Comments on: The Guardians of the British Raj

By: Ajanabi

Ajanabi — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:21:13 +0000

(A late comment!)

While interesting, Gilmour’s book suffers from two weaknesses: it is dry, and his admiration of the anglo-indians makes his objectivity a bit suspect. Dry and anecdotal with no real cohesion, the book is a slog unless one has a passion for the Raj (Dalrymple’s, The Last Mughal, is a much easier read). And, his admiration for the Raj leads him to say nice things about the effects of the Raj even when the facts he is relating are completely at odds with that (the chapter on Famine is the prime example – each famine was worse in its effects than the previous ones but Gilmour praises the civil servants – it brought out the best in them, he writes.) Still, a worthwhile read!

By: Neha

Neha — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:01:32 +0000

Wanna comment on this?

http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/univercity/caption_empire.html

By: dhaavak - the crab is in

dhaavak - the crab is in — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:04:44 +0000

Dont stand so close to me. I bite.

By: HitMan

HitMan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:02:16 +0000

dhaavak, so easy to take offense! sounds like you have some issues. notice i said "you" have issues and not "we." get your "blood boiling" about something important yaar.

as context: i was reacting to the tone and content of previous posts. perhaps i was overly generous in my use of pronouns. consider it license with an elastic language.

By: dhaavak

dhaavak — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:04:13 +0000

Why can't we see it for what it was: an accident of history brought about by confluence of unusual factors? Maybe there is no hidden insight about India and its "innate character" (a preposterous notion) in the success of the Raj. Stuff happens... must we ascribe MEANING to all of it.

well... the thing that gets my blood boiling is the use of "we" - you didnt point out who you were talking about and since i've posted here multiple times, i am assuming you are claiming to speak for me - and i dont like that.

By: HitMan

HitMan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:20:43 +0000

Damn if there isn't something like the Raj to get desi blood boiling. Why can't we see it for what it was: an accident of history brought about by confluence of unusual factors? Maybe there is no hidden insight about India and its "innate character" (a preposterous notion) in the success of the Raj. Stuff happens... must we ascribe MEANING to all of it.

Is that a cop out?

By: DesiDudeInAustin

DesiDudeInAustin — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:20:21 +0000

Mon frere from France, it's the seeds - the teeming milliards of them. Biting softly does not seem to help there.

By: Jai

Jai — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:36:02 +0000

The British had nothing significant to do with the process that caused the Mughal Empire to break up into independent states

Correct. Along with reasons such as internal political corruption and overstretched resources, the process was exacerbated by revolutions breaking out an all sides, primarily involving the Sikhs, the Rajputs, and the Marathas.

By: Eurodesi

Eurodesi — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:27:17 +0000

NotPC wrote: "the British caused the demise of the Muslim/Mughal rule". That is nonsense. The British had nothing significant to do with the process that caused the Mughal Empire to break up into independent states after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, culminating in the sack of Delhi by Nadir Shah in 1739.

DesiDudeInAustin: You are all wrong about guavas. Stop chewing so hard.

By: Whose God is it anyways?

Whose God is it anyways? — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:14:20 +0000

oh well, lunch and india actually managed to creep past 200. not enough dhoom dhoom from Dhoni at the end. now need a miracle (or some excellent bowling in lieu)

if you’re interested in adding your voice to the “books that changed the world” debate, go to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4841916.stm

till a bleary-eyed morrow, good night.