While watching the movie adaptation of "The Sign of Four" on a lazy Sunday afternoon, two thoughts occurred to me -
ONE: The great loot of India by the British was not done just at an institutional level but also at a personal level. It was a free for all wherein individual British citizens residing in India had an opportunity to amass for themselves wealth that they would not have dreamt of before. This mass loot was in no doubt aided and abetted by the Kings of India and their subjects who provided an easy access to India's wealth by concentrating the riches of the land in their own small confines, in their palaces where a stronger power could easily come and partake of the jewels - without scavenging every city, village and home which could have been an impossible task for any foreign power.
TWO: Even with all the wealth in the world, and all the men at its disposal, India failed miserably to guard itself and its freedom. Invaders, with a small militia, starting with Ghazni and followed by Ghori, Nadir Shah and the British among others, could always come to India at their will, loot its wealth, destroy its places of worship, treat its citizens inhumanely and return, only to come back again and repeat their acts. Contrast that with the British who fought against Hitler valiantly, and the Soviets who died like cattle but still held on to Stalingrad in WW2.
An easy explanation of this recurring (pathetic) behaviour of Indians can be that Indians at that time were divided among numerous kingdoms, each with their own small little armies, big egos and were constantly fighting among each other, thus making themselves weak. That would be just partly correct, if at all. After all, even with a thousand princely states, for a country as big as India, there would be enough people in each of those states to take on the invaders single-handedly.
No, there is an easier explanation. For the vast majority of Indians, it simply did not matter who the ruler was, for it had no bearing on their well-being. They could care less if a Nadir Shah was coming and fighting their king, their king was doing scarce little for them anyway. This majority was comprised of the farmers, the landless labourers and the untouchables (at that time). From an economic standpoint, while this class of people broke their backs working in their fields, the kings and their subjects amassed wealth for themselves. Why should the farmers take up arms if their king was in danger of losing his kingdom - good for the bastard, time to pay for his sins (and all the atrocities his men had committed on them).
From a socio-cultural standpoint, the majority of the people at the bottom rungs of Indian caste hierarchy gained little from the then prevalent system, a system that gave little respect to a vast majority of them. Why should the untouchables get agitated if a certain Ghori was looting a temple - they were not allowed in that temple in the first place all their lives. Let Ghori loot all he could - as long as he didn't come into their homes, not that he would find anything worth looting in there.
In all, there is a fairly simple explanation to India's continuous desecration by foreigners for the most part of 2nd millennium AD. And there are two vital lessons - don't let a few amass your country's wealth (a distributed wealth is nearly impossible to loot); and treat your people at the bottom of the pyramid with respect (give them a reason to protect their motherland).
Those who know me, know that I am a staunch believer in free enterprise, and have nothing but contempt towards communism. And yet for free enterprise to be successful and benefit the majority, we must be watchful against crony capitalism. I believe and can see that twenty first century India is inching towards a system based on free enterprise, albeit slowly. Hundreds of millions remain under poverty but millions have come out of it in the last 20 years. This is a good sign.
However the caste system in India remains entrenched as before, and much to my dismay, the situation has not become better even with rising education levels. In fact, some of the educated lot I come across are the most vicious proponents of casteism, forming their own exclusive clubs. Our politicians across all party lines feed on this division among people. But there is no point in blaming the politicians - we get the leaders we deserve (and vote for). The current system of reservations, while providing some benefits, perpetuates the caste division. We have to strive for a system and a society where reservations themselves become meaningless - by providing educational opportunities to each and every child to rise to the very top, and by allowing private enterprise to create jobs free of bureaucratic shackles.
If Indians can do this, they would have learnt something from their own history, and make this third millennium theirs. As I see it, return to the golden age is predicated upon if we can unshackle our enslaved minds of our rigid caste hierarchies. It is that simple!
ONE: The great loot of India by the British was not done just at an institutional level but also at a personal level. It was a free for all wherein individual British citizens residing in India had an opportunity to amass for themselves wealth that they would not have dreamt of before. This mass loot was in no doubt aided and abetted by the Kings of India and their subjects who provided an easy access to India's wealth by concentrating the riches of the land in their own small confines, in their palaces where a stronger power could easily come and partake of the jewels - without scavenging every city, village and home which could have been an impossible task for any foreign power.
TWO: Even with all the wealth in the world, and all the men at its disposal, India failed miserably to guard itself and its freedom. Invaders, with a small militia, starting with Ghazni and followed by Ghori, Nadir Shah and the British among others, could always come to India at their will, loot its wealth, destroy its places of worship, treat its citizens inhumanely and return, only to come back again and repeat their acts. Contrast that with the British who fought against Hitler valiantly, and the Soviets who died like cattle but still held on to Stalingrad in WW2.
An easy explanation of this recurring (pathetic) behaviour of Indians can be that Indians at that time were divided among numerous kingdoms, each with their own small little armies, big egos and were constantly fighting among each other, thus making themselves weak. That would be just partly correct, if at all. After all, even with a thousand princely states, for a country as big as India, there would be enough people in each of those states to take on the invaders single-handedly.
No, there is an easier explanation. For the vast majority of Indians, it simply did not matter who the ruler was, for it had no bearing on their well-being. They could care less if a Nadir Shah was coming and fighting their king, their king was doing scarce little for them anyway. This majority was comprised of the farmers, the landless labourers and the untouchables (at that time). From an economic standpoint, while this class of people broke their backs working in their fields, the kings and their subjects amassed wealth for themselves. Why should the farmers take up arms if their king was in danger of losing his kingdom - good for the bastard, time to pay for his sins (and all the atrocities his men had committed on them).
From a socio-cultural standpoint, the majority of the people at the bottom rungs of Indian caste hierarchy gained little from the then prevalent system, a system that gave little respect to a vast majority of them. Why should the untouchables get agitated if a certain Ghori was looting a temple - they were not allowed in that temple in the first place all their lives. Let Ghori loot all he could - as long as he didn't come into their homes, not that he would find anything worth looting in there.
In all, there is a fairly simple explanation to India's continuous desecration by foreigners for the most part of 2nd millennium AD. And there are two vital lessons - don't let a few amass your country's wealth (a distributed wealth is nearly impossible to loot); and treat your people at the bottom of the pyramid with respect (give them a reason to protect their motherland).
Those who know me, know that I am a staunch believer in free enterprise, and have nothing but contempt towards communism. And yet for free enterprise to be successful and benefit the majority, we must be watchful against crony capitalism. I believe and can see that twenty first century India is inching towards a system based on free enterprise, albeit slowly. Hundreds of millions remain under poverty but millions have come out of it in the last 20 years. This is a good sign.
However the caste system in India remains entrenched as before, and much to my dismay, the situation has not become better even with rising education levels. In fact, some of the educated lot I come across are the most vicious proponents of casteism, forming their own exclusive clubs. Our politicians across all party lines feed on this division among people. But there is no point in blaming the politicians - we get the leaders we deserve (and vote for). The current system of reservations, while providing some benefits, perpetuates the caste division. We have to strive for a system and a society where reservations themselves become meaningless - by providing educational opportunities to each and every child to rise to the very top, and by allowing private enterprise to create jobs free of bureaucratic shackles.
If Indians can do this, they would have learnt something from their own history, and make this third millennium theirs. As I see it, return to the golden age is predicated upon if we can unshackle our enslaved minds of our rigid caste hierarchies. It is that simple!
