Colonialism was a huge blessing to the subcontinent. Turned the clock forward in terms of culture and institutions at least a hundred years.
The definition of colonialism, according to Google: "noun: colonialism --- the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically." http://i.imgur.com/3wQbW11.png
A blessing you say? Until now I didn't even know anyone considered colonialism much different from an invasion. The definition that I just posted seems to fit "invasion" pretty well imho. And how do you even move a culture forward? It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that. Please tell me there's some other definition of colonialism being used in this thread.
Type 1 is where is the colonizers set up new outposts in more-or-less unoccupied land. This happened in Hong Kong and Calcutta. This is usually benign for the host country.
Type 2 is where the colonizers steal the land from the natives and occupy it themselves. This happened in the United States and to some extent in Ireland. This type of colonialism is usually terrible for the natives.
Type 3 is where the colonizers install themselves as a ruling caste, but otherwise let the natives be. They extract taxes and provide governance in return. This was the case in India. It was also the case when the Normans invaded England, the Spanish invaded Mexico, or the British took over India.
Type 3 often works out better for the natives, because the existing regime had to be pretty backward and corrupt in order to fall to a small band of foreigners. The foreigners install themselves as competent stationary bandits and the country at least enjoys some stability and rule of law.
And how do you even move a culture forward? It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that.
So you're saying Aztec culture wasn't worse than 19th century British culture? Cultures that had human sacrifice are equal to cultures that perfected the steam engine and flush toilets? Please tell me you are not that willfully ignorant.
It should be blindingly obvious that certain elements of culture are worse than others, unless you are willing to argue that religions with human sacrifice are just as good as religions without human sacrifice, or that funerals with Sati are just as good as funerals without Sati. If certain elements of culture are better or worse, than it would be a miracle if all cultures exactly balanced out so that the positive elements and negative elements were equal, thus making all cultures equal to each other.
Yes, Nazis are bad, and war is bad.
But if you put the German government in charge of France and look at the long-term effects that would have? Not a terrible thing.
Also you're ignoring "small band". France could not have fallen to a small number of troops. An area without a strong government could.
Type 5 is where you start enumerating during your rant to make it seem as you have a point beyond "never mind mass murders, famines.. colonialism sure did a lot for culture"
Occupying a country is actually making them a favour!
Assuming you believe the word culture actually has objectively true meaning, do you believe that while cultures are different, all differences everywhere somehow all balance out to a precisely equal level of "good"? And furthermore, are they all also equal with respect to any individual topic (sanitation, environment, honestly, etc)?
None of these arguments are 100% proof of course, but they should at least weigh in on one's priors, I think.
[1] http://www.people.hbs.edu/liyer/iyer_colonial_oct2004.pdf
If you are lucky, you get a stationary bandit that extracts, but does not want to kill the golden goose. The stationary bandit wants to act as a gardener and grow production.
If you are unlucky, you get a roving bandit that will pillage as much as possible in the short term, not caring about long-term growth.
It strikes me that the corruption of the Indian government is much more akin to a roving bandit. Each official wants his share, no matter the impact on growth for the nation as a whole.
First, this presumes a linear progression and objective ranking of "quality" or "utility" of cultures, which any serious sociologist or anthropologist would reject.
Really, what you're saying is "colonialism turned Indian culture into something which more closely resembles present-day British (or perhaps Western European) culture". Phrased that way, it's easier to see that this argument is not particularly interesting. It's pretty obvious that colonialism will have that impact; that's basically the definition of hegemony.
Secondly, this ignores the immense impact that Indian culture (and other colonial cultures) have had on Britain (or their respective colonial powers). One of the well-known effects of colonialism (both in India and elsewhere) is the erasure of this influence. That is, cultural elements of the colonial subjects are appropriated by the colonial power as a "new" invention of that culture, rather than viewed (by the contemporary discourse) as an adoption of some aspect of the colonial culture. The reverse is not true; aspects of the colonial power's culture that are adopted by the colonial subjects are not viewed by either culture as being native to the colonial subjects[0].
Finally, this also overlooks the many ways that colonial rule appears to be a 'regression' even from the fallacious lens of a linear progression of culture. For example, the current criminialization of homosexuality in India is a due to a law imposed by the British during colonial rule. Before colonial rule, the concept of a nation-state didn't exist and enforcement of law was very different in practice, so we can't compare directly by looking for national legal codes. But it's very clear that homosexuality was not only not universally criminal in India, but was in fact an established and accepted cultural phenomenon in certain pockets of society. After the decriminalization of those practices, they disappeared entirely (in their then-current form; homosexuality itself obviously did not end).
[0] If anyone is interested in reading more about this, this principle is most famously explicated by Foucault. (No, the irony of referencing Foucault on cultural appropriation is not lost on me.)
Mathematics, Jewellery, Ideas on Governance, A strong work ethic, Missiles & Weaponry (yup)... There are loads of other things. I think the tone of your question suggests one shouldn't bother to bring this out too much as it will not change your ideas.
Please have a look at the income of Indian families in the UK/US relative to other ethnic groups. Asian culture emphasizes a strong work ethic. It's not just Indians with this one.
If the actual Indian families have higher income, it sounds like you're saying the answer is no...
The Indians part seems irrelevant from what you're saying. It seems you think British people are lazy?
>The Indians part seems irrelevant from what you're saying. It seems you think British people are lazy?
What? Not at all. I have no idea how lazy British people are. I was reacting to your statement that I should "Please have a look at the income of Indian families in the UK/US relative to other ethnic groups." That implies that there is a significant difference between mainstream culture and Indian immigrant culture.
/s
Fair point. But I think it still nullifies the argument that countries can't modernize without 'civilized' colonial rulers.
Thankfully the British kept a meticulous record of the beautiful civilization they destroyed with utmost cruelty.
India was much more advanced than Britain at the time. Now the thief claims to be a civilizer ? Irony has known no bounds.
https://archive.org/details/DharampalCollectedWritingsIn5Vol...
I think you may find a large proportion of grandparents who will say the positive developments aren't anywhere to be found. Though there have been some nice things going on like having no one rule & no one to opress.
From my point of view, better the British than the Mughals.
If you're a keen scholar of history you may also find that if it were not for the British India would be many many small countries today.
I'm not sure if that counts but it would have had a different sort of destruction this way, perhaps it may have turned out better. Would you say secessionist states today are good for India?
If I were a fish, I'd want not to be eaten. I don't care two bits whether I'm fried in margarine or in butter (to paraphrase Nehru).
Enough said.
I'm glad you said that. Indian culture and civilization still lives strong, it's just not only in India anymore.
You can thank the British for that (though I guess you hate them).