The myths about the British rule -1
Myth 1: Britishers unified India. If not for Britishers, India would still have been a bunch of princely states
Some Facts: Britishers had Provinces for administrative ease. Princily states did exist during the British Raj. They were probably the kings who accepted the terms of Britishers instead of fighting them and a mutual agreement has been sorted out.
There were not one or two but nearly 600 such princely states!
To quote wiki
“There were between 570 and 600 princely states which enjoyed special recognition by and relationship with the British Raj. The British government announced in the Indian Independence Act 1947 that with the transfer of power on August 15, 1947, all of these states would be freed of their obligations to the British Empire, and thus would be free to join either India or Pakistan, or to choose to become independent.”
The states of Gwalior, Bikaner, Patiala and Baroda were the first to join India on April 28, 1947. Others were wary, distrusting a democratic government led by revolutionaries of uncertain, and possibly radical views, and fearful of losing their influence as rulers. Travancore and Hyderabad announced their desire for independence while the Nawab of Bhopal, Hamidullah Khan, expressed his desire to either negotiate with Pakistan or seek independence. The Nawab was a powerful influence on a number of princes, as he was the former chancellor of the Chamber of Princes. In addition, Jodhpur, Indore and Jaisalmer conducted a dialogue with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the slated Governor-General of Pakistan, to discuss terms for a possible accession to it. While this surprised many in both India and Pakistan, neither party could ultimately ignore the
fact that these kingdoms were Hindu-majority, which rendered their membership in overwhelmingly Muslim Pakistan untenable.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the Minister for Home and States Affairs, and was given the explicit responsibility of welding a
united and strategically secure India in time for the transfer of power. Patel was considered the best man for the task by the Congress Party, as well as Lord Mountbatten and senior British officials. Mahatma Gandhi had, in fact, said to Patel “the problem of the States is so difficult that you alone can solve it”. He was recognised by the Princes and parliamentarians alike to be a man of integrity; and, in addition, he was believed to have the practical acumen and resolve to accomplish the monumental task.
Quote ends.
So “Britishers” have not unified India..as we are popularly made to believe…! It was our own iron man, sardar vallabhai patel, who was instrumental in unifying all the princely states, using mostly diplomacy and even military action if and when needed!
Myth 2: Britishers “gave” us the railways.
The Steam engine was discovered in 1765, by James watt (though it was discovered much earlier The increased efficiency of the Watt engine finally led to the general acceptance and use of steam power in industry)and it was around 1811 that the worlds first commercial railway was run. It is no wonder that the railways were established in india at the same time when they were established all over the world.
Railways were established by the British for quicker transport of material and men to the areas required and not to “serve” Indians !!!! Afterall they have come to India for business (not social service, as they want us to believe!) and meant business till the very day they left !!!
The surmise that in absence of Britishers, independent kings of india would not have used that invention to their advantage or for the benifit of their citizens is too far fetched !!!
ditto with the postal system. The ancient postal systems or communication systems all over world were the same, the courier
personally carrying the message or a pigeon or a person running from one village to the other in relay. General postal systems as used today by the common public evolved only during the 18th and 19th centuries. Britishers happened to be in India during that time and hence they introduced it.
If postal and railway sytems existed long before Britishers came, but the incapable, uneducated, Indians or the self-centered kings did not take them up and were living in ignorance…then Britishers came and “introduced” or “gave” them to us….only then the argument holds some water…!!!!
More myths about the education system, administrative system and the medical care are to follow..am a bit hard pressed for time…
PS: Motivated by the comments of Mr. Bharatiya for my prev post
As for Mr. Bharatiyas medal to the Britishers about “human rights” i prefer not to say much. For, history speaks for
itself ..if throwing out someone out of train or stepping on someones back to step into carriage bcos they are not “white” is human rights, and if Jaliyan walah bagh is human rights….i have nth to say!!!!
If he is just comparing them to the muslim invaders and said they did not persecute as much as the later did…may be yes! But i wonder if that can be called human rights awareness !!
