Everyone is writing about the 60th anniversary of Indian independence. Contrarian behaviour is encouraged by my editor. Hence this tribute (eulogy?) to that grand and controversial edifice of modern human history — the Raj — with expectations of brickbats from assorted illiberal liberals. In his acceptance speech while receiving an honorary doctorate from Oxford, Dr Manmohan Singh suggested that historians revisit the Indo-British encounter with “balance and perspective”. In his usual perceptive manner, he hit the nail on the head.

Sixty years is a good time to ensure that there is a fair appraisal of an empire on which the sun never set and whose brightest jewel was our very own puzzling, complex peninsula. My father remembers a time when on Mount Road (now Anna Salai) in Madras (now Chennai) little boys would yell rude remarks to red-faced Tommies from a distance — the operative phrase being ‘from a distance’. Years later, when I lived in London, he just could not believe that I had an Englishman for a chauffeur who actually held open the car’s door for me. An Englishman to him was an awesome person who dispensed commandments and edicts. Things have changed. The English (or more correctly, the British; for the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and even natives of the Isle of Man were significant contributors to the imperial enterprise) seem more accessible and their past and present achievements more amenable to a fresh set of judgments.

Without the Mughals, we would have no tandoori food, no Taj Mahal, no Mian-ki-Todi and so much else. If we can view India’s Mughal encounter with a sense of shared pride, why not the British one? The best minds among Indians of that era appreciated the contributions of the Raj. This was true of Naoroji and Dutt, who were critics of British fiscal policy in India. It was true of Ram Mohan Roy, who told the Frenchman Victor Jacquemont that he wanted British rule to “continue for many years”. It was true of Vivekananda, who admired the Kshatriya spirit of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. It was true of Syed Ahmed Khan, who felt that British rule made possible an evenly balanced Indian polity. It was true of Gandhi, whose opposition to British rule never deprived him of his admiration for the country of his youth. He was most upset with the prospect of Hitler bombing the “beautiful country” of Britain. It was true of Nehru, who acknowledged the debt he owed to the ideas developed by the British parliamentary system. It was true of Ambedkar, who saw British rule as the liberator of India’s depressed classes. It was true of Ramaswami Naicker, who saw British rule as the catalyst that made possible a revolt against the entrenched homo hierarchicus.

... contd.