No, which is why I didn't [link] it - I gave it as an example of internal criticism which postures an alternate reason for some of India's woes.
> I would not be surprised that someone who is a victim has an axe to grind with a genocidal expropriative regime
Thank goodness we're not resorting to hyperbole here. I'm not sure how much of a victim he is given his status and the historical gulf of time before his birth and the period in question.*
> What is surprising is that there are colonial apologists
Zzz, I think I tried to state I wasn't comfortable framing my response in terms endearing towards some of The Empire's worst excesses. A shame criticism must remain so rigidly polarised - I am sure that's how history was too, hard aligned and absolute.
[edit: * as a Scot with family originating from the Highlands am I ok to play the victim card for much of my ancestry moving to the other side of the Atlantic?]
The person's country is the victim the parent referred to, not the person.
A person's whose country or community has been wrong will also rightly have an axe to grind with the aggressors, whether the person is a Black, Jew, Native American, Indian, etc.
The link you gave does not substantiate that claim at all.
> is known to have a bit of an axe to grind where the Raj was concerned.
I would not be surprised that someone who is a victim has an axe to grind with a genocidal expropriative regime. What is surprising is that there are colonial apologists still around and pushing typical justifications for slavery, genocide and other crimes against humanity.