Shashi Tharoor: Britain owes reparations to India

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

No,India did not deserve the occupation.I am not defending the colonial rule.

But you have to look at history objectively from the context of that period and not from a polarising point of view.

British rule was neither good nor bad for India.British plundered the country black and blue but at the same time India owes it's existence to them.A large parts of India are part of the Indian union because of the British rule.

British did a lot of things in India for their own self interest but we ended up reaping the benefits.

Had UK not colonized us,we would have been surely colonized by even worse powers like Russia,Japan,Spain or Portugal.

Russia and Japan would have simply liquidated the population even at the sight of a simple protest,Ask the people living in andamans about what was the life under the Japanese rule.The later two would have imposed inquisition on us and would have eradicated India's ancient culture and things like Vedas,upanishads would have been lost to history.

Even if India had not been colonized,we would have been left to the perils of the Mughals,who would have ensured India's transformation to an Afghanistan type country.

Despite the partition,the British ensured smooth transition of power.In the Independence act of 1947,the kingdoms were left with the choice of joining either India or Pakistan,if suppose there had been a provision for third options like remaining independent,then India would not have been able to integrate into a single union that it is today. The kingdoms would have declared independence and would have gone directly to the UN who in turn would have legitimized their claims.

You need some objectivity lessons as well.

There were no worse powers, all of them were equally bad. Some less and some more depending on local conditions. Now coming to the liquidation part. Does artificial Bengal famine count as liquidation? But more than that, the reason that Indians did not get liquidated was because they produced a lot of wealth for their masters. Now why would you kill a golden goose? It was not a pre-meditated decision to let India keep its culture, but it was deeply rooted in benefits that Indian population provided. All the societies which get completely plundered had nothing better to offer to the imperialists. Just to clear up your head a bit further, look at the immigrant Indian workers sent to different British colonies. Reason- Indians are hard working and try to make best out of any situation.

What would have happened if India were not colonized is hardly a question to ponder over to justify British rule. May be India would have united under Marathas or Sikhs given that a lot of other countries too united themselves during this time. Anyway, it is childish to use what if statement here when it proves nothing.

British ensured such smooth transition that around a million people died during it while the white masters were sipping their tea in Delhi. The kingdoms joined India due to the efforts of Patel and their own insecurity regarding different matters. Not to forget the support of local people in these kingdoms who wanted to join India as well.

 

[Riddler_22]

No,India did not deserve the occupation.I am not defending the colonial rule.

But you have to look at history objectively from the context of that period and not from a polarising point of view.

British rule was neither good nor bad for India.British plundered the country black and blue but at the same time India owes it's existence to them.A large parts of India are part of the Indian union because of the British rule.

British did a lot of things in India for their own self interest but we ended up reaping the benefits.

Had UK not colonized us,we would have been surely colonized by even worse powers like Russia,Japan,Spain or Portugal.

Russia and Japan would have simply liquidated the population even at the sight of a simple protest,Ask the people living in andamans about what was the life under the Japanese rule.The later two would have imposed inquisition on us and would have eradicated India's ancient culture and things like Vedas,upanishads would have been lost to history.

Even if India had not been colonized,we would have been left to the perils of the Mughals,who would have ensured India's transformation to an Afghanistan type country.

Despite the partition,the British ensured smooth transition of power.In the Independence act of 1947,the kingdoms were left with the choice of joining either India or Pakistan,if suppose there had been a provision for third options like remaining independent,then India would not have been able to integrate into a single union that it is today. The kingdoms would have declared independence and would have gone directly to the UN who in turn would have legitimized their claims.

The self hatred in this post is literally nauseating.Your post is filled with way too many assumptions.How could you be so sure that Russia and Japan would have been our masters if not for British.Japan as an imperial power became prominent only in the early 20 century ,they weren't even in the game when British took control.
Secondly,mughal empire was at its dusk at that time and at mercy of marathas.Do you know maratha empire once stretched from parts of tamilnadu to Peshawar in NW.I would take marathas any day over the cunning english.
And a big lol at the smooth transition of power part.Brits sent a guy(Redcliffe) who had absolutely zero knowledge about India's geopolitical situation and demography and gave him merely 15 days to prepare the map and look what happened.The whole south Asia is paying for that even after 70 years.

 

[thethinker]

What I find interesting is @CrYsIs labelling people as arrogant, blind hypernationalists because they appreciate the debate speech by Mr. Tharoor while calling out his out of context self loathing rant.

Let's consider the facts that the speech itself went viral all across India, so much so that PM too appreciated it.

Now, if I were a regular, ordinary Indian who for most part rants about day to day life, I'd still like the speech because it was very well presented.

But, now for someone who is either affiliated to some NGOs or organizations whose sole existence depends on constant peddling of poverty porn about India and manufacturing a completely negative image about India, these kind of speeches would be alarming.

You can very well sense the frustration in some of these self hating rants.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Avoid personal attacks !!!!!!!!!!

 

[Aravind Sanjeev]

EDIT: I just found there is a similar topic on Europe and Russia section. Didn't saw, oopsy.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/shashi-tharoor-britain-owes-reparations-to-india.69050/
--

So after the speech by Shashi Tharoor at OxfordUnion has gone viral and has been the best out of the entire debate. I wonder why no one has started a topic here. If you missed the speech, the video is embedded below.
I have watched all of the debate, if you want you can as well see it listed on OxforUnion's uploads.




Some points I personally designate are true.

1. If Britain do pays reparations it won't go to the right people or for the right purpose.

2. Majority of damages are irreversible like the division of Pakistan, other forms of divides caused by British rule.

3. The railways where built largely for the British and it was used to loot more than it was ever used to gain on Indian economy. A lot of countries built railways without any colonialism.

4. British aid is less than the fertilizer subsidy. It will create only point percent change if it wasn't received. If Britain did wanted to give aid, they should have it given directly to the people. It is just a propaganda tool.

5. Other countries have gave reparations to their former colonies, this is not the first time.


India don't need British reparations to rise. India is worlds fastest economy by itself. All these aids in the end will be a propaganda tool. India can surely rise again without any reparations, so the conclusion is of the moral ethics.

 

[Mad Indian]

What would have happened if India were not colonized is hardly a question to ponder over to justify British rule. May be India would have united under Marathas or Sikhs given that a lot of other countries too united themselves during this time. Anyway, it is childish to use what if statement here when it proves nothing

Morons who claim that British rule was good due to unification should be made to read about unification of Germany and Italy .

Fuck even now Germany is not truly united as German speaking Austria is still a separate country. Do we see any Germans or Austrians talking about how Russians or French invading looting and uniting them.


These people are Self loathing losers with no self respect

 

[Aravind Sanjeev]

@Mad Indian

Like Tharoor pointed out, 200 years of colonialism and you cannot celebrate the fact that you got democratic or united in the end. The democracy or unification wasn't brought by colonialism, If Britain have put slightest of their time doing anything on India, then it was to make Indians fight on themselves. Like Muslims VS Hindus, the major reason to the creation of Pakistan.

The East India Company cheated, bribed and used divides to take control. Whoever argued that Britain colonialism have resulted the unification of India have surely yet to learn “Divide and rule” policy that largely made Indians fight on Indians itself by weakening our own bonds. Each and every tactical move by British was made to stop any sort of Indian unification. It was actually made a lot and lot harder for India to ever unite.

The only reason why India united was people like Gandhi working for it. If you are saying that people like Gandhi was born because of colonialism that was like going to your neighbor’s home, breaking his leg and getting your leg broke as compensation.

But coming to reparations, I don’t think Britain can afford any reparations or even if Britain can, it won’t be going to the right people as is debated. It is going to be a propaganda tool and it is need not required for India’s rise.

 

[CrYsIs]

You need some objectivity lessons as well.

There were no worse powers, all of them were equally bad. Some less and some more depending on local conditions. Now coming to the liquidation part. Does artificial Bengal famine count as liquidation? But more than that, the reason that Indians did not get liquidated was because they produced a lot of wealth for their masters. Now why would you kill a golden goose? It was not a pre-meditated decision to let India keep its culture, but it was deeply rooted in benefits that Indian population provided. All the societies which get completely plundered had nothing better to offer to the imperialists. Just to clear up your head a bit further, look at the immigrant Indian workers sent to different British colonies. Reason- Indians are hard working and try to make best out of any situation.

What would have happened if India were not colonized is hardly a question to ponder over to justify British rule. May be India would have united under Marathas or Sikhs given that a lot of other countries too united themselves during this time. Anyway, it is childish to use what if statement here when it proves nothing.

British ensured such smooth transition that around a million people died during it while the white masters were sipping their tea in Delhi. The kingdoms joined India due to the efforts of Patel and their own insecurity regarding different matters. Not to forget the support of local people in these kingdoms who wanted to join India as well.

No,all of them were not equally bad.If i categorize into three groups ie bad,worse and the worst.The British would fall into bad category ,the french would be the worse and the Japanese would have been the worst.

Had India been ruled by the Japanese,they would have done things like rape of nanking and probably would have massacred millions in a genocidal war and Gandhi would have been lost to the footnotes of history.I have been to cellular jail in Andamans and they have a light show in the evening where they tell you stories of Japanese atrocities, which were so extreme and so brutal that the government of Japan actually had to apologize to the government of India and had to pay compensation to the victims.

Had the British not colonized India, i am 99% sure that India would have been colonized other colonial empire as India was the golden goose.The Marathas or the sikhs wound't have been able to hold India as one unit for long.The Marathas already had seceded Northern half to the Durranis by the end of the 18th century.

As i said large parts of India are part of the Union because of the British.Places like North East would never have been in the union, and because of the anglo Gurkha war we got a lot of territory in the north too.


The bengal famine cannot be categorized as "liquidation" or a "genocide" but more of a systematic failure of the administration for which i hold the British government absolutely responsible .Then there are also factors like the cyclone in 1942 and the occupation of Burma which played a significant role in the famine.

As i said before had the British put a 3rd option in the Act that Kingdoms had the right to remain independent,then these kingdoms would have exercised this clause and fought for their case in the UN and probably would have won the case and this could have created serious headache like Kashmir for the Independent government.


I am not aping the line the British brought civilization to India or that British rule was the best thing to happen India.I am simply stating that British rule was certainly not good but not extremely bad either.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

@CrYsIs

British were the only invaders that ruled India that used starvation as a policy to control the masses.

 

[CrYsIs]

The self hatred in this post is literally nauseating.Your post is filled with way too many assumptions.How could you be so sure that Russia and Japan would have been our masters if not for British.Japan as an imperial power became prominent only in the early 20 century ,they weren't even in the game when British took control.
Secondly,mughal empire was at its dusk at that time and at mercy of marathas.Do you know maratha empire once stretched from parts of tamilnadu to Peshawar in NW.I would take marathas any day over the cunning english.
And a big lol at the smooth transition of power part.Brits sent a guy(Redcliffe) who had absolutely zero knowledge about India's geopolitical situation and demography and gave him merely 15 days to prepare the map and look what happened.The whole south Asia is paying for that even after 70 years.

India would certainly have been colonized as India was the Prime property and like greedy builders the colonial empires would never have spared India.
You forgot by 16th century several colonial empires were camping in India with the hope of capturing
the country,this included the Dutch,the Danes,the Portuguese,the french and finally the British.

Marathas had captured large parts of India but i doubt they could hold the country for long as India was under constant invasion from the Afgans and the central Asians.

Yes i agree the British could have done better with partitioning but even if he had things with utmost care,i bet the map of India would only have changed slightly.The biggest mistake was to give Chittagong to Pakistan.

 

[CrYsIs]

@LETHALFORCE

The British were mostly guilty of indifference,they didn't care for the people and exploited them for their own benefit.

 

[thethinker]

:biggrin2:

Seems Brits follow Paki model of education when it comes to shaping and educating young minds.

""There's hardly a single reference to the British empire as a whole in the English education curriculum," Dalrymple told DW. "British schoolchildren are completely unaware of everything that was done by the British Empire, whether good or bad.""

http://www.dw.com/en/indian-mp-thar...ebate-over-uk-reparations-to-india/a-18610107

United Kingdom

Indian MP Tharoor accidentally ignites debate over UK reparations to India

A viral video may have sparked a new revolution in India. A speech that Shashi Tharoor gave in May at the Oxford Union has suddenly raised the specter of whether England owes monetary reparations to its former colonies.

The "R" word - reparations - was not really a mainstay issue of the India-UK relationship. There hadn't really been any kind of dull roar about the 150 years Britain spent on the subcontinent as colonizers, or the need for the country to make amends to the world's largest democracy. That is, until the Oxford Union posted a video of the Indian member of parliament Shashi Tharoor on YouTube on July 14.

By July 22, when the BBC reported on the low buzz of conversation it was accumulating, the video had received just under half a million views. By Monday, July 27, it had over 2 million views and 4,100 comments - and a real online debate about the nature of the UK-India relationship had begun. Other videos from the same debate garnered between 19,000 and 210,000 views.

In a crisp English accent at the Oxford University debate on May 28, Tharoor quickly swept the crowd off its feet during his time to speak, with lines like "No wonder the sun wouldn't set on the British Empire; even God wouldn't trust the English in the dark."

The debate

Tharoor laid out very numbers-based arguments in the 15-minute video, touching on how many Indians served and died for Britain in World Wars I and II, how whole industries were exploited purely for British profit, and how the rail and road system were built on the backs of Indian taxpayers.

"Between 15 and 29 million Indians died of starvation in British-induced famines," Tharoor said, pointing specifically to the Great Bengal Famine during World War II, when UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided to divert supplies of food and essentials from starving civilians in India to the reserve stockpiles for British soldiers.

"When conscience-stricken British officials wrote to him, pointing out that people were dying because of this decision," Tharoor continued, "he peevishly wrote in the margins of the file: 'Why hasn't Ghandi died yet?'" Four million Indians died in 1943 during that famine.

Tharoor ended his speech by pointing out that Britain already has a history of paying reparations to populations that were hurt by its policies, including to Israel, Poland and the native Maori people of New Zealand. "This is not going to open some sort of nasty Pandora's Box," Tharoor said. "There is a moral debt that needs to be paid."

'Never been discussed'

Prominent Indian journalist and TV personality Barkha Dutt called the speech "just excellent." Even Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who hails from Tharoor's rival political party, praised him for the speech.

"It shows the importance of saying the right thing at the right time," Modi said. In India it is rare for a leader to praise a member of a rival party.

Could the idea of reparations take hold in Britain? Well, first the Britons need to flat-out learn about the former British Empire, said William Dalrymple, a British historian and author of several books on the relationship between Britain and the subcontinent.

"There's hardly a single reference to the British empire as a whole in the English education curriculum," Dalrymple told DW. "British schoolchildren are completely unaware of everything that was done by the British Empire, whether good or bad."

Talk of actual reparations, Dalrymple said, was something he had never heard discussed before. "This is the first time I've ever heard the word reparations ever used."

Darlymple was quick to point out that Tharoor was speaking as part of a college debate event, and not dictating official Indian government policy. "It is part of a growing movement," he said. "There is a growing awareness that some very evil things went on."

"My view is that apologies and reparations and these sort of things are not the answer, although I understand where the demands are coming from," Dalrymple continued. "I would recommend above all educating British people on the many terrible things that were done by their ancestors, as well as some of the things they can be proud of."

Dalrymple did note that relations between India and the UK have been extremely friendly since India became independent in 1947, and that "we've almost been waiting 60 years for the penny to drop." He attributed much of the cordiality - and, thus far, the lack of calls for reparations - to the fact that many older Indians had very British tastes and personal connections to and affections for the British.

"As that generation has died away and this post-millennial generation has been looking at it with more distance, and particularly as India's self-confidence has risen, it's getting clearer that something terrible has happened in history," he said.

At the debate on May 28, Tharoor's side won, 185 votes to 56.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

@LETHALFORCE

The British were mostly guilty of indifference,they didn't care for the people and exploited them for their own benefit.

This is true Irish were also victims of famines created by Britain. But to view them as benefactors for India is highly controversial? Much of Indian history has also been watered down by congress government. The party that inherited power from uk.

 

[jackprince]

@CrYsIs

You call Sashi Tharoor a British educated Anglophile, when I am inclined to agree despite his rather excellent speech, I see you are more of a British apologetic than anybody I have seen in this forum. Although, I do admit that you ae more in hate with Indians than in love with Britts.

Your every arguments speak volumes of your anglophilia.

99%sure india would have been colonized, Maratha couldn't control, India was lucky English came instead of French or japanese, Bengal famine an administrative failure, 3rd option for princely states... what fvck?!!!!!

If you are what if-ing, then couldn't you consider what if Siraj-ud-daula killed off Clive's forces and then Maratha defeated weakened Bengal Nawab? Or English and French battled it out, and then the weakened european forces got massacred by Marathas? Sikhs remained united and kicked English butt and formed a greater Punjab? The Maratha united India and led the forces against Britts and massacred them when getting weapon tech from French or Portugese?

You can go any length of fictional world to show your love for the Raj and rationalise its action. But, guess what, we are not buying what you are selling? May be you can get buyer in the leftist club?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

@CrYsIs - who carried out the genocide of aboriginal Australians?

 

[Varahamihira]

No , I did say that ... there is a difference between "tial ka Taarh" and "rai ka pahad" in terms of magnitude of saying.




Do give the credit where it lies ... and I am pretty sure you have not even tried to read the books I mentioned ...

Communists essentially are disillusioned by theory of Class Struggle and not Caste / Religious / National struggle ... though USSR did call their II world war as great patriotic war. Communist in India even worked against their class enemy Nehru in 1962 war with China when Bose acted as their information portal. .. but after that kept helping India to govern against their bigger Class enemies whom they called fundamentalists except the Muslim Fundamentalist .... There is where they miserably failed ...

I agree I haven't read the books,for Dharampal I can make an exception and will read it.The reason I won't read them is I went through the left-communist looney phase during my college days and I know how it works.The thing is it starts from,Oh he has written something that has to be given credit and then moves to he might be a neutral(and believe me most communists do sound like neutral and rationalists but they aren't).

In Hydrabad, the first step was to get rid of Nizam .. then only could Hydrabad join India ... Is not it ??

Whole of the erst while Hyderabad state(except Razakars) wanted to get rid of Nizam and then join Hyderabad to India except communists.Communists wanted to get rid of Nizam and create Hyderabad as an Independent state.So what's your point?

 

[tarunraju]

Watch out, Citizen Khan Cutbulla out to defend her majesty!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ion-and-the-space-programme-we-still-pay-for/

Britain invested almost £400 billion in today’s money in India between 1850 and 1930. Under British rule, the Indian population tripled. Because living standards improved.

Investments didn't precede taxes. Those £400B of today's money came out of the trillions of pounds of today's money, collected in taxes. What hoseshit.

The claim of the advent of the British improving living standards in India is a big enough pile of horseshit to fertilize Africa.

And who can forget gin and tonics quinine, which drastically cut malaria deaths?

...And which weren't free?

Gasp. We can’t say that, can we? That’d be “rraaacccissstttt” or something. But not nearly as racist as what Dr Tharoor himself said in the Oxford Union debate. I’m still waiting for a social justice warrior to cry about this one. I’ll probably be waiting a long time. But in his speech Dr Tharoor said: “The Sun couldn’t set on the British empire, because even God couldn’t trust the English in the dark.”

Think about it for a second. In fact, let’s play a game. You swap out the word “English” for another nationality, and see if you think you wouldn’t get into a heap load of trouble for making such a remark. Come on, try it with me:

Even God couldn’t trust the Nigerians in the dark. Racist.

Even God couldn’t trust the Chinese in the dark. Racist.

Even God couldn’t trust the Americans in the dark.

But that logic is not applicable when Europeans express their right to free-speech and draw Mohammed. Uncle Tom, as long as it's convenient.

Dr Tharoor made a further point in his speech that he didn’t even want much from Britain on the reparations front: “…personally I would even be happy if the UK pays a pound a year for the next 100 years”. I wish that were the case.

Actually, we’re paying more like £200 million a year in India to aid, despite her having a larger economy than us, with her own foreign aid budget and indeed space programme. And even though this is supposed to stop (so say the Tories, anyway) it seems to me that we’ve given a little more than what Dr Tharoor is asking. So on the basis that it stops immediately, Dr Tharoor can consider all of that his country’s “reparations”.

Does Senor Cutbulla even read English? Tharoor said "it's the acknowledgement that you owe reparations that we want, not how much you pay us."

Actually, no he can’t. Because that would imply wrongdoing, and Britons need to be clear about the fact that you can’t have things both ways.

Korea had it that way. Japan admitted to wrongdoings, and paid up.

India would be a much poorer country were it not for British rule (and vice versa, by the way) – culturally, financially, and politically.

No, Britain would be a much poorer country (than India, in per-capita terms), culturally, financially, and politically, if not for the colonization of India. Scotland would be independent. There wouldn't be a Cutbullastan (Pakistan).

So why don’t we just cut out all the rhetoric and embrace each other as Commonwealth partners? Equal partners even. Which means India doesn’t need British aid to pay for street lights or space rockets, and Britain doesn’t need to grovel for something that a lot of right headed Indians are still grateful to this day for.

I don't even understand why India continues to be a part of the Commonwealth.

 

[Mad Indian]

I don't even understand why India continues to be a part of the Commonwealth.

I don't either . may be too many Indians want the benefits of commonwealth(if there was any) and so shamelessly want India to continue in it?

 

[tarunraju]

I don't either . may be too many Indians want the benefits of commonwealth(if there was any) and so shamelessly want India to continue in it?

Well, we don't have a visa waiver to any of the commonwealth countries, nor are there any tangible trade/capital benefits. It's just a forum for Indian Uncle Toms to wank their delusions of grandeur, because their scope of history doesn't go beyond the past 250 years.

 

[tarunraju]

Japan manned up and paid Korea and Taiwan-ROC reparations. As did Italy to Libya. Britain doesn't want to man-up, probably because all its _men_ fvcked off to the US and Australia, leaving behind sissy sexually-confused poms with a perpetual inferiority complex.