The Raj, as British rule is referred to, had a very
unique history of colonization in India compared to even the other possessions
of the British crown. India was referred to as the crown jewel of the British
empire. Like any colonization there was, undoubtedly, oppression and
exploitation. India's industry and culture was oppressed, ridiculed and
eclipsed. To stop there would do gross injustice to the many men of the empire
who also laid the foundations for many an institution on which India today
rests secure as a sovereign independent republic.
Lord Curzon invited the wrath of India by
partitioning Bengal and lighting a fire into the nationalist movement. Curzon
is also the person who breathed new life into The Archeological Survey of
India. The ASI was the brain child of Indologist Sir William Jones. British
rule of India had its benefits and to ignore that does gross injustice to
writing history with an integrity.
Writing about India's freedom struggle poses very
special challenges to any author. Most Indian writers refer to the Sepoy Mutiny
of 1857 as India's 'First War of Independence'. Local chieftains, that's what
they were, Tantiya Tope, Rani of Jhansi etc rallied together in an
attempt to chase the British and crown the ailing Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah.
Should we call this as a 'war of Independence'? I think not. This was a war;
more appropriately, a battle by local chieftains to protect their own fiefdoms.
Liberal democracy and representative governments were totally alien to them.
Tamil Nadu had its share of such chieftains and
many have entered the local folklore with an aura of being martyrs in the cause
of freedom. Kattabomman, Marudhu brothers, Velu Nachiyar etc are now household
names. Kattaboman's aura became a larger than life myth thanks to a blockbuster
movie that was filled with fury and bluster. Whether it is Kattabomman or Rani
of Jhansi or Velu Nachiyar their fame as martyrs rests solely upon the fact
that they died fighting an enemy who happened to be British. All of them, as
chieftains, have been warring with neighboring states and other princes. Their
opposition to British was just the same as how they would have opposed any
other chieftain if their fiefdom were threatened. It is plain bollocks to
pretend that they martyred themselves in the cause of 'freedom'.
S.Ramkarishnan, popular contemporary writer in
Tamil, is writing a series titled 'My India' in Junior Vikatan. S.Ra, as
he is referred to, has fallen prey to ritualistic need to portray the Britsh
rule as singularly villainous with no shades of redemption and refer to
questionable acts as acts of martyrdom in the cause of freedom.
Vanchinathan
was the first to employ assassination as a tool. Vanchi killed William Ashe,
collector of Tirunelveli as Ashe was traveling in a train and committed suicide
immediately in a toilet on the train. A
wonderful article by a researcher published in Kalachuvadu gives lot
of details including a, much discussed, confessional letter of Vanchi (or one
could call it declaration).
Vanchi, an orthodox Brahmin, wrote, "The
mlechas of England having captured our country, tread over the sanathana dharma
of the Hindus and destroy them. Every Indian is trying to drive out the English
and get swarajyam and restore sanathana dharma. Our Raman, Sivaji, Krishnan,
Guru Govindan, Arjuna ruled our land protecting all dharmas and in this land
they are making arrangements to crown George V, a mlecha, and one who eats the
flesh of cows. Three thousand Madrasees have taken a vow to kill George V as
soon as he lands in our country. In order to make others know our intention, I
who am the least in the company, have done this deed this day. This is what
everyone in Hindustan should consider it as his duty."
That statement crystallizes that this is the act of
a religious fundamentalist clothing his act in pious robes of freedom struggle.
He expresses clearly a desire to go back to what he thinks was a glorious past.
This is not about democracy for all, this not about equality for all, this is
about what he thinks India should be, this is about who he thinks should rule
India. S.Ra dishes out standard school textbook jingoistic
version without even a nod to the complexity of the situation.
Writing on Tipu, S.Ra borders on dishonesty by
virtually turning a blind eye to Tipu's complex history. S.Ra completely ignores
any mention of Tipu's sordid conduct during and after the conquest of Calicut. The slave march of 60,000 Christians from Calicut to
Mysore was Tipu's version of the Bataan death march.
The conduct of Churchill and the British empire at
large during the Bengal Famine of 1943 is well recorded and it remains a mark
of shame. S.Ra takes the criticism to a new level when he charges that famines
were never heard of until British rule. This is false and a sheer canard. The British,
to give the devil its due, introduced impartial accounting and record keeping.
I'd not trust any king's record keeping or the worse of poets who sang praises
for a few gold coins. The British established India's first 'Famine codes' to
study and record famines.
S.Ra touches a nadir when he talks about how
syphilis and gonorrhea, two notorious venereal diseases, entered India. Those
diseases did enter India thanks to the British soldiers (who in turn got it
from the French according to wikipedia). But when a writer claiming to be an
intellectual writes a devious characterization "including cholera, these
diseases were sowed in India thanks to the British" it takes a sinister
tone. The sin of the British was keeping impeccable records. We have almost no
good record of state of health care in pre-colonial days. To take the absence
of record as proof of blissful state of health care is not just fallacy but
idiocy.
S.Ra chooses an interesting term to characterize
the British, "வந்தேறிகள்", The term is diluted when translated as
immigrants or invaders. Incidentally It is a politically charged word with a history. S.Ra ignores that Brahmins are
often insinuated by that same word by DK/DMK. Would S.Ra dare to call Tipu
Sultan by that name?
In his jingoistic moment he pens "இந்தியா ஒரு போதும் நோய்க்கிடங்காக இருந்து இல்லை. அதை நோய்க்கிடங்காக மாற்றியவர்கள் பிரிட்டிஷ், டச்சு, போர்த்துகீசியர், டேனிஷ் போன்ற வந்தேறிகள்தான். இயற்கையாகவே இந்தியாவில் இருந்த மருத்துவ முறைகள், உணவுப் பழக்க வழக்கம், சீதோஷ்ண நிலையைத் தாங்கும் உடல்நலம் யாவும் இந்த 200 ஆண்டுகளில் முற்றிலும் மாறிப்போய் இருக்கிறது. அதுதான் காலனிய ஆதிக்கத்தின் மீள முடியாத பாதிப்பு."
Through out history diseases have indeed spread by
migrant populations. To characterize that the British and Danes turned India
into a warehouse of diseases is pure canard. Also there is a utopian portrayal
of Indian food and traditional medicine. Sir Ronald Ross won Nobel Prize for
identifying the Malaria lifecycle, a research he did while stationed in India.
The universities and hospitals brought to India by the British and Danes have
saved tens of millions of lives.
I guess since he was writing for Junior Vikatan
S.Ra was writing at a different level but his readers deserve better.