English Rule Without the Englishman
Driving the English out would change nothing if India kept what they brought. Whether the enemy is a people or a way of living decides what freedom could even look like.
The Editor measures modern civilization by what it calls progress: trousers instead of skins, fields ploughed by steam, a letter for a penny, machines that will spare people the use of their hands and feet. Measured that way, he says, it is a disease that will destroy itself, and India caught it by choice, trading with the Company, wearing Manchester cloth, taking its quarrels to English courts. Railways, lawyers and doctors are his three exhibits, each multiplying the very evil it claims to cure.
- colonialism
- civilization
- technology
- nationalism
- national identity
- professional ethics
- poverty
- political legitimacy
Enter a dialogue
- Your Reader wants the English gone but their railways, courts and Parliament kept. Why is that, for you, wanting the tiger's nature without the tiger?
- The English did not take India, your Editor says, Indians handed it to them. Does that not let a conquering power off far too lightly?
- Railways, in your account, spread plague and turned India's holy places unholy. What is wrong with making a pilgrimage easy?
- Someone overeats, takes the doctor's pills, feels fine and overeats again. Why does the cure, as you see it, do that person harm?
- You call England's Parliament, the so-called Mother of Parliaments, a sterile woman and a prostitute. What has an elected assembly done to earn such words?