New Delhi, October 5 (IANS) at the Holid Hall of the British House of Commons (IANS), on June 1809, a debate revealed that on its surface, belonging to a point of administrative justice within the East India Company. The question was whether the young cadets and writers of India were to remember whose appointments were secured through “corrupt or secret effects”.
For British MPs arguing on the matter, it was a complex issue of fairness, examples and proper practice of power. However, it was seen through the lens of Indian people – these people were sent to rule the silent subjects of the empire – the debate is not a question of administrative fairness, but exposes a very clear and harmful of the nature of colonial rule. It manifests a system that is on the foundation of corruption, hypocrisy, and an intense disregard for millions of people, whose life was being controlled from far away.
Corrupt heart
The central revelation of the debate is that the system of appointing men that would collect revenue in justice, command forces and India were fundamentally rotten. The appointments for cadets (military officers) and writers (civil servants) were openly advertised and sold in British newspapers, a fact by Sir Thomas Turton in his argument against his argument. From an Indian point of view, it confirms deep doubts about colonial rulers: they were correct or merit, but were not in India by purchasing. Men who gained immense power over Indian life and regions were not Britain’s best and talented, which were elected to their knowledge or integrity, but often beneficiaries of a financial transaction.
This system of protection and bribery meant that the administration imposed on India, by its designs, was performed by employees by employees whose entry into service was fired by illegality. The debate suggests that it was not a mystery, but a practice that the court directors had to issue resolution against it again and again. For the Indian subject, this reality cuts the colonial administration of any moral authority. The British officer was not a philanthropist, but a product of a corrupt system, his position was a symbol of wealth and influence that allowed his family to buy a part in the robbery of the empire.
A question of “justice” – for whom?
The most striking feature of the debate is the “innocent” emotional defense of the youth, who had to be called back. MPs like Sir Thomas Turton and Mr. Windham spoke to their parents’ cruelty and injustice “to punish young men for sins. Mr. Stephen portrayed a heart -touching picture of a remembered youth who do not return to the father who did not pay the bribe, but “a widowed mother’s grief weapons” or “destitute sisters” who now see them as “beggar and ruin objects”.
From an Indian point of view, this selective application of compassion is deeply hypocritical. The debate has been designed as an issue of “British justice and right to humanity”, yet the major injustice of the colonial enterprise is never questioned. While the MPs mourned the wasted career of a few dozen young men, there was no mention of millions of Indians whose land was seized, whose ruler was removed, and whose money was systematically served by these people by these people.
Sir Samuel Romili powerfully highlighted this double standard, pointing to the recent pardon of the house, pointing high ranked British officials to the accused of corruption, where it was better to see the future than punishing previous acts. For an Indian supervisor, it proves that the British “justice” was a tool that was implemented or stopped, as convenient for powerful. The so -called “inhumanity” of remembering a cadet palace was sent by the colonial system compared to famine, wars, and economic exploitation. The suffering of individual colonists was considered a tragedy worthy of debate, while the pain of the colonial nation was only the cost of the empire.
Empire’s equipment and owner power
During the debate, even sympathy to young men reveals the cold, utilitarian stones of imperialism. Sir Thomas Turton argued his case, saying that some were “the youth of the first-rate talents”, which “became” profiles “in eastern languages. For an Indian, it was not a mark of cultural praise, but a sign of his effectiveness as a tool of administration. The flow in an Indian language was not to understand the people, but the company was given more efficiency, but the company was given more efficiency. Was dedicated to the preparation of service of service – a service designed to benefit Britain, not India.
Furthermore, the origin of the debate revealed not justice for India, but a power struggle between the directors of the East India Company and the British Parliament. One party argued that directors had the legal power to remember their servants and should not intervene. The other argued that Parliament had the right to give his opinion on a report of its committee. For the people of India, it was only an internal squall among their masters. It is very rare whether the last authority is in Westminster with directors in Leadnhall Street or in Westminster with Parliament; The result was the same – foreign domination. The debate was about how to manage the machinery of the empire, not that machine had the right to exist.
Conclusion: A decision written in silence
Finally, the speed was defeated to prevent recall. But the true decision from an Indian perspective is not found in the votes, but in the heart of debate in the heart of the debate. In discussion about the men who rule India, the people of India were never told anything more than the resource or background. His welfare, his rights, his perspective were completely absent.
Therefore, this moment highlights corruption in the appointment of colonial authorities. This bare the main truth of the Imperial Project: India was an object, managed, controlled and occupied for the benefit of colonists. “Justice” and “humanity” debate with so much passion was an object for domestic consumption in the UK, not for export to the subjects of the empire. The tragedy of the cadet called back was a case of personal difficulty; The tragedy of India was accepted and an unexpected reality on which the entire system was built.
(The author is a researcher specialized in Indian history and contemporary geopolitical affairs)
,
Score/UK