You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
sad
slow-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Gun violence, Racism, Slavery, Violence, Police brutality, Islamophobia, Trafficking, Mass/school shootings, Cultural appropriation, Colonisation, War, Classism
challenging
informative
reflective
tense
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
It would have been easier to get through if I'd had a background in Indiana history. He jumps into new topics without giving any background.
Shashi Tharoor has written an eloquent and honest book about the short and long term impact of colonialism. He did his best to find something positive to say about British rule, in his defense, there isn’t much.
informative
medium-paced
Here it is, your meme-ified guide-in-progress to winning arguments with colonial apologists.
You're arguing with: The Benevolent Paternalist
Broke: Whatever its flaws, British imperialism brought modernity (railways, industry, etc) to India.
Woke: Any infrastructure the British built in India was for the sole purpose of more efficiently strip-mining the country of its assets.
Broke: The British brought political unity to an impoverished land of warring factions and corrupt despots.
Woke: India's economy when the British arrived had a share of global GDP equal to all of Europe combined, and the existing emperors, princes, and nawabs were at least accountable to their people, while many enjoyed broad popular support.
Broke: Britain introduced the "rule of law" to India.
Woke: India already had longstanding social norms that operated as a legal tradition, which the British replaced with their own penal code, written by the odious racist Thomas Babington Macaulay. This code was enforced with extreme harshness against natives, and with utmost leniency against Europeans—so much for the "rule."
Broke: India has Britain to thank for their robust free press.
Woke: The British did introduce newspapers to India, and deserve some credit for that. Though they enacted numerous laws restricting and censoring Indian-run papers, they never totally squelched them. If that's the most successful argument you can make for the good of imperialism, you're in trouble.
You're arguing with: The Whataboutist/Concern Troll
Broke: What about the fact that India's economy flatlined for almost 50 years after Independence?
Woke: What do you expect, when a country has been pillaged, deindustrialized, carved up, and infantilized for 200 years? Again, India's share of global trade before the British: 27%. After: 2%.
Broke: What about the religious and caste violence that has plagued India? Haven't they forfeited the moral high ground?
Woke: These issues are deeply troubling, and also a legacy of British imperialism. The Brits solidified power through the "divide et impera" strategy, which meant codifying religious and caste groups that had previously been fluid and intermixed, playing them against each other for political favor and sowing distrust and hatred. Those imaginary divides became real in the horror of Partition, the effects of which continue to destabilize not just the region, but the world. India is not free of blame by any means, but neither are the Western interventionists who deliberately created this environment.
You're arguing with: The Scorched-Earth Darwinist
Broke: That the British subjugated India despite much smaller numbers proves they were simply smarter, stronger, and more advanced. Therefore they deserved to rule.
Woke: British subjugation of India wasn't a victory of strength or advancement. It was a victory of predatory amorality during a period of transition as the Mughal Empire fractured. The East India Company insinuated themselves into the resulting chaos before anyone realized the depth of their greed and depravity—the rest is history.
Broke: If Indian rulers were already taxing the masses, what does it matter if the British took over that taxation structure?
Woke: The British tax rates were ruinously high, and besides, taxes paid to a local authority with a vested interest in the community are completely different from taxes paid to a foreign agent whose only incentive is filling a treasury in London. Just ask the Boston Tea Partiers.
To be continued...
You're arguing with: The Benevolent Paternalist
Broke: Whatever its flaws, British imperialism brought modernity (railways, industry, etc) to India.
Woke: Any infrastructure the British built in India was for the sole purpose of more efficiently strip-mining the country of its assets.
Broke: The British brought political unity to an impoverished land of warring factions and corrupt despots.
Woke: India's economy when the British arrived had a share of global GDP equal to all of Europe combined, and the existing emperors, princes, and nawabs were at least accountable to their people, while many enjoyed broad popular support.
Broke: Britain introduced the "rule of law" to India.
Woke: India already had longstanding social norms that operated as a legal tradition, which the British replaced with their own penal code, written by the odious racist Thomas Babington Macaulay. This code was enforced with extreme harshness against natives, and with utmost leniency against Europeans—so much for the "rule."
Broke: India has Britain to thank for their robust free press.
Woke: The British did introduce newspapers to India, and deserve some credit for that. Though they enacted numerous laws restricting and censoring Indian-run papers, they never totally squelched them. If that's the most successful argument you can make for the good of imperialism, you're in trouble.
You're arguing with: The Whataboutist/Concern Troll
Broke: What about the fact that India's economy flatlined for almost 50 years after Independence?
Woke: What do you expect, when a country has been pillaged, deindustrialized, carved up, and infantilized for 200 years? Again, India's share of global trade before the British: 27%. After: 2%.
Broke: What about the religious and caste violence that has plagued India? Haven't they forfeited the moral high ground?
Woke: These issues are deeply troubling, and also a legacy of British imperialism. The Brits solidified power through the "divide et impera" strategy, which meant codifying religious and caste groups that had previously been fluid and intermixed, playing them against each other for political favor and sowing distrust and hatred. Those imaginary divides became real in the horror of Partition, the effects of which continue to destabilize not just the region, but the world. India is not free of blame by any means, but neither are the Western interventionists who deliberately created this environment.
You're arguing with: The Scorched-Earth Darwinist
Broke: That the British subjugated India despite much smaller numbers proves they were simply smarter, stronger, and more advanced. Therefore they deserved to rule.
Woke: British subjugation of India wasn't a victory of strength or advancement. It was a victory of predatory amorality during a period of transition as the Mughal Empire fractured. The East India Company insinuated themselves into the resulting chaos before anyone realized the depth of their greed and depravity—the rest is history.
Broke: If Indian rulers were already taxing the masses, what does it matter if the British took over that taxation structure?
Woke: The British tax rates were ruinously high, and besides, taxes paid to a local authority with a vested interest in the community are completely different from taxes paid to a foreign agent whose only incentive is filling a treasury in London. Just ask the Boston Tea Partiers.
To be continued...
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Its good to know about the past to understand where you are heading to in the future. A good account of what happened in during the British Raj in India. the book is interesting and to avoid a monologue bashing of the raj, it tries to highlight some good points too.... but all in all, fairly negative portrayal. Very informative and doesnt become boring at any point. would recommend
This book is not 4* but at least 4.5* and I may later change it to 5*.
I must admit, not having too much knowledge in Indian history nor colonial history of any country in the world for that matter.
What Mr. Tharoor does is counter all the colonial romantics in one fell swoop. The book is eloquently penned, does not rant, but provides for very credible and cogent explanations on Indian colonisation.
Reparations and acknowledgement of wrongs are what colonial masters owe to their subjects. Britain stole and plundered like the Nazi's did, whereas Germany returned stolen loot, the Brits inexorably retained them without an ounce of regret.
India was once one of the powerhouses of trade, but was left destitute and divided after the Brits left. It was through their thorough dismantling of Indian institutions for hundreds of years did the damage become irreversible.
Now India is a developing country and its people growing in stature which is about time.
I must admit, not having too much knowledge in Indian history nor colonial history of any country in the world for that matter.
What Mr. Tharoor does is counter all the colonial romantics in one fell swoop. The book is eloquently penned, does not rant, but provides for very credible and cogent explanations on Indian colonisation.
Reparations and acknowledgement of wrongs are what colonial masters owe to their subjects. Britain stole and plundered like the Nazi's did, whereas Germany returned stolen loot, the Brits inexorably retained them without an ounce of regret.
India was once one of the powerhouses of trade, but was left destitute and divided after the Brits left. It was through their thorough dismantling of Indian institutions for hundreds of years did the damage become irreversible.
Now India is a developing country and its people growing in stature which is about time.
challenging
informative