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

[Officer of Engineers]

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

No, that was the Spanish who killed millions in the Americas and they did it by small pox.

[ambidex]

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.

Incorrect.

The King Manuel appointed Vasco de Gama to command fleet of four boats for the expedition of India in 1497.

Vasco da Gama was not appointed/awarded as Governor of spices but India; titled Viceroy. Just one reason that they were after spices can not negate the fact that they were looking for India, a nation, a political entity. They were not visiting our lands to cultivate pepper but buy or loot it from the political entities.

As soon as he landed in India he was after wealth of Temples and the religion natives were practicing i.e. Hinduism.
.....................
It is factually incorrect, a chicanery of worst kind to say Britain left India united. Heck they themselves were dealing with individual states on different arrangements like suzerainty. No wonder the naive westerners stopped reading Indian history when last British troops disembarked from Karachi in 1948.

[Blademaster]

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.

And it works the other way around. The local Governors and their staffs and minions have their perks and benefits to protect. Do you think that they were willing to give up such power, perks, and benefits just because as you said, communications were slow and London wouldn't know what is going on and the local Governors would think that they know better than people in London. There is a reason why there was several movements and some of them were using violence to overthrow British Raj. It didn't come out of a vacuum. Why did Gandhi move from the idea of greater representation and inclusiveness to self rule despite British promises that things will change? Your explanation does not hold up in the light of these movements and agitation.

[Officer of Engineers]

Incorrect.

The King Manuel appointed Vasco de Gama to command fleet of four boats for the expedition of India in 1497.

And you got the friggin Ottoman Empire in the way who can cut off any trade with a whim. The Europeans at the time were not strong enough to take on the Turks. You asked what were the boats looking for. A way to bypass the Ottomans, not to conquer India.

[Officer of Engineers]

And it works the other way around. The local Governors and their staffs and minions have their perks and benefits to protect. Do you think that they were willing to give up such power, perks, and benefits just because as you said, communications were slow and London wouldn't know what is going on and the local Governors would think that they know better than people in London.

I was speaking about the Americas, don't know the situation in India. The Lower Houses control the budget and the Governors can do nothing about it. If they want to be paid, they have to negotiate with the Lower House.

[Blademaster]

BM,



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

Counterrebuttal to the above link: Rowlatt Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Your above link would say otherwise. See a particular quote from your link:

Montagu ordered an inquiry into the events at Amritsar by Lord Hunter. The Hunter Inquiry recommended that General Dyer, who commanded the troops, be dismissed, leading to Dyer's sacking. Many British citizens supported Dyer, whom they considered had not received fair treatment from the Hunter Inquiry. The conservative Morning Post newspaper collected a subscription of £26,000 for General Dyer and Sir Edward Carson moved a censure motion in Montagu which was nearly successful. Although Montagu was saved largely due to a strong speech in his defence by Winston Churchill, Lloyd George's secretary reported that some of the Tories could have assaulted him (Montagu) physically they were so angry.

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.

So Germany was good for something. So WWI prompted these changes, not British themselves. They were forced to. A huge difference from the dubious argument that the British were going to give democracy as if it was their idea all along.

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. :)

There were plans and discussion of slowing down talks of Dominion status after WWII ended. Only the Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 and the realization that they just lost the support of the Indian Army and that the Indian Army would listen to INC put an end to such discussions. Thereafter, in 1947, India reached its independence. Dominionship was a misnomer. There was no way that India would have stayed within the British commonwealth. The status of Dominion was a facesaving way for the British to get out.

[Blademaster]

What was a myth ?

The myth was that Britain was going to give Dominion status or democracy to India on its own.

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


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.

Your article does not convey the sense that Britain was going to grant dominion status to India. All it shows that the natives wanted independence or more rights and freedom and self-rule and the British wasn't going to do it.

[ambidex]

And you got the friggin Ottoman Empire in the way who can cut off any trade with a whim. The Europeans at the time were not strong enough to take on the Turks. You asked what were the boats looking for. A way to bypass the Ottomans, not to conquer India.

Sir,

What it has to do with the premise and notion against those one liner experts that there was no country called India to start with.

Europeans never made bones about their intentions of conquering India like present day spin masters are doing.

And they did tried to take local civilians hostage on the very first instance, and they did tried to conquer India nevertheless. Isn't it ?

There was never a trade embargo on Europe not to trade with Mediterranean countries who were trading with India.

Land rout was costly and competitive because Arabs had the monopoly of the market..

Vasco Da Gama on his second expedition got 20 armed boats from King and came back to India killing hundred of Muslims if not thousands and destroying many fleets of Arab Muslims patrolling and trading on routs to India. Europeans didn't jumped to their boats because the Land routs were lost but they found it more convenient and fast to explore new world and spread the Christianity, they were doing quite well without spices, if not then they could have never developed such good ships.

If Portugal was only after spices then there was no point to hand over a cross to Vasco da Gamma assuming India is christian country and giving him the mandate to form an alliance with India against Arabs and Ottoman empire like you said.

[Officer of Engineers]

Europeans never made bones about their intentions of conquering India like present day spin masters are doing.

And they lost more wars than they won. The East India Company didn't start out conquering India. They hired local thugs to protect their interest which later becamse British regiments. The Opium Wars was never about conquering China, it was to establish a balance of trade.

That they found local riches not easily defended that they took chances, yes.

But do you seriously think that those 20 ships could take on the Ottoman Navy if they so chosed?

[Albany Rifles]

I was speaking about the Americas, don't know the situation in India. The Lower Houses control the budget and the Governors can do nothing about it. If they want to be paid, they have to negotiate with the Lower House.

At the time of the American Revolution the British colonists in the 13 colonies enjoyed more day to day freedoms and had greater control over their political life than any other citizens in the English-speaking world.

What was lacking was a control over their economic life which matched their political freedoms.

Hence, the Revolution.

[Defcon5]

No, that was the Spanish who killed millions in the Americas and they did it by small pox.

Yes, all the real americans of great North American Continent, just packed and left.

[Defcon5]

Courtesy DFI..

[Officer of Engineers]

Yes, all the real americans of great North American Continent, just packed and left.

Oh get off it. The European diseases went all over the place. You do know that they had trade routes all over the Americas. You can trace the progress of the die offs by the trade routes. The Spanish introduced the germs to the Central and South Americans and the Central and South Americans spread it north.

[Blademaster]

Oh get off it. The European diseases went all over the place. You do know that they had trade routes all over the Americas. You can trace the progress of the die offs by the trade routes. The Spanish introduced the germs to the Central and South Americans and the Central and South Americans spread it north.

Some historians say that 95% of the population were already killed by the time English people came to settle in North America.

[SteveDaPirate]

If you get a chance, the documentary Guns, Germs and Steel is a very interesting look at how colonization was able to succeed in some places but was thwarted in others.