British Imperialism....

[Hypocolius]

The name given to the British Central African Protectorate in 1907.

Um, thank you BillyTK, I already knew that, but you weren't to know that. I was actually asking Jon why he thought Nyasaland (aka Malawi, before you educate me again) should be in the same grouping as Japan in escaping Imperialism.

 

[BillyTK]

Um, thank you BillyTK, I already knew that, but you weren't to know that. I was actually asking Jon why he thought Nyasaland (aka Malawi, before you educate me again) should be in the same grouping as Japan in escaping Imperialism.

If only I was that magnanimous... but I was asking Jon for my benefit, not yours. Sorry!

 

[BillyTK]

Typical knee-jerk response deleted

PS: Abolished slavery.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm

Jon, have you read your link? It makes clear that despite criminalisation of the practice of child bonded labour in 1933, it was still prevalent at the time of writing (1996):

These extensive legal safeguards mean little, however, without the political will to implement them. In India, this will is sorely lacking. All of the labor laws areroutinely flouted, and with virtually no risk of punishment to the offender. Whether due to corruption or indifference-and both are much in evidence-these laws are simply not enforced. In those rare cases where offenders are prosecuted, sentences are limited to negligible fines.

 

[BillyTK]

All too true. The vast VAST non-hindu areas of India didn't practice Suttee.

I never suggested that was the case.

I'm not sure what you mean by military occupation. Stop and think a moment.

I dunno–occupation by a military force maybe?

Who lost their "self-determination", their "freedom"? - only the local tyrants who were no longer able to wage war and grind the peasantry beneath their heel quite so much. The peasants were kept in line by armed force under the Rajahs. Pre-Clive the Indian sub continent governing bodies didn't have some mandate from the masses.

I never suggested they did.

When the Brits came along the peasants just swapped being subject to arbitrary torture and imprisonment and execution by the local despots as opposed to being subject to (admittedly not enlightened by todays standards but vastly better than the local traditions of the time) British law.

They were treated exactly the same as British subjects under British law?

The Indian mutineers came under the control of the Maharajahs. Had they been succesful the odds are that India would have devoled again into many smaller states, run by depots for despots by the despots. Petty wars, continuation of customs like Suttee, no democraty, rule by fiat not law, etc. Now subsequent to that a modern democratic Indian democratic movement did arise (headed by the likes of Ghandi) but they weren't around at the time of the mutiny. Which was itself triggered by religious rather than nationalistic sentiment.

Thanks for the information. Which point exactly does this address?

And, since you mention it, famines never happened under the benevolent rule of the Maharajahs. Ever.

I never suggested that was the case, but thanks for your contribution.

(I just realised - I should have attempted to awnser this in the manner of Monty Pythons Life of Brian "What did the Romans ever do for us?")

I knew my paraphrasing of that line as "how did the ordinary peasant benefit from British colonialism" might be a little too subtle.

 

[Giz]

Jon, have you read your link? It makes clear that despite criminalisation of the practice of child bonded labour in 1933, it was still prevalent at the time of writing (1996):

You're going to blame the British Raj for not enforcing it's laws!? Even after 1948!!!

Are you suggesting that Britain should have:

1) Continued to oversee law enforcement in India post Independence?

OR

2) Not bothered criminalising the practice of child bonded labour in 1933?

 

[Lothian]

India Pale Ale was invented because of colonisation, therefore it can be fully justified without even mentioning that we also gave them cricket.

 

[BillyTK]

You're going to blame the British Raj for not enforcing it's laws!? Even after 1948!!!

No. Can you stick to what I actually say please?

Are you suggesting that Britain should have:

1) Continued to oversee law enforcement in India post Independence?

OR

2) Not bothered criminalising the practice of child bonded labour in 1933?

False dichotomy.

3) The evidence that Jon presented to support his claim that Britain abolished slavery in India didn't actually support his claim that Britain abolished slavery in India.

 

[Jon_in_london]

3) The evidence that Jon presented to support his claim that Britain abolished slavery in India didn't actually support his claim that Britain abolished slavery in India.

Britian did abolish slavery in India, just like it abolished suttee. The onus for the enforcement of these abolishments now rests with the Indians. It is farcical to blame the British for the Indian governments inability to enforce the law.

 

[BillyTK]

Britian did abolish slavery in India, just like it abolished suttee.

No it didn't. It criminalised the practice of slavery, just as it criminalised the practice of suttee, and rightly so imo.

The onus for the enforcement of these abolishments now rests with the Indians.

Agreed-if you mean, the onus for the enforcement of this law rests with the Indian government.

It is farcical to blame the British for the Indian governments inability to enforce the law.

Agreed, any evidence of British interference in this respect notwithstanding.