Further to this those whining about India should perhaps take a look at who was colonising the place before the British arrived. The Mughels murdered millions, were utterly brutal. The British banned the burning of widows at funerals, built railways (which they haven't updated since we left) and created separate states for the Muslims. They also kept their deals and bargains with leaders and the people, unlike the previous rulers.
It's just another topic where the whingers are obtuse on history.
Known Instances of Mughal Brutality
Brutality during this period was often manifested through massacres, torture, and religious persecution:
Babur: Historians describe him as a ruthless conqueror who slaughtered entire city populations and erected "towers of skulls" after battles, such as following the capture of Chanderi.
Akbar: Despite his later reputation for peace, he ordered the massacre of approximately 30,000 civilians at Chittorgarh in 1568 to suppress Rajput resistance.
Jahangir: He ordered the torture and execution of the 5th Sikh Guru, Arjan Dev, and blinded his own son, Khusrau Mirza, after a rebellion.
Shah Jahan: His reign featured the destruction of Hindu temples and brutal campaigns in the Deccan that included forced conversions.
Aurangzeb: Widely considered the harshest ruler, he reinstated the Jizya tax on non-Muslims, executed the 9th Sikh Guru, Tegh Bahadur, and oversaw the gruesome 40-day torture and execution of Maratha King Sambhaji Maharaj.
- Sikh Community: Remembers a "reign of terror" characterized by the execution of Gurus and the mass torture of figures like Banda Singh Bahadur, who was forced to witness his son's murder before being executed himself.
- Hindu and Jain Communities: Faced systemic temple destructions and discriminatory taxes, particularly under Aurangzeb, which served to suppress their religious practices.
But no, the nasty British....
Be that as it may, I don't feel there's much in comparing one atrocity against another to see which is 'worse'.
Yes, in times gone by, empire building was quite the norm and no one country or state had a monopoly. I daresay we were no different in that respect and I daresay we were brilliant at it.
However, is it part of our 'Great' past? For me, not so much, even though there were many who were at it.
You may well consider it part of 'human nature' and accept it as such but I would always hope that we are developing so that things which seemed acceptable in the past can be reviewed with a mind to improving ourselves both as individuals and as countries/states.
Whereas we might ascribe it as 'normal' during its time, I certainly would not describe it as a 'Great' part of our history.
Railways, although of benefit to countries, were not built as an act of charity or great beneficence but to enable all those raw materials to be transported more quickly in order to generate faster and more profit. Yes, the indigenous population used/use them but their raison d'etre? Profit. I wouldn't dispute that some benefits were gifted to conquered countries but does that make it ok to take another country by force? Hmmm.
As for shame, much as it may disappoint you, I feel no personal 'shame' at all. It was people like you and me who were f****d over by the ruling classes.
Yes, we accrued the benefits that the Empire brought us. As usual, however, some benefitted much, much more than others. While there's no doubt that the great housebuilding boom of the late 19thC was enabled by the riches we acquired, let's not imagine that this was part of some benevolence bestowed upon us; the need was there to house people working in nearby factories. Yes, the work generated by empire did pull some out of poverty but let's not pretend, again, that this was for the benefit of working people; there was extreme poverty for many as the rise in the trade union movement suggests.
The hubris generated by our Great British Empire enabled and facilitated the massive volunteering for the first world war, there's no doubt. Those who did fight were eventually disabused of their unswerving patriotism as they witnessed the senseless slaughter and the likelihood of no 'homes fit for heroes'.
As for the honours. They are bestowed upon the recipients by the royalty. In these days of concern over gang warfare, here we are celebrating the most successful gang of all time. All its power and riches won by internecine in-fighting, murder and theft. It's estimated that even today, 70% of our land is owned by 1% of the population, mostly those who own it or acquired do so through the royal family or royal patronage. This may well sit fine with you but not me. Sorry. I am fully in favour of awards for British excellence but that is it. Why not a name change that reflects our coming-of-age as a nation: OBE - Order of British Excellence and so on?
So, for me, I would say that if we are to present awards of appreciation, they should be awarded to the people by the people and wrested away from any notion of Empire: it is no longer appropriate.
Now, you may consider that the acquisition of lands and wealth by force is just 'human nature' but I would see it as part as our development as a peoples and something we should
try to leave behind as a thing of the past.
That's my opinion. Naturally, I await some sort of insult to be slung at me.
England
