Book Review: An Era of Darkness

An Era of Darkness
  -- Dr. Shashi Tharoor

Shashi Tharoor got the idea of this book, when his speech, in a debate at The Oxford Union (whether Britain owes reparations to her former colonies), became a sensation. The speech became so popular that honourable prime minister of India praised the author at Indian Parliament, though he belongs to the opposition party. It even created flutters in political circles that, the then invincible prime minister was sending signals, to lure him to switch his loyalties.

[The debate was, whether Britain needs to return some of its loot to her former colonies, that include India (It's funny that, even the word 'loot' itself entered into Oxford Dictionary from India). Representatives from Britain's former colonies argued that Britain does owe reparations, and some of the representatives from Britain argued against it. Some who were against it, accepted that there was a massive loot. But, they argued, the loot and the favours done by Britain to her colonies can never be quantified. So, reparations are not practical. Shashi Tharoor presented a powerful case for India, and ended his debate with a demand of just a symbolic 1 pound per year to be paid as reparations by Britain to India. Besides, he demanded a formal acceptance of wrongdoings by The Empire, the way Germany does for the Holocaust]

Apologists of The British Empire argue that, it contributed immensely to India in terms of political unification, infrastructure(railways), sowing seeds of democracy, social reforms, building strong army, industrialisation etc., The author tears down each of these claims, with facts and figures from his extensive research, and, of course, his inimitable debating style.

Let's look at political unification. I always had this question in my debates with my Hindu Nationalist, Hindutva Apologist and Chauvinist friends, "what do they mean by India, when they refer to the greatness of ancient India?". I couldn't find any reference to any dynasty/kingdom that ruled all of the current India, before 1947, in the last 3000 years. Emperor Ashoka of Maurya dynasty might have come close to it, some 2500 years back. But, even then, a large part of South India was not part of it (Cholas and Pandyas ruled it till Moghul and British invasion). Marathas ruled a large part of the current India, around 300 years back, just before the British rule. Again, majority of South India was out of it. So, I was of the opinion that, there can't be anything Indian that the whole country can claim, before 1947, in terms of ownership, knowledge, wealth etc., and 1947 Brexit was also the birth of India. But, the discussion about Indian GDP being 25% of the world's GDP, where as Britain's was around 5% or less, in 1700s, and how that attracted various European countries/companies, including East India Company, indicates that, though there was no political unification, there was this idea of India, long before the birth of modern India. That was a kind of eye-opener for me. About the British getting credit for political unification, the discussion on how partition was done, how princely states were given a choice to stay independent, and how a white man, who never visited India before, was given charge of drawing borders of India and Pakistan in 1947, throws right light on the British contribution to India's political unification.

Tall claims of the British about establishing Indian railways, for the sake of India's development, don't hold any water. Indian Railways was largely built for the transport of goods (raw material from India to Britain and products from Britain to Indian markets) and military. Apparently, per KM cost of building rail-road was the highest in India, compared to any other country at that time. This was part of the organised loot, to help the British companies. Passenger transport, that discriminated against the natives, was just an add-on. Author ends it with a simple argument, "a lot of countries built railways, without getting colonised". Period. Contribution of British Raj to industrialisation of India is no more visible than it is in the textiles. Before the entry of East India company, India's textiles were in high demand, world over. Company methodically destroyed the industry and converted India, to a mere supplier of raw material to the British manufacturers. The organised loot goes much beyond import/export from/to Britain. Heavy taxation, import of highly paid (from Indian coffers, of course) bureaucrats from Britain to govern India, handsome pension for the retired British officers, systematic destruction of one of the then best shipping industry etc., tilted the GDP balance the other way in 200 years. By the time the British left India, India' GDP went down from 25% of world GDP to a small single digit.

The British apathy and racism against Indians was evident throughout their rule. Particularly, when they were handling famines during their period, which caused starvation deaths in millions. Though India was self sufficient in terms of its agricultural production, disproportionate exports of food grains to Britain, its other colonies, and African and European conquests, left Indians starving. Instead of working on their management, they lamely quoted Malthusian Theory as escape. Unlike  the other European colonial powers, the British never mingled with Indians. They kept them at arm's length, even in the higher echelons. In their celebrated Indian Civil Service (which Nehru famously ridiculed as neither Indian, nor Civil, nor a Service), though they accepted some Indians, they limited them to a certain rank. Same goes with the judiciary.

In the last 70 years of Independence, India had overcome a large part of inheritance from the British Raj. One monster that still stands tall today, is the outcome of their Divide et Impera - Divide and Rule. The stark difference between Islamic dynasties and the British Raj is the loot. Though there are several muslim conquerors, who attacked India for its wealth, and looted India several times, their dynasties that ruled India severed their ties with their origins, sooner or later. Many married Rajputs and other Indians, and were born (many of them have Indian mothers), brought up and died in India. They built wealth, and kept it in India. Unlike them, the British never treated India on par with Britain. They imported bureaucrats, paid them well with Indian money, who retired with Indian pension in Britain. Despite that, the British managed to create more hatred in India towards their predecessors, than towards themselves. There was a lot of concerted effort behind that. In the large part of freedom struggle, Indians fought together and their religion took a backseat. In the last 30 years before 1947, Divide et Impera was used while enfranchising Indians and to break their unity, successfully. While Nehru was kept in jail for 3 years (close to 1947), Jinnah was given undue importance and free-hand (against the wishes of more popular Muslim leaders from Congress, who were against partition). The result is in front of us to see. Even after 70 years of Independence, a stupid politician can make an inflammatory comment, for/against a religion, to impress a large part of people that belong to one or the other religion.

The author did a great job of presenting hundreds of years of rule by East India Company and the British Raj, with hundreds of references for the interested to deep dive. The best thing about the book is, it's a good read, whether a reader aligns with the author's political affiliations or not. :-)