Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The British in India
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The British in India
    Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 10:36
To misquote:
 
The fault, dear Omar, lies not in our women, but in ourselves if we are underlings.
Back to Top
rcscwc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 01-Apr-2009
Location: Delhi
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 25 		  Quote rcscwc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2009 at 09:02
Originally posted by Sparten

The British were not the first ones to unite S Asia. The Mauryans, the Khiljis, the Mughals etc. ANd BTW there is still no India, it has what 17 insurgencies going on right now. The only thing new S Asia got out of British rule were railroads and syphallis. And I suspect it would have gotten both anyhow.
 
Railroads were laid purely on military consideration. So much so, here were staffed by the British and Anglo-Indians. Same for posts and telegraphs.
 
British exploited India and siphoned its wealth to enrich England, Australia ans New ZeaLands, theit "white" dominions.
Back to Top
Jallaludin Akbar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jan-2009
Location: U.S.A!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132 		  Quote Jallaludin Akbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 22:09
I am just curious,

Poverty in India is widely accepted to have its origins to British colonialism. Is this information correct. Does Indian poverty have its origins to the British? How so?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi
Back to Top
MarcoPolo View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2007
Location: Planet Earth
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 190 		  Quote MarcoPolo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 20:28
Originally posted by Jallaludin Akbar

I am just curious,

Poverty in India is widely accepted to have its origins to British colonialism. Is this information correct. Does Indian poverty have its origins to the British? How so?
 
that doesnt make any sense, widely accepted by who? If anything its the opposite.  The arrival of the British was beneficial from a poverty index point of view.  Statistics, facts and even WHO figures show otherwise. 
 
Poverty has in a matter of speaking, always been endemic to india and some other parts of South Asia.  In fact, when the British arrived to the region, they were often shocked and taken back at the degree of poverty and caste distinction/discrimination they witnessed.  Its ironic, because the British themselves like the rest of Europe where caught up in the theories of race designation/superiority, but what they saw and witnessed in india was in many ways a human tragedy in their eyes.  Having come from Europe, conquering and colonizing parts of the middle east and east asia, the degree of poverty and degradation seen in india was unparalleled. Many aid workers, social workers, philanthropists and health care professionals flooded to the British colony of india. 
 
The British, subsequently over the time of their rule, undertook several steps to enlighten and improve the conditions of the commoner and poor in the region, something that no indian or previous foreign conqueror had ever done or would have done.  They established schools, hospitals, civil policy, social programs, enacted and instituted public policy and civilian laws on a massive wholesale level, in all municipalities irrespective of the people living there, that altered indian society as a whole and that broke centuries of inherent caste based racism inbeded within indian society and the predominant hindoo faith of its people.  Those positive effects are still rippling through indian society to this day.  If anything, the endemic and continuous cycle of poverty has been minimized and a possible ''out'' achieved for the poor and destitute in india, this has all been made possible by the efforts of the British and their Administrative undertakings in india and they should be credited with it. 
 
 Furthermore, the British where able to oust the foreign empires that had conquered india for thousands of years prior to their arrival, while they at a time where conquerors themselves, as history shows they did eventually leave South Asia,  altering the social undercurrents of the region, enlarging and in essence creating the country ''india'' in the process,  infusing a new nationality that never existed before(at least not on such a scale), built institutions, railways/roads and administrative networks to run and hold such a vast territory and more importantly left the newly created and vast country in the hands of the indigenous indian people for the first time, who had only known foreign conquerors and being conquered bar a few rare historical exceptions.   I think most people would agree that india has much to be thankful for when it comes to the British.


Edited by MarcoPolo - 06-Apr-2009 at 20:47
Back to Top
Jinit View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 16-Mar-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 86 		  Quote Jinit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2013 at 00:28
Sorry I don't understand this concept that the British rule united the India. When the British left, they not only gave freedom to the India and Pakistan but also to the 562 princely state. and most of the Big princely states didn't want to join the India at all (states like Jammu - Kashmir & Hyderabad were actually bigger than the England itself). The humongous task of merging them into the India was done by the skillful use of diplomatic and millitary force by the Sardar Patel (just like the Bismark did with the german states). India was as much fragmented in 1947 as it was before the starting of the colonial rule. Not to forget that many of the princely states were the creation of the colonial rule. For eg there wasn't an independant kingdom of Jammu and kashmir. It was the part of Sikh confedarcy. However the British created it to provide the buffer for their own territory at the end of the Anglo sikh wars. So I don't see why should the British rule should be given credit for the work done by the Indian leaders
 
and lets not even start about the Democracy and railways and so on. Democracy in the India is the achievment of the Indians. If it was the gift of the British than what about those African colonies and Pakistan? didn't the Britain give the same gift to them?
 
And railways and vaccines would have come to India even without the British rule. And not to mention that all those achievements, (many of them were partially done to secure their rule and for their own benefits and not for the purpose of welfare) seems very dull in comparison to the failures of British rule like the man made famines during the colonial era in which atleast 50 to 60 million people died. not to mention those millions of people displaced and or killed during the partition of 1947. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.