British Raj did more harm than good in Indian subcontinent: UK SC

[hit&run]

They were terrorists who came here to loot plunder and commit genocide of whole race if possible. People who think positive about them, see rational behind their crimes are either their own breed or disillusion minds suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

1/4 billion in silver was on one British ship found while back. The wealth stolen must be
Unimaginable if one ship like this left weekly for decades? Especially carrying gold and precious gems etc...
@Harisud

200 tonnes of silver seized from sunken ship from India - The Times of India

 

[Bhadra]

Yes Brits harmed India,made us poor, they used India for the good of self .
However I strongly agree that if they had not invaded India, we would not be a single united nation.
It was the resistance against the british raj that united entire India.And once, we were united, everyone realised we have much more power together than being isolated from eachother.

The Indian rulers and states right from Anangpal, Prithaviraj to Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs also constantly struggled against the Islamic invaders. Battles of Panipat were fought as conglomerations. In fact the battle of Tarain was a conglomirate of more than 50 Rajput pricipalities. Afterwards, there were constsnt population rebellions against the Muslim excesses such as conversion or religious levies like Zazia.

Why don't you think Indians got together or even if they got together did not suceed much. Why was the Moguls structure so rotten that when the British assaulted it, it caved easilly. The structure after all came up after thousand years of Muslim rule? But there must have been something very rotten about it. The disconnect with people !


And you really think that it was "resistance" that drove the British away from India? History says those resistance organisations were "faithfull servants societies"

I think one needs to revsist that theory.

 

[Dhairya Yadav]

The Indian rulers and states right from Anangpal, Prithaviraj to Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs also constantly struggled against the Islamic invaders. Battles of Panipat were fought as conglomerations. In fact the battle of Tarain was a conglomirate of more than 50 Rajput pricipalities. Afterwards, there were constsnt population rebellions against the Muslim excesses such as conversion or religious levies like Zazia.

Why don't you think Indians got together or even if they got together did not suceed much. Why was the Moguls structure so rotten that when the British assaulted it, it caved easilly. The structure after all came up after thousand years of Muslim rule? But there must have been something very rotten about it. The disconnect with people !


And you really think that it was "resistance" that drove the British away from India? History says those resistance organisations were "faithfull servants societies"

I think one needs to revsist that theory.

it doesnt matter if the resistance had any effect or not. it was there, and it united us . there is a big difference between fighting together as allies and being united spiritually. USSR and USA fought as Allies in World War 2, are you trying to say they both were united.?

 

[Prometheus]

More harm than benefited?
there was nothing in India which was done with the intentions for benefit of Indian people, every thing right from the Rashtrapati bhavan to the railways ..was to benefit the Britishers.

Really? what about social changes like the banning of sati and untouchability? what about an era of peace and minimum bloodshed (where individual kingdoms, not hindus or muslims,or even indians as its made out to be today, but rulers for their own glory constantly attacked each others) , lawfulness and a uniform civil law and instilling western democratic values, education and science, etc?.

 

[Kshatriya87]

Really? what about social changes like the banning of sati and untouchability? what about an era of peace and minimum bloodshed (where individual kingdoms, not hindus or muslims,or even indians as its made out to be today, but rulers for their own glory constantly attacked each others) , lawfulness and a uniform civil law and instilling western democratic values, education and science, etc?.

Really? You wanna compare all that with millions of India's lives? Go ahead then, compare. And tell me what do you prefer. All those things you mentioned? Or mass genocide being averted? Allow me to shed some light;

1. Sati ban - Agreed.
2. Untouchability ban - Banned by India in 1950 after adopting its constitution. Not by british. And didn't you read the signs "No Dogs and Indians allowed".
3. Peace and minimum bloodshed? - Again, go google bengal famine. There are several others like that. Caused by British raj.
4. Lawfullness and uniform Civil law - You called that lawfulness? Where was this lawfulness and uniform civil law during the trials of bhagat singh. Where was it during execution of chandrashekhar azad? I can go on & on about this.
5. Democratic values - BULLSHIT. It was a dictatorship wearing a mask of democracy. Discrimination was at its peak in that period.
6. Education and Science - Science.. maybe. Education? You think we weren't getting educated before? You need to do some research.