How British imperialism gave some colonial lemons and democratic India made some modern lemonade

I must thank Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson for his elegant mix of American right-wing overconfidence and a magnificent display of historical ignorance. As I heard about his glorification of or apology for British colonial rule in India, some of the things he said did ring somewhat true inside me on something I had intended to write about. However, his lack of perspectivecompounded by factual inaccuracies stumped me.

Stumping reminds me of cricket, the glorious game given to India by the empire. Social philosopher Ashish Nandy once said cricket is an Indian game accidentally invented by the English. It is now time to elaborate on this metaphor, as the world mourns the demise of Queen Elizabeth II, the occasion that enabled Carlson to say what he said; that the British kind of civiilised India by bequeathing institutions, building churches, and erecting architectural wonders hitherto unseen by the colonial natives.

Let's first get the gross factual inaccuracies out of the way. If southern India's temples and northern India's Mughal and Maratha forts alone are to be taken together, they are comparable, if not surpassing, many aspects of British architecture that India was happy to add to its long history of architectural wonders dating back to the times preceding the industrial revolution and hence special for the extra efforts required (Er, has Mr Carlson heard of the Taj Mahal or the Tanjore temple, perchance?).

Read more:Shashi Tharoor 'loses cool' as TV anchor Tucker Carlson says Britain civilised India

As for churches, they are beautiful but they are essentially shrines, just like temples and mosques. Delhi's Jama Masjid with its beautiful domes has its own architectural charm.

Now, for the institutions. The East India Company indeed built an army that eventually morphed into the British Indian army that in turn fought in the first and second world wars to help the Empire before finding its own native identity. But that, like many other institutions and practices given to India by the British, were essentially meant to strengthen the Empire and its control over India. In other words, like cricket, the institutional gifts given to India by the United Kingdom were largely accidental or incidental, and for most parts, unintentional.

Here's where I must salute our own skills. Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi accepted the British idea of self-governance (swaraj) before they arrived conclusively at 'Poorna Swaraj' (independence). To that extent, their idioms of political discourse followed British practices. And in my view and those of many others, they, instead of demolishing the stuff and building a Central Vista in a hurry, simply turned them one by one into something more Indian, more democratic, and more resourceful.

Here, we may be gently reminded of the fact that the 1940s saw India suffer the triple whammy of a world war, the British-induced Bengal famine, and the horrible partition that led to bloody riots. Independent India saved and created precious stuff, and destroying old laws and buildings was not among the priorities.

What the Indian National Congress did in its post-independence avatar of being the ruling party, and not a freedom movement, was to live up to the old saying: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

And so, the Viceroy's House became Rashtrapati Bhavan. The British-style monarch's agent was replaced in the same palace by the First Citizen called the President of India. The seat of the Imperial Legislative Council was renamed Sansad Bhavan. The British built railways to take mineral wealth out of India but ended up offering a socio-geographical integration to an ancient land. A beautiful accident, as it were.

The Indian Penal Code, sadly enough with itsanti-sedition provisions, remains a grim but useful reminder of the double-edged sword that was imperialism.

Some of the finest churches and colleges in India were built by Christian Jesuits, but it turns out they came from Portugal and France, not Britain. St Francis Xavier opened India's first Jesuit school in Goa in 1543, much before the East India Company set foot in India. It was named St. Paul's College. High-power colleges like the multiple St Xavier's and Loyola chains came much later.

Thomas Babington Macaulay is credited for introducing English education into India under William Bentinck, the Governor-General of India, who also played a vital role in abolishing the practice of Sati (widow burning) in India. While the British do deserve credit for doing away with some horrible practices, it must be remembered that English was introduced as an instrument to promote Western culture, recommended by law council member Macaulay as "useful learning" with an air of "superiority of the Europeans".

Macaulay, circa 1835, would not have imagined that English would one day run a thing he would not have heard of, called the computer, or that the United States, with its freshly-minted independence from British rule, would become a technology superpower. This was another case of lemonade manufactured by India with a British lemon.

Ancient Hindu mathematician Aryabhatta is often credited for inventing the symbol for zero, which is at the heart of binary algebra that runs computers. But that's another story, though not unrelated where colonialism is glorified without substantiation.

You could say the British did do some good things in India, such as incidentally bringing in the Industrial Revolution and modern democratic practices, but they are equally (dis)credited for de-industrialising India's homegrown artisans while practising democracy at home and plunderous imperialism in their colonies.

As a direct beneficiary of both democratic India and the English language, I certainly have a soft corner for some of the things that colonialism did, but enough has been written by solid researchers on both the loot and the use of "rule of law" for authoritarian rule by the British to further their own quest for power.

Some say Indians should not bother about a Fox News anchor. On an impulse, I agree, but on deep thought, somebody who can mislead the average Republican voter in the US needs to be told "Hold my beer". Certainly, someone called Carlson whose name is also that of a famous beer brand.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE: