Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Britian as an indian Empire
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Britian as an indian Empire
    Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 20:27
Most people will tell you that britian is a European empire, an empire with its power base in England. Is this actually correct? In terms of expanding and controlling britians empire, and in terms of generating the wealth required to fund such an empire, was Calcutta more important than London. Churchill once famously said, "The loss of india would reduce britian to the fate of a minor power", and indeed it did.
The british empire saw the migrations of people from the subcontient across the entire world, from Fiji to the west indies to England herself. Sepoys often comprised the bulk of british fighting forces outside of europe.

In this thread I'm interested in your views on the British Empire being considered a indian empire, in the same way the Delhi Sultanate or Mughals who were also formed after invasions, rather than or as well as a European Empire.
Back to Top
AP Singh View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 283 		  Quote AP Singh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2006 at 02:21
British empire can not be considered as an Indian empire due to the following reasons.
 
1. It is said that there was no Sun-Set for British Empire. That does mean that there empire was so big that if it was a night time in one the domains ruled by them, there was day day time in others domains ruled by them.
 
2. Till 1857 it was only East India Company which was ruling India.It was only after 1857 revolt which was mostly dominated by Gujjars and Muslim Rajputs, India came under direct governance of the queen. This 1857 revolt ( As per British point of view) has very very special significance in the History of India and shaped the future historical event in India. Till this date only very few most daring and valiant people could challenge the authority of British Power and lost their properties and life after the revolt was crushed with the help of some traitors. Under the direct control of the queen many other ordinary Indians also started raising their voice against injustice having no fear of loosing life/properties since now the British officers in India were directly answerable to the queen.
 
3. Some students like Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel who went to London for higher studies in law found a considerable difference in behaviour of the Britishers in India and the Britishers living in Britain. The yough Patel  was highly surprised to see that the same Britishers who are very decent and law abiding citizens in Britain turn so cruel when posted In India.
 
This was because it was very difficult for Britishers also to find suitable british manpower to be placed in India and this was the main reason for the Britishers being cruel to local population. Only a few inferrior and Gunda type people used to opt for postings in India. It is said that no girl from a good British family would prefer to marry a British man placed  in India. It is case similar to an IT professional from India to choose a posting between USA and Middle East. Most of the people working in Middle East are not top notch IT professional but USA has lot of them.
 
4. India was a very good place to do business for Britishers sine the Farm labourers and Military labourers were very cheaply available in plenty. The most benefitial quality of these Military labourers was that they were even willing to work against their own country.
 
5. Also India was a big market fot their finished goods. Khadi movement was nothing but refusing to give profits to the Britishers through sale of these finished clothes.
 
Hence with the fear of loosing business and cheap manpower, Churchill must have thought that loss of India would certainly reduce the fate of Britain to a minor power sine he would not have taken this all of this cheap manpower to Britain. This situation is similar to a case of a maid servant. One would prefer a seaparate servant quarter for her otherwise would prefer to manage the house hold work on his own rather than sharing the same house with a maid servant.
 
 


Edited by AP Singh - 23-Sep-2006 at 03:23
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2006 at 19:43
If you'll allow me to go through piece by piece.

1. It is said that there was no Sun-Set for British Empire. That does mean that there empire was so big that if it was a night time in one the domains ruled by them, there was day day time in others domains ruled by them.

Many of these domains were conqured by sepoys under british command. The fighting man in many regiments was not necessarily from the british isles. (Although of course in many cases they were)
2. Till 1857 it was only East India Company which was ruling India.It was only after 1857 revolt which was mostly dominated by Gujjars and Muslim Rajputs, India came under direct governance of the queen. This 1857 revolt ( As per British point of view) has very very special significance in the History of India and shaped the future historical event in India. Till this date only very few most daring and valiant people could challenge the authority of British Power and lost their properties and life after the revolt was crushed with the help of some traitors. Under the direct control of the queen many other ordinary Indians also started raising their voice against injustice having no fear of loosing life/properties since now the British officers in India were directly answerable to the queen.

I think this is more for than against. Many of the british possesions accross the world were in fact held by companies. Especially before the amount of land a company could rule was limited after 1857. If we are to treat the companies and the empire as seperate entites, then surely the East India Company must be considered a wholly subcontinent empire. With a foriegn elite ruling over a native mass, just like countless others in history.
This situation is similar to a case of a maid servant. One would prefer a seaparate servant quarter for her otherwise would prefer to manage the house hold work on his own rather than sharing the same house with a maid servant.

I think thats a very good analogy of the situation.
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200 		  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 10:34
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


In this thread I'm interested in your views on the British Empire being considered a indian empire, in the same way the Delhi Sultanate or Mughals who were also formed after invasions, rather than or as well as a European Empire.


Good point. What is the difference between an indigenous empire and a colonial empire?

The indigenous one had more success at assimilating. Thus, Indians can view the Turkish and Mughal dynasties as home-grown, because they succeeded at converting enough Hindus to their Muslim faith and customs.

Whereas the culturally less successful British remain in the official Indian state doctrine the alien intruders. But I think this attitude may also be changing a bit, because the British actually did undeniably a few good things for India. Eliminating the thug movement and unifying the country to an extent which no other Indian dynasty had been able, too.

They also built up the infrastructure considerably. But the real British heritage may be gifting India a common lingua franca for all its peoples. A language, which I am told, is no longer viewed as foreign import, but as part of the Indian cultural heritage.

i think, this is the point where one may rethink the simple notion of the British being the colonialists in favour of a more diversified one.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 05:19
The British Indian empire required the co-ordination and loyalty of the local aristocrats in order to reign supreme. Although this may be, it cannot be concluded that British India was somehow "An Indian Empire". It was offically and mechanically under British rule.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775 		  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 06:04
Overall I agree with you omar, the only thing that remained was that the British rule was very short lived in India, If they had stayed on longer, Britain would have truly become an indian empire as happened to all other invaders in India & China.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.