I will be less than honest if I don’t confess that I have a love-hate relationship with Britain. The love part is somewhat personal and sentimental. The hate part grows out of my historical understanding of the role of Britain in economically exploiting India and oppressing the people of India through violence and racial discrimination. Both these aspects need some elaboration for the argument I want to make in this piece.

My passage to Britain in October 1977, was the fulfilment of a personal dream. Ever since I had become a reader as a schoolboy, I had been fascinated by England. This was in large measure the product of my reading of the Billy Bunter books and then in my adolescent years the direct outcome of the writings of Neville Cardus in which he evoked cricket, the English summer game as no other writer has done before or since. In my mind and fancy, the English cricket grounds – Lord’s of course – became pilgrimage sites. During my high school and undergraduate years, I discovered that there was a world outside the cricket fields. This intellectual turn took me to Oxford. I had teachers and mentors in Presidency College and in JNU who spoke to me about Oxford and I began to read about the city of dreaming spires or what Evelyn Waugh in Brideshead Revisited called the city of aquatints. This intellectual journey led me to the discovery that the historian I most admired, Christopher Hill, was an Oxford man – the Master (or the head) of Balliol. I dreamt of going up to Oxford, to immerse myself in its intellectual ambience and to feel its magic, to walk on its cobbled streets, to listen to evensong in its innumerable chapels, to watch cricket in the Oxford Parks where my hero Tiger Pataudi had played and I wanted to meet Christopher Hill. Thus, when I went up to Oxford in the Michaelmas Term (beginning in October) of 1977, it was a dream come true. In many ways – I know this will sound absurd and ridiculous – when I arrived in Oxford, as the autumn twilight was descending, I felt I had come home.

This was my first visit not only to Oxford but also to Britain or for that matter to any other country outside India. The first visit lasted for a little over three years and was followed by countless more, of varying durations. That first visit served to expand my intellectual horizons and strengthened my emotional ties with Oxford and with London. In Oxford, I learnt to love its alleyways, its library resources, its beauty, its effortless ease, its idiosyncratic rituals and the mature gradualness of its judgements. Except for one encounter with a group of louts on one Guy Fawkes Day, I encountered no overt racism. But I was always deeply aware of an undertow of racial prejudice in Britain. One couldn’t pinpoint it, neither could one deny its presence. So, if I had been asked then and even a few months ago if I believed that a coloured person could ever be a prime minister of Britain, my answer would have been a firm and unqualified, "No’’.

Tiger Pataudi (R) Twitter/@RSingh6969a

This brings me directly to what I came to hate about the British and their history. As I read in the libraries of Oxford and London, as a student of history I came to understand that the prosperity and the "glory" of Britain were the products of the economic exploitation of the colonies and that India, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was among the worst victims of this exploitation. British rule in India was based on cunningly crafted policies of racial discrimination, denial of democratic rights to Indians and of divide and rule. British rule in India was nothing more than a despotism which British politicians, statesmen, intellectuals and historians covered up and justified by using arguments like civilizing and modernizing India. Some prominent British politicians, Winston Churchill being the most prominent among them, did not even try to justify British rule. Dyed in the wool imperialists like Churchill believed that Indians and other "natives" were inferior people and deserved to be dominated by a "superior race" like the British. Such attitudes have an enduring presence in British life and this is what makes Rishi Sunak’s rise to the prime ministership all the more remarkable.

The presence of racial discrimination notwithstanding, British society has been subject to some far-reaching changes. The most important of this is the recognition of merit over birth – a process that is integrally tied to the declining influence of the landed aristocracy. This process enabled someone like Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher to get the top job. Another factor is the influx of people from the former colonies – a process that was encouraged by various British governments after the Second World War for a variety of economic reasons, principally a supply of cheap labour. The arrival of people from African countries, India and Pakistan has made Britain a multicultural society. Families who were previously considered immigrants have now become integral parts of British society and some of these families are phenomenally successful in various spheres of activity.

Sunak’s rise is linked to both these processes. Even though by colour of skin and by lineage he may not be considered by some to be "British" yet he comes from the heart of the British establishment. He went to Winchester and Lincoln College, Oxford and then to Stanford. He is among the richest individuals in Britain and has been a pillar of the Tory party. Sunak embodies the triumph of history over prejudice and that of merit over birth.

The path before Sunak is not a smooth one. Britain’s economy is on the verge of a collapse and Britain is now an object of ridicule. Sunak in his time has been an enthusiastic Brexiter. His predecessor during her short tenure introduced a bill to do away with all EU regulations. Will Sunak stay with this and be a "little Englander" or will he open up channels to negotiate with the EU, Britain’s largest trading partner? The colour of his skin is the least of the challenges that confronts Sunak. As someone who does not endorse Sunak’s ideology and policies, I will watch with interest how he walks the razor’s edge.

Rudrangshu Mukherjee is Chancellor and Professor of history at Ashoka University