After having read a post on a certain blog recently (for reference click here), I was presented with a topic regarding the attitude of post-colonial societies towards their erstwhile colonisers. Being a Political Science student, the issue obviously enticed me. How could I come across such a topic and not write a thesis or two about what I think.
This is actually quite a trick topic to deal with. Firstly speaking strictly from an Indian perspective, one can identify several schools of thought within the country. One school believes that the British were not bad and in fact complied by the "White-man's burden" and rightfully went about with their "Civilising Mission" and gave India order from chaos and unified India, for technically speaking India did not exist prior to 1947, and earlier was merely a colony or a collection of empires or kingdoms or small princely states. This school chooses not to blame the British, instead point the flaws in the then polity of "India". However, a defining characteristic of this school is that most of its proponents were/are educated in Liberal paradigm of Modernity. However, I don’t choose to completely dismiss this school; for I am a Liberal1 myself.
Another school is dismissive of the British and blame them for all the flaws in the country and how they robbed "us" of everything. In my opinion, this school of thought often tends to skip past the inherent flaws in the Indian people and the existing anarchy during the 19th century and fails not to blame "the other”. The Nationalists as they are offered called are those who truly believe that had India been left alone and not colonised, she would have experienced the coming of modernity within the next few decades. India was well on its way to industrialisation they point out and it was Britain that restrained India from achieving that potential.
And a third school, which is not an official school, is comprised mainly by youngsters. This school has a distinct characteristic of being indifferent to the British. The thing is that the Indian history textbooks are a reflection of the political party in power (as of most countries). And the party in power has used "History" to its political agenda instead of building a national opinion. Therefore, hatred towards the British is not a necessary scheme of affairs to be taught to children. And therefore, a majority of people are quite indifferent to the British. British colonialism is perceived to be more of a fable than an actual bearer or influence on one's present.
Attitude towards British, in India is not looked through the lens of “erstwhile-Coloniser”. Britain is a country. And that is all that it is. I do not imply that there is no amount of “ill-will” against the British. The feeling of nationalism is very much present. But nobody wants to go raid Britain today and make it one of India’s colony. The Indian attitude, then, one notices is quite unique, since not so far away some rather hostile vibes are apparent between Korea and Japan and even China. But I guess, democracy and Congress rule for majority of India’s independence have a major role to play in the making of this attitude. And of course we also have the Non-Aligned Movement2 to thank for the same.
Well that is all I am going to say for now.
Later ^_^
nish
1. Liberal: A product of the Renaissance and the period of Enlightenment. It believes in the principles of “individuality” and “rationality”. Major and early proponents are John Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau.
2. Non-Aligned Movement: The foreign policy adopted by India, and later by several other countries during the Cold War. Through this policy India sought not to formally align itself with either bloc (American or Soviet) and rather maintain sovereignty regarding its position in international matters and the freedom to support whichever side it deems right.
This is actually quite a trick topic to deal with. Firstly speaking strictly from an Indian perspective, one can identify several schools of thought within the country. One school believes that the British were not bad and in fact complied by the "White-man's burden" and rightfully went about with their "Civilising Mission" and gave India order from chaos and unified India, for technically speaking India did not exist prior to 1947, and earlier was merely a colony or a collection of empires or kingdoms or small princely states. This school chooses not to blame the British, instead point the flaws in the then polity of "India". However, a defining characteristic of this school is that most of its proponents were/are educated in Liberal paradigm of Modernity. However, I don’t choose to completely dismiss this school; for I am a Liberal1 myself.
Another school is dismissive of the British and blame them for all the flaws in the country and how they robbed "us" of everything. In my opinion, this school of thought often tends to skip past the inherent flaws in the Indian people and the existing anarchy during the 19th century and fails not to blame "the other”. The Nationalists as they are offered called are those who truly believe that had India been left alone and not colonised, she would have experienced the coming of modernity within the next few decades. India was well on its way to industrialisation they point out and it was Britain that restrained India from achieving that potential.
And a third school, which is not an official school, is comprised mainly by youngsters. This school has a distinct characteristic of being indifferent to the British. The thing is that the Indian history textbooks are a reflection of the political party in power (as of most countries). And the party in power has used "History" to its political agenda instead of building a national opinion. Therefore, hatred towards the British is not a necessary scheme of affairs to be taught to children. And therefore, a majority of people are quite indifferent to the British. British colonialism is perceived to be more of a fable than an actual bearer or influence on one's present.
Attitude towards British, in India is not looked through the lens of “erstwhile-Coloniser”. Britain is a country. And that is all that it is. I do not imply that there is no amount of “ill-will” against the British. The feeling of nationalism is very much present. But nobody wants to go raid Britain today and make it one of India’s colony. The Indian attitude, then, one notices is quite unique, since not so far away some rather hostile vibes are apparent between Korea and Japan and even China. But I guess, democracy and Congress rule for majority of India’s independence have a major role to play in the making of this attitude. And of course we also have the Non-Aligned Movement2 to thank for the same.
Well that is all I am going to say for now.
Later ^_^
nish
1. Liberal: A product of the Renaissance and the period of Enlightenment. It believes in the principles of “individuality” and “rationality”. Major and early proponents are John Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau.
2. Non-Aligned Movement: The foreign policy adopted by India, and later by several other countries during the Cold War. Through this policy India sought not to formally align itself with either bloc (American or Soviet) and rather maintain sovereignty regarding its position in international matters and the freedom to support whichever side it deems right.
Comments
Post a Comment