India and the Wars
Feb 3rd 2019, 10:10 pm
#61
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
“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.
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.
If there was no advantage economically for the British to occupy India why were they there?
Why did they not immediately leave when the independence movement gained strength?
Why did they waste resources of the British army and navy?
Why was India known as "The Jewel in the Crown"?
Why did they send people to work there who unused to the climate many died?
Which areas are you referring to that India "rules", that are not also potentially part of the Indian Government?
(You knew a few families in Delhi area who made money out of the British)
https://rhythmprismpublishing.com/20...of-1876-india/
Last edited by Bipat; Feb 3rd 2019 at 10:40 pm. Reason: Foolish sarcasm
Feb 4th 2019, 3:34 am
#62
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
Morpeth you and EMR make statements but never answer questions.
If there was no advantage economically for the British to occupy India why were they there?
Why did they not immediately leave when the independence movement gained strength?
Why did they waste resources of the British army and navy?
Why was India known as "The Jewel in the Crown"?
Why did they send people to work there who unused to the climate many died?
Which areas are you referring to that India "rules", that are not also potentially part of the Indian Government?
(You knew a few families in Delhi area who made money out of the British)
https://rhythmprismpublishing.com/20...of-1876-india/
If there was no advantage economically for the British to occupy India why were they there?
Why did they not immediately leave when the independence movement gained strength?
Why did they waste resources of the British army and navy?
Why was India known as "The Jewel in the Crown"?
Why did they send people to work there who unused to the climate many died?
Which areas are you referring to that India "rules", that are not also potentially part of the Indian Government?
(You knew a few families in Delhi area who made money out of the British)
https://rhythmprismpublishing.com/20...of-1876-india/
Bipat, not true but when the questions are answered you pivot away in your response as anything that doesn’t fit your fixed conceptions based on a highly emotional Indian point of view is disregarded- any fact or evidence contrary to the simplistic anti-British views you hold you simply refuse to consider.
“If there was no advantage economically for the British to occupy India why were they there?”
You seem quite unaware of even the basic debates that occurred in the British, French and German parliaments about the wisdom of many colonial ventures, or the extent to which non-economic factors drove the desire to acquire and maintain colonies. The discussion in these threads have centered on the degree of what that benefit was, and the effect on either the British or Indian economic history. Considering for example the higher amount of vestment and rates of return on British investment in non-colonies, one would think that would give one pause in having a simplistic view that colonies were solely as time went own due to economic factors.
In any case when confronted with evidence you refuse to consider or even modify your views which fixed and evidently based on some sort of folk memory or modern Indian conventional ideology.
“Why did they not immediately leave when the independence movement gained strength?”
Probably because there were varying estimates of what the results and timing would been or a sense of responsibility to either the Indian people or British business. A whole host of reasons could be offered.
“Why did they waste resources of the British army and navy?
As stated there were a variety of reasons for maintaining colonies, whether prestige, economic benefit, religious impulse, sense of wanting to civilize the colonies from a Western perspective, etc.
I read a study a while back on French colonies in Africa, often quite uneconomic. The study pointed out that several French business interests were over-represented in the French government- so even though France overall may have lost out economically in a particular colony, such interests plus those seeking prestige of being a great power, combined to acquire colonies. Bismarck initially quite opposed to acquiring colonies. In 1883 Sir John Seeley wrote “We …seem to have acquired and peopled half the world in a ft of absence of mind”.
The issue of colonialism is much more nuanced than you portay, and perhaps because relying solely on folk memory gives a somewhat distorted view. Just as India’s poverty is not solely a result of British rule not Indian government incompetence in the first decades after independence.
“Why was India known as "The Jewel in the Crown"?”
For a variety of reasons as noted above.
“Why did they send people to work there who unused to the climate many died?”
This happened in Africa as well, or non-British colonies in Asia.
“Which areas are you referring to that India "rules” that are not also potentially part of the Indian Government?”
India by force or subterfuge taken over Hyderabad, Goa, Sikhism, several smaller princely states, and regimes in India before the British did the same for centuries. Let alone India’s continued rule in the Kashmir, or role in the events of East Pakistan.
“(You knew a few families in Delhi area who made money out of the British)”
Yes just anecdotal evidence, but speaking to people in those families all found it quite absurd the statement that middle class families in India under the British had no possessions based on their own experience. This is just anecdotal, maybe there is some study or evidence at the lack of possessions by people considered middle class ?
My own families 'folk memories' of those who lived in British India certainly showed many considered that Britain had a mission to uplift the Indians, some just wanted an opportunities they didn't have back home, and some thought it was idiotic to give India independence so fast.Of course such opinions I would measure against evidence- perhaps you should do the same for the rather simplistic anti-British rule opinions given apparently based on evidence of subjective observers.
Feb 4th 2019, 3:40 am
#63
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
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.
And while I think overall the princely states were treated unfairly in many instances, you make a superb point it took superb political skill to build the cohesive political republic of India.
Feb 4th 2019, 7:00 am
#64
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
The Nazis did not invest, they shipped off minorities to extermination camps..
As usual your responses are farcical.
Feb 4th 2019, 7:02 am
#65
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
I would question one point that being the motivation behind those who joined the IN A.
When the alternative was a starvation diet in a prison camp or being worked to death on projects like the " death railway " it is easy to understand why joining the IN A was an attractive idea..
The INA was not regarded by its Axis masters as being of any significant military value.
Survival in the IN A being better than a slow death as a prisoner, which is what happened to many who stayed loyal ..
When in Jodpur we were told that one of the factors in local Indian politics is still the belief that the then ruler of that state who was a drivjng force in protecting the rights of the states was killed in suspicious circumstances in a plane crash., the finger being pointed at those who wanted to take away the rights they had under British rule.
Last edited by EMR; Feb 4th 2019 at 7:27 am.
Feb 4th 2019, 7:32 am
#66
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
“Morpeth you and EMR make statements but never answer questions.”
Bipat, not true but when the questions are answered you pivot away in your response as anything that doesn’t fit your fixed conceptions based on a highly emotional Indian point of view is disregarded- any fact or evidence contrary to the simplistic anti-British views you hold you simply refuse to consider.
“If there was no advantage economically for the British to occupy India why were they there?”
You seem quite unaware of even the basic debates that occurred in the British, French and German parliaments about the wisdom of many colonial ventures, or the extent to which non-economic factors drove the desire to acquire and maintain colonies. The discussion in these threads have centered on the degree of what that benefit was, and the effect on either the British or Indian economic history. Considering for example the higher amount of vestment and rates of return on British investment in non-colonies, one would think that would give one pause in having a simplistic view that colonies were solely as time went own due to economic factors.
In any case when confronted with evidence you refuse to consider or even modify your views which fixed and evidently based on some sort of folk memory or modern Indian conventional ideology.
“Why did they not immediately leave when the independence movement gained strength?”
Probably because there were varying estimates of what the results and timing would been or a sense of responsibility to either the Indian people or British business. A whole host of reasons could be offered.
“Why did they waste resources of the British army and navy?
As stated there were a variety of reasons for maintaining colonies, whether prestige, economic benefit, religious impulse, sense of wanting to civilize the colonies from a Western perspective, etc.
I read a study a while back on French colonies in Africa, often quite uneconomic. The study pointed out that several French business interests were over-represented in the French government- so even though France overall may have lost out economically in a particular colony, such interests plus those seeking prestige of being a great power, combined to acquire colonies. Bismarck initially quite opposed to acquiring colonies. In 1883 Sir John Seeley wrote “We …seem to have acquired and peopled half the world in a ft of absence of mind”.
The issue of colonialism is much more nuanced than you portay, and perhaps because relying solely on folk memory gives a somewhat distorted view. Just as India’s poverty is not solely a result of British rule not Indian government incompetence in the first decades after independence.
“Why was India known as "The Jewel in the Crown"?”
For a variety of reasons as noted above.
“Why did they send people to work there who unused to the climate many died?”
This happened in Africa as well, or non-British colonies in Asia.
“Which areas are you referring to that India "rules” that are not also potentially part of the Indian Government?”
India by force or subterfuge taken over Hyderabad, Goa, Sikhism, several smaller princely states, and regimes in India before the British did the same for centuries. Let alone India’s continued rule in the Kashmir, or role in the events of East Pakistan.
“(You knew a few families in Delhi area who made money out of the British)”
Yes just anecdotal evidence, but speaking to people in those families all found it quite absurd the statement that middle class families in India under the British had no possessions based on their own experience. This is just anecdotal, maybe there is some study or evidence at the lack of possessions by people considered middle class ?
My own families 'folk memories' of those who lived in British India certainly showed many considered that Britain had a mission to uplift the Indians, some just wanted an opportunities they didn't have back home, and some thought it was idiotic to give India independence so fast.Of course such opinions I would measure against evidence- perhaps you should do the same for the rather simplistic anti-British rule opinions given apparently based on evidence of subjective observers.
Bipat, not true but when the questions are answered you pivot away in your response as anything that doesn’t fit your fixed conceptions based on a highly emotional Indian point of view is disregarded- any fact or evidence contrary to the simplistic anti-British views you hold you simply refuse to consider.
“If there was no advantage economically for the British to occupy India why were they there?”
You seem quite unaware of even the basic debates that occurred in the British, French and German parliaments about the wisdom of many colonial ventures, or the extent to which non-economic factors drove the desire to acquire and maintain colonies. The discussion in these threads have centered on the degree of what that benefit was, and the effect on either the British or Indian economic history. Considering for example the higher amount of vestment and rates of return on British investment in non-colonies, one would think that would give one pause in having a simplistic view that colonies were solely as time went own due to economic factors.
In any case when confronted with evidence you refuse to consider or even modify your views which fixed and evidently based on some sort of folk memory or modern Indian conventional ideology.
“Why did they not immediately leave when the independence movement gained strength?”
Probably because there were varying estimates of what the results and timing would been or a sense of responsibility to either the Indian people or British business. A whole host of reasons could be offered.
“Why did they waste resources of the British army and navy?
As stated there were a variety of reasons for maintaining colonies, whether prestige, economic benefit, religious impulse, sense of wanting to civilize the colonies from a Western perspective, etc.
I read a study a while back on French colonies in Africa, often quite uneconomic. The study pointed out that several French business interests were over-represented in the French government- so even though France overall may have lost out economically in a particular colony, such interests plus those seeking prestige of being a great power, combined to acquire colonies. Bismarck initially quite opposed to acquiring colonies. In 1883 Sir John Seeley wrote “We …seem to have acquired and peopled half the world in a ft of absence of mind”.
The issue of colonialism is much more nuanced than you portay, and perhaps because relying solely on folk memory gives a somewhat distorted view. Just as India’s poverty is not solely a result of British rule not Indian government incompetence in the first decades after independence.
“Why was India known as "The Jewel in the Crown"?”
For a variety of reasons as noted above.
“Why did they send people to work there who unused to the climate many died?”
This happened in Africa as well, or non-British colonies in Asia.
“Which areas are you referring to that India "rules” that are not also potentially part of the Indian Government?”
India by force or subterfuge taken over Hyderabad, Goa, Sikhism, several smaller princely states, and regimes in India before the British did the same for centuries. Let alone India’s continued rule in the Kashmir, or role in the events of East Pakistan.
“(You knew a few families in Delhi area who made money out of the British)”
Yes just anecdotal evidence, but speaking to people in those families all found it quite absurd the statement that middle class families in India under the British had no possessions based on their own experience. This is just anecdotal, maybe there is some study or evidence at the lack of possessions by people considered middle class ?
My own families 'folk memories' of those who lived in British India certainly showed many considered that Britain had a mission to uplift the Indians, some just wanted an opportunities they didn't have back home, and some thought it was idiotic to give India independence so fast.Of course such opinions I would measure against evidence- perhaps you should do the same for the rather simplistic anti-British rule opinions given apparently based on evidence of subjective observers.
1) Do you not think that your own views might be 'simplistic'?
That growing up in a country occupied by a nation thousands of miles away---might cause you to be 'emotional' about it?
EMR in post 14 includes eye-witness reports as historical evidence-----but you describe them as "folk memory" /"subjective" (if they don't fit your views).
OH's small community originate in Kashmir fled the Mughals, for some reason travelled so far and ended up in Goa, then fled the tortures of the Portuguese. They have written history (although libraries in Goa burned and documents destroyed).
British were preferable to Portuguese so I am sure you will at least believe that!!
But of course it is all nonsensical "folk memory" to you!
2) I asked you which areas India 'rules' and were not potentially part of the Government. (Which you describe as invaded.)
The last PM was a Sikh, Bangladesh is an independent country. We have discussed Goa at length, it has always been part of 'India'----were the Portuguese brown, Hindu/Muslim people??????
Kashmir has elections and the majority vote for the status quo.
We will be there in May so can get some 'folk views' for you!!
3) Yes the matter of middle-class possessions is personal memory -----and a great difference between those living in cities and in rural areas. The latter had land but little else.
4) "Uplifting the Indians"---won't relay that detail to any relatives!
You didn't comment on the link regarding the 'Madras'' famine----I am sure they felt 'uplifted' to watch grain being exported while the poor died. A sort of 'famine deaths denial'!
Feb 4th 2019, 7:49 am
#67
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
A point I have made more than once .
I would question one point that being the motivation behind those who joined the IN A.
When the alternative was a starvation diet in a prison camp or being worked to death on projects like the " death railway " it is easy to understand why joining the IN A was an attractive idea..
The INA was not regarded by its Axis masters as being of any significant military value.
Survival in the IN A being better than a slow death as a prisoner, which is what happened to many who stayed loyal ..
When in Jodpur we were told that one of the factors in local Indian politics is still the belief that the then ruler of that state who was a drivjng force in protecting the rights of the states was killed in suspicious circumstances in a plane crash., the finger being pointed at those who wanted to take away the rights they had under British rule.
I would question one point that being the motivation behind those who joined the IN A.
When the alternative was a starvation diet in a prison camp or being worked to death on projects like the " death railway " it is easy to understand why joining the IN A was an attractive idea..
The INA was not regarded by its Axis masters as being of any significant military value.
Survival in the IN A being better than a slow death as a prisoner, which is what happened to many who stayed loyal ..
When in Jodpur we were told that one of the factors in local Indian politics is still the belief that the then ruler of that state who was a drivjng force in protecting the rights of the states was killed in suspicious circumstances in a plane crash., the finger being pointed at those who wanted to take away the rights they had under British rule.
Yes the Privy purses and 'rights' of the Princely States were taken by Indira. A socialist Government presumably disagreed with their vast wealth.
Some descendants of the Princes entered politics..
Feb 4th 2019, 7:53 am
#68
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
Morpeth another one of your unwieldy posts extolling/excusing colonialism/empires!
1) Do you not think that your own views might be 'simplistic'?
That growing up in a country occupied by a nation thousands of miles away---might cause you to be 'emotional' about it?
EMR in post 14 includes eye-witness reports as historical evidence-----but you describe them as "folk memory" /"subjective" (if they don't fit your views).
OH's small community originate in Kashmir fled the Mughals, for some reason travelled so far and ended up in Goa, then fled the tortures of the Portuguese. They have written history (although libraries in Goa burned and documents destroyed).
British were preferable to Portuguese so I am sure you will at least believe that!!
But of course it is all nonsensical "folk memory" to you!
2) I asked you which areas India 'rules' and were not potentially part of the Government. (Which you describe as invaded.)
The last PM was a Sikh, Bangladesh is an independent country. We have discussed Goa at length, it has always been part of 'India'----were the Portuguese brown, Hindu/Muslim people??????
Kashmir has elections and the majority vote for the status quo.
We will be there in May so can get some 'folk views' for you!!
3) Yes the matter of middle-class possessions is personal memory -----and a great difference between those living in cities and in rural areas. The latter had land but little else.
4) "Uplifting the Indians"---won't relay that detail to any relatives!
You didn't comment on the link regarding the 'Madras'' famine----I am sure they felt 'uplifted' to watch grain being exported while the poor died. A sort of 'famine deaths denial'!
1) Do you not think that your own views might be 'simplistic'?
That growing up in a country occupied by a nation thousands of miles away---might cause you to be 'emotional' about it?
EMR in post 14 includes eye-witness reports as historical evidence-----but you describe them as "folk memory" /"subjective" (if they don't fit your views).
OH's small community originate in Kashmir fled the Mughals, for some reason travelled so far and ended up in Goa, then fled the tortures of the Portuguese. They have written history (although libraries in Goa burned and documents destroyed).
British were preferable to Portuguese so I am sure you will at least believe that!!
But of course it is all nonsensical "folk memory" to you!
2) I asked you which areas India 'rules' and were not potentially part of the Government. (Which you describe as invaded.)
The last PM was a Sikh, Bangladesh is an independent country. We have discussed Goa at length, it has always been part of 'India'----were the Portuguese brown, Hindu/Muslim people??????
Kashmir has elections and the majority vote for the status quo.
We will be there in May so can get some 'folk views' for you!!
3) Yes the matter of middle-class possessions is personal memory -----and a great difference between those living in cities and in rural areas. The latter had land but little else.
4) "Uplifting the Indians"---won't relay that detail to any relatives!
You didn't comment on the link regarding the 'Madras'' famine----I am sure they felt 'uplifted' to watch grain being exported while the poor died. A sort of 'famine deaths denial'!
As I have pointed out empires have existed around the world and throughout history, just historical fact. They could have benefits or have disadvantages, more often than not both.
1) Do you not think that your own views might be 'simplistic'?
I try to listen to different points of view, and seek out evidence. It is simplistic in the extreme to hold a point of view hen disregard any and all evidence to the contrary which you have done repeatedly on various subjects regarding ndia.
That growing up in a country occupied by a nation thousands of miles away---might cause you to be 'emotional' about it?
Being emotional and denying facts hardly advances knowledge. And as you well pointed out, may simply lived their lives as best they could- whether Mughal or the British may have made little real difference, though I don’t know how to measure that. I suspect after having lived, worked and studies in various third world countries, the average person didn’t at the time have such a concern unless prompted middle and upper class leaders who had the money and ime to run around protesting.
EMR in post 14 includes eye-witness reports as historical evidence-----but you describe them as "folk memory" /"subjective" (if they don't fit your views).
Again no one has denied he usefulness of memories of those of the time , though you have often denied that British memories had any validity , only Indian memories. But memories of those without knowledge of economics or history and contrary to evidence or logic surely can be questioned ( and this happens in every country not just India).
2) I asked you which areas India 'rules' and were not potentially part of the Government. (Which you describe as invaded.)
The last PM was a Sikh, Bangladesh is an independent country. We have discussed Goa at length, it has always been part of 'India'----were the Portuguese brown, Hindu/Muslim people??????
Kashmir has elections and the majority vote for the status quo.
We will be there in May so can get some 'folk views' for you!!
Hyderbad, Goa and Sikhim for a start. India has shown no hesitation of using force when it wished. In Bangla Desh the Indian security forces and army conducted violations of Pakistan’s sovereign rights and aided groups some might consider terrorists.
India deliberately refused to have a Kashmir-wide referendum, and to this day can be considered an occupying force. If all of Kashmir had a referendum today I have no idea what the result would be- India’s fear of such a referendum speaks volumes.
The difference between those living in cities and in rural areas. The latter had land bu
3) Yes the matter of middle-class possessions is personal memory -----and a grea t little else.
But the way you state that to give the idea that no middle class has possessions is very misleading.
4) "Uplifting the Indians"---won't relay that detail to any relatives![img]file:///C:\Users\ray\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_image001.gif[/img][img]file:///C:\Users\ray\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_image001.gif[/img]I was just stating the obvious, that this was a widely shared view.
You didn't comment on the link regarding the 'Madras'' famine----I am sure they felt 'uplifted' to watch grain being exported while the poor died. A sort of 'famine deaths denial'!
If I comment using evidence you will deny so what is the point ? And you seem to not read my posts as I have never said that British policy was always perfect or the best in all cases.
Feb 4th 2019, 7:56 am
#69
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 26,724
Re: India and the Wars
Are you referring to Hanwant Singh? Led a 'rackety' life before he died flying his own plane.
Yes the Privy purses and 'rights' of the Princely States were taken by Indira. A socialist Government presumably disagreed with their vast wealth.
Some descendants of the Princes entered politics..
Yes the Privy purses and 'rights' of the Princely States were taken by Indira. A socialist Government presumably disagreed with their vast wealth.
Some descendants of the Princes entered politics..
He was the leader of the Princely states , defending their rights, long before Indira Ghandi.
Regarding the Madras famine, It was was caused by a severe drought that affected much if India , not by the British.
Did the British continue to export grain, grown by Indian farmers on Indian farms , yes.
During other weather induced famines did the British import grain to help feed the starving, yes.
Maybe one day you will do some research before posting.
Last edited by EMR; Feb 4th 2019 at 8:02 am.
Feb 4th 2019, 8:08 am
#70
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
EMR 'facts'----- the soldiers didn't just arrive in India during "global wars". Even you must know that!!
Even our own historic town which was expanded by the British from a village and turned into the N. Kanara area capital in mid-1800s had soldiers since then! Fact from personal knowledge.
(The London soldiers are for protection of their own people------the British soldiers in India were for keeping peace, protecting the British property, ensuring the apartheid---not protecting the local community!!!)
The modern State of India has made use of and changed and adapted and built FROM that which the British had built for THEMSELVES -- Some of it very useful some not-----still laws in process of repeal. No one has said that much was not useful or that everything was bad!
Think about it EMR before British rule, India was a wealthy country, at Independence it was 'poor', with 80-90% poverty. Explain the taxation, land take, exports to the UK etc.!!
What views of others have I invented----yours and Morpeth's are fairly obvious. You continue to support Empire occupation and ignore its faults, your above post does just that.
Even our own historic town which was expanded by the British from a village and turned into the N. Kanara area capital in mid-1800s had soldiers since then! Fact from personal knowledge.
(The London soldiers are for protection of their own people------the British soldiers in India were for keeping peace, protecting the British property, ensuring the apartheid---not protecting the local community!!!)
The modern State of India has made use of and changed and adapted and built FROM that which the British had built for THEMSELVES -- Some of it very useful some not-----still laws in process of repeal. No one has said that much was not useful or that everything was bad!
Think about it EMR before British rule, India was a wealthy country, at Independence it was 'poor', with 80-90% poverty. Explain the taxation, land take, exports to the UK etc.!!
What views of others have I invented----yours and Morpeth's are fairly obvious. You continue to support Empire occupation and ignore its faults, your above post does just that.
-Cant disagree.
(The London soldiers are for protection of their own people------the British soldiers in India were for keeping peace, protecting the British property, ensuring the apartheid---not protecting the local community!!!)
- While certainly one can agree British soldiers were here to enforce peace and order and protect British interests, you evidently are quite unaware of the mentality of the British in India at the time, probably because your ant-British attitude and family present a one-sided view. From my own folk memory from family members in India at the time and discussions with others, it was quite common the view hat British rule was for the benefit of the local community and often eh British had to deal with communal issues or practices the British considered unacceptable. You may disagree with that attitude but it was there.
The modern State of India has made use of and changed and adapted and built FROM that which the British had built for THEMSELVES -- Some of it very useful some not-----still laws in process of repeal. No one has said that much was not useful or that everything was bad!
Glad you can admit not all was bad. And judging what the British did in terms of beneficial o India or not doesn’t matter in the slightest why such actions were done in determining whether beneficial.
Think about it EMR before British rule, India was a wealthy country, at Independence it was 'poor', with 80-90% poverty. Explain the taxation, land take, exports to the UK etc.!!
India was on decline before British rule, and hardly a wealthy country. In terms of economics during British rule as has been shown previously you are unaware of the actual evidence or of economics. For example IF the British extracted taxes and sent back to the UK or any significant amount, this would need to be measured against the benefits and multiplier effects of British investment and advances in productivity- without dong that ranting about British exploitation is just polemic Indian patriotism.
What views of others have I invented----yours and Morpeth's are fairly obvious. You continue to support Empire occupation and ignore its faults, your above post does just that.
Actually would be happy to consider evidence that my views are incorrect in total or part, that is how one learns. The occupation simply a historical act, and it could be considered beneficial or not overall, either conclusion may be right or wrong. Since you start with a fixed anti-British Empire conclusion, I am not sure how objective you can be in considering evidence. Again look around you today in India and imagine India without the advantages the British gave before complaining so much.
Feb 4th 2019, 8:19 am
#71
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
Morpeth this thread was started by scot47. What a surprise you and EMR joining !!!
"Extreme patriotism"-----or actually knowing the reality.
Just for once answer a question; have I repeatedly said to you "I could write pages of what is wrong with India"???
"Adopted" country, "sought to integrate"!!------This an expat Forum-----isn't that what people who have a home away from their birth country do?? Isn't that what you keep saying migrants to the UK should do???
'Bipat' Bi----means two. Two countries, two sets of relatives, two sets of friends, children who are of both!!!
The repeated criticism of those who have no actual present day local knowledge is just irritating. (Oh sorry EMR has just spent three weeks there, that should result in a definitive book!!)
"Extreme patriotism"-----or actually knowing the reality.
Just for once answer a question; have I repeatedly said to you "I could write pages of what is wrong with India"???
"Adopted" country, "sought to integrate"!!------This an expat Forum-----isn't that what people who have a home away from their birth country do?? Isn't that what you keep saying migrants to the UK should do???
'Bipat' Bi----means two. Two countries, two sets of relatives, two sets of friends, children who are of both!!!
The repeated criticism of those who have no actual present day local knowledge is just irritating. (Oh sorry EMR has just spent three weeks there, that should result in a definitive book!!)
It is admirable than in your choice of India as a home hat you have sought to integrate and become Indian in your views, just as someone who chooses to live in Britain one would hope would respect and integrate into Britain. An Expat generally is not emigrating and becoming a national of where they are living though obviously they should as a guest show respect to the local culture and traditions.
The issue is the constant barrage of propaganda and when called out on the facts you reject evidence, not uncommon in Brexit fantasies about trade deals. As an aside, I am in discussions with an Indian businessman to provide some consulting work in India I mentioned the idea that India would actually truly open up its economy in a trade deal between ,a post Brexit UK and India and he just laughed. He said anyone holding such a view obviously knew little about Indian politics or doing business in India..
Feb 4th 2019, 8:32 am
#72
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: India and the Wars
EMR---as I have said before your spelling and reading are something which I appreciate your courage in taking part in posting.
I assumed your Inla meant India! Just as your above 'Indai' I presume means India.
Your post in reply to Scot47 Post no.2
"Facts which contradict the views of others who claim that it was British troops who ruled and occupied pre-Independence India at gunpoint".
Could I ask you again EMR----why as a staunch 'Remainer' do you (and your twin Morpeth) constantly excuse and support Empire rule when this is supposed to be a 'Leaver' trait??
I assumed your Inla meant India! Just as your above 'Indai' I presume means India.
Your post in reply to Scot47 Post no.2
"Facts which contradict the views of others who claim that it was British troops who ruled and occupied pre-Independence India at gunpoint".
Could I ask you again EMR----why as a staunch 'Remainer' do you (and your twin Morpeth) constantly excuse and support Empire rule when this is supposed to be a 'Leaver' trait??
Just anecdotal but my father who had experience in Brtiish India and some other colonies I asked once how they kept control. One of he reasons he gave was that when considered necessary the British would not hesitate to use force and with rules of engagement designed not to unduly impede the desired objectives- thus the political agents, often on their own. in the hinterland could wield power and influence because ultimately they could resort to force- and locals knew that.
Feb 4th 2019, 8:32 am
#73
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
The response expected from you..
He was the leader of the Princely states , defending their rights, long before Indira Ghandi.
Regarding the Madras famine, It was was caused by a severe drought that affected much if India , not by the British.
Did the British continue to export grain, grown by Indian farmers on Indian farms , yes.
During other weather induced famines did the British import grain to help feed the starving, yes.
Maybe one day you will do some research before posting.
He was the leader of the Princely states , defending their rights, long before Indira Ghandi.
Regarding the Madras famine, It was was caused by a severe drought that affected much if India , not by the British.
Did the British continue to export grain, grown by Indian farmers on Indian farms , yes.
During other weather induced famines did the British import grain to help feed the starving, yes.
Maybe one day you will do some research before posting.
Regarding famines----drought is weather induced----famine is not. There are still droughts most years ----millions of deaths no!
There were 16 major famines/millions of deaths during British rule we have discussed this before.
The wife of one Viceroy feeling pity during a famine built a hospital ----it had 30 beds!!
The poverty of farmers and inability to store food was an additional factor---cattle also died in famines so no milk.
Most of the photos of famines are too graphic to put on this 'thread'.
Feb 4th 2019, 8:35 am
#74
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,711
Re: India and the Wars
You have repeatedly denied the evidence that contradicts your view from any source Indian or otherwise, hat is ignoring reality.
It is admirable than in your choice of India as a home hat you have sought to integrate and become Indian in your views, just as someone who chooses to live in Britain one would hope would respect and integrate into Britain. An Expat generally is not emigrating and becoming a national of where they are living though obviously they should as a guest show respect to the local culture and traditions.
The issue is the constant barrage of propaganda and when called out on the facts you reject evidence, not uncommon in Brexit fantasies about trade deals. As an aside, I am in discussions with an Indian businessman to provide some consulting work in India I mentioned the idea that India would actually truly open up its economy in a trade deal between ,a post Brexit UK and India and he just laughed. He said anyone holding such a view obviously knew little about Indian politics or doing business in India..
It is admirable than in your choice of India as a home hat you have sought to integrate and become Indian in your views, just as someone who chooses to live in Britain one would hope would respect and integrate into Britain. An Expat generally is not emigrating and becoming a national of where they are living though obviously they should as a guest show respect to the local culture and traditions.
The issue is the constant barrage of propaganda and when called out on the facts you reject evidence, not uncommon in Brexit fantasies about trade deals. As an aside, I am in discussions with an Indian businessman to provide some consulting work in India I mentioned the idea that India would actually truly open up its economy in a trade deal between ,a post Brexit UK and India and he just laughed. He said anyone holding such a view obviously knew little about Indian politics or doing business in India..
Off topic----you might like to read the reports of Catherine McGuinness recent visit to India.
(As always you make a remark about "choosing a home in India" ---having "Indian views"-------I did not "choose" a home----I acquired one on marriage! It is my children's inherited "home". I spend just as much time in the UK.
I am British---my views come from decades of personal knowledge and interactions.
How many times I have told you I could write pages about negatives of India-----you never ask what they are ---just repeat over and over your own 'second-hand' views from a 'distance'. )
Last edited by Bipat; Feb 4th 2019 at 9:21 am.
Feb 4th 2019, 10:20 am
#75
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: India and the Wars
I describe written evidence you describe it as propaganda----The views of ONE Indian business man you take as absolute!!
Off topic----you might like to read the reports of Catherine McGuinness recent visit to India.
(As always you make a remark about "choosing a home in India" ---having "Indian views"-------I did not "choose" a home----I acquired one on marriage! It is my children's inherited "home". I spend just as much time in the UK.
I am British---my views come from decades of personal knowledge and interactions.
How many times I have told you I could write pages about negatives of India-----you never ask what they are ---just repeat over and over your own 'second-hand' views from a 'distance'. )
Off topic----you might like to read the reports of Catherine McGuinness recent visit to India.
(As always you make a remark about "choosing a home in India" ---having "Indian views"-------I did not "choose" a home----I acquired one on marriage! It is my children's inherited "home". I spend just as much time in the UK.
I am British---my views come from decades of personal knowledge and interactions.
How many times I have told you I could write pages about negatives of India-----you never ask what they are ---just repeat over and over your own 'second-hand' views from a 'distance'. )
Love you Bipat. Please keep the promotion up - if it keeps just one Indian at home your work is not in vein.