Millhouse

Damn the Daily Mail.

Dubaiexile

Yes they are supposed to be assessed in the first country they arrive in, which is exactly why they throw away any ID papers, also hence the riot the other day when the authorities tried to fingerprint (Hungary I believe). They do not want to be processed anywhere other than in their preferred country. If it was me and my family I would do the same, the trouble is the genuine Syrian refugees are being bunched up with economic migrants from Africa and other countries. A sad, sad situation which will only get worse before it gets better.

Inselaffen

Hungary and the Czechs are following their obligations under the Schengen agreement. No Schengen visa = no visa free travel across the Schengen zone.

Bahtatboy

Corrected that for you.

Autonomy

Net migration is not the same as asylum seeker applications.

Bipat

Your third point--It was already the largest Hindu state in the world, it is still divided into disparate States. It also has one of the world's largest Muslim populations, it also had great wealth.

You are right the Colonial situations were different in every country and very complex as to pros and cons. But the question has to be why did the West invade are you saying it was for charitable reasons?

My remark about interference "hasn't helped", was really referring to the conflicts in the Middle East.

Millhouse

had great wealth?! It still has... after all we only took some spices and people. the spices regrew and the people bred.

The problem today is that they spend so much energy trying to shaft each other on every move that they do not progress.

Bipat

Are you making a joke? Only "spices and people"! not the thread to go into details of what they took. It was a little matter of moving in and taking over! Minerals, jewels, Local manufactured goods used for Europe, taxes-- famines, destruction. Not that many left fortunately with personal memories.

What did you mean by "shafting" and "not progressing"?? Some Eastern countries have progressed others haven't.

DXBtoDOH

There was an exhibition in London a few years back featuring the treasures of the Mahajarahs. All on loan from India.

Pretty damn impressive stuff. These maharajahs were filthy rich. And of course there's all these amazing palaces they built. I've stayed in a few of them. Usually still owned by the family but converted into hotels.

Makes you wonder how much of India's wealth was shared with the vast majority of its people by its kings and emperors... not very much, I daresay. It's all bullshit pseudo-nationalism to claim anything beyond that. Nationalism = my rich oppressive king was better than your rich oppressive king.

The history of most of the world is one of rich people upping other rich people, while happily leaving 99% of the population in destitute poverty. The West was really the first place to genuinely move away from this model.

Bipat

How far back do you go in history? Always further back when discussing India!!
(Indira Gandhi took the last of the rich Maharajahs wealth, so they opened hotels with what they had left--similar to the British aristocracy).

Yes there were bad local rulers as well as good but most cared about their own people unlike the British Government who were getting what they could, making use of the people. Otherwise why were they there?

(Of course there were many individuals who were not like that, that is why there is no great ill feeling now, many have memories of British people 'on the ground' that they admired)

Socialism in the West is relatively recent. Still a good deal of division between rich and poor now isn't there? The bankers have outdone the Maharajas!

Bahtatboy

Is that what you meant to say?

DXBtoDOH

Really? How do we know this?

In studying world history including all the various regions I've concluded that the rulers cared bugger all for most of their people.

The British were in India because an opportunity presented itself. If the British hadn't gone into India, another country would have. Probably the French. Or if no one had gone into India it would remain a series of warring fiefdoms and local rulers and empires fighting each other.

British rule in India always varied from region to region. Some parts of India had British rule for as long as 300 years, particularly certain cities. Others it was less than a hundred years. In most places the local maharajahs continued the day to day administration and governing of their subjects, with one or two local British "residents" as advisors. The British role was primarily national and infrastructure.

In South India the British had minimal presence with the local rulers retaining most internal autonomy. The British, to their credit, rarely interfered with Indian religious except to keep sectarian strife under control. Just as the vast majority of Indians had little interaction with their ruling maharajahs, the vast majority had little interaction with the British. A country too divided by religion and caste and wealth to be particularly affected by who the ruler of the day happened to be.

DXBtoDOH

Yeah. And how bad is the economic gulf between the rich and poor in India?

The west has poor people. India has malnourished people. Huge difference.

Nah. You don't know your history. The sheer power of the maharajahs and the upper classes of days long gone was staggering relative to the modern day bankers and others of their ilk. The power over life and death. How many bankers can claim that? The sheer amount of privilege and deference they could claim cannot be matched today, except possibly for the Gulf sheikhs.

Millhouse

Ok - so we may have taken a few rocks too. But the truth is that we were able to abuse the natives as they were all busy hating each other. It made the divide and conquer so much easier. Nowadays there are no excuses for the lack of progress - of course you could blame the bureaucracy the english left behind but the obvious answer is that it doesn't need to be kept - it just happens that its very effective at allowing people to shaft each other. Consider these case studies:

One country in the world has just other 1bn people. They have developed a nuclear program but have huge social issues mostly due to their inability to distribute opportunity fairly and work together. There are deep trust issues in society. Social and economic development is a challenge.

Another country in the world has just other 1bn people. They have developed a nuclear program and have managed to pull millions of people out of poverty, improved sanitation, water and far less social issues than the other country. As a group they mostly work together towards a common goal. Social and economic development has been a challenge but many issues are solved quickly.

Name the two countries. Having worked with governments of both countries I can honestly say that the inability to work together and constant "shafting" of each other is why the first country will never develop. Shame, as it has the better food.

Now... back to the EU block... I honestly think (and hope) this could start to signal the end of the EU.

Bipat

I agree that many of the 40% of India's poor have nothing compared with the well off countries of Europe. However they have had only had 67 years to get it right and it is improving all the time. No famines since the British left. Millions died in the last one ignored by Churchill.
My mention of bankers was light hearted. Still shameful to need food banks.

Do you know your history? The local rulers of India were not all the same in their wealth.

You seem to forget that the British were there getting value there until 1947 long after the days of absolute opulence. The 'no natives' signs on doors of various places are remembered still.

The rulers of Britain in those times also had the same powers over life and death of their population. Hanging for theft, deportation, forcible taking of babies, medical treatment only for the wealthy etc.
The poor of Britain did not benefit from the Empire.
Times were different for all in those days.

How does it help to belittle the harm done to other countries by the Empire builders.
Which goes back to my original point which was "why is the West thought to be so wonderful by posters here"?