Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India

Rating:
Summary: Limited Account
Review: Despite this being a huge, single-volume history, I thought that it was a very readable account, written so well that the pages flowed by. Yet I found that at the end of it I'd not had many convincing answers to the questions Lawrence James posed - for example, just how did the British manage to rule India for so long, and what was the real effect on Britain and India?

It's depressing that any discussion of the Raj tends to bring out the worst in some Britons and Indians. On the part of the latter, there is a tendency towards utter dismissal of the British presence (to fit the needs of Indian nationalism) coupled with a myopia about just how much passive and active collusion on the part of Indians helped set up and sustain the Raj. This then develops into the fanciful belief that India was a garden of Eden in 1757, was thereafter despoiled by the British and would be a force on a par with Japan had not the Brits arrived. Some then go on to dismiss the Mughal Empire in similar terms. This thesis seems illogical to me - if India was so advanced, united and powerful a society, then why did Indians put out the lights once the British (and the Mughals) arrived?

The traditional British view, which Lawrence James examines more closely, is equally laden with humbug. This one postulates that the British were there to reconstruct Indian civilisation, dragging it into the modern world, providing a common language, an up-to-date infrastructure and unifying a disputatious country. So, Indians should for ever be in our debt. As James points out very early in "Raj", the British notion of their "mission" in India was a fig-leaf, used to salve consciences as to the true nature of the Raj. It seems to me that all empires are not built to benefit those ruled - they exist to benefit the rulers. Only when the actual and/or perceived costs of ruling outweigh the benefits does the imperial power leave. Either that or a stronger power boots them out.

The limitation of Lawrence James's account is that he spots the fig leaf but then goes on to debate (albeit briefly) the effects of British rule precisely in those terms. For such a large work, I found it disappointing that there was little socio-economic analysis and almost none about the administrative structure of the Raj. Both are crucial - only then the Raj be discussed on its own terms. What were the economic benefits which so lured the British? Did they change over time? What were the real costs, both economic and social? These are equally important questions for India itself.

It just won't do to conclude by referring to the British legacy in India and stating that these were benefits of the Raj. This would presuppose that there was a master plan, an intention to build a better India for the Indians (the fig-leaf again). No doubt there are beneficial legacies, but surely these were lucky by-products rather than deliberate bequests. I'm not convinced that bridges in Agra were built out of altruism (that is as tenable as arguing that Roman roads were constructed to impress generations of future engineers).

Instead, there were confusing short references. At one point James cites exploitation of the Indian peasantry (high taxes), but later on states that the same class were the staunchest supporters of the Raj. Why? He does try to emphasise the fact that Indian princely states were complicit in the Raj, but the limitations of the analysis mentioned above means that their role is never fully explained nor put into context. Instead, much emphasis is placed on military might being the king pin of British power.

Despite all these limitations, "Raj" is a lively account, providing what is essentially a skimming review of British rule. But don't expect it to address many of the weightier issues.

G Rodgers

Rating:
Summary: Chauvinistic ramblings
Review: I cannot understand why a couple of my fellow Indian reviewers disliked this book. It is certainly written from a British perspective but is generally fair and certainly not slow to point out the shortcomings of the Raj. Perhaps there are some people who cannot bear to accept the many benefits that India has gained from her contact with the British.

After years of post-colonial propaganda when Indian children were encouraged to demonise their former rulers I think there is a new spirit of objectivity in our country and books like James's can be read in a mature fashion. He is particularly strong on the pre-mutiny period and underlines the 'accidental' nature of the conquest.

This is the best possible introduction to the subject.

Rating:
Summary: Well-written but limited
Review: It is not often that a book with 736 pages leaves one empty. The book should be retitled a military history of the British Raj, as Mr. James uses his considrable talents and efforts on the colonization of India and its staying power, and very very little time and effort on the net result of the modernization of India. The central thesis of the book is that the British were benign autocrats and the Raj was a boon to India. This thesis is debatable but what irks this reader is the limited scope of this book. James spends almost no time on the transforming effects of the Raj on the Indian people, and how the idea of India arose among the people. The reforms of Gandhi were western inspired, and democracy in general a gift from Britain, but James does not discuss how these views arose and evolved among the Indian elite. He barely mentions the Indian presence in the Raj bureacracy and its transforming power, while the "martial races" in the Raj miltary are discussed at length. The rebirth of poetry and literature among the Indian elite is not discussed. And this book is not merely a military history as the British view of colonialism is discussed at length, as seen by the frequent (and nauseating) snippets of Kipling. The battles within Congress, changes in the Indian education, the rise of different ethnic groups within the Raj and the ICS are not discussed. Finally, Muslim fears of a Hindu Raj are mentioned but not adequately explanined. James is at his best when he delves into the adventures of Clive and his compatriots, but the book is not a history of the British Raj, but rather a history of the conquest of India.

Rating:
Summary: Biased and intellectually bankrupt
Review: There are lies, damned lies, statistics and then this book. The book makes you believe the British Raj, was some how an exercise in bringing peace, prosperity and moral upliftment to the barabarians of India. LOL! Which culture was it that developed our number system (it sounds "a lot like" India). Which culture found that the world was a sphere, proposed a creation theory similar to the big bang, had and still has an artistic tradition of painting, poetry, architecture and sculpture preceding that of Greece or Rome and still did long after their downfall. Which civilisation has a philosphical tradition that has only been reached by western thought in the last 50 or so years. To further make the point the so called British crown jewels are actually Indian. Even the United States was found by Columbus when trying to reach India.

There is only passing mention of the horrible atrocities and more significantly the administrative incompetence that lead all of India into a state of gradual economic decline. Bengal, once one of the riches areas of the entire world, was slowly but surely ground to poverty through British negligence and stupidity. This is only hinted at when in reality its pretty much the whole point when analysing the affect of the "Raj".

The book talks of British moral superiority vs the despotic nature of Orientals at a time when Australian aborigines were being hunted like game animals by the very same people and in India millions of peasants were dying of famine. Yet the author fails to mention that such famine was previously unheard of, due to proper cultivation and storage of produce that had preceded the British. The author makes a point of mentioning how brave the English soldiers were in comparison with their "native" enemy often winning when outnumbered, yet fails to reason that the use of guns vs swords may have been a more telling reason for such victories. And when Indian armies do defeat the British it is metnioned so incompletely that an alert reader is left wondering what is being hidden.

Regarding one of the other reviews, I agree that there is some criticism of the British view, however if the facts were poperly represented such criticism would clearly be seen as merely tear drops to counter an ocean of idiotic ideology. And yes to think that the British thought that they - with their once a week bathing habits were going to civilise the world is definatley hilarious - My god thoe guys were stupid! Well perhaps that explains their success - they had nothing to lose! Nonetheless, I'm still giving the book 5 stars for his writing ability amd I don't want to see the poor guy losing sales because of me! But do get Nehru's book for something more intellectually stimulating.

Rating:
Summary: Pink Gin and Polo
Review: This book seems to have drawn mixed reviews because of an inherent design limitation: it is the story of "British India," from the Battle of Plessey (1759) to independence (1947). In no sense is it a history of "India" from 1759 to 1947. So the starring roles are all given to Anglo-Saxons: conqueror Clive, corrupt East India men like Hastings, ambitious Army men such as Wellington, Hough and Campbell, enlightened viceroys (Lord Curzon), explorers (Burton), young men on the make (both young Winston Churchill and young George Orwell spent their formative years on the frontier) and of course Rudyard Kipling, the Bard of Empire, who is quoted extensively. There is little analysis of nationalists such as Nehru, Jinnah and Bose, and James' hostility towards Ghandi is so sparingly articulated that one can only assume the publishers deleted a more cogent critique for legal reasons. (Under Indian law, the Ghandi estate still has the right to sue for defamation.) James also nurses misgivings about Mountbatten, who he considers overrated: he feels Mountbatten's predecessor, Lord Wavell, was underrated. Taking all these limitations on board, however, this is a fascinating European history and it tells us more about the English national character - the stiff upper-lip, the stubbornness, the sense of hard-won pride, the occasional lapses into humbug - than many a domestic drama.

Rating:
Summary: A big story from an unabashed Empire-lover
Review: This is a big picture account of Britain's involvement in India from the mid-1700s to 1947. On the whole its very enjoyable and enlightening and worth four stars for its content and style. The exception is anepilogue which tries to credit Britain with everything that's good about modern India and blame all its faults on geopolitics and the Indian psyche....whatever that might be. It's hard to describe how angry I felt when reading such biased nonsense.

Raj's strength is the period running up to the mutiny. From the early days of the East India Company, to the hours running up to the mutiny, James paints the pre-imperial days as an merchant's adventure story that was spoiled by cynical exploitation of the native population by missionaries and Darwinists and the imposition of an unfair tax system that will sound familiar to many from other colonial regimes. After reading the early chapters, you'll wonder why the mutiny didn't come any sooner.

Then, in 1857, comes the imposition of colonial rule. James views the 90 years of London rule as a positive period - except, that is, for the Amritsar massacre and other obvious misdeeds. India was left with a free flowing democracy, a competent civil service and a judicial legal service. Apparently, this is something that the British should be proud of. The period is covered in great detail and - if you're prepared to ignore the author's obvious love of the empire - then you'll learn quite a lot. Predictably, James doesn't have much to say on the arrogance with which Britain administered its colonial subjects. (Those wishing a more balanced account should check out City of Djinns by William Dalrymple.)

Despite these flaws, I'd still say Raj is well worth the effort. There's quite a lot on the Great Game, loads on the day-to-day drudge of working for the Empire and some decent maps that help to explain your geographical questions. James also kicks things off with some initial mumble on the Mughal decline that sets the stage quite nicely.

Four stars....with reservations

Rating:
Summary: A great primer for British-Indian history
Review: This is an interesting and informative history book. No doubt it has a Western bias just as it would likely have a different bias if written by an Indian. Its bias should not penalize its excellence in the minds of potential readers. After all, the most interesting books have a point of view.

As an American, the primary fact that I got out of this book was that India was the British Empire (after 1776). Without India, Britain would have been just another average colonial power. Therefore, the Raj is a cornerstone of British history, one sadly overlooked by basic history courses in high school and college in the US.