Myth of British Raj helping India

The history books written by Marxists in India are big puddles of lies but one of the biggest myth propped up by them today is that British rule was not completely bad as it helped modernize India, an otherwise backward and unsalvable country. This myth is so preposterous that any objective look at facts will demolish it in seconds. It is understandable that the British want to sanitize their role in the destitution, destruction and poverty they unleashed on India and portray themselves as benevolent souls who did their job of fulfilling white man’s burden, but what is sickening is that so many naive Hindus also seem to buy this propaganda, often aided by modern day Sepoys working for western masters in Guardian, DailyMail, New York Times, Washington Post and Indian Universities. But this should come as no surprise because the education system and the syllabus which is currently followed in Indian schools is largely under the control of Marxists, who don’t want to give credit to the Hindu kingdoms and rulers, for the want of not making their Abrahamic cousins like Mughals and British look bad.

Given how these lies are sprouted and planted by the British and their coolies, it becomes very important to dismantle this false narrative they have been spreading, not just for the sake of truth but also for the restoration of common sense in Indian minds and freeing them up from the mental colonisation that they still suffer from, specially the minds which are brainwashed in the English medium schools. One of the biggest opposition to establishment of Hindu Dharma in India today is the false narrative that moving away from Hindu Dharma and fake secularization by British helped modernize India. It is important to set this record straight once and for all so that the future generations will know about what actually happened in India and how the British killed the Dharmic spirit.

Myth 1: British gave India its educational infrastructure

This is the most important myth in circulation today that India did not have any educational institutions before the advent of British and it was only with British help that some educational institutions could be set up in India. This is a ridiculous claim because India had educational infra-structure well before British had a proper language. Be it the Tamil Sangams of the Pandyan Kingdom in Tamil Nadu or the Takshila and Nalanda universities of North India, India had educational institutes before the hunter gatherer and barbaric British were civilised by Romans and later Vikings through their conquests. Irony here of course is that the Marxist historians who have no problem mentioning the existence of Buddhist centres of learning in India, also claim that it was British who gave educational institutions to India, while completely ignoring the destruction of learning centres in India by Muslim invaders.

Of course the British apologists and their Indian Marxist coolies when confronted with these facts, change their goal posts and claim that Indian educational institutes were sub-par and that it was the British who modernised Indian educational institutes, implying that without British, India would not have gotten modern educational institutes.This conclusion is arrived at by looking at the state of Indian educational institutes of that time and comparing it with the Oxford and Cambridge universities of today. While it is true that Indian educational institutions of that period were not at par with Oxford or Cambridge, but the crucial point which is missed is that British institutions weren’t exactly that advanced either during the same period. For all chest thumping, one cannot ignore that the most of the big universities in Europe in 17-18th century were in their nascent phases and Indian institutes could have caught up with them in time, a fact which is completely disregarded.

The actual impact of the British Raj was actually very negative on the Indian education system. British closed down most Gurukuls which were run by local villages and communities, through systematic plunder of resources and excessive taxation. A very good source material on destruction of Indian traditional schools is provided by Dharampal, who surveyed the state of traditional education systems in 17-18th century India. Dharampal carefully documented facts from the early British surveys on Indian schooling system. Below are his findings from Bengal and Bihar as reported in the first survey by Adam:

a1

Similar surveys from other regions very well document the fact that Indian education system was very robust in the 18th century and British systematically closed it down for preparing a class of Brown clerks. This systematic assault came in three phases. Firstly, they criticized the local educational system for its inadequacies, then killed it by withdrawing financial support or excessive taxation, which prevented the locals from supporting their own schools and finally used the missionaries to thrust upon India their own system saying it was the best. It is the last point which is still used by local Marxists to this day and supported through anti-Hindu laws like RTE.

On top of this destruction of local schools, one also needs to know that the British and the rest of Europe only started pulling ahead post Enlightenment which started during the 16-17th centuries and modernized themselves during the 18-19th centuries. This is also the period when British conquered India and denied the same educational growth and modernization for India. The best way to demonstrate what India lost can be done by looking at performance of other countries which were not colonised by Europeans i.e. – Russia or Japan. Neither Russia nor Japan had massive educational institutions, which can be considered modern for that period. But since neither were colonised by Europeans, they were able to modernise their education which was denied to India during her 200 years of slavery under the British. In fact, most institutes British opened were for training clerks for the British Raj which helped them in exploiting India better by using local trained coolies instead of importing more English men from UK. No surprise that the current generation of Marxist historians trained by these institutions have such a fond memory and inclination towards them.

Another lie which is peddled is that without British, the education would have been monopolized by only the upper castes and lower castes would have been left out. This is patently wrong for two reasons. One, this implies that British were egalitarian at that time. Fact is- they were not. In fact, the word caste itself comes from the Spanish word for it and it indicates the caste hierarchy at the time in Europe. The European societies were no less casteist at that time, just that they organised their castes a bit differently. Second, the literacy rate of Europe at the time was no better than India and the education there was elitist as well. It is only post manufacturing revolution and increase in services sector that the white men decided to extend universal education to create more workers and brainwash their population. It is very disingenuous to claim that Indian education system was elitist while praising British education as modern when it was itself elitist. In fact, by enslaving India, British denied Indians the chance to modernise the education like the non-colonised countries of the time like Japan(which had a much stricter caste system at the time), Russia, Austria etc. Dharampal again provides numbers from early surveys on caste breakup of students in higher-learning centres and it clearly refutes that lower castes were excluded from education as claimed by later Marxist historians:

a1

So in fact most of the problems of Indian lower castes today can be traced back to British Raj unlike what the British barbarians, without any guilt, and their coolies here claim- by effectively destroying 200 years of a country.

Myth 2: British rule was no worse than rule by Hindu Kings

This is another myth perpetuated by Marxists and British alike, surprise surprise, that British were as benevolent or as despotic as Hindu rulers. This is again patently false. British rulers treated their Indian subjects as colonial subjects to be exploited and enslaved unlike Hindu Kings who saw them as their own subjects. While all Hindus can rise up in the hierarchy under Hindu kings, British Civil Service was reserved for Goras for most of the time. Does this sound like equality to Marxist ears? The narrative of course is intentionally manipulative to make it out as if serfdom, in the form of lower castes, which was found in India under Hindu Kings was unique to India and as if the contemporary European countries at the time were egalitarian honeylands where queen and kings mingled and married commoners. It is important here to note that the same Europeans call Martin Luther, who brought the Lutheran/protestant reformation in Europe, a great reformer, when the same person had said that all peasants/serfs of Europe should be mass killed in the streets and it would be morally right.

Bengal Famine, 1942

Another important point to note here is that unlike the European countries which experienced massive unrest because their serfs/peasant populations i.e. lower castes of Europe, had been starved by their kings, India under Hindu kings had no such massive uprisings or orchestrated famines as Dharma was their guide and they hardly resorted to excessive taxation. There is no French revolution and murdering of kings in Indian history because the peasants were relatively well off under the Hindu Kings. Is it any wonder that the unrest for Indian peasants and lower castes increased under Mughal and British rule, leading to the overthrow of the former by Sikhs and Marathas and latter by Indians as a whole unlike the rule by Hindu Kings which experienced no such unrest. All else aside, India under the so called oppressive Hindu kings was an economic powerhouse with extensive artisan network and contributed 25% to the world GDP till the end of 18th century, before British strangulated the entire economy through export controls and killing all indigenous attempts at innovation. No surprise by the time British left there were hardly any local industries and India contributed a measly 2% to the world GDP.

Myth 3: British helped reduce caste system and caste discrimination

British helped end/reduce caste discrimination is perhaps one the worst misconceptions about the British rule even though the empirical evidence says otherwise. Be it the educational institutes or the living standards, British made the life of the Indian lower castes much worse post plunder and loot of India. Before the advent of British, the villages used to have free Gurukuls suppported by the villagers, where lower castes participated in equally high number but post British clampdown on all local school systems the lower castes were the worst hit and failed to get any education under scarce and controlled education regime of British. Even upper castes were hit by this scarcity but lower castes bore the maximum burnt of this policy and increased the disparity between different communities. Also it created fresh generations of lower castes by destroying local artisans, who were landless but skilled and were left without any income opportunities in the wake of British imposed trade barriers to support British industries.

Second disastrous effect of British rule was the destruction of indigenous industries and their role in engineering massive famines across India. British were instrumental in the establishment of Zamindari system which destroyed the livelihood of millions of peasants/serfs across India who were almost exclusively lower castes. Is it any wonder that in many of the British engineered famines, the biggest hit were lower caste peasants who died in tens of millions? What happened to lower castes under British rule was literally a genocide. The same peasants/lower castes who were pretty content under Hindu Kings, were also pretty angry with the British and hence participated in huge numbers in the Indian independence movement. Also, in many areas, British actually worsened the caste discrimination by encouraging conversions from lower castes. In fact, missionaries actively took advantage of the famines engineered by British and offered poor suffering lower castes pounds of rice for converting them to their blood thirsty religion.

But the biggest injustice to lower castes done by the British is the way they robbed India of the chance to reform the caste system, the way Japan reformed itself under Meiji restoration period. Reforms in Indian society had always happened without any foreign influence, just like under Buddhism and Jainism. By colonizing India during 17-20th century, Europeans robbed 300 years of history during which Indian society could have reformed itself rather than fight another group of barbarians. In fact, it was the same period during which the same Europeans reformed themselves through French revolution(self-glorified  revolution), but Indians were robbed of their time and improve their society.

Myth 4: British helped Hindus by ending Mughal rule

This is a myth which even many Hindu nationalists believe that the Muslim tyranny in India came to an end as British uprooted the Mughal rule. But this is only true in NCERT textbooks which hardly mentions the glorious comeback by Hindu Kings. By the time British came to India, Marathas in combination with Sikhs, Jats and others had already ended the Mughal rule in India for all practical purposes. Maratha empire at its peak stretched from Punjab in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south and Bihar/Orissa in the East. Sikh empire had destroyed the Muslim strongholds of the north India, in west Punjab, Afghanistan and Kashmir. They also had started reconversion of Muslims during their period. In fact, Marathas had a very important role in Sanskritising the Marathi language which had been bastardised by the Persian and Urdu, the court languages of the Mughals. The situation for the Muslims in India was so dire that the one or two Muslim rulers left in India had to beg Afghan rulers to overthrow the Marathas and save them. One such Muslim ruler was Tipu Sultan, whom the Marxists and certain secularists shamelessly claim was a nationalistic freedom fighter. It is of no surprise that the Marxists in charge of Indian history make no mention of this at all and make it out as if British got India from Mughals even though the British got India slowly from Marathas through four Anglo-Maratha wars.

That said, the actual effect of British rule on Hindus is very pathetic. British being Abrahamics themselves actively supported their Abrahmic cousins i.e. the Muslims over the polytheistic pagan Hindus. Even the two nation theory and Muslim league had massive patronage from British. More than that, they completely de-fanged Hindus for the Muslims to attack by actively banning Shastra Puja and other martial rituals. Also, British support to Gandhi cannot be disregarded given how he sowed Ahimsa i.e. non-violence meme in Hindu minds. The basis for today’s lopsided secularism which treats Hindus as the second class citizens in their own lands vis-a-vis Muslims and Christians was laid down during British rule by the British. Even Mughals didn’t destroy Hindu morale as much as British did. Whenever Mughals pressed too much against Hindus, they lost their control over the places, like how they lost to Marathas in the Indian mainland and Sikhs in the Northwest India. But under the guise of secularism, British cursed Hindus into slow death– much like a frog which if put inside boiling water will jump out immediately but if slowly boiled to death it will hardly realize the increasing temperature.

Myth 5: British helped reformed social evils in India

This is another blatant lie cooked up by British to justify their slavery of Indians as the benevolent white overlords civilising the savage browns in India, which is now perpetuated by their coolies and Marxist Indian historians. They usually claim that British helped end Sati, child marriage etc. But the truth is far more complex. Sati for instance was a social reaction by Hindu society against the Muslim invaders, who after killing the husbands took their wives and daughters as sex slaves. Since many Hindu women preferred honour over slavery, unlike the British coolies and Marxists of today’s India, they chose to end their lives in cleansing fire. Is it any wonder that prevalence of Sati was maximum in areas which were under maximal Muslim tyranny like Rajputana and Bengal. In the south, Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc Sati was practically unheard of and very rare and usually voluntary? The attempt to paint Sati as a pan-Indian problem was another theory planed by British and actively supported by Hindu hating Marxists. In fact, as soon as the Muslim menace was over, Sati started going down, and in places like Sikh empire and Maratha empire, Sati was banned even before it was banned in Bengal by the British. Purdah or veil i.e. another Muslim custom is again more prominent in north India when compared to the South. This again had its roots in Muslim rule and how Hindus had to adapt to fight their new enemy.

Another social evil i.e. child marriage at that time is usually seen through the moral lens of today and often reviled as a nasty savage practice. Being the disingenuous rats, what the Marxists and British coolies usually don’t point out is that child marriage was the norm at the time among all societies. The average age of marriage for girls and boys at the time was 14-15 in Europe and 12-14 in India. But sadly it is an issue only in India as it helps beat down Hindus into submission. But even while talking about child marriage, these Marxists completely forget to tell that Indian children were not allowed to stay together even after marriage and girls were sent to groom’s house only after they achieved maturity i.e. 3-4 years post marriage. Of course, the analysis is not complete without actually giving the context for such marriages. Child marriages in India again grew as a direct reaction to the Muslim invasion of India and their virgin child fetish which forced Hindus to marry off their kids earlier than they would have liked.

Myth 6: British modernised Indian industry by introducing railways

British claim that without them colonizing and looting India, India would have never gotten railways. This again ignores the fact that most countries in the world have gotten railways without colonised- Russia, Japan, Persia etc. So colonization is not a necessary condition for adopting railways. And even the notion that British helped Indian industries to develop is ridiculous because the railways and roads built by the British were specifically built to loot and plunder Indian wealth faster and more efficiently. Some British even claim that more than 4 Tn£ British looted from India is justified as British invested back the money into railways, ignoring the fact that the very reason the British built those railways was to destroy and loot the 4tn£ from India and not to help Indians.

It is a sad topic to even rebut because the very industrialisation that happened in Britain was done on the progressive de-industrialisation of India. British systematically wiped out Indian artisans and craftsmen, almost all of whom belonged to lower castes, often clipping their thumbs and limbs and destroyed their livelihood because their product was qualitatively superior to the industrialized British goods of that time. In fact most of the Indian famines which killed millions of lower caste peasants/serfs in India were because of British forcing the peasants to grow cash crops like jute, rubber, dyes, cotton etc as raw materials for their industries in place of the food crops needed by the peasants to eat. This slow starving caused by the British is even worse than the quick death given to Jews by the Nazis in world war-2. And worse than that is the defence of these famines by Marxist sell-outs like Amartya Sen, who tried hard to whitewash British role in engineering Bengal famine during World War-2.

Not only did the Indian population starved to death and were condemned to poverty, they also were denied any avenue for industrial growth. They actively suppressed the industries in India and made India lose out on the 200 years of massive industrial revolution the European countries experienced during that time. They allowed only limited industries to be established and that too by their sycophants. Most of the Indian poverty today can be traced back to the lack of industrialisation due to technological denial and export controls by the British administration. Lets give an example of the British imposed restraints on Indian industries- even a writing pen was banned from being manufactured in India and had to be imported from Britain.

It is by no accident that Indian economy went from 25% of world GDP in 18th century to 2% by the end of British rule. Some coolies shamelessly credit the British barbarians for bringing the modern sanitation to India. This is despite the fact that the sanitation in Britain was as worse as India of that time. By robbing the modernisation, industrialisation, economic growth and condemning the Indian population to poverty, British actually worsened the sanitation in the country by removing the scope for modern improved sanitation, which comes from economic growth.

In fact, the real reason industrialisation hasn’t really taken off today in India is because many of Indian laws are a relic of colonial era, designed to prevent industrialisation and growth and is instead designed to exploit the poor masses. Only difference is, British stopped Indian industrialisation under colonialism and the Indian socialist leaders prevent industrialisation under the garbage of preventing rich people getting richer but the net result was and is the same. So thank Britain again for laying the template for bad industrial laws copied and parroted by Indian coolies of today.

Conclusion:

To say that British rule was in anyway good for India is to spit on the toil of ancestors who fought against their tyranny. Sure British coolies, who benefited a lot by betraying their fellow Indians for few paisas, may look at them with massive nostalgia and Marxists being the ideological coolies without self respect might love to downplay the atrocities by the British. Amartya Sen can definitely whitewash the death of millions in Bengal famine for his Nobel prize, but self respecting Indians should stop desecrating the hard work of our ancestors.

Even then, if this logic that any help by mistake is positive even if India paid through millions of deaths is to be used as an excuse for justifying British Raj, then it is equally justified that Indians invade and plunder British now and save British women from the British barbarians, who are 2000% as likely to rape them compared to Indians. Perhaps invading Britian and enslaving them will be doing humanity and themselves a huge favour.

  • Pingback: Why Western “civilization” is not a civilization, let alone a superior one – YugaParivartan()

  • Mark Mitchell

    Excellent article which highlights the absurdity of the claims that the Indian subcontinent was better under colonialism, you see people espousing this nonsense so openly. I think that over here in the UK, the British Raj isn’t taught in history classes at all and furthermore leading media channels such as the BBC have ‘India Seasons’ where they show about India’s railway system or a small celebrity (such as a television actor) visiting slums, this all encourages the perception of the ‘White Knight coming to liberate the Third World Barbarians’ – It’s the same with western expatriates in India, many of them criticise Middle Class Indians for treating Indians from lower socioeconomic (or alternately castes) backgrounds in a derogatory manner when ironically they themselves hire them as house maids and get beach massages off them whilst paying them the minimum wage.

    The English media in general seems to have an unhealthy obsession with India – Countless documentaries and News Articles it is obvious that they have a post colonial agenda.