[metaslider id=”928″]
A stellar cast of speakers assembled in London to debate the motion ‘The Indian sub-continent benefited more than it lost from the experience of British Colonialism.’. The debate took place in the imposing Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the United Kingdom and was chaired by Keith Vaz, MP.
First to present the case for the motion was Nelofar Bakhtyar, Newsweek (Pakistan), who chose to focus on the long-term agricultural benefits to undivided Punjab from the elaborate canal irrigation network set up by the British. She made the point that Punjab’s strong economy today, on both sides of the border, owed its prosperity to the British Empire.
Arguing against the motion, celebrated historian, critic and broadcaster, William Dalrymple, pointed out that India and China were far richer and more powerful long before the arrival of the British in India. He said Britain’s main contribution was to plunder and destroy India’s economic base and institutions. Britain’s colonization of India, he declared, began and ended with the gun, through violence. Martin Bell, ex-BBC correspondent and former MP, spoke next to defend the British contribution to India by presenting scenarios if the British had not conquered India. He posed a series of questions: Would India prefer to have Shakespeare or no Shakespeare, be with or without cricket? With or without the transport system set up by the British? The Judiciary? Education?
Indian politician Shashi Tharoor listed all the damage wrought by the British. Indian weavers had their looms destroyed and thumbs broken by the British, food was diverted to Europe and famines devastated parts of India. As for the English language, this was not a deliberate gift but an instrument of imperialism. He argued that change would have come to India anyway, without the Empire. He described cricket as an accidental discovery of the British and his sentiments were echoed by Nick Robins from HSBC, author of ‘The Corporation that Changed the World: How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational’. The final speaker for the motion was Kwasi Kwarteng, British MP and author of Ghosts of Empire, who highlighted the flaws under Mughal rule. The Mughals, he said, were not known for democracy and an open society.
At the end of the debate there was a clear victory for those who made their case passionately that the Indian sub-continent DID NOT benefit more than it lost from the experience of British Colonialism.
-By: Rita Payne