India Thrives: Despite the Colonialism

[Guest guest]

The phenomenon of outsourcing has become an issue in the American

election campaign: Jobs - and in particular those that require

education and technological skills - are fleeing from the United

States to India.

 

How has India succeeded in achieving a status that enables it to

compete with the U.S. in these fields? Indian democracy has always

been an achievement worthy of note. In recent years, India has also

advanced rapidly in the economic realm and become a technological

power. There is still vicious poverty rife in India, but overall,

the story of modern India is an impressive success story, and its

direction of development is positive. Why this is the case, however,

is important to everyone concerned about the main source of

inequality among people in the modern world: the huge and expanding

gap between the West and many non-Western nations.

 

It is clear that there is a need to be cautious about simplistic

comparisons of societies and cultures, but what can be said is that

India's success refutes two common explanations for the failure of

modernization and the absence of democracy in other regions,

particularly in the Arab world: there are religions and cultures

that "inherently" do not allow for the growth of a modern democracy,

and Western colonialism and "neo-colonialism" are to blame.

 

With respect to the "inherence" explanation, it is doubtful whether

anyone could have predicted in advance that Hinduism would prove to

be more fruitful ground than Islam for the growth of a democratic

society. It would have been reasonable to assume that in the manner

of ancient civilizations, Hinduism would find it difficult to

relinquish the traditional aspects of its culture that are contrary

to modern values. It is very doubtful that in the Muslim, Jewish or

Christian tradition there is anything as decidedly contrary to the

values of modernity and democracy as the Hindu caste system.

 

The explanation that pins the blame for the failure of modernization

on colonialism also does not pass the test of India. If a colonial

past is what prevents the growth of democracy, India would have

found it more difficult to sustain a democratic regime than any Arab

state, since the colonial era in that country was far longer than in

Arab countries.

 

Many post-colonial countries suffer from ethnic and religious

conflicts, and there is justice to the argument that some of the

blame lies with the colonial powers, which arbitrarily determined

the borders of their colonies. However, India is a country in which

huge ethnic, linguistic and religious variety abounds. Under such

conditions, its success in maintaining both its unity (despite

separatist movements) and democratic regime is an especially

impressive achievement. The conflict with Israel often serves as an

excuse for the absence of democracy in the Arab states. However,

India also has experienced a prolonged and violent conflict with

Pakistan.

 

Indian policy was influenced for many years by an anti-colonialist

approach, yet the Indian national movement did not turn its hatred

for the West into the main content of its world view. It did not

turn the colonial past and imperialist plots into an alibi that is

supposed to cover for every failure.

 

Instead, it has acted energetically to build a modern nation. It did

not reject parliamentary democracy, freedom of the press, equality

before the law, and women's rights on the grounds that these

are "inauthentic" Western ideas. It has made the secular state - in

the unique Indian version - into a basic principle that the Hindu

nationalists also accept, at least declaratively. It has done all

this not by detaching itself from an ancient tradition, but by

relating to it proudly, and also by exhibiting a willingness to

grapple courageously with its anti-modern aspects.

 

There is something to think about there, and something to learn.

 

Source: Haaretz, Tel Avaiv. By Dr. Alexander Yakobson, lecturer in

history at the Hebrew University.

URL: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/471810.html

[Guest guest]

My dear friend Devi Bhakta,

Thank you very much for a very thoughtful essay.

India is indeed much better off than most of the

rest of the former colonial world, and you mention

some of the reasons. I have two to add.

One is that Hinduism has never been a rigid

religion. It does not derive all its wisdom from one

prophet or one book, as do Islam and Christianity. For

5000 years, Hinduism has always changed and adapted to

new ideas and new situations. New ideas whether

arising in India itself (Buddhism, Tantra, etc.) or

brought to its shores by foreigners (Islam,

Christianity, etc.) have had their better ideas

absorbed into the body of beliefs known as Hinduism.

This adaptability continues today; I hear that there

is a "Goddess of AIDS" worshipped in some parts of

India.

Second, while the British were of course colonial

rulers and committed many acts detrimental to Indian

culture and people, the French, Spanish, Dutch, and

Germans who colonized other parts of the tropics were

far worse. One good thing that the British did that

none of the others did was to bring people back to the

conquering contry to be educated in its universities.

Never forget that Nehru and Gandhi and the other early

leaders of independent India had degrees from

universities in the UK. This is very important because

these people had seen parliamentary democracy and had

come to believe in it. Thus they struggled to create a

democratic tradition in India, where none had existed

before. This did not happen in the former French

colonies in Africa, and is a partial explanation why

civil wars ravage many of those nations today.

 

Sister Usha

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now.

http://promotions./goldrush