-:Undertaker:-
16-02-2015, 01:30 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/11415532/The-imperial-nostalgia-of-Indian-Summers-should-not-blind-us-to-the-free-prosperous-India-of-today.html
The imperial nostalgia of Indian Summers should not blind us to the free, prosperous India of today
Modern, free, parliamentary India could be our most important Asian trading partner - if we can rub the likes of EM Forster from our eyes
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03199/indian_summers_ral_3199262b.jpg
Henry Lloyd Hughes as Ralph and Jemima West as Alice in Indian Summers
The clichés came thick and fast in the opening minutes of Indian Summers, the new Channel 4 drama. We saw the Simla hills through gorgeous camera work. snobbish British officials, Indian clerks in stiff collars and milling ryots – peasant farmers. Above all, we saw the racism with which our own age is obsessed, and through which it accordingly judges all others.
These have been the standard props of Indian dramas since the novels of E.M. Forster, whose experience of the subcontinent was slight, but who has none the less shaped our perception of the late Raj for the better part of a century.
Like most clichés, these ones contained an apple-pip of truth. British officials were capable of pettiness and racism, as well as of empathy and selflessness. There was indeed a conflict within Indian society between the meritocratic products of colonial schools – the babus – and champions of older values. And, although the decision to grant India autonomy had pretty much been made in principle by 1932, when the drama is set – it was formally legislated for two years later – there were fierce quarrels about the terms and timing.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03199/53148234_INDIAN_SU_3199018c.jpg
Henry Lloyd-Hughes plays Ralph Whelan in Indian Summers (Photo: Channel 4)
Yet stifling colonialism is only one part of the story. An extraordinary 1.8 million Indians had served in the First World War, convinced that the individualist and parliamentary values of the British Empire were preferable to Prussian authoritarianism. As Gandhi himself argued at the time, only the British could be trusted to deal fairly with India’s just demands. Then, in the Second World War, no fewer than 2.5 million Indians chose to enlist against Nazism: the largest volunteer army in history, anywhere. Those statistics alone should contextualise the notion that the late Raj rested on repression.
In the immediate aftermath of independence, many Indian politicians adopted something close to the Forster-Attenborough-Indian Summers interpretation of their recent past. All newly sovereign countries take steps to distance themselves from their colonial episode, and India was no exception. Successive governments sought to replace English with Hindi as the common language, and to promote an autarkic economy, supposedly rooted in the Hindu concept of swadeshi (self-sufficiency).
Those days, though, are past, and Indians are now much likelier to define themselves with reference to the characteristics that distinguish them from their neighbours: a functioning parliamentary democracy in which governments change peacefully, without anyone being exiled or shot; a legal system that is open to individuals seeking redress; secure property rights; uncensored media; and, of course, the English language.
As Manmohan Singh, then the prime minister, put it in 2005:
"Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served our country exceedingly well.
If there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English-speaking peoples, in which the people of Indian origin are the largest single component."
People of Indian origin are indeed present in almost every part of the Anglosphere, including in territories long since evacuated by British settlers: the US and Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, East Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Fiji and other Pacific islands. The revolution in communications has drawn diaspora Indians, as well as India itself, into a common Anglosphere conversation.
The orientation of India is arguably the key geopolitical question of our age. If that mighty nation self-defines primarily as an English-speaking democracy rather than as an Asian superpower, the twenty-first century will be altogether brighter. George Bush paved the way for such an alliance when he accepted India’s nuclear status, and David Cameron has visited the country more than any other British prime minister.
And yet, as long as we are in the EU, we can’t sign a free trade agreement with India. Indeed, the EU has halted its talks with Delhi – in marked contrast to the four EFTA countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, which expect to sign a deal this year. Britain would indisputably be better off with an EFTA-type deal that allowed us to trade bilaterally with countries like India.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03199/indian_summers_jem_3199268c.jpg
Jemima West as Alice in Channel 4's Indian Summers
India is, after all, the fourth largest investor here, owning Jaguar and Tetleys. There are 1.4 million Britons of Indian origin. But as long as Brussels controls our trade policy, we are obliged to implement idiotic measures like the ban on Indian mangoes.
Why don’t we pursue the prospects of that vast common-law, free-market and (for business purposes) English-speaking country? Could it be that the same anti-colonial reflex that pushed us into the EEC in the first place is holding us back from partnership? Are we so in hoc to the Indian Summers caricature of our past that we can’t see the opportunities of the present?
Yes, a long time ago, Britons seized India by force and, yes, there were plenty of acts of rapacity and of oppression in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But, more recently, India became an ally in the cause of freedom. Today, it could be our strongest partner in Asia.
A great article, giving a fair hearing to the legacy of Empire rather than the usual rubbish you hear on the subject.
The real reason I posted this though is in what I have bolded. The former Empire, the Commonwealth, should be the people who we are signing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with yet we can't do that even though we're pro-free trade by our nature and even though those in the Commonwealth are our friends: instead we have to wait for the French-like EU Commission to decide the terms and conditions of our trade for us.
With the Commonwealth economies rapidly growing as a % of the world economy, why aren't we using our historical links with these countries rather than tying ourselves to the EU which looks more and more dated as post-war French trade bloc as the years go by? It's madness.
Thoughts?
The imperial nostalgia of Indian Summers should not blind us to the free, prosperous India of today
Modern, free, parliamentary India could be our most important Asian trading partner - if we can rub the likes of EM Forster from our eyes
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03199/indian_summers_ral_3199262b.jpg
Henry Lloyd Hughes as Ralph and Jemima West as Alice in Indian Summers
The clichés came thick and fast in the opening minutes of Indian Summers, the new Channel 4 drama. We saw the Simla hills through gorgeous camera work. snobbish British officials, Indian clerks in stiff collars and milling ryots – peasant farmers. Above all, we saw the racism with which our own age is obsessed, and through which it accordingly judges all others.
These have been the standard props of Indian dramas since the novels of E.M. Forster, whose experience of the subcontinent was slight, but who has none the less shaped our perception of the late Raj for the better part of a century.
Like most clichés, these ones contained an apple-pip of truth. British officials were capable of pettiness and racism, as well as of empathy and selflessness. There was indeed a conflict within Indian society between the meritocratic products of colonial schools – the babus – and champions of older values. And, although the decision to grant India autonomy had pretty much been made in principle by 1932, when the drama is set – it was formally legislated for two years later – there were fierce quarrels about the terms and timing.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03199/53148234_INDIAN_SU_3199018c.jpg
Henry Lloyd-Hughes plays Ralph Whelan in Indian Summers (Photo: Channel 4)
Yet stifling colonialism is only one part of the story. An extraordinary 1.8 million Indians had served in the First World War, convinced that the individualist and parliamentary values of the British Empire were preferable to Prussian authoritarianism. As Gandhi himself argued at the time, only the British could be trusted to deal fairly with India’s just demands. Then, in the Second World War, no fewer than 2.5 million Indians chose to enlist against Nazism: the largest volunteer army in history, anywhere. Those statistics alone should contextualise the notion that the late Raj rested on repression.
In the immediate aftermath of independence, many Indian politicians adopted something close to the Forster-Attenborough-Indian Summers interpretation of their recent past. All newly sovereign countries take steps to distance themselves from their colonial episode, and India was no exception. Successive governments sought to replace English with Hindi as the common language, and to promote an autarkic economy, supposedly rooted in the Hindu concept of swadeshi (self-sufficiency).
Those days, though, are past, and Indians are now much likelier to define themselves with reference to the characteristics that distinguish them from their neighbours: a functioning parliamentary democracy in which governments change peacefully, without anyone being exiled or shot; a legal system that is open to individuals seeking redress; secure property rights; uncensored media; and, of course, the English language.
As Manmohan Singh, then the prime minister, put it in 2005:
"Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served our country exceedingly well.
If there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English-speaking peoples, in which the people of Indian origin are the largest single component."
People of Indian origin are indeed present in almost every part of the Anglosphere, including in territories long since evacuated by British settlers: the US and Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, East Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Fiji and other Pacific islands. The revolution in communications has drawn diaspora Indians, as well as India itself, into a common Anglosphere conversation.
The orientation of India is arguably the key geopolitical question of our age. If that mighty nation self-defines primarily as an English-speaking democracy rather than as an Asian superpower, the twenty-first century will be altogether brighter. George Bush paved the way for such an alliance when he accepted India’s nuclear status, and David Cameron has visited the country more than any other British prime minister.
And yet, as long as we are in the EU, we can’t sign a free trade agreement with India. Indeed, the EU has halted its talks with Delhi – in marked contrast to the four EFTA countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, which expect to sign a deal this year. Britain would indisputably be better off with an EFTA-type deal that allowed us to trade bilaterally with countries like India.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03199/indian_summers_jem_3199268c.jpg
Jemima West as Alice in Channel 4's Indian Summers
India is, after all, the fourth largest investor here, owning Jaguar and Tetleys. There are 1.4 million Britons of Indian origin. But as long as Brussels controls our trade policy, we are obliged to implement idiotic measures like the ban on Indian mangoes.
Why don’t we pursue the prospects of that vast common-law, free-market and (for business purposes) English-speaking country? Could it be that the same anti-colonial reflex that pushed us into the EEC in the first place is holding us back from partnership? Are we so in hoc to the Indian Summers caricature of our past that we can’t see the opportunities of the present?
Yes, a long time ago, Britons seized India by force and, yes, there were plenty of acts of rapacity and of oppression in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But, more recently, India became an ally in the cause of freedom. Today, it could be our strongest partner in Asia.
A great article, giving a fair hearing to the legacy of Empire rather than the usual rubbish you hear on the subject.
The real reason I posted this though is in what I have bolded. The former Empire, the Commonwealth, should be the people who we are signing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with yet we can't do that even though we're pro-free trade by our nature and even though those in the Commonwealth are our friends: instead we have to wait for the French-like EU Commission to decide the terms and conditions of our trade for us.
With the Commonwealth economies rapidly growing as a % of the world economy, why aren't we using our historical links with these countries rather than tying ourselves to the EU which looks more and more dated as post-war French trade bloc as the years go by? It's madness.
Thoughts?