Two months ago, the Oxford Union held a debate on whether or not the British owe reparations to its former colonies. Sashi Tharoor took part in it claiming that yes – the British have a moral responsibility for the years of colonization and subjugation. That video has gone viral and is being shared on social media by those demanding the return of the Kohinoor, and payments etc etc.
I however, believe the British owe us nothing. It’s not because I deny the harms and evils of past colonization. I’m the first one to agree that the subjugation of people is a terrible thing. There can be no excuse for what the British government did back in the day – not just to India, but to numerous other countries as well. And not just the British. Many other European countries like Spain, France, Portugal and Italy among others were responsible.
So that’s not the argument I’m making. I’m not claiming that colonization was a good thing. What I’m claiming however, is that it’s over and we’re beyond the point of recriminations and debts. Why?
Because everyone involved is dead!.
I’m a strong advocate of letting bygones be bygones. Especially when both the perpetrators and the victims are no longer in the land of the living. Children are not responsible for the acts of their parents. They are born into the world free of debt, and neither will their debts be passed on. The days of pushing culpability for the actions of someone onto their descendants are long over. It goes against every principle of natural justice.
In the same vein, it’s absurd to blame current Germany for the actions of their country during World War II. The people living today had nothing to do with what happened close to 80 years ago. It’s time to move on.
Many people bring up the question of Modi’s involvement in the Gujarat riots and ask me “For how long will you talk about it”? My answer has always been the same – the court cases have to continue for as long as the perpetrators and victims are alive. The farther back an event occurred, the less we have to feel bad about it. Once everyone is dead, there’s an end of the matter.
But others may point out that a country continues even if the people who make it up are dead. I disagree with this. A country is nothing without its people. When the people change, it’s no longer the same country. What is a nation after all? A land with some borders governed by laws. A country by itself is a dead entity – or nonliving to be precise. A country cannot cry. It cannot feel. It can’t do good or evil. Only people can do that. And when no person is alive who is responsible for a crime, that entire issue is over and done with.
So who is responsible for India’s past colonization woes? Are there no reparations to be made? Is there no justice? The answer is simple – justice has no meaning anymore. It’s as if what occurred was done by a natural force like an earthquake or a flood. Do we seek justice for a volcano? Do we seek reparations for a tsunami? In the same way, we can no longer seek payments, debts, or reparations for what was done by people who are dead, and where the direct victims no long number amongst the living.
The past is past. We can study it for interest and learn from it. But it’s an academic matter of no real emotional value anymore. We don’t have any connection to our ancestors apart from some DNA. We didn’t know their personal lives, and they didn’t know us. So any connection we feel for them is entirely illogical.
Tharoor was quite clear he was not asking for financial compensation. He was asking for acknowledgement for what was done in the past so that reconciliation can happen. Britain cannot hold the moral high horse, in international diplomacy for example, when they have not faced the sins of their own past, let alone their most recent ones. Even today I hear “but we gave you the railways” from Brits my age. They have learnt this in school. It’s gotten better, but what Edward Said called orientalism is alive and well, and part of the problem is that they have not been sufficiently called on it. South Africa had an official reconciliation movement, so did Rwanda, and these serve some purposes. Germany is a striking example whereby they have faced their past at an official level. Then you can move on. But the big takeaway from the Nazi episode is “never forget”. Therefore, while there is a resurgence of neo-Nazism in Europe there is also a counter-force of people who clearly remember the past and try to push back because they have not forgotten. Our connection is not to our ancestors but to a past that must not be forgotten so that it is not repeated. And for the perpetrators of the past, they must acknowledge their wrongdoing to be seen as taking steps to not repeat them.
In reply to The Bride
I feel there is no connection to a past created by our ancestors. As a person in today’s generation, I have as much connection to Nazi Germany as today’s Germans. Each generation starts anew with a fresh slate, completely disconnected from the acts of their forefathers. In my opinion, that is how reconciliation can happen – by simply waiting for everyone concerned to die out.
In reply to bhagwad
“Each generation starts anew with a fresh slate, completely disconnected from the acts of their forefathers.” Lolz, okay. I completely disagree, but I’m curious to know when your statute of limitation ends, and how you determine that? By your logic, should we be forgetting about the Modi government’s doings, to use a polite term, in Gujarat, or is that to be part of our collective amnesia too?
In reply to The Bride
I’ve actually talked about this point in the post :) . To reiterate – for me, the statute of limitation ends after the death of all those involved.
Hehe,
This seems strange. “The state”, “a corporation”, etc. exists as a legal entity even when the specific people might have died. This is a fairly well understood concept. I am not aware of any civilized society where this principle is not respected. In fact, civilization itself would be impossible without it. Imagine if agreements between two companies were voided because the CEOs died. Imagine if the Supreme Court judgement laying out the basic structure of the Indian Constitution was considered null and void because all the judges on that bench were dead :)
That said, I think talking about reparations now is pointless. We wont get any and on the other hand it makes the British look powerful and Indians look like beggars. Treat the British with the contempt that we would have for any small island nation. Even the Greeks would owe us compensation if we thought that way. But we dont make such arguments to Greeks and Mongols, we look upon them with a combination of disdain and pity, the rightful way for a powerful nation to treat a mini-state. Today’s Britain does not deserve the amount of respect Tharoor gave them. Who are they to give reparations? They are not even a sovereign country today…just America’s poodle. Since when do poodles have independent agency? Maybe we should ask America to pay on behalf of what their pet did. Now, that’s fair :)
In reply to Sumit
Well, of course the state and corporations exist as legal entities. But if we’re only talking legalese, then the British government in that time was under no obligation to respect India. There were no treaties, no contracts, and no agreements. The UN declaration of human rights was formulated only in 1948 – long, long after the European nations colonized the world.
So from a strictly legal perspective, there is nothing to apologize for, since no formal crime has been committed.
This entire argument is not one of legalese, but one of ethics. From an ethical point of view, does the Britain of today own reparations to India? And for that, I say no.
In reply to bhagwad
From an ethical point of view, does Britain owe reparations? I say that the question is not important. In fact, Tharoor here has played the part of a colonial subject quite perfectly. In the 21st century, British “power” exists only in the colonial slave mentality of people like Tharoor. By dressing up like a sorry ass Brit stuck in a time warp and making a case at the Oxford Union under the watchful eye of the British crown, he has warmed lots of British hearts. As Tharoor describes the imperial savagery, you can see the British filling with pride as they are reminded of the time when the British were referred to as lions and not poodles. Sadly, many Indians have let their grievance burst out when they saw this video making the British even happier. This video has been a superb propaganda victory for British power.
We Indians seriously need to wait. This is not the time.
In reply to Sumit
I don’t know about whether the brits felt good or not, but I completely agree that the question is not important. More than that in fact- it makes no sense.
I fully agree with Bhagwad.
The question is, how far back do we want to go?
Do we want to go back 200 years of history and ask for reparations or apology or whatever? Or do we want to go further back? Some would want to go back 2000 years or 20000…
It is pandora’s box. Do Dravidians too deserve something? Do all oppressed communities deserve something? Do so-called Dalits or victims of class based society deserve something? If we go through history, every society, every class has resorted to atrocities when they got chance.
The farthest point could be extinction of Neanderthals!!
A couple of people leaving African land…of whom we all are descendants…
Is the world same today?
But, yes, igniting these chapters of history does matter. Only to solve the purpose that these kind of chapters are not repeated. So that the learning never ends. And we do not resort back to the violent kind of society that we have evolved from (sic)…or have we?
In reply to Ranbir
Yes, it’s important to read history so that we don’t forget what human beings are capable of…
I agree that British don’t owe us anything monetary wise, but they do owe an apology for what their forefathers have done. There are people, whose life would have been completely different if their fathers were not a part of Independence revolution. Imagine, if Nehru ji was not part of Indian Independence movement, then the picture of today’s Indian Congress may have been totally different.
When you throw a stone in any water body and you see wave formations, waves never dies but they reduce to be identified by a naked eye. As you said, “the court cases have to continue for as long as the perpetrators and victims are alive”, but victims are not the people who are directly affected, their are indirect victims also, who might have not taken birth yet.
Btw, nice blog.