Was British Raj actually good for South Asia?

[Joe Shearer]

To put things in perspective - before British rule, almost an absolute absence of famines. During British rule, a famine every 4 years. Since independence, 0 famines.

A systematic destruction of the village ecosystem. Forcible growing of crops which could fuel British industries.

Segregation with "white only" enclaves.

And the final bloodbath of Partition. They had a mandate to finish Partition till July 1948. The Brits brought that date forward. What could have been done surgically, was done with the knife of a butcher. We are still fighting. If Partition had happened in a sane manner, we would have been living peacefully.

Every country had problems - Brits did good things like removing Sati but even that was done because of efforts by reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy.

Japan wasn't colonized. But it took advantage of the industrial revolution and by the 1940s was a force to be reckoned with.

And I haven't even begun on the scale of the economic drain.

The fact that this question is even asked is shocking.

Praising the Brits for the Raj is like praising the Nazis for the Reich. Heck, Hitler even considered the Raj to be a blueprint for the Reich.

Forget the ones who opposed them. Even the ones who served them were not spared.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/01/india.military

@Joe Shearer is the resident expert. So he can enlighten you more.

I am slightly surprised to find myself on the opposite side of the fence from @Indus Pakistan and @Sher Shah Awan, two friends for whom I have considerable regard for the sake of the insight and knowledge that they display.

You are entitled to your own opinion. I can understand your 'love' for the British

As for transforming Mughal Masjids into stables, A deplorable act indeed.

But have you forgotten what Ahmad Shah Abdali did to Gurdawaras, esp. the holiest of them for Sikhs, the Golden Temple; blew up the building and filled the pond with 'trash'. Have you forgotten what Mughal Kings did to Sikh Gurus and their children?

Ranjit Singh, later on, handed Muslims most of their mosques back. He even gifted all Nowadrat (Islamic Relics) to the respectable Fakir Family (of Lahore) instead of destroying or desecrating them. Today, Fakir Khana is the largest privately owned museum in South Asia.

And as for partition, Punjab bore the brunt of it

====
@Joe Shearer
Sir, what are your views on British Raj?

On the whole, negative.

I planned a detailed explanation, but some urgent and unexpected personal distractions will keep me away until noon.

There were so many alternative contingencies; the British performed certain social and historical roles, but essentially, as colonisers, there were limits to what they could do in terms of positive measures.

 

[Hamza913]

I know admitting it kinda pours cold water on your belief that Hindus and Muslims are in a constant state of war.

There is no "admitting", it's not the case. The Ummayads, Abbasids, Ghaznavids, the Ghurids, the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, the Durranis, the Mysoreans, the Shah Miris, the Gujarat Sultanate, the Deccani Sultanates, etc. These are all Muslim dynasties that interacted with the region in some way, and did they get along with others? Heck no. Muslims and Hindus have, for all of our history, have been at each others throats. Even now, Pakistan and India are still fighting, and Muslims in India are still getting into problems with their Hindu neighbours.

From what I understand Hindus today are about 10% population of Sindh. Are they constantly fighting with the Muslims or are they living peacefully?

No, but they're all converting to Islam.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/325623...he-ex-hindu-who-herds-souls-to-the-hereafter/

 

[Placemat]

Bingo.

I don't think so.. there would just be lot of flux and there is no saying what would have happened. It is impossible to predict..Its like the butterfly effect.

 

[Jackdaws]

There is no "admitting", it's not the case. The Ummayads, Abbasids, Ghaznavids, the Ghurids, the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, the Durranis, the Mysoreans, the Shah Miris, the Gujarat Sultanate, the Deccani Sultanates, etc. These are all Muslim dynasties that interacted with the region in some way, and did they get along with others? Heck no. Muslims and Hindus have, for all of our history, have been at each others throats. Even now, Pakistan and India are still fighting, and Muslims in India are still getting into problems with their Hindu neighbours.



No, but they're all converting to Islam.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/325623...he-ex-hindu-who-herds-souls-to-the-hereafter/

You are confusion rulers with the general population.

Why they convert is another debate. Point is - do they by and large live peacefully?

 

[Hamza913]

Point is - do they by and large live peacefully?

Yes but that's because they only exist in small numbers among us.

You are confusion rulers with the general population.

Who do you think fought in their armies?

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

And you lived through that period did you? Our awareness of what was happening, recording of who was who, how many of us were there began in earnest after British arrived.

Cherry picking as usual. When British are criticized, you need recording. When British are praised, for instance abolition of sati, you don't need recording. I am pro-British Raj but I love to search your cherry pickings.

 

[Jackdaws]

Yes but that's because they only exist in small numbers among us.



Who do you think fought in their armies?

Small numbers? 10% is sizeable. That would be the demographic with a minor deviation in most regions in South Asia.

The armies were composed of people from multiple faiths.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Please throw light on this matter and vote in the poll.

Edit-Clarify: The thread is not about creation of India or Pakistan. The question is whether the people of hundreds or thousands of princely states - that existed before British arrival – had been happier before British rule and would they have been happier today in 2019 if British Raj hadn't happened. How were the societies of South Asia without the British? So don't give the refrain of 'No Brits No India or Pakistan'.

@Tokhme khar

 

[Mage]

Stockholm Syndrome

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

To put things in perspective - before British rule, almost an absolute absence of famines. During British rule, a famine every 4 years. Since independence, 0 famines.

A systematic destruction of the village ecosystem. Forcible growing of crops which could fuel British industries.

Segregation with "white only" enclaves.

And the final bloodbath of Partition. They had a mandate to finish Partition till July 1948. The Brits brought that date forward. What could have been done surgically, was done with the knife of a butcher. We are still fighting. If Partition had happened in a sane manner, we would have been living peacefully.

Every country had problems - Brits did good things like removing Sati but even that was done because of efforts by reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy.

Japan wasn't colonized. But it took advantage of the industrial revolution and by the 1940s was a force to be reckoned with.

And I haven't even begun on the scale of the economic drain.

The fact that this question is even asked is shocking.

Praising the Brits for the Raj is like praising the Nazis for the Reich. Heck, Hitler even considered the Raj to be a blueprint for the Reich.

Forget the ones who opposed them. Even the ones who served them were not spared.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/01/india.military

@Joe Shearer is the resident expert. So he can enlighten you more.

British looted and killed millions ... must be good then(!)

Net effect is extreme poverty they left behind from their looting and policies to control the population. The corruption in the ruling elite of both countries is continuation of what the British introduced.

A few train tracks, bridges etc doesn't mean progress!

Net result is still a loss.

We were slaves, they were our Masters
They are not our masters any longer but many of us, unfortunately, choose to remain (mentally) slaves

Slaves who Love Their Chains Shall Remain in Their Bondage

Stockholm Syndrome

For all the genocide and looting they did, they gave one invaluable gift. Better genes by facilitating inter-province marriages through modern transportation. The below thread gives an idea of how Indian genes previously was:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/hoarding-junk-mental-illness-or-individuals-nature.553557/

 

[ARMalik]

Please throw light on this matter and vote in the poll.

Edit-Clarify: The thread is not about creation of India or Pakistan. The question is whether the people of hundreds or thousands of princely states - that existed before British arrival – had been happier before British rule and would they have been happier today in 2019 if British Raj hadn't happened. How were the societies of South Asia without the British? So don't give the refrain of 'No Brits No India or Pakistan'.

What a dumb topic. You know why British Raj was BAD for the Sub-Continent? Cause for one century the British looted and plundered the wealth of the Kingdoms here. They took away countless wealth to England. And here you are conducting a poll on whether the slavery of British was good.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

What a dumb topic. You know why British Raj was BAD for the Sub-Continent? Cause for one century the British looted and plundered the wealth of the Kingdoms here. They took away countless wealth to England. And here you are conducting a poll on whether the slavery of British was good.

See post#55.

 

[Mage]

What a dumb topic. You know why British Raj was BAD for the Sub-Continent? Cause for one century the British looted and plundered the wealth of the Kingdoms here. They took away countless wealth to England. And here you are conducting a poll on whether the slavery of British was good.

And actually almost half of the people voted agreed with him. Stockholm Syndrome of the highest order.

For all the genocide and looting they did, they gave one invaluable gift. Better genes by facilitating inter-province marriages through modern transportation. The below thread gives an idea of how Indian genes previously was:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/hoarding-junk-mental-illness-or-individuals-nature.553557

So you want to excuse their crimes(crimes like genocide and looting wealth over centuries) because they facilitated inter-province marriage?

Humans are tribal. Most prefer to marry within their community. I doubt their laws changed much as you are not legally supposed to force someone to marry someone from a different community.

To be precise, marriage laws are stupid. And marriage itself is stupid as well. If I had the power, I would have outlawed marriage. And introduce mass live-together programs with minimal legal bindings.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Cherry picking as usual. When British are criticized, you need recording. When British are praised, for instance abolition of sati, you don't need recording. I am pro-British Raj but I love to search your cherry pickings.

It was good for Hindus. You went from being a servant of Muslims to being a British slave, so your place in society did not change much.

However, the British preferred you in every aspect to Muslims, whom they saw as a legitimate threat (as they were the old rulers.)

The mess in Kashmir and partition proves British favoritism of Hindus. You benefited from it and lost nothing, while Muslims lost several Muslim majority provinces and regions due to British and Indian duplicity.

Humans are tribal. Most prefer to marry within their community. I doubt their laws changed much as you are not legally supposed to force someone to marry someone from a different community.

It is Islam which had the biggest effect. Islam eliminates such differences and cuts tribalism at its roots.

 

[Jackdaws]

For all the genocide and looting they did, they gave one invaluable gift. Better genes by facilitating inter-province marriages through modern transportation. The below thread gives an idea of how Indian genes previously was:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/hoarding-junk-mental-illness-or-individuals-nature.553557/

That's a byproduct. They also installed the telegraph. Built cities like Bombay, Calcutta, Madras. All of this was done for the benefit of UK. Not Indians.

It was good for Hindus. You went from being a servant of Muslims to being a British slave, so your place in society did not change much.

However, the British preferred you in every aspect to Muslims, whom they saw as a legitimate threat (as they were the old rulers.)

The mess in Kashmir and partition proves British favoritism of Hindus. You benefited from it and lost nothing, while Muslims lost several Muslim majority provinces and regions due to British and Indian duplicity.



It is Islam which had the biggest effect. Islam eliminates such differences and cuts tribalism at its roots.

Except for the small fact that almost all freedom fighters jailed fighting the British were Hindus/Sikhs.

Muslims were slaves under Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim rulers and happily under the British too. Didn't bother fighting for freedom either - happy to be slaves.