Why people in India study about British History rather than Indian History mostly in schools???
Answers
Answer:
Education is a powerful tool to unlock the golden door of freedom that can change the world. With the advent of the British Rule in India, their policies and measures breached the legacies of traditional schools of learning which resulted in the need for creating a class of subordinates. To achieve this goal, they instituted a number of acts to create an Indian canvas of English colour through the education system.
Heya!!
Here is your answer -
British colonial history and specifically India are not popular topics at all and the vast majority of students do not study it. The topics that they generally focus are related to west world. These are the topics that they generally focus:-
The Enlightenment in Europe and Britain,
- Britain’s transatlantic slave trade: its effects and its eventual abolition
- The Seven Years War and The American War of Independence
- The French Revolutionary wars
- Britain as the first industrial nation – the impact on society
- Party politics, extension of the franchise and social reform
- The development of the British Empire with a depth study (for example, of India)
- Ireland and Home Rule
- Darwin’s ‘On The Origin of Species’
- Women’s suffrage
- The First World War and the Peace Settlement
- The inter-war years: the Great Depression and the rise of dictators
- The Second World War and the wartime leadership of Winston Churchill
- The creation of the Welfare State
- Indian independence and end of Empire
- Social, cultural and technological change in post-war British society
- Britain’s place in the world since 1945
The historians of Britain have a different perspective to the history of India.I am presenting here the perspective of the British historians despite being not the demand of the question. Yet it will help in knowing How the British see the Indian History .The conservative colonial administrators and the imperialist school of historians popularly known as the Cambridge School, deny the existence of colonialism as an economic, political, social and cultural structure in India.
Colonialism is seen by them as a foreign rule. They either do not see or vehemently deny that the economic , social , cultural and political development of India required the overthrow of colonialism. They implicitly deny or explicitly deny that the Indian National Movement was anti-imperialist and represented the interests of the Indian people. The imperialist writers deny that India was in the process of becoming a nation and believe that what is called India in fact consisted of religions, castes, communities, and interests. Thus the grouping of Indian politics around the concept of an Indian nation or an Indian people or social class is not recognized by them.
The writers of Imperialist school assert that the Indian National Movement was not a people’s movement but a product of the needs an interests of the elite groups who used it to serve either their own narrow interests or the interest of their perspective groups. The national movement was merely an instrument used by elite groups to mobilize the masses to satisfy their own interests. They theorize that , as the British extended administrative , economic, and political power to the localities and provinces, local rulers started organizing politics by acquiring clients and patrons whose interests they served and who in turn served their interests. Indian politics began to be formed through the links of this patron-client chain. Gradually bigger leaders emerged who undertook to act as brokers to link together the politics of the local rulers and eventually , because British rule encompassed the whole of India , all India brokers emerged. They believe that grievances such as war, inflation, disease, drought or famine had nothing to do with colonialism. Their view not only deny the existence of colonial exploitation and underdevelopment but also any idealism on the part of those who sacrificed their lives for the anti imperialist cause.