Why blame only the British?

[A1Kaid]

Please remember that we have to thank the British for uniting us and finally galvanizing us into action with a kick up our *****.

Please stop crying about what the British did to us. Why did the British not make headway with the Chinese? Or the Japanese for that matter?

We have wasted the last millenium. Let us make sure that we do not continue to wallow in the past but learn from it and use it rather than doing this sporadic rona dhona on the Net and the media.

O woe is me. O woe is me.

What are we doing today after the British are gone?

Well the point is to correct the understanding of history and that is the British aren't solely to blame.
As you pointed out they actually did something unique in the history of empire building the sense they eventually agreed to withdraw from their conquered territories and carved out two nations after uniting x,y,z province and went back home.

 

[Spring Onion]

Please remember that we have to thank the British for uniting us and finally galvanizing us into action with a kick up our *****.

Please stop crying about what the British did to us. Why did the British not make headway with the Chinese? Or the Japanese for that matter?

We have wasted the last millenium. Let us make sure that we do not continue to wallow in the past but learn from it and use it rather than doing this sporadic rona dhona on the Net and the media.

O woe is me. O woe is me.

What are we doing today after the British are gone?

Most of the development took place during British Raj in sub-continent which is more significant than plunder of wealth raja mahraja who were good for nothing for the common man

 

[Jade]

There was no such thing as Muslim rule in India, yes we had some rulers who happened to be Muslims.

People tends to read more and get exited

 

[A1Kaid]

There was no such thing as Muslim rule in India, yes we had some rulers who happened to be Muslims.

People tends to read more and get exited

Yes all the academic papers and history books written about the subject are wrong and you're correct. You must have M.A in subcontinent studies.

 

[angeldust]

Most of the development took place during British Raj in sub-continent which is more significant than plunder of wealth raja mahraja who were good for nothing for the common man

The Brits did not do it for you and me. They were comfortable here for the long haul.

Our brown backsides were to have served the gora sahibs for a whole lot longer, had the second world war not sapped them completely.

Gandhi's non-violence movement did balls all. The only way to stand up to tyranny is to fight back.

 

[ajtr]

and it looks like we desi people haven't learnt anything from our history coz the same is happening even now

Big deal is that we never got independence its jut looters got replaced by another looter.

 

[A1Kaid]

The Brits did not do it for you and me. They were comfortable here for the long haul.

Our brown backsides were to have served the gora sahibs for a whole lot longer, had the second world war not sapped them completely.

Gandhi's non-violence movement did balls all. The only way to stand up to tyranny is to fight back.

Exactly World war II is what sapped the British, having south Asia did empower them by providing them natural resources, treasury, man power--soldiers from the British India Army. They would have had a much tougher time on world war II if they didn't receive the help from the US and south Asia.

 

[angeldust]

Exactly World war II is what sapped the British, having south Asia did empower them temporarily by providing them natural resources, treasury, man power--soldiers from the British India Army.

The Chinese were fragmented too. They had their warlords who were virtual emperors. But they had the racial and spiritual unity of a single people.

That is what we did not have. And what the Brits recognized quickly and milked for 300 years.

They would have had a much tougher time on world war II if they didn't receive the help from the US and south Asia.

What exactly did the Brits win in the second world war?

The European theater was won by the Russians. The Americans closed out the Pacific.

All Britain did, and they can deserve credit for that and the English Channel, was to protect their mainland.

 

[Jade]

Yes all the academic papers and history books written about the subject are wrong and you're correct. You must have M.A in subcontinent studies.

You don't have to have an M.A in subcontinent studies.What is required is common sense, which surprisingly is uncommon

 

[Spring Onion]

The Brits did not do it for you and me. They were comfortable here for the long haul.Our brown backsides were to have served the gora sahibs for a whole lot longer, had the second world war not sapped them completely.

Gandhi's non-violence movement did balls all. The only way to stand up to tyranny is to fight back.

And our rulers dint do it even for their rule thats the big difference.

brainless raja mahrajas working for own rule

 

[A1Kaid]

The Chinese were fragmented too. They had their warlords who were virtual emperors. But they had the racial and spiritual unity of a single people.

That is what we did not have. And what the Brits recognized quickly and milked for 300 years.



What exactly did the Brits win in the second world war?

The European theater was won by the Russians. The Americans closed out the Pacific.

All Britain did, and they can deserve credit for that and the English Channel, was to protect their mainland.

Well Britain and Allied Forces including British India did win in north Africa although against a smaller number of German troops with limited supplies, see battle of Al Alamein II.

Though the north Africa theater was considered of less importance than the main European theater of war, the critical thing about the north Africa theater was control of the Nile and influence in the ME and Egypt.

 

[angeldust]

And our rulers dint do it even for their rule thats the big difference.

brainless raja mahrajas working for own rule

You are absolutely wrong.

See Islamabad and New Delhi.

See the roads and houses and enclaves they live in.

 

[Spring Onion]

You are absolutely wrong.

See Islamabad and New Delhi.

See the roads and houses and enclaves they live in.

Yes that was for their own living and not for prolonging their rule through support of masses via development rather these nawabs, mahrajas ruled by force

 

[angeldust]

Yes that was for their own living and not for prolonging their rule through support of masses via development rather these nawabs, mahrajas ruled by force

As is very evident from the news in both our countries, their respective systems work.

The wealth is shared around by mutual arrangement. Aaj hammara turn, kal aapka, parson kissi aur ka.

Bottom line - the faces and protagonists keep changing giving us the perception of change and control.

But the SYSTEM remains entrenched in place. Brilliant is it not?

With the rajas and maharajas, you fight to stay on the throne. If you are defeated, you lose your head.

In the present system, you still fight, but if you are defeated, you go into Opposition and still make a decent buck from the SYSTEM.

 

[INDIC]

Sayyed Brothers were the main reason behind the fall of Mughal Empire.