Originally Posted by sparten

Nobody doubts that the virtues of the Brits. And there were some people who were generally intetested in the welfare of the common man. Remember, Malcuhays "Minute on Education" or the famine code of 1896? So yes there were a few food things, and not all the good things were incidental. But, India especially and the sub continent generally was a loser in the Raj.
Of that, there is no doubt.

Originally Posted by lemontree

IMO everyone agrees on the above by-products of the British Raj.

The big deal is that when you have politicians screwing our country upside down your last sentence seems hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Vaman

IMO, everything that was gained from the British was completely incidental. None of the gains even begin to compensate for the wealth sucked out of this nation. On the other hand it would be pretty accurate to say that Britain would not have become as prosperous a state it is now had it not been for the wealth appropriated from India's occupation.
Even under occupation India's textile industry was producing textile far better in quality than those in British mills, causing them to literally ban Indian textiles exports and giving British textiles preferential access to the Indian markets.
Another example - the railways : The railways in India was never created to provide transportation for Indians. It was created simply to quickly move the military to quell rebelliion and control the local populace. It was also the most efficient way to transport resources from India to the ports to feed the British industries.
I dont think theres a reason to think that Railways wouldnt have been built in India had it not been for the British. Just like we have developed other industries, we would have found a way to build the railways too. Same goes for the civil services and the rest of the bureaucracy too. Anything could have been bought, borrowed, stolen, copied or developed.
Whats the big deal?

Originally Posted by 667medic

Atleast the Brits had Accountability.
If you visit the Mumbai High Court building, you can see a plaque giving details about the construction costs and the deadline. Most of the buildings built by the Brits are still standing strong today........

Originally Posted by sparten

Nobody doubts that the virtues of the Brits. And there were some people who were generally intetested in the welfare of the common man. Remember, Malcuhays "Minute on Education" or the famine code of 1896? So yes there were a few food things, and not all the good things were incidental. But, India especially and the sub continent generally was a loser in the Raj.
Of that, there is no doubt.

Originally Posted by Vaman

The two are different things altogether.
The british rule by design was meant only to extract wealth. Anything positive was purely incidental.
The Indian political system even in its present state was designed to benefit the country. The negative fallout - corruption, nepotism what have you - is incidental.

Theres no comparison b/w the two.

Originally Posted by raj

may be you guys dont know about the railway system developed by regional rajas for their own fun/travel in and around their kingdoms, during the reign of british in INDIA, it was done with out any financial help or planning from british INDIA govt.

Originally Posted by lemontree

Then why is'nt the same gusto being shown by our govt leaders?

Originally Posted by lemontree

...They keep harping on the Indian Railways being the largest in the world - in 1955 we had about 55,000 km or railroads today China has beaten us in that score. We sing on an inherited legacy with working to better it, but curse the english at the same time. That is what we are good at.

Originally Posted by Vaman

The chinese have done far better at everything wrt to infrastructure. Perhaps that in itself is an indication of how much better off India would have been without the British legacy.

Originally Posted by lemontree

I don't want to argue as you have your opinion, however, the british built railway was meant to increase commerce, communication of their forces/ business, which also helped the Indian masses. While the railways the rajas built was purely for their own selfish amusement and not with any intention to do any good.

Originally Posted by lemontree

1. What is the history of industrial development in the Indiam princely states before 1947?
2. Who were the princely rulers who lead industrial growth/ education/ infrastructure projects?

Do answer the above and prove me wrong, I would also like to be proud of some of the unsung leaders of my nation. Maybe there are some (Congress apathy towards many, kept them in the shadows), and I am not aware of them.

Originally Posted by raj

why is it that you think that british were doing good to indian population when they built indian railways, but not the local rajsas, when they did the same.

Originally Posted by lemontree

You are jumping to conclusion. In all my posts I have said listed the by-products of the British Raj that have benifitted India. Why is the word "by-product" so difficult to understand?


The British were building and maintaining an empire, while it was our rajas who were saving their ar$es. The Holkars of Indore, Scindias of Gwalior, Nizam of Hyderabad, the Rajputania, the Patiala and Kapurthala rajas and others who remained loyal to the British during 1857 were the ones who saved their ar$es, while those who fought have been wiped out or their decendents live a life of punery. It is ironical that today the families of these very scoundrels rule us as politicians.

The Osmania college was started in 1929. The first college of engineering in India was Roorkee Engineering College started in 1846, then Poona Engineering class & Mechanical school (now Govt Enginerring College, Pune) in 1854, then Bengal Engineering college in 1856.

So what took the Nizam so much time to start an institution in Hyderabad in the 1920's? There were already 3 universities (Bombay, Madras & Calcutta) that he could have copied much earlier in the deccan. Maybe he was busy spending money to insult Rolls Royce, as he was not recognised and felt humiliated in a Rolls Royce show room in London. He reportedly bought 40 Rolls Royce cars and converted them into garbage pickup vehicles.