Jab Mr. Singh Ko Gussa Charta Hai

What am I saying? Mr. Singh ko gussa charta hee nahin hai

On July 8, 2005, Mr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, referred to in his honorary degree acceptance speech at Oxford University “the elements of fair play that characterized so much of the ways of the British (rule) in India.” He spoke of Britain’s “good governance” of India and the British occupancy’s “beneficial consequences.”

Mr. Singh stated that “even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim for good governance.” My understanding of history seems different than his. British rule in India did not exemplify good government, maybe it did for British citizens in India but not for Indians, and certainly not for the thousands who struggled and sacrificed to fight against it. One does not need a doctorate in history to know that the British occupancy sucked the nation’s wealth and threw us down the ditch of unemployment and poverty that we still have not been able to climb out of. What were the so-called “elements of fair play that characterized so much in the ways of the British in India?” During British rule, many of the top civil and government positions were not open to Indians, we lacked the legal rights afforded to British citizens residing in India, and the treatment of Indian citizens and Indian prisoners was vastly inferior to that of their British counterparts. On what basis can one claim that British rule characterized fair play and good governance for Indians?

The Prime Minister also mentioned that “our judiciary, our legal system, our Bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and have served our country exceedingly well.” Which Bureaucracy was he referring to, I have no idea. Several independent studies, including those done by Transparency International, have consistently referred to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, the former British colonies, as being among the most corrupt countries in the world. Are Indians really proud of their bureaucratic system? India’s bureaucracy, which Mr. Singh indicates was inherited/adopted from the British, has held back the country’s progress, not advanced it. We should not be thanking the British for this parting gift. He made no mention of the most critical souvenir we retain from days of the British rule: our antipathy along religious and socio-economic lines and our lack of self-esteem. As the never-ending spree of religious riots attest, “divide and conquer” is still working. It is the lack of self-esteem that events that affect us are soon forgotten, whereas those that affect richer, more prosperous Western nations live on in our hearts and minds. The tragic events of 9/11 are destined to become a bigger part of our history than the tragic events of Dec. 3rd, 1984 (most Indians can’t even recall what happened on this date), or February 28, 2002, or September 1984.

Did the British occupancy of India have positive side-effects? If Mr. Singh feels it did, should he go around the world expressing his gratitude for them? Should African-Americans appreciate slavery because it helped them immigrate to the US and thus afforded them better economic opportunity than they might have had otherwise? Why then is the leader of India being grateful for the offspring of the rape of his country’s honor and tradition.

Mr. Singh’s speech at Oxford sounded like an apology from Indians for not being more accepting of British rule. He was being grateful for all its “beneficial consequences,” our bureaucracy, our rule of law, and our free press. His statements belittle the sacrifice of those who sacrificed and fought against the raj so that people like Mr. Singh and the rest of us could walk with their heads held high. Leaders should nurture pride and self-esteem within their constituents, not make them feel pathetic and subservient. But who knows, maybe Sonia wrote the speech.