Posted on 08/12/2007 6:22:02 AM PDT by Clive
But in retrospect, it is perhaps fortunate.
India does not have Pakistan and Bangladesh as festering sores within its body politic.
Salim Mansur ping.
“India does not have Pakistan and Bangladesh as festering sores within its body politic.”
Ofourse it does.
“There was a bit of disappointment by some of us in the Commonwealth when India was partitioned. But in retrospect, it is perhaps fortunate. India does not have Pakistan and Bangladesh as festering sores within its body politic.”
Do you see a commonality with the situation in Iraq? It would be “easy” in many ways to partition Iraq, and then let each partition then form its own alliances and government.
India benefited from decades of British parliamentary rule before independence. Iraq didn’t have self rule for centuries (Turks, etc) before they got independence, and obviously they’ve struggled to rule themselves.
Which is worse. Within India, they would have been under better control.
“India benefited from decades of British parliamentary rule before independence. “
What nonsense. Benefited?!! How? India was an Empire under the Viceroy not under any parliamentary democracy.
The Brits left behind a shitty legacy of what exactly not to do in Iraq.
“What nonsense. Benefited?!! How? India was an Empire under the Viceroy not under any parliamentary democracy.”
Okay, let me rephrase my unfortunate statement —
Which was better, the Brit rule of India, or the Turk rule of Iraq? Which one gave the people a fighting chance at democracy once they gained independence?
The Brits weren’t at all perfect, but the Indian politicians (for better and worse) pretty much adopted the Brit system when they got the chance to form their government. Given the large number of countries that have that form of government, I’m thinking that this wasn’t a bad thing.
“The Brits left behind a shitty legacy of what exactly not to do in Iraq.”
Uh, please expand... was the spin-off done poorly? Or the colonial “occupation” done poorly? or...???
In 1947, most of the Princely States joined India and a few joined Pakistan and India attained full sovereignty as a federal system with the states having sovereignty intra vires as set out constitutionally.
India and the provinces and states that comprise it have had long experience at parliamentary government, before and after independence.
A widely flung empire cannot effectively be centrally governed in every respect, even through Viceroys and Governors General. Matters of local concern are best left to local legislatures even though overriding sovereignty still rests with the Empire. This is trite fact going back to the Roman Empire and probably before.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act is a 19th Century law which recognized a tradition that had long been evolving which recognized the validity of the enactments of colonial legislatures. The doctrine of sovereignty intra vires also has judicial sanction since the 19th century.
This doctrine recognizes the apportionment of sovereignty between provinces within a confederation and apportionment of legislation making powers between the Empire and its component jurisdictions based on constitutional instruments, evolving practices hardening into constitutional tradition and the rule of law.
I am grossly oversimplifying
“I am grossly oversimplifying”
Not nearly so much as the marauding troll!
“I am grossly oversimplifying”
But you made my point much clearer, and I appreciate the learning experience.
Perhaps. But having the festering sores as outsiders — “them” — can offer a unifying theme within (at least for those who identify more closely with the national identity than with the outsiders).
That being said, the adoption of English Common Law has been a major competative advantage for India. It was this, more than anything else, that truly was beneficial in terms of concepts brought from the UK.
I would chose Turk rule of Iraq. It was better then Saddam's Iraq or British empire (at least Turk rule of Iraq never had hunger holocausts).
“Which one gave the people a fighting chance at democracy once they gained independence?”
Once you have already gained independence then its up to you to build democracy regardless of who your previous master was. Pakistan was also under British rule, what happened to their democracy. How many countries in the common wealth are “democracies”?
“The Brits weren’t at all perfect, but the Indian politicians (for better and worse) pretty much adopted the Brit system when they got the chance to form their government.”
Worng. Indians adopted their system from the best of many different sources. Indian constitution was adopted from the Irish system.
“Given the large number of countries that have that form of government, I’m thinking that this wasn’t a bad thing.”
You are totally clueless.
“Occupation done poorly”? You seem to have taken courses at some PC community college.
I was talking about “Partition”. Following the British example of breaking up a country would ensure perennial conflicts and bloodbath for generations to come. (Of course the Brit media spin doctors will always have you convinced otherwise).
Yeah right. Thats why Pakistan got divided into 2. /sarc
So much for your “unifying theme”.
Indian legal system is not simply an adoption of English Common Law. Thats a misconception that many people have. Many of the British laws were modified post independence. In fact it is more of an amalgamation of Irish, French and American and British system adapted to Indian tradition. In other word, its an “Indian product” whose individual components comes from many different sources.
BTW India has a single written and codified contstitution, while Britain does not.
“Benefited?!!(sic) How?”
If one acknowledges only the trains and the English language, then there is plenty benefit enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.