Britons rush to India for the boom

Mickey S

Getting back to the original topic, and referring to figures in the linked article, I do not think that 42,000 Britons living in India is significant. 500,000 Britons live in Spain, for example, and the number of Britons living on the tiny island of Majorca exceeds 50,000. 400,000 Britons emigrate each year, and 600,000 people come to live in the UK (of which around 75,000 arrive from the Indian subcontinent).

It must also be remembered that a significant number of that 42,000 Britons are probably the children of Indian immigrants returning to the motherland.

Emigration is always a newsworthy topic in the UK (the daytime TV schedules are full of programmes helping people emigrate to a "better" life), and if there were any statistically significant increase in emigration to India I'm sure it would have been reported.

Nick-H

You are right, it does seem to me to be an insignificant number of Brits here, among India's 1.6 billion.

__________________
.


Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

Dilliwala

Tata plant ----> Singur, Hooghly district, WB

SEZ -----> Nandigram, East Medinipur district, WB

About a hundred km apart.

crvlvr

IMHO, land grabs are a requirement for ecoonomic progress. The americans did it (to the natives). The Indian govt is doing it under the pretext of creating jobs. Building a new car factory would create thousands of jobs. If the citizens who occupy the land do not want to move then the govt has the authority to relocate/compensate them all under the guise of it being for the greater good of the country. China is doing this on a large scale. However, the difference is that in India the owners can go to court an fight the govt.. The process id slow, but it works.

A different spin to the typical land grab: British Company Accused of Land Grab in India

Nick-H

I thought that Singur was going to be another SEZ.

Looks like I got it all wrong.

Phew... thank goodness my apostrophes were OK

edwardseco

We call it eminent domain. For roads and highways there is little dispute. The rub comes when you use it to take private property for private interest, ie a Walmart. Its an interesting diminishment of private property protections and the enhancement of state authoritarianism..

Dilliwala

Hmm, an unhumble opinion that, very easy for city-dwellers like us, with no chance of being forcibly dispossessed, to make.

Er, no, actually the state govts, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

An excellent point, very well put.
Tata is a private co.

And the various Land Acquisition Acts shud have been amended long ago, leaving out exceptions like acquiring it for roads, airports, railway stations, etc.

Nick-H

Assuming that they haven't been shot, of course.

There is occasional good reason for what many countries call 'compulsory purchase'. However, it is very hard to make a case that taking fertile and profitable farm land for the building of a car factory is one of them.

Furthermore, the system of relocation and compensation as it exists in India is rife with corruption and ineffective. Show me the nice farm houses, with fertile and profitable land, and substantial sums of compensation, that have been provided and made available before the removal of such people from their land. I think you'll find it easier to find a broken community of homeless people.

Land Grab, as the name implies, is heartless, inhuman theft. It is not the action of a civilised community.

Particularly when it it does to facilitate privately owned industry, it is, morally, about on a par with slavery.

crvlvr

and your point is?

I as a city dweller have been focibly dispossesed. Did i like it? No. was it for the greater good? Yes.

Ever drive around in India an wonder why the roads are so narrow. Or a wide road suddenly narrows bacause there is a temple/church in the way? To think the Indian govt (BTW I use Indian govt here, as I have in the past, to denote central and state govts) is not overly accomodating, compared to most western govts, is naive.

I am sure there are specific examples of corruption where the govt has been used as a tool by big business. But, generally speaking, the system in India works towards protecting the rights of the individuals.

Nick-H

Actually, its more like nobody dares to knock a temple down.

This kind of removal of encroachments is an entirely different thing, although there are wider issues such as the livelihoods of people who may have been there for decades, even though they may never have had any legal right to do so.

Here in Chennai, policemen pay vast premiums to their superior offices for posting to one or two plum stations where there are many illegal street traders, and other stuff going on, each of whom pay each of the patrolling officers a daily sum which adds up to a very substantial income for those officers.

Getting rid of these people, and breaking this round of corruption, is not at all in the same league as evicting people from their legal homes.

Dilliwala

My point is exactly as I made it.

You've been dispossessed? As in Singur and Nandigram?

crvlvr

that's exactly what I am trying to point out. If there is going to be a loss in political capital, the politicians will not be land grabbing. And if they decide to, there is the judicial system which works, albeit slowly.

The point that Indian govt has "sold out" to large corporations is far from true. It used to be much worse under the license raj. the govt has actually lost a lot of power with the free economy. Even from the corruption angle, these days, they actually have to DO something (say land grab) to receive a pay off. In the old days, business owners had to pay them just to continue to operate their businesses (or renew their license).

Graeme

I remember the first time I was to go to India, I was warned that I may face resentment for British history. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. From the ten people that enquired of 'my native place', only one, after some time, expressed polite criticism of the British, and all the others stated that they thought my country was the best in the world. Ironically, I thought their country was and told them as such.

Capt M, I feel to state the good things the British brought to India were a joke, is unfair and historically inaccurate.
I also find it hard to accept that there was any intention to starve four million people, if only as this would obviously be
completely inhumane, and if any such individual did possess such an evil thought, certainly, it would not be amongst the wishes of the majority.

My Wife informs me that at school they are taught five bad and five good things the British did (she can't recall the good, so it obviously made a good impression on her). When I visited my local Hindu Temple, my yoga teacher commented that "the British obtained much wealth from India", but then in the next breath expressed regret that "the British had not stayed on for another thirty years to finish the job". I have even witnessed arguments amongst Indian couples here on the positive the British contributed.

I believe the British went originally to trade (as mentioned, with only too willing Indian traders), not to plunder, and ended up 'managing' India because they could. A bit like "my neighbour's not doing anything with the oil in his garden so I will because I am more organised, disciplined and efficient". Perhaps, an attitude we inherited from the Romans when they conquered us. Ultimately, this led to a wrong attitude and certainly unChristian conduct of superiority and exploitation. One wonders what would have happened if the British had have welcomed educated Indians into the civil service and military earlier and treated them as equals; crediting them with positions of authority where due. Or what would have happened if Mr. Ghandi had have been congratulated and admired for his academic achievements, instead of being thrown off the train.

I don't believe Indians have been 'whitewashed' to think all that's Blightly is superior. From what I have been told personally, it seems very much both a mixture of the good and the bad. Indeed, one thing I like is that when visiting India, I am received by impeccable manners and good English (many Indians speak far better English than Britons nowadays), and this is a joy to discover, as opposed to the rudeness and negative culture that unfortunately exists all too much back home. I think that Indians are polite enough to recognise the good in the British but are not naive to realise that the only people with India's best interests at heart are Indians.

When I watch "Ghandi" or "Lagaan", although I am notice that there are British characters in both those films who were supporting Indians in general, I feel ashamed to be British. When I visited Fort St. George, particularly St. Mary's Church, and read on the Baptismal font that an Indian lady had donated the money for it as she was saved by an Englishman from the Sati flames, I feel proud to be British. The point being, I have learned to discriminate between the good and bad in all and not succumb to racial generalisations.

My question, therefore, is what did the British do for India? I'm not interested in either a British or Indian perspective, but in solid neutral facts, if such can be agreed. My thoughts, (and I am the first to admit I am ignorant in such historical matters), are:



1) Banning Sati
2) Establishing the Rail Network
3) Building the Roads?
4) Uniting India (as opposed to a series of kingdoms)
5) Developing Maps?
6) Creating the Indian Hierarchy of Government of Civil Service?
7) Cricket! (something else that the Indians are better than us in doing)
8) Assisting in the formation of the Congress Party


I suppose that the article yesterday regarding modern-day Brits living in India has made me think about what I like / don't like about India, and in this sense, I would be interested in what other Brits or Westerners think. For me, I still would like to see the basics continuing to develop (i.e. the roads and driving down to not having to place a heater in my water bucket in the morning ), but on the other hand, I hope Indian preserves its Spiritual and moral values and doesn't compromise under the banner of 'development'.

If you feel this thread is hotting up, you should be a fly on the wall when the Mrs and I argue under our roof! And don't even think to mention Monty Panasar

One thing's for sure, Britian genuinely regarded India as the Jewel in the Crown, and I don't think it was to do with material wealth, and that affection, more than any other historical colony I think, even more than the US or Australia, is still felt today.

Oh, yes I do think the Kooh-i-noor should be returned as a gesture of good will!

This isn't meant to cause offence or pretend that Indians didn't suffer, I just get a little tired of all the 'Brit-bashing', and the belief that the British did nothing for the country whilst occupying.

And Crvlvr, I couldn't find that quote posted yesterday from Wikipedia, but have found the following from there. Patronising? Yes. But he doesn't come across as the villain to me:

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/p...1833.htm l#13


[13a] I feel myself irresistibly impelled to say a few words. I allude to that wise, that benevolent, that noble clause which enacts that no native of our Indian empire shall, by reason of his colour, his descent, or his religion, be incapable of holding office. At the risk of being called by that nickname which is regarded as the most opprobrious of all nicknames by men of selfish hearts and contracted minds, at the risk of being called a philosopher, I must say that, to the last day of my life, I shall be proud of having been one of those who assisted in the framing of the bill which contains that clause. We are told that the time can never come when the natives of India can be admitted to high civil and military office. We are told that this is the condition on which we hold our power. We are told that we are bound to confer on our subjects every benefit--which they are capable of enjoying?--no;--which it is in our power to confer on them?--no;--but which we can confer on them without hazard to the perpetuity of our own domination. Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike with sound policy and sound morality.

[13b] I am far, very far, from wishing to proceed hastily in this most delicate matter. I feel that, for the good of India itself, the admission of natives to high office must be effected by slow degrees. But that, when the fulness of time is come, when the interest of India requires the change, we ought to refuse to make that change lest we should endanger our own power, this is a doctrine of which I cannot think without indignation.

[13c] What is power worth if it is founded on vice, on ignorance, and on misery; if we can hold it only by violating the most sacred duties which as governors we owe to the governed, and which, as a people blessed with far more than an ordinary measure of political liberty and of intellectual light, we owe to a race debased by three thousand years of despotism and priestcraft? We are free, we are civilised, to little purpose, if we grudge to any portion of the human race an equal measure of freedom and civilisation.

[13d] Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may keep them submissive? Or do we think that we can give them knowledge without awakening ambition? Or do we mean to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered in the affirmative, by every person who maintains that we ought permanently to exclude the natives from high office. I have no fears. The path of duty is plain before us: and it is also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, of national honour.

[13d] The destinies of our Indian empire are covered with thick darkness. It is difficult to form any conjecture as to the fate reserved for a state which resembles no other in history, and which forms by itself a separate class of political phenomena. The laws which regulate its growth and its decay are still unknown to us. It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history. To have found a great people sunk in the lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have made them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would indeed be a title to glory all our own. The sceptre may pass away from us. Unforeseen accidents may derange our most profound schemes of policy. Victory may be inconstant to our arms. But there are triumphs which are followed by no reverse. There is an empire exempt from all natural causes of decay. Those triumphs are the pacific triumphs of reason over barbarism; that empire is the imperishable empire of our arts and our morals, our literature and our laws.

Sama

probably because those 13 little colonies across the sea kicked Brit butt!

__________________
My India, 2005-2008

crvlvr

I'll try to provide as many facts and links as possible..

1) Banning Sati -- Sati was typically voluntary act based on religious beliefs. However, I am not condoning the act. Sati was already banned by the Mughals before the British got to India. The Portuguese banned it in 1515 and The British in 1829, after Indian activists also started protesting against it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29#Mughal_per iod

2) Establishing the Rail Network --

From wikipedia: 4) Uniting India -- Most of India was one country in 300BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire). It is farfetched to assume that the it could not have been done again without the british. As a matter of fact, the British did not do much. When they left there were about 562 princely states (40% of area) that were not part of the british empire and had to be "consolidated" by the Indian govt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rincely_States

6) Creating the Indian Hierarchy of Government of Civil Service? -- Do the British really want to take credit for the bureaucracy in India

8) Assisting in the formation of the Congress Party -- Tue.. But, little did the British expect the congree party to become a political force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress

the syllabus and history thought in most schools are left over from the british days -- which the British carefully developed to paint a rosy picture of themselves or give themselves some legitimacy for ruling India. The Aryan Invasion theory is still taught in Indian schools. Over time, the pro British bias is being reduced. But, anyone educated during British rule hardly got the historical facts straight.

True. It is not part of the excerpt included in the Columbia Univ website. But that page refers only to Macaulay's position on the "education" of India. I have included an image in the original post of an article in local newspaper.
I don;t know where you get the "the only too willing traders" part from. On the contrary, the British had NOTHING that the Indian traders wanted. They chose to become arms peddlers first and then militia for hire nex . Then they adopted the divide and rule policy to make sure that kings would always be in need of their "services" for which they recieved ample compensation.

I am sure there were a few alturists British in India during the days of British rule. But, by far, the administration operated extremely selfishly. You can read about the impact colonialism had on the Indian economy here

That's when the East India company instituted a policy that their employees could not marry locals or buy land in the colonies. . Obviously, the administration's affection was more towards the wealth they acquire than to the Indian people. Even wonder why, unlike the Spanish colonies after independence, they were almost no brits left in India after independence?