How did the British – a small island nation with a limited population – conquer half the world?
This article will attempt to explain one of the psychological factors underlying their success. It is a continuation of my previous blog below:
There were other factors of course. The scientific inventions in the west that gave them a military edge, their determination and bulldog spirit (exemplified by Winston Churchill) and the fact that they had integrity. Here is a link to an earlier blog on the subject of integrity:
But it is one thing to conquer a nation using military might. How can you hold on to and administer the subject nations? For that you need the cooperation of the people you have invaded and conquered.
What were the traits of the British that won them this cooperation?
Before answering this question I would like to relate an anecdote about the reputation of Indians who are living abroad. I was speaking to a relative in the US and she mentioned to me that Indians are avoided in the USA. In fact, she mentioned that she herself did not like to associate with other Indian people. And this despite the fact that she is an Indian herself.
My relative is a very decent and good natured lady. If she makes such a statement then it is worth thinking over and finding out the reasons why. Here is a link to a Times of India article that makes a related point:
Here is my answer that explains the facts regarding the British and the Indians. The British (of the Victorian era) had honour. The Indians of the present day lack it.
I am not saying the British were benevolent. They definitely exploited India and other subject nations of their Empire. That is as far as the overall policy towards the subject nations is concerned. But they played fair and by certain rules in their day to day interactions with the natives.
Think of it this way. There has to be a reason why the British won the cooperation of the natives in their subject nations. Otherwise who, in their right minds, would choose being a subject to an alien people who are exploiting you. And without that cooperation there is no way at all the British could have held onto their colonial holdings for more than 200 years.
And what do I mean by honour?
I think what I have in mind is best explained by Bertrand Russell in another small anecdote:
… For instance, amongst early Quakers there were a number of shopkeepers who adopted the practice of asking no more for their goods than they were willing to accept, instead of bargaining with each customer, as everyone else did. They adopted this practice because they held it to be a lie to ask for more than they would take. But the convenience to customers was so great that everyone came to their shops and they grew rich …
Compare that with the Indian trait of jugaad and flexible and changing morals in dealing with people. There are no fixed standards.
This may in fact be the main reason why Indians are avoided outside their own country. There may be other reasons but this may be one of the main ones.
Before I end here is a technical point. One relative of mine who saw this blog complained that my comparison of the Victorian British and the Indians of the present day was not legitimate as they were from different eras and you should only compare people of the same era.
I don’t know much about historical research but I have read somewhere that the practice is that if you are evaluating and judging people of a certain epoch then you should judge them by the standards of their own time that they tried to live up to. In other words I should judge the British by the standards they accepted for themselves and the Indians likewise. When I say that Indians lack honour, I am judging them by the standard of the Victorian British and not by the standards of their own time that they (the Indians) have accepted.
That may be a valid technical point but I meant in this article to criticize the ethical standards of the Indians and suggest that they make some changes in what they expect of themselves. This seems to me to be a valid and constructive point.
Update:
A few days after writing this blog it struck me that there is one other factor that is more important to society than being honorable. And that is being true to yourself and following your nature. And I have the Bhagavad Gita to back me up on that. Quoting from one of my earlier blogs.
According to Emerson and Greek mythology it is impossible for a person to act against his (or her) nature for any length of time. A good natured person will be friendly and not have bad intentions towards you. He will help you because it is his nature; he cannot help himself. That is I think a sounder basis to judge a person than whether he (or she) has integrity or not.
In the Bhagavad Gita also there is a text that says:
It is better to do your own dharma (calling) even imperfectly, than someone else’s dharma perfectly. Even better to die in your dharma than in another’s, which brings great fear.
I am interpreting the word Dharma to mean your own nature.
I hope you liked my article. Please share it on WhatApp, X and FB and let me have your comments. Feedback from my readers keeps me going.
I am looking for paid consultancy work. If you think I can give you value please get in touch with me at nikhil dot gangoli @ gmail dot com. Do not use the Comments or Contact Me forms