I know Priyamvada Gopal slightly from Cornell, and I’m always happy to read something she’s written. A recent editorial she published on neoconservative imperial historians in the Guardian provides lots of food for thought. I think she makes some important points about the current conservative fad for praising British imperialism, but I wanted to supply some quotes from Niall Ferguson’s book Empire that might challenge some of Gopal’s assertions. My own goal is to use this discussion as a learning opportunity, rather than a chance to throw around more polemical language; there’s been quite enough of that as it is.
(Incidentally, there are quite a number of intelligent comments in respone to Gopal’s essay at the Guardian site linked to above [check out especially the the comments by “Sikanderji”], as well as a lively discussion at Pickled Politics.)Let’s start with Gopal’s substantive, factual claims:
More famines were recorded in the first century of the British Raj than in the previous 2,000 years, including 17-20 million deaths from 1896 to 1900 alone. While a million Indians a year died from avoidable famines, taxation subsidising colonial wars, and relief often deliberately denied as surplus grain was shipped to England.
Tolerance? The British empire reinforced strict ethnic/religious identities and governed through these divisions. As with the partition of India when 10 million were displaced, arbitrarily drawn boundaries between “tribes” in Africa resulted in massive displacement and bloodshed. Freedom and fair play? In Kenya, a handful of white settlers appropriated 12,000 square miles and pushed 1.25 million native Kikuyus to 2,000 restricted square miles. Resistance was brutally crushed through internment in detention camps, torture and massacres. Some 50,000 Kikuyus were massacred and 300,000 interned to put down the Mau Mau rebellion by peasants who wanted to farm their own land. A thousand peaceful protesters were killed in the Amritsar massacre of 1919. (link)
One thought I have in response to this is to point out that Empire operated differently from place to place, and any discussion of its possible benefits ought to take that into account. I beleive the British Raj in India did have some benefits along with its many negatives, but it’s hard to say that the British presence in Africa, from the Slave trade up through formal colonization in the 1870s, had very many positive effects at all. India entered independence in relatively good shape, and largely adopted the British industrial and legal infrastructure when it established a new state; the African states, by contrast, had far less to work with. Also, it’s worth noting that most of the bloodier incidents in the history of the British empire actually took place outside of India (the massacre at Amritsar, while bad, is not of the same order as the suppression of the Mau Mau that Gopal mentions).
Secondly, I have my doubts about blaming the British for the Partition of India, though I concede I am not an expert on the nitty-gritties of that process. Third, “Sikanderji” has some interesting comments on the question of famines and the Indian textile industry:
A few other points: 1) The British regime was the first to make some comprehensive attempt at famine prevention in India, by vastly extending irrigation networks and building railways lines to famine-prone areas, as well as introducing famine codes in most provinces (though not, tragically, in Bengal). The historical record is insufficiently complete for any historian to be able to compare the levels of famine under the British with those under preceding regimes, but it is extremely unlikely to have been higher, given that by the latter half of the 19th century it had at least become possible to move grain and rice to areas stricken by shortage from areas of surplus using the railways. 2) India’s textile industry would have been destroyed with or without British rule, as it was largely export driven, and could not compete with industrial production in Lancashire, which would have taken over its exports anyway. India did eventually industrialise from the 1880s onwards, and the nationalist grievance is that protection of the industry through tariffs did not happen until the 1890s. (link)
I do not know whether all this is correct, and I’m willing to be educated by readers who know the details about the famines and the Indian textile industry (especially ones who come armed with links to actual facts!).
But since this debate concerns Niall Ferguson, I would encourage people participating in this debate to actually go read his book Empire. It’s true that he tells the history of Empire from the British side, but there is really an impressive amount of knowledge on display in the book. Here is a passage from Ferguson’s book specifically on the question of the effect of the British presence on India’s economy. It addresses some of Gopal’s points:
[E]ven Curzon once admitted that British rule ‘may be good for us; but it is neither equally, nor altogether, good for them.’ Indian nationalist agreed wholeheartedly, complaining that the wealth of India was being drained into the pockets of foreigners. In fact, we now know that this drain — the colonial burden as measured by the trade surplus of the colony — amounted to little more than 1 per cent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930. That was a lot less than the Dutch ‘drained’ from their Indonesian empire, which amounted to between 7 and 10 per cent of Indonesian net domestic produce in the same period.
And on the other side of the balance sheet were the immense British investments in Indian infrastructure, irrigation and industry. By the 1880s the British had invested &270 million in India, not much less than one-fifth of their entire investment overseas. By 1914 the figure had reached &400 million. The British increased the area of irrigated land by a factor of eight, so that by the end of the Raj a quarter of all land was irrigated, compared with just 5 per cent of it under the Mughals. They created an Indian coal industry from scratch which by 1914 produced nearly 16 million tons a year. They increased the number of jute spindles by a factor of ten. There were also marked improvements in public health, which increased the Indian average life expectancy by eleven years. It was the British who introduced quinine as an anti-malarial prophylactic, carried out public programmes of vaccination against smallpox — often in the face of local resistance — and laboured to improve the urban water supplies that were so often the bearers of cholera and other diseases. . . .
True, the average Indian had not got much richer under British rule. Between 1757 British per capita gross domestic product increased in real terms by 347 per cent, Indian by a mere 14 per cent. (from Ferguson’s Empire, 215-216)
After enumerating these economic benefits of Empire in India, Ferguson does go on acknowledge the role of the indentured laborers, as well as the bad British economic policies that exacerbated the famines of 1876-8 and 1899-1900. All in all, a fairly balanced picture. It’s not exactly the story Marxists want to hear, and it’s certainly not quite as bad as what Gopal describes Ferguson doing (“Colonialism–a tale of slavery, plunder, war, corruption, land-grabbing, famines, exploitation, indentured labour, impoverishment, massacres, genocide and forced resettlement–is rewritten into a benign developmental mission marred by a few unfortunate accidents and excesses.”).
I quote Ferguson here not to exonerate him for the kinds of things he said on the radio during the recent BBC interview (which I haven’t heard), nor for other comments he’s made along the way. In fact, I agree with many of Gopal’s criticisms of the smug, celebratory version of Imperial history that is currently in vogue in some circles. But Ferguson’s actual book on the subject of Empire is generally more learned than smug; it’s also well-written and decently documented. I’d rather discuss historical facts and maybe learn a thing or two than simply re-declare that Imperialism was bad, or continue on in the endless bloggy “bartering of positions” that the blogger Rage recently lamented. Once we get past blanket generalizations, the history of the British Empire is both fascinating and thoroughly complex.
I think one way you might have misunderstood me is what arena we are dealing in. I don’t claim to be nearly so learned as all you folks, with youre wide-encompassing world views. I am only myself, and for that reason, extensive intellectual debates are probably wasted on me. I am not seeking some deep seated knowledge about the dynamics of colonial India. I’m interested in how brown people, like myself, are viewed and reacted to in normal, modern western society where I live. I’m interested in what the average person in America (or europe I guess) thinks of India and Indian history, and the way it’s presented in pop culture and mainsteam media. I know that there are many people who understand brown people much better than I do, apparently some white people know more about what it is to be brown than us brown people, or at least that’s what I was told by my professors I’ve already been to college and heard all the bullshit about how complex every issue under the sun is and how there is no such thing as absolute knowledge or morality etc. I know there are many white people who spend their whole lives documenting the atrocities of white people, and really feel bad about it. I don’t care. If can tell me in all honesty that the general perception of the British occupation of India is in line with a realistic appraisal of the colonial dynamic, then I will stop writing on here. Because obviously nothing is being accomplished.
And is the genocide of Native Americans really that focused on, outside of hyper-liberal universities? Because I went to public school in Michigan, and we never heard anything about it until some prof. at Cornell launched into a polemic against Andrew Jackson. It’s very glossed over in most popular depictions of american history, usually the indigenous people are pigeonholed and exoitcized for their ancient practices and love for nature, but always with the implication that they somehow faded away because they were unable to cope, and not because they were systematically destroyed using false treaties and biological warfare. Sound familiar? Reminds me, with some variation, of the manner that the Raj is treated (they “prepared us for deomcracy” ) Sorry. I don’t buy it.
Dark Knight:
Things like this are judgment calls. But I think equating colonialism with the holocaust is a bit of a stretch. For example, it’s been often noted that GandhiÂ’s methodology would never work against Hitler, b/c he could not appeal to any inherent liberal leanings. By not recognizing these leanings w/i the British I think you’re doing a disservice to the brilliance of Gandhi and Nehru and to the many Indians who cheered the Raj as it left.
I know how you feel. I’m often frustrated by how Communism is still respected while Nazism is Taboo, despite pol pot, the Cultural Revolution, the Ukrainian famine, etc. But Communism is still not Fascism since it was born out of a sense of idealism. Even w/i communism, Castro is not PolPot. there are distinctions. Likewise, Mussolini could be reasoned with, Hitler could not.
In todayÂ’s world, we have to recognize that musharraf is a bastard, but he’s not Saddam, or kim jong, or Ahmadinejad. It’s possible to keep a moral compass while recognizing distinctions between various tyrannies. Think of the cold war, which was like making sausage. I know nuance like this makes people look like hypocrites, but rest assured, every one here think colonialism is a bad thing, as amardeep has repeatedly pointed out.
I don’t doubt that all the brown people on here think colonialism was bad. I would seriously worry if someone still doubted that. My point is, western people and Indians alike don’t seem to realize how bad. The numerous atrocities, the codes of behavior, the poor treatment of the diaspora is not given nearly as much emphasis as the “legacy” that was left behind in the form of some buildings and an antiquated legal system that is poorly suited for the subcontinent. Also, the lingering roles of British involvement in Caste politics, partition, stoking the Hindu-Muslim hatred, and deeply indoctrinating the educated Indian class with a sense of western superiority is hardly discussed outside the highest circles of thinkers in India and the West. Even more, India is continuously criticized for corruption, political instability etc. that are mostly the legacy of post-emancipation poltics of a national unification that would have hardly occurred so late or taken the same shape (several different countries perhaps, which might have been better) had the British not oppressed the whole continent so thoroughly that they all decided they were better off at each other’s throats than under the thumb of the British. Maybe I should go get that PhD so I can write with an agenda and pass it off as “scholarship” like all the academics referenced above. Doesn’t anyone one here agree with Gopal?
But that’s an entirely different issue. The popular understanding of anything is inevitably disconnected from what really happened. 50% of Americans think the Bible is literally true, and that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11.
I just read your post on this. I’m sorry you think my positions are “contemptible,” especially since the only strong positions I took in this post were, “Niall Ferguson’s book is worth a read” and “the history of imperialism is complex.”
not referring to just this issue, but many in which I’ve noticed your leanings towards the “no one should ever be blamed for anything, it’s all too complex” school of thought. Unless Hindu nationalists are involved. In which case all bets are off.
For a good but scathing review of Niall Fergusion’s book see Vivek Chibber’s “The Good Empire” in the Boston Review, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/chibber.html.
Amardeep:
So are you then asserting that you and your scholarly buddies are somehow finding “truth”? Does that mean that either Gopal or Ferguson is telling us “what really happened”? Or are they just more dressed up, more researched versions of the same thing: a viewpoint that they are trying to perpetuate. I agree with Gopal’s because of her side of the issue, is a “brown” persepective, which I like. I never claimed that hers was “true” but only that hers is the view I expected rational brown people to hold. I understand that many people would find fault both with this viewpoint as well as my use of the word “rational”, but I never doubted that Ferguson’s view was equally justifiable, from the perspective of a white person and representing the same Western culture that first propogated colonialism. You really are the quintessential academic, why are you so quick to dismiss the importance of educating the general public? Isn’t that far more important and ambitious a goal than pandering to a tiny set of already indoctrinated self-important intellectuals? It seems to me that changing widespread public misconceptions about Indian history would be more effective than debating sticking points with the other revisionists.
It’s simple, really. If Germany had won the war, the world would view the holocaust – which would be called something else – the same way that it views imperialism today – something distasteful, but necessary for the larger good. In fact, that is exactly how it was sold to the Christian Germans and that is why there was no great opposition from the general population. The violence and brutality involved in suppressing and killing large numbers of people can be buried without a trace if those who did the killing have the resources and leisure to do so at their own pace. The Germans did not. The British did.
It’s quite amazing what indoctrination can do to a population. Just look at some of the comments over here, not to mention the original post.
I see where you’re coming from Dark Knight. You remind me of myself in college. I was part of the anti-apartheid movement and one of my clever friends asked me how I could call apartheid immoral if there was no objective standard of morality. Not to mention how I could condemn Reagan’s characterization of the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire” (when everyone knew they just had “different values”) while simultaneously saying essentially the same thing about S. Africa.
Ever think about the conundrum that the mere fact your positing gopalÂ’s perspective as the “brown perspective” means you are coming from a “white perspective.” I mean, you read Foucault right? Think about it.
Duh:
–
If it’s so simple, why does Communism get a pass? Or why is Slavery or Aparthied considered an unspeakable crime?
I don’t think communism got any passes. Where I grew up, it’s about the worst thing you could be. On the other hand, most people don’t know what Apartheid was anymore. And no, I don’t consider myself coming from the “whtie perspective”. I find the very notion laughable. Unlike seemingly half the people on this website, I was raised by educated, politically aware and artistically inclined parents who taught me to be proud of being brown and ignore the bigots and idiots around me. We were raised knowing that Indian culture was the equal of any other, but economic opportunity was not possible as long as the license Raj was in place and the medical system was dependent on connections rather than quality. I realize I come from a more privileged background than is normal, but unlike most Indian elites, my parents understood that being Indian was not a stereotype but something worth celebrating. They never tried to piegonhole us into any career or marriage or any of the other negatives that I find you guys constantly complaining about. And we hung out with an Indian circle of similarly cosmopolitan people, both in India and michigan. The only narrow-mindedness, ignorance and political apathy I saw growing up was from the white people around me. Minorities are educated in the school of reality by necessity; only the majority have the luxury of naivete.
point being, there are some indian people that have always held the views I am holding. I am not some “ABCD” who is taking offense at things that “real indians” do not care about. most of my views come from my grandparents, who all lived in India and experienced the events we all just talk about. Now my grandmothers were a lawyer and a doctor respectively, and my grandfather a high court judge, so I realize that this is not typical. but just because you not might be exposed to the vast, indignant coalition of anti-British educated Indian people from previous generations does not mean they don’t exist.
You grew up in a more sophisticated place than London, New York, or Boston.
Really?
In your zeal to position those you disagree w/ as having a “white perspective” have you neglected to look at what cultural tradition your own assumptions come from. I sense a strong strand of western relativism, No? Not that it makes it wrong. “Proud to be brown;” you say. What are the real origins of this phrase?
Considering the deep influence of Mughal-derived Islamic mores and social customs/attitudes in India right down to the village level, especially amongst the “higher” castes (the legacy still exists today to some extent), I would have to politely but strongly disagree.
Anyway, slightly off-topic. Carry on.
So let me get this straight. The British conquered India to give them famine prevention? and build them roads?
I know Amardeep mentioned in his post that the book is from a British perspective, but I want to underline that and point out that all history is with a point of view.
I say brown becuase that is term that is in vogue. i could say I was raised to be proud of being who I am, which is a Tamil/Andhra/Punjabi Hindu from Madras. At any rate, your assumption that any type of nationalist sentiment or racial pride is automatically a “western” mind set is pretty ridiculous. Does that mean that the BJP is from a “western” mindset and the Congress are somehow “Indian”? You comments seem to get more patronizing, Manju. Maybe you shouln’t assume you know anything about me personaly, because you obviously do not.
And I didn’t imply that the place I grew up (michigan) was in any way more sophisticated than London or New York. Quite the opposite; among intellectuals and the upperclass, Communism was in style during various points during the 20th century. American writers used to hold meetings where they praised Castro and Lenin, even people I respect like Maya Angelous and James Baldwin were involved. On the other hand, most regular americans, the ones that had to fight the wars and listen to the government propoganda, were raised to fear Commies like Nazis. For a crude, but funny a relevant example, see Red on “That ’70s Show”. His attitude reflects my friends’ Dads and my high school teachers’ views on Commies pretty accurately
It was even lesser than what was ‘drained’ from Africa, which amounted to 50-60 per cent of South African net domestic produce. So? Point is – illogical comparison – first point out the difference between Indian and Indonesian domestic produce and then compare them.
How much was schiffoned of from others in the first place? British were in those contries for the long haul. Thus, the investment was not for those countries per se, but for their own long term interests – I’m sure half of it went in creating the Delhi parliament house and surrounding areas!
So is the case with Indian railways, introduced by the British – not for India but to easily transport the loot.
Cheap labor, nothing more.
That’s not what I’m saying. Obviously, racial/nationalist pride is a primitive instinct inherent in all societies.
But the perspectival view of truth (“Ferguson’s view was equally justifiable, from the perspective of a white person”) is clearly a product of the western intellectual tradition. So when someone like you tries to dismiss a point of view as “white” while simultaneously using the “white” tradition of relativism (“I never claimed that hers was “true” but only that hers is the view I expected rational brown people to hold”) and multiculturalism to do so, I like to point out the contradiction.
My predecessors have already addressed all the difficult issues. I will stick to the simple. 1. How ironical that a debate on British colonization rages on a site called Sepia Mutiny. I did not read any postmortem of, or even a reference to, the infamous Sepoy Mutiny, either. 2. I know three ex-British colonies initimately. India has been well covered here. Hong Kong was British colonization at its best in that it was totally hands-off. Even the English language is a rarity in the forever Chinese Hong Kong. 3. Trinidad was India-lite. The same system but on a smaller, simpler scale. Surprisingly, in a country of one million strong, there was no dissent, no anti-British movement. The empire left simply because it was time to leave. 4. I liked Amardeep’s retort to Arundhati Roy’s remark that analyzing the pros and cons of colonization is like analyzing the pros and cons of rape. That woman has uttered so many inanities on so many different subjects that she reminds me of Jesse Jackson – a counter balance at best, a rabble rouser at worst, but never a person you could trust.
Now I am going to get myself a “chota peg” before my “tiffin.”
…and so we get to the meat of the matter. Am I the only one here who’s noticed that were arguing with each other in [dun dun dun] English?
Am I the only one here who’s noticed that were arguing with each other in [dun dun dun] English?
you can’t tear down the master’s house unless you use the master’s tools….
Floridian, we talked about the Mutiny earlier in the week.
And “a more original name”, the Authenticity Police only operates in England and the US, where it has been born and raised. So naturally the name-calling is conducted in English only!
Dark Knight, You are so off, I don’t even know where to begin. If Priya Gopal had half of Amardeep’s patience and poise, not to mention ability to READ texts, she would be someone to respect. But she is usually too busy ranting and getting hysterical. Nothing gets more attention than a hysterical brown woman calling other people names. And wow, Cornell certainly did a number on you.
Amardeep, I disagree with this formulation that you made: “The beneficiaries of the sharecropping system were, by and large, former slaveholders and their descendents. The “beneficiaries” of partition were the formerly colonized. I think agency has to mainly go to the Indians — Jinnah (and co.), Gandhi/Nehru (and co.), and Savarkar (and co.).” I think this is deeply oversympathetic to a very simplified notion of what Independence meant. There was a transfer of the state apparatus from the British to an Indian upper class and a number of other changes, but that doesn’t mean that there was any substantive or immediate improvement in mass democracy in the sense of actually having policies that reflect the popular will.
I could definitely be wrong in this analysis, but this is what I currently believe.
On the second point you make:
I agree that the census wasn’t the only thing–I was presenting it as part of a system of indoctrination and political and cultural development among the populace through tools like the census, the introduction of “Western education” (and consequently anthropological and racial theories), the dismissal of prior ideas as a normative step, etc. So I would include your “introduction of European ideas about the definition of religion” as very much what I’m talking about.
You go Dark Knight!! The mutiny needs you. The rubbish people say under the guise of being “fair and balanced” leaves the same sick taste as those other famous fair and balanced loonies. Go get that Ph.D while Amardeep keeps busy trying to pass Sikandarji off as a pandit and his ilk applaud his “poise and patience”!!
True..
Not true.. One man / one vote democracy has really been succesful in India.. Power has been gradually transferred to all the sections of the society.. Independence movement has mostly been led by Congress dominated by upper caste Hindus, (many with good ideals).. I was trying to compare the caste composition of the leaders of that generation with who we have now.. Ambedkar / Jagjivan ram were there but not as powerful as the modern day Mayawati / Yadavs / various southern leaders.. There were definite improvements over the last 60 years in a lot of areas..
Mike Davis’s Late Victorian Holocausts is a mine of data about the British government’s negligence during the El Nino famines of the late 19th century; its also has quite a bit of data on the decline of the Indian economy under British rule.
Here is Amartya Sen’s review.
Ponniyin–sorry, I should have clarified that I meant in the near-term (i.e. in terms of my analogy of the act of independence vs. the act of reclassifying the American slaves as free).
Wow, you’re not an atheist anymore?…
Firstly, great post Amardeep, and I think it’s very important that you really took a look at both sides of the argument. This is really hard to do when you know you might have someone accuse you of pulling a BrownSahib on us, and I really think it’s necessary to have an honest and open discussion about empire and colonisation without descending into polemics. There’s always a place for passion, but it’s good to have reason too.
Yes, people like DarkKnight, I think there is nothing more disgusting than Neocon/Neo-Nazi fads for imperialism, colonisation and genocide sugar coated and repackaged as history.
…except it’s just as yucky to see unquestioning glorification of one’s own culture done by extremist factions within the ‘oppressed’ themselves, to the point where everything is celebrated ‘cos it’s ‘authentic’, including internally-caused injustices like creating and manipulating the caste system, conducting pogroms against minority groups, and cultural practices that violate people’s basic human rights.
Listening to people go on blindly about the glories of everything about Indian civilisation gives me my SpoorLam withdrawal symptoms. If people have got to resort to that old trick, then calling out white people for sugarcoating their own history looks like the pot calling the kettle black.
Wow, you’re not an atheist anymore?…
of course i’m an atheist! i’m just no longer with the same cookie 🙂 remember, atheism is the null hypothesis!
77 · TheMutinyNeedsFreshBlood on July 2, 2006 07:50 AM · Direct link
You go Dark Knight!! The mutiny needs you.
alas, the goths are at the gates.
Taashie- I agree it is important to look at both sides of an argument. Except when one decides to throw common sense out the window. Sort of like inviting the flat-earthers to a conference on the solar system just so we can have both sides of the issue. WeÂ’ve been inundated with one side of the story for centuries to an extent that none of the postcolonial and postmodern studies really makes a visible dent.
Rather gratuitously you drag in the caste system to underscore your point, as if anyone ever glorified the injustices associated with it. This is the reverse of the brown sahib ploy you denounce. The caste factor is liberally used to shut up those that happen to belong to castes. What’s worse is that your stance does not take into consideration that on paper at least India has bent over backwards to get rid of these injustices. At this point in time, itÂ’s only the rich arm-chair intellectuals who put up a one-sided fight against the caste system without making any attempt to understand it better. The poor cling to their caste and do not want to dispense with it. This phenomenon needs to be seriously studied. But those who take up the task of questioning the received wisdom on caste would probably be dismissed by you as “unquestioning” glorifiers. All of this is simply to point out that you refute your own point about not accepting things unquestioningly.
This is mostly off-topic and I do not want to continue a discussion on the caste-system or pograms. But if you make a claim that it is important to look at both sides of an issue, broadly speaking, you are simply stating the obvious. It would be helpful to show how it applies to this particular example where people have disputed this claim. You have not done that but have rather distastefully dragged in the eternally useful trump card – the caste system (and pograms).
Divya,
I think Tashie was just using the caste system as a random example. To my understanding, her point was that many Indians are also guilty of unquestioningly glorifying Indian “culture” en masse, including various negative traditions, cultural practices and attitudes, along with making self-serving rationalisations and excuses for these negative behaviours.
The same principle would also apply to people wishing to make excuses for the British Empire (and the Mughal Empire, for that matter) by drawing attention to the perceived benefits of these historical institutions, of course, regardless of the unethical and unjust basis for these Empires in the first place.
I’m not going to go into too much detail here regarding my own thoughts on the topic, in the interests of not wishing to repeat myself — anyone wishing to hear my views can read the handful of posts I submitted on the related Pickled Politics thread referenced by Amardeep in his main article at the top of this page.
This is exactly what Bill O’Reilly does on his show. He purports to represent “both sides” of issues, sometimes which have only one side. Such as Global Warming. The purported attempt of represnt both sides is in such cases, an excuse to mask the shortcomings of their argument (or their denial that their argument is flat out false). Stephen Colbert did a great satirical thing, by saying, the jury is still out .. and ..agree to disagree ..john about Global warming.
The truth is not always “somewhere in the middle” but preety far on one side.
In my opinion that guy, Lennon (I dont know the first name) ws great. I think he was the quickest amongst all players on the pitch at any given time of that match. Also I think England was playing better than Portugal for the most part. Thats why I felt bad when England lost. Besides it sucks so much to lose in penalties.
Portugal will be easily defeated in the semis.
OOps wrong thread
Jai –
Many on this board would lump me in with the Indians you talk about. As a matter of fact I do see benefits in the caste system. This does not mean I am blind to the injustice of it. But my point was that the caste system is equal to the Nazi analogy. It is used once too often, in effect to simply shut hindus up since such a morally reprehensible society cannot possibly have anything going for it. Most of what gets labeled hindutva is simply a backlash to this type of thinking, imo.
As for your earlier post about not being convinced that the mughal rule largely had an urban influence, I’m going to try and google this. Of course, the Mughals did tax the villages through the local hindu kings, but not in a systematic way like the Brits who had the entire country worked out in grids. George Everest, in honor of whom the mountain is named, was the Surveryor General who undertook this task and there has never been such a detailed survey ever since. At least in the mountains we still use the British survey. A benefit of the empire? I don’t think so because it doesn’t do much for the locals at this point in time.
Divya,
I will let Tashie respond to your statements about the caste system, as she was the person who originally mentioned it. However, I do not think commenting on the negative aspects of caste necessarily implies a simultaneous condemnation of a society or a religion as “worthless” in its entirety.
Regarding the influence of the Mughals, I was referring to the impact on social attitudes and cultural practices. I have no idea how much exposure you have had to north Indian villages, or people whose parents/grandparents are from such places, but several centuries of Islamic rule has indeed left a lasting impact on the mores of people originating from these villages. Whether this occurred through direct interaction with the Muslim “ruling class” or via the trickle-down effect (Hindu aristocracy emulating Islamically-derived practices, which the rest of the community subsequently adopt) probably depends on the specific location and the specific family.
Jai:
I think you have a valid point, but (and we’ve discussed this before) I still wonder if pre-muslim village society in northern India might not have had many of the conservative social elements that you attribute to the muslim influence. Do you think Rajputs in the pre-muslim era had a lot of freedom for their women? Brahmins? Vedic society itself may have been quite conservative, and ‘patriarchic’. An analogy would be Pakhtun (Pathan) society…some scholars say that even before becoming muslim, they were culturally very similar to how they are today, in terms of treatment of women, and the basic ‘pakhtunwali’ (the code they live by). Islam happened to be a good fit for their pre-exisiting culture and mind-set and they adopted it readily. As opposed to say Malaysia or Indonesia, where the original culture was quite different from Islamic mores and had to be modified and parts of it abandoned entirely in order to become muslim (a process that is still occuring).
Which is not to say there was not a profound Muslim influence as well…my mother remembers that when she was a girl, whenever the girls in her family were driven in their car, the curtains on the car windows would always be drawn. Quite a few Hindu families also adopted the practice of purdah. These are clearly Islamic practices. No doubt the 1000 years of Muslim rule did change and modify society a lot. But there are some really remote and deep villages in northern India, far from centers of Mughal power, and they still display that typical conservatism.
I understand what you’re saying about the extent to which cultures adapt preexisting traditions vs. adopting new ones wholesale (though it’s arguable how much of the latter ever occurs) and there may be some core set of notions that make up “Islam.” However, I still think it’s problematic to argue that societies that become predominantly Muslim are gradually moving towards some essential Islam. The interpretations of how Islam and politics should intersect have differed over the centuries and what you’re looking at today are many different varieties of how that plays out, just as there have been many different varieties in the past.
And of course we haven’t gotten in to the many kinds of Islam 🙂
Jai – I mostly agree. I was looking at it more from the economic perspective. It’s likely that due to the taxation policies there was a breakdown of the support structure and patrongage of arts and education which flourished prior to muslim rule. It’s hard to imagine that a miniscule percentage of the population could otherwise impose their customs on the masses. But a collapse of indigenous culture through lack of funding would probably have had regressive consequences.
Amitabh,
I’m sure we’ve discussed all this previously on Sikhnet, or at least you’ve been an observer on similar threads there which I may have participated in 😉
I’m certainly not going to buy any claims that Hindu society was a paradise before our uninvited friends from the northwest came along. However, to answer your specific questions about Rajput society, women definitely did not veil their faces in front of men outside their immediate family, and they were also free to choose their own husbands (the “Swayamvar” ceremony was still used during the time of Prithviraj Chauhan). As to how patriarchal and conservative pre-Islamic north Indian society was (I won’t use the term “Vedic” because I’m not sure if it’s applicable here — the country had already passed through a massive Buddhist phase before the Rajputs rose to power), it’s very difficult to say; pre-Islamic Indian historical records are comparatively sparse, although I’m not going to accept the propaganda in some quarters about the “Laws of Manu” etc (you can sometimes see this on Sikhnet) considering that the existence of such teachings doesn’t mean they were necessarily widely followed in all/most of India, at least by the 11th/12th centuries.
We’re talking about a span of about 1000 years between the first major Islamic influx and the present day. Indian society has also been through an absolutely huge transformational phase due to the Delhi Sultanate and (especially) the Mughal period, with the associated Middle Eastern influence. We’re looking at this through the prism of a millenium’s gap (not so easy to accurately and objectively do). Pathan society may have been closer to (their interpretation of) Islamic mores which they adopted (or, perhaps more accurately, had imposed on them), but that doesn’t necessarily mean the rest of subcontinental society was. Again, it’s very difficult to say; all we can do is assess whatever historical records exist, along with what we know of Hindu religious teachings at the time which Indians presumably followed to some degree or another (and comparing it to Islamic teachings and trying to correlate them to the customs and attitudes of Indians in regions which we know were significantly within the “sphere of influence” of Muslim rulers, either directly or “by proxy” via Hindu royalty/aristocrats who themselves were vassals of/subservient to the Muslim aristocracy). In the case of the former, there are detailed accounts by foreign travellers to India both before and during the Islamic/Mughal period, and their observations on the seismic shifts in customs and general way of life make quite eye-opening reading. For example, one of the last chapters in Abraham Eraly’s “The Mughal Throne” goes into quite extensive detail in this regard.
For the record (I know I don’t need to tell you this, but it’s worth clarifying for the sake of other SM participants anyway) I have no interest in blaming Muslims (especially the historical variety) for all of India’s ills and social shortcomings; however, for the sake of veracity and accuracy, I do think it is necessary to politely disagree with factually-incorrect statements claiming that the Mughal/Islamic influence on the ideas, ways of thinking, and general behavior of Indians outside urban areas was “minimal”.
Divya,
It is entirely possible for this to happen indirectly if the intermediaries, ie. the Hindu aristocracy, adopt these customs themselves, which are subsequently emulated by various sections of the rest of Hindu society further down the social heirarchy.
In other cases it’s probably going to depend on how much interaction the Hindu families/castes/groups had with Muslims (socially, politically, via trade etc) and whether adopting the associated customs would have had some benefit for them. Also, people often aspire to be like those in positions of power and influence, and since the dominant groups happened to be Muslim, then it’s not surprising if very large numbers of Hindus in northern India also adopted these social customs and general attitudes.
A modern-day version of this is the global influence — and adoption of — American culture, although there are of course often other reasons too (greater freedom for women, for example).
These are clearly Islamic practices.
this was in reference to purdah, but many muslims will offer that these were elite persian & byzantine traditions adopted by the hellenized ummayyads during the early caliphal periods. i just bring this up to offer that these complicated issues must be addressed with an open and sincere heart. many people here have that, and so the dialogue is very fruitful, but some do not and unfortunately less is not more 🙁
as for miniscule numbers, 30% of south asians are now muslims. if you assume a 1% defection rate per generation from hinduism to islam, 25 years per generation, you get 35 generations or 875 years to hit 30% muslim within south asia (assuming constant rates of growth, etc., which are not correct).
as for saurav’s point about ‘essentializing’ islam, well, i’m on record as a nominalist when it comes to religion. but, it seems to be social consensus in a globalized era, where local ummah have a sense of worldwide islamic consenses, is resulting in a rather unitary religious ‘orthodoxy.’ i don’t believe that islam is easily derivable for texts or traditions, but i do believe that people who do believe such can agree upon a consensus by simply making sure they are going with the herd.
But that was the age of the bullock-cart. Most people lived and died within a 50 mile radius. American culture has the benefit of television (and your point about emulating the powerful).
Divya,
There are actually statistics available for the percentage of muslims at the time. The trusty Brits must have figured it all out. I remember hearing the figure 10% thrown around at the time of Independece. So the Mughal period must have had half that(5%), even if you balance it out for the areas of heavy concentration. Sounds like a miniscule percentage to me.