--- 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 economic downturns. There is a social security system in place in many of these countries which provides for pension for the old, for excellent health-care, for very good infrastructure in terms of transport and communications and so on. Citizens generally abide by the law, except with regard to income tax (in some of these), and there is a low level of violence in the population, except during football matches. This description is apt for Germany, France and UK, and is not suited to Poland or to Bulgaria. You asked if they benefited from imperialism. No, they did not, except economically, at a certain stage of history, primarily during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, dying out more or less by the mid-twentieth century. UK and France gained something from imperialism, Germany little or nothing. Germany gained very little from Hitler's government. The essentials were in place due to many years of patient and diligent work by bureaucrats, who put the interests of society and the state above their personal interests, and created smoothly-functioning though often irritating government processes. Hitler's flashy achievements were generally a climax, brought about by compulsion and arbitrary force, of things that existed. For instance, trains running on time; this was largely the result of a compulsion among a certain class of Germans, mainly those from Northern Germany, to do things with a degree of thoroughness and attention to detail which sometimes makes other nations quite nervous. Instances abound; I shall let others add to the comic element by citing these. Building autobahns and making an already smooth-running system run smoother was essentially what Hitler achieved. Glorifying his achievements is an act of publicity-seeking revisionist historians. Poland under centrally-directed economic rule, and to a far greater degree, Bulgaria, were - and are - hardly examples to cite. Among their successes were military strength, far more than West European nations of similar size, sporting success, due to ruthless resort to chemical poisoning of their helpless athletes, and a very thorough science-oriented education. They also significantly lowered the ability of citizens to cling to superstitious belief, often at the expense of damaging their freedom to practise religion. This does not address the core of your question - what was it about these nations that helped them grow, at least grow further and faster than us, and what is it that holds us back. The answer lies in a significant treaty which wound up a very damaging war in Germany in the seventeenth century, the Thirty Years' War. This was about religion; large parts had become Protestant, and the Holy Roman Empire, in an attempt to retain its supremacy, sought to reimpose the Roman Catholic faith. The significant outcome of the Treaty of Westphalia which concluded this war was that each land would follow the religion of its ruler at that time, as recognised in the treaty. The result was that Europe soon became a set of countries with more or less homogenous populations. The citizens generally spoke one language, with dialects at times, especially in the larger states; they professed one religion, again with some exceptions, and they thought of themselves, all but the Belgians, as one 'nation', as well as being one country. This made them get along among themselves rather better, they followed their traditional laws, rather than imported ones (sometimes these laws had been imported, but that happened many centuries earlier, so for all practical purposes, it was their own customary law that they followed). Their political systems evolved all the way from the time of the Holy Roman Empire and its gradual decay to now; France is today the Fifth Republic, which was a creation of de Gaulle in the mid-20th century. Similarly, Portugal and Spain have changed their political systems in some small ways recently. In contrast, we are a myriad identities jostling with each other for attention, and these identities have created significant retardation of progress. We started with very little to share out; what little there was, little due to the depredations of the imperialist past, was fought for by all sections, each seeking a greater share for itself compared to the others. This is the best that I could do within 1500 words. No doubt you will find a thousand wiser explanations if you sit back and wait for them. If you have questions, if you ask them one at a time, I will see if I have any answers. Now surf faster and smarter ! Check out the new Firefox 3 - Yahoo! Edition http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/firefox/?fr=om_email_firefox
