Sankrant Sanu's article from 2004 is still relevant.
PS: up-to-date link.
An excerpt:
PS: up-to-date link.
An excerpt:
The first major difference between the US and India is in the systems of governance. Traveling extensively in rural India, I find that the relationship and attitude of the people to the government is still that of a colonizing power, not something that either belongs to them or is in touch with their aspirations. After living in the US for many years, it is clear that there is a far higher degree of ownership and accountability of the local government to the local communities. Furthermore, the common citizen, for most of his or her needs, interfaces with the government in the local city or township rather than at the state or the national level. Power and accountability are devolved to a much greater level to the local administration. Also, American enterprise is far more privatized than is the case with India and there is less involvement of the government in daily life.
By contrast, in the Indian system, power is centralized to a much greater degree at the level of the national and state governments. Further, the centralized colonial state apparatus, right from its inception, was never designed to serve the people. As an example, the government official at the district level was called a collector, his primary role in the system was extortion, not service. Similarly, the power of the police apparatus devolved downwards as a means of control of the local population for the benefit of the rulers, not as an arm of the community for its own protection and service. The laws themselves were created and imposed in a top-down manner – and these laws were both alien to the people (the Indian penal code today is still based on the penal code created by the British in 1860, with a basis in the British system) and were created and directed for the benefit of the ruler, not the ruled. This included laws that outlawed many of the traditional sources of livelihood of the people, including textile manufacturing and metallurgy, as well as forms of traditional medicine to further the economic interests of the British.
Logging you in...
Thomas Pindelski · 659 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 659 weeks ago
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_...
This may also help, it illustrates the difference between Asia, Africa and Australia, New Zealand.
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_...
"According to Dharampal, the British purpose in India, perhaps after long deliberation during the 17th century was never to attempt on any scale the settlement of the people of Britain or Europe in India. It was felt that in most regions of India, because of its climate, temperature range, gifted, industrious and dense population, the settling of the people of Europe would serve little purpose. "
" Therefore the purpose was defined as bringing to Britain and Europe, surplus products of the varied industry of the people of India, and the taxes imposed on this industry. Such a proposal, in fact, was very clearly put forward around 1780 by Prof. Adam Ferguson of Edinburgh. Ferguson was a professor of moral philosophy. (Interestingly. he is also regarded as the founder of British sociology.)
While discussing the mode of governing India, Ferguson raised the question of the purpose of this governance. According to him, the aim was to transfer as much as possible of the wealth of India to Europe. And this task, according to him, could not directly be conducted by servants and institutions of the British state. They would be too bound by rules and state discipline to do justice to the task. The transfer of wealth to Europe, he felt, would generally require the bending and breaking of rules as no major extraction or extortion from the ruled could be effectively done through instruments of the state. He therefore felt that the direct governance of India should be in the hands of the servants of a body like the E.I. Co., where the servants could when needed disobey orders and rules. But the company should be controlled and supervised by a high-power body constituted by the state. It is this logic and arguments that eventually led to the formation of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India in 1784. "
Sankrant · 658 weeks ago
In response to Thomas' questions about the difference between Australia, New Zealand and the US vs. say the Asian or African colonies, the response is in the article:
The system in America was, ironically, also started by people who were originally English. The dramatic difference comes from the fact that America was a colony of settlement, while India was a colony of exploitation. In America, the natives were largely exterminated since the wealth of the land lay mainly in its natural resources and not in the produce of the natives and the systems of governance that evolved were what the settlers chose for themselves. In India, the wealth lay mainly in the output of the locals. The system was designed not for the settlement of the English, but for the most efficient exploitation and control of the Indians for obtaining the local produce via extortive taxation to be carted away to England. Thus, in America, the police force, for instance, evolved from the need of local communities for *self* policing.