Review of: ‘Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India’

I recently read Shashi Tharoor’s ‘Inglorious Empire’ about the impact of the British Raj on South Asia. A topic close to my heart, one because of the direct effect on my family, and two because I studied Indian history at university and wrote two dissertations on Indian partition.

The idea for the book came about after nearly 8 million people online watched Indian MP and historian, Tharoor tear up the Oxford Union debate: ‘Does Britain owe reparations’ in 2015. His team won with 185 votes to 56. 

In reference to the British Raj, Tharoor made the excellent point that moral reparations would be much more well received that anything financial - as you could never pay the debt that is owed. He called for a simple but genuine ‘sorry’. This is something the British have never ever done. 

The debate went viral! Tharoor was encouraged to write the book ‘Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India’ in 2017, based on this deeply impactful speech. 

The common argument from defenders of the British Raj, is that the British left a valuable legacy and helped India progress. A position steeped in white supremacy; belittling the capability of the non-white natives.

Tharoor annihilates this argument step by step - with an abundance of evidence.

British Raj devotees claim the beneficial legacy includes: modernisation, railways, free press, governance, rule of law and the education system, but Tharoor proves that these were all are primarily for British interest and a way to exert ongoing control.

Colonisation prevented India from modernising on its own terms, for its own profit, “India was treated as a cash cow.” Tharoor adds a detailed section all about Indian contribution to World War II, which is hardly acknowledged or appreciated by the British.

Tharoor discusses the famous British tactic divide and rule ‘divide et impera’- and blames them for creating tensions between Hindus and Muslims, which Tharoor believes ultimately led to the division of India and the creation of Pakistan.

What I didn’t agree with, was the one-sided portrayal of Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, in this book. Tharoor describes Jinnah in very negative terms and claims that he was favoured by the British compared to the leaders of the India Congress. This couldn’t have genuinely been the case for many reasons, one of them being that the Pakistan that was created, was not what Jinnah wanted. He called it “a truncated or mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan.” Jinnah also did not want the country separated in the careless way it was done. He said: “It is a mistake to compare the basic principle of the demand of Pakistan and the demand of cutting up Provinces throughout India into fragmentation.” 

There is a consistent demonisation of Jinnah from Indian nationalists. It’s as if their own leaders were without blemish, which was not the case. Even Gandhi had his imperfections.

It is worth reading research by historians, Akbar Ahmed and Ayesha Jalal who present an alternative view on Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan. Ayesha Jalal believes that Jinnah wanted a better deal for India’s Muslims, but in a united India. He only used Pakistan as a bargaining chip. She believes Jinnah wanted a loose federation, but Congress were totally against this. In the end, she believes: “It was Congress that insisted on Partition. It was Jinnah who was against Partition.”

Jinnah’s counterpart Nehru (Leader of the Indian National Congress Party) was charming and well-liked by the British, particularly the last Indian Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife, Edwina. Although Nehru famously donned Indian traditional attire in later years, he was an Anglophile at heart. He came from a westernised family. From a young age he was educated at Harrow, and consequently well versed in British ways and part of the ‘club’. Although ironically, the British would still never see Indians as equals, no matter how westernised they were. It is also commonly believed that Nehru had an affair with Mountbatten’s wife and was able to steer the discussions for the future of India in the Congress’ favour.

Sean Phillips, DPhil History at Oxford said: “Caricatures do however still loom large in the literature, with accounts that present Nehru as a handsome, warm personality close to the ‘Hollywood version of a British prince’, the Last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten standing in opposition to that of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who is often defined as a cold, calculating presence.” He adds: “Jinnah is perhaps Partition’s most contested and misunderstood character.”

Jinnah, by leading the Muslim League, and Indian Muslims, was taking up a difficult position. Indian nationalists were completely against a separate Muslim nation, and the British were no lovers of the Muslims who they saw as the instigators of the 1857 revolt (see William Dalrymple’s: The Last Mughal). Then there is the age-old threat that Muslims posed to the west, and those ingrained ‘Islamophobic’ views were also at play (See my review on The Silk Roads).

Tharoor (and other Indian nationalists) unfortunately shows his misunderstanding of Indian Muslims fears, of being a minority in India and not having their own religious and cultural freedoms. They also felt marginalised from the Indian nationalist rhetoric which was couched in an exclusive Hindu framework. Ayesha Jalal said: “The idioms deployed were Hindu idioms - whether it was Vande Mataram or the Wardha Scheme of Education...The sense of exclusion was created by the dominant idioms that the Congress employed despite its rhetoric of inclusionary nationalism.” The situation in India now, with the rise of the right wing Hindu nationalists, gives an insight into the Muslim fear pre-independence in 1947.

It was also true, that although Muslims wanted the right to self-governance, and not all wanted a complete split with India. However, this is what the British did, drawing up the new borders in only 40 days, and in such a way to ensure ongoing tensions and mistrust between the two nations.

Apart from the discussion around Jinnah and Pakistan which are based on an Indian nationalist standpoint, I think this is a very insightful book. It is a direct and matter of fact account of the realities of the British Raj, that everyone needs to be educated about.