The British Raj: Good On Balance?

[Verbose]

There is something to be said of being a geographically dispersed religious minority; there wasn't much anyone could have done to defuse tensions, a certain national icon had attempted unsuccessfully to cool heads and was killed for it.

That was rather late in the story otoh. I think the poster was rather referring to things like how it has been observed, that if there was one set of Indian customs the British did respect, it was the caste system. Since it was in fact useful in maintaining inter-Indian divisions.

All manner of things were used to this end, not least science, to both practically and symbolically make sure that the British "knew" the Indians better than the Indians knew themselves, and could use that fact to argue that the Indians were incapable of running their own affairs.

Afais the British ran a privilege society based on community rights rather than individual rights for the natives. Some groups were selected for preferential treatment. (They did the same in places like Egypt, through the "Khawagat" system, after all, which also messed up Egypt rather badly.)

 

[Masada]

That was rather late in the story otoh. I think the poster was rather referring to things like how it has been observed, that if there was one set of Indian customs the British did respect, it was the caste system. Since it was in fact useful in maintaining inter-Indian divisions.

There's nothing special about that, the Brahmans were quite adapt at coming out on top, and had been for a good thousand-and-a-half years or so. Nevertheless Muslim were always going to be in a tenuous place, they were geographically dispersed, a religious and cultural minority and had a history which wasn't conducive to peace. Special treatment also has a long providence, the Mughals quite unashamedly indulged in it, someone picking up the torch in their stead isn't all that surprising.

 

[Verbose]

There's nothing special about that, the Brahmans were quite adapt at coming out on top, and had been for a good thousand-and-a-half years or so. Nevertheless Muslim were always going to be in a tenuous place, they were geographically dispersed, a religious and cultural minority and had a history which wasn't conducive to peace. Special treatment also has a long providence, the Mughals quite unashamedly indulged in it, someone picking up the torch in their stead isn't all that surprising.

You're quite right, of course. It's more of a concern re. the question whether the Raj was "good" or "bad" on balance. Like all the colonial systems, a number of things in the order maintained markedly jarred with certain other publicly stated British ideals. That a large number of such social facts were co-produced with local clients isn't surprising either. The thing to keep in mind is rather that they weren't just inescapable and somehow "natural" products of things Indian either. The British could pick and choose from aspects of Indian society within certain parameters, and their choices weren't necessarily disinterested and neutral, even if the British tended to present them as such.

 

[Vox de Villainy]

Apparently, Vox thinks that only when these countries will unite, India will be truly unified.

What I was hamfistedly trying to get at was that these areas were under British dominance and much of British Imperialism was justified in that these areas were 'united', but the unity did not outlive the Raj as it was 'unity by coercion'.

There is something to be said of being a geographically dispersed religious minority; there wasn't much anyone could have done to defuse tensions, a certain national icon had attempted unsuccessfully to cool heads and was killed for it.

If the national icon is Gandhi, as much as he tried to prevent division he did scare many Muslims and Sikhs in his ubiquitous Hinduism; Hindu domination of Congress was what led to calls by Jinnah for an independent Pakistan. It wasn't his fault (although the occasional faux pas along the road didn't help) but it happened.

Yes, there was. Mahmud of Ghazi, Muhammad of Ghor and Qutb-ud-din Aybak were not famed for their treatment of Hindu's or Hindu temples, the last two are recorded by Ferishta boasting about the destruction of a thousand Hindu temples; the near constant use of Infidel kind of gives them away as well.

I'm far from an expert on pre-Raj India, but my understanding was that the first few Mughal Emperors instituted absolute religious freedom and sectarian violence was minimal; I wasn't aware of any deviation from that policy in later years.

The point I was trying to make was that the religious violence was not innate; the average Hindu and Muslim were capable of interacting in the same society with little tension. This would mean the violence was not 'bound to happen' and the British Raj was not a positive influence in preventing sectarian violence.

 

[plarq]

Well, that's right, the Raj had a "divide and conquer" strategy, which exploited the existing sectarian conflicts.