Sometime ago, I read a book called 'Trials in Burma' by an Englishman named Maurice Collis who worked there during the Raj. It was an interesting account of life there, of the spread (or lack thereof) of Indian nationalism in the area and of relationship of the Burmese with the Indians who lived there which, as I hadn't realised earlier, were less than smooth.
Frankly, the interaction between the Burmese and the Indians is not even something I'd ever thought of. The book, however, seemed to divide Indians into poor labourers and rich traders, and repeatedly gave the impression that both the Indians and the English thought of the Burmese as being inferior to them in both intellect and ability. Not too surprisingly, the Burmese weren't thrilled.
What struck me most though was the description of the trial of a leader of the Indian nationalist movement for sedition. While speaking of it, Mr Collis says, "The law of England is admired the world over and it is on the excellence of its practice that our moral right to be in India is founded."
The line left me astounded for a number of reasons. The law of England, admired as it may have been, did not apply to natives in the colonies in the same way it did to Englishmen at home. The excellence of its practice is debatable. The practise of law in one country can hardly create a right for that country to colonise and plunder another.
And finally, the author actually seems to believe what he says. Throughout the book, I never once got the impression that he was anything but a conscientious person trying to do his job as well as he could. Nonetheless, his beliefs amaze me.
