Dear Pallavi, while I can´t dispute the atrocities commited by European colonialists in Africa, I don´t think you can throw British colonialism in India into the same basket. Mainly because it originated as a resullt of trading licences granted by the Nawabs of different indian nations do the East India Company, and it took centuries for the licenceees to become ownwers, mainly as a result of Nawab greed. The criminal behaviour of the EIC in the XIX th century prompted a strong reaction in Britain, leading to its liquidation. Would India be a better place today if the british had pulled out from India then ? Food for thought.
I dare say not. I think that today, India is better off thanks to the British Governement becoming inviolved in its development.
Dear Ultano, Thank you (as always) for your comment. Shashi Tharoor (whose wrote this guest post) has answered your question re if India would be a better place today if the Brits had pulled out - in his book "Inglorious Empire." Do read it.
I remember one sentence from the book very clearly "British rule in India was butressed by alcohol,protocol and a lot of gall". This may not be verbatim but is accurate enough.
His way with words is amazing. I could not stop laughing when i read "The Great Indian Novel". A couple of expressions I loved - "the nasty civil serpent" and the decline of the sublime into the subslime". Truly exceptional.
Please, my dear Pallavi do not make yourself the echo of these awful rumors. The slave trade was the monopoly of the Arab traders coming from Mombasa... It took almost 15 years to beat them out of Congo. The abuses committed by some companies (forced labor in the new plantations east of Kinshasa (Leopoldville)) were done without any knowledge of the King. The media scandal started from London that was miffed because the Brits had been unable to gain the Congo Basin for themselves at the Berlin Conferences (1884-86) and were only to happy to point out these abuses, while oblivious of their own war against the Boers and their invention of concentration camps... As soon as Leopold II was appraised of what was going on, he put a stop to it and started caring for the workers. As a matter of fact, laws were enacted and continued after his death (and the passing under the authority of the Belgian government) that were more advanced then than those prevailing in Europe before WWW I. For example: 12 year old kids were working in the mines in Europe at a time where no kid under 16 could work in mining or plantations. Health care, school (where they existed), and housing was free for all natives as for Belgians till the independence day (June 30, 1960). Of course, there was social discrimination and racism: those were the days were social classe were stratified (top staff would never dine or wine with a lowly shopkeeper or underling, and an underling with a "native", as a Brahmine would never with a Harijan)... We live in other times fortunately, but King Leopold II built roads, stopped the tribal killings (and slave trade) etc. He was not the boo man that some "zealous" pseudo-historians want him to be. By the way: it is impossible to "have exterminated at least 10 million people" as the total population of Congo at that time was under 10 million and reached 20 million first by 1960...
Now colonialism was and is a scourge. Look at what Putin wants to do with Ukraine, what the Chinese (and Russians) are doing in all the countries of their 'Belt and Silk Roads" and how they are plundering the treasures of the African countries without paying taxes nor health care, worker working protection etc. We will have to fight against it all the time. Every single colonial power has its hands in blood, but some more than others. The palm goes to the Spaniards in the 16th century. They are the ones who managed to kill 10 million in a few years.
Paradoxically, the only lesson that colonialism brought is that human life has to be respected whatever the social strata, and that peoples have a right to determine their future...
I wish so too: in which country do you live at the moment? (you can reply me at my email: michele.schmiegelow@uclouvain.be). I never approved of colonialism though I grew up there and my father taught me to respect other cultures (it's a long story), but I do not like lies either, neither half-truths.
Dear Pallavi, while I can´t dispute the atrocities commited by European colonialists in Africa, I don´t think you can throw British colonialism in India into the same basket. Mainly because it originated as a resullt of trading licences granted by the Nawabs of different indian nations do the East India Company, and it took centuries for the licenceees to become ownwers, mainly as a result of Nawab greed. The criminal behaviour of the EIC in the XIX th century prompted a strong reaction in Britain, leading to its liquidation. Would India be a better place today if the british had pulled out from India then ? Food for thought.
I dare say not. I think that today, India is better off thanks to the British Governement becoming inviolved in its development.
Dear Ultano, Thank you (as always) for your comment. Shashi Tharoor (whose wrote this guest post) has answered your question re if India would be a better place today if the Brits had pulled out - in his book "Inglorious Empire." Do read it.
re discussions in Berlin about proper acknowledgement of / engagement with what was carried out in SW Africa, there's rarely more than a murmur
both make very sensible points - am ashamed not to have been back to the Africa museum in Tervuren to see how sincere they were with the makeover.
i remember a little bit of discussion in UK media (after the Edward Colston statue was brought down) of whether there should be a museum exposing British colonialism. can't find the links but it was echoed by William Dalrymple as I'm sure readers will know - report here of him speaking in Jaipur https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/16/uk-needs-a-museum-of-colonialism-says-historian-william-dalrymple
Loved this post, clearly such a Museum needs to be created
Loved your post too about the stunning silence on colonialism. Its high time the European nations are sensitised to this.
I remember one sentence from the book very clearly "British rule in India was butressed by alcohol,protocol and a lot of gall". This may not be verbatim but is accurate enough.
That's a really good one!
His way with words is amazing. I could not stop laughing when i read "The Great Indian Novel". A couple of expressions I loved - "the nasty civil serpent" and the decline of the sublime into the subslime". Truly exceptional.
Please, my dear Pallavi do not make yourself the echo of these awful rumors. The slave trade was the monopoly of the Arab traders coming from Mombasa... It took almost 15 years to beat them out of Congo. The abuses committed by some companies (forced labor in the new plantations east of Kinshasa (Leopoldville)) were done without any knowledge of the King. The media scandal started from London that was miffed because the Brits had been unable to gain the Congo Basin for themselves at the Berlin Conferences (1884-86) and were only to happy to point out these abuses, while oblivious of their own war against the Boers and their invention of concentration camps... As soon as Leopold II was appraised of what was going on, he put a stop to it and started caring for the workers. As a matter of fact, laws were enacted and continued after his death (and the passing under the authority of the Belgian government) that were more advanced then than those prevailing in Europe before WWW I. For example: 12 year old kids were working in the mines in Europe at a time where no kid under 16 could work in mining or plantations. Health care, school (where they existed), and housing was free for all natives as for Belgians till the independence day (June 30, 1960). Of course, there was social discrimination and racism: those were the days were social classe were stratified (top staff would never dine or wine with a lowly shopkeeper or underling, and an underling with a "native", as a Brahmine would never with a Harijan)... We live in other times fortunately, but King Leopold II built roads, stopped the tribal killings (and slave trade) etc. He was not the boo man that some "zealous" pseudo-historians want him to be. By the way: it is impossible to "have exterminated at least 10 million people" as the total population of Congo at that time was under 10 million and reached 20 million first by 1960...
Now colonialism was and is a scourge. Look at what Putin wants to do with Ukraine, what the Chinese (and Russians) are doing in all the countries of their 'Belt and Silk Roads" and how they are plundering the treasures of the African countries without paying taxes nor health care, worker working protection etc. We will have to fight against it all the time. Every single colonial power has its hands in blood, but some more than others. The palm goes to the Spaniards in the 16th century. They are the ones who managed to kill 10 million in a few years.
Paradoxically, the only lesson that colonialism brought is that human life has to be respected whatever the social strata, and that peoples have a right to determine their future...
Dear Michele, I hope that we can meet face to face one day, to discuss these matters in greater detail. Thank you for your comment.
I wish so too: in which country do you live at the moment? (you can reply me at my email: michele.schmiegelow@uclouvain.be). I never approved of colonialism though I grew up there and my father taught me to respect other cultures (it's a long story), but I do not like lies either, neither half-truths.