Was British Raj actually good for South Asia?

[Jackdaws]

No, we didn't. I already told you, plenty of Muslims fought against the British Empire as well as the Sikh and Hindu empires.

Ruhullah Khan, Muslim Gujjar from Kashmir who defeated Ranjit Singh 3 times in battle:

https://javaidrahi.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/the-gujjars-vol-1-ed-dr-javaid-rahi.pdf (page 33)

Ahmed Khan Karral, Muslim Punjabi rebel who resisted the Sikh Empire until their very collapse, after which he died fighting against the British:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Khan_Kharal

Source cited in Wikipedia link:

AD Ejaz 'Ahmad Khan Kharal', 1985

https://www.dawn.com/news/802754

https://www.dawn.com/news/793732

Shah Waliullah, Muslim Imam from Delhi who sent a letter to Ahmed Shah Durrani to invade Hind, and Durrani gleefully accepted his request and killed over 100,000 Indians at Panipat:

https://storyofpakistan.com/shah-wali-ullah

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5CyXBHYGaDIC&pg=PT215&dq=Ahmad+Shah+Durrani+Shah+Waliullah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF6rLf8_zfAhUdTRUIHaVPDnEQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Ahmad Shah Durrani Shah Waliullah&f=false

Syed Ahmed Barelvi, raised a resistance movement to fight against the Sikh Empire (and also planned to fight against the British Empire) and died in battle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmad_Barelvi

And don't forget, your beloved freedom fighters all came begging to the Mughal emperor to lead them because you stupid idiots couldn't lead yourselves.



Lmao first you said Muslims were made the "slaves" of Hindus, Sikhs and the British, and now you're separating Muslims into the common masses and ruling elite. As per your argument, I can easily say most Indians accepted being the slaves of the Muslims, British and Hindu landlords, rajas and nawabs. So your peasants were slaves just as much as ours.

And my family used to be landlords so I don't know why you're bringing this up with me. We owned land in India which your peasants would work on.





Your ignorance is astounding, clearly you've never heard of Dr Muhammad Iqbal Shedai:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Iqbal_Shedai



Already named you some, but I'll give you another, Maulvi Liaquat Ali:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulvi_Liaquat_Ali



You're right. None of our freedom fighters or independence activists walked around half-naked or starved themselves in stupidity.



Now you're just trolling to try and poke me. We all know how many Muslim politicians campaigned for independence. How else did Pakistan come about? Did Jinnah, Rehmat Ali, Syed Ahmed Khan and others just not exist lol?



And I specifically told you they're all converting or fleeing.

Lol. If you can't read English, I can't help it. I specified Muslim rulers earlier too.

One swallow doesn't make a summer. Muslims happily excepted British rule. Naming some obscure people who didn't make an iota of a dent to the freedom struggle is also laughable.

Ironic that the man you call half naked and starving - when your country was begging for money he was the one who went on a fast. Good to know you accept alms from a half naked, starving man.

And no - even if they are converting or being forced to is not the point. For how many years have they peacefully coexisted?

 

[Hamza913]

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

I named multiple individuals, not just one. And there are many more. Not my problem if you don't know history.

Naming some obscure people who didn't make an iota of a dent to the freedom struggle is also laughable.

So Jinnah, Syed Ahmed Khan, Rehmat Ali and others are "obscure" and "didn't make a dent"?

And no - even if they are converting or being forced to is not the point.

Then what is the point? You asked for peaceful coexistence, but if they're all converting then that really doesn't seem like coexistence to me, more like assimilation. And you've conveniently glossed over all the ones fleeing.

 

[Pakistani E]

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.

All empires are based on the subjugation, exploitation and enslavement of conquered subjects. No matter where or who it is done by. Sure, there are some who marginally treat their subjects better than others, ultimately there is no such thing as a "benevolent" empire, which I am sure you know already.

My posts may be misunderstood slightly without clarification, I don't particularly view the British Empire as being more saintly than many others, but it is also an undeniable fact, that the advance of the British in to the Punjab was very much welcomed in many quarters. I can't go in to detail with regard to other regions, but I can confirm the atmosphere in which my forefathers sided with the British to regain the lost estates from the Sikhs. Some continued causing trouble for the British as they did to the Sikhs, mind you. But for many, the zeal was not some love for the British, but a chance to settle old scores.

In the above context, I don't quite understand the question asked in OP. The British Raj, was good for none other than the British themselves. But does that mean that it did not benefit certain people, far more in the long term, than the circumstances that some found themselves before the British conquest?

Another question that comes to my mind is, was the Sikh Empire more benevolent than them? Or the Afghans before them? They were all based on the subjugation and exploitation of others. Why only swish our 21st century moral wand on one over another? Simply because they are foreigners?

P.S. This is simply a clarification of my thought process, and not meant in anyway to be an expansive answer to the question raised in OP. As many have said, it would probably take a great amount of concentration and words to deal with all aspects of the British Raj and then break them down in to advantages and disadvantages for the people of this region.

 

[Jackdaws]

I named multiple individuals, not just one. And there are many more. Not my problem if you don't know history.



So Jinnah, Syed Ahmed Khan, Rehmat Ali and others are "obscure" and "didn't make a dent"?



Then what is the point? You asked for peaceful coexistence, but if they're all converting then that really doesn't seem like coexistence to me, more like assimilation. And you've conveniently glossed over all the ones fleeing.

Lol - Jinnah was a freedom fighter? Exactly which anti British operation was he part of, let alone launch?

Syed Ahmed Khan was an actual supporter of the British during the First War of Indian Independence.

Rehmat Ali - again, never fought the British. Happy to accept a British rule.

 

[Hamza913]

Lol - Jinnah was a freedom fighter? Exactly which anti British operation was he part of, let alone launch?

The Pakistan movement.

Syed Ahmed Khan was an actual supporter of the British during the First War of Indian Independence.

Rehmat Ali - again, never fought the British. Happy to accept a British rule.

Still wanted to create Pakistan. So it's all good in my eyes. They just utilised the British to give us what we have today. Pakistan.

And to be very frank, I'd rather Pakistan was created and still be subservient to the British Empire, than for India as a whole to be independent and for us to coexist with you guys.

Also, I still named plenty of other figures who you conveniently ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Jackdaws]

The Pakistan movement.





Still wanted to create Pakistan. So it's all good in my eyes. They just utilised the British to give us what we have today. Pakistan.

And to be very frank, I'd rather Pakistan was created and still be subservient to the British Empire, than for India as a whole to be independent and for us to coexist with you guys.

Also, I still named plenty of other figures who you conveniently ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Bingo. You nailed it when you said you would rather be subservient to British Empire.

And the Pakistan movement wasn't the freedom movement. Freedom fighters fought the British and went to jail, were hanged and stood up against the British. Naming British stooges as "freedom fighters" is laughable. The names you mentioned are obscure. The ones you mentioned later are well known but were not freedom fighters. But as you claimed, you even today think it is fine to be subservient to the British Empire. That was not acceptable to us. That's the difference.

 

[nahtanbob]

Administration, railways, telegraph? Yes. But undeniable fact is the self sufficient village economies were completely ruined which had and still has deep bottom effect on our national psyche. Too much have been discussed about this so dont have much to add, but still those who have doubts just look at 1943 famine figures.

the famines are by-product of population increases caused by western medicine. british indifference did contribute to the famines.
the treat of famine did not disappear until the Green Revolution in early 1970s

 

[scorpionx]

the famines are by-product of population increases caused by western medicine. british indifference did contribute to the famines.
the treat of famine did not disappear until the Green Revolution in early 1970s

No, it was not a product of population increases caused by western medicine. Read Amartya Sen.

 

[Hamza913]

And the Pakistan movement wasn't the freedom movement.

It was. The movement gave us the freedom of not having to associate ourselves with you.

The names you mentioned are obscure.

Lmao Ahmed Khan Karral is a prominent Punjabi folk-hero. I can name one more but I won't because he's controversial (I'm sure you can guess who I'm talking about, here's a hint, he was from Lahore).

The ones you mentioned later are well known but were not freedom fighters.

They were freedom fighters as much as your darling Nehru or Gandhi. They just did things in a more sophisticated manner. They had no need to dress up half-naked or starve themselves, they were too smart for that.

But as you claimed, you even today think it is fine to be subservient to the British Empire.

No, we just consider it better to be with them than you, because we like them better than you. Ahl al Kitab > Ahl al Bharat.

 

[nahtanbob]

No, it was not a product of population increases caused by western medicine. Read Amartya Sen.

famine is caused by shortage of food. what do you expect when the population keeps increasing and food production stays constant ? or worse if food production falls due to drought.

 

[scorpionx]

famine is caused by shortage of food. what do you expect when the population keeps increasing and food production stays constant ? or worse if food production falls due to drought.

Not necessarily. That is why I told you to read Amartya Sen's brilliant work on '43 famine. I am little hard pressed these days, otherwise I would have explained you in details.

 

[jamal18]

famine is caused by shortage of food. what do you expect when the population keeps increasing and food production stays constant ? or worse if food production falls due to drought.

Shortage of food in a place where there had never been a famine?

Nothing to do with the turning over of the land to grow opium for the Chinese, because there was more money there? Or grow cotton instead of food because the textile mills of England needed food.

Do you know what the 'benevolent' Churchill said when people complained about the Great Bengal famine?' ;
'These Indians complain too much. I've a good idea to tell 'Bomber' Harris to send his bombers there to bomb the lot of them!'

Incidently, when the British first got to India, the standard of living in India was higher than in Britain. When they left. it was twenty-fold higher in Britain.

 

[nahtanbob]

Shortage of food in a place where there had never been a famine?

Is it not possible ??

Not necessarily. That is why I told you to read Amartya Sen's brilliant work on '43 famine. I am little hard pressed these days, otherwise I would have explained you in details.

I will read Mr Sen's book. 1943 was a wartime scenario.

To say India would not have famines is downright silly. the population increases kept the threat of famines a real possibility. the widespread malnutrition is still there to see. There is a good reason a petty scientist like Norman Borlaug gets India's 2nd highest civilian award.