.
Woke: India's economy when the British arrived had a share of global GDP equal to all of Europe combined, and the existing emperors, princes, and nawabs were at least accountable to their people, while many enjoyed broad popular support.
Broke: Britain introduced the "rule of law" to India.
Woke: India already had longstanding social norms that operated as a legal tradition, which the British replaced with their own penal code, written by the odious racist Thomas Babington Macaulay. This code was enforced with extreme harshness against natives, and with utmost leniency against Europeans—so much for the "rule."
Broke: India has Britain to thank for their robust free press.
Woke: The British did introduce newspapers to India, and deserve some credit for that. Though they enacted numerous laws restricting and censoring Indian-run papers, they never totally squelched them. If that's the most successful argument you can make for the good of imperialism, you're in trouble.
You're arguing with: The Whataboutist/Concern Troll
Broke: What about the fact that India's economy flatlined for almost 50 years after Independence?
Woke: What do you expect, when a country has been pillaged, deindustrialized, carved up, and infantilized for 200 years? Again, India's share of global trade before the British: 27%. After: 2%.
Broke: What about the religious and caste violence that has plagued India? Haven't they forfeited the moral high ground?
Woke: These issues are deeply troubling, and also a legacy of British imperialism. The Brits solidified power through the "divide et impera" strategy, which meant codifying religious and caste groups that had previously been fluid and intermixed, playing them against each other for political favor and sowing distrust and hatred. Those imaginary divides became real in the horror of Partition, the effects of which continue to destabilize not just the region, but the world. India is not free of blame by any means, but neither are the Western interventionists who deliberately created this environment.
You're arguing with: The Scorched-Earth Darwinist
Broke: That the British subjugated India despite much smaller numbers proves they were simply smarter, stronger, and more advanced. Therefore they deserved to rule.
Woke: British subjugation of India wasn't a victory of strength or advancement. It was a victory of predatory amorality during a period of transition as the Mughal Empire fractured. The East India Company insinuated themselves into the resulting chaos before anyone realized the depth of their greed and depravity—the rest is history.
Broke: If Indian rulers were already taxing the masses, what does it matter if the British took over that taxation structure?
Woke: The British tax rates were ruinously high, and besides, taxes paid to a local authority with a vested interest in the community are completely different from taxes paid to a foreign agent whose only incentive is filling a treasury in London. Just ask the Boston Tea Partiers.
To be continued...
You're arguing with: The Benevolent Paternalist
Broke: Whatever its flaws, British imperialism brought modernity (railways, industry, etc) to India.
Woke: Any infrastructure the British built in India was for the sole purpose of more efficiently strip-mining the country of its assets.
Broke: The British brought political unity to an impoverished land of warring factions and corrupt despots.
Woke: India's economy when the British arrived had a share of global GDP equal to all of Europe combined, and the existing emperors, princes, and nawabs were at least accountable to their people, while many enjoyed broad popular support.
Broke: Britain introduced the "rule of law" to India.
Woke: India already had longstanding social norms that operated as a legal tradition, which the British replaced with their own penal code, written by the odious racist Thomas Babington Macaulay. This code was enforced with extreme harshness against natives, and with utmost leniency against Europeans—so much for the "rule."
Broke: India has Britain to thank for their robust free press.
Woke: The British did introduce newspapers to India, and deserve some credit for that. Though they enacted numerous laws restricting and censoring Indian-run papers, they never totally squelched them. If that's the most successful argument you can make for the good of imperialism, you're in trouble.
You're arguing with: The Whataboutist/Concern Troll
Broke: What about the fact that India's economy flatlined for almost 50 years after Independence?
Woke: What do you expect, when a country has been pillaged, deindustrialized, carved up, and infantilized for 200 years? Again, India's share of global trade before the British: 27%. After: 2%.
Broke: What about the religious and caste violence that has plagued India? Haven't they forfeited the moral high ground?
Woke: These issues are deeply troubling, and also a legacy of British imperialism. The Brits solidified power through the "divide et impera" strategy, which meant codifying religious and caste groups that had previously been fluid and intermixed, playing them against each other for political favor and sowing distrust and hatred. Those imaginary divides became real in the horror of Partition, the effects of which continue to destabilize not just the region, but the world. India is not free of blame by any means, but neither are the Western interventionists who deliberately created this environment.
You're arguing with: The Scorched-Earth Darwinist
Broke: That the British subjugated India despite much smaller numbers proves they were simply smarter, stronger, and more advanced. Therefore they deserved to rule.
Woke: British subjugation of India wasn't a victory of strength or advancement. It was a victory of predatory amorality during a period of transition as the Mughal Empire fractured. The East India Company insinuated themselves into the resulting chaos before anyone realized the depth of their greed and depravity—the rest is history.
Broke: If Indian rulers were already taxing the masses, what does it matter if the British took over that taxation structure?
Woke: The British tax rates were ruinously high, and besides, taxes paid to a local authority with a vested interest in the community are completely different from taxes paid to a foreign agent whose only incentive is filling a treasury in London. Just ask the Boston Tea Partiers.
To be continued...
December 24, 2016
The Author, Shashi Tharoor, is an Indian politician and a former diplomat who is currently serving as Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha.
The birth of the book is the speech made by the author at Oxford when author was invited as a speaker at Oxford Union. After praises, criticism, trolling over internet, the speech made its way in the heart of masses. The book is not his written speech; it is differ in many respects. This book is not about British Colonialism as a whole, but simply tells about India’s experience of it. It does not tell a story of British Raj on India but makes an argument.
Starting from 1600 when British Charter forms East India Company, who once entered in the country as traders and then eventually ruled the country till 1947 – India gain independence on 15th august, partition of the country, Britain exits India. Brief history of the dark phase of Indian history and their impact on India and over Indians from the eye of author.
During the period, the India becomes mere exporter of raw material to Britain and its export market of manufacturing goods declined considerably. British Raj extracted the wealth in the name of taxation. Britain’s Industrial Revolution was built on the destruction of India’s thriving manufacturing industries. Factual figures are also stated in the book.
There is nothing new, which, one haven’t read before about Indian history but book neither trashing British Raj. It evaluates the impact of Colonialism and how India made progress after independence to one of the world’s fastest growing economy.
https://thereviewauthor.wordpress.com/
The birth of the book is the speech made by the author at Oxford when author was invited as a speaker at Oxford Union. After praises, criticism, trolling over internet, the speech made its way in the heart of masses. The book is not his written speech; it is differ in many respects. This book is not about British Colonialism as a whole, but simply tells about India’s experience of it. It does not tell a story of British Raj on India but makes an argument.
Starting from 1600 when British Charter forms East India Company, who once entered in the country as traders and then eventually ruled the country till 1947 – India gain independence on 15th august, partition of the country, Britain exits India. Brief history of the dark phase of Indian history and their impact on India and over Indians from the eye of author.
During the period, the India becomes mere exporter of raw material to Britain and its export market of manufacturing goods declined considerably. British Raj extracted the wealth in the name of taxation. Britain’s Industrial Revolution was built on the destruction of India’s thriving manufacturing industries. Factual figures are also stated in the book.
There is nothing new, which, one haven’t read before about Indian history but book neither trashing British Raj. It evaluates the impact of Colonialism and how India made progress after independence to one of the world’s fastest growing economy.
https://thereviewauthor.wordpress.com/
February 7, 2017
The speech delivered at Oxford that led to writing of this book was a brilliant one but the book itself fades in comparison. However, it is still worth reading because of the inimitable style of Shashi Tharoor and his penchant for research before coming to conclusions. He is indeed critical of the empire for "cruelties unheard and devastation almost without name....crimes which have their rise in the wicked dispositions of men in avarice, rapacity, pride, cruelty, malignity, haughtiness, insolence". Tharoor is never short of adjectives. He goes on to nail every argument put forth by Niall Ferguson in "How Britain Made the World" in support of "evangelical imperialism". His objective is not to take "revenge upon history" but to place it in right perspective. And he does so pretty effectively, quoting copiously from a number contemporary stalwarts like William Howitt : " the scene of exaction, rapacity, and plunder which India became in our hands and that upon the whole body of the population, forms one of the most disgraceful portions of human history"
August 24, 2017
More than Indians or any other country colonised by the British, it's important every Brit reads. Something I doubt their history books covers!
January 3, 2019
It is as much a pleasure to read Shashi Tharoor as it is to hear him speak. Quite apart from his eloquence and flawless phrasing of language, Tharoor knows how to keep his audience interested, whether he is writing or speaking. I have read his fiction work a long time ago and was very impressed. Now, this work of non-fiction is also very good. And required. Oh, how very needed is this work!
Tharoor tackles the subject of British colonisation of India and its effects and aftereffects. Taking the myths of the benefits of British rule in India, he effortlessly demolishes them one by one. From the destruction of Indian industries to the funnelling of Indian taxes to London, Tharoor paints a pretty grim picture of India under British rule. There are a few unintended and byproduct benefits that India received but these were nothing to the misery it suffered for more than two centuries.
Tharoor also tears apart most of Niall Ferguson's pro-colonisation arguments made in his book, Empire: How Britain Made the World. (Yeah, that title says it all!) So if you are looking for a rebuttal for Ferguson's work, An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India is the way to go. Tharoor uses numerous resources to prove his points and provides a further reading path for those who want to pursue this subject in more detail.
Of course, people have been invading other people for centuries. What made British rule (and the colonisation period) different and problematic was well-explained. Most other invaders stayed and ruled - and invested. With colonisation, the victors stayed and ruled, but they sent back the taxes to their home countries and spent very little on the countries they conquered.
I really feel that history in India should be taught in schools with the aid of such well-written books, instead of those horribly boring and over-simplified prescribed textbooks. Maybe it's also time for this to be required reading in Britain's schools. Tharoor doesn't make many new arguments, and is himself surprised at the need for such a book. But he makes those arguments well and in detail, and that is the entire reason why this book is important.
Tharoor tackles the subject of British colonisation of India and its effects and aftereffects. Taking the myths of the benefits of British rule in India, he effortlessly demolishes them one by one. From the destruction of Indian industries to the funnelling of Indian taxes to London, Tharoor paints a pretty grim picture of India under British rule. There are a few unintended and byproduct benefits that India received but these were nothing to the misery it suffered for more than two centuries.
Tharoor also tears apart most of Niall Ferguson's pro-colonisation arguments made in his book, Empire: How Britain Made the World. (Yeah, that title says it all!) So if you are looking for a rebuttal for Ferguson's work, An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India is the way to go. Tharoor uses numerous resources to prove his points and provides a further reading path for those who want to pursue this subject in more detail.
Of course, people have been invading other people for centuries. What made British rule (and the colonisation period) different and problematic was well-explained. Most other invaders stayed and ruled - and invested. With colonisation, the victors stayed and ruled, but they sent back the taxes to their home countries and spent very little on the countries they conquered.
I really feel that history in India should be taught in schools with the aid of such well-written books, instead of those horribly boring and over-simplified prescribed textbooks. Maybe it's also time for this to be required reading in Britain's schools. Tharoor doesn't make many new arguments, and is himself surprised at the need for such a book. But he makes those arguments well and in detail, and that is the entire reason why this book is important.
February 3, 2023
I put this book under history but the author isn't much of a historian and the book reads more like a long internet rant.
I would never defend the British colonial occupation but this book with its incessant editorializing on the evils of English rule in India made me want to tune out the entire argument. The scholarship in this book is weak or non-existent at almost every turn and he constantly rhapsodizes on what a paradise India had been before the British and how it would have been even more of a paradise had they not set foot on the continent. He falls back again and again on opinions and speculation instead of giving us a thoughtfully researched critique of colonial rule.
His assertion that without colonial rule Hindus and Muslims would not have split the country in two is completely without merit.
He relies more on wishful thinking than history.
I would never defend the British colonial occupation but this book with its incessant editorializing on the evils of English rule in India made me want to tune out the entire argument. The scholarship in this book is weak or non-existent at almost every turn and he constantly rhapsodizes on what a paradise India had been before the British and how it would have been even more of a paradise had they not set foot on the continent. He falls back again and again on opinions and speculation instead of giving us a thoughtfully researched critique of colonial rule.
His assertion that without colonial rule Hindus and Muslims would not have split the country in two is completely without merit.
Nor was religion in the past necessarily the overall basis for collective action, let alone political mobilization: caste, community, jati and biradari played their parts. But by encroaching on the terrain of the various communities, thereby invalidating indigenous social relations, the colonial state loosened the bonds that had held them together for generations across these divides.
He relies more on wishful thinking than history.
March 28, 2018
The book has been popular because it is rather direct and thought-provoking. But in terms of arguments, I found a few well known strong arguments along with a number of weaker ones. Why were so few British able to control so many more Indians for so long in India for instance? Were not the local Indians junior partners in this venture?
I could not help comparing China with Indian colonisation. Why did China resist while the Indians acquiesced? After all, East India company was equally trying to exert influence on China as much as India but could not infiltrate much into mainland China. Was it due to the Chinese mandarins who resisted joining the English as opposed to Indian princes who choose to partner them instead?
The assertion that British imposed their own laws by gross simplification and ignorance of local cultures is difficult to accept when you consider that the same laws are still much applicable in Indian subcontinental countries 70 years from freedom.
Britain was not the first coloniser to employ 'divide and rule 'policy in India. All of India's past Muslim rulers had employed exactly the same policy to divide the majority population in order to prolong their control over them. British were the latest in the same tradition.
I could not help comparing China with Indian colonisation. Why did China resist while the Indians acquiesced? After all, East India company was equally trying to exert influence on China as much as India but could not infiltrate much into mainland China. Was it due to the Chinese mandarins who resisted joining the English as opposed to Indian princes who choose to partner them instead?
The assertion that British imposed their own laws by gross simplification and ignorance of local cultures is difficult to accept when you consider that the same laws are still much applicable in Indian subcontinental countries 70 years from freedom.
Britain was not the first coloniser to employ 'divide and rule 'policy in India. All of India's past Muslim rulers had employed exactly the same policy to divide the majority population in order to prolong their control over them. British were the latest in the same tradition.
January 1, 2023
Inglorious Empire: What the British Did To India now there's a title that caught my eye. I know next to nothing about the history of India but I have read a great deal of British history and have more than a passing knowledge of their colonial exploits and in particular what they did to Ireland, the Middle East, and South Africa. Since this book was only 249 pages of text I thought this could be a quick survey of Indian history under British occupation and I might learn something about the British that I didn't already know. I was wrong on all counts. First, this is technically not a history at all. The author states up front that the idea for this book came from a presentation he made at Oxford during a debate regarding whether or not the British owed India reparations for all the harm they did to that country during the colonial occupation. Unfortunately, the author did not bother to alter the tone or object of his presentation when he sat down to write this book. Consequently, the tone is argumentative and that may turn off many readers. Next, because the author is an advocate for a point of view his objectivity can be questioned though from my knowledge of British conduct elsewhere and at other times I tend to think the author was more than diplomatic in his recitation of historical events. Now as for the history well there are mentions of historical events and personages but they are only to the extent they demonstrate or support the point the author is making so there is a great deal of information lacking. As for it being a quick read that was certainly not the case. The first third of the book really dragged and I found myself nodding off on several occasions. Now does that mean this was not a good book? No, actually once I managed to get passed the first third of the book and the author got into the post WWI era and later the book managed to really engage my interest as this was when the Indian people seemed to finally start balking at English domination and the English started to demonstrate how brutal and sinister they can be. The book redeemed itself. It was not what I was looking for but it did educate me and sparked an curiosity to learn more about this history and in particular about Robert Clive and the East India Company.
So what exactly did the author intend to accomplish with this book? For the most part the author sets up arguments supporting benefits bestowed on India by the British occupation and then knocks them down with history and statistics. Since the British occupation began as a commercial venture of the East India Company the author's arguments seem to focus on those facets that could be viewed as a critique of their management practices and organizational structure and how this things affected India. This is what most of the beginning of the book entails and the recitation of statistics regarding profits, exports, imports, both before and after the British can cure your insomnia. The author's bottomline, however, is clear. When the British arrived they attached themselves to India like a blood sucking parasite and bled the country of its wealth, its culture, its peace, its self respect, and its independence. Everything the British did in India was exclusively aimed at producing economic benefit for the British and nothing more. Every improvement to Indian infrastructure was actually done to increase the efficiency of extracting India's resources and shipping them back to England. To maintain their control of India's enormous population the English intentionally set about segmenting and dividing the otherwise peaceful natives of that country. It was this divisiveness that spawned the violent hostility between the Hindus and the Muslims that lead to the creation of Pakistan. Prior to the British occupation the Hindus and Muslims of India lived harmoniously together.
The events, incidents, machinations of the British recited in this book just adds to list of crimes this paragon of civilization known as the British Empire has committed during its 2 centuries of existence. It is a testament to the character of the Indian people that they are not as bitter and antagonistic to the British as the Irish are since these two countries and their people suffered many of the same atrocities at British governmental hands. The author believes reparations to his country is a moot point but he firmly believes that the notion that his country benefitted in anyway from the British Raj is absurd and that the British actually probably inhibited the natural evolution and advancement of the Indian people. Considering their capacity to forgive the British I tend to think the author's belief is well taken.
So what exactly did the author intend to accomplish with this book? For the most part the author sets up arguments supporting benefits bestowed on India by the British occupation and then knocks them down with history and statistics. Since the British occupation began as a commercial venture of the East India Company the author's arguments seem to focus on those facets that could be viewed as a critique of their management practices and organizational structure and how this things affected India. This is what most of the beginning of the book entails and the recitation of statistics regarding profits, exports, imports, both before and after the British can cure your insomnia. The author's bottomline, however, is clear. When the British arrived they attached themselves to India like a blood sucking parasite and bled the country of its wealth, its culture, its peace, its self respect, and its independence. Everything the British did in India was exclusively aimed at producing economic benefit for the British and nothing more. Every improvement to Indian infrastructure was actually done to increase the efficiency of extracting India's resources and shipping them back to England. To maintain their control of India's enormous population the English intentionally set about segmenting and dividing the otherwise peaceful natives of that country. It was this divisiveness that spawned the violent hostility between the Hindus and the Muslims that lead to the creation of Pakistan. Prior to the British occupation the Hindus and Muslims of India lived harmoniously together.
The events, incidents, machinations of the British recited in this book just adds to list of crimes this paragon of civilization known as the British Empire has committed during its 2 centuries of existence. It is a testament to the character of the Indian people that they are not as bitter and antagonistic to the British as the Irish are since these two countries and their people suffered many of the same atrocities at British governmental hands. The author believes reparations to his country is a moot point but he firmly believes that the notion that his country benefitted in anyway from the British Raj is absurd and that the British actually probably inhibited the natural evolution and advancement of the Indian people. Considering their capacity to forgive the British I tend to think the author's belief is well taken.
May 30, 2018
I was never naïve enough to believe the altruistic intention of colonialism peddled by the British schools in my day, but I never even imagined how the British, locust like, completely devastated India for a period of more than two centuries. ‘Inglorious Empire’ presents fact after fact, incident after incident, and the result is damning. We just about totally screwed India in whatever way was possible. The book is successful in what it sets out to achieve. However, while I have always been critical of my country’s overseas exploits and convinced of its guilt in many more than one foreign intervention, I finished this book left with one question, a question of complicity. The actions of the empire builders can never be forgiven, but the extent of the damage could never have been so horrific without complicity from inside. Complicity is never really dealt with directly. The level of destruction could never have been ‘achieved’ without people from inside the country, on seeing a possible rise to wealth and power, siding with and climbing on the backs of the oppressors, and sharing at least some part of that guilt. This certainly doesn’t exonerate the British in any way, but is included to remind us that a simplistic Country A versus Country B probably doesn’t tell the whole story, not just in the case of Britain and India, but in every conflict between nations, especially in modern times. Let’s look beyond the facts and to the factors that underpin those facts – the whole story.
April 7, 2018
The author provides passionate rebuttals to the traditional histories of all the good things England did for it's appreciative colonies. His analysis of the English divide and rule strategy, using religious differences and the caste system, was fascinating. He also shows the lack of English investment in education and health and little regard to the welfare of the Indian people. He also shows how a great country was demeaned and devalued in the pursuit of profits.
March 2, 2018
This book is an impassioned tirade against the injustices perpetrated by the British Raj durng their rule of India. The stats that Tharoor presents provide a compelling argument and offer a harrowing insight into the callousness of the great British Empire.
This book should become required reading within classrooms because after having read it, I realised that the narrative of the British Empire presented within history lessons is not accurate. Winston Churchill's bigotry is never discussed within the syllabus, the fact that he caused the deaths of 25-30 million people by taking away food from India to send to the British Army and then justified their deaths by saying it was their fault for breeding like rabbits, is shocking.
Tharoor takes on the apologists for British rule and nullifies their arguments. He does however skirt some fairly central arguments that critics of the book have levelled.
1) The collusion of the Indian royalty. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Although it no way absolves the inhumane cruelty of the British Empire, it is a sad fact that many of the elites within Indian society favoured British rule because it solidified their own power. This raises an interesting point. Prior to the arrival of the British; India had no self-identity, it's people did not regard themselves as citizens of one nation. Indians were ridden with the evils of the caste system, one of which is a deeply ingrained sense of differentiation. Most certainly, the British exploited this, but the tragic fact remains that the ruling elite and the upper class of India did not appear to care much about the tribulations of people lower down the social ladder. And that really is the reason why the British were able to rule for as long as they did. They utilised an existing social condition of slavery engendered by the caste system.
2) An entire class of people loved being British more than they did being Indian. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was one of them and Abdullah Yousuf Ali, the pre-eminent translator of the Quran, was another one. You can't create an entire class of Anglophiles if you were uniformly racist and brutal. Go online and look for images of Jawarlal Nehru and you will see pictures of him swooning over Edwina Mountbatten. Not exactly the image of the leader of a downtrodden and brutalised people.
3) Tharoor is of the opinion that had it not been for the British, India would have been the most advanced nation in the world. It would have arrived on Mars before anyone and it's scientists would have bagged the greatest number of Nobel prizes. Such notions are more whimsical than factual and it underlines an important point. It is wrong to regard India as a country, it would be more accurate to think of it as a continent masquerading as a country. In a continent you have to expect huge diversity in terms of people, customs and religion. Now, the problem is that enlightened attitudes are not always the corollary of diversity. More often than not, the corollary is sectarian strife which had always been rife in India.
Unpalatable thought it may seem; disarmament happened in India because of the British. They did not want the natives killing themselves when should have been working for them. But there is nothing to suggest that a cohesive sense of identity would ever have evolved had it not been for the British.
The other point which I think Tharoor glosses over is the rule of law. Apologists for the Empire say the British inculcated democracy and the rule of law. Tharoor is of the mind that justice was always present in India. That may be so, but once the British left, can any Indian historian say in all honestly, that the rule of law protected and empowered Indians. No it did not.
In 2016, there were 106 RECORDED incidents of rape a day. There is one policeman for every thousand Indians. There is a backlog of 27 million court cases. What does this tell you?
Once the British left, and Indians were empowered to make their own destiny, what happened. The antecedent culture of India reared its head, and the injustice and evil of the caste system prevailed, and millions of Indians were consigned to misery though their masters Indian. That is in no way the fault of the British Empire.
That said, I cannot recommend this book strongly enough to all Pakistanis and Indian interested in the land of their forefathers.
This book should become required reading within classrooms because after having read it, I realised that the narrative of the British Empire presented within history lessons is not accurate. Winston Churchill's bigotry is never discussed within the syllabus, the fact that he caused the deaths of 25-30 million people by taking away food from India to send to the British Army and then justified their deaths by saying it was their fault for breeding like rabbits, is shocking.
Tharoor takes on the apologists for British rule and nullifies their arguments. He does however skirt some fairly central arguments that critics of the book have levelled.
1) The collusion of the Indian royalty. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Although it no way absolves the inhumane cruelty of the British Empire, it is a sad fact that many of the elites within Indian society favoured British rule because it solidified their own power. This raises an interesting point. Prior to the arrival of the British; India had no self-identity, it's people did not regard themselves as citizens of one nation. Indians were ridden with the evils of the caste system, one of which is a deeply ingrained sense of differentiation. Most certainly, the British exploited this, but the tragic fact remains that the ruling elite and the upper class of India did not appear to care much about the tribulations of people lower down the social ladder. And that really is the reason why the British were able to rule for as long as they did. They utilised an existing social condition of slavery engendered by the caste system.
2) An entire class of people loved being British more than they did being Indian. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was one of them and Abdullah Yousuf Ali, the pre-eminent translator of the Quran, was another one. You can't create an entire class of Anglophiles if you were uniformly racist and brutal. Go online and look for images of Jawarlal Nehru and you will see pictures of him swooning over Edwina Mountbatten. Not exactly the image of the leader of a downtrodden and brutalised people.
3) Tharoor is of the opinion that had it not been for the British, India would have been the most advanced nation in the world. It would have arrived on Mars before anyone and it's scientists would have bagged the greatest number of Nobel prizes. Such notions are more whimsical than factual and it underlines an important point. It is wrong to regard India as a country, it would be more accurate to think of it as a continent masquerading as a country. In a continent you have to expect huge diversity in terms of people, customs and religion. Now, the problem is that enlightened attitudes are not always the corollary of diversity. More often than not, the corollary is sectarian strife which had always been rife in India.
Unpalatable thought it may seem; disarmament happened in India because of the British. They did not want the natives killing themselves when should have been working for them. But there is nothing to suggest that a cohesive sense of identity would ever have evolved had it not been for the British.
The other point which I think Tharoor glosses over is the rule of law. Apologists for the Empire say the British inculcated democracy and the rule of law. Tharoor is of the mind that justice was always present in India. That may be so, but once the British left, can any Indian historian say in all honestly, that the rule of law protected and empowered Indians. No it did not.
In 2016, there were 106 RECORDED incidents of rape a day. There is one policeman for every thousand Indians. There is a backlog of 27 million court cases. What does this tell you?
Once the British left, and Indians were empowered to make their own destiny, what happened. The antecedent culture of India reared its head, and the injustice and evil of the caste system prevailed, and millions of Indians were consigned to misery though their masters Indian. That is in no way the fault of the British Empire.
That said, I cannot recommend this book strongly enough to all Pakistanis and Indian interested in the land of their forefathers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,532 reviews