Hello readers, welcome to my blog my this new blog is particularly on the most well known writer and awarded Mr.shahi tharoor. To know author and his particular work made you thinker, while reading about author and his book I use to think more and started confused, so here I'm sharing some of my views regarding to shadhi tharoor's view points.

This thinking activity is a part of our study and organize by our Head of English department Prof. Dilip Barad Sir.

Shashi Tharoor the sahitya Akademi Award 2019 for his book  "AN ERA OF DARKNESS " The British empire in India on December 18, 2019.

Let us start some discussion with the kind of authentic preface

Tharoor’s Preface to his masterly An Era of Darkness:

“The British Raj is scarcely ancient history. It is part of the memories of people still alive. According to a recent UN Population Division report, the number of Indians over the age of eighty is six million: British rule was an inescapable part of their childhoods. If you add to their number, their first-generation descendants, Indians in their fifties and sixties, whose parents would have told them stories about their experiences of the Raj, the numbers with an intimate knowledge of the period would swell to over 100 million Indians…

Still, I write as an Indian of 2016 about the India of two centuries ago and less, animated by a sense of belonging morally and geographically to the land that was once so tragically oppressed by the Raj. India is my country, and in that sense my outrage is personal. But I seek nothing from history – only an account of itself.”

An Era of Darkness categorically attacks on many popular myths about so called benigh rule of British empire. He wrote about the huge destruction of India striling and lower caste communal divisions.  In an interview, 

"Tharoor explains why this book needed to be written now and where it figures in the current climate of shrill “nationalist” pride. Excerpts."

 An Era of Darkness, Tharoor expands  his cogently written eight chapters, he builds 

an impressive case against the British depredations and misgovernment of britishers. People mein thought that britishers was the one completely destroy a very ancient culture roots of India. 

"As Tharoor says, British Indians literally paid for their own oppression. Whatever good or positive 

British rule brought to Indians was not intended, but only a by-product."

He try to justify some very crucial points regarding to the British rule...

🔶railwey  networks 

were not available for native transport services but to carry British goods and control the vast territories; 

🔶English 

education was imparted to education system it  imposes Victorian values— They believed that a shelf of British literature was far better than entire Oriental works; the press are allowed to function it but judicial law try heto justify it,  rule of law was introduced, but the judicial 

system was prejudicial t and partial towards Indian subjects—he cites the case of Justice Syed Mahmud, who 

resigned in 1892 on the grounds of “discrimination and prejudice” and later “died a broken man”

His book, as he says, “makes an argument; it does not tell a story”. 

So, An Era of

Darkness is not a historical book. Yet, despite the disclaimer, but people use to read this book as  a book of 

history—a nationalist history.

In fact, this book  already considered like that . For example, on popular web-portal Scroll, one reviewer 

described the book like this:

“It is the one sweeping story of independent India’s history that every 

Indian must know”.

He said that he read so many things of British rule in his childhood while he was in school or college days go to various sources and made up of polymic of protest against British rule.

In short, British rule was brutish, racist, prejudicial, and utterly exploitative. 

In other words, if there is rigidity in the caste structure today, the blame lies with the British, who 

introduced classificatory devices like census etc. and made people aware about their distinct identities. 

But,the question about  how did the Indians internalise this caste rigidity so fast and so widely? 
When the historians raised questions at that time some historians try to write about India and show a chain of culture. How can it considered valuable?

In answer,out, these so-called alternative histories are histories of the elites; even though projected as subaltern 

history, it is a “national history from the backdoor”.

Dr Tharoor will deliver a lecture, entitled 'Looking Back at the British Raj in India', and discuss how the British Raj has shaped the narrative around India-UK relations

Shashi Tharoor's new book examines the legacy of British rule in India

Shashi Tharoor’s new book — An Era of Darkness: as he introduced  

“taken all the arguments conventionally made in favour of Empire and systematically countered them”. 

He says that My book also examines each of the supposed benefits of British rule in turn — political unity, democracy and rule of law, the civil services, the railways, he praise the good things like game of cricket and  tea, which I drink many cups of daily. It’s true that there was no organized cultivation of tea before the British. Here with counter argument he praise some alternatives of British council. Somewhere they innovated very good things for all.

In interview, some very questions about his publishers he make sure that I put my own argument without looking for the strong support,

I don’t know! My publisher, David Davidar, thinks the reason the speech went viral is because I put together a whole range of arguments about Empire that people hadn’t heard in that way,I just want to make bright Those points which is actually people  are unaware about the truth and  at least hadn’t thought about. It certainly seemed to strike a chord that this book builds on. 

Here , perhaps as per my thinking this book is valuable because this itself have a counter argument.

Historical material is available to everyone perhaps it is incomplete a lake of reality so this will helps us to make an argument.the Indians must know about truth of history because if you don't know the truth then you don't know your worth as well.

 This what a secular quest for everyone is that let me clear one thing which very confusing but quite easy let see that

An argument without knowledge

And

Knowledge without argument

Can this both are working simultaneously in every situation?

 If yes/no than what consequences is needed for any writer? 

As per my thinking Shadhi's work can be considered as a best combination of valuable arguments. He made an argument with knowledge, with the help of proper Historic Sense.

He made an argument with absurd India

 British rule deindustrialised India; created landlessness and poverty; drained our country’s resources; exploited, exiled and oppressed millions; sowed seeds of division and inter-communal hatred that led to Partition; 

He says that,

Something I feel is never mentioned or discussed enough is the role of Indian population that complied and even assisted the Raj, in return for favours monetary or otherwise. Surely, that money, land etc staying within the borders can’t be the excuse to let these legacies go unconsidered. Is there a need, then, to call out for reparations or, at least apologies from this group as well? Is that something you would welcome?

He wants to talk and discuss about that things and historical topics which wasn't discussed earlier this makes something new.

In his 15 minute speech, Tharoor eloquently outlined how the British destroyed the Indian economy, amassed huge wealth, and when they departed, left India worst off. By implications of new ideology britishers started the rule with their terms and norms. Exactly this is much harm to India destroyed history as well and new era of British rule as a new historical event which is cruel one but unfortunately it is a part of history.

So, as per Tharoor, the British owe reparations to her former colony, India. But instead of paying money, which anyway wouldn’t be possible, Britain could at least acknowledge the wrong and offer an apology for it.

One of the arguments Tharoor puts forward is that if the British had not colonized them, Indians would have modernised on their own, I'm agre that no one can rules up to you tremendous strategies to handle everything if you don't have then anyone can rule and destroyed you.

For example the Japanese did, or like those countries did who were not colonised. To substantiate this point, he takes a rather romantic view of ‘Indian history’ and refers to

 “great educational institutions, magnificent cities ahead of any conurbations of their time anywhere in the world, pioneering inventions, world-class manufacturing and industry, a high overall standard of living, economic policies that imparted prosperity, and abundant prosperity—in short, all the markers of successful ‘modernity’ today”.

Here Shashi tharoor refers and praise the older education system that those who have a very advance ideology of education then they might be the most successful modernity.

Tharoor, unlike pro-Hindutva ideologues, does not see Muslims as historical enemies, but as equal citizens. Still in  India Muslims are the very particular minority class in India but still considered them as a equal citizen of India this is the one of most plus argument and we can sleep positive towards equality. did conquest Indian territories, but they settled and contributed to the land and made it their own. In the contemporary toxic atmosphere of India, thus, Tharoor is certainly making a valuable intervention in terms of dispelling certain negative notions about Muslims and their medieval history in the sub-continent. For example, he says how India’s share of the world economy reached impressive 27% during the Mughal period.

Nevertheless, unlike his secular-self, Tharoor’s nationalist-self has severe limitations, especially as far as Kashmir is concerned. While talking about the criticisms his speech received, he writes 

“several other arguments were made in response to my speech that should be acknowledged here, even though they do not fit directly into the themes of any of my chapters”.

See, friends while criticize any Nation any people or any community we have with mind that before partition India was not a secular country . The question of Kashmir is still burning issue it can be implicated in the most controversial issue in Indian history as like partition as like Hindu Muslim community crisis.

Another problem with this book is that it virtually tars all Brits with the same brush, even while mentioning the exceptions. At many places, Tharoor resorts to borderline racism when talking about Brits—he repeatedly uses the term “perfidious Albion” to describe the character of British people. Such Anglophobic rantings does not help the narrative, which is otherwise persuasive and diligently crafted.  Likewise when we talked about caste structure 

Developed, as Tharoor asserts, 

“under the peculiar circumstances of British colonial rule”, then how is one to understand the ‘real’ Hinduism? And more importantly, how is one to understand the subaltern agency with respect to the colonial rule? 

The truckers discrimination is most convenient argument as per my thinking that while we studying colonial approach that can we come to know that how much harmful caste discrimination is.meaning of subaltern in the people of subaltern actually facing very cruel situation the life this is reality what Shashi tharoor talk about.

On page 161, Tharoor quotes Viceroy Lord Wavell’s “candid dairies” and then comes up with this negative portrayal of the Muslim League: “Though he [Wavell] was, like most of the British administration, hostile to the Congress and sympathetic to the League his government had helped nurture, he was scathing in his contempt for the mendacity of the League’s leaders, and of their ‘hymn of hate against Hindus.’ (No Congress leader expressed any hatred of Muslims to the viceroy.)”. Maybe League members were less diplomatic than Congress leaders in their dealings with the viceroy, but what purpose does this sentence serve in the book?

All this criticism against Tharoor is in no way intended to discount or undermine his valid arguments against the British rule over South Asian sub-continent. He has an impressive case against colonialism. But, not all his opinions and arguments are genuine, some are just too simplistic. I try to evaluate tharoor's view and comparative point of view,of his book with the help of some tharoor's quotation questions and answers.

Thank you 😊