British rule in India: an abusive relationship Letters

Amrita Sen has offered a critical assessment of British rule in India (Illusion of the Empire: Amartya Sen, what British rule on June 29 really did for India). Yet the one who is deprived of his concern is a clear critic of the apologetic arguments that have questioned the so-called “achievements” of colonialism.

Instead, he highlighted a methodological issue, the impossibility of imagining India in which British rule did not take place. Although Sean acknowledges the difficulty of such an assessment, he was able to answer questions about how India was lacking at the time of the British conquest and how the new rulers had addressed these shortcomings. They immediately. This is where the test begins.

In my view, this question is tantamount to asking colonialists who have benefited from colonialism how survivors of abuse benefit from their relationship with their exploiters. Analysis that seeks to gain a clear understanding of the dynamics of a relationship can quickly fall into the category of justification for cruelty and behavior. The argument that “it wasn’t all bad” has inevitably been put forward by criminals and in any case is hypocritical. At the same time, neither the survivors of the abuse nor the former colonies are able to make up for their losses, yet both suffer deep losses.

The question is not what the British Raj did. for the India, or any of the former Occupied Territories. The question is, what did the British Raj do? To do Them?
Dr. Nandini Bodia. Clementine

There is much to agree with Amartya Sen’s interpretation of British imperialism in India. But there has been no famine in India since independence in 1947?

Perhaps he can be forgiven for ignoring the 1974-75 famine in Bangladesh (which he analyzed in his 1981 article). Poverty and destitution), But what about the spring famine of 1951 and 1966, and the Maharashtra drought and the famine of 1970-73? Both recorded additional deaths, widespread hunger and malnutrition. It is possible that Professor Sen neglected to challenge his dissertation on deprivation of food rather than reduction of food availability due to crop failures in 1981, although both can be factual and negotiable.
Geoff Wood
Emirates International Development Professor, University of Bath

A passionate and interesting article by Amrita Sen leaves out the important subject of religion. The deportation of at least 3 million people without putting the mutual religious propaganda of Hindus and Muslims in the hands of the Raj, the killing of hundreds of thousands by both sides and the establishment of the states of India, Pakistan and Bengal. .

My father, PJ Griffiths, when he was the leader of the European Group in the Indian Legislative Assembly, Winston Churchill publicly stated that if Britain reneged on its promise to give India independence at the end of World War II, he would Join the Indian Congress Party.
John Griffiths

The answer to the question “What did the UK really do for India?” He is the Indian Ambassador, or, as we know, Morris Oxford. Developed over 66 years, it was India’s first production car and provided reliable transport for the nation. He was called the king of the streets of India.
David Bentley
Anglefield Green, Surrey

Comment on everything you read in the Guardian today? please E-mail We will consider your letter and its publication.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *