Was British Raj actually good for South Asia?

[Kamikaze Pilot]

I CHANGED MY VOTE TO 'OVERALL BRITISH RAJ WAS ACTUALLY GOOD FOR SOUTH ASIA' AFTER I REMEMBERED THE REAL WORLD THAT CONSISTS OF CHOTIYAS LIKE BELOW. THE BRITISH BROUGHT CIVILIZATION TO INDIA AND WE BENEFITED FROM THEIR INTELLIGENCE. OTHERWISE BELOW LOOK HOW INDIANS ARE:

Prosperous, advanced people don't get taken over.

@Jackdaws

He has a valid point. What do you say?

 

[Verve]

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

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

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

But they also did many good things. You have to see the net effect.

 

[Verve]

But they also did many good things. You have to see the net effect.

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.

 

[Jackdaws]

I CHANGED MY VOTE TO 'OVERALL BRITISH RAJ WAS ACTUALLY GOOD FOR SOUTH ASIA' AFTER I REMEMBERED THE REAL WORLD THAT CONSISTS OF CHOTIYAS LIKE BELOW. THE BRITISH BROUGHT CIVILIZATION TO INDIA AND WE BENEFITED FROM THEIR INTELLIGENCE. OTHERWISE BELOW LOOK HOW INDIANS ARE:

@Jackdaws

He has a valid point. What do you say?

Rubbish. Wasn't France taken over by the Nazis? Holland? Belgium? Norway? Denmark?

A little further back, didn't the Americans throw out the British and take over the 13 colonies?

Was Britain backward?

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Rubbish. Wasn't France taken over by the Nazis? Holland? Belgium? Norway? Denmark?

A little further back, didn't the Americans throw out the British and take over the 13 colonies?

Was Britain backward?

Now to this what would you say, @Indus Pakistan?

 

[faithfulguy]

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.

Colonialism is for the benefit of the colonizers. Indian subcontinent inhabitants were just slaves for the British and no more. The problem with India the country is that it’s a continuation of that oppression. It’s like the British had never left India.

 

[Jackdaws]

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. Do you really think the British counted on your hands could have taken over South Asia if 5% of the story sold by Shashi Tharoor was true. Prosperous, advanced people don't get taken over.

Yea. They could have. They didn't take it over overnight. It was piecemeal. Bengal fell almost a 100 years before parts of present day Maharashtra fell. They also filled a power vacuum after the Battle of Panipat.

And I don't have to be there to know about what happened.

 

[El Sidd]

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'.

British are still ruling the region.

Their Code of justice is practiced in Pakistan and very much India.

Britain trained good ideological slaves. That helps

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Yea. They could have. They didn't take it over overnight. It was piecemeal. Bengal fell almost a 100 years before parts of present day Maharashtra fell. They also filled a power vacuum after the Battle of Panipat.

Why don't few of you guys go over and try [piecemeal or whole] to take over Europe now or in the past?

Rubbish. Wasn't France taken over by the Nazis? Holland? Belgium? Norway? Denmark?

A little further back, didn't the Americans throw out the British and take over the 13 colonies?

Was Britain backward?

Are you in right senses? South Asian population was 20 if not 30 times greater. That is like a snake [Britain] swallowing a elephant.

 

[Jackdaws]

Why don't few of you guys go over and try [piecemeal or whole] to take over Europe now or in the past?

Are you in right senses? South Asian population was 20 if not 30 times greater. That is like a snake [Britain] swallowing a elephant.

Again, they didn't take over the subcontinent overnight. It was piecemeal. Read up on Hastings.

Also colonial America had about 2.5 million people - Britain had between double and triple that. Britain still got roundly beaten.

And what was the German population vs. The population of the areas that the Reich captured?

 

[M. Sarmad]

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

 

[Tps43]

British are still ruling the region.

Their Code of justice is practiced in Pakistan and very much India.

Britain trained good ideological slaves. That helps

How cute

 

[khanz]

For my part of the world, yes. If it weren't for the British, the Sikhs would probably still be ruling over me and mine. Thank you Britain for getting rid of our oppressor.

yes but then the British ruled over you instead

 

[Pakistani E]

yes but then the British ruled over you instead

But after the British, we rule ourselves. I can't remember the last time that happened to us. When we actually ruled ourselves, that is. Atleast it ended well, no?

P.S. I am not saying let's invite the British back. Just stating historical realities.