Most active commenters
  • aguaviva(4)
  • kaycey2022(3)

←back to thread

116 points wslh | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.551s | source | bottom
1. samdung ◴[] No.42163414[source]
The British committed more atrocities (going by body count) in the 20 odd years of India's "peaceful freedom movement" headed by MKG.

1919 - Jallianwala Bagh massacre (over 1500 shot dead in a few minutes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

1943 - Bengal famine of 1943 (over 3 million dead). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

1947 - Partition of India (2 million deaths) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Indian school text books just gloss over British brutality in India.

replies(4): >>42164075 #>>42164106 #>>42164866 #>>42171523 #
2. ConfiYeti ◴[] No.42164075[source]
I've read about all three in Indian school textbooks. (Local state board, c. late 2000s)
3. intended ◴[] No.42164106[source]
My suspicion is that many people who didn’t read their subjects, or just memorized the answers, have no recollection of what they studied. As a result they bring up these accusations.

All of this was covered in our text books. From Jallianwala to the partition.

4. aguaviva ◴[] No.42164866[source]
So all the death and carnage that happened during the Partition was simply "committed" by the British - with no agency at all within the local populace?

Seems to be a rather dehumanizing and belittling view of the latter.

replies(3): >>42165864 #>>42165915 #>>42171622 #
5. bdjsiqoocwk ◴[] No.42165864[source]
This is called concern trolling.
replies(1): >>42169900 #
6. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] No.42165915[source]
This is a parody right
7. aguaviva ◴[] No.42169900{3}[source]
You're reading too much into it.

I just found it to be a strange choice of wording.

8. kaycey2022 ◴[] No.42171523[source]
They don’t gloss over these. Indians just overlook them because it would clash against their aspirations to migrate to the UK. Also the partition related deaths cannot be blamed on the British. This episode happened because of the inability of the Hindu and Muslim communities to set aside their prejudices. The British were leaving India and cannot be blamed for the partition riots. They do bear responsibility for the other 2 and many other atrocities though.
9. kaycey2022 ◴[] No.42171622[source]
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was perpetrated as a preemptive action against civil unrest. It would not have happened if the British did not dehumanise Indians and had more consideration towards the lives of Indians.

The Bengal famine primarily happened because the British directed food stocks to be held back for their war efforts. The actions of local businesses were ultimately directed by the British government preferences. If the British wanted they could have had the food distributed to relieve the population. Once again this happened because they held racist views about Indians.

Nearly every tragedy that took place in the Raj was ultimately caused by the British. Because they were the sovereign. And they looked at the governed population like we were subhuman.

I understand the Brits of today want nothing to do with the decisions their ancestors took in India. And this is right. You weren’t around back then. But because you want to look back at the imperial project with pride, you want to engage in victim blaming when it comes to the atrocities that happened in the Raj.

This might pass in the UK, but as Indians we can’t indulge you in your delusions. The British were to blame. They were in control of the state. They had a responsibility to the governed. And in many cases they neglected or actively worked against their duty.

replies(1): >>42172446 #
10. aguaviva ◴[] No.42172446{3}[source]
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was

... not part of the Partition, and occurred decades before in fact.

The Bengal famine

... had nothing to do with the Partition either, last we checked.

But because you want to look back at the imperial project with pride .... This might pass in the UK, but as Indians we can’t indulge you in your delusions

And now you're pretending to "know" what country I'm from, and to "know" also that I therefore hold a certain stereotypical set of views that you believe people from that country typically have.

I wish I could engage you further, but there's simply no logic at all in your response.

replies(1): >>42180038 #
11. kaycey2022 ◴[] No.42180038{4}[source]
I wish you had read the comment correctly. I never said those 2 incidents have anything to do with partition.

As for the stereotypes, I took an educated guess. But then it's not just the British who look back at the imperial times with fondness. Plenty of Europeans do the same. Even many Americans, which is ironic considering the USA embraced capitalism (or at least sincerely tried to) and abhorred colonialism. Whereas most European projects were mercantilist in nature. Because they couldn't compete.

I didn't "pretend" about anything. In fact even now I'm unconvinced you don't hold these views. The only thing in doubt is that you are from the UK. Sorry if you don't believe in those things.

replies(1): >>42181984 #
12. aguaviva ◴[] No.42181984{5}[source]
I never said those 2 incidents have anything to do with partition.

Then they had nothing to do with my post. But you went on and on about them anyway.

In fact even now I'm unconvinced you don't hold these views.

If you prefer to live in a world of speculation, imputing views to people they simply don't have - that's up to you.