The ghost of Rudyard Kipling lives on in neocolonialist blog Arma Virumque (thanks, Saheli and many others):
… this third-world feminist of color should get down on her knees and thank Siva that her country was the beneficiary of British colonialism. Without it, she would never have heard of feminism or even of the third world, since the very concept depends upon the freedom, education, and language that the West brought to savages [sic] countries in the 18th and 19th centuries. India is such an economic powerhouse today because of the legacy bequeathed by her former colonial rulers… everywhere that Britain went–I cannot think of a single exception–it left better off.
The right-wing blog Power Line chimes in:
It’s great to see someone standing up for colonialism, especially British colonialism.
The author, Roger Kimball, picks the wrong deity and only gets lamer from there. This hapless duffer who calls himself an American patriot is arguing against American independence, which happened precisely because the crown raped its colonies and kept its boot upon the throat of political freedom. And in crediting the Brits with everything, despite their focus on their own economic interests, he falls prey to the classic fallacy of correlation vs. causation. It’s the one made famous by animism and sports superstition: ‘I wore a cap one day, I won, therefore my cap caused the victory.’
For Kimball to give the Brits all credit requires projecting an artificial stasis in India for 200 years. If you flash-freeze hundreds of millions of people and put them into deep hibernation for two centuries, that they’ll end up relatively poor is a tautology. You have to project India along the political, developmental and educational trajectories of similar regions not under colonial rule. Otherwise you’re reduced to a bogus argument: that absent the British, India would never have built a railroad, regional highways, river ports or seaports. Even the smallest and poorest of nations have managed that, if for no other reason than the economic interests of their kleptocrats.
Absent Ford, someone still would have popularized the automobile. Absent Microsoft, someone still would have popularized an operating system. And absent the British, India still would have had transport.
Indeed, Indians built infrastructure during the Raj using their own laborers and their own capital. The London Jagannath stole vast amounts of capital and raw material; you’d add that massive attack back into the model. Getting elites bootstrapped on English turned out serendipitous because of the unexpected success of a 13-state British colony that roared. But in most other areas of development, the thievery was a net hindrance.
If the British sinned, it was not because of their colonial rule, but because of the failure of nerve that led them to withdraw too precipitously… Had Britain had the courage to face down Gandhi and his rabble a few years longer, the tragedy that was the partititon [sic] of India might have been avoided.
‘Had Britain had the courage to face down Washington, the tragedy that was the Civil War might have been avoided.’ Kimball doesn’t grasp even the basics of history: Britain intentionally divided colonies upon retreat to keep them warring and pliable, and Gandhi was the one against Partition. Divide and rule was the basis of British strategy both coming and going. So where does this argument come from? What modern-day situation could possibly motivate conservatives to argue against withdrawing rapidly from an invaded country? Thinking… thinking… wait, it’ll come to me…
I wonder when these neocolonialists will welcome a Chinese invasion of the U.S. mainland so they can bequeath to us their bullet trains, their high-tech factories and their shiny new cities. I wonder when neocolonialists will send their kids to elite schools in Beijing to learn Mandarin, the dominant language of the 21st century, and look down on English speakers as natives with sawdust for brains. I wonder when neocolonialists will say, ‘If tens of millions are killed under Chinese rule, so be it, it’s for the national good. Who knows how backward we’d be had the Chinese not developed us.’
Regarding the neocolonialists’ swish style, their fetish for festooning themselves in Latin names (Arma Virumque) and Greek classics (Victor Hanson) is hilarious because they don’t want anything to do with swarthy people today. Like the Victorian-era German intellectuals obsessed with the Upanishads and the Vedas, they want the patina of classicism to rub off on them from a safe distance.
Kipling’s own paternalistic wet dream, his quasi-religious self-absolution as his countrymen were murdering unarmed civilians, starving peasants, stealing money to build London’s banks and generally sucking the country dry, went something like this:
Take up the White Man’s burden…
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child…
Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
“Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”
Sepia Mutiny: reporting controversy a week after it happens 😉
See also: Crooked Timber, Obsidian Wings, Digby, Majikthise, India Uncut, LGM, Geomblog, Vegacura, Apostropher, Grammar.police, Catalyst, Ed Cone, Catching Flies, Cinematic Rain, Atrios
Still fighting a losing battle for the Tories: ADC, Logical Meme
Update: Zoo Station has some very interesting comments.
Update 2: Grammar.police says:
… [Kimball is] sampling on the dependent variable… one might suggest that the British immediately be persuaded to conquer the entire world, given all the benefits that subjugation to the queen confers; applying his thesis along another axis, one might suggest world domination by both the Nazis and Soviets as well, since many if not all the countries formerly conquered by these Empires are doing very well today… Following the time variable backward, in fact, it’s hard to come up with a single historical instance of brute imperialism that hasn’t made the world a better place!
Oh Manish, of all the things I wrote on that comment, that’s the one you pick up on? You don’t want to engage with any of the other points I made? Not one?
Fine – it was a stupid thing to say.
What famines are you referring to here?
Amartya Sen: “…in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look”
“Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine, which I witnessed as a child, was in 1943, four years before independence), they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press.”
And for Gautam and his bad monsoon theoryÂ…
Famines are often associated with what look like natural disasters, and commentators often settle for the simplicity of explaining famines by pointing to these events: the floods in China during the failed Great Leap Forward, the droughts in Ethiopia, or crop failures in North Korea. Nevertheless, many countries with similar natural problems, or even worse ones, manage perfectly well, because a responsive government intervenes to help alleviate hunger.
tef – I am mistaken, thanks for correcting me.
MD,
As far as as speculation goes, what follows below is an non-historian “speculating”.
In the 1870’s Dadabhai Naoroji, later twice President of the Indian National Congress, estimated that Britain was bleeding India at the rate of three to four million pounds per year. Or was it thirty to forty million? I need to check on that. Anyway let’s stick with the lesser amounts for now. Average those to 3.5 million pounds per year. Assume that that sum was constant from 1857 to 1947. Assume further that the British looted a paltry 1 million pounds per annum from 1767 to 1856. Assume a 7.875% rate of annual interest compounded yearly. That must be a good rate because that is what I’m paying through the initial years on the adjustable-rate mortgage on my house. Then we calculate
On the basis of the current populations of India (946 million), Pakistan (140 million), and Bangladesh (119 million), unless we wish to make this a class action, India’s share is 409 trillion pounds. That would give every Indian 400,000 pounds. And even after that disbursement there would still be about 31 trillion pounds left
source: http://www.kahany.com
Ok, I’m totally confused. This is what I get for commenting without checking whether my recollections are accurate or not (not, in this case, thanks tef). You guys out there who study this stuff: what counts as a famine? I mean, what is the generally used definition for famine, food shortages, starvation?
I found this reference from the Journal of Asian Studies: The Political Uses of Crisis: The Bihar famine of 1966-67, Paul R. Brass, 45/2 (1986), plus references to other ‘state’ famines in India in the 1970s (but the site is a Hindu charity site, so I won’t link to it because I’m unsure whether it is really a political site or not?)
Once again, totally confused. Saurav, you study a lot of the colonial period – do you know?
Jeez tef, I already said it was a stupid comment, Manish’s point made that clear.
I guess I was just trying to say that none of us can really say would have happened in an alternate scenario, but you guys are right, of course things would have been better without the raj. Don’t need some formula for that.
Didn’t you guys read the rest of my comment? That, in the end, you are talking about one set of people trying to rule another, which is just plain wrong?
Sorry, MD, my specific knowledge is restricted to desi nationalism in about 1907 (during 1st partition of bengal) and my broader knowledge doesn’t cover what you’re asking. In place of anything else, in the absence of other info (please do provide the link…i can filter out whatever randomness there is in the analysis), I would go with Amartya Sen because he’s my hero 🙂
However, what I would say is that I take Amartya Sen’s broader point as the same as your’s–that government’s with accountability mechanisms are more likely to be responsive to people’s needs–like starving to death–whereas governments without them (e.g. North Korea is an extreme example). You can make an argument that the Indian government, while democratic, is not as fully accountable to its populace as it ought to be because it’s overcentralized.
You have to look at the context in which this is being done. Gautam has a right to say whatever he wants and I don’t disagree with some of the points that he made. However, given that his jumping off point was “Kimball’s argument has some validity. I wouldn’t say that I endorse it in its entirety but it does hold rather well” and he later argues that “I consider myself a staunch Hindu Nationalist but I don’t have any serious grudges against thw British because its irrelevant now”, I find his line of argument offensive and verging on sophistry.
BTW, although most of what I found objectionable was directed at him, there were a couple of points I included by other people.
Sorry, my second comment was posted before I saw your gracious response to my first. Sorry : ))
Thanks Saurav – no, I wouldn’t give Kimball’s argument any validity. I thought it a silly response to a silly e-mail when I first read it, and it doesn’t improve with time in my eyes.
Here is a site that discusses the definitions of famine, including the Bihar famine, which followed the failure of monsoons
Here
The site is interesting: it states that most famines have multifactorial causes, often following natural disaster, exacerbated my man-made causes/decisions like war, poor policies, etc.
So, when I stated that the policies of Indira Gandhi had caused famines, I am wrong, wrong, wrong, couldn’t be more wrong. Apologies. Don’t know why I thought I read that somewhere, but it’s a lesson in learning not to throw around ‘facts’ when you don’t know what the heck you are talking about.
No, you need the Neocortex for sophistry. He’s not that evolved, he’s only got the one Reptilian complex in his brain.
Here is a reason why I said what I said about CATO institute. Bill Moyers (my favourite on TV) had a program called N.O.W. on PBS that he (Moyers) had to leave under pressure from the right wing extremists.
The thing that pissed them off are such things of REAL JOURNALISM as a story on Koch Industries and the way they are buying influence. (BTW, they are bankrolling the “libertarian” CATO people)
To me, Bill Moyer’s forced exit was the definitive sign of the death of free press in America. From now on, it’s just propaganda, not journalism.
Apparently the republicans in charge of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting arm-twisted PBS to cut short NOW from 1 hr to 30 min and give that time to a bag-full-of-sh%^ called Tucker Carlson.
Here’s a link that has specific discussion of the Bihar famine in the context of Amartya Sen’s ideas on famines. I don’t know anything about the author or other measures of how reliable and in good faith this work is, but it’s an interesting read.
Saurav the article you linked to tries to undermine Sen’s thesis that a famine cannot occur in a democratic nation. The paper’s length (about 10 pages) made me skeptical but I was put at unease. So I looked elsewhere to confirm and the author’s claim doesn’t seem all that credible to me.
The author relies on a survey by S. K. Singh, which suggests that the mortality rate in Bihar from July 1966-July 1967 was 16.8%, while a year later it dropped to 10.3%. If these stats are true, the numbers are pretty significant, but at the same time that is a pretty big drop in just a year’s time…might suggest the government’s efficacy in dealing with the problem, and the ability of democratic visibility to alleviate widespread starvation…(maybe).
But its moot because elsewhere Singh’s survey has been discredited as not matching up with Indian government registration statistics, which show no real change before/during/after that time period. A lot of this article is not viewable for free, but the “Appendix 1. 1: Mortality in Bihar, 1966-1967” link shows the disparity between the two statistical sources.
Turns out that the government of India has been known, even credited (!) (click on “1.1 Introduction”) for staving off famines despite the prevalence of abject poverty, and at times, drought conditions.
So some credit should be given to the government, Indira Gandhi included….although another source suggests that due to the situation’s visibility, outside philanthropic sources had a huge part in picking up where the government left off. Not surprisingly, some government officials were pretty callous to the situation. But this source just highlights Sen’s point…democracy breeds visibility, and visibility to starvation often leads to external assistance…sometimes from the government, sometimes not.
vurdlife – I think some of the problem with these differing sources is the different way researchers are defining famine, and not just the sources they are using. How much of a rise in mortality counts as a famine? Is the rise in mortality directly attributable to food shortages, or to natural disease associated with say, a natural disaster, or some combination of the two? Does mass hunger count as famine, and how do we define mass hunger?
It’s funny, I would have thought famine would be an easy thing to define….still, as both you and Saurav have stated, democracy is the superior form of goverment in dealing with such situations which is Sen’s point after all.
I agree with MD (I think). Without commenting on the reliability of the primary sources the author used, I think this article is dealing with the nuances of the thesis rather than trying to undermine it–i.e. what particular features of accountable government and how equitable resource/power distribution needs to be to avert famines (and how you define famines). This is the relevant passage from the conclusion for me:
Leftism is for losers
is that why most successful european economies are based on socialist goals with their free healthcare and what not?
That’s a very specious argument. It’s easy for you to say that the success of the european economies are due to their socialist goals, while totally ignoring all the other factors that go into making an economy successful, and it’s equally easy for me to point out the numerous socialist economies (the Soviet Union and the eastern european socialist countries) that have collapsed while singing paeans of socialism. While we are at it, I could also point out China which has had enormous economic success after it embraced capitalism while maintaining a veneer of socialism. You need better logic to disprove the idea that ‘leftism is for losers’.
China has a “veneer” of socialism? No France has a veneer of socialism. Sweden has a veneer of socialism. China is knee high in totalitarianism. And it is economically successful.
But adithemopur does make a good point. Here are the top 10 countries according to the UNDP’s Human development index, a measure of quality of life:
1 Norway 0.956 2 Sweden 0.946 3 Australia 0.946 4 Canada 0.943 5 Netherlands 0.942 6 Belgium 0.942 7 Iceland 0.941 8 United States 0.939 9 Japan 0.938 10 Ireland 0.936
Most are run by relative “Leftists”.
Cuba is at 52, ahead of stalwarts of Rightist neo-capitalism like Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Colombia, and Haiti.
Your boy China is holding it down at #94.
Although this is a well quoted source, I’ve always had trouble comparing the United States with other nations in this list. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Canada, etc. do not have the same population as the United States.
I’ve always thought that for developed European countries and other similar nations with small or homogenous populations, elements of socialist policy would work.
Taking a look at that list, the USA and Japan are the only ones that have significantly large populations. Even though Canada is a diverse country, its developed nation status coupled with vast natural resources and small population gives it the ability to maintain certain social programs effectively.
The population density of USA is 29, compared to 3.2 for Canada (source). UK with a density of 299, and a similar standard of living is able to maintain social programs just fine, so there’s surely more to it than just population.
You are correct, I did not mean to state that population is the only factor. However, just looking at the top 10 there, it is something that stands out.
Each country has something different tailored to meet its needs and requirements. UK’s overall population of 60 million is about double that of Canada’s 32 million, but still less than our approximate 300 million.
Even with the disparity between Canada’s and GB’s population and denisty, certain social programs seem to work (with their own pros and cons).
However, my concern was not density as much as the overall population. The more people brought into the fold under a centralized system, seems that it becomes harder for current socialist models to function efficiently. I believe people from Great Britain are the pioneers in getting treatments in India since their wait lists are long and treatments inexpensive. This is an increasingly popular trend.
this is in response to a comment upstream by gautam: We need to move beyond it. We will be among the big boys soon. We already have nuclear weapons (more than 200 and I hope they build a much much bigger stock pile and stick them on missiles that could hit any nation on earth).
drink the RSS kool-aid much? In order to move past our colonial histroy, we have to understand what happened in those 200 years. We won our freedom based on a non-violent struggle. no one said continuing that way would be easy. Gandhi and his idealistic dreams were both tragically destroyed by a frenzied religious fundamentalist/nationalist movement that has in the last ~60 years caused so much damage. both the major parties are to blame, starting with the dreadful Indira Gandhi for blowing that first nuke and now with the damn BJP building up an arsenal.
we could have been, as a nation, a champion of peace and unity. instead we have been reduced to a dumping ground for the crap jobs of the west, telling their stupid how to fix their cheap-shit computers that were probably assembled in neighbouring china where the dreams of everyman are being crushed to this day.
i think the world has had enough of the nuclear detente, and i would rather as a country india not further the ability of the human race to eff itself in the a.
mutually assured destruction is not a virtue, regardless of what recycled 1950’s american propaganda would have you believe
mr Gdude, here is a series of articles ummarizing the status of various healthcare programs around the social-democratic world.
also, in the US with its huge population, Social Security(which is slightly socialist) has worked quite well and is projected to continue workingfor a significant time with minor adjustments, despite the brouhaha raised by the current administration on the other hand we have medicare, an ugly compromise with the free-marketeers/corporatocracy that has resulted in much hardship for the citizens of US.
btw anil, the problem with your argument of course is that you point to (stalinist/leninist/maoist)Communist dictatorships, as opposed to socialist(post-bretton woods-type) democracies that i was talking about.that does not seem to me a fair comparison in any way unless you buy into the right-wing gibberish equating the two. in which case, i have a purely capitalist bridge that i built across the river kwai that you might want to purchase at a low low rate
Why don’t you amalgamate them and compare to the EU then (which has a population of about 400 million)? You could compare the individual countries in the EU to states within the UNited States and get a better sense, if population is the factor of so much concern to you.
BTW, there’s a fairly compelling historical argument that welfare states developed not because of “socialism” or “capitalism” but in places with more centralized states (e.g. Germany under the Kaiser). This makes sense if you live in the U.S., because you can see the national institutions (designed to prevent or slow any kind of change) have consistently thwarted the creation of a national health care system that most Americans would probably end up supporting (the way they support Social Security) were the government set up more equitably (i.e. if 200,000 people in Montana didn’t have the same power in the Senate as 25 million in California, or however many it is).
Not entirely. Don’t dismiss the role that the Extremists (like Aurobindo Ghosh, etc.) at the turn of the century and others who were more militant played in scaring the British and pushing the overall Independence movement to be a little more radical (e.g. actually asking for independence). Good cop, bad cop, and all.
Saurav: As an exercise, I compiled some information on the EU states. Comparing them to the United States would be a bit difficult off the top, couldnt find any credible sources in a quick search, so I compared the EU states to themselves based on population and ranking of their livability to see how they stack up as their population increased.
The top countries in the ranking from the EU:
Sweden #2 in rank, approx 2 percent of population Netherlands #5 in rank, approx 3.5 percent of pop. Belgium #6 in rank, approx. 2.5 percent of pop. Ireland #10 in rank, approx. .5 percent of pop.
The big boys of the EU (almost 75% of the EU population = 340 million) are as follows:
Germany #19, 18% of pop. France # 16, 13% of pop UK # 12, 13% of pop Italy #21, 12.5 % of pop Spain #20, 9.25% of pop Poland #37, 8.4% of pop.
Poland is a newcomer to the group and can be disregarded Even then, you can see all the western European countries that constitute the bulk of the EU are further down the list (UK is is a better spot). As a group, they fall behind the United States.
Rest of the EU countries fall further down the list also.
Gujudude, this is interesting, and I see some of your point based on this data alone (for the purposes of a blog conversation at least:)
btw, i would leave germany off that list as well given that if poland counts as a newcomer, germany ought to as well. And therein you get into the question of placing weight on factors like homogeneity of population, level of militarization (or aspirations toward geopolitical power), structure of government, history, and others that I can’t think of right now which have more specificity–imo a better approach to evaluating whether governments/societies are doing all they can to promote quality of life.
Take this list of 2001 HDI for the EU states, new members, and prospectives:
Sweden 0.941 Netherlands 0.938 Belgium 0.937 United Kingdom 0.930 Luxembourg 0.930 Ireland 0.930 Finland 0.930 Denmark 0.930 Austria 0.929 France 0.925 Germany 0.921 Spain 0.918 Italy 0.916 Portugal 0.896 Greece 0.892 Cyprus 0.891 Slovenia 0.881 Czech Republic 0.861 Malta 0.856 Poland 0.841 Hungary 0.837 Slovakia 0.836
If you look at this, you see the countries at the top have not attempted to be great powers for a long while. After Denmark, the countries are the primary participants in WW II, graduallyin blending in with countries that have were subjected to undemocratic rule (Spain, Portugal(?), Greece for decades after as you go further down the list and then you get to the countries that were in the Warsaw Bloc. The UK is an outlier.
To me, this is tells us more than population discrepancies, although, again, I take your point and think it probably is an underlying factor for some of these other issues.
saurav, that is why i said ‘based on’. i agree that the innumerable extremists, from the mutiny that this blog derives its name from to aurobindo to bhagat singh and upto netaji all played a role in sending the british down gandhi’s way. he was also well aware of it, despite the fact that he despised violent methods. however, the most significant portion of the freedom struggle, the one that gave it direction instead of being random acts of violence against the giant bureaucracy of the british, was the non-violent movement headed at least symbolically by Gandhi.
adithemopur, i understand what you’re saying now that you’ve clarified. i initially wrote because I don’t like letting the glorified “non-violent tactics and moderation solved everything by themselves” go without pointing out that the situation wasn’t that simple (for example, from what I’ve read, the INC bears some responsibility for the overcentralized and elitist state that resulted after independence in India). I’m not saying that was your intention–just that that’s how it struck me when I first read your comment.
Some comments back ‘WhoMe’ asked : Its neither surprising or upsetting to see some stuffy racist British prick try to put a positive spin on the “Raj”, its the ignorant desis who actually buy into it that I don’t get.
I think this article praising McCaulay shows how prominent people still think in India.
i apologize if i came across as purely glorifying non-violence. i shall definitely try to be more precise with my words in the future.
IIRC, Gandhi was strongly in favour of dismantling the INC ASAP after independence, but that idea too was taken to the grave with him.
And therein you get into the question of placing weight on factors like homogeneity of population, level of militarization (or aspirations toward geopolitical power), structure of government, history, and others that I can’t think of right now which have more specificity–imo a better approach to evaluating whether governments/societies are doing all they can to promote quality of life.
-Agreed.
wow, i dont know if anyone actually reads these but i was doing a project where i have to argue agaisnt the racial and radical ideas of imperialism of the famous poem “the white man’s burden”. what i discovered was horrible.you, yes you who wrote this article, you are a facious racist and did you know your extremely hurtful words are ILLEGAL. well technically, they aren’t, but im glad you can’t speak them in public-or you would get arrersted.how do you look at yourself in the mirror?-thinking that white men are the better of mankind? i think that punjabi boy was right. im going to grow up and fight against people like you in court someday 🙂