Ruin of India by British Rule

[Guynextdoor2]

Can you condense this Mahabharat into one simple paragraph? Thanks!

So, the Brits ruined India by bringing in the universal English language, and the immense road and rail network over the length and breadth of India without which we would have beenhey equal to sub Saharan Africa, with a hundred little kingdoms ruled by piddly princes, kings and emperors forever at war with each other! Oh yeah! The Brits ruined India! And how!

Nonsense. They ran surplus budgets in an illiterate and poor country. took away 10% of the GDP every year. More than enough to prove their true nature.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Nonsense. They ran surplus budgets in an illiterate and poor country. took away 10% of the GDP every year. More than enough to prove their true nature.

--
economny yes they destoed indina business and handicraft
but socialy they did ruin fully ?

 

[Guynextdoor2]

--
+ gave system of governace
+gave social sytem sloowed down since 1857 but laid foundation of indian education and social system chnages for good
+ gave rule of law system
--
there are many NEG too

--
point is they did .. we looked at .. now its was our weakness which they ruled us ...
they came for business but later realsised for sustain profit need to control polity too.. so took over it..
so if they took kohinor from us its not there fault its our weakness
--
think about if ther was no british we may have benn better of economically
but
socal system would not be that good or social system may not improved for long time wihout centralsied forgin system


--
partly true
so mongol created china right

The claim that they brought democracy is a lie. Indian nationalists asked for Democracy, repeatedly denied by British. When the demands went out of control they sent some showpeiece commissions like the simon commission which didn't even have Indians in them. Indians gave India democracy, not the British.

--
economny yes they destoed indina business and handicraft
but socialy they did ruin fully ?

What did they do socially? They didn't want to ineterefere in any social issues after 1857 because that might threaten their control- remember it was religious issues that sparked the munity, so their policy was not to interfere in them. It was the work of people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy that brought social issues into focus. Abolition of Sati was largely due to his work. The brits were, still are, a goddamn pain in the @$$. We were ruled by a bunch of morons- that's the real kicker.

 

[dravidianhero]

India is 10 thousand years old.you useless people don't understand this.people living on this land including pak,bandesh,Lanka,Afghanistan,Bhutan,Nepal had called the land they lived in as India from no less than 10 thousand years old.Every Hindu in India believes this and no amount of yelling and shouting from our enemies will change our minds.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

The claim that they brought democracy is a lie. Indian nationalists asked for Democracy, repeatedly denied by British. When the demands went out of control they sent some showpeiece commissions like the simon commission which didn't even have Indians in them. Indians gave India democracy, not the British.



What did they do socially? They didn't want to ineterefere in any social issues after 1857 because that might threaten their control- remember it was religious issues that sparked the munity, so their policy was not to interfere in them. It was the work of people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy that brought social issues into focus. Abolition of Sati was largely due to his work. The brits were, still are, a goddamn pain in the @$$. We were ruled by a bunch of morons- that's the real kicker.

--
Democracy and system of governace
india inherited oldest demorctic ystem in vaishali . bihar in maurya time .. Mahajanpadas time
i said about governace not democrcy both are diffrent
there rule of law concept, codifiying and documenting law , to name a few
we inheirted all but lost in transistion ..

--
Socially
lets accept it..
socially we were not the best of civilisation even cant claim today
hapned with eveyone .. usa its skin of cloure etc
caste system ,, sati, women rights , education aceess , social norms , status based on birth not by educat ion was soem feature of old socierty
they tried to recitiy it not for people alone but for own good to align maooiry wiht British ystem
in process 1857 happned and they slow down it and later withdrwa iit..

even indian congress went for political issue of india and did get into socil problem as they know they will not get support that time .. even now people vote for caste as dominate facotr exa UP

--
lets accept it was our weakness that being majoiryt we got ruled by small number of brittish based on skill , force and diplomacy
no harm in it...
they did many bad thing but few good things for own good which beneftied us later

India is 10 thousand years old.you useless people don't understand this.people living on this land including pak,bandesh,Lanka,Afghanistan,Bhutan,Nepal had called the land they lived in as India from no less than 10 thousand years old.Every Hindu in India believes this and no amount of yelling and shouting from our enemies will change our minds.

--
Bharat in old days
gandhari came from gandhara mahajanpadas in AFG
to we had till mynmmar .. we have big temple there ang gar kot i think
but it was thound yr back
new modern history is diffrent

for better understanding for india / pak and british see these 10 parts series ,,, class apart thing to THINK

 

[Lonely Hermit]

British gave you a country which you didn't have before they arrived.

British civilized you as much as they could.

British rule was the greatest thing to ever happen to the Hindus.

The worse thing was India getting away from British rule as it caused all the problems as Indians are incompetent to manage their own country, they must always have foreigners ruling them if India is to succeed. India does well under foreign rule. Muslims and British pretty much created modern day India.

Ahh the white mans burden.
.Wannabe Chinese did the British Civilize the Chinese by giving them Opium.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

--
Democracy and system of governace
india inherited oldest demorctic ystem in vaishali . bihar in maurya time .. Mahajanpadas time
i said about governace not democrcy both are diffrent
there rule of law concept, codifiying and documenting law , to name a few
we inheirted all but lost in transistion ..

--
Socially
lets accept it..
socially we were not the best of civilisation even cant claim today
hapned with eveyone .. usa its skin of cloure etc
caste system ,, sati, women rights , education aceess , social norms , status based on birth not by educat ion was soem feature of old socierty
they tried to recitiy it not for people alone but for own good to align maooiry wiht British ystem
in process 1857 happned and they slow down it and later withdrwa iit..

even indian congress went for political issue of india and did get into socil problem as they know they will not get support that time .. even now people vote for caste as dominate facotr exa UP

--
lets accept it was our weakness that being majoiryt we got ruled by small number of brittish based on skill , force and diplomacy
no harm in it...
they did many bad thing but few good things for own good which beneftied us later


--
Bharat in old days
gandhari came from gandhara mahajanpadas in AFG
to we had till mynmmar .. we have big temple there ang gar kot i think
but it was thound yr back
new modern history is diffrent

for better understanding for india / pak and british see these 10 parts series ,,, class apart thing to THINK

you've missed the point on the brit commitment to social reform. One of their coe philosophies was to never interfere in them. They codified laws so that they could administer their colony with more control. Not out of their love for us.

 

[tonyget]

Wasn't India ruled by Mongolians prior to British Raj ?

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Wasn't India ruled by Mongolians prior to British Raj ?

--
no
mongol attack khiljis in north but did not cross north
mongal tried to invde but did not ruel indina part

you've missed the point on the brit commitment to social reform. One of their coe philosophies was to never interfere in them. They codified laws so that they could administer their colony with more control. Not out of their love for us.

--
no i did not
i already replied

even indian congress went for political issue of india and did get into socil problem as they know they will not get support that time .. even now people vote for caste as dominate facotr exa UP
--
they- british tried to recitiy social issue it not for people alone but for own good to align maooiry wiht British ystem

 

[APS]

Wasn't India ruled by Mongolians prior to British Raj ?

Majority of India. But mughals were destroyed by Maratha who had replaced them as the most dominant dynasty.

 

[tonyget]

--
no
mongol attack khiljis in north but did not cross north
mongal tried to invde but did not ruel indina part

Mughal dynasty was established by descendant of Timur

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Mughal dynasty was established by descendant of Timur

yes...
babur decdents of mongol from moter side..
in that rule half world ruled by one ofhis decendants

 

[waz]

They bought some benefits e.g. Railways, irrigation techniques, education etc. But overall, it wasn't so great.

For example India’s share of world trade fell from 17% percent in 1800 (almost equal to America’s share of world trade in 2000) to less than 2% , whilst at the same time British per capita gross domestic product increased in real terms by 347 per cent, Indian saw an increase of 14 per cent.

What about the famines in British India? Yes we have heard of bad weather and insurance against crops, but even Western authors say such reasons don't account for the sheer scale of the famine. According to British records, around 25 million Indians died in 100 years. Why have such famines not occurred since?

I'd like to go into India's crop planting patterns and how essential commodities were replaced by "high value" export crops, which farmers saw little end benefit, bar their rich landlords and of course the Empire.

 

[tonyget]

yes...
babur decdents of mongol from moter side..
in that rule half world ruled by one ofhis decendants

His father side is also mongol decdent. But that's not the point.

In most places, mongol conqueror converted to local religion, such as Buddhism Islam etc. In India they didn't converted to Hinduism, so India was ruled by heretic.

 

[APS]

According to British records, around 25 million Indians died in 100 years. Why have such famines not occurred since?

Those were man(British)-made famines