The Company Bahadar

Dost-Mitter # 15

Welcome. Always welcome.

In their own way, some credit does go to both - the Mughals & the British.

Incidently, the Mughals did precious little for the areas that are now Pakistan. Their only contribution is some maqbaras and some Forts. Whereas, the British brought railways, canals and colleges. So in many ways, Pakistan owes more debt to the British rather than to the Mughals.

Stuka # 16

You are right. Only the Mughal Royals and their Mansabdars had a good time. A commoner Muslim did not gain much. In some oblique way, this also suggests that Mughals were equal oppurtunity Rulers - with some exceptions.

re: Nazar Khan

I will have to agree, with you, that the Mughuls were stupid. The Mughal society was a facade covering up massive poverty and it was the sheer arrogance of the Mughals, which made them shun the modernization taking place in Europe. The only worthwhile contribution of the Mughals to the history of this region was that they left the stage to the British, who did more good in nearly 350 years of their rule, than the Mughals ever did during their rule over India.

Ciao

dost-mittar:15

All of us at chowk (and that includes you, echoboom!) are Macaulay`s children in some sense.

True! But nothing to gloat over. We became baboos for corporations and civil-service--our servility and earthwormness is legendary. Watch Harundi Bakshi in ``The Party``.

(The nations whose natives nurse the desire to be mistaken that they are from elsewhere)


Jehangir would be aghast to learn that today it is his progeny that is trying to ape the progeny of Roe in substituting water with paper.

Nay! We have advanced. We now lick their arses too.
Noooobody does it better!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nazar Hayat Khan wrote

[(b) To what extent did the British presence/rule (350 years) benefit South Asia? The British came to India for commercial reasons. They left India when they could not afford to keep it. They discarded the Indian heritage and attempted to replace it with the European technology and sytems. Their effort for modernization (railways, telegraph, canals, cantonements etc) were more for commercial and security reasons rather than any love for India. Their failing is that they left India at the level of baboos, petty bureacracy, lawyers and engineers before the European culture of high learning (reseacrh etc) could be introduced. They also did not do much for a common man.]

While agreeing with most of what you said in this paragraph, I would have to disagree with the observation that ``...they left India at the level of baboos, petty bureacracy, lawyers and engineers before the European culture of high learning (reseacrh etc) could be introduced.`` Education has to be spread among the people befor a certain group decides on scientific research as a career. The British opened several educational institutions in India. While we could argue that they did it primarily to provide them with an educated workforce, there is no doubt that this planted a seed in the right minds. Otherwise we would not have had a CV Raman winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in the 1930s. Nor would we have had people like Jagdish Chandra Bose about whom it has been written that ``Just one hundred years ago, J.C. Bose described to the Royal Institution in London his research carried out in Calcutta at millimeter wavelengths. He used waveguides, horn antennas, dielectric lenses, various polarizers and even semiconductors at frequencies as high as 60 GHz; much of his original equipment is still in existence, now at the Bose Institute in Calcutta. Some concepts from his original 1897 papers have been incorporated into a new 1.3-mm multi-beam receiver now in use on the NRAO 12 Meter Telescope.`` (D.T. Emerson in http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~demerson/bose/bose.html). Nor would we have had people like SN Bose whose name is forever linked with Einstein`s in the Bose-Einstein statistics.

It was also the British government that brought into being the premier science institution of India, the Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore. It was also the British government that laid the plans for the Indian Institutes of Technology. If Pakistan or Bangladesh did not benefit from these, it is more because of the Partition which was not foreseen by them and which was bitterly opposed by the senior administrators of British India.

As to the common man, for the first time he could obtain impartial justice against powerful and wealthy forces. The rule of law was supreme and judgements were not arbitrary for the first time in living memory.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

An analysis of who did what to whom has to be based within a context of the time and other options available during that time. As well as on statististics.

As someone who opposes forceful occupation of one people by another, I cannot support the invastion of any King, be it Mughal or European, into any territory. Hence the existence of Mughals and Brits in South Asia is wrong to begin with. All conquerors come into an area, solely with one purpose: to exploit the local conditions to benefit themselves. During that time, they have to set up an illusion to make everyone think that they are doing it for the benefit of the occupied. This is as true for the US invasion of Iraq, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as it is of the Mughal and British invastions.

So the Mughals screwed South Asia (I use South Asia, since their was no India back then), for their own benefit. And the British screwed South Asia for their own benefit. To compare the, ``benefits`` of one over the other, is to compare the benefits of one rapist over another. Perhaps one was more gentle and the other more cultured. Doesn`t make much of a difference.

I read somewhere that 20,000 people worked for x number of years, at a cost of 32 million ruppees, to construct the Taj Mahal. Were they paid well and looked after? If not, then should the Taj Mahal be considered a monument of culture, or a monument of torture? The famines that occured during the British in South Asia, have never occured after 1947. Should the British be judged by their construction of the canal system or by the famines?

Having said that, South Asia was being screwed by the local Hindu Rajas and Maharajas before the Muslims started invading, or the Brits started coming in.

So the common people of South Asia have been screwed by everyone who has conquered them and ruled them - be they Hindu, Muslim, Christian (and Hindu and Muslim again). This infact, is the tragedy of the South Asian psyche. It has become a slavish mentality, devoid of a desire of independence. It easily accpets the concept of the, ``other`` being better than itself. To the extent that it even debates who was a, ``better`` conquerer. And who civilised and culturised it more.

This defeatist psyche is the reason that South Asians have been conquered by anyone and everyone, and has never in its history seen prosperity (not counting the Sonay ki Chariya theories). So, speaking as someone whose family history goes back, through various religions, hundreds of years into South Asia, I think anyone who invaded the place (including local Rajas, of which my ancestor may or may not have been one), put it back many years. If for no other reason, because they shattered the self-confidence of the locals......And it is self-confidence, more than canal systems and Taj Mahals that defines a successful future for a people.

As stated above, if someone wants to do a correct technical analysis of the affect of the British rule, they need to look at statistics. What was the GDP, literacy rate, crime rate HDI etc. of South Asia, at the time the British invaded, vis-a-vis the rest of the world (at that time, and not 200 hundred years later, by the time the British left)?

I don`t have the exact statistics, but I vaguely remember Fareed Zakaria stating that the GDP of South Asia and England was relatively proportional, when the British started their rule. Sotuh Asia was not at the bottom of the totem pole of the worlds nations, when the British came in. By the time the British left, South Asia was one of the least developed and ill-educated areas in the world. And the British left it in such a mess, that its inhabitants are still at each others throats, and it contiues to be one of the poorest areas in the world..........

So who knows what would have happened had South Asia been allowed to evolve, on its own, for two hundred years, without the British rule. Today, other than Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asian countries are the least developed in the world (barring the Chowk elite who are the only groups who have benefited from the, ``systems`` the Brisith set up). Could they have been any worse off today, had the British not come in? For some reason, I doubt it.

Societies that could produce the genuises of Mir Taqi Mirs, Mirza Ghalibs, Bulleh Shahs (and other figures in South Asian languages that I cannot understand) could not have been the uncivilized buffoons, that everyone tries to make them out to be.

P.S. The one good thing about the non-British rulers was that, at least, they became a part of the local society (albeit in an elitist manner), and left behind their next generations in the same society. Unlike they British, who considered themselves too elitist to mix in........

Harimau,

SN Bose will be forever remembered due to a class of particles called Bosons.

Unfortunately for you, there weren`t many people like you in british india, who could have persuaded them to stay back and hand over proper justice to all. Imagine, we would have become the most unique country in the world, asking our masters to stay back. Well its too late now, but atleast you can apply for british immigration and remove this unsatisfied longing for a perfect rule ):.
Adios

Nice historical review. One cannot have a high regard for the Mughals; they were coasting on past accomplishments and seemed to lack curiosity and engaged in counterproductive activities.

One can distinguish between the impact and intentions of british rule as a whole vs. the actions of specific individuals who were indo-philic. They did recognize scientific talent in the natives (!) and nurtured that on occasion (even in the 19th century). The famous collaboration between the world famous mathematician Hardy and the self-taught Ramanujam is yet another example (besides CV Raman and the Boses). By the mid 20th century Indians were well represented in academia and certainly in the judicial system.

The British have a very positive image in certain ex-colonies, such as Singapore. Given a choice between being ruled by Japanese, Portuguese and others, the British were a more civilized lot.

I wasnt aware that the IITs and IISc date back to the British Raj. I thought these were conceived in the 1950s, courtesy Nehru ?

“…We may feel certain that if Western Christians, instead of the Saracens and the Turks, had won the dominion over Asia, there would be today not a trace left of the Greek Church, and that they would never have tolerated Muhammadanism as the `infidels` have tolerated Christianity there. We (Christians) enjoy the fine advantage of being far better versed than others in the art of killing, bombarding and exterminating the Human Race.`` (Bayle P., Dictionary, `the article Mahomed`, 1850)

Among the reasons for the rapid and peaceful spread of Islam was the simplicity of its doctrine. Islam calls for believing in only One God, worthy of worship. It also repeatedly instructs man to use his powers of intelligence and observation. Within a few years after the dawn of Islam, great civilizations and universities were flourishing under its influence, for according to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), “seeking knowledge is an obligation for every Muslim man and woman”.

The zeal for understanding God’s creative power, as realized in the universe, led the followers of this religion to new ideas, new realms of knowledge and great advances in medicine, mathematics, physics, astronomy, geography, architecture, art, literature, and history.

We find that the spread of Islam was not limited to its miraculous early expansion outside of Arabia. During later centuries, the Turks embraced Islam peacefully, as did a large number of the people of the Indian subcontinent, as well as the people of Malaysia and Indonesia.

In Africa too, Islam spread during the past two centuries, while under the mighty power of European colonial rulers. Today Islam continues to grow, not only in Africa, but also in Europe and the Americas as well. Islam is the fastest growing religion now, with a following of about one and a half billion people.

Mr. Lamaan Ball, editor of Ask About Islam, adds:

Although in the early years of the expansion of the Islamic state much land came under the rule of the Muslims, conversion to Islam of its inhabitants took several generations. This is because conversion by force is explicitly forbidden in the Qur`an:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things. (Surah 2 Verse 256)

In more recent times such as in the case of Indonesia, conversions to Islam happened in the absence of an Islamic state and where the rulers were Dutch Christians. Commentators and historians have to acknowledge the fact of Islam`s peaceful spead even if they dislike it. A classic example of such a grudging acknowledgment is in the book ``The Legacy of Islam`` edited by Joseph Schacht with C.E. Bosworth (1974) p145:


The false allegations that Islam was spread by the sword is just part of unfounded propaganda. To which the best reply is perhaps the Qur`an itself. In particular this verse comes to mind:

Their intention is to extinguish God`s Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But God will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it). (Surah 61 Verse 8)

Mahatma Gandhi wrote in Young India – 1920:

‘I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.’

By Professor Shahul Hameed

Here are three posssibilities.

1. British were worse than what they replaced.

2. British were better than what they replaced.

3. British and the ones before were equally bad.

Most of the people would support one of the above. The question then is: what parameters are used to come to such conclusions and what is taught and more commonly believed by most Pakistanis and Indians?

It is easy for me to say and most people would agree that Pakistani textbooks and most Pakistanis mind support 1 whereas most Indians support 2 or 3. More nationalistic Indians would support 3. All three can not be true simultaneously using same set of variables. Therefore each group measures it using their own favorite set of variables. Then the question arises that whether a common set of variables can be found by all three groups.

All invasions were for power but different invaders employed different methods to maximize their benefits. For some like mongols and their descendents like Mughas, winning was everything (end) whereas for colonialism winning was the begining of milking. To milk it better and more, power is maintained efficiently and peace is more important than war. In the history of sub-continent, setting cities on fire upon winning is common. Lahore alone was set on fire at least 7 times during last 1000 years because it was ultimate rapture of winning. British did not set it on fire and instead made it capital of Punjab tp prolong rule, run efficiently and benefit from it.

After earlier benefit, British were also resigned to just ruling efficiently rather than milking it. For example, when British left Hongkong, it had 50+ billion dollars trade surplus. None of it went to Britain or belonged to Britian despite. Actually during the last 50 years of Hongkong, British got nothing despite going through economic crisis. Hongkong did not come to rescue the value of pound even during its low. I seriously doubt that British plundered India as many believe, except for some major events like saving cotton mills from competition and taking away Koh-i-Noor and some other relics.

To put it crudely, if Mughals saw a chicken, they feasted on it, belched and moved on; if British saw a chicken, they tried to produce 10 of them and then feasted on 2-3 out of 10.

One does not have to support colonialism to support 2. Singapore detested colonialism with Lee Kwan Yew even changing his name from his anglo name. But they improved upon the infrastructure British left behind and ran Singapore better than British. Ireland hates their history of British colonialism as fiercely as desis but joins hand in EU and now has per capita GDP very close to Britain. Gibraltor is Britsh colony on the coast of prosperous Spain, but workers from Spain like to work in Gibraltor than other way around. Nothing could stop British from plundering and leaving places like Falkland Island, Bahamas and other tiny posessions. But people living there are better off than their neighbors.

It all boils down to philosophy. Mughal philosophy was to rule by constantly eliminating challenges and rebellions whereas Britsh model was to rule by creating a self-propagating machinery, an administration, economy and increasing the wealth and jobs as the best solution to keep people from rebelling. The divide and rule philosophy is only true during the stage of acquiring territory and nobody appreciates it. It is philosophy and foundations of maintaining control in post-possession period that is markedly superior than what it replaced.

Deprogramming of Macaulay`s proud Haraamees: or Freedom Fight has not yet ended, March On!.

The stories not told in Pakistan, lest certain ancestories become dubious.

Those who always joined hands to help EVERY invader throughout Indian history are conspicously and glaringly apparent. The same trait is continuing to this day in the Munaafique Republic of Pakistan. Who and where are these goragoochaaters?

This might help:

(`` O jee ghairat tey aanee jaanee shai vay, bunday nooN dit honaa chaheedaa aye``). The `anything is O.K for a ``good-time charlie``. ``No-price-is-too-small to fast-forward to `modernity`(wink wink``) `` Chhitar sardaars kaa hai, quomee nishaaN hamaara``.

or look-up Iqbal who paid `tribute` to them.[``yeh shaakh-e Nashaiman sey utartaa hai bohut julled``]

Although not very well known, the period between 1763 and 1856 was not a period during which Indians accepted alien rule passively. Numerous uprisings by peasants, tribal communities and princely states confronted the British. Some were sustained - others sporadic - a few were isolated acts of revolutionary resistance - but nevertheless they all challenged colonial rule. Precipitated by the policy of unchecked colonial extraction of agricultural and forest wealth from the region - the period saw tremendous growth in rural poverty, the masses being reduced to a state of utter deprivation.

Even as official taxation was back-breaking enough, British officers routinely used their powers to coerce additional money, produce, and free services from the Indian peasants and artisans. And courts routinely dismissed their pleas for justice. In the first report of the Torture Commission at Madras presented to the British House of Commons in 1856, this was acknowledged along with the admission that officers of the East India Company did not abstain from torture, nor did they discourage its use. That this was a practice not confined to the Madras presidency alone is confirmed by a letter from Lord Dalhousie to the Court of Directors of the East India Company in September , 1855 where he admits that the practice of torture was in use in every British province.

Desperate communities had often no choice but to resist to the bitter end. Armed revolts broke out practically every year - only to be brutally suppressed by the British. Lacking the fire power of the British arsenal - they were invariably outgunned. And lacking the means of communication available to the British - individual revolts were also unable to trigger sympathetic rebellions elsewhere. Disadvantageous timing led to crushing defeats. Yet, some of these struggles raged for many years.

Amongst the most significant were the Kol Uprising of 1831, the Santhal Uprising of 1855, and the Kutch Rebellion which lasted from 1816 until 1832. There was also a precedence for a soldiers mutiny when Indian soldiers in Vellore (Tamil Nadu, Southern India) mutinied in 1806. Although unsuccessful, it led to the growth of unofficial political committees of soldiers who had several grievances against their British overlords.


For instance, in the Bengal Army, the 140,000 Indians who were employed as ``Sepoys`` were completely subordinate to the roughly 26,000 British officers. These sepoys bore the brunt of the First Britsh-Afghan War (1838-42), the two closely contested Punjab Wars (1845-6, and 1848-9) and the Second Anglo-Burmese War. They were shipped across the seas to fight in the Opium Wars against China (1840-42) and (1856-60) and the Crimean War against Russia (1854). Although at constant risk of death, the Indian sepoy faced very limited opportunities for advancement - since all positions of authority were monopolized by the Europeans.

Many of the sepoys in the Bengal Army came from the Hindi speaking plains of UP where (excluding Oudh) the British had enforced the ``Mahalwari`` system of taxation which involved constantly increasing revenue demands. In the first half of the 19th century - tax revenues payable to the British increased 70%. This led to mounting agricultural debts with land being mortgaged to traders and moneylenders at a very rapid rate. This inhumane system of taxation was then extended to Oudh where the entire nobility was summarily deposed.

As a result, the dissatisfaction against the British was not confined to the agricultural communities alone. By bankrupting the nobility and the urban middle class - demand for many local goods was almost eliminated. At the same time local producers were confronted with unfair competition from British imports. The consequences of this were summarized by the rebel prince Feroz Shah, in his August 1857 proclamation: ``the Europeans by the introduction of English articles into India have thrown the weavers, the cotton dressers, the carpenters, the blacksmiths and the shoe-makers and others out of employ and have engrossed their occupations, so that every description of native artisan has been reduced to beggary.``

Contrast this turn of events with the arrival of Mughal rule in India. Babar, in spite of his distaste for the Indian climate and customs, noted the tremendous diversity and skill of Indian craftspeople, and saw in that a great potential for expanding Indian manufacturing. Quite unlike the British, the Mughals built on the manufacturing strengths of the Indian artisan - (already well establish in the earlier Sultanate period) - and took them to dazzling heights in the later periods. But by the mid-19th century, this pre-industrial virtuosity in manufacturing had been virtually choked off by British policies. A British chronicler of the period, Thomas Lowe noted how `` the native arts and manufactures as used to raise for India a name and wonder all over the western world are nearly extinguished in the present day; once renowned and great cities are merely heaps of ruins...``

All this inevitably prepared the ground for the far more widespread revolt of 1857. Although concentrated in what is now UP in modern India - the 1857 revolt spread from Dacca and Chittagong (now Bangladesh) in the East to Delhi in the West. Major urban centres in Bengal, Orissa, and Bihar including Cuttack, Sambhalpur, Patna and Ranchi participated. In Central India - the revolt spread to Indore, Jabalpur, Jhansi and Gwalior. Uprisings also took place in Nasirabad in Rajasthan, Aurangabad and Kolhapur in Maharashtra and in Peshawar on the Afghan border. But the main battleground was in the plains of UP - with every major town providing valiant resistance to the British invaders.

Harimau # 23

Thanks for the Info. Areas falling within Pakistan were generally considered as a gateway to India. As such, both the Mughals and the British mainly concentrated in development where the centre of gravity of South Asia lay, areas that fall within India now. Some progress like airports, communications and cantonements in Pakistan took place due to the Japanese threat in Second World War.

Romair - Yes - food for thouht.

India with those 600 maharajas & Nawabs may just have produced small well developed pricipalities - but given the historical psyche of the people, it is an outside chance.

The British did that favour of putting the entire landmass togather. Also getting the South India integrated into the North.

A theory about Two Nations: Japan & India--Conflicts and co-options

India`s very successes in pre-industrial manufacturing and the resultant wealth stood in the way of its modernization. India`s rulers were simply too rich and too complacent to worry about the future. Whereas the most advanced of Japan`s Samurai clans realized that in order for Japan to defend itself successfully, it needed more than the will to fight - it also needed to catch up with the scientific, technological and cultural progress that had been made in Europe in the previous century, major Indian rulers either didn`t fight at all, or fought without developing a strategic vision for the future.

Although some of the Indian rulers were prepared to make political concessions, and initiate some political reforms, they were unprepared to go far enough. Most were unwilling to spend even a fraction of their enormous savings on the kind of sweeping educational reforms that were put in place in Japan. Nor did they have the vision to try and industrialize India on a modern basis as did the rulers of Meiji Japan. By the time some of the more progressive of the Indian princes realized the need for educational and industrial modernization (perhaps as a result of pressure from popular reform currents that began to emerge in the latter decades of the 19th C), much of the damage had already been done; the British political stranglehold on India considerably limited the possibilities for the Princes to take any major initiatives.

But in the meanwhile, Japan had established universities along European lines, invited European scientists, educators and technocrats to set up programs in Physics, Chemistry and Modern Industrial Techniques, as well as assist in the establishment of model industries. Symphony orchestras were established and the intelligentsia was encouraged to attend performances of the great European classics. Modern political and legal institutions were founded.

Moreover, unlike the Indian elite who aped the British in a mechanical and superficial (or dilettante) fashion, Japan (at least initially) sought to learn from the best in Europe - which often meant learning from Germany rather than England. Although this top-down modernization had its limitations - it did allow Japan to escape the debilitating effects of colonization that almost every other Asian nation had to suffer, and allowed it to catch up with (or even exceed) the European powers in many respects.

But the hapless Indian masses (who were virtually abandoned by the Indian elite) had no choice but to launch their own (and often heroic) struggles. But, even as they put up repeated resistance to colonial rule, insufficient mass solidarity (owing to the ill-effects of caste and religious cleavages) and the paucity of enlightened leadership limited the efficacy of these many valiant struggles.

There have been times in history when the brave have been amply rewarded. But by 1857, Europe had entered a new era - the era of expanding knowledge and rapidly expanding technological application. Knowledge by itself is insufficient to change society. And technology can be used or misused. But those who lack the former don`t even get the chance to effectively intervene. And so it was with the martyrs of 1857. They did not lack in bravery. But they lacked the scientific wherewithal to fathom the true nature of enemy they were confronted with.

This was an enemy that knew more about the laws of nature than did anyone else at the time, and was willing to use that knowledge to conquer and oppress in ways not seen before in the Indian subcontinent. This was something the people of India could only learn through very bitter experience, through the blood, sweat and tears of millions who mostly died an anonymous death - fighting and toiling for an alien and unforgiving empire.

---

Culled from Encyc. of Indian History

Dr. StrongLove, or how I moderated Islam and learned to love the Baboons and Vultures.

(an unauthorised--by Masters--story of Paki kalloo-goraa Macauley`s Haraamee)

No wonder the present day Kalloo-goraas of the Munafique Republic of Pakistan have turned the cannons of hatred against the British Baboons and U.S vultures, and pointed them towards muslims.

Popular myths aside, a majority of India`s Islamic rulers were not invaders. They rose from Indian soil and died in Indian soil. And even amongst those that came as invaders, most made India their home. But unlike most of India`s Islamic invaders, the British colonial masters had no intention of making India their permanent home. Whereas India`s Islamic rulers saw their own destinies inextricably linked with the Indian sub-continent, the British saw India more as a distant outpost - to be exploited and pillaged, but not to be nourished or developed.

Even as Islamic rulers taxed the peasantry they invested in irrigation schemes and technological improvements that increased productivity. Or else, they recycled that surplus in the towns through the patronage of monumental building projects or manufacturing ventures. But the British drained India to enrich Britain.

Unlike British administrators who knew their terms were limited, and could therefore get away with all manner of lies and cruelty - Islamic administrators knew that they had to live amongst the Indian people, and therefore, could become victims of their wrath. This meant that Islamic rulers could not as easily get away with the excesses the British could.

These were some important and essential differences between India`s Islamic rulers and the British Colonists. To the extent that India`s Islamic rulers planned to make India their home, and spend their acquired wealth in India - wisdom eventually propelled a majority of them towards secular practice - towards fostering peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Muslims. But the beneficiaries of British rule had no intentions of spending the Indian surplus in India. The tenure of individual administrators was temporary, and the capital extracted from India was primarily for use in Britain, or elsewhere in Europe and America. A secular policy was neither essential to their survival, nor helpful to their goal of using India`s wealth to enrich Britain. In fact, 1857 had shown how dangerous the unity of the Indian masses could be to their political authority.

It is therefore not surprising that they had been trying to foment communal unrest between the two communities all through the early part of the 19th century. For instance, as early as 1821, a British officer under the assumed name of ``Carnaticus`` wrote in the Asiatic Review that : ``Divide et impera should be the motto of our Indian administration, whether political, civil or military.`` The fright of 1857 made the British even more purposeful in how they used communal propaganda.

R. Nath, who has written a history of Mughal architecture describes how the British manipulated India`s archeological record in a deliberate and insidious way to foment hatred between the two communities. They resorted to rumor-mongering, historical lies and distortions, incited riots and deliberately favored one community over another. After plundering the sub-continent for over a century, they began spreading the myth that India had already been plundered and ravished by Islamic invaders, and that there was nothing left when they came.

Although it is true that many Islamic monuments were rebuilt over previous Hindu monuments, the British deliberately moved and planted archaeological elements to provoke Hindus further. They would plant Islamic religious symbols at popular Hindu shrines or deliberately deface them and blame former ``Muslim`` conquerors. They kept repeating that the Islamic period in India had been devastating for the Hindus - that no people had ever been more oppressed than the Hindus by the Muslims.

``We have maintained our power in India by playing-off one part against the other,`` the Secretary of State for India reminded Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), ``and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.``

British historian Sir Henry Elliot, produced his own eight-volume History of India from his own historians in1867 often relying on concocted or distorted evidence. His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with `Muhammedans`, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a provocative Hindu versus Muslim history of India.

That Hindus were generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions was an outright lie. The destruction of temples and sculpture - though true was cynically highlighted. But it was what these histories left out that is even more germane. That wars of conquest are invariably destructive and had taken place all over the world was rarely mentioned.

While it was true that most Islamic rulers oppressed the poor peasantry, Muslim rulers had taxed the peasantry at a much lower rate than the British. This was completely covered up. The many secular activities of Muslim rulers were omitted. Muslim rulers had built palaces, public mosques, inns, courts and hospitals, sponsored irrigation schemes and patronized manufacturing towns no less than any Hindu ruler. All of it had provided income and employment to both Hindus and Muslims. When they helped to expand production, it helped both Hindus and Muslims. This was not acknowledged. That the majority of Muslims were not rulers and had little to do with the war campaigns of the rulers was knowingly obscured.

The policy of divide and rule required such obfuscation and distortion. Lord Dufferin, Viceroy,(1884-88), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that `the division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage`, and that he expected `some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material`.

Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895-99 and Viceroy 1899-1904, d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they `should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened`.

British propaganda was thus consciously and deliberately designed to provoke animosity and hatred between the communities. It is significant to note that the communal problem was a special feature only of British India (those territories of the Indian sub-continent directly ruled by Britain), whereas the Indian states (territories ruled by local Maharajas that owed allegiance to the British crown) were comparatively free from communal strife. The Simon Report (p.29) was compelled to admit ``..the comparative absence of communal strife in the Indian states today ...``