Cultural Treasure Should Be Returned? - Page 5

Originally posted by: Swar_Raj

Yes, i agree that there were problems, but to say hinduism could have been wiped off..is wrong. Although he was thrown away more for incident Known as Black hole of Calcutta(Althogh it is debate, if it really happened) . Battle of Plassey was the turning point too for britishers, they knew they could bribe our people and make false promises and gain victory. Siraj if was not cruel , may not have been the victim, he had enormous wealth and gained power at young age. And major of his genreal were Hindus, personally he was not against them as he had a large number of them in hi army. may be I am wrong here but the reason was realted to Jafar..his cousin, and Jagat a marwari merchant who ran away from Siraj,and went to Britishers . (But I am not sure about this..you might know more) Inspite of larger army , he was defeated and merely the reason was rain and bribes by britishers to his soldiers. ofcourse, britishers were smarter and Mugals were overconfident due to their dynasty . Mogal emperors were losing grips after Aurunzeb..who initially started religious fights..build mosque attached to every major temple.Still a normal Hindu muslim conflict was not there to this extend till Britishers started facing problems by freedom fighters.
We still have those incident where trains are burned and people are burnt (Gujrat) and many more. But it is not stopping us to build India. In tha same way India was not loosing its wealth. Where as by british Raj we lost everthing

I know Sirajudullah's history, he acquired kingdom from his grandfather. Mir Jafar betrayed him for the throne and later became puppet in the British's hand.

It would have not been the scene as we see in today's India. Hindus would have survived in smaller seperate states, not in a unified India. India would have been cut into pieces. Leave along Pakistan, a country like Bangladesh which had considerable no. of Hindus after became a Muslim state the percentage of the Hindu population has been gradually decreasing.

What I am not able to convince is that it was India's fate that it had to go all through these. It's us to blame, we could not defend ourselves. At that time the picture was very different from today, if not British the French would have come. Whoever came, here I am trying to cite some positive things we got from them.

Why of all the places Calcutta was the cultural hub of India(and still considered)? The art, literature, music flourished under the British rule. Because it was the capital of the British empire.

And also you are forgetting one thing, there is a vast difference in the field of technology in yesterday's and today's India and also the world. With this kind of technology available, we are bound to develop.

Originally posted by: Swar_Raj

Oh no 😆 will have to check the momento i bought as Statue of Liberty😆

It is made in China😆😆

Originally posted by: Swar_Raj

During 17th centuary & 18th..South Asia was ahead.
While the arts and sciences were flourishing in South Asia, Europe was sunk in the Dark Ages. THe Industrial revolution and Agriculture benefit was surely taking lead in the world. And yes age of science was getting more developed by Europe. May be the idea was to invade others and just snatch what they had.

Also Calcutta was always a hub of art, culture , music and wealth more during and before Siraj too. Britishers took it. THey collected it all. so it did not flourish, it was taken away slowley so the impact was not seen.

Calcutta was formed under the British(founder Job Charnok) some 300 years ago. What was Calcutta like before the British came ?
It was just a village, the capital city of Bengal was Murshidabad, around 60 miles north of Calcutta. 1698 East India Co. bought three villages (Sutanuti, Kolkata, Gobindapur ) from local landlord Sabarna Chowdhury. 1699 East India Company started developing Calcutta as a Presidency city. The "babu" culture(the development of a culture that was a coalescence of European philosophy with Indian tradition.) was formed under the British rule. The middle class also rose during that time. And so did the music, literature, art and culture. The works depict the undeniable European influence.

Yes may be India could have a result of breaking in small pieces. But when we were ruled by Rajputs in Rajastan, BY maurya or Gupt in the east, Vijaynagar and so in south,Shivaji in the west, we were progressing and during that time even the living standard as per researches and some books, was higher comparision to Europe. if it continued....you think we would been in same state.

These(under-stated) are not my words, ref. wikipedia.

The British Era

Even under the Delhi rulers, India was not fully integrated under one government. The Western and Southern parts of the country were still outside the influence of the Dilli empire. With the arrival and the rapid establishment of the British East India Company as a single trading block, the economic landscape changed. With the Company influencing decisions in different parts of the country, there was a general direction given to the governance and to the economy as such. The British soon formalized the colonization of the country and with this, the economic policies began to reflect those of the British Empire.

Large-scale trading with other countries and the formation of industries like textile and steel happened in this era. This also saw the discovery of petroleum and the setting up of a refinery in Digboi, Assam.

The British Era was characterized by the country growing into an economic block and also by industrialization of many parts of the country notably Bombay (now Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata) and Madras (Chennai).

See we were rich in some of those fields that europe was dying to have. Columbus & Vasco de gama, are major example for it. They were traders and explorers, and main was gold and spice. They were drawn to India for different reasons. Some were traders, others adventurers, and quite a few fired by the missionary zeal to find converts to Christianity. They did not come to steal our technology or art and culture. Other nations wished to do trades with us. India was selt sufficient in all fields that time. But with trade permission in 1551, India started exploring outside world. Rails, road tc all these technology even if we did not have by trading, could have picked up. But before anything could happen..the country was taken over.
I believe that India would not have been behind in technology either. For two hundred years, we could do nothing other then please Europeons. We, the people did not please the Europeans. It was some selfish people and unfortunately some of them were the heads. But some rose against them. Since there was no unity, the British succeeded. But later our leaders understood the value of unity and they succeeded. Like in US they say, "United we stand, divided we fall." Same time if we had used towards us...would have been far better.

Even if we were divided in small kingdoms, we had a better life then during slavery so would have been more creative. Necessity is the mother of invention. SO according to need, we would hve developed our technology too. Yes of course we could have survived like Nepal, Bhutan, Srilanka and bowed ourselfes like sycophant to the powerful. India being a powerful country having tough time fighting the Islamic terrorists, you think we could have been successful being a small state. Again I would say "United we stand, divided we fall." Or may be you are right. Actually live along the religion and caste, we have so much difference among ourselves(language, culture, belief) may be it would have been better living in different countries, one for Bengalis, one for Tamils, one for Marathis, one for Punjabis, one for Gujratis, one for Kashmiris and so on. That could have satisfied us and made us happier. Youmay be right, but I still donot agree that we have seen something good out of 200 yrs of Slavery. To me it was only disaster that we are still facing.

For everything(good or bad) there is a reason, even if we have to go long back to find it. I am an optimist and try to find some positive out of it. Just can't sit back with hands up blaming on others, instead of finding fault with us.

Originally posted by: Swar_Raj

It is made in China😆😆

Originally posted by: sowmyaa

Here you go Pradarshak! 😊

British Rule in India

Thanks, Sowmyaa

Pardarshak ji;

I would include the new topic link in the old. Welcome back. WE miss you when you are gone. -A.S.

.

I have recently came across this information written by Dadabhai Naoroji. I am an ordinary person and my views might not appeal to all. But I hope when this man who was also known as "Grand old man of India" and was also a mentor to Gandhi said something there must be some weight in it. He lived the era we are talking about and was well aware of the social-political scenario.

No Indian can ever forgive the foreigners who came to our country and made their luck out of our country, losing our wealth and life. I heard stories from my parents how they lost their closed ones and their wealth and land due to formation of Bangladesh and in '71 war(that's also cause of partition). Hindus came here(India) and started their life from the scratch. The wound in us is still fresh, the detriments may outway the benefits. But may be one day we will acknowledge(even in a small proportion) and history would tell us that it did serve little good.

Modern History Sourcebook:
Dadabhai Naoroji:
The Benefits of British Rule, 1871

The Benefits of British Rule for India:
In the Cause of Humanity: Abolition of suttee and infanticide. Destruction of Dacoits, Thugs, Pindarees, and other such pests of Indian society. Allowing remarriage of Hindu widows, and charitable aid in time of famine. Glorious work all this, of which any nation may well be proud, and such as has not fallen to the lot of any people in the history of mankind.

In the Cause of Civilization: Education, both male and female. Though yet only partial, an inestimable blessing as far as it has gone, and leading gradually to the destruction of superstition, and many moral and social evils. Resuscitation of India's own noble literature, modified and refined by the enlightenment of the West.

Politically: Peace and order. Freedom of speech and liberty of the press. Higher political knowledge and aspirations. Improvement of government in the native states. Security of life and property. Freedom from oppression caused by the caprice or greed of despotic rulers, and from devastation by war. Equal justice between man and man (sometimes vitiated by partiality to Europeans). Services of highly educated administrators, who have achieved the above-mentioned results.

Materially: Loans for railways and irrigation. Development of a few valuable products, such as indigo, tea, coffee, silk, etc. Increase of exports. Telegraphs.

Generally: A slowly growing desire of late to treat India equitably, and as a country held in trust. Good intentions. No nation on the face of the earth has ever had the opportunity of achieving such a glorious work as this. I hope in the credit side of the account I have done no injustice, and if I have omitted any item which anyone may think of importance, I shall have the greatest pleasure in inserting it. I appreciate, and so do my countrymen, what England has done for India, and I know that it is only in British hands that her regeneration can be accomplished.