 |
| Sunday, February 1, 2004 |
|
| Sunday, February 1, 2004 |
|
India and Britannia:
An Abiding Affair The author of the book, Subash Chopra, a freelance journalist, had worked for British newspapers, including the Times, London, for about 25 years. As a keen observer of the working of the contemporary British political system, Chopra has tried to share with us the British perceptions of India. He also highlights some of the consequences that followed the British impact on Africa and Ireland. In this work, a number of themes are dealt with, some quite disparate. So it is appropriate to classify this work as a compilation relating to the influences that the British rule had produced on the life and people of India. The theme of Indo-British relations is not startlingly new. Quite a number of historians and writers, including Percival Spear, Penderal Moon, George Orwell and Nirad C. Chaudhuri, have written on this complex and challenging theme. In the opening chapter, Chopra waxes lyrical on the British achievements in India. According to him, the British bequeathed to India the English language, parliamentary system of democracy, science and technology, rule of law and cricket. Chopra regards democracy as the biggest British gift to India. He thinks that it was India’s commitment to democracy that stood up against Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian Emergency and saved the country from disaster. These generalisations are sweeping. Nobody can deny the value of English, but the British had imposed it as a compulsory medium of instruction in the educational system. Lord Macaulay had envisaged the idea of making English the lingua franca of India, and there was a bitter opposition to the project at the time by some of the distinguished British Orientalists, including H.H. Wilson. Making English compulsory has thwarted the springs of original thought, besides splitting the country into two linguistic divisions. Hence the author’s lauding English as the means of communication is questionable. The second and third chapters emphasises that the British, despite their claim to follow the democratic system in true spirit, suffer from racial bias which is evident in dancing halls and clubs. Enoch Powell, a first-class classical scholar who dreamt of becoming the Viceroy of India, had accelerated the spirit of racial fanaticism in 1990 when he had delivered his highly passionate and inflammatory “rivers of blood speech”. Powell had wanted to keep Britain white, and was thus opposed to any coloured immigration into the country. Warning that if the tide of coloured immigration is not resisted forthright, Powell said eloquently, “I am filled with foreboding…like the Romans I seem to see the river Tiber with much flood.” The author maintains that Britain’s restricted immigration policies are determined by economic interests but hopes that a multicultural Britain will be an increasing reality in a modern global world. Chopra laments that the British, public and students are ignorant of the misdeeds that their forbears had committed as rulers in India. Governed primarily by economic interests and following tenaciously a policy of “Divide and Rule,” the British had brought untold misery to the people of India, reducing them to dismal poverty and splitting the country into two separate states. The author recalls the grim and sordid stories of the “ill-gotten fortunes” of Clive and Warren Hastings which they had amassed through cruel means. It was India’s plunder, the author emphasises, and that “had a substantial contribution to the making of modern Britain.” In his indictment of Kipling, Chopra is harsh. He maintains that Kipling knew nothing of India, and that his portrayal of Indian life was superficial. He also criticises Nirad C. Chaudhri for lauding Kipling’s achievements as a literary writer. According to Chopra, it was Kipling’s jingoism that had made him the chief national public relations officer. I think that Chopra misses the point that Kipling’s main aim was to depict the British colonial mentality within the Indian environment and see its impact on the society ridden by caste and colour. In order to sharpen the British antipathy to India, Chopra emphasises that during the Queen’s visit to Jallianwalla Bagh, Amritsar, in 1997, to mark the golden jubilee celebrations of India’s Independence, the Duke of Edinburgh had underplayed the British General Dyer’s firing on the unarmed assembly. The Duke made his position clear to this writer in his correspondence which is now deposited in the South Asian Centre Archives, Cambridge University. He had only made a query whether the figure of 2,000 victims shown on the entrance board was correct. What is wrong in asking this? I think that death toll did not exceed 750. Again, Chopra credits Raja Ram Mohan Roy more for the abolition of suttee than the Governor-General Lord William Bentinck. (pp.68-71) The fact is otherwise. When it came to the prohibition of legislative enactment, Roy faltered, and wanted to hold back Bentinck. But Bentinck went ahead against bitter opposition even from his own home government. This book, written in a clear and lucid style, makes an interesting reading for a general reader. |
IT is rather difficult to grasp the central theme of this small and unpretentious volume. The author has touched on a number of lively issues relating to the Indo-British relations subsisting between Britain and India since the foundation of the British rule in the 18th century India. The British had come to India primarily as traders. But in a fit of the absence of mind, they turned into Empire-builders by converting their factories into forts.