--- On Mon, 11/5/09, Bharat Shetty bharat.she...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Bharat Shetty bharat.she...@gmail.com
Subject: [silk] Imperialistic countries
To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
Date: Monday, 11 May, 2009, 6:08 PM
Hello all,
I've not read History regarding the transformations of countries very
much. But there is doubt that lingers in my head during recent
discussions I've had. Is it true that the internal conflicts
transcending over various factors like religions, caste coupled with
bad governance, mismanagement didn't help India to develop after
Independence ?
Why are European countries like Germany, France, UK are developed well
? Because they were imperialistic or because of good governance after
hitler rule in Germany and imperalistic rules in other places ? What
is causing Bulgaria to develop well ? Poland which was under communist
rule is developed country ? If these are developing rapidly why is it
so ? Because of lesser conflicts compared to India ?
Best,
-- Bharat | http://twitter.com/shettyb
This is kind of encyclopaedic: Political Science 101. Please find my humble
effort at making sense of it all.
First, some caveats: I don't think these features will help us understand
things.
1. There are several questions, some to do with India being backward, some to
do with various named countries being 'advanced'.
2. It is moot - debatable - if some of the countries that you have defined as
advanced are in fact advanced.
3. You have mentioned imperialism, communism and good governance all in one
breath, although these are concepts which are not all of the same type. What
that means is that if you talk about red, yellow and green, we can discuss the
differences and similarities between them, or the aesthetic superiority of one
over the other, at least from our intensely personal point of view. But in a
discussion featuring red, yellow and soft, this is not easy.
Right. With that out of the way, it is still tough to equate one country's
state of development with another's and list down with any precision why one is
better off than the other.
However, it is generally true to say that India - the British Indian empire -
was ruthlessly exploited before independence, and after independence, the
country that became India was developed according to several different economic
policies. These may have helped or slowed down the process; even good
economists can't agree wholly.
It is also true that the sub-continent, what we call South Asia, consisted of
myriad 'nationalities'; if that is confusing, think of 'nationalities' as
identities. For instance, someone may be Tulu-speaking, a Bunt, and a Hindu.
These are three distinct identities. Tulu-speakers will find much in common
vis-a-vis Tamil-speakers, for instance, or those using Malayalam; Bunts find
themselves with much in common vis-a-vis Vokkaligas and Lingayats; and you
might find that Hindus have a sense of belonging together much as Christians
and Muslims do feel about themselves.
Next, there is the burden of law and the rule of law. It is a burden for our
country, and several others nearby, because concepts evolved over centuries in
totally different circumstances, in hugely different societies have been
imported wholesale. These differences in social and ethical conditions create
huge difficulties in getting a common acceptance of what is the rule of law,
and in getting acceptance of such a rule of law as legitimate according to the
other sets of beliefs that people under this rule of law happen to have
inherited. For instance, the identities we just looked at. Some of the
identities, the religious ones for instance, are not really very compatible
with some of the concepts of the rule of law as currently in use.
Finally, there is a social burden of the way in which we designed our political
systems and our democracy. This is not always designed for the 'identities' who
are trying to live under it, and the resultant disturbances and turbulence do
have a lot to do with retarding progress.
Please let us recognise these as features of our country which have not wholly
been favourable for our development. On the other hand, with regard to some of
the countries that you have mentioned, there have been other factors favouring
development. Not all are factors that you seem to have in mind.
For instance, it is broadly reasonable to say that Western European countries
are more advanced than others, in terms of personal wealth and creature
comforts of citizens of these countries, in terms of the smooth functioning of
their legal systems, in harmony with their society, more or less, and in terms
of the smooth functioning of their political systems, again in harmony with
their society. These countries are at present no longer imperialist, or even
imperialistic. They are mainly capitalist, but with variations, specifically
variations which allow common citizens some protection from the ill-effects of
