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
Persuasively written and narrated, the book does provide a systematic take down of most pro-colonial arguments. Tharoor’s voice is scathing and ironic, and makes for an active and enjoyable read.
However, all of his appeals to factuality are undermined by his utter disdain for even the idea of Pakistan, and his claims about religious ethnic cleansing and fervent militarism in that country while saying nothing of India’s similar history and present. Would it not make his case stronger to acknowledge to the point of view of Muslims who saw a separate state as their safest option, and yet still show how divisive and damaging Britain’s rule was to India’s different religious communities? Does Muhammad Ali Jinnah have to have been selfish or stupid or both to show how badly Partition was executed? Demonstrating that pre-colonial India was far more cosmopolitan and tolerant than post-colonial India doesn’t negate the lived reality of minorities living in those less tolerant eras. And to say nothing of the Hindu majority’s own flaws in navigating this divide is willfully ignorant.
This, plus a twenty-minute tangent extolling Mahatma Gandhi’s virtues while ignoring any facts that might tarnish his image as India’s great hero, really tanked Tharoor’s credibility in the latter third of the book. He’s a smart man making good, well-founded arguments. But his refusal to even acknowledge his heavy nationalist bent to the detriment of his factual contentions is a glaring weakness of this book.
However, all of his appeals to factuality are undermined by his utter disdain for even the idea of Pakistan, and his claims about religious ethnic cleansing and fervent militarism in that country while saying nothing of India’s similar history and present. Would it not make his case stronger to acknowledge to the point of view of Muslims who saw a separate state as their safest option, and yet still show how divisive and damaging Britain’s rule was to India’s different religious communities? Does Muhammad Ali Jinnah have to have been selfish or stupid or both to show how badly Partition was executed? Demonstrating that pre-colonial India was far more cosmopolitan and tolerant than post-colonial India doesn’t negate the lived reality of minorities living in those less tolerant eras. And to say nothing of the Hindu majority’s own flaws in navigating this divide is willfully ignorant.
This, plus a twenty-minute tangent extolling Mahatma Gandhi’s virtues while ignoring any facts that might tarnish his image as India’s great hero, really tanked Tharoor’s credibility in the latter third of the book. He’s a smart man making good, well-founded arguments. But his refusal to even acknowledge his heavy nationalist bent to the detriment of his factual contentions is a glaring weakness of this book.
Excellent overview for the uninitiated, focused on disproving the case for the beneficence the Raj
dark
informative
sad
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
dark
emotional
informative
slow-paced
Sometimes you need lists. Sometimes to remember things. Sometimes to make a point.
This book is a list making a point. You see, there’s a scholarly(ish) trend in Britain that is fond of its own list remembering Britain’s Indian Empire. Railways! A modern legal system and civil service! Cricket! Sure, there were some bad points, such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (tragic but really, what about all those sub-continentals carrying out their own mass-murders?) and perhaps, under your breath, the Bengal Famine of 1943 (but who wasn’t at fault for that?). Yet, at the end of the day, if we pick our statistics carefully and talk some mystical words about commerce and democracy, wasn’t the Indian Empire a Good Thing?
So here’s Inglorious Empire with the list from Shashi Tharoor that says: “Hey, maybe we would have been better off without you.” Maybe a 16% literacy rate at the time of Independence isn’t a great legacy. Maybe India didn’t need its weaving industry destroyed to allow un-competitive British businesses could dump their finished products, shipped over on British hulls only. Maybe India would have liked a civil service where Indians could have been civil servants in it. Wouldn’t it be nice if the British could have considered murder of an Indian equal to one of their own? And actually, could they stop starving the Indian people as they did in 1783, 1791, 1837, 1860, 1865, 1868, 1873, 1876, 1896, 1899 and, of course, 1943? Or, at the very least, not suppress private relief funds as they did in 1877?
Different times may have different morals but Tharoor notes that It was bad enough that the theft was so blatant that even Englishmen of the time acknowledged it. Edmund Burke, Charles James Fox and William Howitt spoke against the treatment of India. Sure, you had a luminary such as anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce stating “Our religion is sublime, pure, and beneficent. Theirs is mean, licentious, and cruel”, but it kind of begs the question: if someone of his high-minded morals felt comfortable making comparative judgements during his lifetime, is it not reasonable to criticise the basis of such judgements? Further, for all their moralising at the times, The British interfered with social customs only when it suited them.
There’s a broad range of restrictions placed on India, from the Navigation Acts, transfers of wealth via salaries and tax, indentured labour long after slavery “ended.” Even the oft-quoted railways were overly expensive (to guarantee a 5% return to investors), targeted at transporting goods for the British rather than Indians, then ripped up and shipped off to Mesopotamia when war demanded it. Rather than letting Indians build their own locomotives, Britain banned construction as late as 1912, while importing thousands of locomotives from other (white) countries.
This isn’t the easiest book to read. Generally, lists aren’t. I am also nervous about the chapter on the Partition and the lead up to it. While I accept the British played up divisions between groups, the treatment of Jinnah and the Muslim League is, to put it generously, unsympathetic. The ongoing issues of Hindu nationalism are accepted technically but practically hand-waved away. But overall Inglorious Empire isn’t too long, Tharoor backs up his facts with citations, and he considers the historiography of Britain’s occupation.
Maybe make a list of what he says. He makes a good point.
This book is a list making a point. You see, there’s a scholarly(ish) trend in Britain that is fond of its own list remembering Britain’s Indian Empire. Railways! A modern legal system and civil service! Cricket! Sure, there were some bad points, such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (tragic but really, what about all those sub-continentals carrying out their own mass-murders?) and perhaps, under your breath, the Bengal Famine of 1943 (but who wasn’t at fault for that?). Yet, at the end of the day, if we pick our statistics carefully and talk some mystical words about commerce and democracy, wasn’t the Indian Empire a Good Thing?
So here’s Inglorious Empire with the list from Shashi Tharoor that says: “Hey, maybe we would have been better off without you.” Maybe a 16% literacy rate at the time of Independence isn’t a great legacy. Maybe India didn’t need its weaving industry destroyed to allow un-competitive British businesses could dump their finished products, shipped over on British hulls only. Maybe India would have liked a civil service where Indians could have been civil servants in it. Wouldn’t it be nice if the British could have considered murder of an Indian equal to one of their own? And actually, could they stop starving the Indian people as they did in 1783, 1791, 1837, 1860, 1865, 1868, 1873, 1876, 1896, 1899 and, of course, 1943? Or, at the very least, not suppress private relief funds as they did in 1877?
Different times may have different morals but Tharoor notes that It was bad enough that the theft was so blatant that even Englishmen of the time acknowledged it. Edmund Burke, Charles James Fox and William Howitt spoke against the treatment of India. Sure, you had a luminary such as anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce stating “Our religion is sublime, pure, and beneficent. Theirs is mean, licentious, and cruel”, but it kind of begs the question: if someone of his high-minded morals felt comfortable making comparative judgements during his lifetime, is it not reasonable to criticise the basis of such judgements? Further, for all their moralising at the times, The British interfered with social customs only when it suited them.
There’s a broad range of restrictions placed on India, from the Navigation Acts, transfers of wealth via salaries and tax, indentured labour long after slavery “ended.” Even the oft-quoted railways were overly expensive (to guarantee a 5% return to investors), targeted at transporting goods for the British rather than Indians, then ripped up and shipped off to Mesopotamia when war demanded it. Rather than letting Indians build their own locomotives, Britain banned construction as late as 1912, while importing thousands of locomotives from other (white) countries.
This isn’t the easiest book to read. Generally, lists aren’t. I am also nervous about the chapter on the Partition and the lead up to it. While I accept the British played up divisions between groups, the treatment of Jinnah and the Muslim League is, to put it generously, unsympathetic. The ongoing issues of Hindu nationalism are accepted technically but practically hand-waved away. But overall Inglorious Empire isn’t too long, Tharoor backs up his facts with citations, and he considers the historiography of Britain’s occupation.
Maybe make a list of what he says. He makes a good point.
Well, that was a harrowing read. I had to take several breaks while reading it because I kept getting so angry.
Shashi Tharoor has written a scathing indictment of the British Raj with facts, figures and quotes from scholars and historians of the time.
He has included a great deal of information, condensed into less than 300 pages, quite the feat, if you ask me.
Despite having a decent amount of knowledge about the history of India, there was a lot I learned from this book. It also makes me question why our Indian textbooks in school don't make it more clear how being conquered affected us adversely. Especially, I would say, the economic toll that the British Empire had on the country, which Tharoor has outlined quite clearly here.
Tharoor's writing is easy to read but I did find myself stopping to look up words. I normally don't like having to do this but considering this is a history book, I was glad to be able to increase my vocabulary. That Tharoor is an erudite writer and scholar is evident throughout.
This book touches upon many ills of the British Raj but I do wish there had been more pages dedicated to the plight of women and girls under imperialism. Tharoor does touch upon it but I would have preferred more information. Especially considering how things are for women in India now, it would have been interesting to see a comparison.
Having said that, Tharoor pretty much touches upon every other subject and elaborates on them with clear and precise examples and evidence. I feel far more knowledgeable, but also much more angry having read it.
As I said, Tharoor includes plenty of quotes from historians from around the world, both for and against the British Empire. I am now intrigued to read other points of view on imperialism in India.
This is a really good book and quite an important one for Indians and Brits to read.
Shashi Tharoor has written a scathing indictment of the British Raj with facts, figures and quotes from scholars and historians of the time.
He has included a great deal of information, condensed into less than 300 pages, quite the feat, if you ask me.
Despite having a decent amount of knowledge about the history of India, there was a lot I learned from this book. It also makes me question why our Indian textbooks in school don't make it more clear how being conquered affected us adversely. Especially, I would say, the economic toll that the British Empire had on the country, which Tharoor has outlined quite clearly here.
Tharoor's writing is easy to read but I did find myself stopping to look up words. I normally don't like having to do this but considering this is a history book, I was glad to be able to increase my vocabulary. That Tharoor is an erudite writer and scholar is evident throughout.
This book touches upon many ills of the British Raj but I do wish there had been more pages dedicated to the plight of women and girls under imperialism. Tharoor does touch upon it but I would have preferred more information. Especially considering how things are for women in India now, it would have been interesting to see a comparison.
Having said that, Tharoor pretty much touches upon every other subject and elaborates on them with clear and precise examples and evidence. I feel far more knowledgeable, but also much more angry having read it.
As I said, Tharoor includes plenty of quotes from historians from around the world, both for and against the British Empire. I am now intrigued to read other points of view on imperialism in India.
This is a really good book and quite an important one for Indians and Brits to read.
I have been, until recently, shamefully ignorant about the history of India before, during, or after British colonialism. Reading this book is a step in the direction of repairing that ignorance. I must say, however, that no matter how little I knew about India in particular, I am not so naive as to believe anyone who says "We colonized and ruled you for your own good." It's hard to imagine anyone who ever reflects on their own biases or selfish interests saying that. It's a self-disqualification.
Tharoor goes well beyond saying the British did little for India. He illustrates the subtitle of the book, "What the British Did to India," in great detail. From destroying the Indian economy, which was vastly more advanced, for the benefit of British industry, to freezing caste differences in place and then prying them farther and farther apart, to using the procedures of the legal system to thoroughly hold down Indians and making the British government of India a playground and road to riches for spoiled British young men from well-off families, British imperialism made life in India worse in ways from which it is still recovering.
I do wonder whether the author romanticizes pre-colonial India. It seems unlikely that Hindus and Muslims got along quite as well as he postulates, or that local governments freely associated with one another in informal ways that benefited anyone but the elites. At about the halfway point in the book, moreover, he gets bogged down in the villains, heroes, and blow-by-blow description of Partition (which is clearly still traumatic for Indians the way the Nakba is for Palestinians, so it's understandable but not all that pertinent to his thesis). And the parts about cricket and tea are informative and amusing, but largely extraneous.
I am glad I read this book, as well as [b:The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire|42972023|The Anarchy The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire|William Dalrymple|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1565769891l/42972023._SY75_.jpg|66799833], but I have come to this story in the middle.
Tharoor goes well beyond saying the British did little for India. He illustrates the subtitle of the book, "What the British Did to India," in great detail. From destroying the Indian economy, which was vastly more advanced, for the benefit of British industry, to freezing caste differences in place and then prying them farther and farther apart, to using the procedures of the legal system to thoroughly hold down Indians and making the British government of India a playground and road to riches for spoiled British young men from well-off families, British imperialism made life in India worse in ways from which it is still recovering.
I do wonder whether the author romanticizes pre-colonial India. It seems unlikely that Hindus and Muslims got along quite as well as he postulates, or that local governments freely associated with one another in informal ways that benefited anyone but the elites. At about the halfway point in the book, moreover, he gets bogged down in the villains, heroes, and blow-by-blow description of Partition (which is clearly still traumatic for Indians the way the Nakba is for Palestinians, so it's understandable but not all that pertinent to his thesis). And the parts about cricket and tea are informative and amusing, but largely extraneous.
I am glad I read this book, as well as [b:The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire|42972023|The Anarchy The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire|William Dalrymple|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1565769891l/42972023._SY75_.jpg|66799833], but I have come to this story in the middle.
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Learned a lot. The audio version is also good. But good god it put me in a bad mood after every session