India, With or Without British Empire??

Status
Not open for further replies.

IBM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
193
Likes
1
Dear members,

I would like your views on two points,

Was British Empire good or bad for United India? Will India be as strong or weak as today, If britishers had not invaded India.

Was partitions good or bad for India? specially after looking wat is happpening in pakistan and bangladesh.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,543
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)
 

kritivasas

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1
Likes
1
:india: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.
t:connie_running:

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:
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,810
Likes
4,607
How to understand China?

For starters, look at the Chinese name for their country, Zhongguo. Literally "Middle Kingdom", i.e. a beacon of civilization surrounded by barbarians on the North, South, East, and West.

Ancient Indians had a very similar view of their country. For example, Chanakya describes mlecchas (people from outside the subcontinent) as "even worse than a chandala". But that view has disappeared long ago and has been replaced by worship of all things Western. In China, however, ethnocentrism remains as strong as ever.
This mentality needs to be changed. For that to happen people to have know there own heritage rather than knowing history of last 200 years and thinking India was always like that.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Super Mod
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,618
Likes
6,764
Country flag
This mentality needs to be changed. For that to happen people to have know there own heritage rather than knowing history of last 200 years and thinking India was always like that.
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.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,810
Likes
4,607
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.
Who cares about extremists ? extremists exist in every community and if you give them a voice and power then they'd run the whole community down the drain.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,267
Likes
19,493
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.



Who cares about extremists ? extremists exist in every community and if you give them a voice and power then they'd run the whole community down the drain.
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.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Super Mod
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,618
Likes
6,764
Country flag
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.
Slaves with benefits then.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,267
Likes
19,493
Slaves with benefits then.
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?
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,558
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).
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,267
Likes
19,493
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).
Well, I meant slavery existed in India earlier than the British era. You are right about what you said.
 

ashicjose

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
399
Likes
60
I am not sympathetic to the British - they f**ked my country for 200 years and plundered it's resources, destroyed the old economy without building a new one and left after creating a gigantic mess called Pakistan.
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
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,008
Likes
5,758
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
Oh no not again *groan*

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.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,558
British colonial rule was a huge blow to the development of India. The Industrial Revolution, which took place during this time and greatly improved the living standards of Europeans, was denied to India because of its colonial status. To make matters worse the British systematically destroyed the thriving cottage industries of pre-colonial India (which could have been used as a basis for an indigenous Industrial Revolution, as they had in Europe) by banning Indian goods throughout their empire, implementing heavy taxes, and forcing millions of Indians to grow cash crops for European markets. This colonial economic relationship between India and Britain effectively put India 100 years behind the West, a gap which we are now trying to close.

The only Asian country which was able to successfully industrialize and compete with the Europeans during this time was Japan, thanks to the reforms of the Meiji Restoration starting in 1868. It should also be noted that Japan was the only Asian country to successfully resist European colonization, commercial exploitation, and political influence, prior to the Meiji Restoration and the occasion of Perry's "visit" to Japan.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,008
Likes
5,758
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)
I disagree. Unless the faith of the people living in those artificial entity changes and they re-enter their native faith, its best that artificial incision stays natural.
 

ashicjose

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
399
Likes
60
Oh no not again *groan*

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.
1.You forget Tippu Sulthan.
2. How you know Sardar Patel,why he limited his action only within british india.
3.without them we would fight each other to death.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,008
Likes
5,758

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,107
1.You forget Tippu Sulthan.
2. How you know Sardar Patel,why he limited his action only within british india.
3.without them we would fight each other to death.
Tippu was the biggest enemy for Kerala, he did ethnic cleansing and even renamed Calicut as Islamabad once.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top