Domminating India's Culture - True or False

[iceaura]

The source of their power was the zamindari or landlord system, which they instituted along the lines of what they had in Europe under various titles and their funding and arming of local warlords. Discussions aside, all British governers suppressed local Indian industry, sent food to their global military at the cost of local starvation, causing 25 famines over the course of their colonisation [resulting in the deaths of 30 million people] and destroyed the local self government system, which was more fair than any overlord.

But that was after they had conquered, and over a period of hundreds of years.

They could never have gained or kept that kind of control over India by force alone. They took advantage of the injustices and class oppressions of Indian society, the infighting of local overlords, and provided better to at least some. To this day there are Dalits who would prefer a return of British rule, no ?

 

[Zephyr]

Apparently just what it sounds like, a recent propaganda concoction:

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda

British colonialism in India had enough bad aspects as it was. There's no need to fabricate more.

 

[S.A.M.]

But that was after they had conquered, and over a period of hundreds of years.

No, the East India Company was already doing it.

To this day there are Dalits who would prefer a return of British rule, no ?

Yeah, all the ones who did not live through it.

The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another.[42] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[43] During the initial days of British East India Company's rules, caste privileges and customs were encouraged,[44] but the British law courts disagreed with the discrimination against the lower castes. However British policies of divide and rule as well as enumeration of the population into rigid categories during the 10 year census contributed towards the hardening of caste identities.[45]

During the period of British rule, India saw the rebellions of several lower castes, mainly tribals that revolted against British rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system

The British made the caste system a hundred times worse

 

[John99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system

The British made the caste system a hundred times worse

Of course they did....:zzz:

 

[S.A.M.]

Yup, before the British defined "Hinduism" it was just a set of fluid philosophies.

 

[John99]

The Biritish defined Hinduism?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, Hinduism is a British word. Didn't you know that? Its what they called all the existing philosophies of India apart from Islam and Christianity [which they were familiar with]. It originated in 1829.

 

[iceaura]

No, the East India Company was already doing it.

So the East India Company established itself without conquering, and was in a position to impose "it" without employing overwhelming military or economic force on the society as a whole. So "it" predates British political control, and later Brit political control (as earlier economic dominance) established itself by at least in part and temporarily being an improvement in some locales and for many of India's people. Illustrated, for example, here:

] During the initial days of British East India Company's rules, caste privileges and customs were encouraged,[44] but the British law courts disagreed with the discrimination against the lower castes

Yup, before the British defined "Hinduism" it was just a set of fluid philosophies.

And after the British coined a colonialists term for the native gibberish, it was still "just a set of fluid philosophies".

The British made the caste system a hundred times worse

Misleading exaggeration. They made things worse in general, created a need for defined victims, and the social structure kicked the misery downhill. The caste system was bad before the Brits, worse during, and well rid of whenever that happy day shall come around.

The Brits seem to have been just the latest incoming caste, anyway:

However, a 2001 genetic study, led by Michael Bamshad of the University of Utah, found that the affinity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans. The researchers believe that the Indo-Aryans entered India from the Northwest and may have established a caste system, in which they placed themselves primarily in higher castes."[8] Because the Indian samples for this study were taken from a single geographical area, it remains to be investigated whether its findings can be safely generalized.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, the British did make the caste system a hundred times worse. They created a framework for discrimination that changed it from the social to the religious. When there was no "Hinduism", there was no category of lower caste. Only unskilled labourers.

 

[iceaura]

No, the British did make the caste system a hundred times worse. They created a framework for discrimination that changed it from the social to the religious. When there was no "Hinduism", there was no category of lower caste. Only unskilled labourers.

I quite agree with you that the Brit theistic approach, bringing overt religion into the matter, did harm. But the caste system predated them, and such arrangements are not as benign as you seem to be suggesting, nor without support in the local religions and among the official priesthood however named.

 

[S.A.M.]

I quite agree with you that the Brit theistic approach, bringing overt religion into the matter, did harm. But the caste system predated them, and such arrangements are not as benign as you seem to be suggesting, nor without support in the local religions and among the official priesthood however named.

It was not set in stone. Like gay marriages in Pakistan, what exists as an idea is different from what is practised. Make it policy and you'll see a difference immediately. e.g. before British intervention, you'd only hear about Rajput princesses committing sati, due to exaggerated Rajput notions of honour. After, it became the norm.

 

[iceaura]

It was not set in stone. Like gay marriages in Pakistan, what exists as an idea is different from what is practised. Make it policy and you'll see a difference immediately. e.g. before British intervention, you'd only hear about Rajput princesses committing sati, due to exaggerated Rajput notions of honour. After, it became the norm.

Separation of church and state - always a good idea.

The Brits did not encourage the custom, though. At least a couple of the local Scot governors were famous for banning it, and hanging its perpetrators - an imposition of alien values on native society, and the sort of arbitrary colonial insult that made the Brits famous, no?

 

[S.A.M.]

Separation of church and state - always a good idea.

The Brits did not encourage the custom, though. At least a couple of the local Scot governors were famous for banning it, and hanging its perpetrators - an imposition of alien values on native society, and the sort of arbitrary colonial insult that made the Brits famous, no?

That was later, when the "government" stepped in. But structuring the religion as they did and introducing laws against homosexuality and stuff, did a lot of damage. Separation of church and state? In India? We don't give a lot of credence to laws. Its why with laws against homosexuality we have gay marriages. But put it into the religion and you've made an inroad into the society. We don't function as western societies do. The one size fits all dogma is unappealing to us.