Prime Minister's remarks on british raj

Mr. Manmohan singh has made following unfortunate comments on british rule in India and here is my reasons for disagreeing on this.

What impelled the Mahatma to take such a positive view of Britain and the British people even as he challenged the Empire and colonial rule? It was, undoubtedly, his recognition of the elements of fair play that characterized so much of the ways of the British in India. Consider the fact that an important slogan of India's struggle for freedom was that "Self Government is more precious than Good Government." That, of course, is the essence of democracy. But the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance.

Claiming that British had provided good governance is preposterous and this is obvious from the social & economical revolts which they faced frequently and terrible famines, which were caused due to mismanagement & exploitation of peasant class with intention to destroy local agrarian economies and to help Great Britain to build its economy and industry. Elements of "fair play" which characterized their ways in India is quite evident in their history of conquest of India and later from their subjugation & racial discrimination of people.

Inconsiderate, harsh policies & taxation of British government to exploit Indian peasants had resulted in many uprisings and movements, such as:

Pabna movement in east Bengal(1872-76), indigo agitation of Bengal peasants(1859-60), deccan riots(1875), unrest of peasants in Punjab, khaira satyagraha(1918), Bardoli Satyagraha(1928) and champaran satyagraha in 1917 in which Gandhi himself took part. Gandhi presented 11 point ultimatum to British government before starting civil disobedience movement in 1930-34. Out of which first 2 points were essentially related to peasants and next 5 points represent grievance of bourgeois and rest were in general concerned to Indian people. Economic policies of British concerning trade, industry and revenue had adversely affected the interest of lower and middle classes and even in upper class of with vested interest in continuance of British rule such as native rulers , landlords, zamindars, village money lenders, there was some amount of resentment due to British racial superiority and discrimination. Though, British had implemented postal, railway and telephone services in India but primarily, this was to have effective control over it's expanding raj and to effectively curb uprisings in various parts of country. Ironically same services were used by revolutionaries & INC against British to spread their movement.

Well, these are some of the reasons, which led commoners to join national freedom movement and if it was only for self governance then there wouldn't be uprisings at local levels, which are more sort of social & economic in nature. Importantly we need to ask ourselves, how popular was this slogan among masses that"Self Government is more precious than Good Government."? and what made Congress to passed resolution in support of complete independence in 1927, in madras session and dropping their old "request" for dominion status?.

Gandhi being mahatma never considered anyone his enemy and not even his friend Hitler, as seen in his correspondence with Hitler.

To interpret events in the past, we need to look at the history in the context of those times and not through present political equations, Indian National Congress members were moderates and they were in good terms with britishers when compared to revolutionaries and extremists, so british generally are more inclined in dealing with INC than others, not that this was bad but using this as pretext to whitewash deeds of britishers in India and depicting their rule as beneficial is something else. More over this will give opportunity to historians in Britain to assert this viewpoint and their recent attempts indicate that they are more then happy to do so.

Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age-old civilization met the dominant Empire of the day. These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy, and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well.

British never respected free press in India and this can be understood from following:

• Lord Lytoon's Vernacular Press Act.
• Section 124A of IPC was used to deal harshly with sedition.
• Indian Official Secrets Act of 1904 to restrict the freedom of press.
• The Newspaper Act was passed in 1908, was aimed at incitement of offences.
• The Indian press Act if 1910 was aimed at keeping the press generally within the limits of legitimate discussion.
• Together use of 1908 and 1910 Act caused the closure of several presses and newspaper.
• Indian Press Ordinance of 1930 further curbed the freedom of the press.
• The Indian press Act of 1931 prohibited the publication of any kind of congress propaganda, it was repealed after independence.

There was at least one or more indigenous school(s) for every village before british introduced english medium education. According to Adam's 1st report on Bengal reveals that there were about 1,00,000 village schools and there were approximately 100 institutions of higher learning in each district meaning approximately 1,800 such institutions and 10,800 scholars in them. Adam said that he found a number of genuine, qualified physicians in who analyzed the symptoms of the disease before suggesting a cure. In Punjab there were 3,30,000 pupils in 1850 as compared to 1,90,000 in 1882 as per Leitner's Report.These figures were consistent through out India and this had revealed in data collected from various British District Collectors. Sanskrit books were used to teach grammar, lexicology, mathematics, medical science, logic, law and Vedanta. Around 1802, the monitorial method of teaching used by Joseph Lancaster (and also by Andrew Bell, supposedly borrowed from India, Ibid pg 246, Note on Indian Education by Alexander Walker quote 'The children were instructed without violence and by a process peculiarly simple. The system was borrowed from the Bramans and brought from India to Europe'. (Ref: esamskriti)

It was noted in the Macaulay's minute on education that destroying indigenous education system was essential to spread British rule in India and Macaulay has stated that from new system would emerge a class who though Indian in blood and the colour of skin would be English in tastes, opinion, in morals and in intellect. This Macaulay syndrome still exists in India.

Present day civil service officers exert absolute power with impunity. This is due to our colonial framework, which still exists without much modification and this system has less chance for providing accountability and there is urgent need for reforms in this area. We have carried some laws and regulations of IPC from our colonial era without any alterations to their present day relevance. This colonial baggage has hindered us in providing speedy and effective justice to the people and this has given rise to various social movements in free India.

We need to remember that there are many nations in the world which aren't colonized, yet they possess these institutions and they serve them well. Do we need to give our colonizer such a high regard, specially when their intention was to destroy our indigenous systems to prevail their ways on us. Their actions should be examined in this context. Basis of any good relationship between countries should be based on facts and not on misinterpretations.