In our days of childhood, we used to hear our elders nostalgically remembering the days of the British Raj, when the society was orderly, and there was peace justice and equality. Nobody could play foul nor usurp the rights of others. Then we heard our elders bemoan, “Everything has gone to the dogs after the British left India.” Was it really true? Or was it just a post-truth? When we grew up, we learnt that all organs of civilization like the present parliamentary democratic system of government, the prevailing judicial system, our civil and criminal codes, the Railways, the Irrigation system, the civil services, the bridges, the main highways, important building structures, prestigious universities and institutions of learning all were established under the British rule in the subcontinent. Thus instinctively we started liking the Britons who did so much for the collective good of our society. Later from the history of British rule in India, we learnt that they ruled India with an iron hand and curbed freedom of thought and action with ruthless force, but by and large their despotism was more of a benign nature. And this view is also supported by many historians. Shashi Tharoor, an eminent intellectual of India, a former minister and member of Parliament has recently written an epoch-making book, “Inglorious Empire” in which he has demolished all such theories on the basis of evidence and showed that the Britishers for their own ulterior trade interests plundered and looted the resources of India leaving it much poorer than what it had been before their arrival. The idea of this book came from a speech which Tharoor made in an Oxford Union debate in 2015 on the topic, “Does Britain owe reparations to its former colonies?” This speech was widely acclaimed which gave him incentive to further buttress his arguments with evidence and write this book. It may be recalled that the East India Company’s rule in India effectively began in 1757 and lasted until 1858, when, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown’s assuming direct control of the Indian subcontinent in the form of the new British Raj. According to Tharoor, British rule in India was the worst thing which could happen to any country. The British came here as pirates, and they looted, destroyed and invaded several kingdoms within India and as a result of last battle they fought in 1857 they deposed the last Mughal emperor thus putting an end to 1000 years of Muslim rule in India. Shashi Tharoor points out that prior to colonialism, India was one of the foremost world economies, a country of great craftsmen and culture, the birth-place of many great religions and philosophical theories, a land which had experienced intolerance and oppression, but still a place where a multitude of communities had co-existed in relative peace and harmony. Thus according to him, “It is a most insidious-myths peddled by the British that India was a bucolic backwater, whose citizens were stuck in a stupor of stupidity and ignoble idiocy, waiting to be roused by the great British liberators.” In reality greed, avarice, racism and the cold calculating laws of the market and realpolitik were the motivating factors behind colonialism, to drain India of its resources, both intellectual and economical; Thus according to the author, the idea that colonialism was driven by some sort of altruistic motive or by the ideas of the enlightenment is ridiculous. The salary of the British Secretary of State for India in 1901, paid for by Indian taxes, was equivalent of the average salary of 90000 Indians I think that the author was carried away by a sweep of patriotism, and drew conclusions most of which were based on half-truths. On the arrival of the Britishers in India, Indian society was not one of the most gifted nations on earth. On the other hand this society was cast-ridden and split into many sects, groups and nations who did not see eye to eye with one another. There were so many multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic groups, that there was hardly any single factor which could bind them together. The country was already divided into various Jagirs, Nawabdoms, and principalities, each vying with other for land and wealth. Moreover, the East India Company had come here for its own trade interests, and not for distribution of charities. But when The Company found that the people here were divided and greedy for wealth and honour, they exploited them to the hilt. When Sir Thomas Row treated the son of Emperor Jehangir, he ordered him to be paid in gold equal to his weight, to which Row declined and instead sought his permission to allow him rights of trade with his country, which were accordingly given by the Emperor. And from there on, it is a matter of history how the Company gradually crept into the citadel of power. This solitary example is enough to rebut the author’s optimism. It is in everybody’s knowledge that Colonialism is never driven by altruistic motives but by one’s own trade or commercial interests. His book “Inglorious Empire” is epoch-making in the sense that never before anybody had condemned the British Colonization of India in such scathing terms. It is largely acclaimed particularly by the Indian public. but it is also controversial since it has overlooked many aspects of the British rule which, if a balanced view had been taken, it would have enumerated several factors to show that with all its evils, the British colonialism had many positive and productive imprints on Indian society. It was not such an easy matter to determine if the British colonialism had caused more harm than good to this region. British imperialism was more pragmatic than that of other colonial powers. Its motivation was economic, not evangelical. There was none of the dedicated Christian fanaticism which the Portuguese and Spanish colonists demonstrated in Latin America. Tharoor has marshalled impressive arguments and facts to support his indictment of the Raj. This space is too small to outline and analyze all the arguments. But the facts of the book tell a stunning tale of exploitation and destruction, some of which I enumerate below: – India was a prosperous nation in the 18th century as documented by even the East India Company’s own men like Robert Clive, Macaulay and others. India’s share then of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time the British left India in 1947, it was 3%. – When Britain left India in 1947, India had a literacy of 16%, an average longevity of just 27 years and 90% of the population were in poverty. – Between 1757 and 1900, the British per capita GDP increased in real terms by 347% while that of the Indian by a mere 14%. – India experienced recurrent devastating famines due to the ruthless economic policies enforced by Britain. At least eleven major famines were recorded in different parts of India between 1770 and 1944. About 30 -35 million Indians died in these famines. To put it in perspective, Tharoor quotes author William Digby, who points out that in the entire 107 years between 1793 and 1900, only an estimated five million people had died in all the wars around the world combined, whereas in just ten years 1891-1900, 19 million had died in India in famines alone. – Economist Paul Baran calculates that 8 percent of India’s GNP was transferred to Britain each year. – India exported to Britain £13m worth of goods each year from 1835 to 1872 with no corresponding return of money. – The salary of the British Secretary of State for India in 1901, paid for by Indian taxes, was equivalent of the average salary of 90000 Indians. The author has taken strong exception to the British policy of Divide and Rule, and regarded the Partition of 1947 as a corollary of the same policy. When the British arrived, India was enjoying a quarter to a third of world trade. It had an effective and comprehensive education system. Hindus and Muslims worked together. By independence in 1947, the entire India had become a battlefield. In a 150 year period, British GDP increased 347%, while India’s rose 14%. This is far worse than benign neglect. This, according to him,is world class looting and pillaging. The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence