- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 14,139
- Likes
- 8,594
So this N.S.Sarila, a British toady almost his entire life, writes about his speculations and becomes an unimpeachable source of the question of Pakistan. That is the weight of evidence now?
US-Iran pact could give India big gains
- Thread starter happy
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
@Messiah,
A brilliant find that analysis the reason for the Partition so vividly.
And what came to pass is what the British wanted, wherein the maintained an influence on the sub continent.
Thanks.
I have saved it on my computer!
A brilliant find that analysis the reason for the Partition so vividly.
And what came to pass is what the British wanted, wherein the maintained an influence on the sub continent.
Thanks.
I have saved it on my computer!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
The British were past masters in comprehending what contributed to the global geostrategic construct and ensuring its accurate application to further British national interests.
The British did not leave India because of any altruistic reason. The WW II had completely exhausted them and the growing belligerence of the Indian public opinion towards the British Raj apparently was making holding onto India cost prohibitive. True, they could have reaped a rich harvest from India's mineral wealth, as they had historically done to foist the Britain and its Empire, but there was the danger of the military getting restive. The Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 as also the fact that the Indian National Army, made up of ex British Indian Army personnel had charged up a romantic patriotic aura amongst the Indian populace, and further repression could also affect the Indian Army, if not the officers, at least the rank and file. Britain, obviously, could not have a repeat of the 1857 incident since the British Indian Army was well trained and was combat experienced.
Churchill was known to have an animus towards the USSR and Communism. It served the British geostrategy to confine USSR to its known borders. Likewise, WW I accentuated the importance of petrol and diesel to engine the world economy and the military. Therefore, the necessity to keep the Middle East with the ambit of UK's sphere of influence did not escape the British imperialist vision.
To the effect of brining these oil producing areas under the supervision of western powers, the League of Nations brought them under their Mandate. The Official Journal of the League of Nations, dated June 1922, contained a statement by Lord Balfour (UK) in which he explained that the League's authority was strictly limited. The article related that the 'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League.'
Interestingly, the Class A Mandate territories of Palestine and Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia, formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone . The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." In other words, as was seen, was controlled by the Nations that were supervising the Mandate. Palestine, Trans Jordan and Mesopotamia were under British jurisdiction and Syria, to include Lebanon under the French.
Fast forwarding to the current, it will be noticed that Syria and Lebanon has been stable as independent nations (notwithstanding, the modern geostrategic compulsions caused by the advent of the Colour Revolutions), while those of the British have been wracked by turmoil. The British in their archetypical Machiavellian diplomacy under Balfour Agreement caused the horrendous war stricken Palestinian Question, kept firmly under the grip the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and also ensured a divide in Iraq since it made Kuwait a Protectorate of Britain. It maybe noted that Kuwait was formed by the Bani Utbah tribe who gradually migrated in the early eighteenth century from Basra or Najd to the shores of the Persian Gulf. These settlers established the town and port of Guraine and called it Kuwait ("little fort," from kut, "fort") and were prominent in Basra's trade market and owned over 300 ships involved in trade. It maybe noted that Kuwait was part of the Ottoman Empire and was governed by Basra.
Iraq is actually composed of
Mosul Province
Baghdad Province
Basra Province
So, since Kuwait was controlled by the Basra Province, it gives credence to the claim that it is a part of Iraq. But the crafty British, with a long term Game plan brought in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the British concurred with the Ottoman Empire in defining Kuwait as an autonomous caza of the Ottoman Empire and that the Shaikhs of Kuwait were not independent leaders, but rather qaimmaqams (provincial sub-governors) of the Ottoman government.
In response to the so called Bedouin raids, the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, Sir Percy Cox, imposed the Uqair Protocol of 1922 which defined the boundaries between Iraq, Kuwait and Najd (Basra Province). That formalised the boundaries and laid ground for all the rifts and wars that happened thereafter!
Take any colony or territory under British Mandate, it will be noticed that they have ensured that when they were there, they used the policy of Divide and Rule, and when they left they ensured that there were adequate mechanisms left behind to encourage strife, wars, insurrections etc so that they still could play an influencing factor. In the modern world, it means through the UN or even directly.
In so far as India is concerned, there is no doubt that it was the British Policy of Divide and Rule inflamed the Hindu Muslim divide and made it so divisive and permanent as we see now. Both Jinnah and the Congress were played against each other by the British representatives in India and the Govt back in Great Britain, and of that there is no doubt, history bears witness.
Kashmir, was a well orchestrated game plan as was seen in the action of Major William Brown of the Gilgit Scout. Noteworthy and curiously, in July 1948 William Brown was awarded the MBE (Military) with a citation so unspecific that it was not clear what lay behind this acknowledgement of his merits.
It is said that William Brown felt deeply attached to Pakistan and did not wish to leave the country (sic!). He sought therefore, some position there in commerce after leaving the Frontier Constabulary. Sir George Cunningham, formerly Governor of the North West Frontier Province, obtained for him a position in Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) as a Sales Executive. Unfortunately, in this capacity his first posting was for Calcutta in India. During his time in Gilgit William Brown had evidently made a number of determined enemies among the Sikhs, perhaps because of his involvement in the destruction of the Sikh component of the 6th Kashmir Infantry in Bunji. In Calcutta he was set upon by Sikhs and left for dead in the street. Miraculously he was found by a doctor and he recovered. He was then posted to Karachi in Pakistan.
The question that begs an answer, taking that the British were not beyond chicanery, is how is it that a Major could be capable of organising a Mutiny against the J&K Govt that enjoyed the protection of the very same British?
One could go on about British chicanery in India and around the globe, but then that would take more than a post.
The British did not leave India because of any altruistic reason. The WW II had completely exhausted them and the growing belligerence of the Indian public opinion towards the British Raj apparently was making holding onto India cost prohibitive. True, they could have reaped a rich harvest from India's mineral wealth, as they had historically done to foist the Britain and its Empire, but there was the danger of the military getting restive. The Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 as also the fact that the Indian National Army, made up of ex British Indian Army personnel had charged up a romantic patriotic aura amongst the Indian populace, and further repression could also affect the Indian Army, if not the officers, at least the rank and file. Britain, obviously, could not have a repeat of the 1857 incident since the British Indian Army was well trained and was combat experienced.
Churchill was known to have an animus towards the USSR and Communism. It served the British geostrategy to confine USSR to its known borders. Likewise, WW I accentuated the importance of petrol and diesel to engine the world economy and the military. Therefore, the necessity to keep the Middle East with the ambit of UK's sphere of influence did not escape the British imperialist vision.
To the effect of brining these oil producing areas under the supervision of western powers, the League of Nations brought them under their Mandate. The Official Journal of the League of Nations, dated June 1922, contained a statement by Lord Balfour (UK) in which he explained that the League's authority was strictly limited. The article related that the 'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League.'
Interestingly, the Class A Mandate territories of Palestine and Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia, formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone . The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." In other words, as was seen, was controlled by the Nations that were supervising the Mandate. Palestine, Trans Jordan and Mesopotamia were under British jurisdiction and Syria, to include Lebanon under the French.
Fast forwarding to the current, it will be noticed that Syria and Lebanon has been stable as independent nations (notwithstanding, the modern geostrategic compulsions caused by the advent of the Colour Revolutions), while those of the British have been wracked by turmoil. The British in their archetypical Machiavellian diplomacy under Balfour Agreement caused the horrendous war stricken Palestinian Question, kept firmly under the grip the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and also ensured a divide in Iraq since it made Kuwait a Protectorate of Britain. It maybe noted that Kuwait was formed by the Bani Utbah tribe who gradually migrated in the early eighteenth century from Basra or Najd to the shores of the Persian Gulf. These settlers established the town and port of Guraine and called it Kuwait ("little fort," from kut, "fort") and were prominent in Basra's trade market and owned over 300 ships involved in trade. It maybe noted that Kuwait was part of the Ottoman Empire and was governed by Basra.
Iraq is actually composed of
Mosul Province
Baghdad Province
Basra Province
So, since Kuwait was controlled by the Basra Province, it gives credence to the claim that it is a part of Iraq. But the crafty British, with a long term Game plan brought in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the British concurred with the Ottoman Empire in defining Kuwait as an autonomous caza of the Ottoman Empire and that the Shaikhs of Kuwait were not independent leaders, but rather qaimmaqams (provincial sub-governors) of the Ottoman government.
In response to the so called Bedouin raids, the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, Sir Percy Cox, imposed the Uqair Protocol of 1922 which defined the boundaries between Iraq, Kuwait and Najd (Basra Province). That formalised the boundaries and laid ground for all the rifts and wars that happened thereafter!
Take any colony or territory under British Mandate, it will be noticed that they have ensured that when they were there, they used the policy of Divide and Rule, and when they left they ensured that there were adequate mechanisms left behind to encourage strife, wars, insurrections etc so that they still could play an influencing factor. In the modern world, it means through the UN or even directly.
In so far as India is concerned, there is no doubt that it was the British Policy of Divide and Rule inflamed the Hindu Muslim divide and made it so divisive and permanent as we see now. Both Jinnah and the Congress were played against each other by the British representatives in India and the Govt back in Great Britain, and of that there is no doubt, history bears witness.
Kashmir, was a well orchestrated game plan as was seen in the action of Major William Brown of the Gilgit Scout. Noteworthy and curiously, in July 1948 William Brown was awarded the MBE (Military) with a citation so unspecific that it was not clear what lay behind this acknowledgement of his merits.
It is said that William Brown felt deeply attached to Pakistan and did not wish to leave the country (sic!). He sought therefore, some position there in commerce after leaving the Frontier Constabulary. Sir George Cunningham, formerly Governor of the North West Frontier Province, obtained for him a position in Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) as a Sales Executive. Unfortunately, in this capacity his first posting was for Calcutta in India. During his time in Gilgit William Brown had evidently made a number of determined enemies among the Sikhs, perhaps because of his involvement in the destruction of the Sikh component of the 6th Kashmir Infantry in Bunji. In Calcutta he was set upon by Sikhs and left for dead in the street. Miraculously he was found by a doctor and he recovered. He was then posted to Karachi in Pakistan.
The question that begs an answer, taking that the British were not beyond chicanery, is how is it that a Major could be capable of organising a Mutiny against the J&K Govt that enjoyed the protection of the very same British?
One could go on about British chicanery in India and around the globe, but then that would take more than a post.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
Here is an account of the Divide and Rule Policy.
Posted without comment. leaving it for the reader to analyse the veracity of the claims.
********************************
'Divide and rule policy" in India before and after the independence
ssue
Quite often it is alleged that Indian society is 'highly stratified' 'disintegrated' and 'discriminatory' society. How it had happened, is quite interesting to know. It was not so all the time. Rift has been purposely created in the society of India for political purposes. Why, when, how and by whom rift has been created in Indian society and has pushed the nation on the verge of disintegration?
British domination in India
India was a great centre of attraction for British Empire. It was amazing to see how a small number of British troops led to the downfall of Mughal Empire, achieved the conquest andruled over India for such a long time. For British rulers, India symbolized Imperial grandeur. They believed that Britain's superpower status for most of the nineteenth century and some of the twentieth depended on their control over India.
Viceroy Lord Curzon had expressed it clearly in 1901, "As long as we rule India, we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall drop straightway to a third rate power". Quite early, British realized that as long as they adroitly exploited the religious, linguistic and historical divisions that marked Indian society they were relatively safe.
British rulers were clear and firm about their aims and objectives. British Rulers inflamed the differences, that were already existent in the society because of the diverse backgrounds of its people. They established their Empire in India by playing off one part against the other.
Ideological attack
Initially in order to justify their domination over dark races of the globe and imperial rule in India, British propagated theories of racial the superiority of 'White-race'. Afterwards, British rulers, missionaries, philosophers, writers and Historians like Mill, Wilson or Ward vehemently denounced the culture, character and social structure of the native people. This mental doze had affected minds of many educated Indians so densely that they considered native practices indefensible.
The British launched an ideological attack on Brahmins in their effort to secure a reasonable combination of various races and castes in administration and other modern callings. On one hand, to counter Brahmins hold in education and other areas, they slighted the role of Brahmins as Indian intelligentsia and reformers and on the other, portrayed them as oppressors and exploiters of others, especially the poor and minorities. The rulers created venom in the hearts of Muslims and non-Brahmin castes and encouraged them to resist vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in modern callings.
Stages of British rule
British rulers knew well that they had established their Empire firmly in India by taking advantage of the diversities of Indian people and by playing them against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces.
Period of 1756-1858 was the period of conquest, annexation and consolidation.
From 1858 to1905, was the time of apparent association under British Government in India.
From 1905 to 1940, British rulers adopted the policy of "Divide and rule".
After 1940, they decided to quit India.
Period of annexation (1756-1858)
Period of 1756-1858 – With the start of British rule over India, the old relation of conqueror and conquered prevalent in India since 10th century, came to an end. It was the period of conquest, annexation and consolidation for British. Initially, the East India Company of Britain conquered and established British Empire in India by taking advantage of the diversities of Indian people. The Government adopted "Laissez-faire" as the principle of governance. Hence, it did not indulge itself into any welfare or social service activity. The only objective was to rule the country to its own advantage.
Period of "Apparent Association" (Between 1858 and 1905)
Between 1858 and 1905, the British adopted a policy of "Apparent Association". In their heart, the rulers knew well that they had established their power by playing off one part against the other and intended to continue it in order to maintain it as long as possible. The purpose was to keep Indians busy with their internal problems and let them rule the country without any distraction. They were sure ""¦We must continue to do so. Do what you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling".
Period of divide and rule (From 1905 to 1940) -
By 1858, when British Empirical rule was established firmly in India, the rulers started playing Indians against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces. British rulers adopted the policy of "Divide and rule". They played Indian people against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces.
After 1940 – During Second World War period, they decided to quit India. Even then, British rulers played their game and divided the country into two – India and Pakistan. Their exploitative policies had already drained much of India's wealth. Now they left India bleeding. Partition of the country had made millions of Indians either dead or impoverished and homeless.
Three stages taken for creating split in Indian society
The British Government did the job of disintegrating the Indian society in 3 stages: -
Ø First they appeased the Hindus,
Ø Then was the turn of Muslims,
Ø Lastly they devoted their attention to backward castes.
First stage
Appeasement of Hindus
Initially, the British, who annexed authority from the Muslim rulers, looked favourably towards Hindu community. They encouraged Hindus/Brahmins to opt for modern education. Reasons being –
It became difficult for them to import enough Englishmen to man large and increasing number of subordinate or lower posts in administration.
British, who annexed authority from the Muslim rulers, looked favorably towards Hindu community.
Being natural learners and pursuers of knowledge, they were quick and far ahead of other communities in modern callings.
The appalling poverty of Brahmins, because of the gradual displacement from their source of income after the decline in the financial status of their patrons – Princes and Zamindars – compelled them to opt for modern education and make use of new type of employment opportunities.
Very soon they secured an important place in the modern society.
Brahmins real threat to British rule
The long tradition and undisputed role in the field of knowledge and learning, their intelligence, sincerity and hard work helped Brahmins to secure an important place in the modern society. In 1900, Sir William Lee, an important official in the Government of Bombay and Government of India, noted Brahmins dominance in the Civil Service during 1869 to 1899. The rulers also noticed preponderance of Brahmins in other areas, too, and their growing influence and hold over Hindu Community. It appeared to British rulers as if this small community was governing the country.
British rulers noticed Brahmins preponderance everywhere including freedom movement. Preponderance of Brahmins at all levels of freedom movement alarmed the rulers.
Sir William Lee, an important official in the Government of Bombay and Government of India, noticed in 1900 that during 1869 to 1899, Brahmins had secured almost all the places in education and administration. In 1879, the Collector of Tanjore wrote to James Courd, a Member of the Famine Commission, "There was no class except Brahmins, which was so hostile to English." In the words of an observer, "If any community could claim the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community 70% of those, who were felled by British bullets, were Brahmins."
Sir Richard Temple, the governor of Bombay said that ever since 1818, when British finally defeated the Peshwa in the third Anglo Maratha war, Brahmins were, "Inspired with a national sentiment and with an ambition bounded only with the Bonds of India itself." Innumerable C.I.D. Reports of that period confirmed the active role played by Brahmins in National movement.
In 1879, the Collector of Tanjore wrote to James Courd, a Member of the Famine Commission, "There was no class except Brahmins, which was so hostile to English." In the words of an observer, "If any community could claim the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community 70% of those, who were felled by British bullets, were Brahmins."
Rowlett Report (1880) also confirmed that the British regarded Brahmins as the main force behind all terrorist movements and agitation leading to violence in almost all the provinces. Overwhelming support of Brahmin lawyers to Congress Party and Mrs. Anne Besant's Home Rule made the British to believe that Brahmin Community was a threat to imperial rule.
In Brahmin's growing influence and their hold on the Hindu Community, the rulers saw a potential threat to their rule in India. They considered it necessary to counter the hold of Brahmins by raising a strong force against them.
Steps taken to counter Brahmin's influence – British administrators including Temple thought it necessary to counter Brahmins influence. They advised the Government to stop dominance of one or few groups in administration and begin to rely on other groups or castes, in order to keep the balance of power. In 1881 the Government decided to raise a strong force – a reasonable combination of various races and castes – and counter Brahmins hold in education and administration.
Muslims and non-Brahmin castes were already resisting vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in these areas. They very carefully and effectively sidetracked the socially transformative movements of great scope, initiated by the intelligentsia of Indian Society. On one hand, the British slighted the role of Brahmins as Indian intelligentsia and reformers, and on the other, portrayed them as oppressors and tyrants.
The British encouraged the formation of many caste groups to resist vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in modern callings. In whom they saw a potential threat to their rule in India. They allowed non-Brahmin castes and other communities to form political groups on the basis of caste and community. The movement against Brahmins forged ahead with ferocity in the Southern and Western parts of India. It remained mild in North India, where communalism had already disrupted the peace of the land.
In order to restrict Brahmin's entry in Government jobs and make it available to non-Brahmins communities, British rulers started practice of "Preferences". In the name of equality before law, rulers gave certain sections of society on the basis of caste and community financial assistance and preferences in education and Government employment at local and provincial level.
They made provision for giving financial help to the non-brahmins, Muslims and Anglo-Indians and fixed up a quota for them in government services. Thus they opened up the doors of new opportunities of advancement to other castes and communities. It served double purpose – one, for them, getting credit for amelioration and protection of downtrodden and two, keeping natives busy in their in-fights.
Second stage
Appeasement of Muslims – First, the rulers drifted Muslims from Hindus in a very shrewd and planned manner. Muslims always had a grudge over the loss of their dominant position. They found themselves handicapped in competing with Hindus, especially Brahmins, in modern callings and opportunities. Also they developed a fear of being dominated by majority Hindu Community, if at any point of time India became Independent.
During 1850s, Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College was established at Aligarh. English Principals like Archibold, Theodore Beck or Morrison of this institution played an important role in keeping Muslims away from mainstream and inculcating in them a feeling of separation.
Seeds of communalism - Sir W.H. Gregory, while appreciating the Resolution of Government of India on Muslim education wrote to Dufferin in Feb. 1886, "I am confident, that it will bear good fruits, indeed, it seems to have done so already by the complete abstention of the Mohammedan from Brahmins and Baboo agitation. It will be a great matter to sweeten our relations with this portion of the Indian population, the bravest and at one time, the most dangerous."
The seeds of communalism were sown during Lord Lytton's Vice-royalty (1876-80). A deputation of Muslims led by His Highness Sir Agha Khan demanded on Oct. 1, 1896 separate electorate. . On Dec. 30, 1906 a separate party – Muslim League – was launched to pursue and safeguard Muslim interests.
Their demands of communal representation in the Imperial Legislative Council and District Boards, adequate share in the public service and local bodies, adequate safeguards for the protection and promotion of Muslim culture and weight to the Muslims to protect their legitimate interests were accepted through Minto-Morley Reforms known as Government of India Act of 1909. This Act devised a novel method to distribute and balance the power. It came as the first effective dose of communalization of Indian politics.
Third stage
Attention to backward castes
After gaining the loyalty of Muslims, during the second half of the nineteenth century, the British turned their attention to uplift non-Brahmin castes and to secure their confidence. On September 2, 1897, George Francis Hamilton, the then Secretary of State for India, wrote to Viceroy Curzon, "I think the real danger to our rule in India, not now but say 50 years hence, is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation and organization. If we could break the educated Hindu into two sections, holding widely different views, we should by such division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack, which the spread of education must make upon our system of Government." The rulers succeeded in dividing educated Hindus of these two sections –Brahmins and Non Brahmins, holding widely different views. Such a division had strengthened immensely the position of rulers.
Even educated Hindus amongst non-Brahmins castes found it difficult to compete with Brahmins on equal footings. Rulers encouraged Non -Brahmins leaders to form their political pressure groups on the basis of castes and raise their voice against Brahmins.
In 1885 itself, Eutice J Kitts, a British ambassador in Azamgarh listed, for the first time, backward castes and tribes, from 1881 Census. The objective was to give them financial assistance and preferences in education and Government employment at local and provincial level. For the first, the government officially recognized caste as a base for the purposes of governance.
Initially special schools were opened for them. Special scholarship, loan, hostel facilities and concessions in school fees were provided to non Brahmins castes along with Muslims. In 1885, the education department proposed to reserve 50% of free scholarships for backwards and Muslims, as scholarships purely on merit grounds would perpetuate Brahmin's monopoly. From this base, Reservation entered into education field, so that more non-Brahmins could qualify for the jobs.
Morley Minto Reform of 1909 gave the non-Brahmins a boost. They demanded with assertiveness Reservations for themselves in education and Government employment. In 1919, the British Government transferred to provincial Governments power over subjects like education, agriculture, veterinary service, roads and, buildings, social welfare etc. With all these powers, the British Government also passed on to the provinces, the responsibility to satisfy the conflicting claims for the Government jobs and other interests of major pressure groups, which had emerged in the Indian political scene.
Methods, British used to create split
The British Government in India very cleverly created a split in the society. The policies, which they adopted for fulfilling the objectives, were following:-
Introduction of Modern Education sytem,
Resevations in educational institutions and government jobs and
Start of Census Operations
All these measures served a double purpose – they got the credit for the amelioration and protection of the lowly. Also the distribution of power on communal basis kept balance of power and prolonged their rule in India by keeping the natives busy in their in-fights.Thus British Government very cleverly, created a split in Indian society.
Introduction of Modern Education sytem
The process of creating split started with the introduction of modern education system. Initially the British rulers excluded Indians from every honor, dignity or office, which lowest of Englishman could be given. But gradually it became difficult for the rulers to import enough Englishmen to man large and increasing number of subordinate or lower posts in administration. It compelled them to introduce modern education in India. However, they used even the education system shrewdly to meet their objectives effectively. It paved a way for imperial designs.
Intention of introducing modern education – The intention of introducing modern education was, as Lord Macaulay said, "To form a class, who may be interpreters between us and millions of whom, we govern, a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect". It was mainly to get Indians, "Anglicized in terms of both cultural and intellectual attainment".
Brahmins long tradition and undisputed role in the field of knowledge and learning, their intelligence, sincerity and hard work helped them not only to occupy almost all the lower levels posts in administration available to Indians, as desired by the rulers.
But it also offered to Indian intelligentsia, the key to the treasures of scientific and democratic thought of Modern West. It opened up the doors of knowledge and widened the mental horizons of Indian intelligentsia. In due course of time, it produced many National Leaders and Reformers.
Imperial designs for creating rift - In 1835 introduction of modern education and in 1844, announcement of making knowledge of English as compulsory for government employment paved way for imperial designs and created rift in the Indian society.
In the near absence of industrial, commercial or social service activity, the educated Indians depended entirely on Government jobs. This led to a keen competition between different sections of Indian society. British rulers took advantage of the diversities that already existed in India for centuries.
Welcomed by national leaders and intellectuals – The national leaders and intellectuals welcomed the introduction of modern education. They thought that understanding of Western literature and liberal, scientific, democratic and humanitarian thoughts of modern Western World would help to remedy many social, political and economic evils prevalent in the nation at that point of time. It would give some insight to the fragmented, poverty stricken, superstitious, weak, indifferent, backward and inward looking society of India. They took upon themselves the responsibility to build a modern, open, plural, culturally rich, prosperous and powerful India.
An Alarm bell for British rulers - Modern education not only produced persons to fill the lower levels of administration, as desired by the rulers. Along with them emerged, by second half of nineteenth century, many national leaders, intellectuals and reformers like Dadabhai Naoroji, Ferozeshah Mehta, Gokhale, Gandhi, Jinnah, Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Moti Lal Nehru, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Patel and many more. The rulers never wanted it.
Preponderance of Brahmins everywhere including freedom movement alarmed the British rulers.
Policy of Reservation
Another tool British used was the Policy of Reservation. In 1918, Mysore Government appointed Miller Committee to look into the question.i On its recommendation "All communities, other than Brahmins, who were not adequately represented in the public Service" were declared backwards. In 1921 preferential recruitment for backward communities was instituted formally for the first time in its colleges and state services.
In 1925, Government of Bombay provided Reservations to backward communities in its services. It included all except Brahmins, Marwaris, Prabhus, Banias and Christians.ii Madras started quota based communal representation in its Government services and educational institution in 1921.
The United Province had a practice of reserving, out of every four seats, 1 to Brahmin, 1 to Kayastha, 1 to Muslim and the last one to any section other than these three sections.
The concessions bestowed on the backward communities made them loyal to British rule. An excerpt from the Times Archives (Aug 1925) shows the upsurge of Non-Brahmins in Madras. Presiding over the fifth non-Brahmin Conference in Tanjore, Rao Bahadur O Thanikachalam Chetty of Madras, "Warned the non-Brahmin public of the dangers ahead" and how in the name of Swaraj, deception was being practiced, lies were decimated with a view to creating prejudice against the Justice party-men and to secure transfer of power to Brahmins under the guise of supporting the Swarajis.
The speaker emphasized the need to counter-act Swarajis' activity in view of the coming elections to Legislative Council. He said that their province had, hitherto, successfully resisted the seditious blandishments of the Swarajis and had earned the good name of having successfully worked for the transitional Constitution vouched safe to them by the "Government of India Act."
Census operations and Untouchability
Census operations were also used for the purpose of further splitting the Hindu community. It created political identities in India. Census operation, introduction of electoral politics and suggestion of the Census Commission for 1911 Census, to exclude untouchables, (comprising about 24% of Hindu population and 16% of the total population in 1908) from Hinduism, had made position of untouchables prominent in Indian political scene.
Around 1909, the lower strata of Hindu community were conceptualized under the name of "untouchables". So far, untouchables had clubbed their political activities with backward classes led by the Justice Party and South Indian Liberation Federation, which were already agitating against Brahmin's dominance in modern callings. The emergence of Dr. Ambedkar on the political scene provided with the required leadership and needed stimulus to untouchable movement during late twenties and early thirties. There is a section of people, which considers that Ambedkar was planted into Indian politics purposely by British rulers only.
Dr. Ambedkar, while representing untouchables in Simon Commission proceedings, demanded separate electorate, reserved seats for untouchables in legislative bodies, special educational concessions, and recruitment to Government posts on preferential basis, laws against discrimination and a special department to look after the welfare of untouchables. These demands were readily accepted through Communal Award of 1932.
Gandhiji along with other National leaders regarded it as the "Unkindest cut of all, which would create a permanent split in Hindu Society, perpetuate casteism and make impossible the assimilation of untouchables in mainstream. Dr. Rajendra Prasad said, "The principle of dividing population into communal groups, which had been adopted in the Minto Morely Reforms, had been considerably extended, even beyond what had been done by Montagu Chelmsford Reforms"¦." "The electorate in 1919 was broken up into ten parts, now it is fragmented into seventeen unequal bits"¦ Giving separate representations to Schedule Castes further weakened Hindu community. Division on the basis of religion, occupation and service were made. The British introduced every possible cross-division".iii Lal Bahadur Shastri denounced the whole happenings "As a shameless episode of the National History of the Country."
After Independence
The Constitution of India, through Articles 14, 15 and 16, guaranteed equality of opportunity to all citizens relating to advancement and employment or appointment to any office under the State. However it also allowed the Government to make special provisions in favour of any backward class of citizens.
Seeds sown by British flourished in Independent India
The present day politicians have followed their steps and created such an atmosphere that seeds sown by British may blossom in full. The Indian politicians have inherited from British rulers three powerful democratic weapons i.e. Electoral policy, Census operations, and Reservation Policy.
Earlier British rulers used them for economic exploitation and perpetuation of their rule as long as possible. Now Indian politicians are using it in similar way for their own advantage. Present trend of giving continued importance to diversities especially of caste, community, region, language by most of the political parties and shrewd politicians for electoral purposes is at its peak. Instead of the feeling of fraternity amongst Indians, "feeling of 'others" or "we" and "them" has become more prominent than.
Whether amongst youth or grown ups, the casteist, religious and ideological intolerance has generated communal violence and caste animosities everywhere in the country.
Political instability
The public mandate got fractured on caste and communal lines. At present, it has become almost impossible to ensure a stable Government. Political insecurity has engulfed the whole nation into caste politics. It has given birth to worst form of caste and communal divide. Caste frenzy overtook country's two most populous provinces of UP and Bihar.
The result is hung parliaments, insecure politicians, scant respect for democratic norms and conduct. Unholy pre or post poll alliances are made. There are manipulations to get hold on power. All political parties try to extract political mileage out of Paternalistic policies.
Politicians are adopting gimmicks of secularism, socialism, equity and social justice. They evade real issues and shirk responsibility. Political party in power finds itself handicapped and lack courage to take hard decisions. The sole aim of politicians, especially of newly emerging groups, have no other program except the one to capture political power by hook or crook and retain it as long as possible.
Criminalization of politics and corruption
Along with caste politics prospered criminalization of politics and corruption ridden leadership scenario in the country with large number of scams and scandals. Power-centric politicians do not care for any principle or ideology; neither do they care for honesty or welfare of people. For power, they do not even mind using foul means or hesitate in taking help of criminals. Many history-sheetors are, at present, in politics.
There is a blatant use of money and muscle power in elections. Politicians try various permutations and combinations to increase their vote Banks. Poor public is a silent spectator, while political atmosphere is surcharged with manipulation, casteism, nepotism and criminalisation.
Paternalistic policies
Paternalistic policies and social justice has elated the backwards and Dalits. The nation is now divided into numerous political camps – pro-Hindu camp, anti-Hindu camp, secular camp, and caste camps into forward, backward and Dalit camp. There are regional camps too, playing up federal card to woe the electorate. The situation is leading to fundamentalist and separatist attitudes, conflict, instability, in-decisiveness, and rigid and irrational attitude.
Inter and Intra-Caste rivalries
For political advantages, different caste, sub-castes and sub-sub-castes have come together, bearing the same caste tag. But they do not forget their separate identities. The political tags/identities as caste Hindus, backwards, SCs, STs and minorities for Reservations and other preferential measures has increased the in-fights between these categories and created social disorder, making the task of governance difficult.
The unity of various castes under the label of "Dalits", "Scheduled castes", or "OBC" is an illusion created by vested interests. It does not make them a homogenous class. In the opinion of MSS Pandian, an academic with Madras Institute of Development Studies, the current inter caste rivalries are part of a series of periodic revolt, whose prime object is self assertion.
Dalit militancy is increasing with the rise of new militant outfits like BSP, Devendrakula Vellalar Federation, Thyagi Immanual Paravai, Dalit Panthers of India etc. The striking feature of New Dalit militancy is their utter disregard for the present set up and their attempt to capture political power. Dalit leaders are pursuing Dalit empowerment with vengeance.
Winding up
Way back on December 9, 1946, Mr. V.N. Narayan had said, "At best of times, India is ungovernable country of diversities, conflicts and problems".v Mr. Nani Palkiwala expressed the same feeling after 50 years of self-rule, which gave to India empty coffers, unfulfilled promises, political instability, fractured society and perpetual divide among different groups along caste and community lines. He said, "Our legal systems have made life too easy for criminals and too difficult for law abiding citizens".vi A touch here, a push there may adversely effect the unity of India . Governance of a pluralistic society, like India, is a sensitive and challenging exercise.
While laying down the foundation of some democratic institutions and policies, the Imperial rulers set the example of how policies of great scope can be used for serving the vested interests of persons in power. The Indian politicians have inherited from British rulers three powerful democratic weapons i.e. Electoral policy, Census operations, and Reservation Policy.
The present day politicians have learnt very well from British rulers, how to use these systems for pacifying the masses and prolonging their hold on political authority longer. They are following the footsteps of their predecessor i.e. British Imperialist rulers and are creating their own separate empires. The seeds of "divide and rule" sown by British are blossoming in full now.
Way out
There has been a fast decline in the observance of morality. In the absence of ideology, pursuit of material success has made the so-called representatives of the people selfish and intolerant. They have drifted almost rudderless without sense of direction. The recent political developments have given a rise to mutual strife within the society.
Lust for political power and wealth should be replaced by sense of service. Instead of concentrating on populist measures, political leaders should give priority to real issues. The administration would become more sensitive and responsive to the needs of the disadvantaged people. Basic amenetias like drinking water, house, food etc. should be proveded effectively and efficiently.
In electoral reforms should be made in such a way that instead of power seekers, talented, professional and specialized persons could find place in the system. Men of character, learning and scholarship should be elected as representatives of the people and be given the respect, they deserve from society. Entrusting power in weak or greedy hands without making them strong enough to hold it judiciously could not empower them.
Liberalization and globalization has opened up a new vista for everybody. To channelise creativity and energies of modern youth and to keep them happy and satisfied, a sound system of education and training is required urgently.
To prevent unhealthy competition in the society discriminatory statutes, policies and practices should be stopped. Instead of for promoting sectional intersts, stringent punishment should be given to exploiters, oppressors and those persons who are indulged in corrupt practices.
'Divide and rule policy" in India before and after the independence « Latasinha's Weblog
Posted without comment. leaving it for the reader to analyse the veracity of the claims.
********************************
'Divide and rule policy" in India before and after the independence
ssue
Quite often it is alleged that Indian society is 'highly stratified' 'disintegrated' and 'discriminatory' society. How it had happened, is quite interesting to know. It was not so all the time. Rift has been purposely created in the society of India for political purposes. Why, when, how and by whom rift has been created in Indian society and has pushed the nation on the verge of disintegration?
British domination in India
India was a great centre of attraction for British Empire. It was amazing to see how a small number of British troops led to the downfall of Mughal Empire, achieved the conquest andruled over India for such a long time. For British rulers, India symbolized Imperial grandeur. They believed that Britain's superpower status for most of the nineteenth century and some of the twentieth depended on their control over India.
Viceroy Lord Curzon had expressed it clearly in 1901, "As long as we rule India, we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall drop straightway to a third rate power". Quite early, British realized that as long as they adroitly exploited the religious, linguistic and historical divisions that marked Indian society they were relatively safe.
British rulers were clear and firm about their aims and objectives. British Rulers inflamed the differences, that were already existent in the society because of the diverse backgrounds of its people. They established their Empire in India by playing off one part against the other.
Ideological attack
Initially in order to justify their domination over dark races of the globe and imperial rule in India, British propagated theories of racial the superiority of 'White-race'. Afterwards, British rulers, missionaries, philosophers, writers and Historians like Mill, Wilson or Ward vehemently denounced the culture, character and social structure of the native people. This mental doze had affected minds of many educated Indians so densely that they considered native practices indefensible.
The British launched an ideological attack on Brahmins in their effort to secure a reasonable combination of various races and castes in administration and other modern callings. On one hand, to counter Brahmins hold in education and other areas, they slighted the role of Brahmins as Indian intelligentsia and reformers and on the other, portrayed them as oppressors and exploiters of others, especially the poor and minorities. The rulers created venom in the hearts of Muslims and non-Brahmin castes and encouraged them to resist vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in modern callings.
Stages of British rule
British rulers knew well that they had established their Empire firmly in India by taking advantage of the diversities of Indian people and by playing them against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces.
Period of 1756-1858 was the period of conquest, annexation and consolidation.
From 1858 to1905, was the time of apparent association under British Government in India.
From 1905 to 1940, British rulers adopted the policy of "Divide and rule".
After 1940, they decided to quit India.
Period of annexation (1756-1858)
Period of 1756-1858 – With the start of British rule over India, the old relation of conqueror and conquered prevalent in India since 10th century, came to an end. It was the period of conquest, annexation and consolidation for British. Initially, the East India Company of Britain conquered and established British Empire in India by taking advantage of the diversities of Indian people. The Government adopted "Laissez-faire" as the principle of governance. Hence, it did not indulge itself into any welfare or social service activity. The only objective was to rule the country to its own advantage.
Period of "Apparent Association" (Between 1858 and 1905)
Between 1858 and 1905, the British adopted a policy of "Apparent Association". In their heart, the rulers knew well that they had established their power by playing off one part against the other and intended to continue it in order to maintain it as long as possible. The purpose was to keep Indians busy with their internal problems and let them rule the country without any distraction. They were sure ""¦We must continue to do so. Do what you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling".
Period of divide and rule (From 1905 to 1940) -
By 1858, when British Empirical rule was established firmly in India, the rulers started playing Indians against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces. British rulers adopted the policy of "Divide and rule". They played Indian people against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces.
After 1940 – During Second World War period, they decided to quit India. Even then, British rulers played their game and divided the country into two – India and Pakistan. Their exploitative policies had already drained much of India's wealth. Now they left India bleeding. Partition of the country had made millions of Indians either dead or impoverished and homeless.
Three stages taken for creating split in Indian society
The British Government did the job of disintegrating the Indian society in 3 stages: -
Ø First they appeased the Hindus,
Ø Then was the turn of Muslims,
Ø Lastly they devoted their attention to backward castes.
First stage
Appeasement of Hindus
Initially, the British, who annexed authority from the Muslim rulers, looked favourably towards Hindu community. They encouraged Hindus/Brahmins to opt for modern education. Reasons being –
It became difficult for them to import enough Englishmen to man large and increasing number of subordinate or lower posts in administration.
British, who annexed authority from the Muslim rulers, looked favorably towards Hindu community.
Being natural learners and pursuers of knowledge, they were quick and far ahead of other communities in modern callings.
The appalling poverty of Brahmins, because of the gradual displacement from their source of income after the decline in the financial status of their patrons – Princes and Zamindars – compelled them to opt for modern education and make use of new type of employment opportunities.
Very soon they secured an important place in the modern society.
Brahmins real threat to British rule
The long tradition and undisputed role in the field of knowledge and learning, their intelligence, sincerity and hard work helped Brahmins to secure an important place in the modern society. In 1900, Sir William Lee, an important official in the Government of Bombay and Government of India, noted Brahmins dominance in the Civil Service during 1869 to 1899. The rulers also noticed preponderance of Brahmins in other areas, too, and their growing influence and hold over Hindu Community. It appeared to British rulers as if this small community was governing the country.
British rulers noticed Brahmins preponderance everywhere including freedom movement. Preponderance of Brahmins at all levels of freedom movement alarmed the rulers.
Sir William Lee, an important official in the Government of Bombay and Government of India, noticed in 1900 that during 1869 to 1899, Brahmins had secured almost all the places in education and administration. In 1879, the Collector of Tanjore wrote to James Courd, a Member of the Famine Commission, "There was no class except Brahmins, which was so hostile to English." In the words of an observer, "If any community could claim the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community 70% of those, who were felled by British bullets, were Brahmins."
Sir Richard Temple, the governor of Bombay said that ever since 1818, when British finally defeated the Peshwa in the third Anglo Maratha war, Brahmins were, "Inspired with a national sentiment and with an ambition bounded only with the Bonds of India itself." Innumerable C.I.D. Reports of that period confirmed the active role played by Brahmins in National movement.
In 1879, the Collector of Tanjore wrote to James Courd, a Member of the Famine Commission, "There was no class except Brahmins, which was so hostile to English." In the words of an observer, "If any community could claim the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community 70% of those, who were felled by British bullets, were Brahmins."
Rowlett Report (1880) also confirmed that the British regarded Brahmins as the main force behind all terrorist movements and agitation leading to violence in almost all the provinces. Overwhelming support of Brahmin lawyers to Congress Party and Mrs. Anne Besant's Home Rule made the British to believe that Brahmin Community was a threat to imperial rule.
In Brahmin's growing influence and their hold on the Hindu Community, the rulers saw a potential threat to their rule in India. They considered it necessary to counter the hold of Brahmins by raising a strong force against them.
Steps taken to counter Brahmin's influence – British administrators including Temple thought it necessary to counter Brahmins influence. They advised the Government to stop dominance of one or few groups in administration and begin to rely on other groups or castes, in order to keep the balance of power. In 1881 the Government decided to raise a strong force – a reasonable combination of various races and castes – and counter Brahmins hold in education and administration.
Muslims and non-Brahmin castes were already resisting vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in these areas. They very carefully and effectively sidetracked the socially transformative movements of great scope, initiated by the intelligentsia of Indian Society. On one hand, the British slighted the role of Brahmins as Indian intelligentsia and reformers, and on the other, portrayed them as oppressors and tyrants.
The British encouraged the formation of many caste groups to resist vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in modern callings. In whom they saw a potential threat to their rule in India. They allowed non-Brahmin castes and other communities to form political groups on the basis of caste and community. The movement against Brahmins forged ahead with ferocity in the Southern and Western parts of India. It remained mild in North India, where communalism had already disrupted the peace of the land.
In order to restrict Brahmin's entry in Government jobs and make it available to non-Brahmins communities, British rulers started practice of "Preferences". In the name of equality before law, rulers gave certain sections of society on the basis of caste and community financial assistance and preferences in education and Government employment at local and provincial level.
They made provision for giving financial help to the non-brahmins, Muslims and Anglo-Indians and fixed up a quota for them in government services. Thus they opened up the doors of new opportunities of advancement to other castes and communities. It served double purpose – one, for them, getting credit for amelioration and protection of downtrodden and two, keeping natives busy in their in-fights.
Second stage
Appeasement of Muslims – First, the rulers drifted Muslims from Hindus in a very shrewd and planned manner. Muslims always had a grudge over the loss of their dominant position. They found themselves handicapped in competing with Hindus, especially Brahmins, in modern callings and opportunities. Also they developed a fear of being dominated by majority Hindu Community, if at any point of time India became Independent.
During 1850s, Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College was established at Aligarh. English Principals like Archibold, Theodore Beck or Morrison of this institution played an important role in keeping Muslims away from mainstream and inculcating in them a feeling of separation.
Seeds of communalism - Sir W.H. Gregory, while appreciating the Resolution of Government of India on Muslim education wrote to Dufferin in Feb. 1886, "I am confident, that it will bear good fruits, indeed, it seems to have done so already by the complete abstention of the Mohammedan from Brahmins and Baboo agitation. It will be a great matter to sweeten our relations with this portion of the Indian population, the bravest and at one time, the most dangerous."
The seeds of communalism were sown during Lord Lytton's Vice-royalty (1876-80). A deputation of Muslims led by His Highness Sir Agha Khan demanded on Oct. 1, 1896 separate electorate. . On Dec. 30, 1906 a separate party – Muslim League – was launched to pursue and safeguard Muslim interests.
Their demands of communal representation in the Imperial Legislative Council and District Boards, adequate share in the public service and local bodies, adequate safeguards for the protection and promotion of Muslim culture and weight to the Muslims to protect their legitimate interests were accepted through Minto-Morley Reforms known as Government of India Act of 1909. This Act devised a novel method to distribute and balance the power. It came as the first effective dose of communalization of Indian politics.
Third stage
Attention to backward castes
After gaining the loyalty of Muslims, during the second half of the nineteenth century, the British turned their attention to uplift non-Brahmin castes and to secure their confidence. On September 2, 1897, George Francis Hamilton, the then Secretary of State for India, wrote to Viceroy Curzon, "I think the real danger to our rule in India, not now but say 50 years hence, is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation and organization. If we could break the educated Hindu into two sections, holding widely different views, we should by such division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack, which the spread of education must make upon our system of Government." The rulers succeeded in dividing educated Hindus of these two sections –Brahmins and Non Brahmins, holding widely different views. Such a division had strengthened immensely the position of rulers.
Even educated Hindus amongst non-Brahmins castes found it difficult to compete with Brahmins on equal footings. Rulers encouraged Non -Brahmins leaders to form their political pressure groups on the basis of castes and raise their voice against Brahmins.
In 1885 itself, Eutice J Kitts, a British ambassador in Azamgarh listed, for the first time, backward castes and tribes, from 1881 Census. The objective was to give them financial assistance and preferences in education and Government employment at local and provincial level. For the first, the government officially recognized caste as a base for the purposes of governance.
Initially special schools were opened for them. Special scholarship, loan, hostel facilities and concessions in school fees were provided to non Brahmins castes along with Muslims. In 1885, the education department proposed to reserve 50% of free scholarships for backwards and Muslims, as scholarships purely on merit grounds would perpetuate Brahmin's monopoly. From this base, Reservation entered into education field, so that more non-Brahmins could qualify for the jobs.
Morley Minto Reform of 1909 gave the non-Brahmins a boost. They demanded with assertiveness Reservations for themselves in education and Government employment. In 1919, the British Government transferred to provincial Governments power over subjects like education, agriculture, veterinary service, roads and, buildings, social welfare etc. With all these powers, the British Government also passed on to the provinces, the responsibility to satisfy the conflicting claims for the Government jobs and other interests of major pressure groups, which had emerged in the Indian political scene.
Methods, British used to create split
The British Government in India very cleverly created a split in the society. The policies, which they adopted for fulfilling the objectives, were following:-
Introduction of Modern Education sytem,
Resevations in educational institutions and government jobs and
Start of Census Operations
All these measures served a double purpose – they got the credit for the amelioration and protection of the lowly. Also the distribution of power on communal basis kept balance of power and prolonged their rule in India by keeping the natives busy in their in-fights.Thus British Government very cleverly, created a split in Indian society.
Introduction of Modern Education sytem
The process of creating split started with the introduction of modern education system. Initially the British rulers excluded Indians from every honor, dignity or office, which lowest of Englishman could be given. But gradually it became difficult for the rulers to import enough Englishmen to man large and increasing number of subordinate or lower posts in administration. It compelled them to introduce modern education in India. However, they used even the education system shrewdly to meet their objectives effectively. It paved a way for imperial designs.
Intention of introducing modern education – The intention of introducing modern education was, as Lord Macaulay said, "To form a class, who may be interpreters between us and millions of whom, we govern, a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect". It was mainly to get Indians, "Anglicized in terms of both cultural and intellectual attainment".
Brahmins long tradition and undisputed role in the field of knowledge and learning, their intelligence, sincerity and hard work helped them not only to occupy almost all the lower levels posts in administration available to Indians, as desired by the rulers.
But it also offered to Indian intelligentsia, the key to the treasures of scientific and democratic thought of Modern West. It opened up the doors of knowledge and widened the mental horizons of Indian intelligentsia. In due course of time, it produced many National Leaders and Reformers.
Imperial designs for creating rift - In 1835 introduction of modern education and in 1844, announcement of making knowledge of English as compulsory for government employment paved way for imperial designs and created rift in the Indian society.
In the near absence of industrial, commercial or social service activity, the educated Indians depended entirely on Government jobs. This led to a keen competition between different sections of Indian society. British rulers took advantage of the diversities that already existed in India for centuries.
Welcomed by national leaders and intellectuals – The national leaders and intellectuals welcomed the introduction of modern education. They thought that understanding of Western literature and liberal, scientific, democratic and humanitarian thoughts of modern Western World would help to remedy many social, political and economic evils prevalent in the nation at that point of time. It would give some insight to the fragmented, poverty stricken, superstitious, weak, indifferent, backward and inward looking society of India. They took upon themselves the responsibility to build a modern, open, plural, culturally rich, prosperous and powerful India.
An Alarm bell for British rulers - Modern education not only produced persons to fill the lower levels of administration, as desired by the rulers. Along with them emerged, by second half of nineteenth century, many national leaders, intellectuals and reformers like Dadabhai Naoroji, Ferozeshah Mehta, Gokhale, Gandhi, Jinnah, Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Moti Lal Nehru, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Patel and many more. The rulers never wanted it.
Preponderance of Brahmins everywhere including freedom movement alarmed the British rulers.
Policy of Reservation
Another tool British used was the Policy of Reservation. In 1918, Mysore Government appointed Miller Committee to look into the question.i On its recommendation "All communities, other than Brahmins, who were not adequately represented in the public Service" were declared backwards. In 1921 preferential recruitment for backward communities was instituted formally for the first time in its colleges and state services.
In 1925, Government of Bombay provided Reservations to backward communities in its services. It included all except Brahmins, Marwaris, Prabhus, Banias and Christians.ii Madras started quota based communal representation in its Government services and educational institution in 1921.
The United Province had a practice of reserving, out of every four seats, 1 to Brahmin, 1 to Kayastha, 1 to Muslim and the last one to any section other than these three sections.
The concessions bestowed on the backward communities made them loyal to British rule. An excerpt from the Times Archives (Aug 1925) shows the upsurge of Non-Brahmins in Madras. Presiding over the fifth non-Brahmin Conference in Tanjore, Rao Bahadur O Thanikachalam Chetty of Madras, "Warned the non-Brahmin public of the dangers ahead" and how in the name of Swaraj, deception was being practiced, lies were decimated with a view to creating prejudice against the Justice party-men and to secure transfer of power to Brahmins under the guise of supporting the Swarajis.
The speaker emphasized the need to counter-act Swarajis' activity in view of the coming elections to Legislative Council. He said that their province had, hitherto, successfully resisted the seditious blandishments of the Swarajis and had earned the good name of having successfully worked for the transitional Constitution vouched safe to them by the "Government of India Act."
Census operations and Untouchability
Census operations were also used for the purpose of further splitting the Hindu community. It created political identities in India. Census operation, introduction of electoral politics and suggestion of the Census Commission for 1911 Census, to exclude untouchables, (comprising about 24% of Hindu population and 16% of the total population in 1908) from Hinduism, had made position of untouchables prominent in Indian political scene.
Around 1909, the lower strata of Hindu community were conceptualized under the name of "untouchables". So far, untouchables had clubbed their political activities with backward classes led by the Justice Party and South Indian Liberation Federation, which were already agitating against Brahmin's dominance in modern callings. The emergence of Dr. Ambedkar on the political scene provided with the required leadership and needed stimulus to untouchable movement during late twenties and early thirties. There is a section of people, which considers that Ambedkar was planted into Indian politics purposely by British rulers only.
Dr. Ambedkar, while representing untouchables in Simon Commission proceedings, demanded separate electorate, reserved seats for untouchables in legislative bodies, special educational concessions, and recruitment to Government posts on preferential basis, laws against discrimination and a special department to look after the welfare of untouchables. These demands were readily accepted through Communal Award of 1932.
Gandhiji along with other National leaders regarded it as the "Unkindest cut of all, which would create a permanent split in Hindu Society, perpetuate casteism and make impossible the assimilation of untouchables in mainstream. Dr. Rajendra Prasad said, "The principle of dividing population into communal groups, which had been adopted in the Minto Morely Reforms, had been considerably extended, even beyond what had been done by Montagu Chelmsford Reforms"¦." "The electorate in 1919 was broken up into ten parts, now it is fragmented into seventeen unequal bits"¦ Giving separate representations to Schedule Castes further weakened Hindu community. Division on the basis of religion, occupation and service were made. The British introduced every possible cross-division".iii Lal Bahadur Shastri denounced the whole happenings "As a shameless episode of the National History of the Country."
After Independence
The Constitution of India, through Articles 14, 15 and 16, guaranteed equality of opportunity to all citizens relating to advancement and employment or appointment to any office under the State. However it also allowed the Government to make special provisions in favour of any backward class of citizens.
Seeds sown by British flourished in Independent India
The present day politicians have followed their steps and created such an atmosphere that seeds sown by British may blossom in full. The Indian politicians have inherited from British rulers three powerful democratic weapons i.e. Electoral policy, Census operations, and Reservation Policy.
Earlier British rulers used them for economic exploitation and perpetuation of their rule as long as possible. Now Indian politicians are using it in similar way for their own advantage. Present trend of giving continued importance to diversities especially of caste, community, region, language by most of the political parties and shrewd politicians for electoral purposes is at its peak. Instead of the feeling of fraternity amongst Indians, "feeling of 'others" or "we" and "them" has become more prominent than.
Whether amongst youth or grown ups, the casteist, religious and ideological intolerance has generated communal violence and caste animosities everywhere in the country.
Political instability
The public mandate got fractured on caste and communal lines. At present, it has become almost impossible to ensure a stable Government. Political insecurity has engulfed the whole nation into caste politics. It has given birth to worst form of caste and communal divide. Caste frenzy overtook country's two most populous provinces of UP and Bihar.
The result is hung parliaments, insecure politicians, scant respect for democratic norms and conduct. Unholy pre or post poll alliances are made. There are manipulations to get hold on power. All political parties try to extract political mileage out of Paternalistic policies.
Politicians are adopting gimmicks of secularism, socialism, equity and social justice. They evade real issues and shirk responsibility. Political party in power finds itself handicapped and lack courage to take hard decisions. The sole aim of politicians, especially of newly emerging groups, have no other program except the one to capture political power by hook or crook and retain it as long as possible.
Criminalization of politics and corruption
Along with caste politics prospered criminalization of politics and corruption ridden leadership scenario in the country with large number of scams and scandals. Power-centric politicians do not care for any principle or ideology; neither do they care for honesty or welfare of people. For power, they do not even mind using foul means or hesitate in taking help of criminals. Many history-sheetors are, at present, in politics.
There is a blatant use of money and muscle power in elections. Politicians try various permutations and combinations to increase their vote Banks. Poor public is a silent spectator, while political atmosphere is surcharged with manipulation, casteism, nepotism and criminalisation.
Paternalistic policies
Paternalistic policies and social justice has elated the backwards and Dalits. The nation is now divided into numerous political camps – pro-Hindu camp, anti-Hindu camp, secular camp, and caste camps into forward, backward and Dalit camp. There are regional camps too, playing up federal card to woe the electorate. The situation is leading to fundamentalist and separatist attitudes, conflict, instability, in-decisiveness, and rigid and irrational attitude.
Inter and Intra-Caste rivalries
For political advantages, different caste, sub-castes and sub-sub-castes have come together, bearing the same caste tag. But they do not forget their separate identities. The political tags/identities as caste Hindus, backwards, SCs, STs and minorities for Reservations and other preferential measures has increased the in-fights between these categories and created social disorder, making the task of governance difficult.
The unity of various castes under the label of "Dalits", "Scheduled castes", or "OBC" is an illusion created by vested interests. It does not make them a homogenous class. In the opinion of MSS Pandian, an academic with Madras Institute of Development Studies, the current inter caste rivalries are part of a series of periodic revolt, whose prime object is self assertion.
Dalit militancy is increasing with the rise of new militant outfits like BSP, Devendrakula Vellalar Federation, Thyagi Immanual Paravai, Dalit Panthers of India etc. The striking feature of New Dalit militancy is their utter disregard for the present set up and their attempt to capture political power. Dalit leaders are pursuing Dalit empowerment with vengeance.
Winding up
Way back on December 9, 1946, Mr. V.N. Narayan had said, "At best of times, India is ungovernable country of diversities, conflicts and problems".v Mr. Nani Palkiwala expressed the same feeling after 50 years of self-rule, which gave to India empty coffers, unfulfilled promises, political instability, fractured society and perpetual divide among different groups along caste and community lines. He said, "Our legal systems have made life too easy for criminals and too difficult for law abiding citizens".vi A touch here, a push there may adversely effect the unity of India . Governance of a pluralistic society, like India, is a sensitive and challenging exercise.
While laying down the foundation of some democratic institutions and policies, the Imperial rulers set the example of how policies of great scope can be used for serving the vested interests of persons in power. The Indian politicians have inherited from British rulers three powerful democratic weapons i.e. Electoral policy, Census operations, and Reservation Policy.
The present day politicians have learnt very well from British rulers, how to use these systems for pacifying the masses and prolonging their hold on political authority longer. They are following the footsteps of their predecessor i.e. British Imperialist rulers and are creating their own separate empires. The seeds of "divide and rule" sown by British are blossoming in full now.
Way out
There has been a fast decline in the observance of morality. In the absence of ideology, pursuit of material success has made the so-called representatives of the people selfish and intolerant. They have drifted almost rudderless without sense of direction. The recent political developments have given a rise to mutual strife within the society.
Lust for political power and wealth should be replaced by sense of service. Instead of concentrating on populist measures, political leaders should give priority to real issues. The administration would become more sensitive and responsive to the needs of the disadvantaged people. Basic amenetias like drinking water, house, food etc. should be proveded effectively and efficiently.
In electoral reforms should be made in such a way that instead of power seekers, talented, professional and specialized persons could find place in the system. Men of character, learning and scholarship should be elected as representatives of the people and be given the respect, they deserve from society. Entrusting power in weak or greedy hands without making them strong enough to hold it judiciously could not empower them.
Liberalization and globalization has opened up a new vista for everybody. To channelise creativity and energies of modern youth and to keep them happy and satisfied, a sound system of education and training is required urgently.
To prevent unhealthy competition in the society discriminatory statutes, policies and practices should be stopped. Instead of for promoting sectional intersts, stringent punishment should be given to exploiters, oppressors and those persons who are indulged in corrupt practices.
'Divide and rule policy" in India before and after the independence « Latasinha's Weblog
Virendra
Ambassador
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,697
- Likes
- 3,041
We can peel off a Chinese rail line from there and setup for ourselves .. after quality checks that is.
Sorry about the pun guys. Carry on
Compersion
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,258
- Likes
- 923
Would be good if india had a role to play in the USA and Iran reapproachment. I know india had advised Iran accordingly what they are preaching now.
happy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 3,370
- Likes
- 1,454
Obama, Iran's Rouhani hold historic phone call
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama and new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani held a historic phone call on Friday, in the highest level conversation between the estranged nations in more than three decades.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Obama said both men had directed their teams to work expeditiously toward an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. He said this was a unique opportunity to make progress with Tehran over an issue that has isolated it from the West. "While there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution," Obama said. Rouhani, in a Twitter account believed to be genuine, said that in the conversation he told Obama "Have a Nice Day!" and Obama responded with "Thank you. Khodahafez (goodbye)." He added that the two men "expressed their mutual political will to rapidly solve the nuclear issue." The telephone call, the first between the heads of government of the two nations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, came while Rouhani was heading to the airport after his first visit to the United Nations General Assembly, according to a statement on Rouhani's official website. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have been asked to follow up on the Obama-Rouhani conversation, the statement added. As president, Rouhani is the head of the government but has limited powers. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the ultimate authority in Iran with final say on domestic and foreign policy, though Rouhani says he has been given full authority to negotiate on the nuclear issue. Rouhani was on a charm offensive during his week in New York, repeatedly stressing Iran's desire for normal relations with Western powers and denying it wanted a nuclear arsenal, while urging an end to sanctions that are crippling its economy. In his speech to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Obama cautiously embraced Rouhani's gestures as the basis for a possible nuclear deal and challenged him to demonstrate his sincerity. However, the failure to orchestrate a handshake between the two leaders that day, apparently because of Rouhani's concerns about a backlash from hardliners at home – and perhaps Obama's concerns about the possibility of a failed overture – seemed to underscore how hard it may be to make diplomatic progress. Rouhani, who took office last month, told a news conference earlier on Friday he hoped talks with the United States and five other major powers "will yield, in a short period of time, tangible results," on a nuclear deal. But he was less specific than he had been on Tuesday about the time scale. He said Iran would bring a plan to resolve the decade-long dispute over Tehran's nuclear program, which Western powers and their allies suspect is aimed at developing an atomic weapons capability, to an October meeting with the six powers in Geneva. He offered no details about that plan, but emphasized that Tehran's nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.
Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/obam...hone-call-1138941.html?utm_source=ref_article
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama and new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani held a historic phone call on Friday, in the highest level conversation between the estranged nations in more than three decades.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Obama said both men had directed their teams to work expeditiously toward an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. He said this was a unique opportunity to make progress with Tehran over an issue that has isolated it from the West. "While there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution," Obama said. Rouhani, in a Twitter account believed to be genuine, said that in the conversation he told Obama "Have a Nice Day!" and Obama responded with "Thank you. Khodahafez (goodbye)." He added that the two men "expressed their mutual political will to rapidly solve the nuclear issue." The telephone call, the first between the heads of government of the two nations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, came while Rouhani was heading to the airport after his first visit to the United Nations General Assembly, according to a statement on Rouhani's official website. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have been asked to follow up on the Obama-Rouhani conversation, the statement added. As president, Rouhani is the head of the government but has limited powers. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the ultimate authority in Iran with final say on domestic and foreign policy, though Rouhani says he has been given full authority to negotiate on the nuclear issue. Rouhani was on a charm offensive during his week in New York, repeatedly stressing Iran's desire for normal relations with Western powers and denying it wanted a nuclear arsenal, while urging an end to sanctions that are crippling its economy. In his speech to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Obama cautiously embraced Rouhani's gestures as the basis for a possible nuclear deal and challenged him to demonstrate his sincerity. However, the failure to orchestrate a handshake between the two leaders that day, apparently because of Rouhani's concerns about a backlash from hardliners at home – and perhaps Obama's concerns about the possibility of a failed overture – seemed to underscore how hard it may be to make diplomatic progress. Rouhani, who took office last month, told a news conference earlier on Friday he hoped talks with the United States and five other major powers "will yield, in a short period of time, tangible results," on a nuclear deal. But he was less specific than he had been on Tuesday about the time scale. He said Iran would bring a plan to resolve the decade-long dispute over Tehran's nuclear program, which Western powers and their allies suspect is aimed at developing an atomic weapons capability, to an October meeting with the six powers in Geneva. He offered no details about that plan, but emphasized that Tehran's nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.
Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/obam...hone-call-1138941.html?utm_source=ref_article
Last edited:
happy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 3,370
- Likes
- 1,454
You see, they were just sceptical about the possible backlash.:cool2:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iran port role in India Afghan trade pact | Foreign Relations | 1 | |
|
As China offers funds to Iran, India set to fast-track Chabahar pact | West Asia & Africa | 2 | |
|
India Iran military pact | West Asia & Africa | 8 | |
|
Iran Israel conflict | OSINT | 43 |
