Let’s get some facts straight first
- Britain’s annual aid to India is around £250 million
- India’s MOM cost around the same amount of money, £250 million
- India is itself a responsible nation which shells out £300 million as part of its international aid program.
- India in 2012, under the UPA government had told the British Government that it doesn’t need British aid, but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money (India tells Britain: We don’t want your aid)
- British are not providing aid to India as succor for retarding its natural development through colonisation. Instead there are larger aims at play. For example, Britain announced a billion pound aid to India while the Indian MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft) bid was going on. No country aids another out of pure goodwill. International politics doesn’t work that way.
Given all these facts, why does Britain still continue to provide India with aid which continued till 2015? Let me enunciate some reasons
- Moral Right to Lecture: An aid, however small, gives the donor a right to voice concerns about the receiver. Remember British parliament outlawing caste based discrimination and making big news? Well, those are subtle ways of hinting at their colonial subjects. This all the while Britain still abounds with “paki” and similar racial slurs.
- Economic interests: Honestly, Britain is reeling under debts. If there is someone who could give it a shot in the arm presently, it is India, in the current global economy. There are not many countries in the world which has such a bulging middle class, which is in fact more than most of the world countries’ entire population and is ever growing. Britain can no longer find markets for its exports through techniques of the old like political subjugation. It can only work through such subtle tactics.
- That old organisation, what was its name?: Seriously, the hangover of its past glory has not left it yet. Why do you think Britain keeps on having second thoughts in joining EU-leaving EU-adopting Euro-not adopting Euro matters? Somewhere down her gut, she still thinks she is still that fiery damsel of the 19th century. And one of the last vestiges of her past glory is the commonwealth and one of the things that lend a morsel of credence to the common wealth is that “crown of all British possessions” according to Churchil, India. Stopping Aid to India would embarass Britain in its current position as the leader of the commonwealth.
Finally, do we need a humble sorry from Britain? There are two answers to this. As a government and as a citizen. Let me answer both.
Our government has made it clear that what we want is trade and not aid. Britain is one of the largest sources of FDI to India. The government of India is not bothered if Britain says sorry or not. There is no such thing as exacting sweet revenge or apology in international politics. Every act of a government is geared towards securing for its present and future generations resources needed for its continued development. If it comes to raising the colonial past inorder to exact something from Britain, our government would never hesitate at that. But for now, India doesn’t need that. The present economic scenario is such that India is one of the only developing countries profitable to invest in.
Now a citizen’s opinion might differ from person to person. Here I will give my insight. I don’t give a rat’s ass about what Britain does. I wouldn’t personally feel better or sorry if Britain were to apologize. At the same time another person like Shashi Tharoor would like an apology. History is for us to learn so that we don’t repeat our mistakes, not to make others pay.
Should Indian’s apologize to present day Sri Lankan’s for Rajendra Chola’s invasion of their territory? Or for Pandyans sacking of Anuradhapura? How different is that from what Britain did here? The only differentiator is time. IMHO it is not fair a present generation hostage to its past one’s mistake.
Hope this helps.