Opinion - News Analysis   

Revisiting the Raj, warts and all

Hasan Suroor

A new history curriculum for British secondary school children will see, for the first time, the story of the Raj in India told from the Indian nationalist perspective.

IN A country where, according to anecdotal evidence, "highly-educated" young men and women are likely to mistake Marie Antoinette for a designer label, and Mozart's Requiem for a pop "single" don't be surprised if British school children have not heard of Gandhi or look blank at the mention of Jallianwala Bagh. It is not their fault. Their ignorance has a lot to do with the way colonial history is taught in schools, almost without any reference to national liberation movements.

But 2007 could see a fundamental change in that approach thanks to a new history curriculum for secondary school children announced last week. For the first time, the story of the Raj in India will also be told from the Indian nationalist perspective and through the eyes of those who resisted the British occupation. Most importantly, children will learn about the brutal excesses of the Raj such as the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre of hundreds of innocent Indians, including women and children, by British soldiers on the orders of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer.

Brave effort

The new curriculum, entitled "How and why is the legacy of British rule in the Indian subcontinent interpreted in different ways," will also discuss Gandhi's method of non-violent direct action illustrated by events such as the Salt March; and the issues surrounding the Partition and its aftermath. But it is the move to teach the "Amritsar massacre" that is particularly significant as well as brave, considering that it has been a bit of a blind spot for many Raj historians who defend Gen. Dyer's action on grounds that he acted to "save" the empire. They see Jallianwala Bagh as simply a blip in the larger scheme of the Raj, which, they claim, was actually a "force for good" that hugely benefited India.

Britain has never apologised for the massacre though individual politicians have expressed regret. On her 1997 tour of India, the Queen paid a symbolic visit to Jallianwala Bagh in what was described as a "gesture" to the Sikh sentiment, but it turned into an embarrassment when she faced angry protests demanding a public apology from her. What happened next was a veritable PR disaster for British diplomats: the Queen's husband, Prince Philip — the Duke of Edinburgh — was heard questioning the Indian account of the scale of the massacre which, he thought, had been exaggerated. The Duke has a reputation for bluntness, often bordering on rudeness, but on this occasion he seemed to be echoing a rather widely held British view.

If the decision to teach the Jallianwala Bagh carnage in schools means we are going to see a more candid appraisal of the Raj then it is one legacy that the Blair Government should be justifiably proud of. For, it is inconceivable that the Tories — even under a "moderniser" like David Cameron — would have had the courage to deglamourise the empire, if for the simple reason that unlike more popular issues — public services, gay rights, etc. — there are no votes to be had on this one.

Indeed, the Tory press and like-minded academics have been quick to attack the move describing it "anti-British" and a case of "political correctness gone too far." Chris McGovern, director of the History Curriculum Association, a body of history teachers, has complained that the "general tone" of the proposed syllabus is "anti-British" and contains "little about positive consequences of imperial rule."

Ken Boston, chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) which has devised the syllabus, was forced by The Daily Telegraph — the Tories' unofficial mouthpiece — to explain the rationale behind the decision. Mr. Boston made the sensible point that it was important for children, while studying the history of the Raj, to have a better of knowledge of the major events that shaped it.

He said: "Given the mix of nationalities in England, it is important to foster understanding through learning. Children need to learn more about British history, but [they] also need to improve their knowledge of the events that shaped the world we live in. Learning more about the recent history of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh can help children better understand the legacy of the British empire, providing an important and valuable insight into the history of their own country."

Recently, Mathew Parris, a British commentator, known for his profound dislike of New Labour and Prime Minister Tony Blair, surprised his critics and fans alike when he devoted his entire weekly column in The Times to praising Mr. Blair for his agenda of "social inclusion" which, he said, had made Britain a more "tolerant" and "amiable" society. He produced a long and impressive list of some of the more progressive measures (minimum wage for workers, equal gay rights, liberal childcare policies) that have been taken by the Blair Government and concluded that Britain was now "a nicer place than when he [Blair] entered Downing Street nearly 10 years ago." "Tony Blair has placed his personal stamp on a genuinely new era for Britain — an altered culture, a permanent change in our national mood. Without any shadow of doubt, Mr. Blair will leave a happier country than he found. Something tolerant, something amiable, something humorous... " Mr. Parris wrote. To this we can now add his government's decision to open up the study of the Raj — a signal to stop pretending that it was such a lovely thing.

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

Stories in this Section

Booming, but weaknesses persist
Testing times for Somalia
Links between a nation's past and future
Corrections and Clarifications
Revisiting the Raj, warts and all
Why did the Arab world remain silent?
Celebrities' unscientific comments debunked
Gruesome killings
Saddam's execution

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu