Intellectual Honesty amongst Pakistanis.

PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Intellectual Honesty amongst Pakistanis.

(49 posts)

shimatoree
Member

Before and since the independence we have blamed the British for just about everything meaning our ills and problems.
And we continuously give credit the Muslim rulers of our area for the supposed great things they did when they ruled.

Let us ask a few difficult questions.

It is true that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal but what good did it or does it for the common man.
In contrast the British built the Railway system, they built the big bridges on the big rivers.
It is true that Aurangzeb built the Badshahi Mosque, the largest mosque in the world. How many people does the Badshahi mosque feed.
What did the Muslim rulers do that was for the welfare of the common man..
How many hospitals did they built ?
How many universities did they built?
How did they help to bring their people up to date in matters of technological development for the times?

In contrast the British built the Sukkar Barrageand all the other irrigation systems to help more land to come under cultivation to feed the people better.
They established a system of Law and order which worked for 100 years.
They built hospitals.
They built the colleges and universities to educate the people.

Would it have been better for us if they had stayed for another 20 plus years in order to have made sure that we learned the proper way of doing all those things that they did so well.

Don’t you think if they had been here this enormous flood would have been handled in a much better fashion?

If you answer these questions honestly, the answer is not what we wish to believe.

So I must ask the question.

Why are we so dishonest in our thinking.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Aug 2010 22:09 #
alirazaster
Disabled upon Request

on a lighter note
at least, taj mahal is counted among the wonders of the world
taj mahal and other jewels of the mughal architecture is one big reason for the tourism BOOM in india :D
i wish the mughals had made all that in this part of the united india which is now Pakistan. alas :(

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Aug 2010 22:15 #
nota
Member

@shimatoree
"Would it have been better for us if they had stayed for another 20 plus years in order to have made sure that we learned the proper way of doing all those things that they did so well."

No. Seriously! We would still be where we are today (we would have screwed things up faster, that's all). It is not that we don't know the proper way of doing things; it's our unwillingness to do so.

Also, were we not told 1400 years ago about the 'proper way' of doing things? ;-)

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Aug 2010 22:40 #
shimatoree
Member

nota-

you are correct about 1400 years ago but then there is no hpe..

But do you think if the British had stayed till 1960( as they had planned) they might have helped create a class of society which would have started the country on the right foot and left institutions- but then they did leave institutions the civil service and military.

Ok.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Aug 2010 23:31 #
nota
Member

;-)

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Aug 2010 23:54 #
zia m
Member

There is nothing special about Brits, Europeans or Americans.
Around 800 years ago the Muslim scholars believed in reason and logic.That was the Golden Age for Muslims and "Dark Ages" for the Europeans.But it all changed the fundamentalists thought took over among Muslims mostly because of scholars like Ghazali who were against the rationalists like Ibn Rushd.
The Christians on the other hand rejected the fundamentalists Roman Catholics along with their bigotry and violence.

There is no doubt in my mind our problem is the so called educated class.We don't hesitate for a moment to blame god for our incompetence.Wonder what kind of god would punish the most helpless children, women and old people.Why would he spare the elitists educated class from raining brimstone and fire in the cities?

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 0:42 #
shimatoree
Member

I do not think the idea was that there is something special about the British.

The question does arise though-

Why the Muslim rulers( exception Sher Shah Suri) did not " develop" the country and it's people ?
The Mughals except for Aurungzeb were certainly not " Islamist" but they still DID NOT develop the country's infra structure like the British did and that is an undeniable fact. And why did the British built bridges that withstood this great flood while all the bridges built after 1947 have been washed away.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 1:32 #
zia m
Member

Actually the Mughals period was not that bad considering they were descendants of the Mongols.From early 1500 to early 1700 India was in much better shape than the rest of the world.
The Europeans did not come to India to do charity work.
They wanted to exploit the wealth of the subcontinent.
The clear advantage Europeans had was because the start of the enlightenment era.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 2:33 #
shimatoree
Member

Yes the British did not come to India to do charity work- that is true.

But if we apply the same logic to the Mughals- I suppose they also did not come to do charity work.

But what did the Mughals built and for whom ?
They built forts and palaces for themselves-( like the well to do in Pakistan now)
They built monuments and mausoleums for themselves.
It is true that the British built the railway network for their own strategic needs but also for improving the transportation and economy and commerce.
Just look at all the bridges they built.
And do not forget the universities and the educational system.

The British were here for let us say 100 years.

The Mughals were here for 250 years and if you count all the Muslim rulers- they were here for over 500 years.

Compare the performance honestly.

And to compare them with the local princely rulers of the Indian princely states as regards the condition of their subjects.

I feel that we ought to be quite candid and accept that the British were FAR better than the present rulers.
End of story.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 4:11 #
dildar
Member

Shimatoree

Don’t you think that as a nation we are suffering from dissociative identity disorder (DID). We look down on other nations as if we are holier than all. I don’t see any difference between our present rulers and those who are glorified by our fiction writer (the irony is that they call themselves historians) as ‘zill-e-ilahi’s.

I wonder if our people have an obsession with being authoritarians. They hate being questioned and they abuse their power. To them being a king/ruler is just a mean to unleash their inner Satan with full fledge.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 4:51 #
zia m
Member

"I feel that we ought to be quite candid and accept that the British were FAR better than the present rulers"

Sure, anybody be better administrator than the current government.But it would be ridiculous to think we should invite Brits to come back and rule.

We need our own enlightenment movement based on reason and science.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 4:53 #
shirazi
Member

@shimatoree

I applaud you for bringing up yet another delicate issue and trying to swim against the current. I fully agree with you. Had Brits spent few more years things 'd ve been far better on public infrastructure level. Beside their better policies and execution they didn't have defense overhead that present subcontinent has.

Europeans were able to develop after second world war in few decades because they like Japan didn't have to spend good chunk of their GDP on defense. Germany's strong economy and welfare is because American tax payers are paying their defense bills. If some how Pakistan and India can have similar arrangement you 'd see lot of improvement in public infrastructure in no time.

If after debt servicing and defense spending we are left with 30% or so of national budget how can we develop our infrastructure and institutions?

Personally I think Brits 'd have done us a huge favor if they had not left two hostile countries. United India was probably better option but then even united India had to spend on defense to counter China and USSR. So it's a very tough call with all this defense spending I don't know how can we compete with those who don't have this overhead?

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 5:40 #
Beenai
Moderator

@shimatoree ,
@I feel that we ought to be quite candid and accept that the British were FAR better than the present rulers.@

i disagree with the thought .

actually British made sure to leave us with the impression that we cant do without them , or taking independence was a mistake....

they had created such environment and planted such factors ,who has been destroying the structure and keep creating hurdles in the smooth sailing of things .

Britishers for example , have given lands to those locals ,who had not been sincere with their own people and has the capability of ditching their own people .

today , generations of the same people in the name of feudalism are ruining Pakistan badly.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 6:16 #
shirazi
Member

@Beenai

Every society has elite class unless you refer to Marx's bookish communist society. Brits didn't create one for us. The haves are their pre-Brits , pre-Muslims, even in Hindu raj. Even Brits have house of lords full of traditional haves. American society is full of generational haves who have more say in political system. I am not sure how having elite gives us or for that matter anyone excuse to failures.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 6:28 #
Beenai
Moderator

@Shirzai,
No , i am not finding excuses for failures .
i am trying to list them down.
and the first one is feudalism which is hurting our national interests more badly than anything else .
but there are number of factors involve here too for the failure of us as a nation.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 6:33 #
shirazi
Member

@Beenai

How exactly feudalism is number one cause of our failure? Do you want it to be replaced completely by capitalists? Well urban centers are developed that have undermined feudals's influence. As far as feudals enjoying political power for generations is concerned they are replaced by capitalists in cities with the exception of Karachi. In Karachi we all know MQM is sending middle class to legislatures but their militancy is bigger problem than feudalists and capitalists. Besides more than 60% of the time Generals have ruled and they don't need either feudal or capitalist why didn't they deliver?

Uptill Andrew Jackson all American Presidents were feudal lords and still with very few exceptions most of the congressman, senators, governors, Presidents are born with golden spoon. Things are not any different in UK or any established society. Why feudals and capitalists didn't stop progress in those societies but are the biggest hurdle in ours?

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 6:47 #
Beenai
Moderator

@Shirazi,
yes ,point taken.

but feudals has been one of the devastating factor amongst many ,if not the first one .
lacking sense of responsibility ,selfishness and corruption to the roots are other factors .

as long as MQM is concerned .
its always chasing its own short term goals to get power ,get the hold of two cities and get a bargaining position .
thats it .
they don't have any big or national level agenda as such .

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 6:55 #
haider3
member

I've been going through your postings and the only thing I can find to say is: Toba Allah, that they ever return, the mad Brits who broke the back of our self-reliancy and turned us into the puppet nations we've become on the Subcontinent.

I can only endorse what nota said above: "Also, were we not told 1400 years ago about the 'proper way' of doing things?" This is the only way for us to go both here and in Bangladesh. I also appreciated zia m's brief but forceful analysis of past history. Our period of re-enlightenment will begin with the banning of all forms of sectarianism and then you'll see how we flourish and reach the heights.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 7:11 #
choosy
Member

he he he
shimatoree bhai ,
aap chahtay hain kay Britisher wapis ajayien?
bhai hum pe tou hukumat ab AMerika kar rahah hay .
Britishers ko yaad kar kar kay kion ahein bharr rahy ho ?

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 7:36 #
pakistani47
Member

@shimatoree

In response to your points.

1. There was time difference in Mughuls and Brits. They did all this in 19th and 20th Century when a big Scientific revolution was underway.

2. They did all this for strengthening their control. It was only because of Hitler that they have to abondon their plans. Hitler made they very weak.
It was not because of Tahrik Azadi. This Tahrik-e-Azadi was in no way stronger than Tahrik-e-Azadi of Syed Ahmed Shahid and his companions. But that was brutally crushed because at that time Brits were all powerful.

As far as intellectual honesty is concerned. Europeans are biggest intellectual pirates. They stole the theories of Mulsim Scholars used them with their own names and developed on the basis of those theories and research.

If you read about rennaisance history, European admit that it was just because of Crusades and Spanish Muslims that they learnt about the science and technology. During Crusades they came into contact with muslims and they were astonished to see their development in the various fields at that time.

APNI MILLAT PAY QIAS AQWAM-E-MAGHRIB SAY NA KAR
TARKIB MAIN KHAS HAY QUOM-E-RASOOL-E-HASHMI.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 8:36 #
gv
Member

@shimatoree

I think you are right in one aspect which is that the partition was a rushed (botched) affair (6-10 months? was not enough time) and should have taken place over a longer period of time.

This may have allowed for a more peaceful transfer of people and assets and the possibility that issues like kashmir may have been resolved amicably over time. All this would have allowed us to grow/develop in a more organised fashion..

As far as british adminstration is concerned - it had a dual aspect - While their primary motivation was economic, they also saw themselves as 'good christians' carrying the 'white man's burden' and beleived they were benefitting us poor darkies with their technology/education etc.

Secondly; Yes we benefitted from their infrastructure and irrigation projects but that is because they were far sighted enough to see that this development would also serve to increase their economic take via taxation/duties etc. (this farsightedness is what our leaders really lack - they are like infants and want everything now!!!)

Finally i think a major cause for mis governance in Pakistan is that the adminstrative class that they (the brits) bequeathed to us was so 'whitewashed' that they identified more with their colonial masters than with the people they were supposed to govern... hence the continuation of the dyarchic model of government...our very own warped sahib centric civil/security adminstration...

Our government apparatus is still that of a colonial state... where the core beneficiary are the governing classes... (and their families)

The honest 'pukka sahib' type of adminstrator was quickly made extinct due to their inability and lack of vision to adapt to the changing environnment (and mostly because they secretly wished to be an almost gora) and the people who replaced them lacked the education and vision to take the country forward but yet inherited the perfect infrastructure to run the country into the ground.

Unfortunately our governing classes are so myopic that they want to suck the proverbial coffers dry without thinking of ways to keep them filled..

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 11:18 #
shimatoree
Member

I am honored but a bit disappointed with the response on this somewhat touchy subject.

It seems that returning to one's intellectual cocoon of " we really are not so bad" is the most popular theme.

My contention is and I repeat-

I am not saying that the British were angels- no they were not.
They were colonizers and exploiters but what I am trying to bring forth is-
that our Muslim conquerers were much worse as their record shows.
Why we try to identify with high and the mighty emperors and kings and not try to question and critically examine what they actually did.

Someone here has tried to say that there was a time difference between the Mughal rule and the British. Yes that is true and me like everyone else knows that too.
But just for example the Idea of Steam engine has been there since 2000 years in Egypt which remained under " Muslim" rule and what was done with that.
Spanish naval captain and inventor Blasco de Garay, invented an early steam engine to power a ship in the port of Barcelona in 1543.
Now what was happening in the subcontinent in 1543 ?
If Shah Jahan could built the Taj Mahal in the 17th century-
-why could he not have built a transportation infra structure
or built universities for education of the masses
or hospitals for the millions of his subjects from whom he took the revenue.

I feel I am repeating myself and I am not getting through.
Perhaps it is my disability with the English language or perhaps no one wants to hear what I am trying to say.

I am going to try to answer some of the objections that have been raised on this subject.

All I ask for a little bit of intellectual honesty with a shade of introspection.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 11:45 #
shimatoree
Member

ziaM

quote " The clear advantage Europeans had was because the start of the enlightenment era."

Who stopped the Great Mughals from having a tiny bit of enlightenment ? Esp since they had all the money as you said.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 11:47 #
shimatoree
Member

dildar

I am just asking a question by comparing (just) the infra structure development by the British as compared with the other colonizers.

There was one exception -( A Pukhtoon no doubt) named Sher Shah who in 5 years- in 5 years did more for infra structure development than the Mughals did in their 200 years.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 11:51 #
shimatoree
Member

Beenai-

I do not know much Urdu but I think Beenai means vision !

I am going to offer you a short rejoinder.
Please keep in mind that in this great flood- all the bridges built during the British Times did not get washed away in spite of their age while everything built since 1947 DID get washed away.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 11:54 #
shimatoree
Member

Beenai

Quote " Britishers for example , have given lands to those locals ,who had not been sincere with their own people and has the capability of ditching their own people ."

A little correction-

The practice of land grants to one's favourites was started by the Muslim invasion- and even before them by the Hindu Kings. The British merely followed what was the precedent.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 11:57 #
shimatoree
Member

Mirza Sahib-

The purpose of my post was simply to ask WHY our own have not done 1/2 as good as the British.
But in order to answer this question first we have to admit that they-( our own) HAVE NOT done well.
It has been very difficult for me to have written this piece since my family and my tribe has suffered greatly at the hands of the British. I will not go in details but say- banishment, executions, being blown from the mouth of cannons, confiscation of property etc .
But then I would also say that Babur also made many great pyramids of the heads of my tribesmen when he was trying to conquer India.

There are 14000 trains that run everyday in India today. Guess who organized and established that system ?

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 12:04 #
shimatoree
Member

choosy-
Please write in English. I cannot understand what you wrote.

Pakistani47-

I just have one recommendation for you after reading your comments.
Please try a little objectivity combined with critical thinking.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 12:07 #
shimatoree
Member

gv-

Thanks.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 12:08 #
shimatoree
Member

To all-

Continue the discussion. Good luck.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 12:09 #
haider3
member

Shimatoree, thanks for response. I think gv's answer best answered you question. I'm not the right person to participate here in any case. I'm allergic to the whole lot of them, the infrastructure people of the west. I've even been accused of racism of those grounds. So be it. But I doubt that any intellectual dishonesty is involved. More, indifference/detestation to and of whatever the masters of "prosperity" have to offer. I'll shock everyone out of their wits perhaps, but I'm a great believer in shared poverty.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 12:30 #
shimatoree
Member

Mirza Sahib-

To measure one always needs a yardstick.

My purpose( again) for this thread was

How do the champions-( sarcasm) of freedom( our leaders) measure up against the self confessed colonizers.( British)

On Shared Poverty another time -a detailed response will be given.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 12:59 #
haider3
member

Thanks, shimatoree. That would be interesting. As for your question: How do the champions of freedom ... (our leaders) ... colonizers ...? all I can say is there's a false perception here in that we have neither champions of freedom nor leaders in present-day Pakistan. But since you meant it sarcastically, we understand each other perfectly.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 14:42 #
zia m
Member

"Who stopped the Great Mughals from having a tiny bit of enlightenment ? Esp since they had all the money as you said"

You are being more than a bit disingenuous here.You are comparing a period when Europe was coming out of 'dark ages' they were rejecting the dogmas and fanatacism that started to creep in Muslim societies.
Newton had published his principia mathematica and Descartes was busy copying Ibn Sina's work.Not that there is anything wrong with that.Muslims borrowed ideas from the greeks and improved upon them.
Like Newton said, If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
We all are product of our enviornment.There is nothing special about the Europeans or Americans, Pakistanis given the same opportunity and enviornment can perform equally good.

Muslims were writing commentries on Aristotle, when Charlemagne was learning to write his name.
Why don't you try to compare that period in history when Europeans were busy in witch-hunt and the Muslims were most tolerant people.Even the descendents of the Mongols who burnt the libraraies of Baghdad had mostly very tolerant regimes (Mughal Empires) as compared to the medieval Europeans.
This may also help you understand the reasons for our downfall.
PS:You need intellectual richness and not the money for enlightenment.Money is not going to produce the likes of Syed Ahmed, Allama Iqbal or Jinnah.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 22:03 #
haider3
member

zia m, you put that very well, indeed. Not a word needs changing in your above post. Impressive!

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 22:20 #
shimatoree
Member

zia m

disingenuous?

The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom used to accuse a person or thing of being marked with or guilty of the very thing they are pointing out. This may or may not be hypocritical or a contradiction.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Aug 2010 22:23 #
zia m
Member

MG,thanks, coming from you it means a lot to me.I'm not a fan of Mughal Emperors or anyother monarchs for that matter.Just trying to be objective here.

Shimatoree,
I don't know much, but one thing I'm pretty sure of is all of us migrated out of Africa a few hundred thousand years ago.So this race issue does not impress me at all.I hope you understand.

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 1:44 #
shimatoree
Member

MG

I thought you were on my side!

I shall give a detailed reply soon

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 3:09 #
shimatoree
Member

zia-m

Once again I feel I have to explain myself.

My purpose in putting forth this topic is-

To make everyone try to think objectively - both at our own selves and those that we have branded as our enemies.
Alexander Graham Bell got the patent for telephone in 1876. It did not just come out of a dream- but an educational system the foundations of which were laid long before.
Taqi al-Din in 1551 in Turkey devised a steam engine. Nothing happened. And no one knows about him.
After almost 150 years later Thomas Newcomen(1712) made it commercial.

What I am trying to say is that the Muslim people did have lots of very smart and capable people throughout the last 1400 years but-

"Their lot forbade"

Because the society did not look kindly towards the kind of person who is an innovator.
And it still does not.
Take the example of Pakistan- we have Sun, Wind and Coal. Who is stopping you from developing that ?
Your leaders ! Why ?
They want 40 % up front for just allowing you to develop it. If you think this is only in Pakistan. Think again.
The Saudi Arabians, and the Gulf Sheikhs want 50 % of any business that YOU start with your own capital and your own labour.
That is their law.

So we come back to the British again. They did much more than the Mughals.
If I was to use severe language-
I would say that YES the British were very bad colonizers but the Mughals were thieves and robbers just like Zardari.

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 3:53 #
toamin
member

shimatoree

they build the infrastructure that pleased them but they had the economy that attracted british/french/portugues here, competing against each other..

india known as golden sparrow for its richness was because rulers were taking care of the affairs of there people -generally speaking.

you remind us about railroads but don't talk about the motive, how do you substantiate the motive as welfare of the people or smuggling out the local wealth?

what do you say about china opium wars or the great famine of dhaka that killed 1/3 of the population??

what do you say about the technological advances that tipu sultan possessed who did defeat these 'enlightened' forces in the field?

the motive of east india company was not to serve the people of india, the motive was to colonize the people into royal subjects and then maximize the 'profit' or output for their input

they left us, but with very cleverly cultivated a ruling class, class that is corrupt to its core, class that betrayed their people during 1857 and supported colonials, class that even rules us today.. the slaves of the colonials.. transfer of control of power wasn't instantaneous, rather clever planned/controlled..

anyway we can analyze/compare an ordinary citizens living during mughal rule vs british rule (especially muslim population)and see which era was better for muslims in sub-continent or one may also compare the so called colonial development in east india (bengal) vs west india (pakistan)..

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 5:02 #
Beenai
Moderator

@Shimatoree ,
you are talking about a particular mindset .
where a person tend to keep looking back while thinking Past was good .
yah past maybe good or better than today.
but what to do with the fact that we have to live in today .
we can only strive to make our tomorrow better than today .
which cant be done without getting rid of phenomena of keep looking back ...

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 5:41 #
toamin
member

in my opinion, without looking back one would be lost as he/she wouldn't know where he/she came from or where he/she stands and where he/she is suppose to go.. it is all well connected in same string of thought..

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 7:04 #
haider3
member

shimatoree dear, I am on your side, have been from the start. But here you did stir up a hornet's nest with your contention that the Brits were somehow the saviour of the Subcontinent and the Mughals did next to nothing to advance their great homeland. This kowtowing to the West is beneath our dignity, shimatoree. And technology-worship equally.

As for zia m's piece, it was beautifully done and surprising since he is often highly pessimistic about what he sees around him in Pakistan.

Shimatoree, we don't have to agree on everything for me to be on your side, believe me. Respect and affection remain unaffected.

And now Salam Sahib and beenai have also entered the fray with extremely interesting ideas, that makes four of us who don't quite agree about the great things the Brits managed to do for our once united India.

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 9:24 #
Abdul Rahman
Member

The Brits developed infrastructure to plunder resources to fuel the engine of their colonial Empire. That was it.

Read what Yvonne Ridley , the British journalist said about British past soaked in bllood of millions of Muslims all over the world. Incidentally Yvonne embraced Islam under the Taliban.

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 9:40 #
nota
Member

@Abdul Rahman
"The Brits developed infrastructure to plunder resources to fuel the engine of their colonial Empire. That was it."

Precisely!!! That was it and nothing more. And a lot of internal/external conflicts we face (ethnic, territorial, etc) are a gift of the same Brits and were designed that way (and not just here but other countries as well)...

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 10:25 #
gv
Member

@all

I think we're missing the point here..

Well intentioned or not, the Brits initiated projects which benefitted awami development and wealth generation much more so than any of our own indigenous rulers post 1947. That is a simple fact which Shimatoree has pointed out.

To compare them to the Mughals or other past rulers is a case of apples and oranges;

Various past monarchs (e.g Ashoka, Sher Shah, Akbar etc ) were more active than others in facilitating projects/initiatives which would benefit the 'Awam'. (Roads, Caravan Serais, Bait ul Maal etc)which were considered highly farsighted for their times.

To say that the Mughals did not do anything for the public is incorrect. Development initiatives varied with the monarch who occupied the throne as absolute monarchies are essentially dependent on the whims of an individual which is why it is a flawed system of governance to begin with.

Keep in mind the traditional role of a classical absolute monarchy was simply to provide peace (via superior military force) and deliver justice to the kingdom/empire which would result in succesful trade and economic growth. (therefore the emphasis on roads, caravan serais etc to benefit traders/merchants). The pre Brit rulers, Mughals etc fulfilled this role succesfully to a large degree hence the legends and stories of the proverbial wealth of the Indies

As we all know, when the Brits began to exercise revenue collecting and eventually political power in Bengal, Bombay and Madras and the UP, Mughal power was already in a sharp decline - leading to a patchwork of states and principalities all jostling for power and prominence.

Therfore certain states/regions benefitted from better rulers (and natural factors) than others. (Mysore, Bahwalpur, Punjab, Hyderabad) which resulted in divergent levels of development for different states/regions of the sub-continent.

When the Brits emerged as the sole super power in this region - the world was (very) slowly beginning to practice in earnest a humanist/socialist/utilitarian form of governance. Where the benefit of the majority began to be perceived as paramount..

Keep in mind the bulk of the irrigation/infrastructure projects were carried out late 19th and early 20th century. i.e. post the success of Mill, Bentham, Marx and Engels and other utilitarian / socialist philosophy... Prior to 1850 very little of this sort of development existed in british administered India.

I think it is highly likely that if the sub-continent had escaped colonialism - the indigenous rulers woud have eventually fallen in line with this global process and initiated a more benevolent form of rule - monarchic or otherwise...

(ps sorry for the rambling post)

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 11:06 #
haider3
member

No, not rambling. That was good, gv. Very good, in fact. And again, as with zia m above, it bore the stamp of objectivity. Grateful to you.

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 11:12 #
shimatoree
Member

MG

FOOD for thought has been provided.

The hornets return to their nests.

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 11:27 #
haider3
member

Thanks, shimatoree. We knew we could count on you. Well-fed we are, But we come out of this one stung from head to foot.

Posted 1 year ago on 19 Aug 2010 11:40 #