2017-08-15 13:28:42 UTC
This article presents an interesting view of the meaning of the so-called British Empire, aka the British World Invasion & Occupation, by focusing on the Indian (and ultimately Pakastani) experience, from the point of view of the occupiers and the occupied. In particular, "...Imperial arrogance still courses through the veins of millions. Around 45 per cent of British people believe colonialism was great for both the rulers and the subjugated. The Raj for them is a historical romance...". Not so, I imagine, for everyone.
I think the awfulness of the Raj reached a peak during the over-the-top coronation durbar of 1911, when so many Indian grandees "worshipped" their Emperor and Empress, but I have to wonder how many of them were happy to do it? It amazes me that they felt compelled to subjugate themselves to the titular leaders of their foreign invaders. Ultimately they did see the light and took their country back, albeit ending up with two countries and much violence. They could have taken a page out of the book of the Irish experience of the Raj and done it with much more obvious rebellion but many more of them would probably have been slaughtered than were slaughtered in the amazing country known as Ireland. A sad page in history for all countries concerned.
What made it OK for the United Kingdom and some other European countries to invade/pillage/rape other sovereign nations and, in the process, impose their version of what is civilised? How unspeakably arrogant.