I think we've to thank the British who not only made us civilized, but for making the country we call India. We also have to thank them for building our Parliament House, Rashtrapati Bhavan, North Block, South Block, the Railways, the Airports and many other things. We also have to thank them for the English language. Look at all these economic progress we've in India brought by outsourcing because of the English language. Now the Chinese are working hard to master the English language. I think our country will progress further, if we encourage our people to learn and speak English very fluently.
RE:Same S, Different Day
by S on Jan 31, 2007 02:33 AM Permalink
What an illogical and mindless peice of junk statement this is. Thank them for exploiting a rich country in search of which Europeans found America? Never heard a crazier and a dumb statment in my life. We Indians are smart enough to learn any lang. not just English, look at scores of IT professionals who learn German and Japanese to work on their projects. My advice for you Rajesh, go to Britain and work for a british boss to repay the debt of them teaching you English.
RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by Southie on Jan 31, 2007 03:53 AM Permalink
I dont think his statement is illogical. What Rajesh is saying is that UK brought English to India. If they hadn't then it would have taken longer for English to come to India. If it wasn't for UK, then the muslim invaders would have played more havoc in India. We have to thank Britain (despite its bloody exploitation), that they did save the non-Muslims. Furthermore, What he is saying is that England formed India. India isn't a natural construct, hence if we become a powerful nation, it started off with the UK uniting us but of course, its still our hard work. If UK hadn't united us, then neither would we have united nor been reaching our level of success now. Sure, there would be some Indian Kingdoms that would have done well, I am sure the Tamil kingdom, which had largely resisted muslim invaders would have done ok, but not at the level of untied India. Think about it before you write Rajesh's comment off.
RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by Southie on Jan 31, 2007 04:01 AM Permalink
by the way, i disagree with Rajesh's statement that says Britain made us civilized but he is right that they did unite us. If we don't accept the uniting part, we are living in a dream world.
By the way, if it wasn't for British invasion, would we have gotten rid of the caste system at least at a legal level? Probably not, then again, the Muslim invaders would have forced us to so perhaps yes, except we won't have been Hindus. Catch 22 huh
RE:RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by Shravan Kumar on Jan 31, 2007 05:24 AM Permalink
Southie, I don't have a problem if you wanna agree with Rajesh's statement. I still think it is qu"ite illogical. We are making assumptions that if the British didn't rule us...". Two things I think could have happened.. 1) The French might have ruled us...and unified us and taught us French, France is a Developed coutnry like Britain.And French ppl speak English too...and they weren't ruled by the British. 2) If no one ruled us, we would be like the states of America which had to go thru a civil war for unification. And similar there are many possibilities.....
So, there is no basis to say that the British rule did good to us. It would be silly and meaningless to say other wise.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by Nanda Kumar on Jan 31, 2007 10:33 AM Permalink
Sorry Guys. Your assumptions are dangerous.
Japanese , still dont speak english/ either Russian/German.
Did anyone rule Europe to unite them? now they speak as european Union. They got united because of US Threat/to be stronger gobal voice/ fall of USSR - to make bipolar world again.
India is always united my Hindu culture and practises.
We would have not lost punjab and bengal - if we has not ruled my British.
May be we would have been much stronger - Including region from present day afghan to Malaysia into one nations - bigger than china.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by devarajan k on Jan 31, 2007 10:07 AM Permalink
I agree with Southie and Rajesh's statements...the Brits did their damage...but also helped us substantially...infact we are still using 70% of British infrastructure. We also owe it to them for unification. Indians unifying on their own ?? That is a good joke....remember two crabs in the glass jar story..
RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by sarita kulharia on Jan 31, 2007 04:39 PM Permalink
If you read carefully then by the time british came to india muslim power was almost finished. Marathas, Jats, Sikhs, rajputs, dogras and hindu kings in assam had already established themselves in power after replacing muslims. Together they controlled 90% of India. Only in avadh, mysore, andhra and bengal were muslim rulers were in power. Rulers of Mysore, bengal and avadh were more of secular nature. So non-muslims were facing persecution by muslims in andhra (or Hyderabad). The british did nothing to stop the persecution here and non-muslims were persecuted even after independence.
Now with regard to unifying India-- India had more princly states when british left than when they came to India.
It was Sardar Patel who is responsible for unifying India. As regards to your notion of natural construct (or natural country) India is a natural construct. a. In terms of geography: India has natural boundries. Himalayas in north, desert in west, dense forests and hills in east, an ocean in south. These natural barriers have guarded India's frontiers. A large number of invasions (including that of "Mohhomad bin qasim" and "Changez khan" were not as successful as they were elsewhere). b. Religiously: Islam is a recent development. All through centuries Indians shared a common bond of religion. Earlier there was hinduism. When Jainism and budhism became strong, hinduism accepted the core values of these to an extent that budhism and jainism became identical to hinduism. Sages like Gautam and Mahavir Jain were revered by hindus also. In hinduism although there were divisions (like shavites and vashnavites) yet the puranas show that the people following shiv and vishnu were related--(Shiv puran: Shiv says - "I shall not be pleased by those who worship me and not vishnu" and Vishnu puran and Bhagvat Puran: Vishnu says - "I shall not be pleased by those who worship me but not Shiva) c.Philosophicaly: All Indians have the tendency to accept what is best practice irrespective of where it is comming from. This is the root cause that Indian civilisation has survived since time eternal. We are not rigid people and our strength is our flexibility. It is most certain that we would have most certainly accepted machines and industrial revolution even without british). d. Genetically: Aryans had originated from Dravidians and were not a separate race that had come from outside and this has been proved by the mitochondrial DNA studies (Published some time back on rediff). The Aryan invasion theory is crap. All people in Indian subcontinent have same gene pool and have originated from dravidians (I know this might prove a bashing point for some).
Of course we have internal conflicts, but then which country in world does not have internal conflicts. Even brothers have conflicts and that is what we are. Tamilians, Jats, Marathas, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and all the rest -- we are brothers in one nation.
The concept of purity or uniformity of race as being central to a country is absurd. Pakistan is still trying to achieve purity. It is a mirage. People in a nation shall not be uniform in beliefs, actions and behaviours. Otherwise they might well be robots.
Indian concept of nationhood was "unity in diversity", and a unifying relationship based on justice and fairness, "a duty for the mother land" and not to a race religion of caste.
I hope I have made things very clear. Let me say once again: India was, is and shall remain a nation eventhough thousand civilisations like british shall come and go away.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by S Ramanathan on Feb 15, 2007 02:02 AM Permalink
Excellent reply. For me this is the best and well researched contribution here.
RE:Same S, Different Day
by kumar on Jan 31, 2007 10:37 AM Permalink
Nanda Kumar, there are more instance of countries not unifing than unifying. If india would have unified like EU, then it would still be different countries, just some week central powers.
If you want to talk about Malaya, that was run by the Chola. Why would any Chola country that held large swathe of land and was a power in its own right want to unify into present day india.
RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by kumar on Jan 31, 2007 10:47 AM Permalink
by the way, i am not saying India is not a great country. What i am saying is one of hte reasons why we are great is because someone unified us. We still worked hard to keep united. There are, of course, somethings wrong with India, but thats with any country. However, i would like us to be honest (or at least discuss it) that it was UK who united us not something that we did by ourselves. I am sure most people are glad that we are united. Why have 101 small kingdoms when u can have a large country. I dont want you think i am not proud to be indian
RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by kumar on Jan 31, 2007 10:50 AM Permalink
Last thing....if someone like Chandra Bose had united us, do you think we would have stayed united. Remember, CB colluded with the Nazi Germany who believed in Arya supramacy. People like him would have been indebted to Germany and gone onto a mad pogram to wipe out everything that is Dravidian and Eastern Indian and we would have seen more war. I am glad that Chandra Bose didn't succeed because anyone who colludes with the devil is not good in my books and I staunchly believe he would disenfranchised some of the population somehow
RE:RE:RE:RE:Same S, Different Day
by vijay kumar on Feb 07, 2007 12:31 AM Permalink
Mr. Kumar, think before you write, My small advice. British wanted divided India and they tried hard to divide India, even when they are about to leave. Never united it. Please learn this next time.
