British Raj's (colonial rule's) 'gifts' to South Asia

[Skimming]

Look bro. There were would be no India or Pakistan without the Brits.

Brits taught low IQ South Asian elites how to rule their respective countries and keep them United.

This is the exact thinking of @Indus Pakistan. But he is perma banned now. So he cannot comment.

 

[iamnobody]

This is the exact thinking of @Indus Pakistan. But he is perma banned now. So he cannot comment.

Just think.

What keeps India and Pakistan United?

Political structure, Bureaucratic structure ,Military structure and the classic divide and rule formula. These are the gifts of the British to low IQ South Asian elites.

Ashoka couldn't keep the region United. Mughals wouldn't.

Accept it the whiteys are born to rule.

 

[RescueRanger]

not to belittle the purpose of this thread - but slight nuance required here
while the british (or any colonial power) did what it needed to do for its own purposes, the purpose here should not be to put the blame on them (you COULD, but it really doesnt help)

the question really is, why werent the systems changed right after the british left?

the answer could be in both the "power hungry elites" who wanted all the power to themselves
the general public who dint really think through (that just overthrowing the colonial force dint change their status)
and also partly - changing the structure of a coutry while its running is inherently very difficult (and requires a "buy in" from a LOT of stakeholders)

changing status-quo is hard. it takes decades and centuries for countries to change. the longer a country lives, the harder it gets to change its internal structure. this is what sudden changes are usually associated with revolutions - not "evolutions"

my 2 cents

Shame this post didn’t get the attention it deserved. Positive given.

 

[arjunk]

ach and every institutions created by British in the Raj's administrative machinery was useful to the later independent South Asia.

The useless British officers in 1947 stopped the Pak Army from sending even a squadron of Armoured Cars which would've captured all of Kashmir and prevented a century long conflict which killed thousands and threatens a civilization ending nuclear war.

The British are also responsbile for Hari Singh coming to power, killing 200,000 muslims and starting the Kashmir conflict in the first place.

And British created East Pakistan which according to Bangladesh killed 3 jillion bengalis and raped 400 billion.

 

[PakFactor]

Financial story of our independence

2 Comments / Articles, The Times of India / By / August 17, 2003

Another Independence Day has come and gone. Right through history, imperial powers have clung to their possessions to death. Why, then, did Britain in 1947 give up the jewel in its crown, India?

For many reasons. The independence struggle exposed the hollowness of the white man’s burden. Provincial self-rule since 1935 paved the way for full self-rule. Churchill resisted independence, but the Labour government of Atlee was anti-imperialist by ideology.

Finally, the Royal Indian Navy mutiny in 1946 raised fears of a second Sepoy Mutiny, and convinced British waverers that it was safer to withdraw gracefully.

But politico-military explanations are not enough. The basis of empire was always money. The end of empire had much to do with the fact that British imperialism had ceased to be profitable. World War II left Britain victorious but deeply indebted, needing Marshall Aid and loans from the World Bank. This constituted a strong financial case for ending the no-longer-profitable empire.

Empire-building is expensive. The US is spending one billion dollars a day in operations in Iraq that fall well short of full-scale imperialism. Through the centuries, empire-building was costly, yet constantly undertaken because it promised high returns.

The investment was in armies and conquest. The returns came through plunder and taxes from the conquered. No immorality was attached to imperial loot and plunder. The biggest conquerors were typically revered (hence titles like Alexander the Great, Akbar the Great, and Peter the Great). The bigger and richer the empire, the more the plunderer was admired.

This mindset gradually changed with the rise of new ideas about equality and governing for the public good, ideas that culminated in the French and American revolutions. Robert Clive was impeached for making a little money on the side, and so was Warren Hastings. The white man’s burden came up as a new moral rationale for conquest: It was supposedly for the good of the conquered. This led to much muddled hypocrisy. On the one hand, the empire needed to be profitable. On the other hand, the white man’s burden made brazen loot impossible. An additional factor deterring loot was the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny. Though crushed, it reminded the British vividly that they were a tiny ethnic group who could not rule a gigantic subcontinent without the support of important locals.

After 1857, the British stopped annexing one princely state after another, and instead treated the princes as allies. Land revenue was fixed in absolute terms, partly to prevent local unrest and partly to promote the notion of the white man’s burden. The empire proclaimed itself to be a protector of the Indian peasant against exploitation by Indian elites.

This was denounced as hypocrisy by nationalists like Dadabhoy Naoroji in the 19th century, who complained that land taxes led to an enormous drain from India to Britain. Objective calculations by historians like Angus Maddison suggest a drain of perhaps 1.6 per cent of Indian GNP in the 19th century. But land revenue was more or less fixed by the Raj in absolute terms, and so its real value diminished rapidly with inflation in the 20th century. By World War II, India had ceased to be a profit centre for the British Empire.

Historically, conquered nations paid taxes to finance fresh wars of the conqueror. India itself was asked to pay a large sum at the end of World War I to help repair Britain’s finances.

But, as shown by historian Indivar Kamtekar, the independence movement led by Gandhiji changed the political landscape, and made mass taxation of India increasingly difficult. By World War II, this had become politically impossible.

Far from taxing India to pay for World War II, Britain actually began paying India for its contribution of men and goods. Troops from white dominions like Australia, Canada and New Zealand were paid for entirely by those countries, but Indian costs were shared by the British government. Britain paid in the form of non-convertible sterling balances, which mounted swiftly. The conqueror was paying the conquered, undercutting the profitability on which all empire is founded.

Churchill opposed this, and wanted to tax India rather than owe it money. But he was overruled by India hands who said India would resist payment, and paralyse the war effort. Leo Amery, secretary of state for India, said that when you are driving in a taxi to the station to catch a life-or-death train, you do not loudly announce that you have doubts about whether to pay the fare.

Thus World War II converted India from a debtor to a creditor with over one billion pounds in sterling balances. Britain, meanwhile, became the biggest debtor in the world. It’s not worth ruling over people you are afraid to tax. That’s why the British left. Our school textbooks do not mention this as a key reason why India got its independence. Yet, that is the case.

Financial story of our independence - Swaminomics – Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar

Another Independence Day has come and gone. Right through history, imperial powers have clung to their possessions to death. Why, then, did Britain in 1947

swaminomics.org

It's a culmination of factors, but the most important is the Atlantic Charter. The Americans forced the British to relinquish all claims for them to join the war.

 

[arjunk]

What keeps India

Hate of Pakistan, good economy, military brutality, and redrawing of state boundaries.

and Pakistan United?

Islam, military might, and disgust at the thought of being vegetarian under Indian rule.

we need chaiman mao revolution.

Pakistan is too diverse and fragile for such a revolution and it will fragment. Because of nukes, the powers will not allow this fragmentation to happen. Change will only happen slowly and painfully.

 

[Skimming]

It's a culmination of factors, but the most important is the Atlantic Charter. The Americans forced the British to relinquish all claims for them to join the war.

So @Indus Pakistan is not the only Pakistani who believes in the three notions enumerated in OP. Many or even most Pakistanis believe the same. Just where are they taught all this? Schools or college universities? Quoting below for reference.

@iamnobody @Paitoo @-=virus=- @Skull and Bones @SoulSpokesman @my2cents @Cheepek @DabbuSardar @MilSpec @RandyB @prashantazazel @Krptonite @migflug @Sharma Ji @KedarT @NAVDEEP DHALIWAL

This thread is for those who believe:

1. Overall, British rule was benevolent and magnanimous to South Asia.

2. Each and every institutions created by British in the Raj's administrative machinery was useful to the later independent South Asia.

3. British willingly left South Asia due to some form of sincerity.

@Indus Pakistan and maybe some others are proponents of all the above three notions. Wish they would be allowed to comment on this topic.

Edit-Add:

Clarification: This thread doesn't suggest above points. Rather it is for arguing with people who believe in above listed notions.

 

[NAVDEEP DHALIWAL]

What a waste of time reading this thread.

No insight knowledge how ips , ias, judiciary work with each other. What are the check and balances put in place so not 1 Segment has absolute power. Why they don't work at optimum efficiency.
No alternate model put forward.

It's like kid asking his MoM he doesn't like the school because teachers are bad.

 

[-=virus=-]

It was what it was

some prospered, many suffered

no different than anything today

Hitler Paaji ne ungal kar di na but Churchil ki gaan'

fir unka attention divert ho gya

and hum ne full advantaze le lia maukey ka

Hitler Sb down gaye, but dragged that pig Churchill with him

jai Sri Hitler !

 

[Krptonite]

So @Indus Pakistan is not the only Pakistani who believes in the three notions enumerated in OP. Many or even most Pakistanis believe the same. Just where are they taught all this? Schools or college universities? Quoting below for reference.

@iamnobody @Paitoo @-=virus=- @Skull and Bones @SoulSpokesman @my2cents @Cheepek @DabbuSardar @MilSpec @RandyB @prashantazazel @Krptonite @migflug @Sharma Ji @KedarT @NAVDEEP DHALIWAL

Not cha posse

Stop frickin tagging me and leave me out of your cringefights.

 

[Paitoo]

So @Indus Pakistan is not the only Pakistani who believes in the three notions enumerated in OP. Many or even most Pakistanis believe the same. Just where are they taught all this? Schools or college universities? Quoting below for reference.

@iamnobody @Paitoo @-=virus=- @Skull and Bones @SoulSpokesman @my2cents @Cheepek @DabbuSardar @MilSpec @RandyB @prashantazazel @Krptonite @migflug @Sharma Ji @KedarT @NAVDEEP DHALIWAL

There is no point dwelling on these things any more. Are we planning to bring the British back to rule us? Whatever intellectual masturbation had to be done on this subject has been done. There is no new insight that comes out. The arrow of time only moves forward and so should we.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

British left in 47, create Singapores out of it, don't create Somalias