India and the Wars

Old Feb 26th 2019, 2:42 am
  #466  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,119
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
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.
Bipat I am not sure if you really are being serious or not. The British set up modern hospitals and training facilities and trained the Indians. That is what was relevant to the conversation m that some Indians advanced enough to also be involved in training of British personnel ( certainly not the norm before the war is yet another thing showing the success of the British in developing Indian medical staff to the level where they could train others- same with engineering , various scientific disciplines, etc .

Yes what if questions are hard but except for you I have never encountered anyone who considered India under the Mughal Empire a hotbed of scientific and technological development or showing the slightest indication of being so. Nor was the economy booming and showing indication of adoption of modern financial mechanisms etc to further economic development and significant productivity growth..

I did preface my comments they were anecdotal from speaking to people who were in the medical field and training Indians- yes limited, but then again I wonder if you have ever spoken to British medical personnel who were training Indians before independence ? Or read staff reports form the time ?
morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 26th 2019, 3:15 am
  #467  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
Bipat I am not sure if you really are being serious or not. The British set up modern hospitals and training facilities and trained the Indians. That is what was relevant to the conversation m that some Indians advanced enough to also be involved in training of British personnel ( certainly not the norm before the war is yet another thing showing the success of the British in developing Indian medical staff to the level where they could train others- same with engineering , various scientific disciplines, etc .

Yes what if questions are hard but except for you I have never encountered anyone who considered India under the Mughal Empire a hotbed of scientific and technological development or showing the slightest indication of being so. Nor was the economy booming and showing indication of adoption of modern financial mechanisms etc to further economic development and significant productivity growth..

I did preface my comments they were anecdotal from speaking to people who were in the medical field and training Indians- yes limited, but then again I wonder if you have ever spoken to British medical personnel who were training Indians before independence ? Or read staff reports form the time ?

Morpeth----As I have pointed out to EMR-----in the mid 19th century the British were also setting up the same hospitals in the UK! The Royal Free hospital for women I gave as an example.

https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/...e-19th-century

The British didn't suddenly create modern hospitals in India; it was a gradual process and the millions of destitute poor did not benefit (neither did they in the UK)

No I have not spoken to British people who were training Indians before independence-----however I have spoken to multiple Indian people who were working in hospitals before at and immediately after independence.
You might like to look up Vithal Shirodkar just one of the more famous-------British and Indian students alike learned much from such surgeons.


Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 26th 2019, 5:55 am
  #468  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
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!!!!
WTF have events in the UK got to do with British India.
Just admit , that the BrItish who opened hospitals and medical schools across India provided medical care where there was none before.
Trained Indian doctors , built the foundations of the Indian medical system and Industry that exists today,.
Post Independence the UK has benefitted from Indian doctors who left their own country with its needs for doctors to work in the UK..
..
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 26th 2019, 7:49 pm
  #469  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 59
madathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to all
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
Bipat I am not sure if you really are being serious or not. The British set up modern hospitals and training facilities and trained the Indians. That is what was relevant to the conversation m that some Indians advanced enough to also be involved in training of British personnel ( certainly not the norm before the war is yet another thing showing the success of the British in developing Indian medical staff to the level where they could train others- same with engineering , various scientific disciplines, etc .

Yes what if questions are hard but except for you I have never encountered anyone who considered India under the Mughal Empire a hotbed of scientific and technological development or showing the slightest indication of being so. Nor was the economy booming and showing indication of adoption of modern financial mechanisms etc to further economic development and significant productivity growth..

I did preface my comments they were anecdotal from speaking to people who were in the medical field and training Indians- yes limited, but then again I wonder if you have ever spoken to British medical personnel who were training Indians before independence ? Or read staff reports form the time ?
Sir

I missed this gem of a thread entirely!

You must know that Moguls weren’t the only rulers in India in the 17th century. And it must be said that yes, a lot of initial advances in medicine, called allopathic medicine, had its roots in the universities and hospitals of Scotland, which were transferred contemporaneously to many different parts of the world, of which India is a part. Just like the Indians did at the time, the Germans, the Russians, the French all acquired new medical knowledge being developed in Britain at the time. Britain did not have dominion over those countries, so in those cases, it doesn’t sound so condescending. When you juxtapose all of Britain’s regular contributions in economics, trade and science with the fact of British rule in India, every little thing becomes an exercise in condescension. We gave you the army; we gave you the navy; we gave you the unis; we gave you tea plantations - all sounds like a gift of the British, a mana from heaven for an Indian people who were waiting for whitey. To retort, Indians come up with zero, surgery, notional numbers, early medicine, wurtz steel not to mention yoga and such. It all just gets tiresome and more entertaining as a bar game than a serious discussion. To suggest trade in goods and ideas was somehow an invention of the Renaissance is simply absurd. The problem I suppose is viewing Indian history as somehow removed from other contemporaneous events. There is also the Muslim-centricity of Indian history, no doubt influenced by the then contemporaneous political supremacy of the Muslims in northern India, which leaves out so much of the rest of India. This is what’s taught in schools and adults don’t bother with reviewing things in context.

May I suggest the motivations and the reactions. India is not, and was not, a unique country then, neither is it now. When you frame the debate as one of Britain in India, by definition you push Indians on to the defensive. India was one of the territories Britain had dominion over. What applied to Indians under British rule also applied to, say, the Malays, the Kenyans, the Cantonese, the Cypriots, the Maltese amongst others.

The British Empire, indeed all modern European empires, were all economic empires, motivated primarily by the blockage of the routes to the East by the Ottomans in 1453. I am no authority, but it just seems this is the case. This was what motivated the search for an alternate route to the East (India) by many European kingdoms of the time. It was this that motivated Columbus’s voyage to India. He ended up with something much bigger. For all the noise Britain makes, she forgets that for the first two centuries after 1492, Spain and Portugal, tiny states today, essentially carved the world up between themselves. Not that many bothered with this, but Spain was the original empire over which the sun never set. The Manila Galleons plied possibly the richest trade routes of all time.

The British in India started as small-time traders in 1600, and the Mughals were not even the largest state in India at the time, though they held Bengal. It just seems to me, upon review, that the biggest powers in the world at the time were the Silk Road Empires - mostly Muslim, mostly Turkic. From about 1200 through to 1600, the Turks, through their control of the land-based Silk Road, controlled much of the Asian interior funded by their monopoly over the Silk Road. The day Columbus landed on America, the long gong of the death of the Islamic land empires, nay, all land empires, had struck. The next 400 years were essentially a long wind down of the Muslim empires of the Asian heartland and its European fringes and the rise and rise of the maritime powers. Britain got much of the Indian Ocean, Russia essentially got Iran and Turkey. Being imprisoned by land explains why Russia, the largest empire in history in 1900 (Britain had yet to cover much of Africa), was useless in terms of power projection. This is influenced in my view by the simple fact that transferring goods by sea is cheaper than mass transport by land by an order of magnitude.

The tussle between the European imperial powers was essentially maritime in nature, and it is British supremacy at sea that gave her the edge over others. With the fall of the only power capable of challenging this at the time - the French under Napoleon - Britain essentially found herself as the last man standing in the oceans. The early 1800s were essentially carte blanche for Britain, with Britain helping herself to all the choice locations across the world. Much of the second empire of the time - the French - consisted of the Sahara - they can have it. The British Empire is not the story of British strength so much as it is that of the weakness of others.

None of the Muslim empires really cared much for the oceans; the Ottomans were bullies of the Mediterranean but with alternate routes to Asia they were stuck. Though they were prolific traders, the Muslim empires as a whole were technologically unproductive, because of which they simply did not grow as societies the way Europeans did during their revival. It is kind of what happens when people drop everything and leave it all to god as opposed to finding solutions themselves to improve human life through research and questioning.

While the conquest of India was praiseworthy from a British military point of view, if you put things in the light of all above, the British conquests seems rather tame. It was only a matter of time, given Britain’s naval superiority, for much of the world that were land-based and not interested in the sea, to fall or be strangled to submission. Land armies and land empires simply could not compete with the sheer efficiencies of oceanic power projection.

Britain did not bother with countries that were even half her equal in naval strength, and she stayed away from Europe. This applied to most other European powers as well. It is also in this context that the outright victory in open naval combat by Travancore inflicted on the Dutch, then the world’s leading maritime power, becomes such an astonishing feat.

Much of India was ravaged in the Middle Ages by a state system that was based on an essentially inferior ie less productive civilisation than what India had in the centuries prior, due to reasons mentioned above. We can go on and on about the details, but with the arrival of the trade-based European empires, in India especially, the people got a breather; it was the beginning of a long process of uncorking. Nationalists praise relics of the time such as Taj Mahal etc forgetting that these were tombs with rotting corpses at its very heart. It is an apt illustration of India at the time; it was better to be dead than alive. All talk of “the British looted India” or “the British persecuted Indians” omits suspiciously any mention of the looting and persecution that was taking place under the auspices of the resident alien rulers of the time, as well as the painstaking efforts taken by the British and Germans in documenting and cataloguing Indian history via bodies such as the ASI.

I find the European colonial enterprise, warts and all, fascinating. More than anything, it is the story of people; individuals who were enterprising. Their biases influenced their actions perhaps, but is that not true anytime?

It did not need military and political dominion over much of the world for the ideas of Europe to spread far and wide, but we do not know how much longer it would have taken had things not happened the way they did. As much as Europe innovated technologically, especially during the Enlightenment, there seemed to be a flow of ideas westwards from the East, influencing latter notions of liberty and citizenship. It may not be without reason that European reviewers of the time itself compared a lot of the work coming out of the likes of Spinoza to be parallel to, if not outright influenced by, Indian philosophical ideas contained in the Upanishads; heretical to many contemporary Europeans. Several of the leading thinkers of the time in Europe were committed Indologists, imbibing in their work, and even in their lives, the values and lessons espoused in Eastern (mostly Indian) philosophical texts. I wonder, would it then be so wrong to say that Indians, long oppressed and enfeebled
at the time of European entry, got the technologically superior Europeans to do their liberating for them? Isn’t the world today, technologically sound, moving inexorably towards an ideologically Indian future, molded not by Indian race, rather by Indian ideas, temporarily being frustrated? In this light, the British seem to have been unwitting liberators of the Indians.

European imperialism often is viewed in light of religion by much of those at the receiving end - British and other Europeans are often referred to as Christian empires especially by the Mullahs, and not least by those combatting missionaries these days - but trade-motivated empires such as the British and the Dutch seemed nonchalant as far as religious zeal was concerned. Same could not be said of the Spanish, Portuguese and French. Definitely not the Muslim empires. With the result that successor states of the British, Japanese and Dutch empires are far more self-assured, less molested and more liberal than those of the others.

I am Indian, and stories of the humiliation of my forebears are, like for most other people, anathema. May it be suggested that to view the impact of colonialism in a more neutral light, it would be better to review other instances of colonialism, such as of the Germans in East Africa or the Japanese in Formosa or Korea, both of which had, on the whole, positive economic impacts on those territories. India may have been the Jewel in the Crown as far as British propaganda is concerned, but it will help to know perhaps that she was just another colony as far as the colonists were concerned. It is futile, in my view, given the technological disparities between the conquered and the conqueror, to compare Indian armies of the time with those of the Europeans, which actually brings to relief the work of the Travancore Navy. Britain had a mostly unbeaten run in all Asia, not just India, until the Japanese, an industrialized society with similar, though slightly less, levels of industrial sophistication, handed them what can only be called a summary humiliation, saved only by American handouts.

As much as it humiliates Indians when told of Britain’s imperial largesse to India, it humiliates the British to know that their vaunted navy and army folded to the Japanese in two weeks in Singapore, not to mention that little road they helped the Japs create in Burma - the Japs were grateful for that. And as colonists, the Japanese were rather successful too, just like the British claim, in Korea and Taiwan, both of whom are astounding economic successes today and were rather decent economies before the war. Let’s all eat some humble porridge.

madathil.krishnanunni is offline  
Old Feb 26th 2019, 7:57 pm
  #470  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 59
madathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to allmadathil.krishnanunni is a name known to all
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
Middle class number has risen dramatically globally, in the second half of the 20th century nothing to do with the end of British rule in India.
The biggest rise in China, who was responsible for that..
Your figure of a reduction as a % of the growing population in India during the period of British rule, what is the source, ?.
What income measure was used, how were the statistics collected and collated.?

2017 university of Mumbai regards Indian middle class as having a spending power of $2 - $12 dollars a day.
Would you say that anyone in the UK with a spending power of less than £ 2 day was middle class ?., far from it .
Sir

You have to look at the PPP numbers. I was in the UK, and I’d call myself middle class is you had about GBP 20 - 30 spending power a day. If you take the Indian middle class spending power at PPP rates, you are looking at anywhere between USD 10 and USD 40 a day, not an inconsiderable sum. Given the low cost of things in India, I’d say it’s far more comfortable in India being middle class than in the UK of today, on an expenditure basis.

There is no denying China has done well. The tough part is so much of China’s wealth is tied up real estate, it is very fragile. Doesn’t speak for Indians much, but China has to be seen in context. It would serve to look at Indians globally, with a population of 30 million, the Indian diaspora is a little country in and of itself. The per capita GDP at normal rates is USD 50,000 (2014). Indians in India have a very long way to go.
madathil.krishnanunni is offline  
Old Feb 26th 2019, 8:13 pm
  #471  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by madathil.krishnanunni


Sir

You have to look at the PPP numbers. I was in the UK, and I’d call myself middle class is you had about GBP 20 - 30 spending power a day. If you take the Indian middle class spending power at PPP rates, you are looking at anywhere between USD 10 and USD 40 a day, not an inconsiderable sum. Given the low cost of things in India, I’d say it’s far more comfortable in India being middle class than in the UK of today, on an expenditure basis.

There is no denying China has done well. The tough part is so much of China’s wealth is tied up real estate, it is very fragile. Doesn’t speak for Indians much, but China has to be seen in context. It would serve to look at Indians globally, with a population of 30 million, the Indian diaspora is a little country in and of itself. The per capita GDP at normal rates is USD 50,000 (2014). Indians in India have a very long way to go.
Thank you for mentioning the Indian diaspora , it in itself is a significant contributor to India's GDP, .
The figure I quoted for the designation of middle class in India came from the university of Mumbai.starting at $5 day.

I agree with you direct comparisons are not particularly relevant.
More important to , in the case of India would show the rise in the average earnings. which is what we do in the UK rather than use growth in " middle class " as an indicator of economic growth and social change.


EMR is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2019, 7:49 pm
  #472  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,119
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
Morpeth----As I have pointed out to EMR-----in the mid 19th century the British were also setting up the same hospitals in the UK! The Royal Free hospital for women I gave as an example.

https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/...e-19th-century

The British didn't suddenly create modern hospitals in India; it was a gradual process and the millions of destitute poor did not benefit (neither did they in the UK)

No I have not spoken to British people who were training Indians before independence-----however I have spoken to multiple Indian people who were working in hospitals before at and immediately after independence.
You might like to look up Vithal Shirodkar just one of the more famous-------British and Indian students alike learned much from such surgeons.
Bipat, I am not sure why when someone points something out about India you look for events elsewhere as though that is relevant. No one denied here are today top Indian medical personnel, in fact I specifically stated that. As far as as people you spoke to in the Indian medical sector who are Indian I highly doubt they would portray to you the difficulties in initially training Indian doctors and nurses- but again my only information is from speaking to people who did have to train Indians, and seeing a few staff reports..

The main point though is if one is judging the advantages or disadvantages of British rule is to recognize reality. Britain brought modern medicine and technology to India, to a nation that didn't exhibit the slightest bit of evidence it was on the path or would have been on the path independently to develop a modern medical healthcare system. One could also compare countries in a similar status as India who remained independent or colonized by others to India, and see on a comparison basis the merits or not of British rule.If medical care not available to the masses, it would be interesting therefore to look at other countries with a similar economic profile and whether they had modern medical care for their masses, you know the answer they did not.
morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2019, 8:09 pm
  #473  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by morpeth
Bipat, I am not sure why when someone points something out about India you look for events elsewhere as though that is relevant.
1) No one denied here are today top Indian medical personnel, in fact I specifically stated that. As far as as people you spoke to in the Indian medical sector who are Indian I highly doubt they would portray to you the difficulties in initially training Indian doctors and nurses- but again my only information is from speaking to people who did have to train Indians, and seeing a few staff reports..

2) The main point though is if one is judging the advantages or disadvantages of British rule is to recognize reality. Britain brought modern medicine and technology to India, to a nation that didn't exhibit the slightest bit of evidence it was on the path or would have been on the path independently to develop a modern medical healthcare system. One could also compare countries in a similar status as India who remained independent or colonized by others to India, and see on a comparison basis the merits or not of British rule.If medical care not available to the masses, it would be interesting therefore to look at other countries with a similar economic profile and whether they had modern medical care for their masses, you know the answer they did not.

1) Morpeth you did not read my post----I said there were 'top' INDIAN doctors training others BEFORE independence. I have personal knowledge of this.

(Did you look up the famous surgeon I mentioned????)

2)The British did not bring modern medical care for the 'masses' -----it was only for those who had access to it or could afford it.

Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2019, 8:36 pm
  #474  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
1) Morpeth you did not read my post----I said there were 'top' INDIAN doctors training others BEFORE independence. I have personal knowledge of this.

(Did you look up the famous surgeon I mentioned????)

2)The British did not bring modern medical care for the 'masses' -----it was only for those who had access to it or could afford it.
So you do agree, the " masses " in the local areas of the hospitals set up by the British did receive medical care.
But in areas where the British did not, the wealthy local Indians did not, the religious institutions, Hindhum Muslim etc did not there was none..
Therefore without the hospitals there would have been little if any modern medical care in India .
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2019, 8:54 pm
  #475  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
So you do agree, the " masses " in the local areas of the hospitals set up by the British did receive medical care.
But in areas where the British did not, the wealthy local Indians did not, the religious institutions, Hindhum Muslim etc did not there was none..
Therefore without the hospitals there would have been little if any modern medical care in India .
No the "masses" in any areas of British India did not receive 'modern' hospital medical care (neither did the masses in the UK until the NHS was set up!)

There was in India for the 'masses' local medical care with traditional methods and medicines with some input from local or British GPs when there was an emergency situation such as an outbreak of plague.

Until the recent Modi--health scheme was set up----in India-- it was much as in the USA----the ultra modern medical advances were only available to those who could afford it.
During British time this would be the majority of Indian people.
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2019, 9:02 pm
  #476  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
No the "masses" in any areas of British India did not receive 'modern' hospital medical care (neither did the masses in the UK until the NHS was set up!)

There was in India for the 'masses' local medical care with traditional methods and medicines with some input from local or British GPs when there was an emergency situation such as an outbreak of plague.

Until the recent Modi--health scheme was set up----in India-- it was much as in the USA----the ultra modern medical advances were only available to those who could afford it.
During British time this would be the majority of Indian people.
I think once again Bipat you are letting your prejudice get in the way of facts.
Until the British hospitals arrived, there was no modern medical treatment in those areas, no where for women to go, no training of Indians as nurses and later doctors..
​​​​​​
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2019, 9:20 pm
  #477  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
I think once again Bipat you are letting your prejudice get in the way of facts.
Until the British hospitals arrived, there was no modern medical treatment in those areas, no where for women to go, no training of Indians as nurses and later doctors..
​​​​​​
No EMR----I am telling you how it was. India was occupied; obviously any modernisation was done by the occupier/ruler. That was the British.

You are equating hospital treatment with general treatment!!!

Local treatments and medicines were used. (Many modern medicines are derived from ancient knowledge world-wide).
Women were treated in the same way----local midwives had skills as they had in the UK!

During British time as I said local and British shared general treatment.



Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2019, 11:31 pm
  #478  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
No EMR----I am telling you how it was. India was occupied; obviously any modernisation was done by the occupier/ruler. That was the British.

You are equating hospital treatment with general treatment!!!

Local treatments and medicines were used. (Many modern medicines are derived from ancient knowledge world-wide).
Women were treated in the same way----local midwives had skills as they had in the UK!

During British time as I said local and British shared general treatment.
So India benefitted from British rule bringing modern medical care where none existed.
That must really hurt you to admit it,
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 28th 2019, 12:18 am
  #479  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,783
Bipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond reputeBipat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by EMR
So India benefitted from British rule bringing modern medical care where none existed.
That must really hurt you to admit it,
EMR-----what you call "modern" medical care did not exist anywhere ---- including in the UK until mid--1800s. Can you not get that into your head??

The more wealthy Indians in India benefited in the earlier years and far more benefited much later and particularly when Indian people themselves were allowed to become involved as students, doctors and surgeons and as I said above themselves taught in the colleges.

Yes you are correct the British could have kept all hospitals and medical personnel just for themselves-----but they didn't.
(Certainly there was no mixing of patients----remember there was a separation of the 'natives'.)

As I have said so many times not ALL about British India was bad! There was much good.
(Many British hospital doctors and other officials 'stayed on' after independence and they were welcome).

Perhaps you might like to admit as you refuse to do on TIO-----that you are 'pro-Empire'.






Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 28th 2019, 12:26 am
  #480  
EMR
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
EMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond reputeEMR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: India and the Wars

Originally Posted by Bipat
EMR-----what you call "modern" medical care did not exist anywhere ---- including in the UK until mid--1800s. Can you not get that into your head??

The more wealthy Indians in India benefited in the earlier years and far more benefited much later and particularly when Indian people themselves were allowed to become involved as students, doctors and surgeons and as I said above themselves taught in the colleges.

Yes you are correct the British could have kept all hospitals and medical personnel just for themselves-----but they didn't.
(Certainly there was no mixing of patients----remember there was a separation of the 'natives'.)

As I have said so many times not ALL about British India was bad! There was much good.
(Many British hospital doctors and other officials 'stayed on' after independence and they were welcome).

Perhaps you might like to admit as you refuse to do on TIO-----that you are 'pro-Empire'.
Once again you are rambling Bipat..
Maybe if you actually looked at the number of hospitals set up by Charities, individuals, but then you would have to admit you as you are so often , prejudiced and biased.
Not pro Empire , pro facts, something you are unable to comprehend..
Using words like " occupied " , you do not even know what the word means,
Compare British colonial rule with the Nazi or Soviet occupation .
EMR is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.