How Much Did The British Really Influence India

[redindica]

Well as an Idian decent living in Britain I'd never heard of Ram Mohon Roy.
The fact that he never gets mentioned is an indication that the British have an agenda in stating that they "civilised" India by (as an example) abolishing sati. When, as mentioned before, it was a very limited number of Brahmins(?) that did this ritual.

I've come to the conclusion that the more I learn about India off my own back the more I have to forget what I was taught in school about it.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

The British learnt about personal hygiene from the Indians then years later came to believe they imparted this along with civilisation, generally, to the peoples they colonised. What Stinkers! Queen victoria for example is known to have bathed only once a year and she was the Queen, whereas everyday Indians have long understood and practised the maxim 'Cleanliness is next to Godliness' some of them bathing three times a day. Evidence of this can be seen in Indian words that have become English words such as 'shampoo' and 'pyjamas' - The Brits. didn't wash their hair and slept in their clothes apparently. Those stinking British!
Britains national dish is now rice, naan bread and curry,and 15% or Britons are now vegetarian whereas you don't get much meat and two veg or fish and chips in India. And look at the Beatles, Britains folk heroes, and their spiritual awakening reflecting a widespread shift in awareness and culture and turning towards Buddhism and Hinduism not just overtly but also within Christianity and popular culture.
The truth is Indians may have influenced the British, especially in the long term, more than the British have infuenced the Indians, just like the sea at first breaks on the rock but ultimately wears it away Indian culture has always survived invaders and ultimately absorbed them into herself.

The conclusion that the British are responcible for Indians attitude toward sex doesn't stand up because now-a-days British attitudes are very liberal. Britain has swung from one extreme to another from austerity to indulgence from shame to pride whereas India has remained more steady in her attitudes. Certainly the British did undermine Indians belief in the validity of their own culture by promoting the presumed superiority of Christianity and inferiority of other religions, this was neccessary for them to justify their presence along the lines of 'the white mans burden'. The British did build railways although these did tend to lead only from the resources to the ports.
I think that Britains class system being akin to the caste system and the fact that they were more interested in economic imperialism rather than cultural imperialism and their at least theoretical respect for the rule of law and democracy suited them to the role they played, after all the steps along the way to the re-emergence of India as the Guru of nations is all part of the Divine master plan.
Heres an analogy if Nelson Mandela hadn't been locked up and humiliated for thirty years would he have emerged as such a wise, strong, well - balanced, self - assured and organised leader. Or a better one without the demonic Ravana and Kamsa would Rama and Krishna have incarnated.

On behalf of Britain and European Christianity I would like to take this opportunity to apologise wholeheartedly for all the theft, murder, lies, torture, rape, subjugation and slavery perpetrated against persons from other continents by my forbears, by which we have grown rich, and since largely forgotten. If its any consolation we were to some extent only exporting our treatment of each other.

First we robbed you of your earthly treasures now Brits like me are helping ourselves to your spiritual treasures!

[Agnideva]

Namaste Samuel,

I’m not well-versed in Indian history, but it is my understanding that the British Raj contributed both negatively and positively to the Indian nation. The Indian railway system is one positive contribution. Also, today Indians are benefiting tremendously because they are educated in English. Personally I think that India would not have been a nation if it were not colonized. We would have had several small countries in South Asia.

Originally Posted by Samuel

Heres an analogy if Nelson Mandela hadn't been locked up and humiliated for thirty years would he have emerged as such a wise, strong, well - balanced, self - assured and organised leader. Or a better one without the demonic Ravana and Kamsa would Rama and Krishna have incarnated.

This is a very positive way of thinking about it, Samuel. If there was no Indian independence movement, there would have been no Mahatma Gandhi, and no non-violent struggle. Gandhi inspired so many other great individuals including Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr.

First we robbed you of your earthly treasures now Brits like me are helping ourselves to your spiritual treasures!

IMHO, the spiritual treasures of Hinduism do not belong to the Indian people alone. In fact, Sanatana Dharma does not tell us (its adherents) that we are in any way special, chosen, or have a different fate than people who follow other religions. The spiritual tradition of the Vedas and Agamas belongs to everyone, and anyone can learn from them. One of my favorite quotes is the Rigvedic edict you see in my sig: "Only base minds reckon who be kin and stranger, for those of noble character, the whole world is but one family."

OM Shanti,
A.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

it is my understanding that the British Raj contributed both negatively and positively to the Indian nation.

I'd certainly agree with that - and it's also worth mentioning that Britain itself was distilled through colonisation from overseas powers.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

Namaste Agnideva and I Brian, I agree.

[redindica]

Hi All,

There's no denying that The British influenced India (like all invaders have) however we must bare in mind that at the time of the British takeover India was the second largest economy in the world at the time of independance the Indian state had been reduced to that of a "third word" nation. Like all emipres it was intrinsicley about greed. And is it a conincidence that less then 100 years after the yoke of Imperialism has been shed India is once more an economic power?

In 1882, the British Victorian politician Sir John Seeley wrote:

"We seem, as it were, to have conquered and peopled half the world in a fit of absence of mind."

He was alluding to the somewhat haphazard way that it appeared Britain had come to dominate a significant portion of the globe. In Seeley’s time, at the height of the British Empire, it could truly be said that the sun never set on the British Empire. Britain’s overseas holdings and interests amounted to a vastly larger land (and sea) empire than had ever before been seen in the world. But this empire did not reflect a grand military design, like that of Macedonia’s Alexander the Great in the ancient world, or the failed imperial vision of a Napoleon; rather, it was acquired through a national obsession with increasing commerce. In a sense, it was the first capitalist empire.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by redindica

at the time of the British takeover India was the second largest economy in the world at the time of independance the Indian state had been reduced to that of a "third word" nation.

Seems an odd statement to make about India being the second largest economy just before British control - it would be good to see a source justifying this in comparison to other world economies, and the criteria used to define it. Would be interesting to see in such figures the influence of European trading.

As for India being reduced after British withdrawal - my reading of the British Empire is very poor, but my distinct impression given is that a contributory reason for the breakdown of the British Empire was that Britain struggled to provide funds for administration of the empire - not least in being made effectively bankrupt by the two "world wars".

2c.

[redindica]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Seems an odd statement to make about India being the second largest economy just before British control - it would be good to see a source justifying this in comparison to other world economies, and the criteria used to define it. Would be interesting to see in such figures the influence of European trading.

As for India being reduced after British withdrawal - my reading of the British Empire is very poor, but my distinct impression given is that a contributory reason for the breakdown of the British Empire was that Britain struggled to provide funds for administration of the empire - not least in being made effectively bankrupt by the two "world wars".

2c.

Hello Brian

economic history is a relitively new subject but my information comes from Angus Maddison and a qoute from Wikipedia for you, please read : -

According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective, India had the world's largest economy between the 1st century and 15th century, from a 32.9% share of world GDP in the 1st century to 24.5% in 1500, when China overtook India with a 25% share in that same year. In 1700, India had a 24.4% share of world GDP, which was drastically reduced to 3.8% by 1952. Another estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts the revenue of Akbar's Mughal empire in 1600 at £17.5 million, in contrast to the entire treasury of Great Britain in 1800, which totalled £16 million.

The fact that Britain had overstratched itself over the two world wars does not negate the fact that India had been reduced to a "third world" economy by the time of Indias independance, as stated above.

The Greeks were better (lol)

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the reference - much appreciated. It would be interesting to see how other economist view the hypothesis. I can't help but feel that they're not factoring the difference industrialisation made to the world economy, though.

[redindica]

Hi Brian

I can’t find any references (at least on the net) to your inquiry. However of we are analogous to the present, yes the UK as of the middle part of the 18th century did (obviously) have a greater industrial base then the rest of the world, but this does not necessarily equate to a greater GDP.

In modern times Norway is by far the richest country in the world without having a vast industrial base....they have resources (oil) however even though Britain is something like ten (approx) places below them could easy invade and take over Norway because of it's military.

It's a complex issue the books are very expensive. I'll get back if I learn anything new.

Peace

[lucius]

I hope you won't mind if I turn this question around and ask 'how much did India influence the British?'

I have always suspected that during the empire period, there must have been many Brits who became interested if not enthralled with Indian culture, esp. spiritual culture. I think that it was probably something which would have been frowned upon, and so perhaps such people tended to remain silent.

There are a few exceptions - most well know to me being the case of Sri Krishnaprem, aka Ronald Nixon, a British university lecturer in India who became the first westerner to be initiatad into the Vaishnava tradition. Krishnaprem's story is quite fascinating. He met many of the spiritual luminaries of India in his day, including Ramana Maharishi and Sri Aurobindo, and developed a close friendship with Begali musician, later guru Dilip Kumar Roy.
Roy wrote a biography 'Yogi Sri Krishnaprem' - it is out of print I believe, but can be found second hand (try abebooks.co.uk).
Both Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharishi had a very high opinion of him, and he is one of the very few non-Indians to be accepted by Indians as a guru.
For me, his work is an inspiration in many ways.

I'm sure though that many others must have been influenced to some degree by Indian culture.

Just one other point - under British rule, India never became a 'Christian nation' - nothing even resembling it.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by lucius

Just one other point - under British rule, India never became a 'Christian nation' - nothing even resembling it.

This is an interesting point you make. Thanks for highlighting this. Infact during the 1000 years of various muslim invasions, India never became an islamic nation as well, though we do have a very large population of Muslims.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by I am free

This is an interesting point you make. Thanks for highlighting this. Infact during the 1000 years of various muslim invasions, India never became an islamic nation as well, though we do have a very large population of Muslims.

Which says a lot about the validity of Santana Dharma .

Actually such a private narrow attitude about sex has never been a big attribute of Indian culture. Tantric sex was holy and what now . In Christianity, sex is looked down upon as a dirty act only done for reproduction. Same with Islam to a certain extent.

The Brits also brought homophobia to India. Christianity is very homophobic.

[I, Brian]

The point of Indian influence is an interesting point to raise, lucius - certainly in the mid-19th century there was an explosion in interest in Asian culture in general - we have mass translations into English of various major texts, and the formation of groups such as the Theosophists.

The point about not converting India to Christianity - so far as I understand it so far, the conquest of India was a somewhat accidental process - with the East India Trade Company using British troops to protect it's own trade interests against French and Portugese aggression - an issue that continually escalated, until Britain found itself in political control of India once the French were removed.

Of course, my source is British, and it would be a valid objection to claim bias.

[lucius]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The point of Indian influence is an interesting point to raise, lucius - certainly in the mid-19th century there was an explosion in interest in Asian culture in general - we have mass translations into English of various major texts, and the formation of groups such as the Theosophists.

The point about not converting India to Christianity - so far as I understand it so far, the conquest of India was a somewhat accidental process - with the East India Trade Company using British troops to protect it's own trade interests against French and Portugese aggression - an issue that continually escalated, until Britain found itself in political control of India once the French were removed.

Of course, my source is British, and it would be a valid objection to claim bias.

I think that's an accurate summary of how the Brits came to rule India.
And there were some attempts to introduce Christianity, but it never gained a very large following. This 'evangelizing' still goes on to-day in India, amid many accusations of mal-practice etc. As far as my knowledge of this goes, it's mainly American style evangelists and Catholics who are active in India nowerdays.

It's perhaps worth noting that some modern Hindu seers, Sri Ramakrishna for instance, have seen Jesus as another Avatar, and Christianity as another branch of Sanatana Dharma.