Difference between patriotism of 19th century indians and 21st century indians
Answers
Answered by
0
Surely there are some differences as well as some similarities between the 19th century Indians and Indians nowadays.
The thing about cast and creed is true, most of the Indians still believe in those, they still follow the age-old restrictions on the matter of marriage or social structures. There is still the age-old us and them between Indians. But things have become less frequent now, or exceptions to this are coming into knowledge. There is Castless Junior and his family, on the other hand there is Hadiya and her father.
The thought about women has changed a lot since the 19th century. At that time, a girl of age 5–6 year was considered to be ready for marriage to a man of 40–50 year age, that too with a heavy dowry payable by the bride's side. And after the man died, the 25–30 year old girl was burnt alive. Nowadays this type of incidents has been totally stopped. There is still cases of dowry but the would be couples are protesting to stop this.
A girl child was considered to be a burden on the father back then. No one could think about educating their daughter after primary level. Though women from eminent families were sometimes privileged to meet with other men and discuss about things, like the women in the Jorasanko Thakur Bari, for most of the women in the 19th century life was to serve the men, if said shortly. No one could think about a Kalpana Chawla or Leila Seth at that time.
In the 19th century India was under the British rule. The British rulers never wanted the Indians to be their equal, in the office or in the society. But to keep the administration running, large number of workers was needed. The education system was controlled by the British. So they started such an education scheme that would generate persons with intelligence just as much as needed to be a clerk. A part of society that is called the Clerk Society evolved. They worked hard in the office, educated their children to be like them, and deep inside mind, they somehow supported the British rule, for that was their source of bread.
The rich men sent their sons to Britain for studying, and they returned becoming a Barrister or an ICS, meant to serve the British. The Government employees nowadays are serving the countries in true sense of the term, but back then things were different. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, the Deputy Magistrate of Orissa had to alter some lines from his novelAnandamath because they were against the British, otherwise he might lose his job.
There was no industry of our own, nor was the policy making industrial development in our hand. All the things, the daily commodities were imported from Britain, we didn't even have the right to make salt for ourselves. Tata salt was not there, nor was Lux soap or Fogg deodorant.
All our money was drained towards Britain, there is a theory called Drain of Wealth by Dadabhai Naoroji, propounded in around the 1860s.
The thing about cast and creed is true, most of the Indians still believe in those, they still follow the age-old restrictions on the matter of marriage or social structures. There is still the age-old us and them between Indians. But things have become less frequent now, or exceptions to this are coming into knowledge. There is Castless Junior and his family, on the other hand there is Hadiya and her father.
The thought about women has changed a lot since the 19th century. At that time, a girl of age 5–6 year was considered to be ready for marriage to a man of 40–50 year age, that too with a heavy dowry payable by the bride's side. And after the man died, the 25–30 year old girl was burnt alive. Nowadays this type of incidents has been totally stopped. There is still cases of dowry but the would be couples are protesting to stop this.
A girl child was considered to be a burden on the father back then. No one could think about educating their daughter after primary level. Though women from eminent families were sometimes privileged to meet with other men and discuss about things, like the women in the Jorasanko Thakur Bari, for most of the women in the 19th century life was to serve the men, if said shortly. No one could think about a Kalpana Chawla or Leila Seth at that time.
In the 19th century India was under the British rule. The British rulers never wanted the Indians to be their equal, in the office or in the society. But to keep the administration running, large number of workers was needed. The education system was controlled by the British. So they started such an education scheme that would generate persons with intelligence just as much as needed to be a clerk. A part of society that is called the Clerk Society evolved. They worked hard in the office, educated their children to be like them, and deep inside mind, they somehow supported the British rule, for that was their source of bread.
The rich men sent their sons to Britain for studying, and they returned becoming a Barrister or an ICS, meant to serve the British. The Government employees nowadays are serving the countries in true sense of the term, but back then things were different. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, the Deputy Magistrate of Orissa had to alter some lines from his novelAnandamath because they were against the British, otherwise he might lose his job.
There was no industry of our own, nor was the policy making industrial development in our hand. All the things, the daily commodities were imported from Britain, we didn't even have the right to make salt for ourselves. Tata salt was not there, nor was Lux soap or Fogg deodorant.
All our money was drained towards Britain, there is a theory called Drain of Wealth by Dadabhai Naoroji, propounded in around the 1860s.
Similar questions