"You'd think the British in India were like Nazis, but we did much good": Daily Mail columnist

[Black Zero]

One off case, which made the british to bring in policies to prevent such massacres in future. British were far better than the savage blood lusty mughals.

Charles Dickens: : "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race."
Some say that Brits killed upto 10M citizens, rebels within 10 years after the mutiny of 1857.

Mughals might be blood lusty but one should not call them savages..

Babur (first mughal ruler) used to give instructions to his architects about setting up gardens, during the war-breaks when he was in the war with ibrahim lodhi.
Couriers would bring ice from Kashmir to Delhi, three times a days, for their drinks.
No one in india could match Jehangir's expertise about paintings.
I can provide numerous examples of their highly developed culture so they were anything but savages/primitives/uncivilized.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Charles Dickens: : "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race."
Some say that Brits killed upto 10M citizens, rebels within 10 years after the mutiny of 1857.

Mughals might be blood lusty but one should not call them savages..

Babur (first mughal ruler) used to give instructions to his architects about setting up gardens, during the war-breaks when he was in the war with ibrahim lodhi.
Couriers would bring ice from Kashmir to Delhi, three times a days, for their drinks.
No one in india could match Jehangir's expertise about paintings.
I can provide numerous examples of their highly developed culture so they were anything but savages/primitives/uncivilized.

What were the rebels even thinking? Why did they take up a job under the british if they were so patriotic?

The bengal regiment was at the forefront during the anglo sikh wars, and killed the sikhs. They got it back when the punjabi regiment killed them when they wanted to reimpose bahadur shah as emperor. No sympathy for those who joined the british indian army only to kill their own. If anyone who deserves respect, was those under our netaji (hindi for fuhrer) who joined the INA.

even hitler was fond of art, so i agree we should not call him a savage. Maybe you can suggest a better word.

 

[R0H1T]

This is not about India vs uk...
Why should I list technical advancements???

Because again you have zero arguments in favor of your supposition. Tech flowed from the UK to India, in the 18/19th centuries to further the empire & bring profits to East India company & then the crown. This isn;t a vacuum we;re talking about & you can;t list half as many UK (major) tech advancements in the 20th century as the US has had

 

[Black Zero]

What were the rebels even thinking? Why did they take up a job under the british if they were so patriotic?

The bengal regiment was at the forefront during the anglo sikh wars, and killed the sikhs. They got it back when the punjabi regiment killed them when they wanted to reimpose bahadur shah as emperor. No sympathy for those who joined the british indian army only to kill their own. If anyone who deserves respect, was those under our netaji (hindi for fuhrer) who joined the INA.

even hitler was fond of art, so i agree we should not call him a savage. Maybe you can suggest a better word.

These killing happened after the war was ended...and most of the victims were citizens.
anyway, historians differ about how many were mascaraed...and I can imagine, no profit for keeping this record...

On a similar note, local Indians killed other Indians on Mughal's behalf.


labeling would not help in the case of Mughals, they whole heartily became Indians in few generations.
for example, looks and feature wise Jahangir was indistinguishable to an average indian.

They did not transfer wealth outside like other invaders (Brits/Abdalis/Ghaznavis etc.).
Except Aurengzeb, other Mughal rulers were okish.

 

[Black Zero]

Because again you have zero arguments in favor of your supposition. Tech flowed from the UK to India, in the 18/19th centuries to further the empire & bring profits to East India company & then the crown. This isn;t a vacuum we;re talking about & you can;t list half as many UK (major) tech advancements in the 20th century as the US has had

Could you please explain my case to me so that I get some clue about your "objections"?

 

[Napa]

Except Aurengzeb, other Mughal rulers were okish.

I agree. Before Aurenzeb, the other Mughal rulers were generally conquerors, and did what conquerors do, nothing worse. Aurenzeb did not try to reach accomodation with the Hindus like his predecessors did, and not surprisingly his reign marked the end of the strength of the Mughals.

 

[Black Zero]

I agree. Before Aurenzeb, the other Mughal rulers were generally conquerors, and did what conquerors do, nothing worse. Aurenzeb did not try to reach accomodation with the Hindus like his predecessors did, and not surprisingly his reign marked the end of the strength of the Mughals.

He also killed muslim sufis.
He killed his brothers...and nephews.

 

[CricketCartoons]

These killing happened after the war was ended...and most of the victims were citizens.
anyway, historians differ about how many were mascaraed...and I can imagine, no profit for keeping this record...

On a similar note, local Indians killed other Indians on Mughal's behalf.


labeling would not help in the case of Mughals, they whole heartily became Indians in few generations.
for example, looks and feature wise Jahangir was indistinguishable to an average indian.

They did not transfer wealth outside like other invaders (Brits/Abdalis/Ghaznavis etc.).
Except Aurengzeb, other Mughal rulers were okish.

That is one grouse I have with the Brits..they didn't leave as many anglo indians as they could have. Other than that they founded colleges and universities, which meant india could stand on her feet when they left.

The biggest issue with the mughals is that they destroyed my temples. A historical wrong which needs to be corrected. Don't have issue with their debauchery which was a norm then. Aurangzeb was bad like others, but he became a model person later. Worst was akbar, who wanted to be a god himself.

 

[Napa]

He also killed muslim sufis.
He killed his brothers...and nephews.

Aurenzeb was a Timurid. Killing brothers and uncles (if the father had not already killed them) to secure the throne was the culture of the Timurids.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Charles Dickens: : "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race."
Some say that Brits killed upto 10M citizens, rebels within 10 years after the mutiny of 1857.

Mughals might be blood lusty but one should not call them savages..

Babur (first mughal ruler) used to give instructions to his architects about setting up gardens, during the war-breaks when he was in the war with ibrahim lodhi.
Couriers would bring ice from Kashmir to Delhi, three times a days, for their drinks.
No one in india could match Jehangir's expertise about paintings.
I can provide numerous examples of their highly developed culture so they were anything but savages/primitives/uncivilized.

The Charles Dickens quote almost brought tears of joy to my eyes. You can only marvel in awe at the magnificent belief in their own superiority of the Brits even 200 years ago. Now I'll bet every Indian school kid reads Charles Dickens with the same sense of pride and awe that they once served such a glorious reign.

 

[Robert]

More deflection?So they could send only a token shipment & not release more grains or import from some of their nearby colonies?
I guess the crown could afford to feed the army but the local populace was dispensable?

I've deflected nothing. That this man was by modern standards a war criminal does not mean that he was in communication with London, or that there was a deliberate genocide policy.

I still want to know how you think that Britain could have alieviated the Famine, given that the people of the British Isles were themselves under threat of starvation due to the U-boat offensive, and that the IJN would almost certainly have intercepted any attempt at a relief convoy if spare food had been available.

 

[Robert]

That Dickens quote is shocking, considering that he is generally held to be a great humanitarian.

All I can say is that his racism was typical of the aspic of his era, and that other European writers would say similar things, even Marx.

 

[CricketCartoons]

That Dickens quote is shocking, considering that he is generally held to be a great humanitarian.

All I can say is that his racism was typical of the aspic of his era, and that other European writers would say similar things, even Marx.

One can be racist and a humanitarian. Holding racist views is a minor flaw compared to political correctness.

 

[R0H1T]

Could you please explain my case to me so that I get some clue about your "objections"?

I dunno, you tell me? Are you trying to say that tech transfer happens only between masters & slaves, empire & colonies? That a certain US which threatened communist China (with nukes?) didn;t sell their goods or tech to them, that was partly due to cold war but only partially? OR that India would have always remained third world if not for the British gifts of civil services & English?

 

[Badsha]

Literally none of us were alive back then so can't say much but the brits for all their crimes did benefit us a lot as well. The railway system and industry thrived with them.

 

[R0H1T]

I've deflected nothing. That this man was by modern standards a war criminal does not mean that he was in communication with London, or that there was a deliberate genocide policy.

I still want to know how you think that Britain could have alieviated the Famine, given that the people of the British Isles were themselves under threat of starvation due to the U-boat offensive, and that the IJN would almost certainly have intercepted any attempt at a relief convoy if spare food had been available.

That's speculation on your part, I'd like to think that Bose & his little connections, with Germany & Japan, would've allowed some relief destined for Bengal, not to be intercepted by IJN.

 

[Napa]

I've deflected nothing. That this man was by modern standards a war criminal does not mean that he was in communication with London, or that there was a deliberate genocide policy.

I still want to know how you think that Britain could have alieviated the Famine, given that the people of the British Isles were themselves under threat of starvation due to the U-boat offensive, and that the IJN would almost certainly have intercepted any attempt at a relief convoy if spare food had been available.

The IJN had already lost the Battle of Midway in 1942, and by no means a dominant force in 1943.

You can find many excuses, and it is futile arguing back and forth on this matter. The reality remains that no British starved, while millions of Indians did. Nor was this the first famine in British India, or other countries ruled by the British.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That Dickens quote is shocking, considering that he is generally held to be a great humanitarian.

All I can say is that his racism was typical of the aspic of his era, and that other European writers would say similar things, even Marx.

It's not that shocking Rob, you'd probably have heard a few people saying it in the pub twenty years ago. Only without such beautiful prose.

 

[Black Zero]

I dunno, you tell me? Are you trying to say that tech transfer happens only between masters & slaves, empire & colonies? That a certain US which threatened communist China (with nukes?) didn;t sell their goods or tech to them, that was partly due to cold war but only partially? OR that India would have always remained third world if not for the British gifts of civil services & English?

if you did not know my case, then what were you objecting too?

 

[Black Zero]

That is one grouse I have with the Brits..they didn't leave as many anglo indians as they could have. Other than that they founded colleges and universities, which meant india could stand on her feet when they left.

The biggest issue with the mughals is that they destroyed my temples. A historical wrong which needs to be corrected. Don't have issue with their debauchery which was a norm then. Aurangzeb was bad like others, but he became a model person later. Worst was akbar, who wanted to be a god himself.

Genuine query:
How and when.

 

[English August]

My point is that India is still quite happily living divided up by Brits despite them having left in 1947. It seems pointless to keep complaining about what happened in the past if you don't have any will or inclination to put it right anyway. Pakistan and Bangladesh are small fry compared to India. Just annex those nations and hey presto, India is undivided again.

Strawman argument. I don't see anyone complaining about what happened in the past to start with. This thread started when someone posted an article by a racist Daily Mail columnist claiming that there wasn't much wrong with the British rule. Refuting that mindless claim, which defies everything we know about history, doesn't translate to people complaining about the past. Indians have moved on and have done extremely well for themselves actually. For example, it's the only instance of a developing country that's a robust, mature and functioning democracy. That's a huge, huge achievement. All other mature democracies are developed countries.

But just because someone has moved on doesn't mean you get to re-write what happened in the past. The evil Brits don't get a free pass just because India has moved on. You have to keep reminding them that what they did was evil and not allow them to paintbrush it.

As someone said, "Those who forget History are condemned to repeat it."

 

[Specialisttailender]

True they did do a lot of good like building trains that are still in use, after all they did rule for 200 years. This is much longer then the subcontinent has been so called free of them. Shashi Tharoor's "The British Empire In India: An Era Of Darkness is a good read.

They built train tracks so they can easily ship the stolen resources, even the hospitals were only for British.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Interesting analogy. But if the property he built, and the laws that he made turned out to be better than anything I could have done myself, and then gave the land back to me, well maybe it was not a total loss.

This would be acceptable if not for the fact the land tended to be held for over a century before being returned.

End of the day the British did everything they did for their own benefit. Don't understand why some credit the British for giving countries these things almost like a gift when they profited massively off of it.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

No, the difference is that the Nazis set out to exterminate a population - not just the Jews but to kill everyone on the land across wide areas of Eastern Europe and Russia - while the British Empire did not follow a deliberate extermination policy.

The various famines were due to incompetence by Empire administrators at handling crop failure due to natural causes, alloyed with an almost religious Victorian faith in the market.

Dead is dead, of course.

Charles Trevelyen, Assistant secretary to the treasury during the Irish "Famine" ( I use famine in quotation marks as there was more than enough food to food the nation), is widely seen as being the man solely responsible for mitigating the suffering in Ireland.

His view " The judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated . . . the real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people."

Now I'm not here to claim it was engineered by the British, but here and like the India case what really is the difference between doing nothing and exterminating these people?? If it was a homeland issue I imagine the reaction would've been much different. End of the day these deaths lie solely at the door of the Empire and those in charge who didnt give a damn, in our case Robert Peel and others may be exempted for at least trying.

Perhaps economics played a factor, but at the end of the day I can dig up thousands of quotes that prove those in Government viewed the Irish in the 1840s and the Indians 30 years later as subhuman savages the world could do better without. Fairly genocidal-ish attitude to me, not too dissimilar to the Nazis!

Lets also not forget the concentration camps in Kenya!

I'm not one for simple "Blame Britain for everything" as some do, but that doesnt mean they cant fully be held to account for their crimes of the past.

 

[Robert]

The IJN had already lost the Battle of Midway in 1942, and by no means a dominant force in 1943.

You can find many excuses, and it is futile arguing back and forth on this matter. The reality remains that no British starved, while millions of Indians did. Nor was this the first famine in British India, or other countries ruled by the British.

What has a carrier battle in mid-Pacific got to do with the Indian Ocean, where there were plenty of cruisers and submarines?

Still waiting to hear what could have been done to alleviate that one specific Famine. Ok, I'll tell you. Other parts of the Raj could have sent part of their food reserves, but they were all terrified of the famine spreading and losing those reserves to the advancing Japanese army. They were the ones responsible.

 

[Robert]

Charles Trevelyen, Assistant secretary to the treasury during the Irish "Famine" ( I use famine in quotation marks as there was more than enough food to food the nation), is widely seen as being the man solely responsible for mitigating the suffering in Ireland.

His view " The judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated . . . the real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people."

Now I'm not here to claim it was engineered by the British, but here and like the India case what really is the difference between doing nothing and exterminating these people?? If it was a homeland issue I imagine the reaction would've been much different. End of the day these deaths lie solely at the door of the Empire and those in charge who didnt give a damn, in our case Robert Peel and others may be exempted for at least trying.

Perhaps economics played a factor, but at the end of the day I can dig up thousands of quotes that prove those in Government viewed the Irish in the 1840s and the Indians 30 years later as subhuman savages the world could do better without. Fairly genocidal-ish attitude to me, not too dissimilar to the Nazis!

Lets also not forget the concentration camps in Kenya!

I'm not one for simple "Blame Britain for everything" as some do, but that doesnt mean they cant fully be held to account for their crimes of the past.

Ireland was massively reliant on one crop, if which 3/4 was lost to the blight.

Peel tried to suspend the Corn Laws to be able to import Canadian grain to Ireland, which tuned into a bitter fight between him and the Tory gentry. They were more interested in profit that Irish lives.

Gladstone managed to get some grain imported but the Irish didn't take to it for some reason.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Ireland was massively reliant on one crop, if which 3/4 was lost to the blight.

Peel tried to suspend the Corn Laws to be able to import Canadian grain to Ireland, which tuned into a bitter fight between him and the Tory gentry. They were more interested in profit that Irish lives.

Gladstone managed to get some grain imported but the Irish didn't take to it for some reason.

Ireland still produced more than enough food to feed its entire population twice over. Beef, meat, vegetables aside from the potato and so on. Rural society at the time meant the poor people who worked on farms growing these items received only a tiny patch of poor land to live on, land which they had to grow their own food on after the days work was done. Due to the climate, nutrition cost and general ease the overwhelming majority of these people chose to grow and live off potatoes. When that crop failed their source of food went, didnt mean the whole land stopped producing food. Issue was nobody allowed those who were starving to eat the food or livestock which they had cared for before the "famine" began.

At the end of 1845, exports of potatoes from Ireland increased, especially to England, Belgium and Holland, all of which had experienced the potato blight. The reduction of potatoes in the Irish markets caused some concern within Ireland, although overseas demand for Irish potatoes diminished when some of them arrived at their ports of destination diseased with blight. The export of livestock to Britain (with the exception of pigs) also increased during the Famine. Whilst the export of pigs decreased, the export of bacon and ham increased from 930 cwt. in 1846 to 1,061 cwt. in 1847. In total over three million live animals were exported between 1846-50, more than the number of people who emigrated during the Famine years. In 1847, 9,992 calves were exported from Ireland to Britain, which represented a thirty-three per cent increase on exports on the previous year. Some of these cattle were then re-exported to Europe. Overall, during the Famine years, food exports to Europe from Britain increased. Irish food exports, however, went much further afield than Britain or even Europe. In the summer of 1847, a New York newspaper noted that imports of grain from Ireland were even larger than usual.

A wide variety of other foodstuffs left Ireland apart from livestock—vegetables and pulses (particularly peas, beans and onions), dairy products, fish (especially salmon, oysters and herrings) and even rabbits. In February 1847, 377 boxes of ‘fish and eggs’ and 383 boxes of fish were imported into Bristol alone. The butter export trade was particularly buoyant. In the first week of 1847, for example, 4,455 firkins of butter (a firkin equals nine gallons) were exported from Ireland to Liverpool. In the following week, this had risen to 4,691 firkins. Large quantities of butter were exported from Cork to all parts of Britain. For example, in the first nine months of 1847, 56,557 firkins of butter were exported to Bristol and 34,852 firkins to Liverpool. During the same period, 3,435 poultry were exported to Liverpool and 2,375 to Bristol

http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/food-exports-from-ireland-1846-47/

According to John Mitchel, quoted by Woodham-Smith, "Ireland was actually producing sufficient food, wool and flax, to feed and clothe not nine but eighteen millions of people," yet a ship sailing into an Irish port during the famine years with a cargo of grain was "sure to meet six ships sailing out with a similar cargo."

One of the most remarkable facts about the famine period is that there was an average monthly export of food from Ireland worth 100,000 Pound Sterling. Almost throughout the five-year famine, Ireland remained a net exporter of food.

http://www.usbornefamilytree.com/irishfoodexports.htm

Its why I avoid using the term "The Great Famine" which is so prevalent in media nowadays. A famine is defined as an extreme scarcity of food. Ireland never suffered that.

As for the Gladstone part, may be incorrect but would that be the maize shipment I've heard of that was sent as an attempted relief effort? Issue there was the people in the country had never seen the stuff before, and it needed to be cooked (or heated, boiled forget which) which was not something most people could do due to being homeless and starving. The result of that was that people ate it raw and got even more sick as a result.

 

[Suleiman]

The #1 reason for the partition which resulted in many many deaths, on top of the ones in wars trying to get independence.

So no, installing Thomas the train here and there doesn't erase all of that.

 

[English August]

The Charles Dickens quote almost brought tears of joy to my eyes. You can only marvel in awe at the magnificent belief in their own superiority of the Brits even 200 years ago. Now I'll bet every Indian school kid reads Charles Dickens with the same sense of pride and awe that they once served such a glorious reign.

I did all my schooling and university in India and not once did anyone force me to read Dickens. I did read some of his work eventually but that was purely by choice.

Also you talk about "they once served" as if you're not part of "them." I don't know who you are but if you are person of Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi origin, then your forefathers served the Brits -- willingly or unwillingly. Just because you've moved to the UK now doesn't mean you're not part of "them" however hard you try to wipe away your embarrassing past!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I did all my schooling and university in India and not once did anyone force me to read Dickens. I did read some of his work eventually but that was purely by choice.

Also you talk about "they once served" as if you're not part of "them." I don't know who you are but if you are person of Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi origin, then your forefathers served the Brits -- willingly or unwillingly. Just because you've moved to the UK now doesn't mean you're not part of "them" however hard you try to wipe away your embarrassing past!

What makes you think I'm embarrassed by it? Do you think you'd ever catch me calling LBC radio begging the British public to like us? I'd be the one you would be begging to more likely. Charles Dickens was a brilliant writer and clearly had great pride in his country which was a superpower of the time. If you think that he was a racist, that was two hundred years ago. What excuse do you have for Donald Trump being elected today? Something many of your fellow countrymen rejoiced over because he said bad words about Muslims?

 

[English August]

What makes you think I'm embarrassed by it? Do you think you'd ever catch me calling LBC radio begging the British public to like us? I'd be the one you would be begging to more likely. Charles Dickens was a brilliant writer and clearly had great pride in his country which was a superpower of the time. If you think that he was a racist, that was two hundred years ago. What excuse do you have for Donald Trump being elected today? Something many of your fellow countrymen rejoiced over because he said bad words about Muslims?

I don't know what is LBC radio. I never called Dickens a racist. I never said a word about Trump (either in this thread or anywhere else for that matter).

So basically you're on about something totally random. You're the one who used "they" instead of "we." It's clear you're embarrassed by your past and are trying desperately hard to walk away from it. Good luck but it's not gonna happen!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't know what is LBC radio. I never called Dickens a racist. I never said a word about Trump (either in this thread or anywhere else for that matter).

So basically you're on about something totally random. You're the one who used "they" instead of "we." It's clear you're embarrassed by your past and are trying desperately hard to walk away from it. Good luck but it's not gonna happen!

I was wondering what you were talking about with the "they" instead of "we" business, now I get it. Why would I refer to the Brits 200 years ago as "we"? I wasn't there.

When you say I should be embarrassed by my past, why so? What is there to be embarrassed about? Just because I can resonate with the British sense of superiority back then, what does the Indian side of it have to do with me?