(As posted on Historum)
First, hatred of British rule is what defines Indian nationhood, just like hatred of India and Hindus is what defines Pakistan nationhood. India is otherwise too diverse a people riven by numerous internal divisions with nothing in common.
Having said that, any analysis of Indian history shows that if the British had not colonised India, it would have been colonised by either Europeans or Afghans.
So we were lucky that we were colonised by the very best of the lot - and who continued to evolve into better people throughout the 200 years of rule, so that by 1920s the issue was - which is better - total independence of a dominion status?
There are many people who feel dominion status would have been better than the corrupt rule of the Congress. Anyone who has visited Hong Kong and Mumbai would be able to compare say what another 50 years of British rule would have produced.
India is currently populated by three types of people - offspring of those who became educated during British rule, those who became educated after the British left and those who are illiterate or semiliterate.
The majority of those whose forefathers (like my father born in 1926) were educated by Princely states or the Presidencies have a very good opinion of British rule. Most of them admire the British based on the actual observation of what educated British were like, the way the departments (of whatever nature) used to run, the peace, the law and order. The Children of such people grew up in the sixties and seventies reading Enid Blyton and the British classics and from what their fathers and mothers told them about the British they had a good opinion of the British people. They read the latest bestsellers in English, watched British shows like Fawlty Towers, To the Manner Born and Yes Minister and listened to Rock music. Many of these emigrated to UK or USA based on their abilities and education. The Children of these people (Generation Y and beyond) probably dont even think about the issue now. But their tastes are now a lot more Indian and they listen to Indian music, interact with Indian kids on internet social networks, watch the few good Indian TV shows but are heavily influenced by much superior American TV shows of today. They are more likely to be influenced by Jay Leno's opinion of the British having bad teeth than anything else.
Unfortunately, the British educated only a very verysmall proportion of the Indians, mostly Brahmins as pointed out earlier just enough numbers to run the Civil Services. So the vast majority of Indians do not fall into this group. But most Indians writing in English and most educated immigrants in UK and USA would fall within this group.
The second group who were educated in the sixties and seventies grew up without any influence from their parents (who were illiterate or not English educated) and absorbed their views of the British from the text books. Now, as all text books are written by the victors, the Indian National Congress wrote the text books. British were villains, Congress leaders were heroes, the mutiny was a war of independence. It is justifiable because this hatred defines our nationhood. But it made this group of peoplequite biased because they never came across a counter opinion unlike the first group. This group would watch only Indian shows on TV, read mostly subject textbooks and were a much larger and diverse group.
It is the children of this second group who are the most important part of India today in terms of the numbers forming the middle class. Generation Y and beyond from this group do not watch American TV shows, are not Anglophiles and basically focussed on themselves, creating good Indian music and movies.
They also do not know any history. One of the consequences of Congress rule is that instances of Muslim massacres of Indians are not mentioned in the text books. If at all they are mentioned, they are toned down or glossed over. This is because Congress survives on a Muslim vote bank of some 200 million people. So if the British massacre of Jalianwala massacre is mentioned but Aurangazeb's destruction of the Mathura temple is not mentioned in school text books, who will the Children grow up hating?
The results are evident on the thread posts.
The third group who are illiterate or semiliterate and for 1 billion people simply dont have any concern except daily survival. If they see a blonde tourist, they will think he is very rich and try to sell something worth 10 Rs for 100 Rs. to them. Most of the people met by tourists into India would be group 3 and a few of group 2. But the people living in UK or USA would be group 1 and so would a lot of college professors and the like.
Another thing - in class 6 when ancient Indian history is taught, children are too small. Inclass 7 when mideaval history is taught, they see the beautiful Muslim architecture and like what they see. They dont know any better about Muslim history of India and the text books gloss over the bad parts. So they think Mughals were great, Akbar was secular and similar propaganda written in the text books.
Most of the Hindu Nationalists who want to revise the history text books (which need revision) are too extremist and fall into the ludicrous trap of stating what is blatantly wrong. Whereas the Socialist historians with longer history of academics are more polished in their biases. They omit and exagerate rather than invent nonsense (as the Hindu nationalist historians do).
It is in class 8 that the child reads modern Indian history. He is older, studying more, school work is more important now and he reads from a biased text book where the British were the villains. He memorises more details being older. Why wouldnt he hate British rule?
In 9th and 10th classes they study world history. Almost all good students do not study history after 10th class.
And the bad students who take up history dont read much, or if they do study a lot, become bad historians. History is not seen as a good subject by the Indian middle class.
The only other time Indians read history (regardless of their specialization) is for the entrance exam for the civil services. Here again, the exam is perceived as a license for lifelong corruption on a massive scale and most decent people dont even want to go near it.
So the people studying history are not really interested in it and are happy perpetuating the prejudices built into our text books (which are written by socialists and badly need revision.
(Later)
To some extent, the British welcomed the new Indian political elite and were more interested in having a dominion status for India under their rule. From 1930s we even had such a status with our own parliament and elections.
Yes, no school text book should breed hatred. So my approach would be - just like the Muslim atrocities were toned down, the anti British rhetoric should also be toned down.
History for school children should be about taking pride is their nation - no matter what happened in history.
The need for hatred of British is probably not necessary any more - except for glorification of the role of one family who is continuing to rule India - and the text books should focus on economic forces which are more important anyway.
A text book should not serve as free propaganda for one party
First, hatred of British rule is what defines Indian nationhood, just like hatred of India and Hindus is what defines Pakistan nationhood. India is otherwise too diverse a people riven by numerous internal divisions with nothing in common.
Having said that, any analysis of Indian history shows that if the British had not colonised India, it would have been colonised by either Europeans or Afghans.
So we were lucky that we were colonised by the very best of the lot - and who continued to evolve into better people throughout the 200 years of rule, so that by 1920s the issue was - which is better - total independence of a dominion status?
There are many people who feel dominion status would have been better than the corrupt rule of the Congress. Anyone who has visited Hong Kong and Mumbai would be able to compare say what another 50 years of British rule would have produced.
India is currently populated by three types of people - offspring of those who became educated during British rule, those who became educated after the British left and those who are illiterate or semiliterate.
The majority of those whose forefathers (like my father born in 1926) were educated by Princely states or the Presidencies have a very good opinion of British rule. Most of them admire the British based on the actual observation of what educated British were like, the way the departments (of whatever nature) used to run, the peace, the law and order. The Children of such people grew up in the sixties and seventies reading Enid Blyton and the British classics and from what their fathers and mothers told them about the British they had a good opinion of the British people. They read the latest bestsellers in English, watched British shows like Fawlty Towers, To the Manner Born and Yes Minister and listened to Rock music. Many of these emigrated to UK or USA based on their abilities and education. The Children of these people (Generation Y and beyond) probably dont even think about the issue now. But their tastes are now a lot more Indian and they listen to Indian music, interact with Indian kids on internet social networks, watch the few good Indian TV shows but are heavily influenced by much superior American TV shows of today. They are more likely to be influenced by Jay Leno's opinion of the British having bad teeth than anything else.
Unfortunately, the British educated only a very verysmall proportion of the Indians, mostly Brahmins as pointed out earlier just enough numbers to run the Civil Services. So the vast majority of Indians do not fall into this group. But most Indians writing in English and most educated immigrants in UK and USA would fall within this group.
The second group who were educated in the sixties and seventies grew up without any influence from their parents (who were illiterate or not English educated) and absorbed their views of the British from the text books. Now, as all text books are written by the victors, the Indian National Congress wrote the text books. British were villains, Congress leaders were heroes, the mutiny was a war of independence. It is justifiable because this hatred defines our nationhood. But it made this group of peoplequite biased because they never came across a counter opinion unlike the first group. This group would watch only Indian shows on TV, read mostly subject textbooks and were a much larger and diverse group.
It is the children of this second group who are the most important part of India today in terms of the numbers forming the middle class. Generation Y and beyond from this group do not watch American TV shows, are not Anglophiles and basically focussed on themselves, creating good Indian music and movies.
They also do not know any history. One of the consequences of Congress rule is that instances of Muslim massacres of Indians are not mentioned in the text books. If at all they are mentioned, they are toned down or glossed over. This is because Congress survives on a Muslim vote bank of some 200 million people. So if the British massacre of Jalianwala massacre is mentioned but Aurangazeb's destruction of the Mathura temple is not mentioned in school text books, who will the Children grow up hating?
The results are evident on the thread posts.
The third group who are illiterate or semiliterate and for 1 billion people simply dont have any concern except daily survival. If they see a blonde tourist, they will think he is very rich and try to sell something worth 10 Rs for 100 Rs. to them. Most of the people met by tourists into India would be group 3 and a few of group 2. But the people living in UK or USA would be group 1 and so would a lot of college professors and the like.
Another thing - in class 6 when ancient Indian history is taught, children are too small. Inclass 7 when mideaval history is taught, they see the beautiful Muslim architecture and like what they see. They dont know any better about Muslim history of India and the text books gloss over the bad parts. So they think Mughals were great, Akbar was secular and similar propaganda written in the text books.
Most of the Hindu Nationalists who want to revise the history text books (which need revision) are too extremist and fall into the ludicrous trap of stating what is blatantly wrong. Whereas the Socialist historians with longer history of academics are more polished in their biases. They omit and exagerate rather than invent nonsense (as the Hindu nationalist historians do).
It is in class 8 that the child reads modern Indian history. He is older, studying more, school work is more important now and he reads from a biased text book where the British were the villains. He memorises more details being older. Why wouldnt he hate British rule?
In 9th and 10th classes they study world history. Almost all good students do not study history after 10th class.
And the bad students who take up history dont read much, or if they do study a lot, become bad historians. History is not seen as a good subject by the Indian middle class.
The only other time Indians read history (regardless of their specialization) is for the entrance exam for the civil services. Here again, the exam is perceived as a license for lifelong corruption on a massive scale and most decent people dont even want to go near it.
So the people studying history are not really interested in it and are happy perpetuating the prejudices built into our text books (which are written by socialists and badly need revision.
(Later)
To some extent, the British welcomed the new Indian political elite and were more interested in having a dominion status for India under their rule. From 1930s we even had such a status with our own parliament and elections.
Yes, no school text book should breed hatred. So my approach would be - just like the Muslim atrocities were toned down, the anti British rhetoric should also be toned down.
History for school children should be about taking pride is their nation - no matter what happened in history.
The need for hatred of British is probably not necessary any more - except for glorification of the role of one family who is continuing to rule India - and the text books should focus on economic forces which are more important anyway.
A text book should not serve as free propaganda for one party
No comments:
Post a Comment