DID BHARAT GET SPIRITUAL & IDEOLOGICAL INDEPENDENCE FROM THE BRITISH ?
The Fundamental problem of Bharat history we don’t have a problem before 1947 because until the first war of independence Bharat retained its sense of identity even though it saw two successive colonisations after 1857 the British man effectively realised there are two things that they need to do if they want to subjugate this country for their good and fraternity they are
TAKE AWAY THEIR WEAPONS & INTELLECTUAL RESISTANCE
ARMS ACT was introduced by the British which aims to killing the martial resistance and physical resistance of Bharat. In the 16th century, arms sales constituted part of the Ottoman-Mughal diplomatic business in India. Babur, the first Mughal emperor, brought Turkish firearms, which Mughal adversaries, the Rajputs and the Afghans, in turn, adopted. Exchanges between the Portuguese and Egypt helped to establish the technology in the subcontinent. The Mughal emperor Akbar was deeply interested in firearm manufacture and drew master gun-makers to his court this was the greatness of Bharat arm production but British colonial officials strove to strangle local gun manufacture and block Indian access to British gun-making knowledge. They did so out of an understanding that arms-making lay at the heart of industrial progress. The result was South Asian dependence on British guns, fuelling Britain’s industrial take-off while undercutting India’s industrial potential Not only it India lost its glorified culture which is passing through its martial arts.
Intellectual resistance which is more fundamental and lasting that was changed to the education system The colonial intent behind linguistic & Education policies was equally reactive to the entire system of colonial education. Colonial education was offered not as an alternative to pre-existing indigenous forms of education but with the specific objective of gradually erasing their existence. The literature on the Indian experience with colonial education introduced by the British, especially in South Africa, tells us that colonial investment in 'educating the colonised population had several motivations, religious not excluded, wherein the modernity/ rationality complex played a significant role. The coloniser's perceived sense of religious and racial superiority meant that beheelt was obligated to 'civilise' and 'educate' the indigenous population and 'liberate' indigenous souls from the ignorance and superstition that possessed them. In this sense, colonial education was a form of exorcism performed on the heathen passively by the Christian coloniser.
The main objective was the need to cultivate loyalty towards the colonising empire in the short term and lay the foundation for long-term co-optionnd assimilation of the natives into the European way of life albeit as second-grade beings therefore education was perhaps one of the most potent tools for europenasation of indic people by this
Clearly, any system of colonial education was but a way of maintaining political control over the production of knowledge and social discourse." While colonial education was offered as a means to climb the social ladder with acceptance by the European being its ultimate destination, there were glass ceilings firmly in place which ensured that native students were always kept below the European and make them think like European with losing indigenous spiritual and ideological independence but the legacy of it continuing till now
So, by this much is clear that European coloniality was directly responsible for disrupting the sacred relationship between indigenous peoples and nature, spirituality, ideology the destruction of their faith, language, political and spiritual, ideological, societal structures and knowledge, in short, their entire culture. This led to what the scholars have termed 'psycho-cultural marginality'", wherein loss of cultural, spiritual ideological identity results in social and individual disorganisation which manifests as 'low self-esteem, extreme poverty, oppression, depression, loss of identity, substance abuse, violence, lower life expectancy, low educational attainment, limited employment, poor housing and ill health’. Not only it but also many unresolved historical questions are seen by the colonial lens and resulted in the loss of cultural and indignity nature of that place
So what can be the outcome the country which undergoes political independence would also want spiritual independence and ideological independence unfortunately our country chose independence in a narrow nature which is political but continues to follow the education system and the political philosophy of the coloniser as a consequence that today colonial lens has been applied by every bharatian to interrogate an issue like Sabarimala & Gyanvapi masjid and many other cultural issues cracking illogical statements on indic culture so it doesn’t make a sense to point finger at anyone because as a society the introspection should be undertaken in 1947 we haven’t but the process is going on now.
