British Raj did more harm than good in Indian subcontinent: UK Supreme Court debate

[snapper]

I can bet my a** the aryans went from India towards Europe

The words 'aryan' has a Indo European history although it's first usage I believe comes from Sanskrit and means something like 'Indo Persian' culture specifically as opposed to the greater Indo European language/cultural diversity. The Aryan Migration hypothesis which proposes that the proto Indo European heartland was in India and then 'migrated' to Europe has no DNA or language based proofs possible. In tracing peoples through language usage the 'center of gravity principle' applies which assumes a more or less even spread in all directions from the 'starting point' as it were. Note this does not apply to specific languages clearly such as Spanish (which would by the 'center of gravity principle' would originate in the mid Atlantic) but is taken to apply to language groups. Linguistically the Kurgan hypothesis has a far stronger case. The Kurgan hypothesis supposes a migration starting between the Dnieper and the Volga.



The Aryan debate is largely due to a certain megalomaniac seeking historical and racial excuses for his megalomania. It is correct that Indian nobles referred to themselves or were referred to as 'ārya' but this does not specify a separate racial type. It's an Indian thing but the chances are that the Indian of today are but the eastern most expansion of the Indo European family from a point further west. However you look at it we're all Indo Europeans and have common roots. Fractious bunch we seem to be...

[Mihais]

Sara,I was just testing them.The lads are so obsessed with themselves and this is a subject that quickly separates reasonable Indian patriots from not so reasonable ones.Most of us here are quite patriotic and that to an extent presumes we think our countries to be the COUNTRY.But there is a limit to that.

[Blademaster]

Gentlemen,

Look at your neighbours who were not ruled by the British. To your north in Central Asia, what kind of democracy did they have? To your West in Iran, a Shah, now a Khomeni. China, an Emperor first in Chiang, then Mao, then Deng. Southeast Asia, a bunch of kings fighting amongst each other. South Korea, a military dictatorship for over 30 years. North Korea, a god-king.

Not saying the Brits was a bed of roses but since WWII, you escaped the insanity of your neighbours. At the very least, the Brits established minimum baseline of government that you would accept. They set the bar high enough for you to aspire for more.

Because believe me, the bar could have been set much lower. It could have been worst. A lot worst. Some of you failed to see that.

And you also failed to see that it also takes the locals to do it well. Look at Pakistan. See how it is a failure. Look at Burma. Look at Bangladesh. They were former British colonies. So why did they fail where India succeeded? It sure wasn't because of British traditions I could tell you that. Those countries inherited the same set of traditions that India inherited and yet those countries failed whereas India did not. And that is what you fail to see. You mistakenly attribute it to the British system. That is a fallacious argument.

[Officer of Engineers]

That is a fallacious argument.

I think you missed the point. China, South Korea, and Iran did prosper after WWII ... in their own systems. The USSR becamse a superpower and China went from the 19th Century to the 21st Century ... but did you really want that system?

The reason why both Stalin and Mao/Deng could do it was because of the top thug system that they inherrited from. There is no such thing within the British Raj. Yes, supposedly the Viceroy is the top man but even he had to answer to Parliment, ever since Cromwell. So, a Stalin/Mao/Deng would have a hard time coming up legitimately.

[commander]

The words 'aryan' has a Indo European history although it's first usage I believe comes from Sanskrit and means something like 'Indo Persian' culture specifically as opposed to the greater Indo European language/cultural diversity. The Aryan Migration hypothesis which proposes that the proto Indo European heartland was in India and then 'migrated' to Europe has no DNA or language based proofs possible. In tracing peoples through language usage the 'center of gravity principle' applies which assumes a more or less even spread in all directions from the 'starting point' as it were. Note this does not apply to specific languages clearly such as Spanish (which would by the 'center of gravity principle' would originate in the mid Atlantic) but is taken to apply to language groups. Linguistically the Kurgan hypothesis has a far stronger case. The Kurgan hypothesis supposes a migration starting between the Dnieper and the Volga.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38172[/ATTACH]

The Aryan debate is largely due to a certain megalomaniac seeking historical and racial excuses for his megalomania. It is correct that Indian nobles referred to themselves or were referred to as 'ārya' but this does not specify a separate racial type. It's an Indian thing but the chances are that the Indian of today are but the eastern most expansion of the Indo European family from a point further west. However you look at it we're all Indo Europeans and have common roots. Fractious bunch we seem to be...

Thanks for taking the time to explaining this theory, honestly :). But I was just trying to play along with what Mihais was saying. All of the mankind migrated from some place and didn't just jump from skies in all the specific areas. So doesn't matter IMV where they came from about a thousand or so years ago, as long as we (Indians) are united.

[Blademaster]

I think you missed the point. China, South Korea, and Iran did prosper after WWII ... in their own systems. The USSR becamse a superpower and China went from the 19th Century to the 21st Century ... but did you really want that system?

The reason why both Stalin and Mao/Deng could do it was because of the top thug system that they inherrited from. There is no such thing within the British Raj. Yes, supposedly the Viceroy is the top man but even he had to answer to Parliment, ever since Cromwell. So, a Stalin/Mao/Deng would have a hard time coming up legitimately.

We made the system worked for us. The Brits didn't make the system work for us. They didn't even care. They implemented the system and used it for their own benefits to our own detriment. So why should they get some of the credit when Indians did all the hard work in making the system work for us and to our own benefit?

It is like saying that the armchair general should get the credit for the obvious solution of "belling the cat" so to speak and saving the mice from certain death because they came up with the idea but when it came to the execution and making the plan work, it was the work of the grunts and workers who had to problem solve around the execution part and making it work.

The idea of democracy and representative government was around a lot longer than the British Raj. Sure the British had their version but they never made it for the Indians and make it work in practice and for their benefits. It was all entirely for the British benefit with no thought of toward Indians' benefits.

Look at Burma. Look at Pakistan. Look at Bangladesh. Look at Sri Lanka. If Britain is gonna take the credit because Indians somehow made the system work for India's benefits, well then it must equally share in the failures in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Burma. You can't cherry pick and choose without the other. You don't hear how Britain accepted responsibility for the failure of those traditions and institutions in those countries. Instead, Britain washed it off and pinned the failures on the locals.

The reason why democracy and government institutions worked in India whereas those failed in other countries because Indians made it work through their sacrifices and hard sweat and foresight and ability to think forward instead of dwelling in the past too much. It had nothing to do with British traditions and institutions. In fact, you could put in a french style democracy or us style democracy or some other form of democracy and Indians would have found a way to make it work and instead of Britain taking the credit, you would hear France or US or some other country taking the credit when the truth is actually very far from their claims.

[Officer of Engineers]

The reason why democracy and government institutions worked in India whereas those failed in other countries because Indians made it work through their sacrifices and hard sweat and foresight and ability to think forward instead of dwelling in the past too much. It had nothing to do with British traditions and institutions. In fact, you could put in a french style democracy or us style democracy or some other form of democracy and Indians would have found a way to make it work and instead of Britain taking the credit, you would hear France or US or some other country taking the credit when the truth is actually very far from their claims.

I really think you are really missing the point. The British should giving credit for showing you what YOU DON'T WANT. You did not want an Indian Raj.

[sated buddha]

So why did they fail where India succeeded?

Hindus.

[Blademaster]

I really think you are really missing the point. The British should giving credit for showing you what YOU DON'T WANT. You did not want an Indian Raj.

Oh come on that is such a dubious argument. It is equivalent to the lame argument that Germans should be given credit for showing what YOU DON'T WANT. You did not want an American white racial superiority. KKK fell out of disfavor. Blacks became enfranchised and got more rights, etc. Or showing Europe what they did not want.

[Officer of Engineers]

Oh come on that is such a dubious argument. It is equivalent to the lame argument that Germans should be given credit for showing what YOU DON'T WANT. You did not want an American white racial superiority. KKK fell out of disfavor. Blacks became enfranchised and got more rights, etc. Or showing Europe what they did not want.

No, Hitesh.

It was an absolute statement. You cannot accept the British Raj, then, communism was a no go. Be advised, at the time, that was your only other option. You refused to look at the time period. How many fell in love with Communism? How many rejected it?

Look who fell in love with Communism. Mao, Ho, Kim ... and not very few in Japan and in Europe ... and in India. Communism held the promise ... and it was also a strong voice in India.

But in the end, you didn't want to answer to London, you certainly did not want to answer to Moscow ... but it was close. Very close. The Soviet-Indo Friendship Treaty should tell you just how close.

All it took was a Mao ... and you had Nehru.

[Blademaster]

No, Hitesh.

It was an absolute statement. You cannot accept the British Raj, then, communism was a no go. Be advised, at the time, that was your only other option. You refused to look at the time period. How many fell in love with Communism? How many rejected it?

It wasn't communism we fell love in with. That was a major misconception. It was socialism that we fell in love with and it wasn't unique to India and others. Socialism also occurred in post WWII western societies. For some reason, Dulles mistook that as a support for communism.

And we also embraced small scale capitalism. It was the fear of the return of the days of East India Tea Company that made us suspicious and distrustful towards large corporations and nationalized those large corporations out of fear, socialist leanings, left leaning thinking, or a combination of them.

The western world didn't understand that we were going for a hybrid system.

I am not ignoring the time period. Look at the time period where India, Burma, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka were spun off with great promise. Look at today and see which one pulled through.

And furthermore, India was instrumental in creating the NAM movement. The reasons why NAM failed is another story and best debated in a separated thread.

Look who fell in love with Communism. Mao, Ho, Kim ... and not very few in Japan and in Europe ... and in India. Communism held the promise ... and it was also a strong voice in India.

It was a voice and influential but by no means controlling or strong enough to dictate terms to GoI.

But in the end, you didn't want to answer to London, you certainly did not want to answer to Moscow ... but it was close. Very close. The Soviet-Indo Friendship Treaty should tell you just how close.

Tell me why do you think it was very very close to answer to Moscow. We didn't hop when they said hop. And Americans pushed us closer to Soviet in 1971 but we certainly weren't under the thumbs of Moscow. Moscow had no say in our internal politics or economic policies. The only thing that she could influence was foreign policy and that influence was limited. So I fail to see how India was this close to answering to Moscow.

All it took was a Mao ... and you had Nehru.

Actually Nehru was not that strong of a leader. He was appointed by Gandhi and during the 50s India was primarily concerned with developing her industries and economy and it was going well. When it didn't go well, Nehru couldn't stay in power too long. His influence was clipped and fell out of favor. Only his premature death masked the loss of influence he had.

[Officer of Engineers]

It wasn't communism we fell love in with. That was a major misconception. It was socialism that we fell in love with and it wasn't unique to India and others. Socialism also occurred in post WWII western societies. For some reason, Dulles mistook that as a support for communism.

During the period in question, they were the one and the same.

It was a voice and influential but by no means controlling or strong enough to dictate terms to GoI.

The point was that it could have swung that way but your revulsion to the Brits also gave you revulsion to Moscow.

Tell me why do you think it was very very close to answer to Moscow. We didn't hop when they said hop.

Yes, you did. Indian communists supported WWII in order to relieve the pressure on the Soviets.

And Americans pushed us closer to Soviet in 1971 but we certainly weren't under the thumbs of Moscow. Moscow had no say in our internal politics or economic policies. The only thing that she could influence was foreign policy and that influence was limited. So I fail to see how India was this close to answering to Moscow.

Really, Hitesh, are you really going to play that card? Leased nuclear delivery vehicles after you did SMILING BUDDHA? From a nuclear attack submarine with the capability to launch nuclear weapons and BACKFIRE bombers classified in SALT II as nuclear delivery vehicles?

Moscow 100% cemented India into her camp even if you did not know it.

Actually Nehru was not that strong of a leader. He was appointed by Gandhi and during the 50s India was primarily concerned with developing her industries and economy and it was going well. When it didn't go well, Nehru couldn't stay in power too long. His influence was clipped and fell out of favor. Only his premature death masked the loss of influence he had.

Nehru did not have to be that strong. He just needed everybody else to be that weak.

[Blademaster]

During the period in question, they were the one and the same.

How so? Communism only allowed one party rule whereas socialism allowed multiparty rule.

The point was that it could have swung that way but your revulsion to the Brits also gave you revulsion to Moscow.

If that is the credit that British wish to receive, then be my guest but bewarned it is not something to crow about.

Yes, you did. Indian communists supported WWII in order to relieve the pressure on the Soviets.

And how influential was that party in Indian politics? Not that much.

Really, Hitesh, are you really going to play that card? Leased nuclear delivery vehicles after you did SMILING BUDDHA? From a nuclear attack submarine with the capability to launch nuclear weapons and BACKFIRE bombers classified in SALT II as nuclear delivery vehicles?

We only got a leased Charlie boat and we had to return it after two years. We never got the Backfire bombers.

Moscow 100% cemented India into her camp even if you did not know it.

Not in that time period you were discussing. It was only after 1971 that India was cemented to USSR in an alliance but nowhere on the level of Warsaw Pact or North Korea or even China. We didn't even share borders and Indira Gandhi certainly didn't (you know how she is) take shit from anyone including Moscow and Moscow knew it.

Nehru did not have to be that strong. He just needed everybody else to be that weak.

No there were two strong leaders at that time but died prematurely. Sardar Patel and Subhas Chandra Bose. If it wasn't for Sardar's terminal cancer, he would have clipped Nehru and taken over the reins. Same thing with Bose. He was strong enough to challenge Gandhi and Nehru for premiership even though British did not want him in that role.

And there were other leaders in waiting but not widely known and were strong enough to challenge him. Ask commander about the leaders of TN and South India and see how they were quite semi independent in their governance.

[Defcon5]

So Democracy getting from the Brits means giving up trillions of dollars worth of wealth, getting yourself into abject poverty, go through forced famines, endure genocides, and have your women raped. Guess the civilization which created mathematics and many other great thought process and religions cant create democracy, only the brits can.

[Defcon5]

No one stole your future.

Well made my country into a poverty stricken cess pool, stole the wealth of my immediate ancestors, to put it simply my grandfather and above. I wonder how UK would like today if, India stole 14 trillions dollars of wealth till 1947