The defeat of Indian states against Britishers was not the defeat of Indian army but the defeat of stationary and backward society against dynamic and regressive society.
Britishers suffering from intrinsic superiority complex defeated Indians. According to Indians, Britishers were unduly cruel so they were victorious. Now, these two theories doesn't exist.
Difference in the quality of leadership:: India was inferior to the Britishers in the case of second class leadership. Success of leadership depends on the situation existing at that time and the Indian leaders didn't had that opportunity.
The sources of India were divided and used against herself while the resources of British were unified, replenishing and resilient. Once the loss of Indian resources was lost forever and the British loss at one place was compensated by the reserves of other place. Indian resources were non expandable. Both the Indian and the British army were fighting at the cost of India herself. There was no fight for India but it was used as instrument.
Lack of concept of Nationalism:: The modern concept of nationalism doesn't existed at that time instead it was tribal nationalism.
In Europe the medieval feudalism concept was relinquished and was rising into state power whereas in India, after the breakage of Mughal empire, feudalism was strengthening. At that time Europe was having industrial revolution. Indians were not having concept of modern nationalism and Europe had negative nationalism ie, the prosperity of one nation depends on exploitation of other nation.
The greatest mean of culture is language, it is the spirit of culture and in India there had been the tradition of learning rulers language (...to get government jobs and trade facilities by language..)
Britishers suffering from intrinsic superiority complex defeated Indians. According to Indians, Britishers were unduly cruel so they were victorious. Now, these two theories doesn't exist.
Difference in the quality of leadership:: India was inferior to the Britishers in the case of second class leadership. Success of leadership depends on the situation existing at that time and the Indian leaders didn't had that opportunity.
The sources of India were divided and used against herself while the resources of British were unified, replenishing and resilient. Once the loss of Indian resources was lost forever and the British loss at one place was compensated by the reserves of other place. Indian resources were non expandable. Both the Indian and the British army were fighting at the cost of India herself. There was no fight for India but it was used as instrument.
Lack of concept of Nationalism:: The modern concept of nationalism doesn't existed at that time instead it was tribal nationalism.
In Europe the medieval feudalism concept was relinquished and was rising into state power whereas in India, after the breakage of Mughal empire, feudalism was strengthening. At that time Europe was having industrial revolution. Indians were not having concept of modern nationalism and Europe had negative nationalism ie, the prosperity of one nation depends on exploitation of other nation.
The greatest mean of culture is language, it is the spirit of culture and in India there had been the tradition of learning rulers language (...to get government jobs and trade facilities by language..)
No comments:
Post a Comment