The British regime was the first to make some comprehensive attempt at famine prevention in India, by vastly extending irrigation networks and building railways lines to famine-prone areas, as well as introducing famine codes in most provinces (though not, tragically, in Bengal). The historical record is insufficiently complete for any historian to be able to compare the levels of famine under the British with those under preceding regimes, but it is extremely unlikely to have been higher, given that by the latter half of the 19th century it had at least become possible to move grain and rice to areas stricken by shortage from areas of surplus using the railways

I can only refer to Michael Davis Late Victorian Holocausts which shows how comprehensively British policies, especially building the railways, contributed to famines. Tens of millions of people died in a number of Indian provinces due to these policies, and many British commentators at the time were horrified by how British policies from pricing to administration contributed to these deaths. Famines in British times were much worse than before, and Bengal in the 1940s is an excellent example of how callous these policies could be.

The past is over, there was a lot of bad stuff in India before the British and they did bring some very good things, often in spite of themselves (or in discord among themselves), but please let us try to get the facts straight.

The pup is adorable (must be big now). And it just came to my head right off the bat, wasn’t meant to be mean at all.

I don’t agree with your assessment of how caste was organized but cannot get to it today. Anyway, this topic is bound to come up again sooner or later.

Behind such talk and the embrace of the broadcasters is the insistence that we are being offered gutsy truths that the “politically correct” establishment would love to suppress. This is the neo-conservative as spunky rebel against liberal tyranny.

This is from Gopal’s article. The whole reason I brought up negative aspects of our own culture (and yes, I still stand by what I think of the caste system and my belief that overall it was and is a negative feature of Indian culture) and why I supported Amardeep’s call to move away from polemics was because no-one can afford to suppress neocons with their disgusting views, or worse, use weaker tools like guilt/emotional blackmail to fight imperialism-groupies when there’s enough bloody evidence and cold hard facts to show how negative British colonialism was for Indians.

I don’t live in the US but the last election was a classic case of what happens when you suppress neocons – they go for the stupid people. It doesn’t matter how many educated people we think there are out there, (I mean look at the comments on this blog and the commenters are articulate and have some knowledge of history, anthropology, sociology etc…) refusing to examine simple messages because they’re stupid is not a good idea because there’s enough stupid people out there who like simple messages.

I hate racism disguised as a ‘PC message’ more than anything but I think it’s dangerous to assume that enough people out there will ignore racist views or have enough of a moral conscience to turn against them when racists style themselves into ‘rebels’ who claim they are just ‘speaking the truth that white-apologists are too guilt-tripped to admit to…’

I think we’re both on the same page about the fact that empire was a negative thing, as for caste, I know that it’s a loaded topic. But when you talk about class discrimination in the west, caste systems basically entrenched that in India – different professions and skills reserved for different people. To me the existence of other forms of discrimination around the world does not make historical discrimination in India less severe or ‘arbitrary’, I chose it because it’s a form of discrimination relevant to Indian culture. If we were talking about another country then other class issues would be discussed.

Also I don’t think that the caste system was a random way to organise people who were already in the ‘natural professions’, as if there was a bunch of priests and then a bunch of shit-sweepers who naturally lived in a society and then a caste system just rocked up one day in someone’s head like a vague idea to explain it all. I still think that ideas of which people can do which jobs are definitely culturally created and maintained. The detailed nature of the caste systems into sub-groups etc. makes it seem like a pretty organised system to me. Yes, it developed incrementally but all systems change with time.

Also I hope that puppy was really cute ‘cos that sounded like a bit of an online b****-slap to me! Hope it wasn’t. Was just muckin’ around online so hope you just see views on here as a discussion, I’m not trying to assert the gospel truth and am v open to change my ideas when others that I like better around.

Aurangzeb was pretty outspoken about his desire to Islamicize the entire subcontinent, and both his motivations and his actions were supported by the ulema/clergy of the time. He was even referred to as “Zinda Pir”, ie. Living Saint.

you use the word ‘minsicule’ differently than i do. e.g., < 1% is miniscule. 20% is not. (the 1931 census of united india showed that muslims formed 1/4 of the population, i can accept some increase since the mughal period, but it seems that 20% would be a good figure for circa 1750). also, as jai noted, the number is not distributed equitability. in much of the north indian plain muslims are 1/3-1/2 of the population, and the majority in eastern bengal.

as for western bias, yes, i have one. as for wondering how bangladesh turned into a hell hole, it has some interest for me, but not a great one. i’m american. i’ll leave it to those who are interested, but, that doesn’t mean that those individuals have carte blanche to make shit up!

yes, most of them are more recent, but i have seen references toward these sort of arguments from the ulema at the time of akbar’s operational apostacy. in other words, the above poster is correct that the mughals didn’t need to justify themselves, but the clerical classes needed to do something with their time….

And you, monsieur, also leave me befuddled with your comments. Its so easy to write off parts of the world as hell holes – which is how I think you referred to Bangladesh a couple of months ago. Which pretty much sums up your attitude with regard to SA in general. I don’t dispute the claim as such except that you make it sound like this was always the case. Like there never ever was a “sonar bangla”. Like the west is truly the best. To me it is more interesting to try and figure out what happened to the famous bengali brain. How can B’desh and W. Bengal have been reduced to such abject levels of misery. I don’t see you address any such issues and I do detect a strong unquestioning western bias in your comments.

muslims have often argued it is better to be a dhimmi that live as a free kuffir

Were these arguments ever used by the Mughal empire itself, or at the time of the Empire? I had thought they were more recent.

As for the Brits, we’re mostly Macaulay’s Minutemen here ( a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect) and some of us are still subjects of the Queen (Happy 4th of July to the rest of you) — it’s obviously a treacherous topic.

so, i have to ask, why the hell do you see incapable of not expressing laugh-out-loud inanities when they align with your own political biases? i mean, seriously, you seemed averse to 3rd grade math in some of the comments above regarding numbers for muslims (though i guess mean & variance are more middle school levels, though perhaps in india this is taught in 1st grade, i don’t know).

i’m not trying to be insulting, i really don’t get it.