How would you illustrate British pride in their former Empire?

How is that pride reflected in their governance and Foreign Policy?

That they did not do more damage than they managed to do is to their credit and I would say springs from their civilized sensibilities.

On the other hand, I do not know how far Hindus would have gone to assert their Hindu rights. As early as 1857, the Marathas were ready to fight under Shah Zafar’s banner.

I have another take on the subject of British Imperialism and how Hindus may view it.

I feel we should boldly allow that the more virile and organized race won that time.

This will do two things;

1. We are psychologically in better shape to look at our weaknesses and address them

2. We will not be pointlessly guilt tripping another worthy race. (But, too late. As a matter of fact, this is already done and the damage to Britain’s self-esteem has become too great and dangerous. I will go so far as to say that Britain’s subjects have done battle with the British but have failed to destroy it utterly and left it to rot. Maybe we have proved incapable of ruling over the British like they ruled over us? Still, the British today, are a people so guilt ridden that they do not recognize threats to themselves. They believe they deserve extinction. And dear friends, it’s not the Hindu again, who wants to stay till the party ends, but the Muslim.)

The breakdown of the irrigation system in the Madras Presidency helped explain not just the repeated famine but the end of village-level patronage for education. The entire rural economy went into what we would now call a recession.

I recommend his works. I refer to his ‘Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century’, ‘The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century’, ‘Despoliation and Defaming India: The Early Nineteenth Century British Crusade’, and the ‘Madras Panchayat System’.

This said, similar studies are needed to assess the impact of land tax policy under the Deccan sultanates on agriculture. That too would also explain the long term decline in India’s rural economy.

>>…Hindus were just not strong enough to usurp power from the united Mohammedans…

Contents of the comment no 7 above indicate otherwise.

>>…Not that no one tried – there were the Rajputs, Marathas, Vijayanagar empire,etc etc.

Rajputs, Marathas, Vijayanagar empire, etc had their own victories. The british had their victories too. But none can have victories all the time.
WWII weakened britain so much that holding on to colonies was beyond its military power and they left India.

>>..Then why were we ruled for so long?..

‘so long’ is subjective. british ruled for about 200 years. That time period is maybe 2 percent of the total time that Indian civilisation is known to have existed. Mughals ruled for about 300 years, but their power did not extent to all parts of the country, moreover, that time period is also only a fraction of time that Indian civilisation has been around.

Therefore it is incorrect to conclude that we have been ruled for ‘so long’.

>>…For the same reason that we elected Nehru as PM

Education in those times were british provided and designed to make indians lose respect for their own culture and turn servile. Products of such education system were likely to vote for people who aped the west and that is what happened.

>>…or that Sonia is so popular.

Is she …?

I think she has presence only in the minds of congressmen. And that is easily understood in the light of what was discussed above regarding people who let themselves be led up the path of disrespect for indian culture and indianness through the remnants of the education system that was created by british and kept alive by those indians who were trained by them.

>>…The same reason why the hindus kicked out of bangladesh comes to WB and votes for communists who are hand in gloves with the islamic extremists.

Are there facts that validate this statement?

>>…The list is painful and long …

The list of achievements of indians is mind boggling, in art, sculptures, dance forms, literature, story telling, science, astronomy, metallurgy, spirituality and above all, human values- mutual respect, openness towards diverse views, respect for women etc.
In all these fields achievements of Indians surpass that of every other nation by a huge margin.

Indians rightfully discerned the purpose of life to be spiritual advancement and engaged in activities that promoted that end.

Sometimes this attitude made it easier for people who did not share similar humane values to defeat Indians in war.

However, no conqueror prevailed for long as Indians rose up against the conquerors.

>>…there were always people who misguided our rulers and the masses. Unless we can *first* admit it, there is no hope.

Well, the restrictions on free speech in india being what it is today, without taking names, let us admit that there are people who are paid to mislead people.

But there is no reason why they should succeed in spreading lies, so long as we exercise our intelligence and discerning power.

I think taking everything into consideration, indians have more than enough reason to feel proud of their culture.

Yes, we need to dismantle the mal-intented education system that is in place and engage in our heritage of intellectual enquiry and societial development.

Thanks

For the same reason that we elected Nehru as PM or that Sonia is so popular. The same reason why the hindus kicked out of bangladesh comes to WB and votes for communists who are hand in gloves with the islamic extremists. The list is painful and long …

The teestas and anganas of today are not new – there were always people who misguided our rulers and the masses. Unless we can *first* admit it, there is no hope.

The British were racists.Yet they united india politically.English was eagerly lapped up by Hindus.Modern thought,education,science and technology was introduced.

Yes they favoured mohammedans,converted indians to christism and favoured tamils and instigated jat sikhs.

But can you deny TN and karnataka are different or marathas and rajputs are different.

Give the selfish racists their due and let us also acknowledge that we are hardly homogenous.

>>’… isn’t it not true that its the British actually preserved whatever has remained of Hinduism? Not that they intended to do it, but without the British, I don’t see what could have prevented a long taliban rule from Iran to Burma….’

Is there a sarcasm hidden in this comment …?

If not, it is a sad indicator of stockholm syndrom.

By the 1750′s the Marathas were in control of most of present day India. The Mughal Emperor was their puppet. Their writ ran from The Deccan to Delhi, from Gujarat to Orissa. At the same time the Sikhs were coming into their own and by the early 18th century they would control most of north-western India (including the present day badlands of FATA and NWFP).

So by the 18th century Islamic rule as a dominant force had mostly ceased in India and Hindus were on the upswing. The baton was then snatched by the British from the Marathas and Sikhs.

After Macaulay’s minute and 1857 the British went ahead full steam with historical revisionism and divide and rule. This produced things like the AIT and the limeys as a saviour of Hindu culture and finally ended in a horrific partition.

Please read this excellent article by Brannon Parker here:
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26990&Itemid=1
esp the section “British Erase Indian History”.

If the Islamic conquests scarred our national soul the British enslaved and colonized our minds. Take your pick on which is more preferable.