The Hindu : Opinion / Letters to the Editor : PM's Oxford speech

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 15, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

PM's Oxford speech

I read with interest Irfan Habib's scathing criticism of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Oxford speech (July 13). While it may be difficult to contest the points raised by him, was it appropriate to speculate on Dr. Singh's agenda during his coming visit to the U.S.? History and politics are two different things. While receiving an honorary D. Phil degree, it would have been bad politics for Dr. Singh to recount history as it was. Do the people at Oxford not know the history of British imperialism in India?

A.K. Verma,
Kanpur, U.P.

* * *

My opinion of Prof. Habib as a progressive historian has only dimmed after reading his letter. When Dr. Singh spoke, he was obviously taking into account the many positive contributions made by the British. There were engineers such as Sir Arthur Cotton who eradicated drought in the Godavari and Cauvery deltas. C.P. Brown, Collector of Cuddapah, wrote to the company not to send troops through his district for it would deprive the locals of the little food available. He spent his salary on developing Telugu! The people of Andhra Pradesh have put up memorials for the two of them. Prof. Habib should realise that people no longer take history taught in schools seriously.

M.S. Prasad,
Chennai

* * *

The dilemma for students like me is: what to do with our history textbook when the leader of the nation refutes the facts enumerated in it?

Monish Bora,
Guwahati

* * *

The present trend amongst the intelligentsia to condemn everything that is Western and among the neo-elites to do just the opposite is no good.

V. Krishnan,
San Diego, California

* * *

No Indian, much less Dr. Singh, is ignorant of the destruction caused by British imperialism. But can anyone deny that Cornwallis laid the foundation for the administrative machinery? Railways, and post and telegraph services knit the country together. Law was administered under an enlightened system of jurisprudence. We owe our political unification to the British.

M.K. Chubby Raj,
Chennai

* * *

It is futile to quarrel with history. With the passage of time and the dimming of memory, people cherish the bonds forged and forget the bitterness. Romans are remembered today not for genocidal wars but for the pan-European linguistic and cultural legacy. Indians, with a reputation for long memories, especially about things of uncertain authenticity and questionable accuracy, have neither forgotten the Aryan invasion nor forgiven the Mughal rule.

Thiruvengadam Ramakrishnan,
New Orleans, Louisiana

* * *

The editorial (July 13) has been unfair to Marx by suggesting that in the British rule he saw a `regenerative role.' Marx argued that the English millocacy intended to endow India with Railways to extract at diminished expenses cotton and other raw materials. The so-called press freedom was gagged time and again. Modern education did spread rapidly as it largely served the British interest and because of the sense of competition they created among the newly emerging middle class. To quote Marx: "England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing" (New-York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853).

Iqbal Husain,
Aligarh, U.P.

* * *

I dispute your depiction of Dr. Singh's critics as the ultra-Left and the communal Right. The crux of the issue is whether or not our country was served well in the end. As pointed out by Prof. Habib, the British crippled us.

Their divide and rule policy is the root cause of the Kashmir dispute. Thousands of our soldiers died during the two World Wars defending the Empire, yet we were denied our freedom and dignity. And I consider myself a social liberal, and a proponent of free trade and globalisation.

Natarajan Sivasailam,
Chennai

* * *

To say Indians became a modern society because of the British is unacceptable. Western Europe came out of the dark ages by the renaissance engendered internally. Similarly, we would have come up with our own renaissance.

Ancient Indian history has exemplary examples of good governance — strong bureaucracy of Kautilya, the democratic system of some of the Mahajanapadas, the sound military and agrarian system of Akbar, and good road infrastructure under Sher Shah Suri. Political unification also took place under Ashoka, Mohammad Bin Tughlaq and Akbar. We surely need not thank the oppressive British rule for its legacy that was just an unintended consequence of tyrannical rule.

Purnendu Mishra,
Dallas, Texas

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A divisive issue persists in Assam

Drug companies and medical research

An optimistic march through history

Insult to deny Iraq link to London attacks

Forget the heavy mob

Business tools for individuals: offshoring

Role of universities

Will these Goliaths oust the Davids?

A shocking revelation

PM's Oxford speech