India and the Wars

Old Feb 2nd 2019, 6:15 pm
  #46  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
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
The thick genes are really with you tonight are,N125 they.
The modern state of India owes its existence to the period of British rule.
FACT , FACT, FACT..
Stop inventing and fantasising.
You claim to be an intelligent woman, start acting like..one..
I don't know why you have to resort to personal insults?

Just read this while looking for something else. Has some interesting points about British and India.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-out-of-india
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 2nd 2019, 6:45 pm
  #47  
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
We are making our second visit to India returnjng next November for 3 weeks.
" Heritage " is now a buzz word in the hotel industry with older building being converted. not always that well and not offering the 4 and 5 star facikities many western and even Indian tourists expect , if TripAdvisor reviews are anything to go by.
We havecsayed in 16th century first and castles , 1930s homes of minor royal all showing a lot of faced ekegena e but preferred by those who like us have had enough of glass and concrete city hotels..
During our next visit we are staying in a Haveli in Varanasi, built in the early days of the last century ( hardly old ) by the Nepali royal family to house those who wanted to spend their last days in Varanasi., now a " heritage " hotel.

Revisionism is not unique to India, the 1857 mutiny may be renamed as part of the indeoendence struggle wh hich it clearly was not..
The local mutineers wanted to restore the old Moghul regime .
History books will probably ignore the fact that " loyal " Indian troops, and those from the rivals of those local rulers supporting the mutiny were the reason why it was defeated.
The role of the Inla in ww2 will be rewritten even though it was regarded by its Axis masters and ineffective and inept..
Bose is now a national hero although he was an admirer of Hitler and Nazism, the creators of the holocaust...
Historical revisionism is just part if the trend towards growing nationalism and popularist, whose negative effects we can see around the world..
Hi Sir

I read your write-up with some interest. The debate tends to center around whether British rule was good or bad for India/Indians and what were the proofs of this. On the “British were bad” side is what you find in most media in India today. On the “British were good” side are quiet fora like these and some Indians themselves, who cannot but hide a sense of deep shame and guilt in admitting it. As an Indian, I think the problem is nationalism and the need to somehow find an enemy to validate that feeling. You take away the need to be nationalistic, either pro-Britain or pro-India, and things get a lot clearer. Clearly, the British weren’t in India to do us any good; they had money to make and of course, the prestige that comes with ruling India. For the Indians, the British were a sea-change from the Muslim Turks or the Portuguese who annihilated local culture and customs where they went. In many cases, the British actively saved the lives of the natives against a variety of villains from Tipu of Mysore to the Thugees. For all that we are grateful.

But it what was the cost to Indians? And was it all worth it? As Indians of today have proven, with their huge migration outwards, they don’t really care who sets the rules so long as the rules don’t kill; the traffic lights work; and there is economic opportunity. The Indians were, in that sense, as fine under the British as they were under most ruler before them. Only, with the Muslims and the Portuguese, they well hell-bent on iconoclasm and cultural annihilation which peeved off not a few Indians. The cost was borne in terms of participation in wars to defend people to whom Indians had no natural attachment - the British. Why were millions of Indian soldiers drafted, albeit voluntarily, to join the defense of Britain and British overseas possessions against Germany? Why was war declared against Japan without the consent of Indians? Would the Japanese have been any worse than the British? Of course, Japan lost, and the war propaganda would have you believe all sorts of nonsense about them, the way nationalist propaganda would have you believe all sorts of nonsense about the British. That Bose supported Nazism and Hitler, in that sense, can’t really be taken against him. Among other venerated leaders who sided with the Axis Powers from Asia included Aung San of Myanmar, father of Suu Kyi and Sukarno of Indonesia. Bose was doing what it took to rid India of British rule. The large sign-up by captured Indian forces in Singapore to Bose’s Indian National Army is indicative of the kind of support the cause for political freedom had amongst Indian troops. Not to say that Indian troops in the British Indian Armed Forces weren’t loyal; at some point they decided to be loyal to their country. The millions of soldiers India lost in defending the territorial possessions of others is the true cost, in my view, of the British presence in India. Does it negate everything good done? Not in the least. But the balance has to be struck. Does India or do Indians have an enduring obligation to the British for what they’ve done? This could only be possible were alternate universes available where we could compare different outcomes. Was a move towards ousting the Muslim political yoke in India in full swing when the British were still bit players in India? Yes. Would India or most of it returned to mostly native rule without European interference? That is debatable. Would development have occurred without British largesse? Almost certainly - if Japan and Korea are any indication. The worst legacy of British rule in India took root only towards the end - that of Fabian socialism. It has kept India mired in poverty for fully 50 of her 70 years as a free country. You can plunder my house all you want, but to remove my sanity could be the worst crime ever committed.

For what it was worth, the British Indian state during its heyday between 1860 and 1914 was the most powerful political entity in the Indian Ocean region, indeed all of Asia. It was the regional hegemon and the final arbiter of regional political issues, a role which has been usurped by the United States. The immense power of the British Indian state together with their actual USP which was her British-endowed naval capability enabled her to be the boss of the Indian Ocean. This in turn reinforced the loyalty which the natives had towards the state. In truth, in blunt political terms, the Republic of India still punches at a lower weight than the British Indian state ever did - it is held up in knots by Pakistan for crying out loud!

For a Britain that is looking at her past for some semblance of glory, crying out “We gave you India” to Indians may provide some relief but it flies in the face of facts. Had British India alone become the new Republic, it would have looked like a thermocol sheet recently visited by rats. The work of building a cohesive physical Republic lay with the Indian nationalist movement, which went through the unenviable task of negotiating the accession of 600 princely states to the new Union. This wasn’t easy, and to suggest India was a British creation does grave injustice to these guys. Also, were today’s India merely a gift of the British with no commitment towards it by the Indians, it wouldn’t have lasted this long. Let’s look at some other British “creations” - Sudan and Yemen come to mind. Didn’t last very long those two! Indians have put in a lot of work, genuine hard work, to keep it together. Plus, Indians aren’t really the ruling type - indeed, they would most closely resemble the idea of a free democratic people - we want to live by and get things done.

Last edited by madathil.krishnanunni; Feb 2nd 2019 at 7:35 pm.
madathil.krishnanunni is offline  
Old Feb 2nd 2019, 10:52 pm
  #48  
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


Hi Sir

I read your write-up with some interest. The debate tends to center around whether British rule was good or bad for India/Indians and what were the proofs of this. On the “British were bad” side is what you find in most media in India today. On the “British were good” side are quiet fora like these and some Indians themselves, who cannot but hide a sense of deep shame and guilt in admitting it. As an Indian, I think the problem is nationalism and the need to somehow find an enemy to validate that feeling. You take away the need to be nationalistic, either pro-Britain or pro-India, and things get a lot clearer. Clearly, the British weren’t in India to do us any good; they had money to make and of course, the prestige that comes with ruling India. For the Indians, the British were a sea-change from the Muslim Turks or the Portuguese who annihilated local culture and customs where they went. In many cases, the British actively saved the lives of the natives against a variety of villains from Tipu of Mysore to the Thugees. For all that we are grateful.

But it what was the cost to Indians? And was it all worth it? As Indians of today have proven, with their huge migration outwards, they don’t really care who sets the rules so long as the rules don’t kill; the traffic lights work; and there is economic opportunity. The Indians were, in that sense, as fine under the British as they were under most ruler before them. Only, with the Muslims and the Portuguese, they well hell-bent on iconoclasm and cultural annihilation which peeved off not a few Indians. The cost was borne in terms of participation in wars to defend people to whom Indians had no natural attachment - the British. Why were millions of Indian soldiers drafted, albeit voluntarily, to join the defense of Britain and British overseas possessions against Germany? Why was war declared against Japan without the consent of Indians? Would the Japanese have been any worse than the British? Of course, Japan lost, and the war propaganda would have you believe all sorts of nonsense about them, the way nationalist propaganda would have you believe all sorts of nonsense about the British. That Bose supported Nazism and Hitler, in that sense, can’t really be taken against him. Among other venerated leaders who sided with the Axis Powers from Asia included Aung San of Myanmar, father of Suu Kyi and Sukarno of Indonesia. Bose was doing what it took to rid India of British rule. The large sign-up by captured Indian forces in Singapore to Bose’s Indian National Army is indicative of the kind of support the cause for political freedom had amongst Indian troops. Not to say that Indian troops in the British Indian Armed Forces weren’t loyal; at some point they decided to be loyal to their country. The millions of soldiers India lost in defending the territorial possessions of others is the true cost, in my view, of the British presence in India. Does it negate everything good done? Not in the least. But the balance has to be struck. Does India or do Indians have an enduring obligation to the British for what they’ve done? This could only be possible were alternate universes available where we could compare different outcomes. Was a move towards ousting the Muslim political yoke in India in full swing when the British were still bit players in India? Yes. Would India or most of it returned to mostly native rule without European interference? That is debatable. Would development have occurred without British largesse? Almost certainly - if Japan and Korea are any indication. The worst legacy of British rule in India took root only towards the end - that of Fabian socialism. It has kept India mired in poverty for fully 50 of her 70 years as a free country. You can plunder my house all you want, but to remove my sanity could be the worst crime ever committed.

For what it was worth, the British Indian state during its heyday between 1860 and 1914 was the most powerful political entity in the Indian Ocean region, indeed all of Asia. It was the regional hegemon and the final arbiter of regional political issues, a role which has been usurped by the United States. The immense power of the British Indian state together with their actual USP which was her British-endowed naval capability enabled her to be the boss of the Indian Ocean. This in turn reinforced the loyalty which the natives had towards the state. In truth, in blunt political terms, the Republic of India still punches at a lower weight than the British Indian state ever did - it is held up in knots by Pakistan for crying out loud!

For a Britain that is looking at her past for some semblance of glory, crying out “We gave you India” to Indians may provide some relief but it flies in the face of facts. Had British India alone become the new Republic, it would have looked like a thermocol sheet recently visited by rats. The work of building a cohesive physical Republic lay with the Indian nationalist movement, which went through the unenviable task of negotiating the accession of 600 princely states to the new Union. This wasn’t easy, and to suggest India was a British creation does grave injustice to these guys. Also, were today’s India merely a gift of the British with no commitment towards it by the Indians, it wouldn’t have lasted this long. Let’s look at some other British “creations” - Sudan and Yemen come to mind. Didn’t last very long those two! Indians have put in a lot of work, genuine hard work, to keep it together. Plus, Indians aren’t really the ruling type - indeed, they would most closely resemble the idea of a free democratic people - we want to live by and get things done.
Thank you for a new perspective on what is an immensely complicated concept.
Of course it us far too simplistic to claim that British alone is responsible for the creation of the Indian nation that obtained independence in 1947.
Equally to dismiss the influence of the transition from pure Victorian imperialism to the socialist changes evident in post ww1 UK politics is equally narrow minded.,as the idea of a nation of 100s millions controlled at gunpoint by a few tens thousands ofcwhie British troops is equally nonsensical.

The British like their many predecessors were never " rulers " of what we now refer to as India just as the central government of Modi appears to the outsider. ..
India's success is that it has not fragmented post independence into a Balkan Hodge podge of rival, ethnic, religious rival states with all that implies...
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 6:56 am
  #49  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
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
Thank you for a new perspective on what is an immensely complicated concept.
Of course it us far too simplistic to claim that British alone is responsible for the creation of the Indian nation that obtained independence in 1947.
Equally to dismiss the influence of the transition from pure Victorian imperialism to the socialist changes evident in post ww1 UK politics is equally narrow minded.,as the idea of a nation of 100s millions controlled at gunpoint by a few tens thousands ofcwhie British troops is equally nonsensical.

The British like their many predecessors were never " rulers " of what we now refer to as India just as the central government of Modi appears to the outsider. ..
India's success is that it has not fragmented post independence into a Balkan Hodge podge of rival, ethnic, religious rival states with all that implies...

You might ask yourself how the taxes were obtained and what would happen if not paid-----when you are discussing force and your view of "nonsensical".
Some figures.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Br...-to-rule-India

Get a DVD for yourself----the film LAGAAN------a light hearted view of the problems a village had in paying taxes to the British.

What do you as an "insider" know about the Modi Government? Please inform us.


Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 7:55 am
  #50  
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
You might ask yourself how the taxes were obtained and what would happen if not paid-----when you are discussing force and your view of "nonsensical".
Some figures.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Br...-to-rule-India

Get a DVD for yourself----the film LAGAAN------a light hearted view of the problems a village had in paying taxes to the British.

What do you as an "insider" know about the Modi Government? Please inform us.

Your post has nothing to do with the post I was referring to.
All I will add is that there were rulers who demanded tax, landlords etc .omg before the British arrived..
When Indians refer to the BMP as Hindu fanatics then clearly they do not share your view if Modis government..
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 8:40 am
  #51  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
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
Your post has nothing to do with the post I was referring to.
All I will add is that there were rulers who demanded tax, landlords etc .omg before the British arrived..
When Indians refer to the BMP as Hindu fanatics then clearly they do not share your view if Modis government..
No, the slightly incoherent post had some important points. I presume considering the 'name' the poster is from Kerala.

Yes, regarding taxes----the important difference is that previously all the money from the taxes was kept in the country, not most of it supporting a foreign country thousands of miles away.

I presume you mean BJP------certainly the opposition and supporters will call them any name you can think of!!!
How do you think they formed a Government? Obviously they were voted in by a majority!!!

I presume you have realised that both main parties have joined in Kerala against the Communists, suddenly Congress are also 'Hindu fanatics' to get votes.

What is your learned opinion of Priyanka Gandhi entering into politics (finally)? Could it be that she knows Rahul is incompetent?

I agree with you that politics shouldn't be influenced by religion----however in India it IS and you can't change it.
The British started it by making separate laws for Muslims---no government since could repeal this without losing most of the Muslim vote.
What is your opinion on the triple Talaq bill?



Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 9:10 am
  #52  
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 slightly incoherent post had some important points. I presume considering the 'name' the poster is from Kerala.

Yes, regarding taxes----the important difference is that previously all the money from the taxes was kept in the country, not most of it supporting a foreign country thousands of miles away.

I presume you mean BJP------certainly the opposition and supporters will call them any name you can think of!!!
How do you think they formed a Government? Obviously they were voted in by a majority!!!

I presume you have realised that both main parties have joined in Kerala against the Communists, suddenly Congress are also 'Hindu fanatics' to get votes.

What is your learned opinion of Priyanka Gandhi entering into politics (finally)? Could it be that she knows Rahul is incompetent?

I agree with you that politics shouldn't be influenced by religion----however in India it IS and you can't change it.
The British started it by making separate laws for Muslims---no government since could repeal this without losing most of the Muslim vote.
What is your opinion on the triple Talaq bill?
Taxes kept in the country, you claim was better , remind us what is the difference between the taxes going into the pockets of local rulers with private armies, tremendous personal wealth, who ruled without recourse to law, keeping their subjects in poverty and British rule..
The Hindu fanatic whose influence in Indian politics is clear to see is no different from the Moslem fanatic .
Rahul is hardly incompetent judging by the success of Congress in recent elections and with his sister's involvement which will attract the female voter Congress should gain even more seats in the upcoming national elections.
Not good news for Modi.


Last edited by EMR; Feb 3rd 2019 at 9:29 am.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 9:55 am
  #53  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
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
Taxes kept in the country, you claim was better , remind us what is the difference between the taxes going into the pockets of local rulers with private armies, tremendous personal wealth, who ruled without recourse to law, keeping their subjects in poverty and British rule..
The Hindu fanatic whose influence in Indian politics is clear to see is no different from the Moslem fanatic .
Rahul is hardly incompetent judging by the success of Congress in recent elections and with his sister's involvement which will attract the female voter Congress should gain even more seats in the upcoming national elections.
Not good news for Modi.
In simple terms, money IN the country is used IN the country regardless of the various people it 'passes' through! Money/assets sent abroad is 'gone'.

Congress apparent success has been largely due to recent controversial actions of BJP; demonetisation, the recent major overhaul of tax system etc. It is predicted that at General Election, BJP will form a government but possibly with a coalition with smaller parties.
(Incidentally the hideous statue is already making a lot of money with expensive tourist tickets to view it!!)

Have you actually listened to Rahul's speeches? She is far more able and intelligent but suffers from the scandals attached to Robert Vadra. What is your opinion of all the money syphoned into the Gandhi family private accounts, the exploitation of their name (complained about recently by the Mahatma descendants)?

In your post above you used the words "As Modi appears to the outsider"----I asked ---in what way do you consider yourself an 'insider'??

Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 10:04 am
  #54  
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
In simple terms, money IN the country is used IN the country regardless of the various people it 'passes' through! Money/assets sent abroad is 'gone'.

Congress apparent success has been largely due to recent controversial actions of BJP; demonetisation, the recent major overhaul of tax system etc. It is predicted that at General Election, BJP will form a government but possibly with a coalition with smaller parties.
(Incidentally the hideous statue is already making a lot of money with expensive tourist tickets to view it!!)

Have you actually listened to Rahul's speeches? She is far more able and intelligent but suffers from the scandals attached to Robert Vadra. What is your opinion of all the money syphoned into the Gandhi family private accounts, the exploitation of their name (complained about recently by the Mahatma descendants)?

In your post above you used the words "As Modi appears to the outsider"----I asked ---in what way do you consider yourself an 'insider'??
I Don,t consider myself an insider, I voice opinions as an outsider, reading Indian news papers, watching Indian tv reports , admittedly in English all of which you dismiss as being left wing or congress supporters.
The articles that appear in the UK press and on UK tv, which you question as being biased.

Politics is corrupt , Congress is no worse than any other party, only an idiot would think otherwise.
Indian politics would probably drive even Machiavelli mad with its conspiracies, allegiances, local influences, local lower bases etc etc.
As I have posted before in many another country such a system would have caused civil unrest even civil war but in India it appears to work after a fashion.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 5:38 pm
  #55  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,005
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
India could manage India with so few soldiers ------"An achievement"-!!!!!! So you approve!
Morpeth think about it-----you are an ordinary person born into a situation where your country is ruled by another, thousands of miles away, what can you do about it??
You grow up, as everywhere do the best you can in life ---you are not going to protest and mess up everything! You accept the reality of he situation and earn a living. They didn't need many soldiers.

As I have said 'on the ground' the relationships were often cordial and mutually accepting. OH quite liked being taught the works of Thomas Hardy at school.
He was proud to know that British lawyers brought their students to hear the eloquent speeches of his grandfather the chief prosecutor of the area. He admired the Scottish tutors at his college.
That doesn't excuse 'foreign rule by force'! If you don't like the word 'force' why did the British not just 'leave'!!

What was India like before?-----what was UK like at that time-----the poverty, the workhouses, deportation of children, hanging!!

What "benefits" are they not giving up?
Of course it was an achievement in efficient administration , as was the Roman Empire- or that the Mongols were able to conquer such a vast area. A achievement doesnt mean it was necessarily good or bad, except for people who are emotional about the subject. As with India and its use of force, countries have throughout history taken over other countries or territories.India has done the same using force.The Germans in WWII advanced rocket science, the use of helicopters, and col to il technology-one can see the achievement without 'approving' the other aspects.

The benefits of British rule and Western influence thereby are so numerous as you well know.

You asked a good point, the average person just wanted to get by. The elite of course often just wanted the benefits the British had for themselves. Did the average Indian feel oppressed by the British any more than the Mughals before, I doubt it. Certainly to a degree British rule showed over time a lot stability.

Mughal Empire was at the end of a long decline, there were no modern universities, no western medicine or institutions or infrastructure and so forth. Any objective consideration of British rule must taken into account these factors. Indeed the current political structure and a unified India comes much from the British.

It is just a historical fact the Britain ruled India as Rome ruled Britain- should I be complaining to Italians today, or to the Vikings ? Or believe contrary to all information that British business preferred to invest and operate in India than in non-colonies ? or other such nonsense.?

As far s I know no Indian is asking for rejection of the benefits of British rule such as removing Western medicine and science and reverting to traditional Indian ways of doing things, closing British/Western style universities, reverting to pre-British political governance, etc etc

The difference is that while certainly many aspects of British society 150 or 200 years ago the UK may not wish to revert to, but they are not complaining about those who brought the improvements ! It has been 70 years since British rule, surely Indians can take responsibility for their own society- the Japenese did and with much less than India they became a first world nation after WWII.
morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 5:48 pm
  #56  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,005
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
In simple terms, money IN the country is used IN the country regardless of the various people it 'passes' through! Money/assets sent abroad is 'gone'.

Congress apparent success has been largely due to recent controversial actions of BJP; demonetisation, the recent major overhaul of tax system etc. It is predicted that at General Election, BJP will form a government but possibly with a coalition with smaller parties.
(Incidentally the hideous statue is already making a lot of money with expensive tourist tickets to view it!!)

Have you actually listened to Rahul's speeches? She is far more able and intelligent but suffers from the scandals attached to Robert Vadra. What is your opinion of all the money syphoned into the Gandhi family private accounts, the exploitation of their name (complained about recently by the Mahatma descendants)?

In your post above you used the words "As Modi appears to the outsider"----I asked ---in what way do you consider yourself an 'insider'??
First of all a while back I supplied statistics showing the degree of taxation sent out of India was fairly minimal.If I recall in the end Britain owed India money and thence paid it back.

Second, what is important is how the economy operated not whether some portion of profits or taxes sent outside the country. This has been shown around the world over and over, insular protectionist third world nations which rejected foreign invested did less well than those who accepted it.

Third, so some corrupt princes would have reinvested the money better than the British ? Is here the slightest shred of evidence to support such a hilarious claim?.Without the British consolidation of territory would there have been sufficient economies of scale for the transportation system that developed ? The expertise to build such systems ?

One can certainly debate the economic impact of British rule on the Indian textile industry, and other areas of the economy- but blanket assertions implying some corrupt backward potentates in a chaotic declining Mughal Empire would have been engines of growth in a scientific and commercial revolution is a bit challenging to accept as a reasonable portrayal of reality..
morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 7:41 pm
  #57  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
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
Of course it was an achievement in efficient administration , as was the Roman Empire- or that the Mongols were able to conquer such a vast area. A achievement doesnt mean it was necessarily good or bad, except for people who are emotional about the subject. As with India and its use of force, countries have throughout history taken over other countries or territories.India has done the same using force.The Germans in WWII advanced rocket science, the use of helicopters, and col to il technology-one can see the achievement without 'approving' the other aspects.

The benefits of British rule and Western influence thereby are so numerous as you well know.

You asked a good point, the average person just wanted to get by. The elite of course often just wanted the benefits the British had for themselves. Did the average Indian feel oppressed by the British any more than the Mughals before, I doubt it. Certainly to a degree British rule showed over time a lot stability.

Mughal Empire was at the end of a long decline, there were no modern universities, no western medicine or institutions or infrastructure and so forth. Any objective consideration of British rule must taken into account these factors. Indeed the current political structure and a unified India comes much from the British.

It is just a historical fact the Britain ruled India as Rome ruled Britain- should I be complaining to Italians today, or to the Vikings ? Or believe contrary to all information that British business preferred to invest and operate in India than in non-colonies ? or other such nonsense.?

As far s I know no Indian is asking for rejection of the benefits of British rule such as removing Western medicine and science and reverting to traditional Indian ways of doing things, closing British/Western style universities, reverting to pre-British political governance, etc etc

The difference is that while certainly many aspects of British society 150 or 200 years ago the UK may not wish to revert to, but they are not complaining about those who brought the improvements ! It has been 70 years since British rule, surely Indians can take responsibility for their own society- the Japenese did and with much less than India they became a first world nation after WWII.
Morpeth the people born in the 1800s and later that I know of did not compare their lives with those in the days of the Mughals they just knew it was British people who they were subservient to!

(Do British people living today in poverty think about what it was like in the time of Roman occupation??)
Morpeth we are talking about the time until 1947!!! When a country with so much basic wealth had been reduced to 80-90%poverty. Yes it was relatively stable but poor. The 'middle' classes had jobs but no 'possessions' as such.
I would ask you if the taxation, cheap imports to the UK, land takeover, grain import are meaningless. Why were the British there? Why did they not just leave??

Comparing with Japan---the population, the vastly different climate areas, geographical areas are vastly different difficulties for India, however India is certainly responsible for their own society.
I am just discussing with you and your pro-Empire opinions.


Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 8:14 pm
  #58  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
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
First of all a while back I supplied statistics showing the degree of taxation sent out of India was fairly minimal.If I recall in the end Britain owed India money and thence paid it back.

Second, what is important is how the economy operated not whether some portion of profits or taxes sent outside the country. This has been shown around the world over and over, insular protectionist third world nations which rejected foreign invested did less well than those who accepted it.

Third, so some corrupt princes would have reinvested the money better than the British ? Is here the slightest shred of evidence to support such a hilarious claim?.Without the British consolidation of territory would there have been sufficient economies of scale for the transportation system that developed ? The expertise to build such systems ?

One can certainly debate the economic impact of British rule on the Indian textile industry, and other areas of the economy- but blanket assertions implying some corrupt backward potentates in a chaotic declining Mughal Empire would have been engines of growth in a scientific and commercial revolution is a bit challenging to accept as a reasonable portrayal of reality..
Morpeth are you equating foreign occupation with investment??????

If WW2 had ended differently and the UK had been occupied---would you have rejoiced in the "investment" that followed.
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 9:22 pm
  #59  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,005
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 the people born in the 1800s and later that I know of did not compare their lives with those in the days of the Mughals they just knew it was British people who they were subservient to!

(Do British people living today in poverty think about what it was like in the time of Roman occupation??)
Morpeth we are talking about the time until 1947!!! When a country with so much basic wealth had been reduced to 80-90%poverty. Yes it was relatively stable but poor. The 'middle' classes had jobs but no 'possessions' as such.
I would ask you if the taxation, cheap imports to the UK, land takeover, grain import are meaningless. Why were the British there? Why did they not just leave??

Comparing with Japan---the population, the vastly different climate areas, geographical areas are vastly different difficulties for India, however India is certainly responsible for their own society.
I am just discussing with you and your pro-Empire opinions.
“Morpeth the people born in the 1800s and later that I know of did not compare their lives with those in the days of the Mughals they just knew it was British people who they were subservient to!”

In both times they were subservient to someone.


“ When a country with so much basic wealth had been reduced to 80-90%poverty. Yes it was relatively stable but poor. The 'middle' classes had jobs but no 'possessions' as such.
I would ask you if the taxation, cheap imports to the UK, land takeover, grain import are meaningless. Why were the British there? Why did they not just leave??”


The divergence that occurred between India and China, and the West, arguably started well before British rule in India. As far as people in middle classes not having not having possessions guess depends on how you define middle classes. I know quite a few families who originated originally from Dehli area, they made money under the British and certainly had posssessions. Plus there a variety of motivations for colonialism in India and elsewhere. Why were the Mughals there ? Why does India continue to rule areas it has taken over by force ?

“Comparing with Japan---the population, the vastly different climate areas, geographical areas are vastly different difficulties for India, however India is certainly responsible for their own society.
I am just discussing with you and your pro-Empire opinions.”


India as a result partially of British rule had tremendous advantages at the end of WWII, Japan was a bombed out shell without the resources of India- the point simply is Indians especially the elite should be willing to face up to problems of their own making.

As I tried to explain it isn’t a question of being pro or anti empire, just trying to be somewhat objective in looking at the facts or trying to objectively ascertaining the facts. Just look around at the courts and military, universities and knowledge of English, use of Western Medicine and Science, this came from the British- which just be weighed against the negatives. The idea that India is poor today because of the British is highly debatable if not absurd. It is very debatable the effects of British rule economically in the 19th and 20th century. It is not debatable that India was on a downward spiral before the British took control.


morpeth is offline  
Old Feb 3rd 2019, 9:24 pm
  #60  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,005
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 are you equating foreign occupation with investment??????

If WW2 had ended differently and the UK had been occupied---would you have rejoiced in the "investment" that followed.
bipat i was simply responding to your comments that foreign occupation by definition is a negative and pointed out that one needs to look at the overall economic effect.you seem to have some rather strange idea the british extracted huge taxation from india.
morpeth is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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