Britons rush to India for the boom

nayan

The Bengal famine was a very cruel reality for my ancestors.
Dont want to give any links from the net (anyone interested can find a heap of these themselves).... It was certainly not an "uninteneded consequence"......
people from rural areas - where there was no food - used to come to kolkata and beg for the leftover starch(from rice cooking).
Watch Satyajit Ray's film "Ashani Sanket"..... effect of the famine(just the start of it) on a rural middle class family.

Graeme

Folks,

The whole point of my postings was, in relation to the Times Online article concerning Brits moving to India, to have a neutral discussion on what nowadays Brits / Westerners perfer in India to their own countries of origin, and what they would like to see improved. This would also have been interesting from the reverse perspective of Indians. Regretfully, this has not happened. I for one do not think India is perfect, although I do have a genuine affection for the country, and still has room for development. For example, I am not prepared to be treated as an 'untouchable' and disgrace for marrying an Indian Hindu, by Brahmin Priests and others of a similar mentality just because I have not satisfied their criteria of reincarnating in Bharat. Also, I find it bemusing that the way the British looked down on the Indians is now how the middle-class Indians look down on the lower-castes. On the other hand, I do not think Britain is perfect; raciasm still abounds to this day, and the day may come when I decide India is now 'better', and make the move across permanently. Caertainly, the general culture of India (family values, respecting teachers etc...) is better.

I can't say I'm surprised that criticism has also come from Americans and Australians. The one huge difference regarding the British occupation and the 'Founding Fathers' or the shiploads of convicts, is that the British left the lands they occupied. I hope that those Americans and Australians show as much concern for the native people of their own lands, and immediately write to their respective governments, asking them to bestow power on the native Americans and Aboriginies immediately. And, in point of fact, it was the British whom 'kicked Brit Butt', when the settlers decided they wanted to be independant, and also not the native Americans who have had to suffer oppression in their own contry since then.

I will simply have to disagree that the British did not contribute anything positive towards India, even if the majority was for their own administration. I can't comment on specific dates of Sati legislation, but I am mindful that just because something is illegal, does not mean the practice of it is not continued; the Baptismal font in St. Mary's, Madras attests to such a fact. Also, I find it regretful that any development made does not need recognising on the grounds of "it would have happened anyway". One day, man will land on Mars, but if an Indian is the first to achieve it, I hope he receives due credit.

If I have caused any offence, I sincerely regret this and apologise, as this was not my intent. As I have mentioned, I care little for the 'them and us' attitude, and will be the first to criticise Britain / the British as I have done. As much as I admire Winston Churchill for being a great leader and standing up to Nazi aggression when others (Neville Chamberlain), were only too willing to appease, I also cringe when he refers to Mahatma Ghandi as a "half-naked fakir".

No one's suggesting that the British didn't make money out of India, and I still hold that main reason was due to discipline, organisation and efficiency, but what I am saying is that to suggest that no Brit ever contributed in some shape or form is utter, general nonsense.

Ironically, and as the sign of these multi-cultural times, I now sit in Church on a Sunday morning listening to my Indian, imported, Methodist Minister, and ponder on today's world. The Minister was imported from India because Britain is now fairly in an irreligious age and India has the Spiritual resource. However, during his Christmas sermon, he announces to the congregation "Thank you for bringing Christianity to India" (I did inform him that St. Thomas was actually in India long before the British or Portugese brought Christianity), because he equates that with being civilised, due to his personal experiences suffering from caste-discrimination, I find myself shaking my head quietly because an Indian can have such a general low opinion of his country's background, contribution and for his lack of appreciation regarding Hindu / Indian principles and knowledge. On the other hand, I obviously do feel sympathy for his suffering and am surprised that this caste discrimination and specifically some awful treatment of dalits is continuing today...On the other hand, I am aware that the Indian Goverment is making great strides to irradicate this. I find it fascinating that when the right becomes extreme, the left rises to balance and vice versa. Is there a similar pattern between the histories of the countries? For example, the Minister came from India to escape caste descrimination and fill a religious void, enjoying a country with an historic reputation of discipline and efficiency, yet many Westerners are going to India is serach of Sprirituality and also, a more relaxed lifestyle.

It was these specific points I was interesed in discussing, not "India is better - no Britian is" etc, and I did hope to have a neutral, mature discussion on individual aspects and areas.

I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the energy to carry this on. I suppose we could all paste quotes and references all
day long, and even then (Wikipedia, for example), inaccuracy and bias abounds.


Sorry for raising it. I will not comment further.

Thanks.

Graeme

capt_mahajan

Graeme, here is at least one member who wasn't offended by anybody's earler posts, including yours.

My feelings for Churchill are mixed too, not because of the Gandhi remark but other things- and also because I think he was a great wartime leader for the British, and indeed the Allies.

Its just that the denial of some of the things the British Raj did is interesting- not least amongst some of my fellow Indians too.

Finally, I am leaving this part of the conversation, which I have dragged offtopic, except

Quite correct. The disgrace, if any, is the Priests'.

shashank.aggarwal

Well said Captain.. Appreciate you point of view ..

__________________
Travelogue - Around India
Random Reviews

Nick-H

Me too.

We could always return to the original topic, which is about Brits, or even foreigners in general, seeking to come to India now.

__________________
.


Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

CliveG

I can understand Graeme’s frustration as it appears his question has been turned into a Brit bashing exercise once again. We can all bash our ancestors for things we didn’t like. The Brits could bash the romans for invading Britain and treating us as second class citizens. We could bash early man for inventing the wheel that led to the car that pollutes our cities but what is the point? How long must the Germans apologise for the Holocaust or Britain for it’s activities in India, Africa and the West Indies. The past is past and while we hope we learn from the experiences of the past too much time dwelt on it just brings pain and bad feelings.
Surely what is important is what is happening to India now and where it is heading.
I agree with Nick –why not return to debate Graemes original question

Nick-H

We headed off down that track on the basis that history has lessons to teach, that India should look into its past before opening its arms to 'globalisation' and massive foreign investment. All very valid points (if I say so myself ). The denial of that history is something that quite a few of us find very shocking, just as is the denial of certain other world events.

I do find it one of the remarkable things about India that one seldom, if ever, encounters a grudge against us Brits for what is, actually, relatively recent history. Of course, I'm delighted that this is the case, especially with our royal village idiot rubbing salt in the wound whenever he can!

I've also always found this apology thing strange. How can anybody apologise for the actions of their grandparents? One can only apologise for that which was one's own actions and responsibility. Just my thing, that.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging bad stuff. It doesn't mean that the current generation have to flagellate ourselves: we didn't do it! There's nothing wrong with history in the right perspective. I grew up just long enough ago to have been inculcated with the idea that it was a very great thing that so much of that map on the wall was pink (I suppose that it was, in a way, a great achievement) along with a slight sense of regret that it was already out of date. Only later in life did I start to learn that the wonderful pink map really was a case of rose-tinted glasses.

As for individuals seeking to work here now, perhaps for Indian employers; different story!

Dilliwala

Clive, Britain has never apologised for the excesses of colonialism.

Nick, Japan and Germany have apologised for WW 2, more than once. The 'ancestral argument' didn't apply there.

Much as I disagree with some points raised in the last few pages, particularly the "good Pom, bad Pom" debate, I will refrain from commenting as the topic/s have been done to death. Suffice to mention I disagree with Capt about the Brits uniting India (if they did, then they also divided it). Sardar Patel did, but I'm not going to argue that here, as I've already done so in the "India at 60" thread.

Colonisation by its modern-day name - "soft power" : currry is Britain's national dish. If that isn't colonisation, umm, I mean - soft power, I don't know what is.

shashank.aggarwal

and just adding my 2 cents, I think Indians who are socially aware, also feel apologetic about a lot of things that have happened in the past and some of them are still an issue..even though not on a scale that they used to me..some of them being Sati, untouchability, casteism, treatment of women etc..

crvlvr

I am struggling to understand why simply pointing out some historical facts are immediately interpreted as "Brit bashing". Why? Just bacause it goes against the face of convention/convenient history?

I don't think any brit (or for that matter Indian) should feel guilty or proud for his/her forefather's action. We can hardly hold this generation responsible for something that happenned way before our time.

IMHO, the whole point of having these discussion is to temper some of the grandiose perceptions of ourselves we (may) have been raised with.

Mickey S

As Nick says, above, it is not for us to apologise for the actions of people who died long before we were born. We cannot be held responsible for what they did and therefore have no obligation to apologise for anything.

The only thing that matters is how we, the people alive today, treat each other.

Dilliwala

Be that as it may, Clive seems to be under the impression that Britain has apologised, since he clubbed Germany and Britain together in one sentence; Germany has issued official apologies for the war and holocaust.

"How long must the Germans apologise for the Holocaust or Britain for it’s activities in India, Africa and the West Indies. "

I was pointing out that Britain hasn't.

Graeme

Chaps,

Thanks for the posts. This thread is starting to move in the direction that I intended.

Dilliwala came up with this great point that I forgot and fundamental to my question...

What a major change and a major contribution to British cuisine! When Asians first started to arrive in Britian, my old Aunts told me they'd shut the windows to block out the smell of "that awful stuff" How times have changed. In less than fifty years, that sentiment has reversed completely and now curry is Britain's favourite dish. A great improvement as a 'gift' from India, and yes, the Brits have been only too willing collabarators in this 'colonisation'

I'll keep quiet now as I need to browse for positions in India!

crvlvr

Easier said than done..

I just watched a documentary on South Africa. A homeless back man watches while a white person farms on the land that was owned by his family and was grabbed during apartheid. The white man's story is that he never personally usurped the land (but purchased it from the usurper) Do you expect them to treat each other kindly?

Yes, time is the ultimate healer. However, even if one is not racist, its diffcult to not acknowledge that the division of wealth in the world today still reflects historical racist policy. A responsible person should, at the least, try to empathise.

CliveG

I am well aware that Britain has not officially apologised for its past although a lot of individuals have expressed regret. Many people including myself are horrified at what was done in the name of the British Empire. My point was that some people are constantly looking back at the past rather than the present or future. We cannot change the past even if we wanted to and if our government said sorry how would that change things? India and Britain appear to have a good relationship so would an apology change that? If Gordon Brown stands up and apologises some people will be sceptical and say "Oh he is just doing that so that he can do more business with us". Unfortunately the people who should apologise are long dead. As I said before we should learn from the past and that means looking at and understanding historical facts (which I agree doesn't necessarily mean Brit bashing)and use that knowledge to improve the present and future.