Hindus support for British Raj.

Oct 2015
1,138
India
No one says that British rule didn't have negative aspects, but its positive aspects are so overwhelming that the negatives don't stand out. There are those who stay focused on the negatives, and exaggerate them. Those efforts come from Indian nationalists who are extremely jealous of what the British, a foreign people, had been able to accomplish in India, that their own ancestors could not. Such views are not accepted as real history except by like minded people. They are also blind to the fact that Indians have a long history of treating other Indians a lot worse than British ever did.

My views are based on generally accepted Indian history, and not on conspiracy or revisionist history created for nationalist reasons.
As regards secondary evidence, I have mentioned four books published in last decade from recent authors, all of which have pretty negative in assessment of British colonial rule. Are there any present-day books which assess colonial rules as overall good?

As regards, primary evidence, please try to locate whether any non-British authors hold benign view of colonial rule.

It is easy to label contrary views as 'conspiracy', 'revisionist', and 'nationalist' in attempt to dismiss evidence.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,782
USA
As regards secondary evidence, I have mentioned four books published in last decade from recent authors, all of which have pretty negative in assessment of British colonial rule. Are there any present-day books which assess colonial rules as overall good?

As regards, primary evidence, please try to locate whether any non-British authors hold benign view of colonial rule.

It is easy to label contrary views as 'conspiracy', 'revisionist', and 'nationalist' in attempt to dismiss evidence.
You imply that British authors hold benign views of colonial rule. Why can't that be extended to say that Indian authors hold hostile views of colonial rule?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2008
1,402
England
1857 began as a mutiny in British Army because of persecution of Indian sepoys
You must mean in 1857 a great mutiny happened in the Bengal Army not the British one. Furthermore, the reasons for that mutiny are very complex, and to understand them requires detailed study.

There was severest suppression / repression in 1857-58 which include things like tying Indians to cannons & blowing them.
The execution method of blowing from guns was actually an Indian custom the British borrowed briefly. As to the terrible retribution meted out by the British, and it was terrible, it can only be understood as a response to the atrocities perpetrated by the rebellious sepoys firstly at Meerut where the mutiny started, and also at Delhi which was the first destination of the Meerut mutineers. We can add to that the awful events at Cawnpore, and the most terrible event there was of course the mass murder of women and children whose corpses were thrown down the well.
 
Aug 2019
92
Bengaluru, India/Sharjah, UAE
All Indians regardless of religion or caste generally supported the British rule. Without that British would never have ruled India, comparatively in peace. Indians generally understood the so many benefits of the British rule, compared to what was there before. They were willing partners. As Indians began to get enlightened, mainly as a result of western education and knowledge brought to India by the British/Europeans, they started to long for independence.
Sanskrit is the most enlightening language in the world so yeah here's your answer. Also read Shashi Tharoor book called Era of Darkness


Might i say the very aspect of racism was inherited by the British colonization into America. There are funny stand ups about it too. By um black guys ok I'm mixed race so I hope that's not racist
 
Aug 2019
92
Bengaluru, India/Sharjah, UAE
So you mean to say that aspirations of Indian people & kings for being sovereign were completely dead in 1818 after defeat of Marathas? Or after Anglo-Sikh Wars in c.1850? Or after mutiny & war for independence in 1857. Indians no longer yearned for native sovereignty or independence after 1857? All were delighted to be ruled by foreigners?

Western education may have brought the desire for western style democracy. But is correct to asserted Indians did not aspire even for freedom like they had in the days of independent kingdoms of Maharaja Ranjit Singh till western education came?
Rajiv uncle very nice response. Try to show world Indian English. When we talk like indian everyone is respect and will definitely revert it back I say on us nicely
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,241
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Rajiv uncle very nice response. Try to show world Indian English. When we talk like indian everyone is respect and will definitely revert it back I say on us nicely

Funny. You are removed from this thread.
 
Jan 2019
212
Valencia
Word "allies" means groups joining together to fight a common enemy (eg World War-II). Marathas did not fight together with British in this sense of the word.

Many Hindus (and Sikhs, and Muslims) served in British armies which does not make them "allies". Because such service was common in India: Hindus often served in armies of Muslim rulers and Muslims also served in armies of Hindu rulers.
In Maratha-ruled regions such as Chhatisgarh, they would actively misrule and surrender the interests of the region for the sake of the British.
Screenshot 2019-08-17 at 20.58.57.png

Source: Ashutosh Kumar, Rethinking State Politics in India: Regions Within Regions, Routledge
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
You must mean in 1857 a great mutiny happened in the Bengal Army not the British one. Furthermore, the reasons for that mutiny are very complex, and to understand them requires detailed study.



The execution method of blowing from guns was actually an Indian custom the British borrowed briefly. As to the terrible retribution meted out by the British, and it was terrible, it can only be understood as a response to the atrocities perpetrated by the rebellious sepoys firstly at Meerut where the mutiny started, and also at Delhi which was the first destination of the Meerut mutineers. We can add to that the awful events at Cawnpore, and the most terrible event there was of course the mass murder of women and children whose corpses were thrown down the well.
Hello Aefwine,

Nice to see you here. I agree with all you have said but differ only on one point.

Colonization was the original sin which sort of morally justifies the 1857 rebellion. What do you think of this please?
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,782
USA
Hello Aefwine,

Nice to see you here. I agree with all you have said but differ only on one point.

Colonization was the original sin which sort of morally justifies the 1857 rebellion. What do you think of this please?
I don't believe colonization was ever any sort of sin, true even today. It all depends on which side of the fence you are standing. The same Indians who hate British colonization, turn on a dime and take much pride in stating that Indians colonized SE Asia a thousand years ago. Kashmiri Muslims claim that Hindu India is treating Kashmir as their colony and are not letting them go. They have been rebelling for independence for more than 70 years, longer than Indians did to get their independence. So if one morally justifies 1857 rebellion, one should also justify Kashmiri rebellion.
 
Last edited: