Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About India and More

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

This thread is a branch from the Feminism and Sexism thread in which Sanjay (a.k.a. zinnat13) and I have been having a discussion about his native country of India. I’m asking Sanjay questions about its politics, its culture, its history, its religions, etc. We’ve been digressing, Sanjay and I, from the topic of feminism and sexism for a few pages now, but now I’d like to get it back on topic. The topic of India, however, I would like to continue on if possible, so I’m branching it off and starting a new thread on it. And it isn’t an exclusive thread, either; anyone can join in.

This tangent started here where I asked the question:

to which Sanjay has graceously began answering a series of questions. I won’t post the entire chain of Q&A, but I’ll post Sanjay’s last response to me so that I can pose my next question to him:

Thank you Sanjay.

I would now like to ask about the influence of the British on India. What was India like before the British colonized your country. What was it like living under British rule? And how has British rule changed India once it left and thereafter? Do you think the British occupation of India has affected Indian perception of what the West is like?

I realize I’m asking questions about things that happened probably before you were born, but if anyone would know the answers, who would know the history of India or people who were there at the time (though might be dead now), it would be someone from India like you.

2

I have been very lucky to have traveled to many countries in the world. I’ve seen amazing places, met many interesting people, learned much and experienced some wonderful adventures. But no other place compares to India. My travels there truly changed my outlook on life, changed the way I think.
The sights, sounds, smells. The people and places, the temples, mountains, jungles, deserts, beaches, rivers and The River (mama Ganga). The food, music, festivals, ambience, chaos and tranquility. Incomparable.

3

Gib,

I need a little bit of time to reply here as i have to reply you in other thread and also in RM and VO too.

with love,
sanjay

4

…an interesting read so far…

5

Gib,

First of all, i am sorry for being so late.

I am not a historian as i am very bad at remembering dates and names, but, i can give you clear perspective about other things.

The famous voyager Vasco-De-Gama discovered a new and shorter sea route from Europe to India around 1500 BCE, and that lead all major European traders to come here. Later, all of these countries tried to gain hold here and established small colonies here. But, they soon eliminated by four majors namely Dutch, Portuguese, French and British. And, later the Dutch and the French were defeated by the British, though the rule of the Portuguese was left merely to some small Islands, which continued and eventually became independent with some years later that rest of India. This struggle between the Europeans happened precisely the same time when there was war going on between France and England in Europe. India became the showcase of that war too.

The British entered in the India as traders in the name of East India Company in the starting of 16th century. At that time, there were only 5-6 major empires in India. The biggest and the most important one was Mugal Dynasty ( Muslim Rule), which ruled the central part of India, and also gave permission to the British to trade in India.

And, by the mid of 17th century, the East India Company defeated their French and Dutch counterparts, and local kings also, and captured almost the all of Indian Territory. The rule of the East India Company continued up to the famous revolt of 1857 and after that, the ownership was transferred to the Queen of England to settle the things, and India became the official colony of the England, which eventually ended in 1947.

That was the brief history of India up to independence.

Now, let us move on to other issues.

When the British came to India, it cannot be said that it was truly a one unite state. Though, it was still united at the level of religion and social practices, but certainly not politically. Religion was dominant and so was the cast divide. Most kings and rulers were lethargic and very much engaged in the luxuries of the life. The general public had no interest in the politics and had no care for who their ruler might be. Their only concern was their family, nothing else. This attitude had been helped Muslim invades in the past to gain rule here and helped British too. The general attitude of masses has not changed much even now.

Economically, India was in a very good condition. Agriculture and trade were the main occupations of the masses. Art and literature was at its peak, but science and technology were not. The development of physical sciences was restrained after 5th century BCE, when Muslim invaders from central Asia started attacking India. At that time, Indian subcontinent was far ahead from other regions in all aspects of life, but it did not add anything significant after that, while other civilizations continued their development. It is said that, at that time, no other region in the world owned that much of gold and wealth as India. And, that that was the precise reason why it was invaded and looted continuously since then.

When Muslims ruled India, their culture infused with Hindu culture. Initially, Muslims did not come here with much numbers. Babar, who founded Muslim rule in India, came here with the army of ten thousand soldiers only. So, most Indian Muslims have Hindu forefathers as initial Muslim rulers converted Hindus into Muslims. But, Muslims integrated with Hindu culture here and that is a rare phenomena.

You would find an Indian Muslim most liberal and tolerant in the world. The reason is that, along with traditional Islam, Sufism has much influence here too. And you would be surprised to know that Hindus use to go and pray to the shrines of Sufi saints in the same way as Muslims do. Let me also tell you that, my guru, about whom I talked in the other thread, is also a Muslim, not Hindu. But, I do not have any issue with that, and not even he has any.

Gib, I gave you brief idea of the state of the society, just before the rule of British. I would try to explain the happenings and the effects of British rule in the next post.

You may ask anything related to above, if you want.

with love,
sanjay

6

Thank you Sanjay. I’ll await your next post.

7

I really hope Sanjay hasn’t forgotten about this thread. I really would like to learn more from him.

8

No, Gib.

Though, i am sorry for the dealy but I do not forget things that easily. Do not confuse my delay with carelessness.

I was again out of the town for last several days and just came back. I would reply tonight.

And, by the way, as i was hoping, my daughter got PPO (parmanent placement order) from Samsung yesterday and would join it after the completion of her B.Tech next year for around 15000 USD per annum. That is the first real good news for our family in last 20 years and so.

with love,
sanjay

9

Gib,

Slowly and steadily, The British spread their roots throughout India. At first, they just beg permission of trade, but, when they see the political condition here, their goal was changed.

The Kings and Rulers of states were not at ease at all. They were continuously challenged by the rebels from outside and even within the clan. This situation was very much favorable for the British. They adopted a very simple but effective formula- Divide and Rule.

So, the British started looking for the next most eligible and influential candidate for the crown in the each state and started supported him with their armory and money, under the condition that the rebel would be the next King but merely a puppet in the hands of them. They got this treaty in written, which helped then a lot in the future.

The weaponry of the British was better than its Indian counterpart and they had the power of money too, so, the balance of power tended to shift in the favor of rebel. Furthermore, after gaining hold of one state, they used its soldiers to gain control of the next state. Thus, their power increased continuously and ultimately they became able to gain control of the whole of Indian Territory by 1750, under the name of East India Company, and even with a handful of original British soldiers.

East India Company ruled India for the next 100 years. After that, the regime was transferred to the Queen of England, which again continued for another century. They exploited the wealth and the resources here as much as they can, but, knowingly or unknowingly, they did some huge favors to India too.

First of all, they unified all the small states of India under one name. Secondly, they created the initial infrastructure here. Thirdly, they brought the latest technology here and lastly, they provided modern and scientific education to the general public as they opened many universities. During the British days, it was a thumb rule for all rich families to send their sons to England for education. This practice helped India to some extent in governing issues before and after the independence.

The British rule faced first real challenge in 1857 when first revolt was spread out and that cost lives of many British solilders and administrators, but it failed, because it was not a unified and planned effort, but rather localized in nature, so, the East India Company regained control. But, all this did not go unnoticed and the Queen had to interfere in the matter and established formal British rule and India came under the Union Jack.

Mean while the Indian national Congress was formed which ultimately lead the peaceful struggle of independence under the leadership of Mahatma (saint) Gandhi. A new era had been begun.

Gib, you may ask anything particular if you want. Otherwise, i would continue.

With love,
sanjay

10

No, please continue.

11

Interesting read.

12

Gib,

It would be unfair of me if I ignore the independent struggle and some important personalities involved in it.

All that happened in the first half of 19th century. Basically, there were two forces behind that motion. One was extremist, who believed that any mean which can throw the British out of the India is valid, even if it includes violence. The second way was innovated and adopted by the Gandhi, the peaceful protest and non-cooperation moment.

The extremists were not united in their effort, but still affective. They used to rob British arms and money and sometimes kill them too. Some of those made a blast in the British Assembly in the London too.

But, the Congress was far more organized in its effort. Gandhi became the nucleus of it and the rest moved around him. His concept of peaceful non- cooperation moment was very well accepted by the masses and gave a lot of trouble to the British too. He simply asked people to disengage with the British and all their things, like stop paying taxes, not to sell anything to them, discard all English goods like clothes and other consumer durables etc. He asked Indians to become self-reliant.

He also used the very old Hindu concept of Fasting as Hunger Strike. This motivated people very much and caused trouble to the British. Even within the Congress, there were two streams, Right wingers and liberals. Right wingers were of the opinion of drawing the British to the uncomfortable zone, while liberals want to settle the things via dialogue only.

Gandhi was himself a liberal and very much against any use of violence and his ideology was dominant in Congress. Right wingers were in minority and headed by Bose. Bose was very much against for sending Indian soldiers to fight in the world war under the British army, but Gandhi did not listened to him. As the result, Bose left the Congress and formed his own army of Indian soldiers with the help of Japanese and Hitler and fought with British Army in the North-East front and tasted some success too. But, his untimely death in a plane accident curbed the military option.

Except Gandhi, there were some other prominent leaders in the Congress, who deserve mentioning as they influenced India quite a bit later, namely Nehru, who became the first prime minister of the India, Zinna, who became the first prime minister of the Pakistan, and Patel, who became the first home minister of the India.

Before going for other persons, let me say a few words about Gandhi. He was truly a charismatic leader with a huge mass appeal, which is almost unparallel in the history of India at least, if not the world. People were ready to put even their lives on the stake on his call. He was simple, dedicated and honest. And, always spoke the truth and never used violence, no matter what may be the consequences.

This looks a simple thing but very hard to live by. I do not think that now any one would be able to follow that. He kept himself away from all the glamour and even refused to take any portfolio in administration in independent India. He wore only wooden sandels in his feet and just a self made piece of cloth around his body. The important thing to notice is that, he used to knit yarn himself from the cotton for his needs and also asked other to do the same. He was not in the favor of much industrialization and conceived village as a cornerstone of the governance and economy. His emphasis was to make village a self-sustained body and not dependent on big cities, though his ideology was not much followed later as Nehru adopted industrial development.

There is no doubt that he was the most influential person in the history of modern India, and rightly called the Father of the Nation too, yet, he made some mistakes too. The basic flaw in his character was that he was somewhat egomaniacal in his nature. This is to say that he was not open to review his ideas and perceptions, even if those are not yielding desired results.

Firstly, he opposed even a slight hint of violence in the independence struggle. The British would have been easily succumbed at the time of world wars as they cannot afford any fight here, because all their forces were engaged elsewhere. On the contrary, he offered British the help of Indian soldiers and gave them moral support too. Had he supported the Bose at that time, India would have been independent much earlier and even far bigger demographically too, as is evident from the picture below-

At that time, some neighboring countries like Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar were considered a part of British Indian Empire.

Despite the mistake of supporting the British in the world war, Gandhi made one more very serious error that changed the history of the India, and that was his blind favor for Nehru. This was the main reason of the partition of India and Pakistan.

Like Gandhi, Nehru was also very popular with the masses, but was not that noble intent wise. He belonged to a very rich family and his whole education was done in England. He was a very ambitious and egoistic person and had all the habits which an elite could had. But, very carefully, he kept his public image very appealing. The same was the story of the Zinna, the founder of the Pakistan.

The partition of the Erstwhile India into two different countries was really the tussle between Nehru and Zinna. Contrary to the general perception, Zinna was very liberal Muslim, who never went to any mosque in his whole life to offer prayers. Both of them wanted to become the prime minister, but Gandhi favored Nehru. Though, there was a time, when Zinna agreed for Patel as a PM, and himself and Nehru as a vice PMs, but, Gandhi wanted Nehru to be the PM at any cost.

Then, Zinna had no option but to play the religious card and put the theory of two nations forth. The whole of the congress and Gandhi himself were against it, but it created that much of bloodshed that they had no other option but to accept it. Thus, the Pakistan was formed on the religious lines, but India remained secular, and that difference is still very much evident even after 67 years.

with love,
sanjay

13

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that if Gandhi supported the creation of India’s own independent army (under Bose) to go fight alongside the British, India would have been independent sooner? How so? Are you saying that the formation of an Indian army would have given India a more militaristic angle with which to fight for independence (i.e. with violence)?

14

Yes.

Bose was already up there with the Indian Rebel Army with far more than merely some enthusiastic people, which was formed mostly from those soldiers, who quitted British Indian Army and Police and other Paramilitary forces. It was founded just in a way in which an army of the country should be done, with only one aim to liberate the India.

Had Gandhi also given a call to the masses to join the Bose, given the context of the world war, being in minority, British soldiers were in no position to defend themselves. But, Gandhi was stick to his concept of non-violence, though he allowed Indian soldiers to fight under the Union Jack in world wars. Why he did not simply ask Indian soldiers to non-cooperate British Army, in the same way he asked to the masses for other issues?

Actually, in later years, Gandhi went against Bose when he (Bose) was again elected president of Congress defeating the candidate preferred by Gandhi. Gandhi became annoyed and threatened to quit politics and congress was heading towards the split. Bose did not meant that so he quit congress and moved on towards his military agenda.

Gib, when the stakes are as high as the whole future of the country, then there should be no place for individual preferences. Gandhi made the same mistake many times. He was not open to criticism at all. All those, who had any differences of opinion with either him or Nehru, were either had to leave or kept aside. Nehru understood this weakness of Gandhi from the word go and never confronted him and kept himself in the good books of Gandhi throughout, while other did not and paid the price. That is why Nehru fought his way to the top riding on the shoulders of Gandhi; otherwise there were many other more suitable candidates for the post of first prime minister other than Nehru, especially Patel.

Having said that, the contribution of Gandhi in the independence struggle is still unparallel. But, his social and political ideology was completely overturned by his most preferred man (Nehru), after he (Gandhi) was shot dead by an right wing extremist Hindu, who hold Gandhi responsible for all the bloodshed and partition of the India also.

with love,
sanjay

15

Yes, that is confusing, but do you not suppose that there was an even broader agenda that Gandhi had in mind in fighting for independence peacefully? If he had fought the British militarily during the last stretch of the revolution, he would never have given the world an example of how a fight for independence could be won peacefully. Now the whole world knows that it can be done.

16

You still there, Sanjay? :slight_smile:

17

They make some great chicken curry.

18

Gib,

I am extremely sorry for the delay.

I am in the midst of very adverse but challenging circumstances which are consuming my whole attention. It would change the course of my life forever either way. But, i have been played my cards and cannot withdraw now irrespective of the result. It is now or never for me and i do not want to prolong it anymore.

Furthermore, it is also a real test of all that learned and earned in last 25 years or so. let me see whether i can cross that threshold or not.

I would come up as soon as either i would get some free time and mind or all this would be over.

Wait for me.

with love,
sanjay

19

Geez, Sanjay, I hope everything’s all right. Well, whatever it is, my hope and prayers go with you.

20

Luckily got some time.

Thanks.

Gib,

There is absolutely no harm in perusing any cause peacefully. It is far better option than violence but violence means violence, irrespective of whom it is enforced upon. That is the point that is missing in the ideology of Gandhi. Though he was non-violent but it does not mean that the violence does not happen at all. On the contrary, millions of Indians died in independent struggle by the British and that partition happened that just after the independence. So, it is a misperception that a fight for the independence was won peacefully.

Let me put it in a different way.

Say there is insane killer having a gun and going to kill some people and you have the means and chance to stop him. So, what should be the order of the preferences?

The first preference is to ask and convince him not to kill anyone. But, what if he does not agree? The second preference is to disarm him by force to avoid many people being killed. The third preference is to put himself between him and others even if it harm or kill you. But, what should be the preference if even your sacrifice is not going to serve any purpose? What if he is still going to shoot others even after shooting you?

In that case the only logical preference is to shoot the killer to minimize the violence.

So, sometimes a little bit of violence may be in virtue if it can avoid bigger violence. And, in the same way, a non-violent procedure may not serve the real purpose all the time.

Let us keep the ultimate goal in the mind and focus on that, not on the mean by which it is going to achieved. Focus on the intent behind the action, not merely on the action itself.

There a very old saying in the Hindu mythology – Ati sarvatra vajaytey. It is in Sanskrit, which can be translated as – Excess of everything is bad. And, it applies everywhere, even if the case of virtue.

Furthermore, there is another second aspect of adopting a strict peaceful struggle, which is ignored.

I agree completely that the first preference should be to demonstrate peacefully to get your voice heard. But, it can serve the purpose if the opposite party is ready to follow the same route, more or less. But, what if they have no hesitation in replying by batons and bullets? Violence is happening in anyway. The only difference is that it is affecting only one side; the peaceful demonstrators. Does the violence on the independent strugglers was not the violence? So, why even letting that happen? If he was so strict in his ideology, then why he asked Indian soldiers to fight in the world war under the flag of the British?

Given the support that Gandhi had in the masses, had he asked them to be bit more offensive in fighting the British, they (British) would not able to rule the India even a day. British were in thousands while Indians in millions. He missed the opportunity and remained stick to his ideology and that gave them enough time to doctor the partition of the India, which ultimately created such a huge violence which is unparallel in the history of the India.

So, which was the less violent route?

Gib, there is no denying that violence is bad. Of course, it is. But, let us see the complete picture, not merely from the one side. Sometimes, a little bit of violence can curb the bigger violence.

It is almost the same issue as we discussed in other thread; liberty and welfare. The real purpose is welfare, not liberty. In the same way, the real goal is welfare or less violence, not by which mean it would come. If you have to shoot a killer to save many lives, so be it.

And, the only mistake that repeated many times was not listening anyone else. He was very rigid in his approach, whether it was about ideology or his liking for the persons and not ready to adjust according to the circumstances. His non-cooperation movement and peaceful struggle was very well accepted by the public because it is easy to adopt by an ordinary man and a large portion of the Indians were mobilized by these things into the independent struggle. But, he went too far ahead with this and that cost the country dearly in many ways.

Furthermore, it also a myth that it is only the peaceful struggle that make India independent as there were many other factors also those played their part like the world war, the extraordinary size and population of the India and the extremists too but people remember Gandhi only while many others like Bose are left unsung. But, this does not mitigate the effect of peaceful struggle.

There may be many such extreme circumstances where a peaceful struggle would not be fruitful. Would Jews be able to stop Hitler from genocide by a peaceful movement? Or, would Vietnamese ever be able to defeat US forces by merely a peaceful struggle? No, simply because that the opposite party was not playing the game by the same rules.

There is no doubt that Gandhi was simple living, sincere, honest and dedicated. He never spoke a lie and even did not ask any personal favor in his whole life. it is a rarity to find so many positive qualities in a single man. But, it is also a fact that like all of us, he had shortcomings and made mistakes in his life too. After all, he was also a human like anyone else, though far better than many of us.

with love,
sanjay