Separating Facts From Fiction: The British Rule

Add as a preferred source on Google

Today India completes 60 years as an independent nation. A nation that continues to forget ahead even after the countless turbulences and tragedies. Six decades in life of a man is time to retire and do some self-retrospection and worry about preparing himself for his death - the best possible fashion. However that's not a case when it comes to Nation, 60 - is as good as 16 - in comparison to the lifespan of a human. But, if at all, something is similar that's the point of introspection.

A nation, though has to move forward, must never fail to peep into its past - this is not just important but also essential. Essential at this point of time because more than 70% of our population is less than 25 years of age and have very feeble knowledge about our past and more lesser knowledge of the history of this great land. The history what they learn are limited to the textbook, which are not just minimal but also one sided. Pampered by politicians from time to time and moreover edited suitably to meet their objective of glorifying their leaders at this time its imminent that efforts are made by us to inform them of what the truth is before the fiction planted by political mongers are turned into facts.

The important questions that our history textbooks don't answer truly are three: Why did the British come to India? Why did they stay here so long? And why did they leave? Answering these questions is as good as finding the truth of the land's true legacy.

Writes David Gilmour in his book 'The Ruling Caste': "Benjamin Disraeli famously called India the 'Jewel in the Imperial Crown'. It was a many sided jewel of strategic value, of military power, a jewel which absorbed nearly a quarter of Britain's overseas investment. But it was not a jewel the British particularly like to gaze at. They wanted to know it was in the bank."

It is imminent to learn from history that British never came here to stay. India's resources, mainly natural, held numerous importances in its expansion plan across other parts of the world. British by the end of the eighteenth century had begun to think themselves as 'Romans'. Though Roman Empire was smaller and less populated than the British, it's 100 million subjects in Trojan time spread over an area of 2 ' million square miles, while Britain's Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century consisted of 440 million people dispersed over 11 ' million square miles. But the growth and shaping of two empires, the compulsion to occupy territory to prevent another power taking it, had multiple similarities.

Few Victorian Imperialists would have claimed the Britain had held India solely for the benefit of Indians; and the 'non-official' Anglo Indians, the businessmen and the planters and other traders, were said to regard the sentiments as a 'loathsome...' It was indeed hard to deny the great economic, strategic and military value of India; without it Britain's position in the Far East and in Australia and New Zealand would have been too fragile to sustain.

During the time of British rule, in India, voices in Britain and elsewhere contested the morality of a nation being ruled by foreigners. The imperialist's response to them was very much interesting. Stratechy was the most strenuous proponent of the views "We have never destroyed in India a national government, no national sentiment has been wounded, no national pride has been humiliated; and this not through any design or merit of our own, but because no Indian nationalities have existed."