Was India Better Under the British ?

[joekrish]

British can't do anything if Indians didn't want, no occupier could control the country without local support, example is Afghanistan & Iraq. But because British bring wealth & provide you jobs & developed your countries so you guys agreeed, whereas Pakistanis never accepted British & this was the reason the areas of Pakistan remained undeveloped & fully exploited by Brits also Brits gave no jobs to Pakistanis. It is like Indians used Brits & make their country developed & than after 47 labelled Pakistan's miseries & exploitations by Brits as their's.

Amazing where did you get your history lessons or should I say less-sence, the brits split India only in 1947 just before the indipendence so where did you guys get a unjust deal. You were a part of us before that and did not know where Pak was to be born.

 

[NeutralCitizen]

Where is Kohi Noor Diamond( the Mountain of Light) the largest diamond in the whole world which they stolen ?

British kind of borrowed it ?

 

[53fd]

The truth of the situation: the Indian subcontinent was a 'rich' region with lots of resources, but not very developed. The British came, exploited the locals & the land, but developed the region infrastructure wise (& gave people jobs) which is known as present day India today. The region of the Indian subcontinent known as Pakistan remained un/underdeveloped, & the hilly areas of Pakistan were used by the British as their vacation spots.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

Let us count the numbers of freedom fighters of both sects.Did mulims revolted in 1857?Was Mangal Pandey in Bengal Muslim?

Yes sipai mutini was by muslim soldiers...given you know the year...you know better than me

 

[American Pakistani]

I thank you for retracting your previous statement and rephrasing it in a manner that is just and more understandable. I get all riled up when Indian Hindus act like they own India and pretend like just because a person is Muslim, his ancestors must have all come from outside as invaders. This is not true and the fact is more than 95% Muslims of the Subcontinent were descendents of Indian Hindus.

I am a Mughal but even I am 98% Indian by blood. How ? Think about it, the Mughal Army did not bring their wives with them. So their second generation was automatically 50% Indian. Unlike British colonialists, Mughals made India their home and never went back. So after 5 centuries of marriages in India, I am sure I have less than 2% of Mughal ( Uzbek) blood in me. The Indian Subcontinent is my home and no one ever dare to tell me they have a greater claim to this land than I do.

There is no such thing as indian subcontinent, either South Asia or Subcontinent & if you have 98% indian blood why have you put Pakistani flag for?

 

[NeutralCitizen]

The truth of the situation: the Indian subcontinent was a 'rich' region with lots of resources, but not very developed. The British came, exploited the locals & the land, but developed the region infrastructure wise (& gave people jobs) which is known as present day India today. The region of the Indian subcontinent known as Pakistan remained un/underdeveloped, & the hilly areas of Pakistan were used by the British as their vacation spots.

India could take the aftermath of the Raj while Pakistan could not ?

 

[American Pakistani]

Amazing where did you get your history lessons or should I say less-sence, the brits split India only in 1947 just before the indipendence so where did you guys get a unjust deal. You were a part of us before that and did not know where Pak was to be born.

Shut up & don't talk nonsense, Pakistan was never a part of india.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

Shut up & don't talk nonsense, Pakistan was never a part of india.

bro from bottom part of Afghanistan to bangla were under mughal rule.

 

[joekrish]

Shut up & don't talk nonsense, Pakistan was never a part of india.

Oh ok then?

 

[NeutralCitizen]

I was also reading this, interesting article.

Pakistan's problem is that we did not make it British enough – Telegraph Blogs

 

[53fd]

Let us count the numbers of freedom fighters of both sects.Did mulims revolted in 1857?Was Mangal Pandey in Bengal Muslim?

Yes, Muslims revolted in 1857, leaders such as Maulana Khairabadi & Ahmedullah Shah called for Jihad. Once the riots started, Bahadur Shah Zafar was also accepted as the Emperor of India. Even though most of the rebellious sepoys in Delhi were Hindus, a significant proportion of the insurgents were Muslims. These were some of the reasons behind why the British thought the Muslims were the driving forces behind the mutiny & the riots after that.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

Yes, Muslims revolted in 1857, leaders such as Maulana Khairabadi & Ahmedullah Shah called for Jihad. Once the riots started, Bahadur Shah Zafar was also accepted as the Emperor of India.

doesn't make sense could you explain...

 

[lem34]

because hindus submitted to british rule that was their advantage you followed them and later found yourself in a better condition.

very true cos hindoos were used to be the serving classes they adjusted easier from one master to another

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

very true cos hindoos were used to be the serving classes they adjusted easier from one master to another

I didn't mean that... there were upper class hindus like muslims under islamic rule

 

[joekrish]

Shut up & don't talk nonsense, Pakistan was never a part of india.

British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will that keep you shut?