Should we be proud of the British Empire - BBC The Big Questions - Jagraj Singh

Nikki Campbell: 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!

Join by 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."

Charles Allen: Yes he says,

"It was the greatest institution
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."

Of course because it didn't endure

the question is was it righteous?

NC: Was it righteous?

CA: I think we have to say
it's like the 'curate's egg',

it's good in parts.

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 I suspect
is the one that upsets us.

The 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...

NC: Which model were we ?

CA: 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.

NC: 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, it's a hall of shame Charles.

The Bengal famine 1769-73 under the aegis

of the East India Company where
10 million people died

because of wilful incompetence.

Massacres that Amritsar and

atrocities in Kenya relatively recently.

How can we be in any way proud?

CA: I think by today's standards
we cannot!

NC: Today's standards!

CA: 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.

NC: Yeah.

CA: If we talk about British-India
we have to say

"What was there before the British came,
what was in other parts of the world

when the British were there
and what legacy did they leave?"

Really it's there that we can pick out

what to me are straws because my family
was 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
dictatorial, impartial justice

on a model that seemed to work very well.

As I said,
that is the good aspect

but of course there are other aspects too.

NC: There are, and we shall explore

at both sides of the imperial coin
as we proceed.

Dr Anita Ghosh,

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
and appalling things.

What were the good things?

Anita Ghosh: Well, the good things
were also there

and like Charles I agree it's hard
to draw any line there.

We are organised in the form
of a debate today

so we are encouraged to take sides.

NC: No, listen, listen,

You can agree with each other that's fine.
We're looking for genuine enlightenment.

AG: 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 and extraction of resources.

NC: No altruism.

AG: 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 by-product
of the empire.

It wasn't put in place
for the good of 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, towns

or people to pilgrimage centres,
where people would have loved to go,

but they were built in a
strategic way

functioning as arteries of extraction.

NC: When you look back as a
British Indian—

AG: At exploitation.

NC: Yes, at exploitation.

When you look back as a British Indian,
are you angry?

AG: Yes, I am.

NC: What you most angry about?

AG: The way the 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
and economic power,

that fundamentally was unfair.

Everything else that
emerges out of that

is a direct result of that process.

So 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
and organised.

Otherwise how could a handful of people
from millions of miles away

construct such an effective system
which was the British Empire in India.

NC: David Vance what are you proud of?

David Vance: Well, I am proud
of the British Empire.

I think 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!

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.

NC: Is there anything
you are ashamed of ?

DV: From a 2016 perspective lots!

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.

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.

Owen Jones: People were horrified
at the time

about many of these crimes
and to give an example of Ireland.

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 a guy
called Mike Davis

called 'Late Victorian Holocausts'.

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.

What I am frustrated about this debate is

we have so much to be proud of
in our history,

that we don't talk about the people

who fought for our rights and freedoms,
for the right to vote,

for the welfare state against racism,

and against homophobia for
trade union rights and workers' rights.

That's a history we should be proud of,

not a history of subjugating
the world and invading it.

NC: Going into other people's countries,
taking their resources, subjugating them,

very often dehumanising them
and killing them.

DV: Yes, empires rise and empires fall!

No empire to the best of my knowledge
has been 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 characterise it
in the way that you say Owen,

for example, ignoring the fact that
were it not for the the royal navy,

would the slave trade have ended?

OJ: Well it's funny you should say that
because—

NC: Wait hang on, Charles Allen.

Actually I'll tell you what,
I'll save you Charles Allen because Anita,

I saw you a couple of times
wanting to come back in.

AG: You were talking about
the value system

and I think that's absolutely essential

in our sitting in judgement
of our empire today

and like you said, what was going on then

in the late 19th century in Africa with
the Nama 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 and 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 posthumanism.

CA: Can I talk about...

NC: Charles you can and
there is a lady right behind you.

CA: Go on.

NC: Are you deferring?

CA: Yes of course I am.

NC: I will be with you right after.

Good morning.

Audience: Good morning,

Well the values and truth remain the truth

whether it's in the 18th century
or the 21st century.

One human should not exploit
another human, full stop.

So whether it happened in the
18th century, 19th century or today.

So I would say—

NC: It is an absolute truth.

Audience: It is an absolute truth.

NC: Yes, but Charles isn't an empire
the default position of history.

We are all the legacy of some empire,
everyone on the planet is.

We had the Roman Empire, Venetian Empire

the Arab Empire, the slave trade and
the Islamic Empire.

On it goes, should we be
beating ourselves up about this?

CA: If you look at history,

it is essentially the exploitation
of man by man

NC: Yes, it's what humans do.

CA: The part that makes humans strong.

So really you have a question
of what empire it is.

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 Aurangzeb,
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 caste system now,

Sikhs would disagree with me I suspect,
but I do this deliberately because...

We have the Hindu model.
which is deeply racist

NC: Did we exploit the caste system or
did we try to get rid of the caste system?

CA: 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.

NC: Okay.

CA: So this is a new model
in the Indian context.

There are advantages in that which is
to this day the Indian penal code

was developed by Macaulay in the 1830s
and it just still functions today.

NC: All right Jagraj, you come in here.
Andrea, I'll be right with you.

I mentioned the caste system there
and you were agreeing as I posited

the fact that it was exploited
by the British ruling elite.

Jagraj first of all,

when you look back at the British Empire,
what do you think, what are your feelings?

Jagraj Singh: Well, I grew up in India
till I was about 11.

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 forth.

So when we look back now
it's from a more balanced viewpoint.

We can look back and hear the voice
of those that were actually exploited.

We can realise actually,
it wasn't so good.

Here what we're seeing now
is that the propaganda

of the British government is now...

The power back then was so powerful.

Before every movie they would have,

cheering natives thanking
the British Empire.

It was all designed to make people here
feel good

that actually this was a force for good

and that viewpoint has endured.

Even though it wasn't real,

even though the people
didn't want to be exploited

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 as a force for good."

What I find worst about this is that,
that viewpoint now,

looking back 100 years later.

Hearing about all the exploitation
and all the murders.

We can still sit there thinking

"Oh no there must be something
good about it"

It's fake, it's not real.

In reality the people
never wanted to be exploited

Many great nations were destroyed.

NC: There's no mitigating the negative.

You hear this a lot,
mixed feelings, love-hate.

JS: There may be something good about
getting shot in the back

but you might say
"Some good came out of that."

Now we can straggle

we can look around for a few straws
here and there and say

"Well we had a benign rule
or we made some railways."

In reality it was a very
exploitative system.

Dr Lalvani, Kartar Lalvani,
you wouldn't come back.

Dr Kartar Lalvani: Actually,
it was during the British rule

when all the castes, cultures,
races and religions

worked together for the first time
in 5000 years.

It goes back, the caste system...

NC: Is that because of British rule?

KL: The first time, in British rule.

They worked together in the army,

all the untouchables and then

everybody worked and
ran for the first time.

So were the railways and the Boston
telegraph,

again hundreds of thousands
worked together.

There's no problem.
It was actually the first time in...

As India was a conglomerate
of many kingdoms

and the British made them work together.

Then took time to collect and
put them together

and conquered other things.

NC: So a sense of nationhood almost was...

KL: It was British who created India,
there was no India before.

Out of a conglomerate of many kingdoms
they made one India.

NC: That was a good thing.

KL: Yes, very good thing.

NC: Can I ask you Dr.Lalvani?

Do you think...

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 civilising mission."

Do you believe that?

KL: It certainly was,
most certainly

JS: I think the British Empire destroyed—

NC: I will let you come back in a second.

Explain what you mean.

Look here, certainly he should know
better than anybody else,

he is a Sikh,

but I don't know what he's saying.

Let me tell you it was first time,
the burning of the Sati—

The widows who would be burned
in their husband's pyre.

Over 1000 years, there were many kings

not one king ever bothered
to do anything about it.

NC: The British stopped it.

KL: The British stopped it.

Not just the British
but the British Company stopped it.

The company took a great risk
by indulging into social matters.

The kings did not bother before.

DV: This is the point, that to look at it
in black and white is actually wrong.

You have to have a more nuanced view.

NC: David sorry, I will get Jagraj
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,

and Andrea, you too.

KL: There's a lot of social reforms
including the infanticide.

If a girl is born—

NC: The British stopped infanticide.

KL: They stopped it. It was banned.
So a lot of things.

The person who should appreciate this
most of all is Mr Singh.

I don't understand.

NC: Mr Singh,
are these inconvenient truths?

These civilising influences and
examples of social progress?

JS: I think what we are seeing here is
somebody...

A mindset which is basically
the colonial mindset.

Where people have been
programmed to believe

that people are coming here to exploit you
for your own good.

They look past the exploitation and think,
"Well they gave us a few things."

Let me just go back to those two points

that they raised about Sati
and 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...

I take issue with that fadaise
about Sikhs mandating Sati.

For a Sikh it was totally against the law,

something made by the Gurus
in the 17th century,

to ever have Sati or female infanticide.

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 was—

NC: Charles Allen.

CA: How many of Ranjit Singh's wives
had to commit Sati?

KL: That's right.

JS: Ranjit Singh was not the epitome
of Sikh religion.

He was in fact called to account
by the Sikh leader.

CA: So, he was the head
of the Sikh empire.

JS: No he was the king of a 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.

NC: Just clarifying, Lawrence in a second
and Andrea I've got you.

Just clarify what you're saying.

CA: I'm just saying if you go to Lahore,

you will see the imprints
of all the wives of Ranjit Singh

who had to be cremated on his funeral pyre
when he died.

JS: Not actually, they chose to be,
just to make that point

I've heard the history, they chose to be.

CA: That's a good thing?

JS: Listen, we're not judging
Ranjit Singh.

CA: You are defending Sikhism
as being anti-Sati.

JS: So Sikhism versus Ranjit Singh
are two very different things.

NC: Everyone, we're into a very rich scene
with this debate.

Laurence Reece.

Lawrence James: Well first of all

NC: Sorry, Lawrence James
I do beg your pardon.

LJ: First of all we seem
to be examining the tree

rather than having a look at the forest.

We've got odd incidents of injustice here,
a hospital opened here, so on.

NC: Take us into the forest.

LJ: I think there's important context
to come.

NC: Yeah.

LJ: 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 several revolutions in Europe.

An intellectual, a scientific
and an industrial.

They gave Europe,
what I might call Western Europe,

certainly a preponderance of power.

At the same time in Europe, there is
an enlightened movement to say

"We should share these things
with other people."

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 and essential.

The fact that there were a lot of
cads, scoundrels and rascals

running this empire is certain.

We will all agree on that.

There were also men of virtue,
integrity and honesty.

NC: Of course.

LJ: I think we should look
in that general position,

that the empire is transforming the world.

Quite an amazing transformation.

NC: Ultimately a force for good?

LJ: I think a force for good

but there were some villains
hanging around, yes.

They are in all human institutions.

NC: Yeah indeed, so an engine of change,
there is a phrase that

"The sun never set on the British Empire

because the almighty couldn't trust what
the British would get up to in the dark."

It was certainly a playground for many.

Femi, Andrea one second but
Femi's trying to come in here.

You have been responsible for the campaign
to get rid of the Cecil Rhodes statue.

Do beg your pardon Andrea
but I will be with you.

Join us.

Femi Nylander: We had a bit of talk about
the instrumentalization

of the caste system in India
in British colonial rule.

The British Raj was actually a model

for the use of the Hausa-Fulani in
Northern Nigeria, an indirect rule.

The British Raj was the model

for a lot of what happened later
in the process of colonisation.

You mentioned that
"There are legacies of the 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.

NC: The British are entirely responsible
for that?

LN: I would say that the British
are largely responsible.

There was conflict in Sudan
before the British came,

There was no racial conflict.

There was conflict but it was not
as heavily along racial lines.

Now there are.

LJ: I thought the northern parts of 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.

FN: There are three segments,

you have animist and Christian,
Black Africans in the south.

In the middle, Muslim Black Africans and
you have the north with Arab Muslims.

It was a Muslim Animist conflict mainly

before the imposition of Christianity
in the south.

NC: People make their own decisions
to rape, pillage and exploit.

Whether that be the British,
they don't make their own decisions.

FN: This is the same argument of the fact

that there's so much crime
in Black America

because there are primordial tensions
for these...

It's not socioeconomic
and structural inequality

In the same way—

NC: So you would say the Janjaweed militia
is not our fault?

FN: Well no if you look at most conflicts
in Africa at the moment

and you look at most ethnic conflict,

a lot of it is due to
poverty and people...

A lot of Boko Haram comes from
our Maiduguri schools

which are impoverished schools
in northern Nigeria,

where hundreds of kids have to
go out and beg.

I have been to Kaduna and
seen them myself.

NC: So the rape of resources

and drawing of those straight lines
on the map.

Hey David Vance, do you want to come back
in here for a bit and then Andrea ?

DV: 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 demonstrable advance
of civilization in that part of the world.

Had it not been for Britain,
it wouldn't have happened.

NC: Andrea, sorry to take so long
to come to you.

Dr Andrea Major: Yeah.

NC: Sorry to have taken so long
to come to you.

AM: Thank you.

Going back to this whole thing
around the civilising 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.

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...

DV: Was it a good thing?

AM: That's not why we were there,

a by-product doesn't justify
the enduring spectre.

NC: Andrea, was it a case that there were
good noble-minded people there...

As humans are complex creatures...

Who saw this and thought "This is wrong."

Who in very good faith sought to
and succeeded in abolishing it.

You give those people credit?

AM: I absolutely would
give those people credit.

Of course in any place, in any time
there are good people and bad people.

There are people who are working
from good intentions and

what they believe to be good intentions
at the time,

and also those who are willing to
undertake nefarious acts

to personally profit or profit the nation.
Of course there's good and bad.

NC: Rose in just one second to talk about
the spread of religion.

That said...

AM: I don't think that we can take
a few examples of the civilising mission.

I mean Sati affected maybe
500 widows a year?

There are thousands of pages
of parliamentary papers on them.

None on hundreds of thousands of people
who died of famine.

NC: Professor Lalvani.

KL: Yes, I think it is far more
to be appreciated

that the authority who stopped it
was a company

and the company was solely responsible
to directors.

NC: East India Company.

KL: They didn't have business to do

what the kings could not dare to do
in India before.

They had the courage to do it.

It's a very great achievement.
It didn't just normally stop.

NC: An early manifestation
of globalisation.

KL: They were strongly advised...

JS: What you're seeing here is
the best of British values

and we can't say that Britain
has no good values.

NC: Your British.

JS: I'm in the British army.
I spent four years there.

I believed in British values.

NC: Yeah.

JS: 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 find a few little good things
that we did and

then say "Well the whole thing
must have been good."

the reality is there were some
terrible things that were done.

It's just about knowing.

NC: Dr Lalvani.

KL: They did good things,
I don't know where to start.

There's so many, one after the other.

I have a 20 chapter book
of good things the British did.

Railway is only one
and there's 20 more.

Now you see what judiciary was before
and the judiciary—

NC: Civic society, judiciary system,
you talked about those.

KL: The first university in India
was built by the British.

NC: The Empress of India, Queen Victoria.
She never went there, did she?

JS: We had universities ourselves.

KL: The first three universities
were built by the company itself.

NC: Okay, listen everyone.

Femi mentioned the religions in Sudan,
Animism and Islam and Christianity.

Let's talk.

It brings us nicely to talking
about religion.

and the missionary spreading the good word
of the Lord.

That wasn't a good thing though, was it?
You were destroying people's cultures.

I am not saying you were Rose
but people's cultures were destroyed.

Rose Hudson Wilkin: Absolutely,
I would agree with that entirely.

As a Christian I want to agree
with Christianity

but at the same time recognizing
that along with Christianity

people brought their own culture
with them.

Of course people had their own religions
where they were.

The audacity of the British Empire
to think that

"We know what is right and yours is
no longer important or valuable."

There was health and education.

Some of the longest serving establishments
in terms of education and health

were brought through the
Christian medium there.

So it is not so much—

NC: Another 'curate's egg'.

RHW: Well, 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."

I am not just looking at it
through a rose-tinted lens.

NC: As it were.

RHW: As it were.

I really do believe that
some awful things were done

and you (DV) mentioned about
the British demolishing slavery.

They didn't.

It was the people who were being enslaved
who were making slavery unworkable.

DV: I am afraid Rose what that does is,

it simply contradicts the fact that
the British navy was the instrument

to ensure that the slave trade
was eventually removed.

It is a matter of historical fact.
How can you deny history?

NC: Let's go to the audience.
Some arms have sprung up in the audience.

Audience: It was a con.

The navy actually took Africans

and indentured them on the Caribbean
to work just like...

The bad thing is that 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.

DV: So would you think that had
the royal navy

not sought to stop the slave trade,
it would have magically stopped anyway?

Audience: No they didn't, no no.

They actually encouraged it in the sense
of using those same Africans

to do what the planters wanted.

That was the point.

NC: Well hence, of course
the Jamaican Rebellion

which was some years after emancipation
because of the disappointment that

emancipation had not made
a difference to their lives

and that was very brutally put down.

When was it?
It was the 18—

Audience: 1865.

NC: 1865.
Yes, so right beside you.

Audience: So this gentleman here
wants to promote

this image of some utopian British Empire
and then talk about a Soviet dystopia.

The Caribbean was a dystopia
for the Caribbean people,

the Africans who were transported,
as this gentleman said.

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...

At the same time,
granted there were

a lot of people in the UK who fought
for abolition as well,

but don't posit this position because
from the late 1500s until 1833

there was forced migration of
20 million people

plus all of their descendants
were forced dehumanisation,

rape, movement of culture and
eradication of culture.

For you to try and say
"Oh the navy stopped it."

It's frankly historically disingenuous.

Finally, about the navy point,

the French wars of the early 19th century
when we were fighting the French,

it was partly 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 cancelled their own
slave trades after.

An excuse then 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 is
"Let's attack the French

because 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.

DV: I'm not suggesting—

NC: Excuse me.

Do you (audience member) want to
come sit in the front row?

AG: Can I put this in context?

NC: I'll let you come back.
Anita, go on.

AG: I think we need to
put this in context.

We have to also understand

that while all this debate about
abolishing was going on,

40% of the contemporary state budget

was given to former slave owners
as compensation.

40% of the contemporary state budget!

That much 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?

DV: Well, of course it wasn't—

NC: Owen Jones.

OJ: I mean somewhere at the end
of the slave trade

It's like going on a killing spree

and then saying
"I don't like killing anymore."

You won't pat them on the back for it,
would you?

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 killed
tens of millions of people.

NC: I think Lawrence said
it was a trivial example.

LJ: …do carry on.

OJ: Final point, it is this argument that
somehow again

we're applying 21st century standards
to the past.

In the 1950s there was the
marijuana uprising in Kenya

against British rule.

The British Empire responded brutally,
killed thousands of people—

NC: It was patched up here, wasn't it?

OJ: 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 who stood up
against this brutality.

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 the standards of today to then."

DV: The broader point here which
some seem to have rather overlooked is

no one's arguing that the British Empire
was a utopian model of empire.

There never has been
a utopian 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 in the mid 18th century

towards the stopping of the slave trade
shows that it was a

it was a more enlightened empire
than many others that existed—

JS: That's true.

DV: …but you're not here
to whinge about them.

NC: You agree with that, do you?

JS: I think the Arab Empire
was far more brutal.

NC: Yeah.

JS: I want to make just one point though,
the thing with the Arab Empire...

As the Sikhs suffered from both
the British Empire and the Arab Empire.

The thing with the Arab Empire is
the Sikhs knew that

"These are our 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,
they tried to change the Sikh religion.

So the Arabs never really tried
to change the Sikh religion

and try to twist it to suit them.

It was just straight out and clear.

NC: Full On.

JS: They are your enemies and you...

With the British it was
very much a case of

taking a religion which
was very independent,

very free, very freedom loving

and try to 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 use them to subjugate other Indians.

The British were far more—

NC: Subtle.

JS: No, not subtle,
they were far more

NC: Insidious.

JS: Insidious yes, exactly.
Dangerous.

NC: Lawrence, let's talk
about decolonization.

There are things I want to
return to as well.

The Christianization as well.

It's when we come on
to talk about legacies,

that's left some people argue
some very negative legacies.

It's tearing apart the Anglican communion

at the moment with very
conservative Christianity,

homophobia rife in the West Indies
and in Africa Jamaica.

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?

LJ: Well I am not sure, African states...

No, let's think of it.

How many African states are fighting
boundary wars at the moment ?

FN: Quite a few actually.
You have a lot of interaction.

LJ: Well, then they will fight them,
but let's forget about the boundaries.

I think 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

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."

I think that's the first thing in
the background to decolonization,

thousands and thousands of Africans

with the educated elite and ex-soldiers
were asking the question

"This freedom we fought for,
for five years, when is it coming to us?"

JS: That's a good point.

LJ: The British government
turned around and said

"Well, I think we have got to
consider decolonization"

In 1945, the labour government comes
to power promising it India, Pakistan—

NC: With no money...

JS: Yes, exactly.

LJ: Yes they won it and
it was a manifesto.

The Labour said

"We will give independence
to India, Shalom and Burma."

This was in the Labour 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 would be.

The 1990s was given,

until 1950 and then something else
happens in 1945.

I'll cut off here.

We have the beginning of a cold war

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"

To finish, in 1954 an African ruler of
an independent country wants weapons

and he asks Khrushchev for weapons.
Khrushchev says

"I will give you MiG fighters and tanks.
I will make Egypt strong to fight."

In this case Israel,

but also to resist any
encroachments by Britain.

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.

NC: So we are rather irrelevant.

LJ: Well, Britain does become irrelevant—

NC: Yes and interestingly of course,
Nasser.

There are well-sourced arguments that,
that secular regime of Nasser,

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, Anita?

If we talk about 1946-47, India's freedom.

If you were to draw a line on the map
and to have done it better.

What would you have done?
Over to you.

AG: God, I have been put on the spot.

NC: …That's what we're looking for.

AG: Well, I certainly would have taken
more than two weeks to draw that body.

I think—

NC: It's an interesting question isn't it?

AG: It is. If I can slightly evade
that question and come to another.

NC: It's happened before.

AG: There's so many things
just being bandied about in this debate,

that I want to get back to one,
which is that the idea

that Britain gave India
independence in 1947, is a myth.

I think we need to get over that.

So all the civilising that we had
been doing for all this period,

"We did all this great good to the people.
This was the time when we felt that India

was right to be handed over its freedom
and we left."

It didn't work like that.

Britain was in a terrible mess
in the post-war situation.

It might have been in the Labour manifesto
for obvious reasons

but it was also a question

that this was becoming
a very expensive colony to maintain.

It just couldn't 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 cooperative talks could go on
between themselves and Britain.

So from the point of view of the
Indian freedom struggle,

it had reached its head as well
so this had to be solved.

It was internal pressure as well,

so it wasn't just the war and all the
aspirations for liberation that

had been suddenly sparked alive in people
that led to it.

This is a freedom struggle
that goes back to 1885.

The Second World War wasn't suddenly
creating all these aspirations in people.

Can I just quickly finish?

That is one myth 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

doesn't absolutely hold true at all.

It wasn't western education, railways or
the civilising mission that did all 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.

NC: 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
and what we did.

Should we hide our heads
in shame because—

DV: No I don't think that the problems
today, right now today in Africa—

NC: Our attitudes to race.

DV: …can be laid at the heart at the door
of an empire long since gone, Nicky.

I mean it's time people have to

accept responsibility for themselves
in their own independence.

NC: People today are still suffering

because of the traits of
the slave trade, aren't they?

DV: Which of course is being carried out
by other rising empires

such as, for example 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.

We weren't a perfect empire.
I have not said that we were.

Did we make mistakes?
Yes we did, but we have done good!

As regards to Africa, I would simply raise
this one final point.

When for example Zambia, whenever
it was part of the British Empire and

we ruled and governed it.

The average Zambian had an income of
about one-seventh of what we had here.

All these years later what do they have?
1-27th of the income we have.

NC: Whose fault is that?

DV: Whose fault is that?
We have gone. Who's responsible?

NC: Femi, whose fault is that?
Rose in a second.

FN: Firstly, I don't think
you can separate Britain being

the fifth richest country in the world
from our colonial past at all.

Secondly, there are 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 civilising mission.

How is bringing civilization to a culture,

systematic internment camps
of 1.5 million people,

rape of men with
snakes, scorpions and knives,

women and pregnant women shot?

You have kids when the
British went to Australia—

NC: Are there atrocities in all empires?

FN: There are atrocities in
the French Empire, the Benin Empire—

NC: There are atrocities in all empires.
Human beings can be ghastly creatures.

FN: …but these people were not writing
about liberalism at the time and freedom.

NC: There are atrocities in all empires.

FN: Yes there are, but not all empires
call themselves "civilizing missions".

NC: Well...

OJ: Everyone else is killing people,
so we're doing that....

NC: Whose saying that.

FN: Another point I'll make is,
you mentioned

"How many wars are there in Africa
at the moment?"

in a flippant kind of 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 ex-colony

but it went on for 40 odd years

which is two-thirds of the extent to which
some of the last colonies were.

Then they're saying
"It's not that long ago"

60 years is not a very long time at all.

NC: In the great span of history.

FN: In the great span of history.

NC: Charles Allen we have not heard
from you for a while.

Rose in a second.

We're going to talk about legacy,
Charles Allen.

CA: I think there's an awful tendency to
simplify the fact 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 'liberated'
as it is a liberation.

They do not study anything
rather than the freedom movement

India is a classic example.

if you ask people about what happened
in the 19th century

people will not know because this
freedom movement has now become

"We need national myths
and founding myths",

and I can understand why every country

whether it's Kenya or one that needs
to portray the freedom struggle

in the most positive terms
but it's all ambivalent.

There are nuances here
which are being missed.

In the question of Mau Mau for instance,

how many other tribes beyond
the Kikuyu got involved?

How much of that was actually about
land grabbing by the Kikuyu?

Who were the victims?
Other Africans.

Who were the main victims?
Very few Europeans actually got killed

by the Mau Mau 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.

NC: Nuances are the great delights
of history aren't they?

Let's talk about legacy.

RHW: I...

NC: Rose, you can come in without me
even asking you a question.

RHW: Yes I would like us 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 major issues.

That is still impacting us today.

So for example, by virtue of paying
the slave owners and

giving nothing to those who are
the victims of it

have left people still
in that victim mode.

By virtue of taking away people's culture
and killing who they are,

is why racism in our present time exists.
We still think

"We are white we are great,
black you are not good enough."

NC: Rose, can I just say something?

We see this happening all over the world

from one set of human beings towards
another set of humans.

We see 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 human beings
doing terrible things.

RHW: We are discussing the British Empire.

NC: Yeah we are discussing
the British Empire,

which do you think has a uniquely
pernicious legacy

because of the slave trade
and the racial aspect?

RHW: It is there, we cannot deny it.
Why is it that our children today

do not learn about cultural things
of their particular groups?

Why is it only what is 'Eurocentric'?

NC: Can we take upon ourselves
a type of collective guilt,

the people watching today?
Should we feel guilty?

RHW: Guilt is useless.

NC: Are we responsible in the way
we spread Christianity for homophobia?

I was listening to a documentary

the other day of a phobia in Jamaica
and they were saying

"Look you gave us the bible, the truth
and we believed it

and all of a sudden you're telling us
not to believe it."

RHW: Well, I would agree that,
that's wrong.

I would never condone that
but the point that I—

NC: Are we responsible for spreading
those attitudes back in the 80s?

RHW: Yes, I think we did spread those and
we are reaping the legacy of it today.

DV: So do you think the spreading
of Christianity was wrong therefore?

RHW: It's not so much about
the spreading of Christianity.

It's what we packaged it in.

NC: Rose I just want to explore something.

There are very strong arguments that we're

responsible for the spread of homophobia
and spreading those attitudes

but there have been
generations after generations

trying to change the penal codes and
they haven't changed the penal codes,

so can we still put the blame on our door?

RHW: That is a very good question.
I think we are very much still under

the umbrella of it as it were,
of that painful time in history.

NC: Still very close to...

Audience, yes you've had your hand up
for so long and I've been trying.

Audience: There's been a lot of nonsense
talked this morning and...

NC: You should come every week.

Audience: Yeah the saddest thing is
I think I've seen this morning,

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.

You just talked about the Mughal Empire
preceding the British Empire.

They were more than civilised,
they didn't need you to come in.

Sati is not an Islamic principle
but let's modernise 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 and smart enough,

there's something about your culture,
you're 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,

you can't get above your level,
how dare you get anywhere."

They keep you at your level.

NC: What's your name?

Audience: Muhammad.

NC: Muhammad, one of the arguments
you hear is that one of the

positive legacies of the British Empire
is our multicultural society.

Audience: It's not working is it because
there's multiculturalism to an extent.

They always want to keep you at a level,
they don't want you to progress.

So let's talk about what we do next?

Well it's interesting in your intro

you talked about India and Pakistan
being the jewel in the crown,

literally the jewel in the crown.

You've still got the jewel in your crown,
we want it back.

NC: My crown? Whose crown?

Audience: The Queen's, the British.

NC: You're British.
The jewel in your crown.

Audience: No, it needs to be returned
back to the people you stole it from.

JS: No, the Sikh Empire is the one
who should hold that.

Audience: I want reparations.

NC: There's a lot of "you" going on here.

Charles Allen.

CA: The Kohinoor diamond should go back
to the tribal people in Golconda okay.

They're the ones who dug it up.

Audience: Return it.

CA: It certainly shouldn't go to Lahore
where it was for very few years

because it's gone through hundreds of
rulers and conquerors over the centuries.

The idea of these little simple tokens
is not enough.

JS: Yeah it's not.

NC: Let me go back there to that
gentleman there you've been...

Yeah you. Good morning to you,

Audience: Good morning well—

NC: Quick point.

Audience: Yes well I just needed a minute.

What I want to say is I've heard some of
the most preposterous comments today

made by many panellists.

NC: Which one most of all?

Audience: Mainly from this side
(Proud of the British Empire).

but we started as,
an India with the nation.

Nationhood was given by Britain,
thank you.

Yes and then there was infrastructure
that was laid

whether it was Indian penal code,
post office, railways or the army.

These were all central to the
development of the empire,

the infrastructure was necessary for their
own needs as one of our panellists—

NC: We had that point out earlier.

We haven't got a lot of time,
so come to your point quickly.

Audience: What I'm coming to is,
also the social engineering

that we talked about earlier was not
given by the British.

It was by all the social engineers
like Raja Ram Mohan Roy,

people like Gandhi and Ambedkar.
They are the ones who did that.

KL: Very short one.

NC: Very quickly please.

Audience: We have not talked about
famines in India.

NC: We have talked about famines.
Owen Jones.

OJ: I just think that point you made
about race and racism is critical

because obviously to justify empire

people who were being colonised
were dehumanised.

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.

Just finally the worry I have is

people are going to watch this and go
"It's a big anti-British hate fest."

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,
who fought for our rights of freedoms.

NC: Are you proud of Churchill?

OJ: I'm proud of the British war effort
against the Nazis,

the service people who went to Europe—

NC: As they said "He had
racially supremacist attitudes."

OJ: Of course the people who
ran the British Empire were—

NC: Would you like to take his statue down
at Churchill?

FN: In the long run I think having
a statue of someone who said

"Indians were ghastly people
with a ghastly religion,

the famine was their own fault
because they bred like rabbits."

DV: He said many things, Churchill.

FN: He was glorifying someone a bit dodgy.

NC: Ultimately would you like
the statue to...

FN: I'm not going to make a
comment on that

because I'll be dragged through
the Daily Mail tomorrow.

Nonetheless just to make your point on...

You said
"Chinese rape of African resources",

As if Shell wasn't a British-Dutch company

that was not paying the
Nigerian government … in 1990.

NC: Rose.

RHW: I'm proud that we are now
a diverse society.

NC: Of Chinese.

RHW: We can build on it and go forward.

NC: What is the positive legacy?

What can people look at and remember?

Is there anything about the empire that
still binds us together?

RHW: I think Commonwealth for me
is a good thing and

I am glad that you gave us cricket and
I'm talking with my Caribbean hats on—

NC: That I gave you cricket?

RHW: Yes and look at
what we're doing with it.

Look how terrific we are but I'm also glad

that right here in Britain
we can be a truly...

We're not fully there yet,
we need to work at it.

We need to work at being a better diverse
and multi-ethnic multicultural society,

celebrating each other.

DV: There are three enduring legacies
that we can be proud of.

We've 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.

What a wonderful legacy as well.
So there's lots to be proud of,

we've heard lots of
grievance mongering going on.

NC: Wait Andrea you have the
very last word and it's a quick one.

AM: Well they only need to
speak English today

as the global lingua franca precisely
because we did colonise half the world.

DV: You should be proud of that,
it is a good thing.

AM: That's not a good thing,
That's a necessity brought around...

DV: It's called an achievement.

JS: English is not a very
cultured language I'd say.

I mean, I speak English to...

NC: Listen we did a Shakespeare special
a few weeks ago.

JS: 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.

NC: It was a matter of time...

JS: It's an achievement but it's
not a great achievement.

It's actually a very negative
achievement.

RHW: Let me fuss about immigration.
We are because you went there.

NC: We're finished Rose.

The sun will never set on
The Big Questions.

Thank you very much for watching,
see you very soon.