Who would have thought that a culture predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth would have fallen into the trap of elevating a family based on historical antecedents?
In the USA, more strangely, the same thing happens – they could have had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton running right up to today.
I like Douglas Murray’s theory that in the UK we gather up our hereditary privilege in the monarchy which we have divested of political power which inoculates us against this sort of thing – no one asks, where are Thatcher’s children? Why doesn’t Blair’s son run for mayor? etc.
On a broader note why is the “secular” nature of India sacrosanct? If the people don’t want secularism and they accomplish their wish through democratic means (as in Turkey) then who are we to say they are wrong to do so? The fact that Modi has presided over huge economic growth through a crony capitalist system rather than the crony socialism employed by Congress for most of India’s independent history which has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty doesn’t seem to matter to the author. By singling out the Ghandis he overlooks the rampant, feudal corruption which the whole Congress party used to stifle the worlds largest and most diverse democracy after independence.
The country that is supposedly “predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth” has
– a lower caste who wrote the constitution
– a lower caste prime minister and president
– has banned any form of caste discrimination since independence, inter caste marriages are common, and nobody cares to even know your caste.
– Has large caste based affirmative action quotas
Britain truly was appalled by the notion of caste. That’s why they denied the vast majority of Indians without education, infrastructure, clean water or electricity or basic healthcare, irrespective of their caste, when they were the rulers.
I guess that’s what you get with a coloniser predicated on racial supremacism, looting of colonies and slavery.
The fact that one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country which has all the attributes that you give to it is staggering and needs explaining. The fact that a lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background. A quick check of Modi’s background is almost comical in it’s opaqueness – seems like he was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain.
All I can say is that British Indians know their own caste and I see no reason to believe that this is any better over in the subcontinent where you would expect it to be institutionalised, negatively, to a far greater extent. The EHRC report 2014 backs up this view: research-report-91-caste-in-britain-socio-legal-review.pdf (equalityhumanrights.com)
The attack on the British imperial system is unbalanced – the current educational state of India, the infrastructure (famously the railways) and healthcare are based upon the British model, a case of “what did the British empire do for us?” (TM Monty Python). The scale of British India would provide a challenge for any state today – back then it was astonishing.
“one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country”
Would agree with you, but attributing it to “caste” is a long stretch.
There was no “British model” for infrastructure, healthcare or anything. Contrary to what colony apologists want to believe, the vast majority of Indians had nothing at the time of independence: education, health services, road or sewage, even basic access to food was a struggle. Everything had to be built from scratch – even the much vaunted railways, which was an under invested mess in 1947.
“lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background”
Wrong. The British handed over power to the likes of Nehru, who were all about background.
Nehru was the one, to his credit, who made Ambedkar the law minister. India post 1947 wasn’t perfect, but at least was a lot more about merit than it was pre 1947.
And the reason was that unlike the British, Indians themselves were clear from day one that merit would trump caste.
Incidentally, the British themselves, in their own country, were hardly about merit and all about background – as you should know.
“Modi’s …was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain”
Nope. He was as low class as they come.
Someone with a similar background to Modi would never reach close to the top in Britain.
Some evidence would be nice. You still haven’t explained how caste has trumped merit in post-independence India for the last 75 years. I think the BJP has done a lot of good freeing up the economy and that is where the crux lies – a fairer economy will naturally create a fairer society.
Criticising another country does not stop me criticising my own.
You are right Milton, in a way, that caste still trumps merit, but not in the way you think.
There are enormous reservations for various lower or deprived castes in govt jobs and significant quotas in education – such that it’s practically impossible for an “upper” caste to get a govt job, and university cutoffs are ridiculously lower for “low” castes.
It’s a bit like “racism ‘ in the West. It used to be very bad, but now the supposed”victims” benefit from race quotas.
You still find Brahmins doing better in universities – but just like Jews in the West, it’s nothing to do with favourable treatment but despite the opposite if anything
Otherwise – you will have to take my word for it, but I have spent decades across various cities – caste is a non factor. No one cares about caste when making friends, promotions etc.
If you look at politics, especially, lower castes are dominant. Just sheer numbers.
I would add, there are three caveats.
First, arranged marriages are still caste based. That’s just inertia, as increasingly marriages are outside the arranged framework and indifferent to caste.
Secondly, there are certain specific castes which are still virulently casteist. They are in a minority, and typically in certain regions.
Finally, rural areas are still more backward in general. But as with the rest of the world, the cities are the future.
Actually Britain has far more upward social mobility than people realise. In the 1920s amnd 1930s sons of dockers could become RAF apprentices and the best were trained as pilots. Some 40% of pilots in the Battle of Britain were sergeants, many went on to become officers. No other country had sergeant pilots, they were all officers.
Ramsey MacDonald, Prime Minister was the illlegitimate son of farm labourer Ramsay MacDonald – Wikipedia
Kier Hardie , leader of the labour Party went down the mines at twelve years of age.
Edward Heath Prime Minister was the son of a carpenter.
The post 1960s Labour Party and has done more to reduce upward mobility than any other.
Actually Britain has far more upward social mobility than people realise. In the 1920s amnd 1930s sons of dockers could become RAF apprentices and the best were trained as pilots. Some 40% of pilots in the Battle of Britain were sergeants, many went on to become officers. No other country had sergeant pilots, they were all officers.
Ramsey MacDonald, Prime Minister was the illlegitimate son of farm labourer Ramsay MacDonald – Wikipedia
Kier Hardie , leader of the labour Party went down the mines at twelve years of age.
Edward Heath Prime Minister was the son of a carpenter.
The post 1960s Labour Party and has done more to reduce upward mobility than any other.
You are right Milton, in a way, that caste still trumps merit, but not in the way you think.
There are enormous reservations for various lower or deprived castes in govt jobs and significant quotas in education – such that it’s practically impossible for an “upper” caste to get a govt job, and university cutoffs are ridiculously lower for “low” castes.
It’s a bit like “racism ‘ in the West. It used to be very bad, but now the supposed”victims” benefit from race quotas.
You still find Brahmins doing better in universities – but just like Jews in the West, it’s nothing to do with favourable treatment but despite the opposite if anything
Otherwise – you will have to take my word for it, but I have spent decades across various cities – caste is a non factor. No one cares about caste when making friends, promotions etc.
If you look at politics, especially, lower castes are dominant. Just sheer numbers.
I would add, there are three caveats.
First, arranged marriages are still caste based. That’s just inertia, as increasingly marriages are outside the arranged framework and indifferent to caste.
Secondly, there are certain specific castes which are still virulently casteist. They are in a minority, and typically in certain regions.
Finally, rural areas are still more backward in general. But as with the rest of the world, the cities are the future.
I’m not sure, but you can be a lot lower in caste than Modi. You can be, literally, an out caste, a Dalit. Or even further adrift, a ‘tribal’ (aboriginal).
As I understand it Modi is from the lowest rung of the 4 caste ‘Varna’ system, the Sudras – very roughly speaking the working classes of the old Brahmanical peoples who moved into India in the 3rd millennium BC. Not twice born. not wearing the sacred thread. But still, though ‘deplorable’, one of ‘us’. Any further out and the RSS would not have taken him up and schooled him.
We can quibble about where Modi falls exactly. Yes, he isn’t at the absolute bottom, but he is pretty much lower class. Far lower than anybody who might be elected president of the US or prime minister of Amy European nation, and primarily because he had done good work.
That while story about “Brahmanical” people is a bit of a fairy tale really, even though taken as gospel till a few decades back. But even if you believe it, the sudras were supposed to be “deplorable”.
Modi being the prime minister is the equivalent of a dirt poor black becoming president of the US several decades back.
We can quibble about where Modi falls exactly. Yes, he isn’t at the absolute bottom, but he is pretty much lower class. Far lower than anybody who might be elected president of the US or prime minister of Amy European nation, and primarily because he had done good work.
That while story about “Brahmanical” people is a bit of a fairy tale really, even though taken as gospel till a few decades back. But even if you believe it, the sudras were supposed to be “deplorable”.
Modi being the prime minister is the equivalent of a dirt poor black becoming president of the US several decades back.
Some evidence would be nice. You still haven’t explained how caste has trumped merit in post-independence India for the last 75 years. I think the BJP has done a lot of good freeing up the economy and that is where the crux lies – a fairer economy will naturally create a fairer society.
Criticising another country does not stop me criticising my own.
I’m not sure, but you can be a lot lower in caste than Modi. You can be, literally, an out caste, a Dalit. Or even further adrift, a ‘tribal’ (aboriginal).
As I understand it Modi is from the lowest rung of the 4 caste ‘Varna’ system, the Sudras – very roughly speaking the working classes of the old Brahmanical peoples who moved into India in the 3rd millennium BC. Not twice born. not wearing the sacred thread. But still, though ‘deplorable’, one of ‘us’. Any further out and the RSS would not have taken him up and schooled him.
I should add:
“what did the British empire do for us”
The British, a lot. Invented most of modern sports, and enormous contribution to science, maths, engineering, literature.
The British empire, though was utterly cr*p. Which is more a reflection of autocracy and empires than British.
I think it’s a pity that modern days Brits seem ashamed to be proud of their country’s scientific achievements, but seem to think criticism of their old empire is criticism of modern day Brits
Please donot write nonsense. Modi is a Ghanchi by caste which is a Backward caste. And it is the British post 1857 who deliberately reified caste as a category to divide and rule India.
Actually Britain tried to reduce caste, hence exams. Britain used to reward the Indian rulers fro opening up schools and hospitals with Order of the Indian Empire – Wikipedia
The East India Company and then the ICS, Army, Police, Forestry Service, Police, The Law , schoools and universities all based selection and promotion on exams not caste or religion. Prince Ranji went to Cambridge in the 19th century Ranjitsinhji – Wikipedia
and Nehru to Harrow in 1905 and Cambridge.
In the 19th century Indian were elected to the Royal Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
and made baronets Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
In 1946 Havildar Umrao Singh VC said
“When I went to London to receive my VC , I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of of women came up and kissed me on the moustache.” Would a Brahmin woman kiss a brave Untouchable who had won the VC?
Actually Britain tried to reduce caste, hence exams. Britain used to reward the Indian rulers fro opening up schools and hospitals with Order of the Indian Empire – Wikipedia
The East India Company and then the ICS, Army, Police, Forestry Service, Police, The Law , schoools and universities all based selection and promotion on exams not caste or religion. Prince Ranji went to Cambridge in the 19th century Ranjitsinhji – Wikipedia
and Nehru to Harrow in 1905 and Cambridge.
In the 19th century Indian were elected to the Royal Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
and made baronets Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
In 1946 Havildar Umrao Singh VC said
“When I went to London to receive my VC , I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of of women came up and kissed me on the moustache.” Would a Brahmin woman kiss a brave Untouchable who had won the VC?
“one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country”
Would agree with you, but attributing it to “caste” is a long stretch.
There was no “British model” for infrastructure, healthcare or anything. Contrary to what colony apologists want to believe, the vast majority of Indians had nothing at the time of independence: education, health services, road or sewage, even basic access to food was a struggle. Everything had to be built from scratch – even the much vaunted railways, which was an under invested mess in 1947.
“lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background”
Wrong. The British handed over power to the likes of Nehru, who were all about background.
Nehru was the one, to his credit, who made Ambedkar the law minister. India post 1947 wasn’t perfect, but at least was a lot more about merit than it was pre 1947.
And the reason was that unlike the British, Indians themselves were clear from day one that merit would trump caste.
Incidentally, the British themselves, in their own country, were hardly about merit and all about background – as you should know.
“Modi’s …was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain”
Nope. He was as low class as they come.
Someone with a similar background to Modi would never reach close to the top in Britain.
I should add:
“what did the British empire do for us”
The British, a lot. Invented most of modern sports, and enormous contribution to science, maths, engineering, literature.
The British empire, though was utterly cr*p. Which is more a reflection of autocracy and empires than British.
I think it’s a pity that modern days Brits seem ashamed to be proud of their country’s scientific achievements, but seem to think criticism of their old empire is criticism of modern day Brits
Please donot write nonsense. Modi is a Ghanchi by caste which is a Backward caste. And it is the British post 1857 who deliberately reified caste as a category to divide and rule India.
The fact that one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country which has all the attributes that you give to it is staggering and needs explaining. The fact that a lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background. A quick check of Modi’s background is almost comical in it’s opaqueness – seems like he was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain.
All I can say is that British Indians know their own caste and I see no reason to believe that this is any better over in the subcontinent where you would expect it to be institutionalised, negatively, to a far greater extent. The EHRC report 2014 backs up this view: research-report-91-caste-in-britain-socio-legal-review.pdf (equalityhumanrights.com)
The attack on the British imperial system is unbalanced – the current educational state of India, the infrastructure (famously the railways) and healthcare are based upon the British model, a case of “what did the British empire do for us?” (TM Monty Python). The scale of British India would provide a challenge for any state today – back then it was astonishing.
The country that is supposedly “predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth” has
– a lower caste who wrote the constitution
– a lower caste prime minister and president
– has banned any form of caste discrimination since independence, inter caste marriages are common, and nobody cares to even know your caste.
– Has large caste based affirmative action quotas
Britain truly was appalled by the notion of caste. That’s why they denied the vast majority of Indians without education, infrastructure, clean water or electricity or basic healthcare, irrespective of their caste, when they were the rulers.
I guess that’s what you get with a coloniser predicated on racial supremacism, looting of colonies and slavery.
Last edited 10 months ago by Samir Iker
Milton Gibbon
10 months ago
Who would have thought that a culture predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth would have fallen into the trap of elevating a family based on historical antecedents?
In the USA, more strangely, the same thing happens – they could have had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton running right up to today.
I like Douglas Murray’s theory that in the UK we gather up our hereditary privilege in the monarchy which we have divested of political power which inoculates us against this sort of thing – no one asks, where are Thatcher’s children? Why doesn’t Blair’s son run for mayor? etc.
On a broader note why is the “secular” nature of India sacrosanct? If the people don’t want secularism and they accomplish their wish through democratic means (as in Turkey) then who are we to say they are wrong to do so? The fact that Modi has presided over huge economic growth through a crony capitalist system rather than the crony socialism employed by Congress for most of India’s independent history which has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty doesn’t seem to matter to the author. By singling out the Ghandis he overlooks the rampant, feudal corruption which the whole Congress party used to stifle the worlds largest and most diverse democracy after independence.
Samir Iker
10 months ago
For all the heart rending claims about “Hindu supremacist”, it’s still the muslims in India who enjoy special religion based laws, avoid state supervision of their religious sites, riot at the least provocation.
But if they really want, we can treat them the way religious minorities are treated in islamic countries. Maybe just like the Turks with Armenian Christians, Saudis with non muslim immigrant workers, or perhaps just borrow blasphemy laws and exterminate them like their brothers in Pakistan did with their minorities on the other side of the border.
The author of the article is really “a useful idiot” for the Guardian and it’s ilk
Samir Iker
10 months ago
For all the heart rending claims about “Hindu supremacist”, it’s still the muslims in India who enjoy special religion based laws, avoid state supervision of their religious sites, riot at the least provocation.
But if they really want, we can treat them the way religious minorities are treated in islamic countries. Maybe just like the Turks with Armenian Christians, Saudis with non muslim immigrant workers, or perhaps just borrow blasphemy laws and exterminate them like their brothers in Pakistan did with their minorities on the other side of the border.
Prashant Kotak
10 months ago
Oh great, yet another graun approved opinioniser about India, saunters over to UnHerd, and plays out all the old favourite tunes. Has the Scott Trust taken a majority shareholding in UnHerd or something?
Prashant Kotak
10 months ago
Oh great, yet another graun approved opinioniser about India, saunters over to UnHerd, and plays out all the old favourite tunes. Has the Scott Trust taken a majority shareholding in UnHerd or something?
Charles Hedges
10 months ago
Wellington served many years in India. He said England’s greatest asset was her honesty. Wellington condsidered his most important asset was he was considered a gentleman. A gentleman does not lie because that is cowardice. A gentleman is true to his word and is honest.
When Wellington entered France the people were amazed at the honesty of the British troops, those guilty of theft were quickly hanged. A hotel keeper was amazed that a British Brigadier paid for his food. The British paid a fair price for provisions and did not steal. Consequently, the locals sold provisions to the British and Wellington saved two divisions from having to protect convoys.
Can democracy exist in any country if people are liars, corrupt, cowards and not true to their word? Are the authors description of India little different to the politics of many inner city areas in the West ?
Britain passed on various attributes, one of which is democracy, another is the Armed Forces keeping out of politics. K S Lal has stated the Muslim Turk invasions of India from 1000 AD to 1750 AD resulted in 88M deaths, Britain put a stop to them. Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent – Wikipedia
The population of India increased from about 200M in the 1870s to 400M in the 1940s. Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for the British in WW1 and WW2 and many won medals for bravery.
Britain introduced railways which has probably increased the wealth of all peoples far more than any invention. Other developments include irrigation schemes; telegraphs, docks, harbours, law,electricity, western technology and medicine, concrete , newspapers, freedom of speech, The English Language. Where would the Indian software Industry be without the English Language?
The Indian Civil Service, Armed Forces, The Police, Railways, Forestry Service , Universities and Law Courts all helped to unite India and where entry and promotions were based upon merit and therefore creating a meritocracy.
If Nalanda and Vikramashila universities had not been destroyed, Indians may have developed the physics of Newton, Faraday and Clerk Maxwell and the Industrial Revolutions before the British but this did not happen.
What are the concepts of democracy, freedom of thought and action, rule of law underpinning justice for all, science and technology worth?
As a historian who is researching another book about the 1940s transfer of power I will say that the most positive attributes of British India were pre 1857. After power passed to the Crown it became more and more defensive and racist, and bent on survival through Divide and Rule tactics. The armed forces were perhaps the biggest contribution along with the Railways. And the Macaulay education reforms as well as the pre 1857 social reforms.
I would have thought that there is quite a good case for saying that 1857 was a disaster, and that the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) should have been left in control.
Even prior to 1857 the feeble minded Crown had forced the HEIC to accept hordes of evangelical missionaries bringing muscular Christianity to the subcontinent.
Worse still was the influx of white women, bringing with them all very worst aspects of Victorian snobbery, racism and sexually neurotic behaviour.
Prince Ranji played cricket for England in the 19th century and Nehru went to Harrow and then Cambridge . Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were all English Barristers.
Indians were elected FRS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Indians were granted knighthoods and baronetcies. Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
There was no bar for entry to universities and schools.
The ICS and ArmedForces were open to all Indians after 1919 and by 1940s, there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw MC started his career in the British Army. Sam Manekshaw – Wikipedia Sam Manekshaw – Wikiquote
A ‘yes man’ is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshal but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the ‘yes man’.
True of all civilisations, for all times.
I would have thought that there is quite a good case for saying that 1857 was a disaster, and that the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) should have been left in control.
Even prior to 1857 the feeble minded Crown had forced the HEIC to accept hordes of evangelical missionaries bringing muscular Christianity to the subcontinent.
Worse still was the influx of white women, bringing with them all very worst aspects of Victorian snobbery, racism and sexually neurotic behaviour.
Prince Ranji played cricket for England in the 19th century and Nehru went to Harrow and then Cambridge . Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were all English Barristers.
Indians were elected FRS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Indians were granted knighthoods and baronetcies. Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
There was no bar for entry to universities and schools.
The ICS and ArmedForces were open to all Indians after 1919 and by 1940s, there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw MC started his career in the British Army. Sam Manekshaw – Wikipedia Sam Manekshaw – Wikiquote
A ‘yes man’ is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshal but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the ‘yes man’.
True of all civilisations, for all times.
I wouldn’t disagree the contributions of Britain in many fields are extraordinary. And yes, it was an enormous improvement on the islamic empires that came before, but nobody seems to mention that.
But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.
The net outcome of Britain’s existance – the positives from borrowing inventions and scientific developments, law, from Britain versus the negatives from being colonised – would be greatly positive. But there is a reason why India developed so much faster after 1947, despite a lot of the leadership being utterly incompetent.
“But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.”
Nonsense I’m afraid. The Norman Conquest brought enormous benefits, not the least
being that England was dragged back into ‘mainstream’ Europe rather than languishing in a murderous Scandinavian backwater.
I would suggest the success of Britain was due to thecombination of various races. The Celts provide people who are capable of greats leaps of imagination which are needed for massive jumps in technology. The Anglo Saxon provide a common sense down to prctical earth egalitarian view of life. The Vikings provided immense physical energy, fortitude and a thirst for adventure. The Norman combined Viking energy with a Frankish discipline and an ability to learn from others.
If we say development in India what about the increase in population from 1870 to 1940s?
Perhaps the greatest diaster for India was so many Congress types were educated at the LSE which held back industrial devlopment for decades. Laski had done more damage to India than any other Briton.
There were no colour bars at British schools and universities. Indian were elected to the Royal Society in the 19th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Prince Ranji played for Cambridge University and England, while Nehru went to Harrow and Trinity, Cambridge. Indians were awarded baronetcies and knighthoods in the 19th century, Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
became judges and barristers ( Nehru’s Father) and ICS and Army were open to all from 1919. By 1947 there were Indian Brigadiers.
Comment by Havildar Singh VC. “When I went to London to receive my VC, I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of women came up and kissed me on my moustache”.Forgotten Voice of Burma p368. In Assoc with Imperial war Museum.
“But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.”
Nonsense I’m afraid. The Norman Conquest brought enormous benefits, not the least
being that England was dragged back into ‘mainstream’ Europe rather than languishing in a murderous Scandinavian backwater.
I would suggest the success of Britain was due to thecombination of various races. The Celts provide people who are capable of greats leaps of imagination which are needed for massive jumps in technology. The Anglo Saxon provide a common sense down to prctical earth egalitarian view of life. The Vikings provided immense physical energy, fortitude and a thirst for adventure. The Norman combined Viking energy with a Frankish discipline and an ability to learn from others.
If we say development in India what about the increase in population from 1870 to 1940s?
Perhaps the greatest diaster for India was so many Congress types were educated at the LSE which held back industrial devlopment for decades. Laski had done more damage to India than any other Briton.
There were no colour bars at British schools and universities. Indian were elected to the Royal Society in the 19th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Prince Ranji played for Cambridge University and England, while Nehru went to Harrow and Trinity, Cambridge. Indians were awarded baronetcies and knighthoods in the 19th century, Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
became judges and barristers ( Nehru’s Father) and ICS and Army were open to all from 1919. By 1947 there were Indian Brigadiers.
Comment by Havildar Singh VC. “When I went to London to receive my VC, I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of women came up and kissed me on my moustache”.Forgotten Voice of Burma p368. In Assoc with Imperial war Museum.
As a historian who is researching another book about the 1940s transfer of power I will say that the most positive attributes of British India were pre 1857. After power passed to the Crown it became more and more defensive and racist, and bent on survival through Divide and Rule tactics. The armed forces were perhaps the biggest contribution along with the Railways. And the Macaulay education reforms as well as the pre 1857 social reforms.
I wouldn’t disagree the contributions of Britain in many fields are extraordinary. And yes, it was an enormous improvement on the islamic empires that came before, but nobody seems to mention that.
But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.
The net outcome of Britain’s existance – the positives from borrowing inventions and scientific developments, law, from Britain versus the negatives from being colonised – would be greatly positive. But there is a reason why India developed so much faster after 1947, despite a lot of the leadership being utterly incompetent.
Britain passed on various attributes, one of which is democracy, another is the Armed Forces keeping out of politics. K S Lal has stated the Muslim Turk invasions of India from 1000 AD to 1750 AD resulted in 88M deaths, Britain put a stop to them. Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent – Wikipedia
The population of India increased from about 200M in the 1870s to 400M in the 1940s. Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for the British in WW1 and WW2 and many won medals for bravery.
Britain introduced railways which has probably increased the wealth of all peoples far more than any invention. Other developments include irrigation schemes; telegraphs, docks, harbours, law,electricity, western technology and medicine, concrete , newspapers, freedom of speech, The English Language. Where would the Indian software Industry be without the English Language?
The Indian Civil Service, Armed Forces, The Police, Railways, Forestry Service , Universities and Law Courts all helped to unite India and where entry and promotions were based upon merit and therefore creating a meritocracy.
If Nalanda and Vikramashila universities had not been destroyed, Indians may have developed the physics of Newton, Faraday and Clerk Maxwell and the Industrial Revolutions before the British but this did not happen.
What are the concepts of democracy, freedom of thought and action, rule of law underpinning justice for all, science and technology worth?
The golden rule of thieving is, steal big, don’t bother about petty change
Clearly the British empire was a master of the art.
Charles Hedges
10 months ago
Wellington served many years in India. He said England’s greatest asset was her honesty. Wellington condsidered his most important asset was he was considered a gentleman. A gentleman does not lie because that is cowardice. A gentleman is true to his word and is honest.
When Wellington entered France the people were amazed at the honesty of the British troops, those guilty of theft were quickly hanged. A hotel keeper was amazed that a British Brigadier paid for his food. The British paid a fair price for provisions and did not steal. Consequently, the locals sold provisions to the British and Wellington saved two divisions from having to protect convoys.
Can democracy exist in any country if people are liars, corrupt, cowards and not true to their word? Are the authors description of India little different to the politics of many inner city areas in the West ?
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
10 months ago
Your analysis is clouded by the Modi Derangement Syndrome you suffer from. Have academics like you who deserted India for foreign campuses seen the lurch towards venality, corruption, violence, dysfunction and a completely bankrupt Opposition since the 1970s? And what kind of amnesia do you have about Nehru, the architect of modern India’s disastrous socialist turn since the 1950s? An idiotic foreign policy for which we are still paying a price. An authoritarian dynastic man who propped up his daughter since the late 1950s, introduced corruption by stealth through the string of cases like the Mundhra case and the Jeep scandal, dismissed democratic governments as in Kerala? And espoused a fake secularism by not introducing laicite of the French kind but only pampering minorities and destroying every institution the British had left?
Modi is not perfect but dilletante dandies like Tharoor are no match. The only leader of the Opposition who is clean and dynamic is Sachin Pilot who the Gandhi’s have sidelined to oblivion.
And what supremacism are you talking about? Any idea about the violence against Hindus unleashed in Bengal by the vicious Mamta Banerjee or Kerala by the putrid Communists or Jharkhand by Islamo Fascists aligned with a ragtag venal Opposition?
Don’t write agit prop propaganda from the safe shores abroad and pass it off as ” facts”.
The LSE and Laski are responsible for India’s socialism which slowed down economic growth. Tharoor does come across like a character from Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited ” .
Nehruvian Socialism was a disaster. Even if you could justify the 1st two Five Year Plans, 1961- when East Asia was just taking off- was a horrific turn for the Indian economy. If you read Lee Kuan Yews autobiography its startling( especially for one who belongs to the city)that he drew inspiration from Calcutta for transforming Singapore. Nehru ruined Bengal and Calcutta’s sophisticated global linkages via British owned corporates through ” freight equalization ” policies ruining jute, tea and heavy industrial manufacturing forever. His daughter completed the economic immiseration with bank nationalization. Today the Congress party is out to recover disastrous welfarism and barter away economic strength in whichever State they rule.
Armchair ideologues like Komireddi safely ensconced with foreign universities can write nonsense glorifying such venal political creeds since they don’t have to live and work in India and couldn’t bother if corrupt Opposition parties ruin the Indian economy- as their incomes are safe.
Thank you for your explantions. I never realised Nehru was such as disaster and I would not be surprised he had been advised by LSE graduates. The LSE planned the East African Ground Nut Scheme in the 1940s and 1950s and by going against Unilever’s advice, produced a disaster.
I shall read Lee Kwan Yews autobiography, a family friend used to be his next door neighbour. LKY was one of the most astute politicians post WW2.
I am optimistic for India because the vast majority of people are industrious; enterprising; respect education; believe in the family; save money, there is a free press, freedom of speech; respect Rules as shown by their love of cricket; have a sense of humour hence popularity P J Wodehouse and the Armed Forces have high standards and keep out of politcs. Hopefully, Indian governments will not pursue vast contsruction projects which can never be paid off. A Chinese billionaire considered 45 % of debt will never paid back.
Any technical problems facing India can be solved by Indian engineers and scientists. I suggest the threats to India is the government getting involved in absurd expensive grandiose projects to bolster the egos of a few politicians and becoming involved in external affairs without thinking about long term consequences. Indian involvement in Sri Lanka has alienated The Sinhalese who have a bankrupt government and resulted in Chinese naval base being built on the island. The greatest long term consequence of conflict with Pakistan may be Chinese investment in a near bankrupt country. India being surrounded by Chinese bases – Sri Lanka, burma, Pkistan and Himalays will not be good for the country.
Nehru was proto Marxist. His Defence Minister Menon fully so. India has a tough situation now with a Chinese encirclement. Plus a lot of Deep State encouragement of fissiparous forces. But PM Modi has huge support and his vision will possibly see us through.
Nehru was proto Marxist. His Defence Minister Menon fully so. India has a tough situation now with a Chinese encirclement. Plus a lot of Deep State encouragement of fissiparous forces. But PM Modi has huge support and his vision will possibly see us through.
Thank you for your explantions. I never realised Nehru was such as disaster and I would not be surprised he had been advised by LSE graduates. The LSE planned the East African Ground Nut Scheme in the 1940s and 1950s and by going against Unilever’s advice, produced a disaster.
I shall read Lee Kwan Yews autobiography, a family friend used to be his next door neighbour. LKY was one of the most astute politicians post WW2.
I am optimistic for India because the vast majority of people are industrious; enterprising; respect education; believe in the family; save money, there is a free press, freedom of speech; respect Rules as shown by their love of cricket; have a sense of humour hence popularity P J Wodehouse and the Armed Forces have high standards and keep out of politcs. Hopefully, Indian governments will not pursue vast contsruction projects which can never be paid off. A Chinese billionaire considered 45 % of debt will never paid back.
Any technical problems facing India can be solved by Indian engineers and scientists. I suggest the threats to India is the government getting involved in absurd expensive grandiose projects to bolster the egos of a few politicians and becoming involved in external affairs without thinking about long term consequences. Indian involvement in Sri Lanka has alienated The Sinhalese who have a bankrupt government and resulted in Chinese naval base being built on the island. The greatest long term consequence of conflict with Pakistan may be Chinese investment in a near bankrupt country. India being surrounded by Chinese bases – Sri Lanka, burma, Pkistan and Himalays will not be good for the country.
Nehruvian Socialism was a disaster. Even if you could justify the 1st two Five Year Plans, 1961- when East Asia was just taking off- was a horrific turn for the Indian economy. If you read Lee Kuan Yews autobiography its startling( especially for one who belongs to the city)that he drew inspiration from Calcutta for transforming Singapore. Nehru ruined Bengal and Calcutta’s sophisticated global linkages via British owned corporates through ” freight equalization ” policies ruining jute, tea and heavy industrial manufacturing forever. His daughter completed the economic immiseration with bank nationalization. Today the Congress party is out to recover disastrous welfarism and barter away economic strength in whichever State they rule.
Armchair ideologues like Komireddi safely ensconced with foreign universities can write nonsense glorifying such venal political creeds since they don’t have to live and work in India and couldn’t bother if corrupt Opposition parties ruin the Indian economy- as their incomes are safe.
The LSE and Laski are responsible for India’s socialism which slowed down economic growth. Tharoor does come across like a character from Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited ” .
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
10 months ago
Your analysis is clouded by the Modi Derangement Syndrome you suffer from. Have academics like you who deserted India for foreign campuses seen the lurch towards venality, corruption, violence, dysfunction and a completely bankrupt Opposition since the 1970s? And what kind of amnesia do you have about Nehru, the architect of modern India’s disastrous socialist turn since the 1950s? An idiotic foreign policy for which we are still paying a price. An authoritarian dynastic man who propped up his daughter since the late 1950s, introduced corruption by stealth through the string of cases like the Mundhra case and the Jeep scandal, dismissed democratic governments as in Kerala? And espoused a fake secularism by not introducing laicite of the French kind but only pampering minorities and destroying every institution the British had left?
Modi is not perfect but dilletante dandies like Tharoor are no match. The only leader of the Opposition who is clean and dynamic is Sachin Pilot who the Gandhi’s have sidelined to oblivion.
And what supremacism are you talking about? Any idea about the violence against Hindus unleashed in Bengal by the vicious Mamta Banerjee or Kerala by the putrid Communists or Jharkhand by Islamo Fascists aligned with a ragtag venal Opposition?
Don’t write agit prop propaganda from the safe shores abroad and pass it off as ” facts”.
Brendan O'Leary
10 months ago
Gujarat was the most functional state in India when Modi was in charge there.
He’s doing as good a job in the national chair as anybody has since independence.
The slurs against him mostly centre around allegations that he “condoned” (i.e. had nothing to do with) anti Muslim violence, like India never had sectarian killings before.
Brendan O'Leary
10 months ago
Gujarat was the most functional state in India when Modi was in charge there.
He’s doing as good a job in the national chair as anybody has since independence.
The slurs against him mostly centre around allegations that he “condoned” (i.e. had nothing to do with) anti Muslim violence, like India never had sectarian killings before.
Charlie Two
10 months ago
We are constantly berated about the Amritsar massacre in 1921(?), ignoring the other 2 more bloody, Indian perpetrated massacres. but not just those, also the sterilisation of 6 million men, thousands of innocents butchered in other massacres etc etc et el etc? we’re just so Wacist! and Evil! uniquely so. right.
FYI.
A comparative analysis of Bloody*Sunday in 1972 and Amritsar in 1919 reveals the following:-
I Para’s shooting left much to be desired. 108 rounds fired for 26 hits. Proportionately ‘worse’ than the Gurkhas, Sikhs and Sinde Rifles, at Amritsar* 53 years earlier. (*1650 rounds fired for an estimated:- 379 to 1,500 or more killed and over 1,200 injured.)
FYI.
A comparative analysis of Bloody*Sunday in 1972 and Amritsar in 1919 reveals the following:-
I Para’s shooting left much to be desired. 108 rounds fired for 26 hits. Proportionately ‘worse’ than the Gurkhas, Sikhs and Sinde Rifles, at Amritsar* 53 years earlier. (*1650 rounds fired for an estimated:- 379 to 1,500 or more killed and over 1,200 injured.)
(* Referred to by some as ‘Good Sunday’)
Last edited 10 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charlie Two
10 months ago
We are constantly berated about the Amritsar massacre in 1921(?), ignoring the other 2 more bloody, Indian perpetrated massacres. but not just those, also the sterilisation of 6 million men, thousands of innocents butchered in other massacres etc etc et el etc? we’re just so Wacist! and Evil! uniquely so. right.
Who would have thought that a culture predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth would have fallen into the trap of elevating a family based on historical antecedents?
In the USA, more strangely, the same thing happens – they could have had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton running right up to today.
I like Douglas Murray’s theory that in the UK we gather up our hereditary privilege in the monarchy which we have divested of political power which inoculates us against this sort of thing – no one asks, where are Thatcher’s children? Why doesn’t Blair’s son run for mayor? etc.
On a broader note why is the “secular” nature of India sacrosanct? If the people don’t want secularism and they accomplish their wish through democratic means (as in Turkey) then who are we to say they are wrong to do so? The fact that Modi has presided over huge economic growth through a crony capitalist system rather than the crony socialism employed by Congress for most of India’s independent history which has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty doesn’t seem to matter to the author. By singling out the Ghandis he overlooks the rampant, feudal corruption which the whole Congress party used to stifle the worlds largest and most diverse democracy after independence.
The country that is supposedly “predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth” has
– a lower caste who wrote the constitution
– a lower caste prime minister and president
– has banned any form of caste discrimination since independence, inter caste marriages are common, and nobody cares to even know your caste.
– Has large caste based affirmative action quotas
Britain truly was appalled by the notion of caste. That’s why they denied the vast majority of Indians without education, infrastructure, clean water or electricity or basic healthcare, irrespective of their caste, when they were the rulers.
I guess that’s what you get with a coloniser predicated on racial supremacism, looting of colonies and slavery.
The fact that one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country which has all the attributes that you give to it is staggering and needs explaining. The fact that a lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background. A quick check of Modi’s background is almost comical in it’s opaqueness – seems like he was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain.
All I can say is that British Indians know their own caste and I see no reason to believe that this is any better over in the subcontinent where you would expect it to be institutionalised, negatively, to a far greater extent. The EHRC report 2014 backs up this view:
research-report-91-caste-in-britain-socio-legal-review.pdf (equalityhumanrights.com)
The attack on the British imperial system is unbalanced – the current educational state of India, the infrastructure (famously the railways) and healthcare are based upon the British model, a case of “what did the British empire do for us?” (TM Monty Python). The scale of British India would provide a challenge for any state today – back then it was astonishing.
“one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country”
Would agree with you, but attributing it to “caste” is a long stretch.
There was no “British model” for infrastructure, healthcare or anything. Contrary to what colony apologists want to believe, the vast majority of Indians had nothing at the time of independence: education, health services, road or sewage, even basic access to food was a struggle. Everything had to be built from scratch – even the much vaunted railways, which was an under invested mess in 1947.
“lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background”
Wrong. The British handed over power to the likes of Nehru, who were all about background.
Nehru was the one, to his credit, who made Ambedkar the law minister. India post 1947 wasn’t perfect, but at least was a lot more about merit than it was pre 1947.
And the reason was that unlike the British, Indians themselves were clear from day one that merit would trump caste.
Incidentally, the British themselves, in their own country, were hardly about merit and all about background – as you should know.
“Modi’s …was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain”
Nope. He was as low class as they come.
Someone with a similar background to Modi would never reach close to the top in Britain.
Some evidence would be nice. You still haven’t explained how caste has trumped merit in post-independence India for the last 75 years. I think the BJP has done a lot of good freeing up the economy and that is where the crux lies – a fairer economy will naturally create a fairer society.
Criticising another country does not stop me criticising my own.
You are right Milton, in a way, that caste still trumps merit, but not in the way you think.
There are enormous reservations for various lower or deprived castes in govt jobs and significant quotas in education – such that it’s practically impossible for an “upper” caste to get a govt job, and university cutoffs are ridiculously lower for “low” castes.
It’s a bit like “racism ‘ in the West. It used to be very bad, but now the supposed”victims” benefit from race quotas.
You still find Brahmins doing better in universities – but just like Jews in the West, it’s nothing to do with favourable treatment but despite the opposite if anything
Otherwise – you will have to take my word for it, but I have spent decades across various cities – caste is a non factor. No one cares about caste when making friends, promotions etc.
If you look at politics, especially, lower castes are dominant. Just sheer numbers.
I would add, there are three caveats.
First, arranged marriages are still caste based. That’s just inertia, as increasingly marriages are outside the arranged framework and indifferent to caste.
Secondly, there are certain specific castes which are still virulently casteist. They are in a minority, and typically in certain regions.
Finally, rural areas are still more backward in general. But as with the rest of the world, the cities are the future.
Actually Britain has far more upward social mobility than people realise. In the 1920s amnd 1930s sons of dockers could become RAF apprentices and the best were trained as pilots. Some 40% of pilots in the Battle of Britain were sergeants, many went on to become officers. No other country had sergeant pilots, they were all officers.
Ramsey MacDonald, Prime Minister was the illlegitimate son of farm labourer
Ramsay MacDonald – Wikipedia
Kier Hardie , leader of the labour Party went down the mines at twelve years of age.
Edward Heath Prime Minister was the son of a carpenter.
The post 1960s Labour Party and has done more to reduce upward mobility than any other.
Actually Britain has far more upward social mobility than people realise. In the 1920s amnd 1930s sons of dockers could become RAF apprentices and the best were trained as pilots. Some 40% of pilots in the Battle of Britain were sergeants, many went on to become officers. No other country had sergeant pilots, they were all officers.
Ramsey MacDonald, Prime Minister was the illlegitimate son of farm labourer
Ramsay MacDonald – Wikipedia
Kier Hardie , leader of the labour Party went down the mines at twelve years of age.
Edward Heath Prime Minister was the son of a carpenter.
The post 1960s Labour Party and has done more to reduce upward mobility than any other.
You are right Milton, in a way, that caste still trumps merit, but not in the way you think.
There are enormous reservations for various lower or deprived castes in govt jobs and significant quotas in education – such that it’s practically impossible for an “upper” caste to get a govt job, and university cutoffs are ridiculously lower for “low” castes.
It’s a bit like “racism ‘ in the West. It used to be very bad, but now the supposed”victims” benefit from race quotas.
You still find Brahmins doing better in universities – but just like Jews in the West, it’s nothing to do with favourable treatment but despite the opposite if anything
Otherwise – you will have to take my word for it, but I have spent decades across various cities – caste is a non factor. No one cares about caste when making friends, promotions etc.
If you look at politics, especially, lower castes are dominant. Just sheer numbers.
I would add, there are three caveats.
First, arranged marriages are still caste based. That’s just inertia, as increasingly marriages are outside the arranged framework and indifferent to caste.
Secondly, there are certain specific castes which are still virulently casteist. They are in a minority, and typically in certain regions.
Finally, rural areas are still more backward in general. But as with the rest of the world, the cities are the future.
I’m not sure, but you can be a lot lower in caste than Modi. You can be, literally, an out caste, a Dalit. Or even further adrift, a ‘tribal’ (aboriginal).
As I understand it Modi is from the lowest rung of the 4 caste ‘Varna’ system, the Sudras – very roughly speaking the working classes of the old Brahmanical peoples who moved into India in the 3rd millennium BC. Not twice born. not wearing the sacred thread. But still, though ‘deplorable’, one of ‘us’. Any further out and the RSS would not have taken him up and schooled him.
We can quibble about where Modi falls exactly. Yes, he isn’t at the absolute bottom, but he is pretty much lower class. Far lower than anybody who might be elected president of the US or prime minister of Amy European nation, and primarily because he had done good work.
That while story about “Brahmanical” people is a bit of a fairy tale really, even though taken as gospel till a few decades back. But even if you believe it, the sudras were supposed to be “deplorable”.
Modi being the prime minister is the equivalent of a dirt poor black becoming president of the US several decades back.
We can quibble about where Modi falls exactly. Yes, he isn’t at the absolute bottom, but he is pretty much lower class. Far lower than anybody who might be elected president of the US or prime minister of Amy European nation, and primarily because he had done good work.
That while story about “Brahmanical” people is a bit of a fairy tale really, even though taken as gospel till a few decades back. But even if you believe it, the sudras were supposed to be “deplorable”.
Modi being the prime minister is the equivalent of a dirt poor black becoming president of the US several decades back.
Some evidence would be nice. You still haven’t explained how caste has trumped merit in post-independence India for the last 75 years. I think the BJP has done a lot of good freeing up the economy and that is where the crux lies – a fairer economy will naturally create a fairer society.
Criticising another country does not stop me criticising my own.
I’m not sure, but you can be a lot lower in caste than Modi. You can be, literally, an out caste, a Dalit. Or even further adrift, a ‘tribal’ (aboriginal).
As I understand it Modi is from the lowest rung of the 4 caste ‘Varna’ system, the Sudras – very roughly speaking the working classes of the old Brahmanical peoples who moved into India in the 3rd millennium BC. Not twice born. not wearing the sacred thread. But still, though ‘deplorable’, one of ‘us’. Any further out and the RSS would not have taken him up and schooled him.
I should add:
“what did the British empire do for us”
The British, a lot. Invented most of modern sports, and enormous contribution to science, maths, engineering, literature.
The British empire, though was utterly cr*p. Which is more a reflection of autocracy and empires than British.
I think it’s a pity that modern days Brits seem ashamed to be proud of their country’s scientific achievements, but seem to think criticism of their old empire is criticism of modern day Brits
Please donot write nonsense. Modi is a Ghanchi by caste which is a Backward caste. And it is the British post 1857 who deliberately reified caste as a category to divide and rule India.
Actually Britain tried to reduce caste, hence exams. Britain used to reward the Indian rulers fro opening up schools and hospitals with
Order of the Indian Empire – Wikipedia
The East India Company and then the ICS, Army, Police, Forestry Service, Police, The Law , schoools and universities all based selection and promotion on exams not caste or religion. Prince Ranji went to Cambridge in the 19th century
Ranjitsinhji – Wikipedia
and Nehru to Harrow in 1905 and Cambridge.
In the 19th century Indian were elected to the Royal Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
and made baronets
Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
In 1946 Havildar Umrao Singh VC said
“When I went to London to receive my VC , I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of of women came up and kissed me on the moustache.” Would a Brahmin woman kiss a brave Untouchable who had won the VC?
Actually Britain tried to reduce caste, hence exams. Britain used to reward the Indian rulers fro opening up schools and hospitals with
Order of the Indian Empire – Wikipedia
The East India Company and then the ICS, Army, Police, Forestry Service, Police, The Law , schoools and universities all based selection and promotion on exams not caste or religion. Prince Ranji went to Cambridge in the 19th century
Ranjitsinhji – Wikipedia
and Nehru to Harrow in 1905 and Cambridge.
In the 19th century Indian were elected to the Royal Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
and made baronets
Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
In 1946 Havildar Umrao Singh VC said
“When I went to London to receive my VC , I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of of women came up and kissed me on the moustache.” Would a Brahmin woman kiss a brave Untouchable who had won the VC?
“one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country”
Would agree with you, but attributing it to “caste” is a long stretch.
There was no “British model” for infrastructure, healthcare or anything. Contrary to what colony apologists want to believe, the vast majority of Indians had nothing at the time of independence: education, health services, road or sewage, even basic access to food was a struggle. Everything had to be built from scratch – even the much vaunted railways, which was an under invested mess in 1947.
“lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background”
Wrong. The British handed over power to the likes of Nehru, who were all about background.
Nehru was the one, to his credit, who made Ambedkar the law minister. India post 1947 wasn’t perfect, but at least was a lot more about merit than it was pre 1947.
And the reason was that unlike the British, Indians themselves were clear from day one that merit would trump caste.
Incidentally, the British themselves, in their own country, were hardly about merit and all about background – as you should know.
“Modi’s …was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain”
Nope. He was as low class as they come.
Someone with a similar background to Modi would never reach close to the top in Britain.
I should add:
“what did the British empire do for us”
The British, a lot. Invented most of modern sports, and enormous contribution to science, maths, engineering, literature.
The British empire, though was utterly cr*p. Which is more a reflection of autocracy and empires than British.
I think it’s a pity that modern days Brits seem ashamed to be proud of their country’s scientific achievements, but seem to think criticism of their old empire is criticism of modern day Brits
Please donot write nonsense. Modi is a Ghanchi by caste which is a Backward caste. And it is the British post 1857 who deliberately reified caste as a category to divide and rule India.
What an ungrateful little rant!
Would you have any better under say French,Dutch, or even Portuguese control? The historical records says emphatically NO.
However even I must grudgingly admit that at least the French would have taught ‘you’ how to cook.
The fact that one family has had such an outsized impact upon a country which has all the attributes that you give to it is staggering and needs explaining. The fact that a lower caste wrote the constitution was a product of the British handover of power i.e. meritocracy trumping background. A quick check of Modi’s background is almost comical in it’s opaqueness – seems like he was born into a high-caste family until he changed the definition of “disadvantaged” for his own political gain.
All I can say is that British Indians know their own caste and I see no reason to believe that this is any better over in the subcontinent where you would expect it to be institutionalised, negatively, to a far greater extent. The EHRC report 2014 backs up this view:
research-report-91-caste-in-britain-socio-legal-review.pdf (equalityhumanrights.com)
The attack on the British imperial system is unbalanced – the current educational state of India, the infrastructure (famously the railways) and healthcare are based upon the British model, a case of “what did the British empire do for us?” (TM Monty Python). The scale of British India would provide a challenge for any state today – back then it was astonishing.
What an ungrateful little rant!
Would you have any better under say French,Dutch, or even Portuguese control? The historical records says emphatically NO.
However even I must grudgingly admit that at least the French would have taught ‘you’ how to cook.
The country that is supposedly “predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth” has
– a lower caste who wrote the constitution
– a lower caste prime minister and president
– has banned any form of caste discrimination since independence, inter caste marriages are common, and nobody cares to even know your caste.
– Has large caste based affirmative action quotas
Britain truly was appalled by the notion of caste. That’s why they denied the vast majority of Indians without education, infrastructure, clean water or electricity or basic healthcare, irrespective of their caste, when they were the rulers.
I guess that’s what you get with a coloniser predicated on racial supremacism, looting of colonies and slavery.
Who would have thought that a culture predicated of the temporal superiority of a person based on their birth would have fallen into the trap of elevating a family based on historical antecedents?
In the USA, more strangely, the same thing happens – they could have had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton running right up to today.
I like Douglas Murray’s theory that in the UK we gather up our hereditary privilege in the monarchy which we have divested of political power which inoculates us against this sort of thing – no one asks, where are Thatcher’s children? Why doesn’t Blair’s son run for mayor? etc.
On a broader note why is the “secular” nature of India sacrosanct? If the people don’t want secularism and they accomplish their wish through democratic means (as in Turkey) then who are we to say they are wrong to do so? The fact that Modi has presided over huge economic growth through a crony capitalist system rather than the crony socialism employed by Congress for most of India’s independent history which has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty doesn’t seem to matter to the author. By singling out the Ghandis he overlooks the rampant, feudal corruption which the whole Congress party used to stifle the worlds largest and most diverse democracy after independence.
For all the heart rending claims about “Hindu supremacist”, it’s still the muslims in India who enjoy special religion based laws, avoid state supervision of their religious sites, riot at the least provocation.
But if they really want, we can treat them the way religious minorities are treated in islamic countries. Maybe just like the Turks with Armenian Christians, Saudis with non muslim immigrant workers, or perhaps just borrow blasphemy laws and exterminate them like their brothers in Pakistan did with their minorities on the other side of the border.
The author of the article is really “a useful idiot” for the Guardian and it’s ilk
The author of the article is really “a useful idiot” for the Guardian and it’s ilk
For all the heart rending claims about “Hindu supremacist”, it’s still the muslims in India who enjoy special religion based laws, avoid state supervision of their religious sites, riot at the least provocation.
But if they really want, we can treat them the way religious minorities are treated in islamic countries. Maybe just like the Turks with Armenian Christians, Saudis with non muslim immigrant workers, or perhaps just borrow blasphemy laws and exterminate them like their brothers in Pakistan did with their minorities on the other side of the border.
Oh great, yet another graun approved opinioniser about India, saunters over to UnHerd, and plays out all the old favourite tunes. Has the Scott Trust taken a majority shareholding in UnHerd or something?
Oh great, yet another graun approved opinioniser about India, saunters over to UnHerd, and plays out all the old favourite tunes. Has the Scott Trust taken a majority shareholding in UnHerd or something?
Wellington served many years in India. He said England’s greatest asset was her honesty. Wellington condsidered his most important asset was he was considered a gentleman. A gentleman does not lie because that is cowardice. A gentleman is true to his word and is honest.
When Wellington entered France the people were amazed at the honesty of the British troops, those guilty of theft were quickly hanged. A hotel keeper was amazed that a British Brigadier paid for his food. The British paid a fair price for provisions and did not steal. Consequently, the locals sold provisions to the British and Wellington saved two divisions from having to protect convoys.
Can democracy exist in any country if people are liars, corrupt, cowards and not true to their word? Are the authors description of India little different to the politics of many inner city areas in the West ?
The golden rule of thieving is, steal big, don’t bother about petty change
Clearly the British empire was a master of the art.
Britain passed on various attributes, one of which is democracy, another is the Armed Forces keeping out of politics. K S Lal has stated the Muslim Turk invasions of India from 1000 AD to 1750 AD resulted in 88M deaths, Britain put a stop to them.
Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent – Wikipedia
The population of India increased from about 200M in the 1870s to 400M in the 1940s. Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for the British in WW1 and WW2 and many won medals for bravery.
Britain introduced railways which has probably increased the wealth of all peoples far more than any invention. Other developments include irrigation schemes; telegraphs, docks, harbours, law,electricity, western technology and medicine, concrete , newspapers, freedom of speech, The English Language. Where would the Indian software Industry be without the English Language?
The Indian Civil Service, Armed Forces, The Police, Railways, Forestry Service , Universities and Law Courts all helped to unite India and where entry and promotions were based upon merit and therefore creating a meritocracy.
If Nalanda and Vikramashila universities had not been destroyed, Indians may have developed the physics of Newton, Faraday and Clerk Maxwell and the Industrial Revolutions before the British but this did not happen.
What are the concepts of democracy, freedom of thought and action, rule of law underpinning justice for all, science and technology worth?
As a historian who is researching another book about the 1940s transfer of power I will say that the most positive attributes of British India were pre 1857. After power passed to the Crown it became more and more defensive and racist, and bent on survival through Divide and Rule tactics. The armed forces were perhaps the biggest contribution along with the Railways. And the Macaulay education reforms as well as the pre 1857 social reforms.
I would have thought that there is quite a good case for saying that 1857 was a disaster, and that the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) should have been left in control.
Even prior to 1857 the feeble minded Crown had forced the HEIC to accept hordes of evangelical missionaries bringing muscular Christianity to the subcontinent.
Worse still was the influx of white women, bringing with them all very worst aspects of Victorian snobbery, racism and sexually neurotic behaviour.
Prince Ranji played cricket for England in the 19th century and Nehru went to Harrow and then Cambridge . Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were all English Barristers.
Indians were elected FRS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Indians were granted knighthoods and baronetcies.
Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
There was no bar for entry to universities and schools.
The ICS and ArmedForces were open to all Indians after 1919 and by 1940s, there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw MC started his career in the British Army.
Sam Manekshaw – Wikipedia
Sam Manekshaw – Wikiquote
A ‘yes man’ is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshal but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the ‘yes man’.
True of all civilisations, for all times.
I would have thought that there is quite a good case for saying that 1857 was a disaster, and that the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) should have been left in control.
Even prior to 1857 the feeble minded Crown had forced the HEIC to accept hordes of evangelical missionaries bringing muscular Christianity to the subcontinent.
Worse still was the influx of white women, bringing with them all very worst aspects of Victorian snobbery, racism and sexually neurotic behaviour.
Prince Ranji played cricket for England in the 19th century and Nehru went to Harrow and then Cambridge . Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were all English Barristers.
Indians were elected FRS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Indians were granted knighthoods and baronetcies.
Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
There was no bar for entry to universities and schools.
The ICS and ArmedForces were open to all Indians after 1919 and by 1940s, there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw MC started his career in the British Army.
Sam Manekshaw – Wikipedia
Sam Manekshaw – Wikiquote
A ‘yes man’ is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshal but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the ‘yes man’.
True of all civilisations, for all times.
I wouldn’t disagree the contributions of Britain in many fields are extraordinary. And yes, it was an enormous improvement on the islamic empires that came before, but nobody seems to mention that.
But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.
The net outcome of Britain’s existance – the positives from borrowing inventions and scientific developments, law, from Britain versus the negatives from being colonised – would be greatly positive. But there is a reason why India developed so much faster after 1947, despite a lot of the leadership being utterly incompetent.
“But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.”
Nonsense I’m afraid. The Norman Conquest brought enormous benefits, not the least
being that England was dragged back into ‘mainstream’ Europe rather than languishing in a murderous Scandinavian backwater.
I would suggest the success of Britain was due to thecombination of various races. The Celts provide people who are capable of greats leaps of imagination which are needed for massive jumps in technology. The Anglo Saxon provide a common sense down to prctical earth egalitarian view of life. The Vikings provided immense physical energy, fortitude and a thirst for adventure. The Norman combined Viking energy with a Frankish discipline and an ability to learn from others.
If we say development in India what about the increase in population from 1870 to 1940s?
Perhaps the greatest diaster for India was so many Congress types were educated at the LSE which held back industrial devlopment for decades. Laski had done more damage to India than any other Briton.
There were no colour bars at British schools and universities. Indian were elected to the Royal Society in the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Prince Ranji played for Cambridge University and England, while Nehru went to Harrow and Trinity, Cambridge. Indians were awarded baronetcies and knighthoods in the 19th century,
Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
became judges and barristers ( Nehru’s Father) and ICS and Army were open to all from 1919. By 1947 there were Indian Brigadiers.
Comment by Havildar Singh VC. “When I went to London to receive my VC, I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of women came up and kissed me on my moustache”.Forgotten Voice of Burma p368. In Assoc with Imperial war Museum.
“But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.”
Nonsense I’m afraid. The Norman Conquest brought enormous benefits, not the least
being that England was dragged back into ‘mainstream’ Europe rather than languishing in a murderous Scandinavian backwater.
I would suggest the success of Britain was due to thecombination of various races. The Celts provide people who are capable of greats leaps of imagination which are needed for massive jumps in technology. The Anglo Saxon provide a common sense down to prctical earth egalitarian view of life. The Vikings provided immense physical energy, fortitude and a thirst for adventure. The Norman combined Viking energy with a Frankish discipline and an ability to learn from others.
If we say development in India what about the increase in population from 1870 to 1940s?
Perhaps the greatest diaster for India was so many Congress types were educated at the LSE which held back industrial devlopment for decades. Laski had done more damage to India than any other Briton.
There were no colour bars at British schools and universities. Indian were elected to the Royal Society in the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
Prince Ranji played for Cambridge University and England, while Nehru went to Harrow and Trinity, Cambridge. Indians were awarded baronetcies and knighthoods in the 19th century,
Jejeebhoy baronets – Wikipedia
became judges and barristers ( Nehru’s Father) and ICS and Army were open to all from 1919. By 1947 there were Indian Brigadiers.
Comment by Havildar Singh VC. “When I went to London to receive my VC, I had a wonderful moustache in those days. And a lot of women came up and kissed me on my moustache”.Forgotten Voice of Burma p368. In Assoc with Imperial war Museum.
As a historian who is researching another book about the 1940s transfer of power I will say that the most positive attributes of British India were pre 1857. After power passed to the Crown it became more and more defensive and racist, and bent on survival through Divide and Rule tactics. The armed forces were perhaps the biggest contribution along with the Railways. And the Macaulay education reforms as well as the pre 1857 social reforms.
I wouldn’t disagree the contributions of Britain in many fields are extraordinary. And yes, it was an enormous improvement on the islamic empires that came before, but nobody seems to mention that.
But – as was the case with England after 1066 – being colonised by a foreign invader is never a good outcome.
The net outcome of Britain’s existance – the positives from borrowing inventions and scientific developments, law, from Britain versus the negatives from being colonised – would be greatly positive. But there is a reason why India developed so much faster after 1947, despite a lot of the leadership being utterly incompetent.
Nader Shah did more damage in one afternoon than we managed in years. In fact he makes us look like rank amateurs.
Vae victis!
Britain passed on various attributes, one of which is democracy, another is the Armed Forces keeping out of politics. K S Lal has stated the Muslim Turk invasions of India from 1000 AD to 1750 AD resulted in 88M deaths, Britain put a stop to them.
Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent – Wikipedia
The population of India increased from about 200M in the 1870s to 400M in the 1940s. Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for the British in WW1 and WW2 and many won medals for bravery.
Britain introduced railways which has probably increased the wealth of all peoples far more than any invention. Other developments include irrigation schemes; telegraphs, docks, harbours, law,electricity, western technology and medicine, concrete , newspapers, freedom of speech, The English Language. Where would the Indian software Industry be without the English Language?
The Indian Civil Service, Armed Forces, The Police, Railways, Forestry Service , Universities and Law Courts all helped to unite India and where entry and promotions were based upon merit and therefore creating a meritocracy.
If Nalanda and Vikramashila universities had not been destroyed, Indians may have developed the physics of Newton, Faraday and Clerk Maxwell and the Industrial Revolutions before the British but this did not happen.
What are the concepts of democracy, freedom of thought and action, rule of law underpinning justice for all, science and technology worth?
Nader Shah did more damage in one afternoon than we managed in years. In fact he makes us look like rank amateurs.
Vae victis!
The golden rule of thieving is, steal big, don’t bother about petty change
Clearly the British empire was a master of the art.
Wellington served many years in India. He said England’s greatest asset was her honesty. Wellington condsidered his most important asset was he was considered a gentleman. A gentleman does not lie because that is cowardice. A gentleman is true to his word and is honest.
When Wellington entered France the people were amazed at the honesty of the British troops, those guilty of theft were quickly hanged. A hotel keeper was amazed that a British Brigadier paid for his food. The British paid a fair price for provisions and did not steal. Consequently, the locals sold provisions to the British and Wellington saved two divisions from having to protect convoys.
Can democracy exist in any country if people are liars, corrupt, cowards and not true to their word? Are the authors description of India little different to the politics of many inner city areas in the West ?
Your analysis is clouded by the Modi Derangement Syndrome you suffer from. Have academics like you who deserted India for foreign campuses seen the lurch towards venality, corruption, violence, dysfunction and a completely bankrupt Opposition since the 1970s? And what kind of amnesia do you have about Nehru, the architect of modern India’s disastrous socialist turn since the 1950s? An idiotic foreign policy for which we are still paying a price. An authoritarian dynastic man who propped up his daughter since the late 1950s, introduced corruption by stealth through the string of cases like the Mundhra case and the Jeep scandal, dismissed democratic governments as in Kerala? And espoused a fake secularism by not introducing laicite of the French kind but only pampering minorities and destroying every institution the British had left?
Modi is not perfect but dilletante dandies like Tharoor are no match. The only leader of the Opposition who is clean and dynamic is Sachin Pilot who the Gandhi’s have sidelined to oblivion.
And what supremacism are you talking about? Any idea about the violence against Hindus unleashed in Bengal by the vicious Mamta Banerjee or Kerala by the putrid Communists or Jharkhand by Islamo Fascists aligned with a ragtag venal Opposition?
Don’t write agit prop propaganda from the safe shores abroad and pass it off as ” facts”.
The LSE and Laski are responsible for India’s socialism which slowed down economic growth. Tharoor does come across like a character from Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited ” .
Nehruvian Socialism was a disaster. Even if you could justify the 1st two Five Year Plans, 1961- when East Asia was just taking off- was a horrific turn for the Indian economy. If you read Lee Kuan Yews autobiography its startling( especially for one who belongs to the city)that he drew inspiration from Calcutta for transforming Singapore. Nehru ruined Bengal and Calcutta’s sophisticated global linkages via British owned corporates through ” freight equalization ” policies ruining jute, tea and heavy industrial manufacturing forever. His daughter completed the economic immiseration with bank nationalization. Today the Congress party is out to recover disastrous welfarism and barter away economic strength in whichever State they rule.
Armchair ideologues like Komireddi safely ensconced with foreign universities can write nonsense glorifying such venal political creeds since they don’t have to live and work in India and couldn’t bother if corrupt Opposition parties ruin the Indian economy- as their incomes are safe.
Thank you for your explantions. I never realised Nehru was such as disaster and I would not be surprised he had been advised by LSE graduates. The LSE planned the East African Ground Nut Scheme in the 1940s and 1950s and by going against Unilever’s advice, produced a disaster.
I shall read Lee Kwan Yews autobiography, a family friend used to be his next door neighbour. LKY was one of the most astute politicians post WW2.
I am optimistic for India because the vast majority of people are industrious; enterprising; respect education; believe in the family; save money, there is a free press, freedom of speech; respect Rules as shown by their love of cricket; have a sense of humour hence popularity P J Wodehouse and the Armed Forces have high standards and keep out of politcs. Hopefully, Indian governments will not pursue vast contsruction projects which can never be paid off. A Chinese billionaire considered 45 % of debt will never paid back.
Any technical problems facing India can be solved by Indian engineers and scientists. I suggest the threats to India is the government getting involved in absurd expensive grandiose projects to bolster the egos of a few politicians and becoming involved in external affairs without thinking about long term consequences. Indian involvement in Sri Lanka has alienated The Sinhalese who have a bankrupt government and resulted in Chinese naval base being built on the island. The greatest long term consequence of conflict with Pakistan may be Chinese investment in a near bankrupt country. India being surrounded by Chinese bases – Sri Lanka, burma, Pkistan and Himalays will not be good for the country.
Nehru was proto Marxist. His Defence Minister Menon fully so. India has a tough situation now with a Chinese encirclement. Plus a lot of Deep State encouragement of fissiparous forces. But PM Modi has huge support and his vision will possibly see us through.
Nehru was proto Marxist. His Defence Minister Menon fully so. India has a tough situation now with a Chinese encirclement. Plus a lot of Deep State encouragement of fissiparous forces. But PM Modi has huge support and his vision will possibly see us through.
Thank you for your explantions. I never realised Nehru was such as disaster and I would not be surprised he had been advised by LSE graduates. The LSE planned the East African Ground Nut Scheme in the 1940s and 1950s and by going against Unilever’s advice, produced a disaster.
I shall read Lee Kwan Yews autobiography, a family friend used to be his next door neighbour. LKY was one of the most astute politicians post WW2.
I am optimistic for India because the vast majority of people are industrious; enterprising; respect education; believe in the family; save money, there is a free press, freedom of speech; respect Rules as shown by their love of cricket; have a sense of humour hence popularity P J Wodehouse and the Armed Forces have high standards and keep out of politcs. Hopefully, Indian governments will not pursue vast contsruction projects which can never be paid off. A Chinese billionaire considered 45 % of debt will never paid back.
Any technical problems facing India can be solved by Indian engineers and scientists. I suggest the threats to India is the government getting involved in absurd expensive grandiose projects to bolster the egos of a few politicians and becoming involved in external affairs without thinking about long term consequences. Indian involvement in Sri Lanka has alienated The Sinhalese who have a bankrupt government and resulted in Chinese naval base being built on the island. The greatest long term consequence of conflict with Pakistan may be Chinese investment in a near bankrupt country. India being surrounded by Chinese bases – Sri Lanka, burma, Pkistan and Himalays will not be good for the country.
More Sebastian than Charles I assure you with shades of Rex Mottram thrown in large doses.
Nehruvian Socialism was a disaster. Even if you could justify the 1st two Five Year Plans, 1961- when East Asia was just taking off- was a horrific turn for the Indian economy. If you read Lee Kuan Yews autobiography its startling( especially for one who belongs to the city)that he drew inspiration from Calcutta for transforming Singapore. Nehru ruined Bengal and Calcutta’s sophisticated global linkages via British owned corporates through ” freight equalization ” policies ruining jute, tea and heavy industrial manufacturing forever. His daughter completed the economic immiseration with bank nationalization. Today the Congress party is out to recover disastrous welfarism and barter away economic strength in whichever State they rule.
Armchair ideologues like Komireddi safely ensconced with foreign universities can write nonsense glorifying such venal political creeds since they don’t have to live and work in India and couldn’t bother if corrupt Opposition parties ruin the Indian economy- as their incomes are safe.
More Sebastian than Charles I assure you with shades of Rex Mottram thrown in large doses.
The LSE and Laski are responsible for India’s socialism which slowed down economic growth. Tharoor does come across like a character from Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited ” .
Your analysis is clouded by the Modi Derangement Syndrome you suffer from. Have academics like you who deserted India for foreign campuses seen the lurch towards venality, corruption, violence, dysfunction and a completely bankrupt Opposition since the 1970s? And what kind of amnesia do you have about Nehru, the architect of modern India’s disastrous socialist turn since the 1950s? An idiotic foreign policy for which we are still paying a price. An authoritarian dynastic man who propped up his daughter since the late 1950s, introduced corruption by stealth through the string of cases like the Mundhra case and the Jeep scandal, dismissed democratic governments as in Kerala? And espoused a fake secularism by not introducing laicite of the French kind but only pampering minorities and destroying every institution the British had left?
Modi is not perfect but dilletante dandies like Tharoor are no match. The only leader of the Opposition who is clean and dynamic is Sachin Pilot who the Gandhi’s have sidelined to oblivion.
And what supremacism are you talking about? Any idea about the violence against Hindus unleashed in Bengal by the vicious Mamta Banerjee or Kerala by the putrid Communists or Jharkhand by Islamo Fascists aligned with a ragtag venal Opposition?
Don’t write agit prop propaganda from the safe shores abroad and pass it off as ” facts”.
Gujarat was the most functional state in India when Modi was in charge there.
He’s doing as good a job in the national chair as anybody has since independence.
The slurs against him mostly centre around allegations that he “condoned” (i.e. had nothing to do with) anti Muslim violence, like India never had sectarian killings before.
Gujarat was the most functional state in India when Modi was in charge there.
He’s doing as good a job in the national chair as anybody has since independence.
The slurs against him mostly centre around allegations that he “condoned” (i.e. had nothing to do with) anti Muslim violence, like India never had sectarian killings before.
We are constantly berated about the Amritsar massacre in 1921(?), ignoring the other 2 more bloody, Indian perpetrated massacres. but not just those, also the sterilisation of 6 million men, thousands of innocents butchered in other massacres etc etc et el etc? we’re just so Wacist! and Evil! uniquely so. right.
What were the other two massacres you mention, Charlie? I’m sure there’s been loads, mind you
FYI.
A comparative analysis of Bloody*Sunday in 1972 and Amritsar in 1919 reveals the following:-
I Para’s shooting left much to be desired. 108 rounds fired for 26 hits. Proportionately ‘worse’ than the Gurkhas, Sikhs and Sinde Rifles, at Amritsar* 53 years earlier. (*1650 rounds fired for an estimated:- 379 to 1,500 or more killed and over 1,200 injured.)
(* Referred to by some as ‘Good Sunday’)
What were the other two massacres you mention, Charlie? I’m sure there’s been loads, mind you
FYI.
A comparative analysis of Bloody*Sunday in 1972 and Amritsar in 1919 reveals the following:-
I Para’s shooting left much to be desired. 108 rounds fired for 26 hits. Proportionately ‘worse’ than the Gurkhas, Sikhs and Sinde Rifles, at Amritsar* 53 years earlier. (*1650 rounds fired for an estimated:- 379 to 1,500 or more killed and over 1,200 injured.)
(* Referred to by some as ‘Good Sunday’)
We are constantly berated about the Amritsar massacre in 1921(?), ignoring the other 2 more bloody, Indian perpetrated massacres. but not just those, also the sterilisation of 6 million men, thousands of innocents butchered in other massacres etc etc et el etc? we’re just so Wacist! and Evil! uniquely so. right.