Republic Day

Old Feb 11th 2019, 11:04 pm
  #91  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
I ask again, who was responsible for this interference from outside as it was not the British given that the majority of the subcontinent was ruled by the local rajahs etc
Portuguese were there from 1500s, British were there from 1600s, French, Dutch. What started as trade gradually led to 'conflict' and 'take-over'. It didn't all happen 'overnight'!!
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 12:17 am
  #92  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 226
sun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Republic Day

Comparing India €™s own performance as a free republic to its own past as a colony is really pointless.
India in 1500
GDP: $60 billion
Share of world GDP: 25%
World rank: #1

India in 1600
GDP: $74 billion
Share of world GDP: 22%
World rank: #2 (#1 Qing China)

India in 1700
GDP: $90 billion
Share of world GDP: 24%
World rank: #1

India in 1800
GDP: $125 billion
Share of world GDP: 18%
World rank: #2

India in 1950
GDP: $190 blilion
Share of world GDP: 3%
World rank: #7

India in 2019
GDP: $11500 billion
Share of world GDP: 8.5%
World rank: #3

British Rule: One hundred and fifty years of 0% income growth.
40 years of Socialism: 3x per capita income growth
30 years of economic reforms: 8x growth in per capita income
sun_burn is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 12:21 am
  #93  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 226
sun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Republic Day

UK
Population growth: 10 million to 50 million (500%) over 150 years
GDP per capita growth: 800% over 150 years
Aggregate growth in GDP: 4000% over 150 years

Wars directly fought: Napoleonic Wars, Assorted Subcontinental Wars, Crimean War, Boxer Rebellion, Boer War, Irish War of Independence, World War 1, World War 2

India
Population growth: 200 million to 350 million (0.4% per year) over 150 years
GDP per capita growth: 0% (~$500 to ~$530) over 150 years
Aggregate growth in GDP: 75% over 150 years (same as population growth, 0% per capita gains)

Wars directly fought: War of Independence

UK: 40x gain in GDP after 150 years of warfare and plunder
India: 0.75x gain in GDP during same period
sun_burn is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 12:42 am
  #94  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 226
sun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond reputesun_burn has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Republic Day

Number of Indians fighting on Allied side in World War 1: 1,800,000
Direct Indian representation at Versailles: NONE

Number of Indians fighting on Allied side in World War 2: 2,500,000
Direct Indian representation at Yalta: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Potsdam: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Teheran: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Cairo: NONE (China represented)
Direct Indian representation at 1944 Commonwealth Conference: NONE (only UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, NZ represented)
Direct Indian representation at Dumbarton Oaks: NONE (China represented)
Direct Indian representation at 1944 UN Charter Conference: NONE (Ratification only by US, UK, France, USSR, China)
sun_burn is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 7:20 am
  #95  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by sun_burn
Number of Indians fighting on Allied side in World War 1: 1,800,000
Direct Indian representation at Versailles: NONE

Number of Indians fighting on Allied side in World War 2: 2,500,000
Direct Indian representation at Yalta: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Potsdam: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Teheran: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Cairo: NONE (China represented)
Direct Indian representation at 1944 Commonwealth Conference: NONE (only UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, NZ represented)
Direct Indian representation at Dumbarton Oaks: NONE (China represented)
Direct Indian representation at 1944 UN Charter Conference: NONE (Ratification only by US, UK, France, USSR, China)
Simple reason for that, India as an independent republic did not exist until 1947.
Countries which did exist and fought on the Allied side were also not represented ...

.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 7:24 am
  #96  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
Portuguese were there from 1500s, British were there from 1600s, French, Dutch. What started as trade gradually led to 'conflict' and 'take-over'. It didn't all happen 'overnight'!!
Omve again Bipat your knowledge of the history of the subcontinent is questionable.
A small presence on the coast in enclaves for 300 years plus did not result in a significant impact on the subcontinent..
It was not until Plassey in 1757 that the British became the dominent overseas power ., from then spreading its control and influence throughout the sub continent..
You should look at Plassey , a victory not possible without the involvement of local rivals to those opposing the tiny company army.
Historical fact, it was the British and it's local allies who bought stability to a sub continent divided into an areacof disparate, rival warring states who did that .
Not until post 1857..

Last edited by EMR; Feb 12th 2019 at 7:34 am.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 7:36 am
  #97  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by sun_burn
India in 1500
GDP: $60 billion
Share of world GDP: 25%
World rank: #1

India in 1600
GDP: $74 billion
Share of world GDP: 22%
World rank: #2 (#1 Qing China)

India in 1700
GDP: $90 billion
Share of world GDP: 24%
World rank: #1

India in 1800
GDP: $125 billion
Share of world GDP: 18%
World rank: #2

India in 1950
GDP: $190 blilion
Share of world GDP: 3%
World rank: #7

India in 2019
GDP: $11500 billion
Share of world GDP: 8.5%
World rank: #3

British Rule: One hundred and fifty years of 0% income growth.
40 years of Socialism: 3x per capita income growth
30 years of economic reforms: 8x growth in per capita income
Once again another who ignores the fact that what today is India did not come into existence until 1947..
Tell me what was India in 1600, Where do your statistics come from.
The British did not " rule " huge areas of the sub continent that was left to the local hierarchy ,
40 years as the world's biggest recipient of overseas aid.
30 years in a world whose economy changed dramatically with the emergence of China, Korea, Brazil etc as major economies .

Last edited by EMR; Feb 12th 2019 at 7:43 am.
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 8:19 am
  #98  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
Once again another who ignores the fact that what today is India did not come into existence until 1947..
Tell me what was India in 1600, Where do your statistics come from.
The British did not " rule " huge areas of the sub continent that was left to the local hierarchy ,
40 years as the world's biggest recipient of overseas aid.
30 years in a world whose economy changed dramatically with the emergence of China, Korea, Brazil etc as major economies .
EMR , during the Raj the 584 Princely States------most were very, very small---were indirectly ruled /subsidiary alliance by the British.
The reality the wealthy princes paid enormous amounts of money to the British rulers in exchange for being allowed to carry on their own rule and join in with British ceremonies (as secondary members of that community!)

If India didn't exist! Where did the British think they were???


Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 8:42 am
  #99  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
EMR , during the Raj the 584 Princely States------most were very, very small---were indirectly ruled /subsidiary alliance by the British.
The reality the wealthy princes paid enormous amounts of money to the British rulers in exchange for being allowed to carry on their own rule and join in with British ceremonies (as secondary members of that community!)

If India didn't exist! Where did the British think they were???
They were in the geographical area known as the Indian sub continent, in the various kingdoms and territories that existed before they arrived.., some if which they governed others, others which became allied with the Company and later the Crown.,
In Oudh, Bengal, , Mysore, the Sikh empire, the Maharatha empire, the declining Moghul empire, the Rajput kingdoms. , pus 100s of other seperate entities.., different languages, religion, cultures.
Remember British crown rule did not exist until after 1857 before that it was Company rule in someof those areas where it operated..
I know you cannot accept that had not the British arrived there would be no Republic of India as it exists today...
But you cannot rewrite history, we have to accept it for what it was and learn from it...
.

EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 9:17 am
  #100  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by EMR
They were in the geographical area known as the Indian sub continent, in the various kingdoms and territories that existed before they arrived.., some if which they governed others, others which became allied with the Company and later the Crown.,
In Oudh, Bengal, , Mysore, the Sikh empire, the Maharatha empire, the declining Moghul empire, the Rajput kingdoms. , pus 100s of other seperate entities.., different languages, religion, cultures.
Remember British crown rule did not exist until after 1857 before that it was Company rule in someof those areas where it operated..
I know you cannot accept that had not the British arrived there would be no Republic of India as it exists today...
But you cannot rewrite history, we have to accept it for what it was and learn from it...
.
No EMR----you cannot rewrite history.
You persistently ignore the 'fact' that since the Indus valley civilisation people have moved south over India to all areas. Bharat---is a Sanskrit word.
The uniting factor has been religion----Hinduism in its various forms. Note various forms.

Yes people invaded from the north and via the coasts. Different groups/States formed with varying habits/traditions---fought each other just as the counties/countries did in the British Isles.
Read Shankaracharya 788 AD who travelled north to south setting up centres.

India was a geographical entity it was also a civilisation of people who were Indians. They were ALSO in kingdoms etc. Just as they are now----Keralans/Goans/Bengalis/Punjabis etc are also Indians. They still argue and 'fight'.


Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 9:27 am
  #101  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by sun_burn
India in 1500
GDP: $60 billion
Share of world GDP: 25%
World rank: #1

India in 1600
GDP: $74 billion
Share of world GDP: 22%
World rank: #2 (#1 Qing China)

India in 1700
GDP: $90 billion
Share of world GDP: 24%
World rank: #1

India in 1800
GDP: $125 billion
Share of world GDP: 18%
World rank: #2

India in 1950
GDP: $190 blilion
Share of world GDP: 3%
World rank: #7

India in 2019
GDP: $11500 billion
Share of world GDP: 8.5%
World rank: #3

British Rule: One hundred and fifty years of 0% income growth.
40 years of Socialism: 3x per capita income growth
30 years of economic reforms: 8x growth in per capita income
Sir

These figures seem like straight out of Shashi Tharoor’s Magnum Excretus. A massive waste of time. Economic activity as a whole was lower in 1500 than in 1950. The group of states in India may have had a larger share of a small pie. USD 60 billion? Tata Steel sells more steel than that a year. It speaks to the vigorous activity prompted by the European Age of Discovery and the onset of mercantile capitalism that states which were at the periphery of global trade soon took centre-stage. India was beset with political problems at the dawn of the 1500s. While the Europeans were scouring the oceans looking for a route to India thanks to Constantinople falling to the Muslims; Indians were at the receiving end of another round of Muslim invasions from the North-West in the form of Uzbeks calling themselves Mughals.

It may have been true in ancient India, but medieval India right up to the 1850s witnessed no Scientifc Revolution, had nothing parallel to the Age of Reason, no reimagination of state-subject relations on democratic lines, no indigenous industrial capability to rival the efficiencies of the then new Industrial Revolution, a stagnant merchant navy, no medical advances and no quest for research and knowledge; these were simply not the prerogative of states more interested in preparing earth for the return of Mohamed by slaying or converting kafirs. Heck, more money was spent building houses for dead people such as Taj Mahal and other maqbaras (graveyards) than on the living. All the evidence suggests native Indian society was one under an unremitting siege from foreign overlordship, struggling hard to maintain, nourish and nurture their cultural traditions and protecting it from the prospect of utter destruction and replacement from a rapacious foreign culture determined to spread their doctrine by the sword and cannon. For large parts of native Indian society, especially in Northern and Central India, this seems to have been the main preoccupation.

Perhaps that 1700 figure would make more sense if it were understood to what degree was India’s value addition in the hands of European-managed factory towns and what were in the hands of the natives. The Presidency towns were probably then, as now, the economic hubs of the subcontinent. And not just the British factory towns, but the other European towns as well. And since these were effectively outside either Turkic or native Indian control, I’d argue their output shouldn’t really be included in GDP calculations for the time. If the real question is how productive native Indians were at the time, then looking at broad figures is really misleading.

Also you miss one small detail in all this: there was no Indian nation-state in 1600, or 1700, or 1800. Whoever made these comparisons are comparing air and mud. There was an Indian cultural identity then, much like there’s a European cultural identity, but it was not expressed as a political entity in the form of a nation-state. Also, look at the graph by EMR - until 1980, free India was barely an improvement on the preceding British rule in economic terms.
madathil.krishnanunni is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 9:33 am
  #102  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by sun_burn
Number of Indians fighting on Allied side in World War 1: 1,800,000
Direct Indian representation at Versailles: NONE

Number of Indians fighting on Allied side in World War 2: 2,500,000
Direct Indian representation at Yalta: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Potsdam: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Teheran: NONE
Direct Indian representation at Cairo: NONE (China represented)
Direct Indian representation at 1944 Commonwealth Conference: NONE (only UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, NZ represented)
Direct Indian representation at Dumbarton Oaks: NONE (China represented)
Direct Indian representation at 1944 UN Charter Conference: NONE (Ratification only by US, UK, France, USSR, China)
This is why, freedom.
madathil.krishnanunni is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 9:50 am
  #103  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by madathil.krishnanunni


Sir

These figures seem like straight out of Shashi Tharoor’s Magnum Excretus. A massive waste of time. Economic activity as a whole was lower in 1500 than in 1950. The group of states in India may have had a larger share of a small pie. USD 60 billion? Tata Steel sells more steel than that a year. It speaks to the vigorous activity prompted by the European Age of Discovery and the onset of mercantile capitalism that states which were at the periphery of global trade soon took centre-stage. India was beset with political problems at the dawn of the 1500s. While the Europeans were scouring the oceans looking for a route to India thanks to Constantinople falling to the Muslims; Indians were at the receiving end of another round of Muslim invasions from the North-West in the form of Uzbeks calling themselves Mughals.

It may have been true in ancient India, but medieval India right up to the 1850s witnessed no Scientifc Revolution, had nothing parallel to the Age of Reason, no reimagination of state-subject relations on democratic lines, no indigenous industrial capability to rival the efficiencies of the then new Industrial Revolution, a stagnant merchant navy, no medical advances and no quest for research and knowledge; these were simply not the prerogative of states more interested in preparing earth for the return of Mohamed by slaying or converting kafirs. Heck, more money was spent building houses for dead people such as Taj Mahal and other maqbaras (graveyards) than on the living. All the evidence suggests native Indian society was one under an unremitting siege from foreign overlordship, struggling hard to maintain, nourish and nurture their cultural traditions and protecting it from the prospect of utter destruction and replacement from a rapacious foreign culture determined to spread their doctrine by the sword and cannon. For large parts of native Indian society, especially in Northern and Central India, this seems to have been the main preoccupation.

Perhaps that 1700 figure would make more sense if it were understood to what degree was India’s value addition in the hands of European-managed factory towns and what were in the hands of the natives. The Presidency towns were probably then, as now, the economic hubs of the subcontinent. And not just the British factory towns, but the other European towns as well. And since these were effectively outside either Turkic or native Indian control, I’d argue their output shouldn’t really be included in GDP calculations for the time. If the real question is how productive native Indians were at the time, then looking at broad figures is really misleading.

Also you miss one small detail in all this: there was no Indian nation-state in 1600, or 1700, or 1800. Whoever made these comparisons are comparing air and mud. There was an Indian cultural identity then, much like there’s a European cultural identity, but it was not expressed as a political entity in the form of a nation-state. Also, look at the graph by EMR - until 1980, free India was barely an improvement on the preceding British rule in economic terms.
You cannot compare the economic activity of any country in 1500 with 1950---the reality is that foreign occupation prevented any economic advancement of India. You are mixing time scales.

Britain is praised for ---buildings ---which are now inherited---the Mughals were somewhat better at it!!!

There were still scientific discoveries in India during the Raj by Indians but few had the resources to even attend school!!

There were wars in Europe and in the British Isles itself during the times you describe.

India was left with 80-90% poverty when the British left it would take longer that 10-15 years to make any recovery.
I agree overall it could have been quicker.

I agree that Shashi Tharoor is a despicable character (voted in by Keralans!!!) however his book although exaggerated to some extent, has basic truth---read the 130 books in the bibliography----read the references following each chapter----they can't all be wrong!
Bipat is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 10:35 am
  #104  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by Bipat
You cannot compare the economic activity of any country in 1500 with 1950---the reality is that foreign occupation prevented any economic advancement of India. You are mixing time scales.

Britain is praised for ---buildings ---which are now inherited---the Mughals were somewhat better at it!!!

There were still scientific discoveries in India during the Raj by Indians but few had the resources to even attend school!!

There were wars in Europe and in the British Isles itself during the times you describe.

India was left with 80-90% poverty when the British left it would take longer that 10-15 years to make any recovery.
I agree overall it could have been quicker.

I agree that Shashi Tharoor is a despicable character (voted in by Keralans!!!) however his book although exaggerated to some extent, has basic truth---read the 130 books in the bibliography----read the references following each chapter----they can't all be wrong!
Factual history proves that you are not for the first time wrong when it comes to the history of what us now the republic if India and before that
Whose measure of poverty, verifiable are you using to say that poverty in India was any worse under British and that of its allies rule than it was before.
How many Indians went to school before the raj, went to universities.
Stop confusing fact with your own views..
EMR is offline  
Old Feb 12th 2019, 10:41 am
  #105  
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: Republic Day

Originally Posted by madathil.krishnanunni


This is why, freedom.
Thank you for confirming that the India of today did not exist during the times you complain of..
Where was Pakistan, or Sri Lanka or Myanmar on your list, Canada, Austrailia, NZ, South Africa and call the other colonies , dominions and territories that came under the banner of the then British Empire...
Indians of today should be focused on the future , not of the ills of the past which are not wholly or even in majority terms due to British rule..
EMR 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.