Obama announces total Iraq troop withdrawal

maomao

Veteran Hunter of Maleecha
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
5,033
Likes
8,354
Country flag
wasn't it? From an infrastructure and security perspective India was much better under British rule.
This is widely acknowledged by Indians including prominent Indians such as your own Prime Minister during a lecture at Oxford.

Don't bother replying :laugh:
Are you kiddin me....our Prime Minister is a joke and more so - a fool with a PHD..... barring few Nehruvian/secular self-hatting dimwits no one wants British rule or think British slavery is any day better...are you on crack? :)
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
wasn't it? From an infrastructure and security perspective India was much better under British rule.
This is widely acknowledged by Indians including prominent Indians such as your own Prime Minister during a lecture at Oxford.

Don't bother replying :laugh:
Whose security are you referring to here?
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
wasn't it? From an infrastructure and security perspective India was much better under British rule.
This is widely acknowledged by Indians including prominent Indians such as your own Prime Minister during a lecture at Oxford.

Don't bother replying :laugh:
I will bother replying because that BS.

Source please so we know what exactly he said.

And no it is not widely acknowledged by Indians.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
wasn't it? From an infrastructure and security perspective India was much better under British rule.
This is widely acknowledged by Indians including prominent Indians such as your own Prime Minister during a lecture at Oxford.

Don't bother replying :laugh:
Can you please quote him on that with a respectable link, Thanks in advance. I am looking at the security perspective. I would also like to know your view on the challenges faced by Imperial Briton and Republic of India, and how they can be equated? On a further note, unlike the poor native americans killed and wiped off, it wasnt possible to do it over here by the same set of people, because of a reason.We were never Africa's or America's, Even without the White Man, we would have fared quite well. This is a civilization 5000 years old, and the only time it has ever taken taken a step back was the last 600 years. Otherwise this was one of the most powerful and richest regions on earth for the longest period of time. Little more sensitivity in an Indian forum would be advised, your call.
 
Last edited:

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
^^^^Well I read the speech and no where is he saying that British occupation or colonisation was good overall as assumed by death.by.chocolate. He mentions that a few things like the English language has been beneficial but by and large, the British colonisation was a devastating experience for India.

Here is a quote from the same speech

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis for. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.
I think people are confusing the cordial relations on a individual level with Britons, or utilising the English language to some sort of acceptance of the British raj as being cordial or benign. Given how the Indian share of world wealth dropper since the British colonisation began as indicated by none other than British authors, only a naive or ill-informed person will say that the British raj was "as a whole" beneficial to India.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
Ignorants are either confused between calling "British governance methods beneficial" & "British rule better than today" or just can not interpret English.

All this to cover US failure in Iraq from beginning itself.

Nice diversion for topic. Lets get back.
never has been in the history of the landmass, has ever been there a better time to be an Indian than now, even with all its imperfections. Ok, maybe during the time of Mahabali ;)

PS: I think USA was completely justified about Iraq,
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Except for the completely ignorable fact that they will need a small army to guard the largest and most expensive Embassy in the World, and then another small army guarding the several Oil wells, pipelines, ports and so on...
For they latter, Xe Services (nee Blackwater) might be employed.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Iraq right now is in worse condition infrastructure wise, terrorism wise and social wise than it was under saddam.
Mussolini had Italian trains running on time when he was in power.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
He means India was better under british rule.
Has anyone written, in a scholarly manner, on the subject (I guess you could call this alternate history) of what India would be today had the British never shown up?
 

death.by.chocolate

Professional
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
300
Likes
98
Country flag
^^
The same can be said about India, but how many Indians want the British back?
I'm not sure why so many found my post offensive. Indian infrastructure and institutions under British rule rivaled that of wealthy European nations. Today, the latest Global Competitive Index ranks India 89 behind countries like Egypt, Sri Lanka and Swaziland. Like I said before your own Prime Minister conceded the British provided 'good governance' but India preferred self governance. Why is it so hard to believe Iraqis feel the same as India did in 1947?



In his essay, Naoroji refers to myriad modernizing benefits of British rule as humanitarian, political, and material profit. The British played a considerable part in enlarging Indian economy, amplifying industry, and introducing the country into world trade, especially with the production of raw materials and cash crops like cotton, jute, iron, steel, coal, brass, and indigo. The government helped extend irrigation and thus broaden agriculture, India's main source of economy. Furthermore, railroad construction, the establishment of a postal service, and the telegraph increased the speed of communication and transportation. British social policy benefited the country with education, labor regulation, and famine relief. The British improved schooling for both men and women, deeming Indian instruction a great priority. Naoroji states, "Education, both male and female, though yet only partial, [is] an inestimable blessing as far as it had gone, and leading gradually to the destruction of superstition, and many moral and social evils." English rule increased the literacy rate by providing education in the Indian languages and by 1859, there were eleven universities established in Calcutta, two in Bombay, and one at Madras; the British established thirteen government colleges, four aided colleges, and sixteen colleges for special subjects as well. These social reforms did not exclude female education, and The British and Foreign School Society established twenty-three girls' schools in Calcutta. Moreover, the Government passed various laws to protect workers in the burgeoning industry. Child Labor Laws issued in July 1881 determined that no child under seven could be employed, and children under the age of twelve could work for no more than nine hours. The government passed more Labor Acts in 1891, 1911, 1922, and 1934, including amendments to Child Labor Laws and revised work hours. Lastly, the Famine Commission of 1880 compiled a Famine Code to help the country in a time of national crisis. It asserted that the government had the responsibility to institute railway lines to convey food to places of shortage, provide labor for which wages were decided according to need, fix food prices, and freely distribute seed to those in need.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
Oh, don't worry. Soon Iran will galvanize the Iraqis around their government again.

They don't have to since the Iraqi government has a substantial Shia representation now and Iran is a Shia majority state.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Has anyone written, in a scholarly manner, on the subject (I guess you could call this alternate history) of what India would be today had the British never shown up?
Debatable but this topic will take this thread OT. I think we might have a thread on this issue.
Still one thing is that India in it's current boundary as one country might not have been. We would have been smaller states. May be democratic in some places or may be still under various Maharajas.

The greatest "contribution" of the British was to unite it as a single country because of the fight for freedom.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top