If you cannot keep up with the discussions you take part in that is not my problem.
You equally have no idea about rurallife across the sub continent.
I did point out that if you set a low income level as a designation of middle class of course yiuvwoukd have it growing as a % of the population.
Of course you struggle with simple facts like that,,

The Portillo prog on Indian railways is being re run.
I was interested to learn that India's first medical college for women was founded over 100 years ago by a British women there being and never had been any where that women could go for treatment.
That British founded medical school grew to be one of the largest in India..
No doubt you will tell us that medical schools for women have been around for 1000s years.

Bipat the issues simple you reject any and all evidence and in response to either questions or other observations. Since you haven't the slightest intention of being objective, as you have already made up your mind before any careful study, that is why you come up with these wild assertions that more often than not have no basis in realty. Yes I have also spoken to many people there during the Raj m and received a variety of views not all monolithic such as yours

I mention what I considered nonsense.you posted about British taxation, and now you respond about my supposed views about a salt tax which I didn;'t comment on.

Yes patriotic drivel since on almost every issue discussed earlier by myself or EMR even when without a shadow of a doubt been proven wrong, you either keep saying same thing, or pivot to answering comments that only exist in your mind.

Who care whether the occupation was yesterday , or 1000 years ago,in terms of trying to discern the facts.

There are lots of things I dont know about sufficiently, that I need to study more, such as Indian textile industry in first decades of 19th century, terms of trade and payments between India and other colonies, the methodology used for various GDP and real GDP estimates per capital in particular before and after 1857. And you have been a wealth of information about current events

EMR ---You reply to points discussed several posts ago as though they were points in the immediate previous post!!

Yes the Madras medical school---how many local women of the millions of poor were treated, though? The Royal Free hospital for women in London opened at roughly the same time.
(You ignore Ayurvedic and local medicines etc.)
Presume you have heard of Annie Besant still remembered, roads and parks named after her.
Grant medical school, Mumbai opened much the same time has since supplied many doctors for the NHS.
During the Raj these places did not benefit the millions of poor. That is why so many died in famines and of illness afterwards.

You say---- "Have no idea about rural life across the subcontinent", I presume as you use the present tense you mean now!!
Well 'we' live in a rural town and having travelled and have contacts in far more than half the States, probably know a lot more than you!

Your bias and ignorance of facts about India is astounding, ..
The first women's medical college opened over 100 years ago by a British women was opened for the specific purpose of training doctors to treat local women.and women across India.
Nothing to do with doctors for the NHS , 60 years before the NHS.. as was the school in Mumbai.
No I mean,t the period of British rule which you would know if you followed posts.
I assume you also claim to have expert knowledge on that period as well...

EMR I agreed with you about the Madras college. It opened at the same time as the Royal Free Womens college. Obviously both were major advances for women.

However be realistic one medical college could not train enough doctors to treat millions of women across the entire SubContinent.
Most had local medical treatments and/or local doctors.

What is your opinion if Annie Besant?

Grant Medical College also was opened in 1845.

I was giving you some information!!
In later times it trained Indian women doctors. It became a major college post independence, it still is!
Doctors that treat you may well have trained there!

Once again you ignore facts,
What happened post independence, and Yes the benefits enjoyed by the NHS ( why Indian doctors left the 100s of millions of their fellows to suffer is another question ) has nothing to do with the medical colleges opened by the British and millions of Indians who were treated and benefited from the most modern medicine if the time during the period of British rule.
Does it really cause you so much upset to admit that the foundations of public health in India, the institutions that today produce thousands of doctors every year is due to that which you despise, the period of British rule..

<br /><br />Bipat is too biased and subjective to admit the obvious to any observer.<br /><br />Any objective analysis would look at what was the state of medicine and public health before the British arrived for a start. Second, what was state of medicine and public health in other countries during the period to judge the effects of British efforts in public health- institutions, laws, improvements. Today Bipat will avail herself of modern medicine and practices yet apparently gives no credit to where it came from. <br /><br />

From what I can gather India's GDP and GDP per capital rose during British rule, and some commentators assert that income inequality declined. Just read Niall Ferguson reference to this and I have read others, including an Indian economist a few years ago. The idea that India was a 'wealthy' nation depends on what period one is discussing, and there isnt the slightest indication that India was about to go through a modern industrial revolution, before the British arrived. Did British practices in some areas like textiles have negative aspects ? It seems they did but that doesnt change the overall facts

Anecdotally I can say that British efforts to train Indian doctors and nurses in modern medicine and medical practices were ongoing, and often challenging for British doctors and nurses doing so. ( I had family members involved in doing so). Yet today we see Indian doctors and nurses fully capable and often of the highest rank in medicine, so the foundation laid by the British certainly had an effect. .

Morpeth regarding 'British Efforts' they built the medical schools. I have said that there were some good aspects of British rule.

You forget the ancient scientific advances of India, the modern medicines derived from their discoveries.

It was the British Governments who ruled and viewed Indian people as inferior, as I must say you seem to do.
'On the ground' Indian and British mostly got on together and made the best of it.
They shared teaching of students. I have told you previously British law students were brought to hear the advocacy of a relative in early 1900s.

I mentioned Grant Medical college above as I know it so well.
"Efforts to train"----typical of your mindset.

There were Indian teachers, consultants, lecturers along with British.
Remembered equally by students. Obviously now most dead. (Actually many consultants were Scottish)!
Some British (I don't know numbers) stayed on after Independence.

I have explained to you before the general situation regarding nurses.

Wrong again Bipat. I was not talking about Madras but another in the Punjab One of many opened under the period of British rule

Why didn't you say so when I asked?
Calcutta, Pondicherry, Madras, Mumbai were among the earliest.

As I said above for most Indian people in the early days these hospitals were out of their reach---people were treated by local doctors both Indian and British and local Indian midwives.
It was the made necessary for Indians to get post graduate qualifications in the UK itself (a way of getting extra medics. into the UK!) and this continued for some years after independence.

We are not discussing post independence but the hospitals that did not exist before British rule Opened to treat everyone.

Morpeth regarding 'British Efforts' they built the medical schools. I have said that there were some good aspects of British rule.



Typical comment that were ‘some’ good aspects. Look around at India today and imagine what it would have been without the British.


You forget the ancient scientific advances of India, the modern medicines derived from their discoveries.



Again the language problem. How on earth would you say I forgot something that is virtually irrelevant to the discussion. Sort it is like EMR’s question to you about the British establishing a public health system- why is it so hard to admit reality for you ? No said that India like China hadn’t made some scientific advances, but hardly anywhere near what happened in the scientific and technological revolution form UK and Europe. When you go into a hospital next time look around tell us what technology came from the Mughal Empire developments. In Roan times (a0 there was a model constructed using steam power (b) doesn’t mean Rome was a technologically super-advanced society or had in place the foundation of modern science and technology.


It was the British Governments who ruled and viewed Indian people as inferior, as I must say you seem to do.



I haven’t expressed anything in regards to that and certainly irrelevant to the topics being discussed.



.
"Efforts to train"----typical of your mindset.



No just the observations of some who were training Indian medical personnel at the time- and I did say obviously that situation changed and I did say just anecdotal observations
of some who had to do the training.


There were Indian teachers, consultants, lecturers along with British.
Remembered equally by students. Obviously now most dead. (Actually many consultants were Scottish)!
Some British (I don't know numbers) stayed on after Independence.



I am not sure how relevant to discussion but interesting information especially bout the Scottish, as I have heard before the percentage of Scottish in India was higher than the English.



I have explained to you before the general situation regarding nurses.

As I pointed out to you the London hospital for women-----The Royal Free was opened around the same time.
Have you any idea what British medical facilities were like in the mid 19th century? How many of the poor were treated?

YOU made a remark in an above post about 'Indian doctors abandoning their own people I explained why those already qualified HAD to come to the UK for post grad. exams-----they couldn't immediately be set up on independence--------I was giving you some information EMR!!!!

1) It is impossible to imagine how any country would be without the happenings of 150 years of its history.

2) You constantly make remarks about "language"--------have you never read a 'rhetorical statement' before.

3) It is relevant in that you have the view that it was always the British training those--- 'primitive' Indian people------I am giving you the information that Indian people were involved in the training and in training of British -----as they are now.

I think your own anecdotal experiences are a little narrow and limited.