Its a difficult and complicated question and there is possibly not a single answer to it.The exigencies of administering such a vast subcontinent forced the British to invest and develop in resources which eventually benefited the Indian nation state.However we must remember that if the tyranny of the raj was not oppressive our forefathers would not have spent their entire generation fighting to overthrow it.
Now did it leave India strong or weak ?.......The success of the British in forging themselves as the numero uno political dispensation in the Indian subcontinent through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th must be inevitably be construed as an Indian failure.While British,thanks to new military innovations and concepts both in technology and tactics,gave them significant head start over domestic political entities,but what did the Indian power centers in was their lack of appreciation of the larger geo-political dynamics at play.
To summarize the situation as chess game,the British maneuvered their strategy across chess board,Indian players where and acted like pieces fighting to retain its square.Eventually the strategy was headed for doom.
A nation state is like human body,it takes an attack from foreign cells for it allow its immune system to develop the wherewithal's to defend against the invaders.The new Immune system eventually helps the body against other similar events in the future.The crisis precipitated by the British conquest eventually forced the Indian power state holders to see the larger picture and act in concert towards a common objective.While the first Indian war of Independence was criticized as lopsided and knee jerk reaction and not a national movement,but historian certainly realize that even though doomed to fail,it was still a concerted political effort cutting across political and regional boundaries and whose significance to the evolution of the peaceful freedom movement that took shape a few decades later cannot be underestimated.
The idea of a Nation does not take root overnight,it is sum of all small(and big) and insignificant(and significant) social-cultural-political events that over the centuries forms a train of memories that collectively gives birth to a feeling of commonness and from commonness comes oneness....A Nation.
The British played their ole as the did the Macedonians over 2300 years ago(and everyone that came between them)
P.S:There is no doubt the partition of India was tragic and should not have happened,i feel its artificial and eventually the partition will be undone by the people of India(whichever country in the subcontinent they live in)
To answer this question we must first answer to three other questions. Was there a possibility of united india,if britishers didn't rule india?Would india be this much of technically advance as it is now(remember the technical revolution in india was brought by britishers)? Which reign didn't exploit india(even now it is being exploited!!)?
My first question was about unity of india,we achieved it with pain of partition(because a few narrow minded gentlemen didn't agree to live and rule with each other),but still such a big country couldn't be created if britishers didn't rule india. In fact india was never unite before britishers came.
Second question answers that up to some level britishers are responsible for making india technically advance,they didn't intend to do so,but we in order to fight with them acquired these tools(i mean germane technologies). If britishers didn't rule india, the industrial revolution in europe couldn't reach india so early.:viannen_51:
Third question is about that india started loose its resources since the dark period only,not when britishers came but much before that. I don't say that they didn't exploit us,but as a whole ruling class always exploited indian resources.Even now,majority of resources are with 40 percent of indian population,60 percent is still being exploited.
As whole i say that british reign helped india to grow,but at the cost of huge losses.
one more thing my english could be unbearable,so please pardon me. :Laie_46::Laie_22:
There's no we we can teach history without offending the extremist brigade. Atleast we were ALL slaves for the last 200 years, people derive some twisted sense of unity from that misery, I pity them though.
We were not slaves for the last 200 years. Yes, there was discrimination. Indian soldiers in the British Indian Army were not promoted above a certain level. Many places had 'Europeans Only' boards. However, every Indian was free to work for the British Government or chose not to. So there was no slavery.
We must afford a voice to every hue as long as these extremists don't try to stifle those voices that run counter to theirs.
Depends how you define slavery. By slavery, I mean bonded labour. That, the British did not have in India. It did exist earlier. Think of Hazar Dinari. Well, he did benefit out of his slavery, didn't he?
Actually, bonded labour did not really exist in India either. The concept of a 'slave' was introduced by the Turkic and Afghan invaders in the 12th and 13th centuries; Hazar Dinari was one of those slaves (Mamluks).
Yes you are right but don't forget the good things- because of they we are united now,the military structure of our nation,they liberated us from Muslim rulers,by creating Pakistan they moved Muslim radicals ,they connected us through roads ,railway lines and airports,educational institutes, dams, factories etc etc
1) They did not liberate us from Islamic invaders. The Marathas did it mostly and the Sikhs too played a part.
2)We are united not because of British but because of Sardar Patel who integrated the 500 odd princely states into a political entity called India.
3) Without the flight of resources from India to Britain we would have built the infra ourselves.
Please why dont people study history instead of repeating the same old "Britain united us" BS over and over.