Today on The Big Questions,
Should we be proud of the British Empire?
Good Morning
I am Nikki Campbell.
Welcome to The Big Questions today!
We are at the Oasis Academy Media City UK, in Salford
to debate one very big question.
Should we be proud of the British Empire?
Welcome everybody to The Big Questions.
Well, the British Empire once covered 13 million square miles
and held sway over 458 million people.
It was the largest empire in history.
The extent of its territories across all the continents colored the maps pink
and created an empire on which the sun truly never set
but across the 20th century its power waned
most of its nearest neighbour island fought
and won the right to self-rule in 1922.
The imperial jewel in the crown.
India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947.
Britain's new impotence was evident over sewers in 1956
and then country after country
in Africa, the Caribbean and the far east
went their own way.
All it's left
is the British commonwealth
plus a few wind swept outposts
and tax havens.
Looking back now, was the British Empire
something to swell our chests with pride
or something to be deeply ashamed of ?
Well, we've gathered together
entrepreneurs, historians, faith leaders commentators and activists
from across the commonwealth to debate that question
and you can join in too on Twitter or online
by logging on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions
Big Questions!
and following the link to the online discussion
plus there will be lots of encouragement and contributions
from our very lively and intelligent Salford audience.
Should we be proud of the British Empire?
Good morning everybody.
Charles Allen, historian and writer,
Lord Curzon, viceroy of India for it was he said,
"The empire was a supreme force for good in the world."
Yes he says "it was the greatest institution in the world has ever seen:
he said, "to me the message is
hew in rock and hew in stone, our work is righteous and it shall endure"
and of course because it didn't endure
and really the question is was it righteous ?
Was it righteous ?
I think we we have to say this is like the 'curate's egg'
it's good in parts.
But I also think we need to clarify there are two definite models here
and going back to the Greeks and the Romans,
the Greeks concept of imperialism was the colony.
Your little island is not big enough so you had to find somewhere else to live.
So you move, settle and become independent.
The other model, of course this is the one that really
I suspect is what upsets us
is the other model like Rome where you become extremely predatory.
You attack the Sabines and you take their women,
you attack the Etruscans and you gradually expand
and eventually you end up exploiting a weaker nation
and then you
Which model were we ?
We are a mix of both precisely.
We have got places like Canada and Australia
and indeed America I suppose you could say
where in a sense the local population was not big enough to resist.
But look, you mentioned Australia
Look at the the genocide of the Tasmanian people.
What we did to the Aboriginals and Maoris
and look at the atrocities
do they not outweigh any good that may have come from
I mean look I mean it's a hall of shame, Charles.
The Bengal famine 1769-73 under the aegis
of the East India Company that 10 million people died
because of willful incompetence.
Massacres that Amritsar and
I mean atrocities in Kenya relatively recently
how can we be in any way proud ?
I think by today's standards we cannot!
Today's standards!
But nevertheless what we have to do when we actually look at it
particularly me as a historian
we have to set in some kind of context
Yeah
and if we talk about British-India we have to say
what was that before the British came
what was in other parts of the world when the British were there
and what legacy did they leave
and really it's there that we can pick out
what to me are straws because my family they deeply involved in British India.
My father was one of the last of the civil service to rule over India.
I actually I am a child of the empire.
I saw it in action
and I saw in a sense the best to it
because here I saw one man
my memories of him are very strong
sitting on the veranda
as it were dispensing justice
paternalistic
you called might call it dictotorial,
impartial justice
on a model that seemed to work very well.
But as i said, that is the good aspect
but of course there are other aspects too.
There are, and we shall explore
at both sides of the imperial coin
as we proceed.
Dr. Anita Ghosh it's interesting
and what Charles says there is interesting
it's all about the context
and perhaps, we are rather value-led,
when we look at the past,
and value-led history is bad history.
There were atrocities
there were appalling things.
What were the good things ?
Well, the good things were also there
and like Charles I agree it is, it's hard to do draw any line there.
We are we are we are organized in the form of a debate today
so we are encouraged to take sides.
No, listen, listen,
You can agree with each other that's fine.
We're looking for a genuine enlightenment.
But in terms of the good things
I think the infrastructure that was left behind
by the British in India
which were built for reasons of exploitation,
for reasons of extraction of resources.
No altruism.
No altruism there whatsoever.
One of the byproducts I think is the infrastructure
that was left behind of the empire
which you could say gave India an added benefit in 1947
which propelled us into the modern age
but I see that as a byproduct of empire.
It is as if it was put in place there for the good of the people.
I mean the railways for instance which are very often cited
as one of the best things that the British left behind
they were there for the extraction of resources.
If you look at the way the railways were planned in the 19th century
they were directly connecting the ports to the hinterlands
that was the sole purpose.
They were not connecting cities, they were not connecting towns
they were not connecting people to pilgrimage centres
where people would have loved to go to
but they were built in a strategic way
functioning as arteries of extraction.
When you look back as
And exploitation
Yes, and exploitation
When you look back as a British Indian are you angry ?
Yes, I am.
What you most angry about ?
The way empire functioned,
the way it was set up
it was a hugely unequal power structure.
A sovereign state went in to invade another sovereign state
by virtue of its military might
by virtue of its economic power
and that fundamentally was unfair
and everything else that emerges out of that
is a direct a result of that process.
So at the at the moment,
the moment at which historians have
as I am sure some of my colleagues would know
historians have called this the absent-minded empire.
It was not an absent-minded empire.
People went in knowing what they wanted.
It was it was very well structured,
very well organized
otherwise how could a handful of people
from millions of miles away
construct such an effective system
which was the British empire in India ?
David Vance what are you proud of ?
Well, I am proud of the British empire
and I think just if you look at it
in the general context of in 1897
I think the year of queen Victoria's silver jubilee.
Britain controlled about 25 percent of the world.
What a remarkable achievement for these little islands!
And the fact is that were this an audience of Italians
celebrating the Roman empire
or an audience of Spanish.
They would be proud of their empire
but we are not supposed to be.
I think, is there anything you are ashamed of ?
From a 2016 perspective lots!
But you just said Nicky that
if you're going to have revisionist history that's very bad history.
At the time in the moment
the British empire achieved lots of good
and it leaves legacies which bring lots of good
and that needs to be said loud and clear.
The revisionist argument trying to apply our standards in 2016
to things that happened hundreds of years ago
in my mind, is folly.
People horrified at the time about many of these crimes
and you know to give an example Ireland that half its population
either died or fled because of the potato famine in the 19th century.
Whether it be, there's a brilliant book
by guy called Mike Davis called late victorian holocaust.
It looks at how when tens of millions of indians were starving to death
in the middle of the 19th century
The British were exporting grain
and leaving them to starve these are crimes of historical proportions.
And what I am frustrated about this debate
is we talk about the you know we have so much actually to be proud of
in our history that we don't talk about
like the people who fought for our rights and freedoms
the people who fought for the right to vote
for the welfare state against racism
against homophobia for trade union rights workers rights
that's a history we should be proud of
not a history of subjugating the world and invading it
don't going into other people's countries
taking their resources subjugating them
very often dehumanizing them
and very often killing them.
yes empires rise and empires fall !
No empire to the best of my knowledge has been ever perfect
none of them has provided utopia
there's plenty like the soviet empire for example
that have provided nothing but the genocide of millions of people.
I think as empires go the British Empire was generally speaking reasonably benign
and I think to characterize it in the way that you say
for example ignoring the fact that were it not for the the royal navy
with the slave trade have ended
well it's funny you should say that because of truth charles allen actually i'll tell you what i'll save you charles allen because anandita i saw you a couple of times wanted to come back in
You were talking about value system
and I think that's absolutely essential
in our sitting in judgment of our empire today
and like you said you know what was going on then
in the late 19th century in Africa
with the mama massacres and everything.
These are contemporary concerns of those times
where this is where we need to make a distinction
between the Roman Empire and the British Empire.
Post enlightenment given this is the post-humanist period.
We are talking of an age of liberalism,
we are talking from an age of humanism.
How could empire be justified even by those contemporary standards ?
So this is not a 21st century inflection
of our values onto the empire in those days
but by contemporary standards this is post-humanism.
Can i talk about it Charles you can
and there is a lady right behind you are you are you deferring
Yes of course I am I will be with you right up
good morning
Well the values and truth remains truth
whether it's in 18th century or 21st century.
One human should not exploit another human full stop.
So whether it happened in 18th century or 19th century or today.
So i would say
It is an absolute truth.
But Charles Charles
you know Empire the default position of history
we are all, the legacy of some empire everyone on the planet is
We have the Roman Empire Venetian Empire
the Arab Empire, the slave trade, the Islamic Empire
I mean on it goes should we be beating ourselves up about this ?
Obviously if you look at history it is essentially the exploitation of man by man
Yeah
The party humans are strong
So really you have a question of what imperatives
Now if I can just look at the 18th century
which is when the British come onto the map in India
Now we have two three empires essentially
we have our Auranzeb the last of the Mughal Emperors
now he tries to rule India with one standard law which actually happens to be sharia
He brings in a whole series of rules
which essentially discriminate against the Hindus.
Now the other model we have are the Sikhs.
Now the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh are trying again
They are essentially nevertheless a predatory empire
They're expanding and they again have another model
which essentially draws on an even earlier system which is the caste system.
The cast system now I Sikhks would disagree with me I suspect.
But when I do this
We have the Hindu model.
Hindu model is deeply racist
Did we exploit the caste system or did we try to exploit the caste system.
What I am saying is that when the Brits come in
the British do try and have the idea that the law applies to all equally.
Okay
So this is a new model in the Indian context
and that there are advantages in that
which is today to this day the indian penal code
is developed by Macaulay in the 1830s
and it just still functions today.
All right Jagraj you com in here
Andre i'll be right with you.
I mentioned the caste system there
and you sort of were agreeing with the as i posited
the fact that it was exploited by the British ruling elite
Jagras first of all what's your when you look back at the British Empire what what do you think what are your feelings
Well, I grew up in India till I was about eleven.
and I can tell you that just coming back to the point there
the fact is that now a lot of the voices
that were unheard are coming out into the form.
So when we look back now it's from a balanced
more balanced viewpoint.
We can look back and hear the voice of those that were actually exploited
and we can realize actually you know it wasn't so good
and here what we're seeing now
is the propaganda.
and it was all designed to make people here feel good that actually this was a force for good and that that that viewpoint has endured
even though it wasn't real even though the people didn't want to be exploited
and many many Indians fought against the British to get them out of India
but that viewpoint was kept quiet
and the point that was sold to the British public here was that this is an empire that is actually designed to as a force for good
and what I find worst about this is that that viewpoint now looking back 100 years later and you're hearing about all the exploitation all the murders and we can still sit there thinking oh no there must be something good about it I think it's kind of this is fake it doesn't come it's not real.
In reality the people never wanted to be exploited
many many great nations were destroyed.
It's not mitigatedly negative.
There are no there's not a case of because you hear this a lot of mixed feelings love hate.
There may be something good about getting shot in the back
but you might say well some good came up
now we can struggle?straggle????????????????????????
we can look around for a few straws here and there
and say well you know we had a benign rule
or you know that we made some railways
but in reality it was a very exploitative system.
Dr.Lavani cartalavan you wouldn't come back
It was during the British rule
when all the castes cultures and the races
really just worked together for the first time in five thousand years.
It goes back the caste system.
Because of the British rule.
The first time in the British rule
they worked together in the army
all the untouchables and then everybody
worked and ran for the first time.
So was the railways.
Railways again hundreds of thousands
Boston telegraph hundreds of thousands work together
there's no problem.
It was actually the first time in the also
because they were India was a conglomerate of many kingdoms
and that's the British worked out together
and then time took time to collect put them out together
and conquered other things.
So a sense of nationhood almost was
In India was actually
it was British you created India,
there was no India before.
Out of conglomerate of many kingdoms they made one India.
That was a good thing.
Yes, very good thing.
Can I ask you as well
can I ask you Dr. Lavani
do you think and you do hear this sometimes
and it is a contentious thing
but you read it and you hear it when people say
ultimately in terms of social progress
the British empire in India was a civilizing mission.
Do you believe that.
It certainly was.
Most certainly, most certainly
I think British Empire destroyed
I will let you come back in a second
Just explain what you mean
Look here, certainly he should know better than anybody else
He is Sikh
but I don't know what he what he's saying
but let me tell you
it was first time, the burning of the sati
the widows with the waiters with husband's pyre by right
and they were thousand years there were many things
not one but one thing ever bothered to do anything about it
British stopped it but stopped it
and not only just British
but the British Company stopped it.
Company took a great risk by indulging into social matters
but the kings did not bother before
and this is the point that in black void is actually wrong
it's a more you have to have a more nuanced view
David sorry I will get Jagras to come back in
because Jagraj is extremely exercised
Lawrence in a second.
David I will let you come back
my Goodness, everyone wants to speak to me!
too yeah there's a lot of social reforms you know including the the infantry side
If the girl is born
the British stopped infantasy
They stopped it. It was banned. So a lot of things
and that the most of all people should appreciate more should be Mr.Singh
You understand ?
Mr.Singh are these inconvenient truths ?
These civilizing influences and examples of social progress ?
I think what we are seeing here is somebody, a mindset
which is basically the colonial mindset.
where when people who have been programmed to believe
that people are coming here to exploit you for your own good
and they don't they look past the exploitation
and they think oh well they gave us a few things.
Let me just go back to all those two points
that they raised about sati and about female infanticide.
Well, firstly the Guru's banned that.
So what we are seeing is that the empire
that the Sikhs built the law for every Sikh
and i'll take issue with that for days for a Sikh it was totally against the law
something made by the Gurus in the 17th century
to ever have sati or to have ever have in female infanticide.
and issues like this make me think that actually we had a very high culture
and then we were told oh your culture was actually terrible in fact it was amazing the sikh empire never had any capital punishment
so we had an empire that was so talented and yet nobody
No he was he was the king of the Sikh Empire
but he was not seen as an exemplary Sikh
he was punished by the Sikh authorities themselves
he was pulled to be whipped by the Sikh Empire in Amritsar.
Just kind of got you clarified and Andrea i've got you you know i'm coming i'm coming
but just clarify what you're saying but
i'm just saying if you go to lahore there you will see the imprints of all the wives of Ranjit Singh
who when he died when he died had to be cremated on his funeral pyre
now that does not actually they chose to be just to make that point i've tried the history they chose to be chosen
but listen we are not here saying that
we're not judging Ranjit Singh
You are defending seekerism as being anticipated.
So Sikhism versus Ranjit Singh are two very different things.
We're into a very very rich seam with this debate i feel Laurence Reese well first of all you launched James i do make a party
First of all we seem to be examining the tree
rather than having a look at the forest.
We've got odd incidents of the injustice here
hospital opened here so on.
I think take us into the context to come
yeah
The whole empire i take to be the forest
and I think we put it in context.
During the 18th and 19th century
there are two several revolutions in Europe.
An intellectual, a scientific and an industrial
and they gave Europe, what i might call western Europe
certainly a preponderance of power
at the same time there is in Europe an enlightened movement to say we should share these things with other people
and if you like when the first, banal example perhaps,
but the first cinema opens in India in 1896
this is a very simple example of the sharing of knowledge.
Now that is quite important, it's quite essential.
The fact that there were a lot of cads and scoundrels and rascals
running this empire is certain
we will all agree on that there are also men of virtue and integrity and honesty
of course
and i think we should look in that general position
of the empire is transforming the world
and quite an amazing transformation.
Ultimately a force for good ?
I think a force for good
but there were some villains hanging around, yes.
There are in all human institutions
Yeah, indeed so an engine an engine have changed there is a phrase that the the sun never set on the British Empire
because the almighty couldn't trust what the british would get up to in the dark
there was it was certainly a playground for many.
Femi Andrew one second but family's trying to come in here.
You have been responsible for the campaign to get rid of the cecil rhodes statue
Do you beg your pardon Andrew but I will be with you what would you say so we had to join us
We had a bit of talk about the instrumental instrumentalization
of the caste system in India in the British colonial rule.
The British raj was actually a model
for the use of the house of fulanis in northern nigeria an indirect rule there the british right was the was the model for a lot of what happened later in the process of colonization you mentioned
that there are legacies of empire i would say the darfur conflict and the recent civil war in sudan is a legacy of the fact that you split the arab north and the black african south into two segments
and developed the north whilst leaving the south.
and the British are entirely responsible for that ?
I would say that the British are largely responsible.
Before there was there was conflict in sudan
before the British came there was not racial conflict
There was conflict but it was not as heavily along racial lines.
Now there are.
I thought the northern parts of the Sudan were preying on the south
in the Sudanese slave trade which general gordon helped destroy
relied on the north, the islamic north
taking people from the tribal region to the south
and selling them into Egypt.
There are three segments you have animist and Christian, black Africans in the south you have in the middle, Muslim black Africans and you have the North Arab Muslims and it was a Muslim Animist conflict mainly before the imposition of Christianity in the south
and the kind of
But people make their own decisions to to rape and to pillage and exploit
whether that's the british they don't make their own decisions.
People make that like, this is the same argument of the fact that there is so much crime in Black America
is due to the fact that there are primordial tensions for these it's not it's socioeconomic and structural inequality
and in the same way so the gendered militia which i'm saying it's not our fault well no if you
if you look at most conflict in Africa at the moment
and you look at most ethnic conflict
a lot of it is due to um poverty
a lot of it is due to people
a lot of poke haram comes from our majority schools which are impoverished schools in northern nigeria where hundreds of kids have to go out and beg
I mean I have been to kaduna and seeing them myself so the rape of resources
and resources drawing on those straight lines on the map
Hey, David Vance, do you want to come back in here for a bit about that Andrea ?
Well, I mean just to revert back to what we have been talking about a couple of minutes ago.
It did take the British Empire to stop the burning of widows in India
and whilst we talk about so many other things
that was a clear dramatic demonstrable advance of civilization in that part of the world
and had it not been for Britain it wouldn't have happened.
Andrea
Yeah
i'm i saw it so long before coming
Thank you.
Yeah, going back to this whole thing around civilizing mission
I think what we have to understand is
that even in the 19th century the British felt they had to justify what they were doing
because it was known to be inherently wrong
so the emphasis on things like the abolition of sati
and i'm not going to defend burning widows for a second
and i'm not sorry that they abolished it
and i have problems with the idea of voluntary sati
so I am not defending that.
but I don't have a problem,
that's not why we were there.
that is a byproduct.
then that there were there were good people there there were noble-minded people there
because humans are you know we're complex creatures
who saw this and thought this is wrong
and who in very very good faith sought to
and succeeded in abolishing it
You give those people credit ?
I absolutely would give those people credit.
Of course in any place in any time
there are good people and bad people
and there are people who are working from good intentions
what they believe to be good intentions at the time
and also those who are willing to sort of undertake nefarious acts
to personally profit or profit the nation
of course there's good and bad.
Rose in just one second to talk about the spread of religion
I don't think that we can take a few examples
of civilizing mission
I mean sati affected maybe 500 widows a year ?
There are thousands of pages,
thousands of pages of parliamentary papers on them
none at all on hundreds of thousands of people who died of famine.
professor Lavani
Yes, I think it is it is far far more to be appreciated
that the authority who stopped it was a company
and company was solely responsible to directors
East India Company
to do what the kings could not dare to do in India before
and they did it to courage to do it this is it's a very great very great achievement
it is really much it's not just normally stopped you know an early manifestation
they were advancing globalization yeah they were strongly advised advice what you're seeing here is the best of best of british values
and we can't say that Britain has no good values
army yeah I spent four years i believed in British values
yeah
I do think that the current Britain we are living in now does have at the best very good enlightened values
that is not to say that we look back in India
and and and find a few little good things that we did and then say well the whole thing must have been good
the reality is they did the good things they did i don't know where to start from
There's so many one after other
Railway was I have a 20 chapter book of doing good
there is only Railway is only oneone the
the rest is it comes about 20 one after other
now you see judiciary what what judiciary was before
and the judiciary civic society judiciary system the universe
First university in India was built by British
The Empress of India, Queen Victoria
Yeah
She never went there did she
University was built by the company itself
Okay, listen everyone, listen everyone.
Femi mentioned the religious there in Sudan Animism and Islam and Christianity let's talk i'm sorry
It brings us actually on nicely to talking about religion
and the missing missionary position if you like
spreading I wish I had not said that spread spreading spreading the word
spreading the the the good word of the of the lord
that wasn't a good thing though, was it ?
You were you were destroying people's cultures
I am not saying you were Rose
but people's cultures were destroyed
Absolutely, I would agree with that entirely
and as a Christian I want to say yes to christianity
but at the same time recognizing
that along with Christianity
people brought their own culture with them
and of course you know people had their own religions where they were
and the audacity of the British Empire
to think that we know what is right
and yours is no longer important or valuable
but you know there was health
and education some of the the longest
serving establishments in terms of education
and health were brought through the Christian medium there
so it is not so much
another cure its egg
whatever you may call it
but the reality is we cannot just say
I personally with my hand on my heart cannot say
that I am proud of the British Empire
because it and I am not just looking at it
through rose tinted lense
as it were
as it were I
I really do believe
that some awful things were done
and you mentioned about
the the British demolishing slavery
they didn't
it was the people who were being enslaved
who were making slavery unworkable
I am afraid Rose, what that does is
that simply contradicts the fact
that the British navy was the instrument
to ensure that the slave trade was eventually
it is a matter of historical fact how
can you deny history ?
Let's go to the audience.
The navy actually took africans
and indentured them on the Caribbean
to work just like slate but that's a bad thing
they also took many back to Africa
again to endure poverty and trouble
so in fact it was not a good thing that the navy did
Not at all!
Don't believe that brother.
So had it so you would
you think that had the royal navy
not sought to stop the slave trade
it would have magically stopped anyway ?
No they didn't no no no no no
They actually encouraged it in the sense
of using those same Africans
to do what the planters wanted.
That was the point.
Well, hence, of course the Jamaican rebellion
which was some years after emancipation
because of the disappointment
emancipation had not made a difference to their lives
and that was very brutally put down
when was it it was the 1865
65
So this gentleman wants to promote
this image of some Utopian British Empire
and then talking about a Soviet dystopia.
The Caribbean was a dystopia for the Caribbean people
The Africans who were transported as German said
and you are trying to present this position
about the navy cancelling slavery
say who stopped slavery
It was the Africans who for hundreds of years
in the Caribbean rebelled violently against their own Gods.
At the same time granted there were a lot of people in the UK
who fought for abolition as well
but don't ______ this position
because from the early from the late 1500s until 1833
there was that forced migration of 20 million people
plus all of their descendants forced dehumanization,
rape and movement of culture and eradication of culture
for you to then try and say oh the navy stopped
it it's frankly historically disingenuous.
Well, I can die from that yeah
About the navy point,
the French was of the early 19th century
when we were fighting the French
it was partly just just an excuse to attack french ships.
Okay, we have abolished slavery
the people have abolished slavery
how can we attack the French ?
I know the French who yes granted it was your other Europeans who were transporting slaves across
and who canceled their own slave trades after
and excuse them to attack French ships
because when we are at peace with the French we can't just attack them
but since we don't like slavery anymore
we can attack any ship flying French colours
you read the historical parliamentary papers
the excuse essentially let's attack the French
because they're we're in a time of peace
but they're carrying the flag
so don't try and posit the navy as this great humanization force
when it was that same navy who enforced that policy of forced migration of people for 350 years prior.
But i'm not suggesting
Excuse me
Do you want to come sit in the front row ?
I think we need to put this in context,
we have to also understand
that while all this debate about abolishing was going on
forty percent of the contemporary state budget
was given to former slave owners as compensation
forty of the contemporary state budget!
that much amount of money was at stake here
that was given over to the slave owners.
Why did they need to be pacified ?
Why did they need to be paid compensation
for exploiting people's lives ?
Well, of course it wasn't impossible
I mean i mean somewhere at the end of the the slave trade is it's like going on a killing spree
and then saying I don't like killing anymore you won't pat him on the back foot would you
but the one i just wanted to bring that point about cinemas
which i thought was quite a curious point
because it is possible to have cultural exchange
and to share culture and ideas
without conquering much of the world
and inflicting famines which
is this argument that somehow that again which is we're applying 21st century standards to the past
in the 1950s there was the marijuana uprising in kKnya against British rule
and the British Empire responded brutally killed thousands of people here wasn't it
that there were people i'm just making this point
people spoke up against it do you know who one of them was
that well-known lefty Enoch Powell
who condemned the British brutality in Kenya.
The point I am making is this
there were people, there were people who stood up against this brutality
and it is a disservice and a smear on those people at the time
who fought for the freedom of people
to say that they did not do so and we're just applying this
the broader point here which some don't seem to seem to have rather overlooked this no one's arguing that the british empire was a model a utopian model of empire there never has been a utopian
Yes, but the broader point here
which some don't seem to rather overlooked this
No one is arguing that the British Empire
was a model, a Utopian model of empire.
There never has been a Utopian model of empire.
model of empire let me finish my point
There's never been a Utopian model of empire
the very fact that the British empire
did contribute towards in the mid 18th century
towards the stopping of the slave trade
shows that it was a more enlightened empire
than many other ones that existed
but you're not here to whinge about them.
that you agree with that
iIthink i think the Arab Empire was far more brutal
Yeah
I want to make just one point though,
the thing with the Arab Empire,
because the Sikhs suffered from both the British Empire and the Arab Empire
Yeah
The thing with the Arab Empire the Sikhs knew was
is that these are enemies we are going to fight them.
With the British Empire. it was it was a bit more nuanced
How they tried to do was
is they tried to change the Sikh religion.
So the Arabs never really tried to change the secret religion
and try to twist it to suit them
it was just straight out it was clear enemies
they are your enemies and you are theirs.
With the British it was very much a case of take a religion
which was very independent very free very freedom loving
and try and convert that into something which you can use for your own benefit
convince these people to join the British Army
convince them that it's for their own good
and then use them to then subjugate other Indians.
The British were far more
Subtle
No, not subtle
Insidious
Insidious yes, exactly.
Dangerous.
Lawrence, let's talk about decolonization.
There are things I want to return to as well,
the Christianization as well
because that's left
it's when we come on to talk about legacies
that's left some people argue.
Some very negative legacies and it's tearing apart the anglican communion
At the moment with very conservative christianity
homophobia rife in the West Indies
and in Africa Jamaica
but Lawrence let's talk about decolonization
and generally those,
sitting down in those straight lines drawn
on the map in Africa and no understanding of tribal
or ethnic complexities in that continent
I mean I suppose empires have been historically rather short on foresight
but we made some terrible mistakes there
Didn't we ?
Well, I am not sure, African states
no let's think of it if there were
how many African states are fighting boundary wars at the moment ?
Quite a few actually.
You have a lot of interest
Well, then they will fight them.
but let's forget about the boundaries
I think that that's slightly irrelevant.
What is relevant is that in the British Empire between 1939-1945
The British government asked
for the assistance of the subjects of empire
to fight the second world war
and this generated a powerful sense of reciprocity.
Well I think Indians and africans knew what Hitler and Mussolini had in store for them.
It was very nasty.
So they fought and at the end of the war in 1945
a lot thousands upon tens of thousands of them
in the French as well as the British Empire came home
and asked the question
we have risked our lives in a fight
which we have been told
and rightly so I believe was a morally good cause
what do we have in return ?
We have been fighting a war for freedom,
the freedoms of president Franklin Roosevelt's
the Atlantic charter
what share are we going to get of the spoils of this war
and I think that's the first thing in the background
to decolonization
thousands and thousands of Africans
with an educated elite and ex-soldiers were asking the question
this freedom we fought for for five years
when is it coming to us
and the British government turned round and said,
"Well, I think we have got to consider decolonization
in 45 labour government comes to power promising in india no money
so we liked them yes they won it and it was a manifesto the labor said
we will give independence to India, Shalom and Burma
and this was in the labor manifesto
and of course it came about in 1947.
They go further into saying this will be extended to Africa
No one could work out quite what the timetable will be
the 1990s was given until 1950 and then something else happens in 1945
and i'll cut off here we have the beginning of a cold war yes in which newly independent countries are going to find that the soviet union and the united states are competing for them
They are coming along and saying join us vote for us
in the united nations we will help you
and to finish 1954 an African ruler of an independent country uh
wants weapons and he asks khrushchev for weapons khrushchev says i will give you mig fighters i will give you tank
I will make Egypt strong to fight in this case Israel
but also to resist any encroachments by Britain
and then you have Africa decolonizing at the same time as the soviet union
and the united states are looking for world power
and confronting each other.
And so we are rather irrelevant
Well, Britain does become irrelevant
yeah but and interestingly of course nasser there are there are arguments
well-sourced arguments that that secular regime of nasa the reaction to it has led to many of the seeds of islamism
and the problems we have there one thing leads to another basically can i ask you
because you've been trying to come back in anandita
If you were if we talk about 4647 the India's uh freedom if you were to have to drawn uh to draw a mat to draw a line on the map and to have done it better
What would you have done ?
Over to you
That's what we're looking for.
Well, I certainly would have taken more than two weeks to draw that body.
I think you know this question isn't it it is it is um so if
if i can slightly uh evade that question
and come come to another
there's so many things just been bandied about in this debate
that I want to get back to one is
the idea that Britain gave India independence in 1947 is a myth
I think we need to get over that
so all the civilizing that we had been doing for all this period
we did all this great good to the people
and this was the time when we felt
that India was right to be handed over its its freedom
and we left it didn't work like that Britain was in a terrible mess in the post-war situation
and it might have been in the labor manifesto for obvious reasons
but it was also a question of this was becoming a very expensive colony
to maintain it just could not have happened.
The congress showed itself as downright
non-cooperative during the second world war
and this was the last straw
this was the time when they were absolutely sure
that no more kind of cooperative
talks could go on between themselves and and Britain.
So from from the point of view of the indian freedom struggle it had reached its its its head as well so you know this had to be solved
so it was internal pressure as well
so it wasn't just the war and all the aspirations for liberation
that had been you know kind of suddenly
sparked alive in people that this led to you know this is a this is a freedom struggle that goes back to 1885
it isn't suddenly the second world war which is creating all these aspirations in people.
Can I just quickly finish ?
So you know that that is one myth we we should we should get over
and if I can return to what Dr.Lalvani was saying earlier on
the idea again that the nation itself was a gift of Britain to India
does not absolutely hold true at all
it wasn't western education it wasn't railways it wasn't the civilizing mission that did all of this but it was the presence of the British in india
it was the anti-colonial nature of the struggle
that brought India together
so the British contributed to the Indian nation
but by just being there and being what they were which was an oppressive colonial regime
but yeah let's let's talk about legacy as well not just decolonization but legacy of
for example in Africa we paved the way to apartheid didn't we david vance
many of the femi touched on this many of the problems in Africa today are down to how we behaved what we did
Should we hide our our heads in shame because
No I don't think that the problems today
right now today in Africa our attitudes to race can be can be laid at the heart at the door of an empire long since gone Nicky.
I mean it's time we people have to accept responsibility
for themselves in their own independence
people today are still suffering because of the traits of the slave trade,
aren't they
which which of course is being carried out by other rising empires
such as for example some of the in terms of the Islamic Empires that we see cropping up.
No we cannot be carrying the consistent guilt over everything that isn't perfect in every part of the world
you know we were not a perfect empire
I have not said that we were.
Did we make mistakes ? Yes we did!
but we have done good!
and as well regards Africa
I would simply raise this one final point
when for example, Zambia
whenever it was part of the British Empire
we ruled and governed in it the average zambian had an income of about one-seventh of what we had here.
All these years later what do they have ?
127th of the income we have that
Whose fault is that ?
We have gone.
Who's responsible ?
I don't think you can separate
as being the fifth richest country
in the world from our colonial past.
Secondly, there is a few points I want to make
first one is on owen and what he said about the mao mao insurrection we should keep talking about this civilizing mission
How is bringing civilization to a culture
systematic internment camps of 1.5 million people
rape anal rape of men with snakes
and scorpions and knives
you have you have you have women
and pregnant women shot
you have kids when the British went to Australia
Are there atrocities in all that other atrocities in all empires ?
There are trustees in the French empire
there are trustees in the buildin
There are trustees in all empires.
but they were not attracted because human beings these people were not writing about liberalism at the time and freedom there are atrocities in all empires but yes that there are um but not that not all empires call themselves civilizing missions um well moving but yeah everyone else is
You mentioned, how many wars are there in Africa at the moment
in a kind of flippant way the British media does nothing to cover the congo civil war the biggest war since world war II
it doesn't look at it
the British media did not look at the Angolan war
which went on even though it was not a British x colony
no but it went on for 40 odd years which is two-thirds of the extent to which some of the last colonies were
and then you're they're saying it's not that long ago this
is 60 years is in is not a it's not a very long time long term
the great span of history
in the greatest benefits we haven't heard from you for a while in a second we're going to talk about legacy Charles
I think there's an awful tendency to simplify
the fact is that we do not study this period
and indeed in many countries which are newly liberated
or been liberated from 1947 onwards and i use that word liberty it is a liberation um they do not study anything rather than the freedom movement india is a classic example
if you ask people about what happened uh in the 19th century people will not know because this freedom movement has now become we need national myths we need founding myths
and i can understand why every country whether it's kenya or if it needs to portray the freedom struggle in the most positive terms but it's it's all ambivalent there are there are nuances here which are being missed in the question of mauma
for instance how many other tribes beyond the kikuyu got involved how much of that was actually about land grabbing by the kikuyu how much of that who were the victims other africans
who were the main victims very few europeans actually got killed by the malmo so it's not simple black and white this is history my worry is that now we're getting a black and white history but there are so many nuances involved in this yeah and the great delight do you want nuances are the great delights of history aren't they let's talk
about legacy you can come in without me even asking you a question i would like it's not necessarily to go away feeling guilty about the atrocities of the british empire what i want us to do however is to acknowledge that there were these major major issues that that is still
that is still impacting on us today so for example by virtue for example of paying the slave owners and and giving nothing to those who are the victims of it have left people still in that victim mode by virtue of um taking away a people's culture um killing
who they are still exists today and that is why the racism that exists in in our in our present time exists because we still think we are white we are great black you are not good enough but it's not this is gross can i just say something yes this is this is right
it's the legacy we see this happening all over the world from upsets of one set of human beings towards another set of humans we see that we see the chinese empire the rape of resources in africa from the chinese empire
at the moment there are still the american empire the chinese empire there will always be empires there will always be things yeah we are discussing the present which do you think it has a uniquely uh pernicious legacy because of the slave trade
because of the racial aspect it it is there we cannot deny it is still it is still there why is it that our children today do not learn about um cultural things of their particular groups why is it only what is eurocentric
or can we take upon ourselves a type of collective guilt people watching the you know today can should we feel guilty guilt is useless guilt is useful are we are we responsible in the way we speak christianity
for homophobia i was listening to a documentary the other day about homophobia in jamaica and they were saying look you gave us the bible you gave us the truth and we believed it and all of a sudden you're telling us not to believe it well
i i would agree that that is wrong i would never condone that but the point that i have are we responsible for it spreading those attitudes back in the 80s i think we did we did spread those and and we are reaping the legacy of it today so do you think the spreading of christianity was wrong therefore it's not so much about the spreading of christianity
it's what we packaged it in but i just want to explain something simply those okay those there's very strong arguments that we are responsible for the spread of homophobia in spreading those attitudes but there have been generation after generation to change the penal codes and they haven't changed the penal codes so can we still put the blame on our door
i that is a very good question i think we are very much still under the the umbrella of it as it were of that painful time in history still very close to mcgregor audience audience yes you've had your hand up for so long and i've got i've been trying there's been a lot of talked this morning
and i think the saddest thing should come every week yeah the saddest thing is i think i've seen this morning is the typical british way where the two sikhs have been arguing the most i find that interesting we talked about how the british went they were non-civilized let me tell you we had you just talked about the mughal empire
preceding the british empire they were more than civilized they didn't need you to come in sati is not an islamic principle but let's modernize it as a young british pakistani muslim what we're talking about
now angers me the most muslims are always told you don't integrate you're not involved black people are always told you're not good enough you're not smart enough there's something about your culture your criminals you need to follow this way of life
the reality is the british empire is the biggest reason that racism exists today in this country when you have people
like this on the front row who will always see black brown asian people as being below them we subjugated you we owned you at one stage we you can't get above you above your level how dare you get anywhere
one of the arguments you hear is that one of the positive legacies of the british empire is our multicultural society
it's not working is it because there's a multiculturalism to an extent they always want to keep you at a level
they don't want to progress so let's talk about what we do what do we do next well it's interesting in your intro you talked about indian pakistan
being the jewel in the crown literally the jewel in the crown you've still got the jewel in your crown we wanted micro no in the queen's
it needs to be returned back to the people you stole it from i won't recreate it from anyone
there's a lot of use going on here
charles allen the korean charles allen should go back to the tribal people in golconda okay that's they're the ones who turn it up return it it certainly shouldn't go to lahore
very few because it's gone through hundreds of rulers and conquerors over the centuries the idea that these little simple tokens
that's not enough yeah it's not just let me go back there to that gentleman there you've you've been yeah you you
good morning to you good morning hi well quick point yeah very quickly well i i just needed a minute uh what i want to say
is i've heard some of the most preposterous comments today made by many panelists which one which one most of all mainly from this side but we started as an india with the nation
nationhood was given by britain thank you yes but that was and then there were infrastructure that was laid whether it was indian indian penal code indian uh post office
or indian railways indian army these were all central to the development of the the empire that the infrastructure was necessary so it was for their own needs as uh one of our panelists
we we had that point out earlier well we haven't got a lot of time but what i'm what i'm coming to is the also the social engineering
that we talked about earlier is was not given by the british it was by all the social engineers
like raja ram mohan roy uh people like gandhi ambedkar they they they are the ones who did okay
i just think that point you made about race and racism is just is critical because obviously to justify empire people
who were being colonized were dehumanized they had to be seen as inferior because you wouldn't possibly allow for that sort of barrier
to be conducted against people you would see as being like yourself and that legacy scars our society today but just finally i do think the worry is i have are people going to watch this
and go oh you will just custody in britain it's a big british anti-british hate fest and the truth is what frightens me is in our curriculum
in schools across the country what we're not seeing is the history we should be proud of that i spoke about before people of all backgrounds and faiths freedoms are you proud of churchill
i'm proud of the british war effort against the nazis of the people service people who went to as they say it's like he had racially supremacist attitudes he did yeah well of course
the people who run the british would you like to take his stuff churchill would you like a statue in the long run
i think having a statue of someone who called um who called he said indians were ghastly people with a ghastly religion the famine was their own fault because they bred
like rabbits he said he said many things churchill is is is ultimately would you like to there's a statue i'm not going to make a comment on that because i'll be dragged through
the daily mail tomorrow nonetheless nonetheless just to make your point on the um on the uh you said chinese rape of african resources as if shell was not a british dutch company it was not paying the nigerian government in we are now a 1990 society
china and we can build we can build on it and go forward is that for you what is the positive legacy what can people look at and remember is there anything about the empire that still binds us together
right i think commonwealth for me is a good thing and i am glad that you gave us cricket in that we and i'm talking with my caribbean hats on i gave you cricket yes and look what we're doing with it look how terrific we are but but i'm also glad that right here in britain we can be a truly we're not we're not fully there yet we need to work at it
we need to work at better being being a better diverse and multi-ethnic multicultural society celebration there are three three enduring legacies that that we can be proud of we've left libera
l we spread liberal capitalism around the world to the annoyance of some we shared a form of government which in many ways still continues and last but by no means least 450 million people speak english
with and in some regards what what what a wonderful legacy as well so there's lots to be proud of we've heard lots of grievance gravens mongeri going on wait andre
you have the very last word and it's a quick one well they only need to speak english today as the global lingua franca precisely because we did colonise half
listen we did a shakespeare special a few weeks ago but let's just you know when i speak to my kids
i have to constantly tell them you've got to speak to elders with a bit more respect because english does not have that verb left anymore for adults
which french has and it's not a good thing you know it's an achievement but it's not a great achievement it's actually a very negative immigration
they we are here because we're finished rose we're finished rose the sun will never set on the big questions thank you very much for watching see you very soon
you