Consider
a small village typically set in Indian countryside. Have a look at the social
structure. Look at the pathetic condition of the so called low class secluded
pockets. You will find poor, unconfident, exploited people. Its reverse class, smartly
perched on top of the social structure comprises more moneyed confident persons
who given their contrastingly better position appear like exploiters. During ancient
times when the classes, castes and categories were settling down, it was more
of fighting in a lawless land to cement your position in the present and sow
the seeds of better position for your progenies. Under the brutally impartial and
indifferent gaze of nature, in the emerging social system some groups gained
ascendency, others lagged behind. Some groups claimed more rights and fought
for these. Others surrendered more and settled at lower positions. Across
generations, these differences kept on being augmented with clearly defined
social rules and restrictions, always in favour of those who had taken the lead
generations ago. So at the end of the tunnel, if we just ignore the gradual
process and look at the position of the people on both sides of the divide, we might,
equipped with our sensitivities and modern human values, dub one as the
exploiter and the other as the exploited. Reality has many angels, so are the
ways and means of looking at a thing, phenomenon or process. Somebody, though
at a risk of condemnation, might just summarize it as a natural game between
the stronger and the weaker, like it happens in nature. After all social
Darwinism has such parallelisms with the way we act, behave and manage in the
social jungle: the human variant of survival, fight, loss and gain, like it
happens in the natural forests.
Colonialism
has drawn an exclusivist debate about its character and affects. Just like a
particular community has come to excel at the village level, and this dominance
of course comes at the cost of those at the lower rungs, in the international
social system also bunches of seafaring, courageous, more enterprising, less
God fearing, fitter physically and mentally people came to dominate. This is
the law! We try to occupy the best possible position. Be it at the community
that can maintain itself just at the village level, or the Westerners whose industrializing,
exuberant selves sent them on rampage to occupy territories beyond seas. Do
they become exploiters just because they gained more in a field that was open
for all? Do we become the victim by default because we lost more given our
inherent shortcomings? If a village level politically ambitious person manages
to politically dominate a village only, does Modi become a political exploiter
and a trampler on the rights of this village level politician because Modi
given his better political acumen has acquired the highest political seat? We
analyse and interpret colonialism more as victims and less as sound
academicians accepting certain cold hard facts.
In
the Indian perspective, millions of pages about the dark face of colonialism
have already been written. One page about the positives of colonialism, though
not popular, has also been allowed for a change of literary taste. Even some
bits of facts on this solitary page need no repetition. All it includes is codification
of laws, railways, telegraph, waterways, system of modern education, system of
administration, the ways and means of running a democracy, great hill stations,
consolidation of Indian sovereignty in the North East, dispelling evils like Sati from the Indian society, etc. But
what are these?! These are very small doings by the plundering hand, they say.
But what will be left of modern India if these components are taken out?
Imagine a Britishless India. The Mughal dynasty still continuing to rule for
the next 200 years!! India at the most would have got a few more forts, grand
mosques, luxurious palaces, and possibly a still grander Taj Mahal! But where
would have been the modern India we are so proud of? When Major Hudson killed the
sons of the last Mughal and they packed the poet King to Rangoon, it was no
crime. Bloodshedding even among brothers has been the norm to capture thrones
in pre Muslim as well as Muslim ruled India. Possibly they even did us a
favour, the valiant Britishers, in finally extinguishing the old medieval
lineage which had long outlived its past splendor and architectural glory.
Given Hindu apathy, and the so called ‘peace loving nature’ we might still have
been ruled by some titular head, some decapitated small time great great great grandson
of the last Mughal. And the last of all, consider an India without the few
positives of Colonialism mentioned shyly on the single page dedicated to its
positive affects! Where would have we stood? Possibly like Iran, at the most!
