Read more : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/arts/05iht-rarteast05.html?pagewanted=all

What beautiful craftmanship.

I find that opening sentence quite disturbing and quite a cop-out. We occupied and colonized your country, acquiring fabulous personal wealth—by accident? Please! I agree that cultural exchange was sometimes a happy byproduct, but so was outright robbery and pillage, cultural domination, and romantic and sentimental delusions masking violent conquest.

' @ ' Josna Rege ~ John Robert Seeley's famous quote ~ "the British Empire was acquired in a fit of absence of mind" ~ (by which he meant that there had been no definitive or settled plan for Imperial expansion) and to which you refer, has become almost as much of a cliche as the strictly 'post-colonial' sentiments that you have expressed in your remarks above... neither point of view is really very accurate...

Julian, I grant that I reacted and posted hastily in a reactive mode that, like the statement itself, did not do justice to the messy and often contradictory complexities of the historical reality or the subjectivities of the players themselves, and for that I apologize. At the same time, in my experience "postcolonial" sentiments (and certainly postcolonial studies) are characterized by a refusal to reduce things to black and white. But though there may have been no fixed plan for imperial expansion, there were certainly plans for uneven trade backed by military might. Thankfully, since it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good, there was cultural exchange as well. People who went out to India to make their fortunes also fell in love with it, and we have a rich cultural legacy as a result. But we also have a legacy of loss, impoverishment, humiliation, resentment, and colonized minds.

Josna ~ There is no reason to make apologies ! You will find that all ideological, historical and national perspectives are represented within the membership of the RBSI, most of whom appreciate good debate ~ if not, necessarily, the 'sniff of battle'... A couple of thoughts about your remarks above : (1) It should be remembered that trade between Britain and the Indian sub-continent was, at first (and when I say 'at first' we must consider this period to have lasted for about 150 years !) advantageous to both parties ~ it was only toward the end of the 18th century that it was to become 'uneven', which is a polite way of saying 'exploitative' ... I don't think that this has ever been in dispute. The E.I.C. was first and foremost a commercial enterprise, managed by merchant-capitalists, and their primary motivation was their own profit, not the welfare or the development of 'India' ~ why the rather craven mores and manners of our long dead ancestors should come as any great surprise to observors today, those who are so quick to proclaim their moral indignation and so sanctimonious when they announce the offence that they feel to their 21st century sensibilities , never ceases to astonish me. (2) The 'loot and plunder' (or 'robbery and pillage' as you say, either cliche will suffice) stage of the Anglo-Indian encounter was a relatively short phase ~ about 20 years, then it was largely stamped out by the British goverment ~ who inadvertently found themsleves assuming a greater 'responsibility' for India in the process (a far from universally popular move it should be pointed out)~ here we are back to Seeley and his 'accidental' Empire.... but, there was nothing 'accidental' about British attitudes towards India in the 19th century.... In my opinion, it is the legacy of THIS more 'paternalistic' phase of the colonial period (characterized by massive British investment into the Indian economy and by the consolidation of embryonic political and legal institutions, many of which still exist today) that ironically has left such a bitter taste and is the source of the 'resentment' and of the 'humiliation'... nobody likes being told what is good for them, especially when the person doing the telling is some jumped up Johnny-foreigner from across the seas.... the Victorians, although their intentions were (by and large) honourable, to bring about 'progress' and ' prosperity' and so on (as well as to enhance the reputation of their own nation) , the manner in which they went about it was so high handed and remote, so arrogant (bordering on, and often exceeding, open bigotry) that any 'good' that was being put in place was partially obscured by the 'bad'... the 'loot and the plunder' is an irrelevance (all is fair in love and war afterall, and India gained commercially in the long-run) it was the 'looking down from upon high', the notions of racial superiority , that still rankle in India today... and that is entirely understandable... but the only way to get past it is to discuss it ... openly, calmly, rationally and respectfully... and without recourse to hasty or unfounded judgements... ... As a result and in due course, it is to be hoped that India can escape from its 'colonized mind' and that Britain can escape from its 'colonizers' mind ... the time has surely come ?

Thats was a good post from Dear old JC. :-P. Seriously, something I can live with, somewhat. ;-)

"As a result and in due course, it is to be hoped that India can escape from its 'colonized mind' and that Britain can escape from its 'colonizers' mind ... the time has surely come ?" Amen.

Such a pithy statement ! This may as well define the tone for all discussions on Indo-British history henceforth ! Well said Julian Craig...and thank you Josna Rege for the short but spirited debate.