----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Prabhu Guptara's claim that the reign of the British in India between the 
1830s and 1900 was more benign than the ruling class in India after 
independence is surely meant as a statement of contemporary political 
rhetoric? Or is he serious? In that case it is necessary to recall that the 
Indian Resistance (variously known also as the Indian Mutiny and the First 
War of Indian Independence) took place in 1857. Marx wrote extensively on 
this and I do not recall his describing British Rule as particularly 
benign. In fact there is a line where he refers to the atrocities from the 
Indian side as being only the distilled form of the character of British 
Rule in India. This Revolt, itself bloody in character, was suppressed 
brutally.Surely it had economic causes too? 
 
Nor can post-independence India be considered as a unified category. I 
should think that Nehruvian India and the present BJP-ruled India need to 
be distinguished? Also culturally, the post-independence India of the 
Mahatma Gandhi-Jawaharlal Nehru framework and the current India in which 
Hindutva forces have been becoming more powerful need to be distinguished. 
 
Anil Nauriya 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]