Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    That is an interesting twist, the freedom movement pushed for self rule in the 20s. So the idea was to get independence much before the war began. Without WW2, i don't see the Brits agreeing to it. Dominion would have been a compromise of sorts i suppose. But would it have been enough. maybe in the short term.
    It was a myth otherwise we wouldn't have pushed so hard for independence.

    Comment


    • #77
      Defcon5: heck the Mughals were much better than Brits. At least they didnt leave Indians in abject poverty and called themselves civilized in the same breath.

      These are the same Mughals who imposed the jaziya head tax on Hindus and razed their ancient places of worship to the ground. Read up on Aurangzeb sometime, there's one of history's greatest monsters. His fifty plus years of religious bigotry left deep divisions and really set the table for foreign encroachment be it by British or by other foreigners. I hope you don't really look upon his legacy as good old days.
      Last edited by Sitting Bull; 05 Oct 14,, 19:49.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        Yes they did. All Lower Houses in the Colonies were elected.
        Yes and promptly ignored by the British Parliament and monarchy. In India, Britain didn't even allowed lower houses or such elections. When they finally did, it was a sham of a democracy and Indians refused to play along with the sham.

        So really in effect, the British was not responsible for democracy in India. They did not encourage it but discouraged it because they knew that they would lose India and kept throwing roadblocks in the implementation of democracy. It would be more accurate to say that Indian democracy succeeded in spite of British interference and duplicity.
        Last edited by Blademaster; 05 Oct 14,, 19:51.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Sitting Bull View Post
          Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post

          heck the Mughals were much better than Brits. At least they didnt leave Indians in abject poverty and called themselves civilized in the same breath.
          These are the same Mughals who imposed the jaziya head tax on Hindus and razed their ancient places of worship to the ground. Read up on Aurangzeb sometime, there's one of history's greatest monsters. His religious bigotry left deep divisions and really set the table for foreign encroachment be it by British or by other foreigners.
          It has been agreed by most Indians that the Mughals even more brutal than the British were better in their rule over a longer period of time than the British were. For one thing, there were more famines and the economic production declined during the British Raj. During the aftermath of 1857, the British didn't exactly endear themselves to the local populace and was on the same scale as the Mughals.

          Comment


          • #80
            BM,

            On paper it sounded nice but in reality it wasn't put into practice. The British would put in so many qualifiers as you called it and it became worthless not even worth the paper it was printed on. It was just a nice piece of legal fiction or propaganda put forth by the British to feel good about themselves and justify their actions.
            well, no. by the 1920s there was a sea-change in British thinking, especially after the Dominions....and the Indians...helped save their bacon in WWI. that's what prompted reform:

            Montagu

            note the huge difference in british public opinion between the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and Amritsar. even the arch-imperialist Churchill was horrified.

            India was part of the overall Dominion devolution that happened in the 1920s, but one-two steps behind. IE, after the Reforms in 1919, India was approximately where the other Dominions were in the 1890s, prior to the 1907 Colonial Conference. of course this did not happen just out of the kind goodwill of the British, but from many factors, including the accelerating expense of colonial upkeep, a much more restive Indian middle class, and changing opinion in England.

            of course the speed of devolution was not fast enough for most Indians, but this still represented a real devolution of power, and would have been unthinkable prior to WWI.

            my guess that absent the Nazi threat there would have been further devolution to a real Dominion by the late '30s is not unreasonable. after all...India received Dominion status by 1947. :)
            Last edited by astralis; 05 Oct 14,, 20:38.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              Yes and promptly ignored by the British Parliament and monarchy.
              Except for a few cases, most decisions were left alone. Communications was via ship in those days. By the time the countermand arrives, it would have been too late. The local Governor could overruled but negotiations would have been done way before hand before the bill was passed.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                It was a myth otherwise we wouldn't have pushed so hard for independence.
                What was a myth ?

                The New Nationalist Movement in India | The Atlantic | Oct 1908

                Spoiler!


                had read this article years ago. It's an interesting take by a visiting american back in 1908.

                India is a subject land. She is a dependency of Great Britain, not a colony. Britain has both colonies and dependencies. Many persons suppose them to be identical; but they are not. Britain's free colonies, like Canada and Australia, though nominally governed by the mother country, are really self-ruling in everything except their relations to foreign powers. Not so with dependencies like India. These are granted no self-government, no representation; they are ruled absolutely by Great Britain, which is not their "mother" country, but their conqueror and master.
                Highlghts the difference between a colony and a dependency.

                if you read through you will get the basis for the nationalist movement. As to whether it would be independence or dominion is up for debate. As early as 1908 the goal was freedom, autonomy & self-rule.

                "New National Movement in India."

                It is the awakening and the protest of a subject people. It is the effort of a nation, once illustrious, and still conscious of its inherent superiority, to rise from the dust, to stand once more on its feet, to shake off fetters which have become unendurable. It is the effort of the Indian people to get for themselves again a country which shall be in some true sense their own, instead of remaining, as for a century and a half it has been, a mere preserve of a foreign power,—in John Stuart Mill's words, England's "cattle farm."

                The people of India want the freedom which is their right,—freedom to shape their own institutions, their own industries, their own national life. This does not necessarily mean separation from Great Britain; but it does mean, if retaining a connection with the British Empire, becoming citizens,and not remaining forever helpless subjects in the hands of irresponsible masters.

                It does mean a demand that India shall be given a place in the Empire essentially like that of Canada or Australia,with such autonomy and home rule as are enjoyed by these free, self-governing colonies. Is not this demand just?

                Not only the people of India, but many of the best Englishmen, answer unequivocally, Yes!

                In the arduous struggle upon which India has entered to attain this end (arduous indeed her struggle must be, for holders of autocratic and irresponsible power seldom in this world surrender their power without being compelled) surely she should have the sympathy of the enlightened and liberty-loving men and women of all nations.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 06 Oct 14,, 01:19.

                Comment


                • #83
                  George Orwell the former Burma policeman said it best.

                  The average Indian coolies thigh is thinner than an English mans arm. This is a simple matter of starvation.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sitting Bull View Post
                    Defcon5: heck the Mughals were much better than Brits. At least they didnt leave Indians in abject poverty and called themselves civilized in the same breath.

                    These are the same Mughals who imposed the jaziya head tax on Hindus and razed their ancient places of worship to the ground. Read up on Aurangzeb sometime, there's one of history's greatest monsters. His fifty plus years of religious bigotry left deep divisions and really set the table for foreign encroachment be it by British or by other foreigners. I hope you don't really look upon his legacy as good old days.

                    Divisons between Hindus and Muslims, or even Hindus themselves isnt a creation of Mughals. Its the reality. Mughals were not there in the Middle East, yet the muslim rulers there did the same with Jews, Christians and Pagans.
                    Hindu caste system was not also the creation of Mughals, All that is beside the point and pales in comparison to what the Brits did in India.

                    I am the most rabid anti- islam person you will see around here. As a a person who is an atheist and a secularist, there is no greater threat to me than from the islamofacist.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Devolution happened not because of British 'kindness' but their inability to hold on to power after World War 2 and Indian Naval Mutiny. Brits never intended to let go off the drain pipe into India. That much is quite evident from Churchill

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                        The British were not ideal - no imperialist is- but we were arguably the most humane of the major imperial powers. Imagine swathes of India resembling Belgian Congo..awful to contemplate in human terms. Some of the British respected Indian culture, and in retrospect Parliamentary democracy has turned out to be one of the most stable, inclusive and beneficial systems imaginable for India.

                        It will be interesting to watch India develop further as it crosses a key inflexion point in its' history, still retaining a British paradigm of government. That (semi-liberal) Parliamentary system has spawned the growth of a massive bourgeois class that will tremendously boost Indian economic and military power in the years ahead; you will rebase your nominal GDP to Germany-sequel size, next year I believe, for example. The key question is whether this offsets the spectres of poverty, famine and religious cleavage of India immediately post 1947.
                        This is quite rich.

                        Brits killed millions in India, you have the audacity to calls yourself humane in the same breath. Brits stole wealth, enslaved, murdered, stole future's and raped, yet Brits are humane.

                        India was a rich lands for 2000 years continuously, It was the richest land in the world from time immoerial, The brits and west only has the last 300 years, and now are in a decline again. India is India not because of Brits, but because of Indians, especially the Hindu's.

                        The day Brits pay back the trillions of dollars stolen, compensate for the millions lives killed and enslaved. Will Brits ever have the right to call themselves humane.

                        It is the same Brits/Americans who killed millions in the Americas and elsewhere. Humane, Laughable

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          If there was no India, then what the fucking Europeans were look for, on boats.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                            If there was no India, then what the fucking Europeans were look for, on boats.
                            Spices. If it ain't Indians, it would have been the Chinese but either way, the Europeans couldn't care less if it were Persians or Mongols, they just didn't want to pay the middleman for the pepper for their dinner.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Oh yes Spices grew in a place, where nobody ever lived...only if the Indians gave all the spices free, Brits would have left us alone

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                                Oh yes Spices grew in a place, where nobody ever lived...only if the Indians gave all the spices free, Brits would have left us alone
                                Errhhhhh, Columbus was an Italian on a commission by Spain.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X