Wednesday, March 08, 2006

what the first white christist imperialists did

mar 8th

now what the UPA jas just signed up for the second phase of white christist imperialist rule.

Drain of Wealth during British Raj

 By: B Shantanu
February 06, 2006

Whenever the issue of economic exploitation and the "drain of
wealth" during the 200 years of British colonial rule comes up, the
one rebuttal from western historians is that there is scant evidence
to prove it. To bolster the argument, the point is then made that
Indian historians are nationalist, biased (sometimes as a
consequence) and do not pay attention to figures and statistical

In my analysis of this topic, I have therefore, relied heavily on
recent research by Western historians and tried to draw conclusions
based on that.

Even by the accounts of western historians, the positive impact of
British rule, which PM Sh. Man Mohan Singh had so pointedly
mentioned during his speech at Oxford in Jul '05, is questionable.

The "drain of wealth" from India to Britain during the two centuries
of colonial rule was very real, very substantial and there are
strong reasons to believe that India may have looked significantly
different (and far better) economically and socially had it not been
for the two centuries of British rule.

... deleted


Kalyani said...

The following poignant piece---is it off topic?

From The Pioneer:-

"Soliloquy of an unknown soldier

Abhijit Bhattacharyya looks back at the long and eventful journey of the Indian soldier from Hydaspes to Kargil

Dear countrymen, kindly read the following lines in full. Although we have never met, you have been seeing me in the formation parade down Rajpath, New Delhi, on January 26, every year since 1951.

Yes, "I" am the soul of the Indian soldier. "Soul" because I am still alive, unlike some of my dead mates of recent times - in the forests and mountains, ravines and gorges - and millions of my predecessors who died fighting since the dawn of foreign invasions, down the ages at the frontiers and the myriad fields across India. As I said, the soldier in me is still alive at 30, even after being with the infantry regiment for 12 years; and I have another five years to retire, provided I remain alive.

However, what you may not know ever is the fact that even if I come out unscathed at age 35 from the region of my regimental discipline and survive the hazards of war, weather and nature, my physical ability and mental stability are likely to be at an all-time low. After years of soldiering, my financial, physical and mental worth in civil society would be at the lowest. And I may have to run from pillar to post to establish my credentials.

Dear countrymen, please do not ever forget to read and learn the lessons of Indian history. Let me, therefore, try to traverse you down the memory lane of the history of the Indian nation.

The history of India has invariably been made, or unmade, by the defeat of the local garrisons at the hands of foreign mercenaries. Form the battle of Hydaspes (river Jhelum) in 326 BC (where the Macedonian invaders crushed the army of Porus) to the Pakistani Army's futile adventure of Kargil in 1999, the soldiers of India inevitably bore the brunt of the folly of their rulers. As late as 1962, the Chinese PLA (People's Liberation Army) ruthlessly steamrolled Indian sentries without bullets and food.

The majority population of my country has always been Hindu. But the tragedy is that this populace was ruled over for about 1,100 years. Perhaps, this lack of experience in governance and expertise to fight external aggressors at the highest level has something to do with our inherent inability to comprehend the seriousness of running an efficient and professional fighting unit and chalk out a long-term planning to look after soldiers and their families.

Coupled with this lack of experience was our indifference towards military matters. The British discovered this weakness and roped in only those who would serve their interest in the rank-and-file of the nascent British Indian Army to protect the empire of the east. The British made a cohesive unit out of disparate elements of quarrelling Indians. They were clever enough to raise the quantum and quality for their "own army" after fighting various Indian kingdoms, principalities and ethnic groups.

Thus were born the Gurkha Regiment after the Anglo-Nepal war and the Sikh Regiment in the wake of the Anglo-Sikh war. With the experience borne out of the Anglo-Mysore, Anglo-Maratha and Anglo-French wars, and the battles for supremacy against the Nawabs of Bengal and Oudh, new regiments were raised - wherein certain sections of Indians were preferred over others.

The British, however, did well to protect their empire with the help of Indian soldiers. Although 1857 was one bad year for them, they never faulted thereafter. There were occasional resentments and mutiny-like situations, but all were nipped in the bud and the potentially troublesome regiments were disbanded.

Although the British discriminated and chose their soldiers carefully, they never compromised on the quality of the armed forces. They saw the opportunity of soldiers recruited from the so-called martial castes - Rajput, Brahmins, Jats, Gujjars, Pathans, Mughals, Afghans, Gurkhas, Sikhs, Punjabis, Muslims and Marathas.

The British also discovered a "further division, which was by religion", and another one, which was "by nation". Thus the recruitment of "my predecessor" took the divisive route. The British treated Muslims separately and perceived them "of many races, but who largely consist of Rajput tribes converted to Islam at various times in the past" and the "Muhammadans are either the descendants of conquering or serving foreigners of that faith, or converts".

A distinct and colourful brand of Muslim ethnic groups made it to the British Indian Army of yesteryears - Gukkhars, Bhattis, Suttis, Chibs, Janjuas, Tiwanas, Awans and Jat Muslims. These soldiers did make the British happy by reaching the desired standard in battlefield through "tribal pride and discipline".

Whereas the Indian soldiers had failed and floundered for close to 1,000 years, the same turned into a cohesive unit under the British. It was a story beginning with "pick and choose" and "partiality" during recruitment and ending with quality performance.

This is the time for introspection. The one million strong Indian Army faces all the challenges that our one billion population is facing. Foremost among these is lack of probity in public life and rampant partiality. To cap it all, some of the recruits in the hinterland face an unusual turmoil, which affects the morale of the soldiers operating in inhospitable and harsh terrains. So much so that the interface between the call of professional duty and obligation to family has reached a point of no return. This has affected the quality of soldiering.

Yet, the Indian soldier moves on, notwithstanding the presence of divisive and fissiparous tendencies in the body politic of the country. Long live the Indian soldier. Long live India".

Kalyani said...

"The Ruin The british Wrought" by Sri.Munshi of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is a good one,Rajeev.