There many false claims about British rule in India. Some of them are-
- British helped in uniting India.
- British brought industries and science to India.
- Without British rule, India would be in constant chaos.
- Other colonial powers are worse then British.
In my opinion, each of the above statement is a brutal lie. In this article, I want to give some facts debunking those lies.
India(Bharat) is always referred as a land between Himalayas in the North to a large ocean in the South. Which is what present day India is. Ofcourse, the entire region is not under a single ruler politically for most of the time. But, this entire region is always united culturally. Even politically many rulers have tried to unite India in the recorded history. Empires who are successful either to rule or influence the entire region are Mauryas, Guptas and Mughals. Ofcourse, there are Satavahanas and Cholas from the south who extended their rule and influence beyond Ganga. Even, just before British entered the subcontinent (under the disguise of East India Company). Marathas in the west are consolidating their power in the whole country. They might have been successful in this, if they didn't try to expand in all directions at same time.
The second point is another big lie. Core concepts of Math like Trigonometry, decimal system and many others were originated in India and travelled west via Arabia. Architecture used in some ancient temples clearly depicts the civil engineering capabilities. Wars waged by Cholas with their navel power shows the ship building capabilities. India remained the only source of diamonds till very recently. India is a major trading country for thousands of years. She adopted modern practices all the time. Even if British is not in the power, the new modern practices would have been adopted like always.
The third point is yet another lie. If at all, Europe is in constant chaos for hundred's of years. Be it by the name of crusades or something else. There are conflicts in India, but they are not at similar frequency. In Europe, a conflict will generally result in the destruction or major defeat of one side. Like Muslims vs Christians, British vs Irish and so on. In India, new thoughts were either observed into existing schools or practiced together. I don't remember reading any conflict between Tamil and Telugu kings based on language. Kannada king Krishnadevaraya made immense contribution to Telugu literature. Didn't hear of Marathas trying to impose Marathi on Tamils when they captured some regions of Tamilnadu. Coins from the great Cholas has Sanskrit text along with Tamil. Budda is accepted as an incarnation of Hindu God Vishnu rather then having "us vs them" battles. Even Muslim King Akbar tried to create a new religion with characteristics of both Hinduism and Islam together. Finally, there are practicing Hindus who fought for Muslim Mughals and practicing Muslims who fought for Hindu Marathas. If not for British, who caused the unsolvable conflicts between Indian Muslims and Hindus. I am sure India would have been in much better place now.
The forth point is very similar to saying "rape is better then murder". Every colonial rule everywhere for every region in the world is a disaster. Be it India or Africa or America or Australia or anywhere else. Only beneficiaries are the rulers who behaved more like looters. The totally avoidable Bengal famine caused by British resulted in the death of 3 Million Indians. JallianwalaBagh massacre is just the tip of Iceburg.
Here is a simple statistic of how loot happened in India during British time. Indian share of world GDP is over 30% during 1757(when British started consolidating their power in India). But, when British left India in 1947, India's share of world GDP is less then 3%. If this statistic doesn't explain how much disaster the British rule is to India, I don't think anything else will convince.
In short, the answer to the question is. No, British didn't help India by making it a colony.
Comments
Post a Comment