British rule in India: an abusive relationship | Letters

Arguments that ‘it was not all bad’ can quickly descend into a catalogue of justifications for atrocious acts and behaviours, writes Dr Nandini Boodia-Canoo. Plus letters from Geof Wood, John Griffiths and David Bentley

Amartya Sen has delivered a critical appraisal of British rule in India (Illusions of empire: Amartya Sen on what British rule really did for India, 29 June). Yet what is missing from his ponderings is a clear critique of the apologist arguments which underpin inquiries into the so-called “achievements” of colonialism.

Instead, he highlights an issue of methodology, namely the impossibility of envisaging an India in which British rule had not occurred. While Sen acknowledges the difficulty of such an evaluation, he finds merit in queries which seek to establish how India was lacking at the time of British conquest and how those deficiencies were met by the new rulers. He promptly embarks on such an examination.

In my view, the question of how the colonised benefited from colonialism is akin to asking how the survivors of abuse benefit from the relationship with their abusers. An analysis ostensibly seeking to obtain understanding of relationship dynamics can quickly descend into a catalogue of justifications for atrocious acts and behaviours. The argument that “it was not all bad” is one inevitably advanced by perpetrators and is insidious in either context. Meanwhile, neither survivors of abuse nor the formerly colonised are able to precisely quantify their detriment, yet profound loss is experienced by both.

The question is not what British rule did for India, or any of the formerly occupied territories. The question is what did British rule do to them?
Dr Nandini Boodia-Canoo

• There is much to agree with Amartya Sen’s interpretation of British imperialism in India. But no famines in India since independence in 1947?

Perhaps he can be forgiven for ignoring the 1974-75 famine in Bangladesh (which he analyses in his 1981 essay Poverty and Famines), but what about the Bihar famines of 1951 and 1966, and the Maharashtra drought and famine of 1970-73? Both recorded excess deaths, widespread hunger and malnutrition. Perhaps overlooked by Prof Sen as challenging his 1981 thesis of entitlement collapse rather than food availability decline due to crop failures, though both can be true and indeed interact.
Geof Wood
Emeritus professor of international development, University of Bath

• Amartya Sen’s lucid and interesting article omits the crucial subject of religion. The mutual religious anathema of Hindus and Muslims without the restraining hand of the Raj led to the exodus of at least 3 million people from their homes, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands on both sides and the formation of the states of India, Pakistan and Bengal.

My father, PJ Griffiths, when he was leader of the European Group in the Indian legislative assembly, told Winston Churchill publicly that if Britain reneged on its promise to grant India independence when the second world war was over, he would cross the floor of the house and join the Indian Congress party.
John Griffiths

• The answer to the question “What did Britain really do for India?” is the Hindustani ambassador, or, as we know it, the Morris Oxford. Manufactured for 66 years, it was India’s first production car and provided reliable transport for the nation. It was known as the king of India’s roads.
David Bentley
Englefield Green, Surrey

Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.


The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Facts on the Amritsar massacre | Letters
Letter: Mihir Bose responds to a letter about his recent article on the centenary of the killings at Jallianwala Bagh


17, Apr, 2019 @4:53 PM

Article image
How statues fared after independence | Letter
Letter: Prof Sarah Ansari on symbols of imperialism in Pakistan and India


19, Jun, 2020 @3:11 PM

Article image
Imperialism and the British class system | Letters
Letter: Dr Ellen McAdam on interpreting Britain’s imperialist legacy, comparing other cultures to find the roots of empire, and class-based prejudice


15, Jan, 2021 @6:21 PM

Article image
Young people are ignorant about British colonial history | Letter
Letter: Students learn little about the British empire and its far-reaching impact, says Elizabeth Graham


01, Sep, 2022 @4:51 PM

Article image
Delving deeper into the Amritsar massacre | Letters
Letters: Dr Zareer Masani takes issue with an article by Mihir Bose, Judy Stober says it is a delusion that Britain has been a world leader in establishing a just and tolerant society, but Randhir Singh Bains thinks there is little point in apologising for the 1919 massacre


15, Apr, 2019 @4:31 PM

Article image
The toxic legacy of the British empire in Canada’s residential schools | Letters
Letters: David Stirrup and James Mackay on Britain’s responsibility for systematic abuse and mistreatment of Indigenous children


02, Jul, 2021 @3:48 PM

Article image
We love a poet, but do you know it? | Brief letters
Brief letters: Rifles in India | Blood donors | Chuka Umunna | Poetry | Charlie Brown


25, Oct, 2018 @5:04 PM

Article image
Fighting back over India’s constitution | Letters
Letters: Vinita Damodaran lauds the protesters in India rallying to protect the postcolonial constitution, and Laura Phillips criticises the British colonial legacy in Canada


27, Dec, 2019 @5:09 PM

Article image
Lessons about the legacy of Indian partition need to be taught | Letter
Letters: The events of 1947 and their impact are clearly part and parcel of British history, writes Professor Sarah Ansari


04, Jul, 2021 @5:25 PM

Article image
The legacy of the Amritsar massacre lives on in India’s general elections | Amrit Wilson
The colonial policies that shaped the killing of 1,000 people are playing out in a dangerously polarised election, says writer and activist Amrit Wilson

Amrit Wilson

12, Apr, 2019 @7:00 AM