# Are India cities fall behind because of UK?



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

This is more about the whole of India, but the cities of India get more British influences, and also this is city talk/issues

India is a country with great history, its religion, culture and everything else, but due to the invasion of the UK and the colonized system brought by British destroy the original form of the structure there and make the society totally crashed, and as a result, a lot of raw materials were robbed and shipped to Europe, made Europe continuously developed into a stable developed society

It is true that British bring some positive things to India, the language, system (I hope it works well), and etc.
But how comes India is still a developing country after such a long time? Good to see that India is on its way today walking toward a right way by its own people!


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

First of all let me say that britain never invaded India, the british empire was built on trade, and britain traded with local war lords who controlled regions within Modern day india. Unfortunately britain got drawn into local wars between tribes due to a trading company and ended up trying to defend this trade from other tribes who were jealouse of the technologies that were traded. Eventually India did become part of the british Empire but mostly through choice of the warlords and diplomacy between tribes. The lasting thing that britain gave to india was civilisation, before britain there was no rail networks, fuding tribes, disease and no technological growth because of the feuding. This is not to say that Indian tribes were backward (first rocket was invented in India and frightend an army) but with the local war lords/ kings controling local wealth they were not going to give it up for nothing (a united Indian sub continent). The reason India is still a developing country is because although britain did bring things like the railways and legal systems, they didnt develop the country much untill WW2, when they need to repel the Japaneese invasion, coming from Burma. After the separation into India Benghal and Pakistan, it took a long time for these countries to take control of their own people and fight corruption in their own governments. I hope you liked the history lesson! lol


----------



## KingWest (May 1, 2005)

cardiff said:


> First of all let me say that britain never invaded India, the british empire was built on trade, and britain traded with local war lords who controlled regions within Modern day india. Unfortunately britain got drawn into local wars between tribes due to a trading company and ended up trying to defend this trade from other tribes who were jealouse of the technologies that were traded. Eventually India did become part of the british Empire but mostly through choice of the warlords and diplomacy between tribes. The lasting thing that britain gave to india was civilisation, before britain there was no rail networks, fuding tribes, disease and no technological growth because of the feuding. This is not to say that Indian tribes were backward (first rocket was invented in India and frightend an army) but with the local war lords/ kings controling local wealth they were not going to give it up for nothing (a united Indian sub continent). The reason India is still a developing country is because although britain did bring things like the railways and legal systems, they didnt develop the country much untill WW2, when they need to repel the Japaneese invasion, coming from Burma. After the separation into India Benghal and Pakistan, it took a long time for these countries to take control of their own people and fight corruption in their own governments. I hope you liked the history lesson! lol


The British version of Indian history, much like the Japanese version of Asian history. Did they teach you this at school?


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

the same story in Latin America.


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

No this is a subjective view on the british involvment in India, to be totaly honest none of this is taught in british schools as its not counted as important british history. The only reason ex european colonies have problems now, is due to its own doing (Argentina for example). In what way would you say that the uk had and has inhibited the development of indian cities? especially when our own country (after being made almost bankrupt during the second world war) has managed to become one of the worlds most succesfull countries.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Robbing its natural wealth for starters...


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

Sorry i dont understand that? do you mean that the uk took the mineral wealth back to the uk? if so that isnt true as to earn money you have to sell, in which case that would be the rest of the world!


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

and as the british were only a part of indian history for around 70-100 years, i dont think, with the lack of heavy industries, that much of that mineral wealth would have been removed, with huge subsidies going to the local owners of the land


----------



## NovaWolverine (Dec 28, 2004)

India is better off in some ways that British colonized them.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

cardiff i think you should really go read some history books. Britain always had intentions to colonize india as did the french and portugese. They stole a lot of the mineral wealth othe country, sure not directly, but forced them to sell it to britain with the cheapest prices. When it wasnt stolen that way it was stolen through taxes. What little south asains earned udner the british was almost all taken away by taxes such as the salt tax.


----------



## c0kelitr0 (Jul 6, 2005)

i never thought that's what they say in schools in UK :lol: obviously, the British Empire exploited India. Sucked all its wealth. All european colonizers came to conquer the rest of the world for Gold and Glory.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

British empire... I hate that... They sucked the wealth everywhere, until its decay after WWII. India suffers, not because of uk, it's their problem. Canada cannot be the wealthiest country in the world, just because uk preventing us growing too fast.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Sorry there is a correction that should be noted here:

"On the eve of independence in 1947, India (including present day Pakistan) consisted of more than 600 princely kingdoms each with its own raja (if the king were Hindu) or nawab/sultan (if he was Muslim).
The British directly ruled 1/3rd of India, the rest was ruled by the above mentioned princes under the considerable influence of British representatives in court."

Wikipedia.org


The locals maharajahs and sultans gained considerably from British influence, so equally blame lies with Indian and Pakistani aristocracy. 

India was also part of the Empire system in which all commonwealth countries had preferential access to each others markets in terms of tariffs, this wasn't specific to India. Also before that the UK was the only country in the world to abide by free trade giving all countries in the world free access to was then the worlds richest economy. 

I know that some aspects of the British empire are controversial, but no more so than any other empire in history, im sure the Moguls weren't all smiles either. Equally for reasons of national identity of pride i am aware that it is unacceptable in some commonwealth countries to see things in a more rounded way about the Commonwealth that equally the empire was not entirely bad or entirely good as with most things in life the view is more complex. I might add for example that thousands of British servicemen fought and died to protect India, Burma and the likes from Japanese and previously Russian aggression in the early 20th century as did many Indians who fought in both WW1 and WW2. 

I am surprised they don't teach this in Indian schools. But for clarity I shoul also say that we are not taught about the Empire in Schools I remember in the topic on the industrial revolution we learnt about the early slave trade and the abolitionist movement and how raw materials came flooding into the UK. The Empire is avoided as it is too politically controversial and schools don't want to upset anyone by opening that can of worms.


----------



## Storeman (Jun 24, 2005)

Well. I am reading two books about "urban issues" right now and both tell me:

The arise of industrialisation in the colonies was suppressed by the Europeans, for example the textile industry in Mumbay (suppressed by GB). 
Because of this insustrialisation in Arica and Asia began mostly not before conserned countries became independent (fifties and sixties of the 20th century).

That's what I read. I am afraid I don't know much more about the topic. But at least this is written in two university books. Thatfore it's probable that it is based on facts and not on speculation


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Over 10% of India's population works on the Railways - something they didnt have before the British came. Quite a significant plus is that. Not to mention if British rule was so bad, why are Indian cities replecating British landmarks such as Trafalagar Square?

These threads are just for British bashers. grow up people. unlike many empires, Britains was like a rose, not a thorn like many of you seem to think.

Is it jealousy? :yes:


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

birminghamculture said:


> Over 10% of India's population works on the Railways - something they didnt have before the British came. Quite a significant plus is that. Not to mention if British rule was so bad, why are Indian cities replecating British landmarks such as Trafalagar Square?
> 
> These threads are just for British bashers. grow up people. unlike many empires, Britains was like a rose, not a thorn like many of you seem to think.
> 
> Is it jealousy? :yes:


Well its all past, but I sure wouldn't call the British empire a rose.

The raj did have its positives, but India would be better off if it never happened. Id rather see it like after years of suffering, India atleast inherited the railroads they built to move their own supplies, the well planned cities they built for themselves etc, but having suffered so much, with society frozen in medival times, poverty and illeteracy; they left the country in tatters.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

cardiff said:


> and as the british were only a part of indian history for around 70-100 years, i dont think, with the lack of heavy industries, that much of that mineral wealth would have been removed, with huge subsidies going to the local owners of the land


During that time, the industrial revolution was happening, and resources from colonies were vital.


----------



## Scraperlover (Dec 23, 2004)

the government has tooooooo many people to rake care of :nuts:


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

No.

Indian cities are falling behind because of the poor attitude displayed by Indians.


----------



## Naga_Solidus (Mar 29, 2005)

_00_deathscar said:


> No.
> 
> Indian cities are falling behind because of the poor attitude displayed by Indians.


EXACTLY!!!

Everytime someone like me suggests something progressive to an Indian, all they do is say, "oh were a third world country we can't have". Of course, there are exceptions.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

No, If the British never took India into the British Empire, India today would have some of the worst transportation in the world!


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

_00_deathscar said:


> Tis not a short experience shopping my friend - I visit India atleast once every 2 years.
> 
> And yes..*let's hope things do change for the better.*


That's a lot better. We don't need an attitude like this -

_There was a quote recently (less than a month back...I think the 2nd day after the initial flood had passed) - "Mumbai isn't a New York or Shanghai (yet)...".

I had to laugh - for what it's worth, in my opinion, it'll never be a Shenzen...let alone a New York._

If you truly are a Bombayite, you'll know even in the worst times (like even the recent floods), the city finds a way to keep rolling. (Like the stock exchange breaking records despite the floods). Hope is what will change it.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

effer said:


> No, If the British never took India into the British Empire, India today would have some of the worst transportation in the world!


and what makes you say that? is it because you think only the british could have been a link to the modern world?

I would think India would have made contact outside without being occupied and bled dry for a century, we'd rather not have had them come.

Still, its all past.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

effer said:


> No, If the British never took India into the British Empire, India today would have some of the worst transportation in the world!


Look at Japan. It was an isolated, non-western country on the periphery of China. And it never was colonized. Do they have the worst transportation system in the world? Are the Japanese poor?

What makes you so sure an independent India or group of Indian states wouldn't have been able to build a railroad? Anyway they hardly could have done worse than the British. At Independence (in addition to the deaths of millions of people through a disorganized, cynical partition), India was dirt poor. If the British are so happy to take credit for the railroads, they should also take credit for India's desperate poverty in 1947.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

kshatriya said:


> That's a lot better. We don't need an attitude like this -
> 
> _There was a quote recently (less than a month back...I think the 2nd day after the initial flood had passed) - "Mumbai isn't a New York or Shanghai (yet)...".
> 
> ...


An over-reaction by me perhaps - but at it's current rate it never will.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> Look at Japan. It was an isolated, non-western country on the periphery of China. And it never was colonized. Do they have the worst transportation system in the world? Are the Japanese poor?
> 
> What makes you so sure an independent India or group of Indian states wouldn't have been able to build a railroad? Anyway they hardly could have done worse than the British. At Independence (in addition to the deaths of millions of people through a disorganized, cynical partition), India was dirt poor. If the British are so happy to take credit for the railroads, they should also take credit for India's desperate poverty in 1947.


I said IF the British hadn't helped it would have the worst transportation in the world. Thanks to the British we (India) have a large railroad network.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

_00_deathscar said:


> An over-reaction by me perhaps - but at it's current rate it never will.


i think you're overreacting again, but fine can't persevere with this.


----------



## londonindyboy (Jul 24, 2005)

effer said:


> No, If the British never took India into the British Empire, India today would have some of the worst transportation in the world!


 we still do have crap transport system. the best transport system we have is subway in delhi which wasn't built by the british. :eek2:


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

effer said:


> I said IF the British hadn't helped it would have the worst transportation in the world. Thanks to the British we (India) have a large railroad network.


Why don't you think the Indians could have built a railroad system without direct British colonization???

Brazil, Argentina, Japan, etc built extensive railroad networks. Extensive enough to allow them to become far wealthier than India. And none of those countries were British colonies. Sure the British as private citizens and corporations helped build some of those railroads, but without any colonization involved.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

londonindyboy said:


> we still do have crap transport system. the best transport system we have is subway in delhi which wasn't built by the british. :eek2:


and BTW, Hyderabad is catching up!


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

British finance and technical know how was used in the buidling of most of those early systems. Argentina was part of what was called the informal empire


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

pricemazda said:


> British finance and technical know how was used in the buidling of most of those early systems. Argentina was part of what was called the informal empire


Kind of how Britain is part of America's informal empire now??


Did you like that comment? Well how do you think the Argentines feel...


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Not really, the UK is the USA's single biggest investor so today it works both ways. 

Argentina was simply part of the informal empire because of trade and investment. Argentianian beef was mainly exported to the UK.

So don't be smart before you know what you are talking about.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

pricemazda said:


> Not really, the UK is the USA's single biggest investor so today it works both ways.
> 
> Argentina was simply part of the informal empire because of trade and investment. Argentianian beef was mainly exported to the UK.
> 
> So don't be smart before you know what you are talking about.


I remember seeing an episode of "Yes Prime Minister" a long time ago, where the PM wanted to make some decision on something, and the advisor said something to the effect that the decision had to be cleared through the American embassy. And the PM said "what? We're not some American colony!" Reply "_Technically_ no sir..."

Anyway the Argentines had their own government, made their own decisions, etc. The UK was simply the dominant investor and trade partner. Not an official colony like in India. If Argentina was an informal colony of the UK, then for instance Canada is definitely an informal colony of the US - something that most Canadians would get very pissed off at.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

The underdevelopment of India's cities is not because of British control. The Hindi are more religious / spiritual than money minded. Compared to most people in HK where most of it's citizens don't claim a religion that why alot of them worship money! Making money isn't that important to most Hindi.

Also, the Hindi believe in the caste system that why not alot of them progressed! But India is changing and the number of middle class is rising as well.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Hindi?

Get it right...


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

kshatriya said:


> That's a lot better. We don't need an attitude like this -
> 
> _There was a quote recently (less than a month back...I think the 2nd day after the initial flood had passed) - "Mumbai isn't a New York or Shanghai (yet)...".
> 
> ...


That's the problem, the India culture is smiling even when everything's screwed up. It's funny, but it's not good for business.

"Yes Sir"...."No problem, the job is done"..... ))


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

touchring said:


> That's the problem, the India culture is smiling even when everything's screwed up. It's funny, but it's not good for business.
> 
> "Yes Sir"...."No problem, the job is done"..... ))


We are not smiling.......we want things to totally change too. And that is why it is changing.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

touchring said:


> That's the problem, the India culture is smiling even when everything's screwed up. It's funny, but it's not good for business.
> 
> "Yes Sir"...."No problem, the job is done"..... ))


Just tell me who said there smiling! :bash: :bash: :bash:


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

I hate this...countries blaming the Uk for the mess they are in now. 

The British Empire died a VERY long time ago and these countries have had more than enough time to turn themselves into successful countries, but they havent. In Many cases its mainly due to bad and corrupt governments (i.e the African Countries). 

Im not saying the British Empire didnt cause these countries problems for a short period. But to say that the UK is still the reason why these countries are in a mess strikes me of desperation at their governments inability to solve their own problems. 

Why is it that other members of the commonwealth are rich and successful countries i. e Australia, NZ, Canada e.t.c. Whilst others are not???? - the countries that are not need to look at themselves and stop blaming what happened in the past.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Indias exploding population caused the famines not the british. It was only after higher yield rice was invented in the Green Revolution that India could feed itself. In the times of the british Indias population was much smaller.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

Tubeman said:


> I suppose the best way of comparison is by looking at the nearest country to India that wasn't ever colonised; Thailand.
> 
> If Thailand was streets ahead of India economically then it could possibly be argued that the British Empire held India back, but it isn't so it hasn't. Colonisation is essentially expolitative (its not done as a charitable gesture), but it does usually also have a raft of benefits for the local economy (i.e. its not one-way traffic).


Thailand is still far more developed than India.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> Indias exploding population caused the famines not the british. It was only after higher yield rice was invented in the Green Revolution that India could feed itself. In the times of the british Indias population was much smaller.


During British rule occured the worst famine in our history, the bengal famine!



> The Bengal famine of 1943 occurred in undivided Bengal (now independent Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal) in 1943. It is estimated that over three million people died from starvation, malnutrition and related illnesses during the famine.
> 
> In the rice growing season of 1942- 1943, weather conditions were exactly right to encourage an epidemic of the rice disease brown spot. Brown spot in rice is caused by the fungus Helminthosporium oryzae, the outbreak of the disease caused almost complete destruction of the rice crop. Severe food shortages were worsened by the second world war with British administration of India exporting foods to allied soldiers and the cessation of rice imports from Burma following the Japanese control of the country.
> 
> The shortage of rice forced rice prices up, wartime inflation compounded the problem. The civil administration did not intervene to control the price of rice, therefore the price of rice exceeded the means of ordinary people. People migrated to the cities to find food and employment, finding neither they starved.


----------



## Fusionist (Jul 7, 2004)

kshatriya said:


> Indians do not blame the British for the situation today.
> 
> All Indians here are saying is that the British did leave India dirt poor and socially backward, partitioned, while walking away with the resources to supply the industrial revolution and plenty more. We have had half a century to climb out of the mire, and that is our own fault.
> 
> ...


I think we might have to go in circles then

I never said colonialism was to help India. All I said was it is pointless to blame Indias problems on colonial rule.



> For centuries before invaders came, India was a rich country. It wasn't just rich kings....nobody starved, and for that time it was a progressive society, science was progresing, literacy was spreading, architectural and engineering marvels were being constructed, art and literature etc. etc


yes thats what the sylabus says and yes indeed there were rich people and there were several rich Indians during the colonial times aswell.

Are you sure there was no famine before the British came ? I am afriad the present Indian education system largely ignores or paints a rosey picture of Indian history during the Mughal era. possibly we talk of famines during colonial time simply because there were more emphasis on record keeping at that time and thereon and not before ? 

Science was progressing ? so what are the significant scientific work from India from 13th to 18th century ? I do realise it was flourishing in the first 5 centuries AD but later on ?

how about social evils.. sati, child infanticide, human and animal sacrifice, dowry etc etc..werent they at their worst a lot before the British came ? what social evils did the British induce in India ? I cant think of many


----------



## Fusionist (Jul 7, 2004)

a breif famine list in India source : wikipedia

In 1630-1631, there was a great famine in India. Records indicate that cannibalism became so rampant that human flesh was sold on the open market.
*	In 1770, India experienced the first Bengal famine of 1770.
*	In 1943, India experienced the second Bengal famine of 1943.
*	In 1966, there was a 'near miss' in Bihar

And not much record keeping before that. It simply doesnt mean famine didnt exist before that


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

harkerb said:


> Personally I think that ChinaUSA got pissed of by the Siopao's thread- "Is Hong Kong developed because of Britain?" He just wants to stir up emotions. Give it a rest ChinaUSA. You don't know what are talking about!


You dun understand what ChinaUSA is trying to say - the British are there to exploit - this includes exploiting India and HK, so HK is successful today not because of the British, but by virtue of it's people.

So ChinaUSA brought up India, as India has the same common law legal system, uses the same accounting method, and people speak English as well, but yet is backward as compared to other former British colonies.

To be able to understand his point of view, you have to first understand why the British are in HK in the first place. They are not there to enrich the local population, so whatever achievement HK has is the result of it's people, and the people from Shanghai.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

would there be an india if the british had not come? would have been more like europe, lots of small countries, some independent, some monarchys, some dictatorships. some still fighting

besides the english language the single biggest benefit was to unite it by giving the people a significantly different 'other'. both uninetended, but benefits nonetheless

besides wgaf? nothings going to change the past, india is responsible for its state of the last 60 years and its present and future. lets worry about that

and oh yes another great benefit from the british. bombay!


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

I never quite understood the re-naming policy, although good possibly for national identity it can't have been good for international recognition - confusing most who do not understand India. Although I refer to them in their 'new' form, every common person would most likely know of the Indian cities by their 'other' names. Also the Victoria Terminus should never have been renamed - for global acknowledgement that was a step backwards for a very fine peice of architecture.




Bombay Boy - Do you know the exact history of Bombay/Mumbai, ie its origins, foundation by whom, etc...


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

Fusionist said:


> I think we might have to go in circles then
> 
> I never said colonialism was to help India. All I said was it is pointless to blame Indias problems on colonial rule.
> 
> ...


I am not going by the syllabus. I just pointed out the British famine in response to pricemazda's post, look at the context. And no, the Mughal era is hardly portrayed in a rosy picture even in text books, at least not in Maharashtra, ever heard of Shivaji?

Some quick googling (not even a minte) and I found in the 13th century Indians were the first to smelt zinc, and in the 14th century indian astronomers had calculated the speed of light and the age of the universe. There are huge pages describing ancient Indian science.

Social evils were not restricted to India, those times were such. The British did *nothing* to reform society, they did eventually ban some practices, but it hardly did anything to change it, society stagnated. So they sorta kept them alive and over the long years these rituals and beliefs gained even more ground and hardened in people's minds, making it _worse_.


But yes our current problems, we had time to fix them, its our fault and no point blaming colonial rule. Yes it wasn't one-way traffic, they did give us railways, and Bombay! But I responded to some here who wanted to deny colonial rule had ruined India.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> I never quite understood the re-naming policy, although good possibly for national identity it can't have been good for international recognition - confusing most who do not understand India. Although I refer to them in their 'new' form, every common person would most likely know of the Indian cities by their 'other' names. Also the Victoria Terminus should never have been renamed - for global acknowledgement that was a step backwards for a very fine peice of architecture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Check this thread.  

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=217222


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

and we all know that the politics of history means it gets tilted. We understand it is important for some to maginfy the faults and minimise the best of British rule. It serves a purpose for modern day rulers and national pride. Every country does it, they make people out to be pure evil, and themselves happless victims. 

There was no such thing as India until the British came along. Venom is reserved for us in the world when it comes to thinkgs like this, the Belgians, Americans, Moghuls, Ottomans, French et al all seem to escape from criticism. Tell me who was in charge of Goa and Pondicherry?

It is too soon for academics in those countries formally part of the British Empire to revisit the 'truths' they teach children about the Empire. It will take time to get a more balanced view.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> and we all know that the politics of history means it gets tilted. We understand it is important for some to maginfy the faults and minimise the best of British rule. It serves a purpose for modern day rulers and national pride. Every country does it, they make people out to be pure evil, and themselves happless victims.
> 
> There was no such thing as India until the British came along. Venom is reserved for us in the world when it comes to thinkgs like this, the Belgians, Americans, Moghuls, Ottomans, French et al all seem to escape from criticism. Tell me who was in charge of Goa and Pondicherry?
> 
> It is too soon for academics in those countries formally part of the British Empire to revisit the 'truths' they teach children about the Empire. It will take time to get a more balanced view.


I dont think modern brits have a balanced view of history either, nobody wants to acknowledge what happened.

Faults can't be magnified further, they killed millions. It was just the way of invaders, the mughals were no less brutal. So were the french and portugese, the spanish, the japanese....

Anyway look, today there's no ill feeling. Its all past, but we should acknowledge and remember it.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

we did for years, our history classes were full of the evils we committed. We are fully aware of the bad, but what is not allowed still is to mention the good of the empire in schools, its too controversial. 

But when youi get to a higher level of study things get more balanced. although things are changing.


----------



## nova (Jul 21, 2004)

Bombay Boy said:


> and oh yes another great benefit from the british. bombay!


I thought the Portuguese were responsible for it, at least initially.

They acquired the islands from Bahadur Shah in 1534; called it _bom bahia_ (good bay) back then, and in 1661 they were ceded to Charles II of England as dowry.

But it's been a long time since 1661, and the city of Bombay resonates most with British times out of any city in India.

And nick-taylor, do check out kshatriya's link; we have a discussion ongoing there.


----------



## nova (Jul 21, 2004)

Also, Indians are entirely to blame for the underdeveloped state of their cities today in 2005; it's a case of misguided economic policy, poor urban planning, so on and so forth - too many things to go into in deep detail here.

It's true that when the British left, India and its cities weren't in a wonderful state, but it's also true that nearly sixty years - and sixty years is a long time - down the road, things haven't picked up either.

The British may be to blame in part, and they may not, but like kshatriya says, it's all past; Indians have been running the country for sixty years, and responsibility for whatever has happened in that time rests quite squarely on their own shoulders.

(I am, by the way, an Indian.)


----------



## Naga_Solidus (Mar 29, 2005)

If only people in India were more assertive...


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

I think toying with central planning and the Martial law stuff didn't help. But since the Green Revolution India has been moving forward.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

well bombay was built mostly by indians. but under british rule and with british laws and conventions as its strongest point

it was the best place in india for free trade, freedom of religion and thought, india at its most cosmopolitan. still is


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

Well a small example of how we've let ourselves slip is in Bombay itself. The townside planned and built by the British and the huge suburbs extending outwards, which came up after independence. The infrastructure (pipes, roads) centuries old still manages to handle pressure many times more, and the benifits of the outstanding town planning are still visible. Whereas, the suburbs are a huge planning disaster. We haven't even learnt from the positives of colonial rule.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

very true. in all our cities the best parts are the ones made by the british

they were excellent urban planners for sure, and we seem to be at the other end of the scale. one advantage they had though was they never had to do things democratically. slums were treated as slums, not vote banks. and the senior civic staff were all well-educated rich people who didnt have to depend on bribes for survival


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

Bombay Boy said:


> and the senior civic staff were all well-educated rich people who didnt have to depend on bribes for survival


Rich ones do favours for free. :lol:


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

hehe

another major point was philantrophy was encouraged and respected. nowadays if anyone wants to contribute in some way the municipal corporation is not very helpful


----------



## financial way (Jul 29, 2005)

singapore, HK, they are chinese...

american, canada, news, aus, english speaking whites...

they are High IQ nations...


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Bombay Boy said:


> very true. in all our cities the best parts are the ones made by the british
> 
> they were excellent urban planners for sure, and we seem to be at the other end of the scale. one advantage they had though was they never had to do things democratically. slums were treated as slums, not vote banks. and the senior civic staff were all well-educated rich people who didnt have to depend on bribes for survival


Even though most of that is correct not all of it is! Just look cities like Chennai and Bangalore, they were developed by the Indians ,not the british!


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

financial way said:


> singapore, HK, they are chinese...
> 
> american, canada, news, aus, english speaking whites...
> 
> they are High IQ nations...


Indians are very smart people, one of the smartest in the world, good at languages and good at mathematics. But the problem is if everyone is too smart - the result is anarchy as everyone tries to outwit his neighbors and peers.


----------



## financial way (Jul 29, 2005)

I don't understand


----------



## Anniyan (Mar 23, 2005)

effer said:


> Even though most of that is correct not all of it is! Just look cities like Chennai and Bangalore, they were developed by the Indians ,not the british!


Both CHENNAI and BANGALORE was British cities.
i donno whether you know that other name of CHENNAI is MADRAS.
MADRAS is going to celebrate its 366th birthday on august 22


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

effer said:


> Even though most of that is correct not all of it is! Just look cities like Chennai and Bangalore, they were developed by the Indians ,not the british!


the really good parts of town were planned and developed during british times in both the cities. madras was the head of the madras presidency


----------



## Anniyan (Mar 23, 2005)

MADRAS was their business centre, where as Bangalore was their vacation/retirement spot, according to that need they planned the city. so only Bangalore has no scope for expansion and it couldnt handle the growth


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

:hilarious British opposed apartheid in South Africa? LMAO

http://www.theherald.co.za/colarc/cull/cu140604.htm

THE general thrust of reports and the eulogies in South African newspapers following the death of former US president Ronald Reagan focused on his contribution to ending the Cold War and the destruction of the Berlin Wall.

There was, in many cases, scarcely a mention of the considerable impact that Mr Reagan and then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had with regard to events in this country over an eight-year period through policies such as constructive engagement.

The Cape Times even carried one paragraph in which former president P W Botha paid tribute to Mr Reagan, while his long-serving foreign minister, Pik Botha, was also wheeled out on television to pay tribute. Well they might, considering the support they received from them.

One recalls NP insiders at the time explaining somewhat bizarrely that Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher “understand what we are trying to do”. Given that “what we are trying to do” amounted to nothing other than “preserve minority white rule”, it is pretty clear that neither Mr Reagan nor Mrs Thatcher were particularly interested in hastening the advent of democracy.

Indeed, they continued to support the apartheid regime, endorsed IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi because of his pro-western stance and described the ANC as “terrorists”, supported by communists.

(If ever one required a clue to what the majority of South Africans would have thought of the Reagan-Thatcher axis it was the tribute paid by Mr P W Botha.)

Mr Reagan, as Time pointed out, was motivated by a pathological hatred of communism that flowed from the period when, in 1947, he was president of the Screen Actors Guild and “found himself embroiled in the union wars ravaging Hollywood”.

Time states: “Reagan came to believe that the bitter strikes in 1945 and 1946 by stagehands of the Conference of Studio Unions represented a communist attempt to take over Hollywood, and that belief changed his political views forever.”

In the “subsequent era of the blacklists, Reagan not only co-operated in the purging of suspected communists but also served as an undercover FBI informant”.

It is hardly surprising that Mr Reagan would have warmed to the anticommunist stance of Mr P W Botha, or that he would, with Mrs Thatcher, have resisted the imposition of economic sanctions on this country. It is hardly surprising that the US would have supported South Africa’s military action in Angola or its funding of Renamo in Mozambique.

And Mr Botha would no doubt have heartily applauded Mr Reagan, who wondered out loud on one occasion whether Martin Luther King Jr was a communist.

Ian Gilmour, who served in the first Thatcher cabinet, provides a keen insight into the thinking of this conservative duo with regard to South Africa in his Dancing with Dogma – Britain under Thatcherism.

Gilmour writes: “The perennial cause of rows with the Commonwealth was the treatment of South Africa and question of sanctions. Initially, I had a good deal of sympathy for Mrs Thatcher’s opposition to mandatory sanctions being imposed on South Africa.

“I was doubtful that they would be economically effective, feared that they would make the Afrikaners still more intransigent, and anticipated that they would be a potent cause of increased misery to much of the black population. The evidence suggests, however, that all those fears were mistaken.

“Sanctions and economic pressure turned out to be strikingly effective in converting South Africa’s leaders to the need for reform.

“While there is no reason to doubt her own dislike of apartheid, she conducted her opposition to it with none of the fervour she exhibited on other issues. Indeed, her enthusiasm for a multi-racial society in South Africa or elsewhere was rarely evident.”

`

What is indisputable is that both Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher must have been aware of what was happening in South Africa.

They could not, for example, have failed to be aware of the Langa Massacre on March 21, 1985. It was spoken about openly in the House of Assembly and the subject of a judicial commission that was tabled and reported on extensively.

Nor could they have failed to be aware of the ongoing carnage, even when a state of emergency was imposed. The Financial Mail of November 22, 1985 under the heading “State of Emergency; The blood still flows” listed 13 incidents that had occurred over the past week stating: “Away from the eye of the camera, people are still dying and those ubiquitous ‘incidents of unrest’ keep occurring. “

???

Further, Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher could not have failed to be aware of the kind of reform or change envisaged by the Botha government.

In February 1985, Mr Pik Botha was publicly slapped down in the assembly for suggesting that in the future there would be a black president.

Commenting on this, the Financial Mail concluded: “This means that for the foreseeable future, parliament will remain the fortress of apartheid – apartheid with some (real) concessions here and there, but apartheid nevertheless.”

Add to that the regular list of those in detention tabled in the assembly and the revelations extracted from cabinet ministers through questions or made public by the then PFP in speeches.

Nor could they not have been aware that their belief that the majority of African people in South Africa were opposed to disinvestment was incorrect. A survey conducted nationally by Mark Orkin and published under the title of “The Struggle and the Future: What Black South Africans Really Think” gave the lie to that.

Mr Orkin’s research revealed that: “73 per cent of metropolitan blacks actually favour one or the other form of disinvestment”.

It is also difficult to conclude other than Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher would have privately applauded the attacks on what it stated were ANC targets in neighbouring states even while the Eminent Persons Group was engaging the South African government. The targets were after all “terrorists”, who, if they themselves were not communists, were certainly supported by communists.

Just how the history of this country might have changed if Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher had not opted to prop up the Botha regime will always be a matter of speculation.

Mr Botha was not a man to give in, and with the hawks firmly in the ascendancy, it is probably quite likely that the country would have spiralled into a state of siege with each attack by the liberation forces met with increasing repression and brutality.

No one was in a position to challenge him, and it was only after he suffered a stroke in early 1989 that he made the strategic error of resigning as leader of the NP and those who opposed him felt strong enough to rise up and elect a successor.

We will never know whether the NP would have been forced to the negotiation table earlier had Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher not supported the apartheid regime. We also will never know how many lives might have been saved; how much suffering avoided.

What is certain is that both Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher were guilty of supporting a regime whose policies had been declared a crime against humanity. Amidst the eulogies for Mr Reagan we need to remember that.


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

Britain's handiwork in Kenya.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050...dirty-war-in-kenya-and-the-end-of-empire.html

Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. David Anderson. : Norton, 2005, 320 pp. $25.95

Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya. Caroline Elkins. Norton, 2005, 496 pp. $27.50

These two books take advantage of new data sources to provide compelling accounts of Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s, in which mostly landless members of the Kikuyu ethnic group rose violently against the British colonial government, the European settlers, and the so-called loyalist Kikuyu, who supported the colonial order. Mau Mau's clearest grievance had to do with access to the choice agricultural areas of the highlands northwest of Nairobi, but the group fed on the general cultural and economic dislocation brought about by modernization and occupation. Both works are impressively researched and highly readable. Anderson makes excellent use of court records to structure his history around the trials that would lead to death sentences for more than a thousand Kikuyu. Elkins focuses on the squalid and inhumane prison camps the British authorities built to imprison hundreds of thousands of suspects.

The severity of British repression is striking in both works. As Anderson points out, death sentences were chillingly more common in Kenya than in places such as Palestine or Malaya. These books also dispel the myth that Mau Mau violence was primarily directed at European settlers. In fact, only 32 were killed in the half decade of violence, whereas as many as 300,000 Kikuyu lost their lives. The two accounts do differ on the relationship between the conflict and the anticolonial struggle in Kenya. Elkins tends to frame the violence in an anticolonial context; Anderson's more sociological approach puts greater emphasis on intra-Kikuyu conflict, mostly over land but also over religion and the nature of Kikuyu identity, and shows that the urban African elites who would lead the struggle for independence were little involved in Mau Mau and in many cases explicitly opposed it.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Bombay Boy said:


> the really good parts of town were planned and developed during british times in both the cities. madras was the head of the madras presidency


Well they didn't plan every single thing thats going on right now!


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

HirakataShi - What nationality are you?




Also can some of the Indian forumers here answer a question for me - a certain forumer called brooklynprospect who _has_ Indian origins made a claim that apparently the Indians look down on us Brits which is quiter funny considering the links both of our nations share. This was the first time that I had heard this and he could not elaborate on the topic. Any suggestions to his reaction?


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

I look at it like this: London survived and defeated the numerous plagues, the Great Fire of 1666, the Luftwaffe during the Blitz of WW2 and the IRA. London will stand up to whoever thinks they might take a pot shot at it and they have picked on the wrong city to start a fight with because they will lose. 

hahaha LONDON RULES!!!!!


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Go look at the free Nelson Mandela concerts every year in wembley stadium, or the sporting ban, or the ordinary anti-apartheid movement. 

Why would Nelson Mandela come to London to thank the British people for their help and support in defeating apartheid.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> HirakataShi - What nationality are you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


India currently does NOT look down on Brits!


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> Why would Nelson Mandela come to London to thank the British people for their help and support in defeating apartheid.


He has chosen not to be spiteful. But he is as well aware as anyone else in South Africa as to the role Britain played in propping up apartheid.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/symposium.html


----------



## Fusionist (Jul 7, 2004)

kshatriya said:


> Some quick googling (not even a minte) and I found in the 13th century Indians were the first to smelt zinc, and in the 14th century indian astronomers had calculated the speed of light and the age of the universe. There are huge pages describing ancient Indian science.


I am not convinced. Yes indeed there were advanced science and maths in India from god knows when BC up to 10th or 11th century AD

Sidha, Upanishad, Aryabhata, Bhaskara, Sridhara, Ayurveda, Tantra, Yoga and lateron Sankara Bhoja etc. From then on recording, funding and scientific temper in India got lost didnt it ? About 15th century I think.. the Lodhi's bin Tuqhlaq and the Mughals. Infact sceintific temper picked backed up after the British took over. 

Baba, Ramanujam etc who encouraged their research thirst ?


To quote...

source : http://india_resource.tripod.com/physics.htm

Western Europe was in the midst of a monumental change in it's attitude towards science and technology. A century later, the momentum towards the modern scientific era was to gather considerable pace, and eventually the European Renaissance created an environment where the ideas of Da Vinci and Francis Bacon (15-16th C England - who stressed the importance of the experimental method in science) were able to blossom and flourish. 

*But at the same time in India, several factors posed as hindrances to the development of modern science. In comparison to Europe, India enjoyed a relatively milder climate, and the production of necessities was deemed sufficient to satisfy the population of the time. The courts - whether Mughal or regional spent a good part of their rich treasuries on cultivating the fine arts and promoting the manufacture of luxury goods and decorative objects of exquisite beauty. Science and technology simply attracted little attention (except when it came to improving the tools of war). 

The growing influence of religion - whether Quranic or Brahminical also had it's negative effect. While the Quran claimed that all the world's knowledge was already described in it, Brahminical orthodoxy created a sharp divide between the mental and the physical and thus prevented scientists from going beyond passive observation and intuition to practical experimentation, active theorizing and quantification. Whereas Akbar and Jehangir were not averse to science, and the latter took an active interest in books on botany and zoology, it appears from anecdotal accounts that Aurangzeb had a decidedly skeptical attitude towards the sciences.* Although some patronage was available in the regional courts, (and outside the courts), alchemy, astrology, study of omens, numerology and other semi-rational and irrational traditions drew much more attention, and thus distracted from genuine scientific pursuits.

*On the other hand, European scientists drew on the best works produced in the East - studying foreign documents with due diligence, often accepting little at face value - but instead verifying the results with apparatus and scientific measuring tools of their own creation. There was a time when such had also been the case in ancient India - but over time (due to both internal and external factors) - India's scientific spirit got eroded.* Thus Europe was not only able to catch up with the knowledge of India and the East, it was able to rapidly surpass it. 

Since independence, Indian scientists have been provided the opportunity of narrowing the gap, and in some fields have done especially well. However, the quality of science education for the masses still needs considerable improvement. On the one hand, the study of the physical sciences in India needs to be accompanied with practical demonstrations and more experimentation as is common practice in the West. In many instances, tools and apparatus used to demonstrate and quantify scientific phenomenon need to be modernized or improved. On the other hand, there also needs to be somewhat greater appreciation of the intuitive approach that has been the hallmark of ancient and medieval Indian science. The conceptual elegance of some earlier formulations, and the facility to inform and educate through analogy is also something that can be learned from the Indian tradition. 

It may also be noted that in terms of pedagogy, the standard Western texts are not always as useful. Often, the teaching of physics and chemistry becomes too esoteric for the average student. There is excessive abstraction in most text books, and undue theoretical complexity is thrust upon relatively young students. In contrast, the Indian approach with it's stress on observation of natural phenomenon, and epistemological approach to understanding each field are much easier to grasp for beginners and intermediate students. Once the student understands the basics, and develops a good intuitive way of perceiving scientific phenomenon - the complexities and mathematical abstractions can follow - and the world of the physical sciences can be opened up to more than just the few who are able to transcend the complexities and difficulties that accompany the study of these branches of science today


....so in short. India lost its quest somewhere like 14th 15th century.. and is regaining it only now, thanks to English language

ps. Also I dispute your saying that the british didnt do enough about Indian social evils. There are many Indians especially 'untouchables' who were treated more fairly by the British rulers. Caste discrimination, social decide etc were more a product of India prior to British intervention and the British never made it worse.. in fact I know people who would claim they did a lot to eradivcate caste structure more than the upperclass Indians themselves


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Seriously you need to do soem research on how there is a difference between the British govt who were concerned with the Cold War and the everyone else in the country who was anti-apartheid. 

DO SOME FRIGGIN RESEARCH.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

effer said:


> Dude, Muslims make up about 1/10 of India,not 1/3! :bash:


erm, i said subcontinent. modern india is not what was considered india pre-1947


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

Fusionist said:


> the Muslims also brought in their culture, so it is not right to draw a hard line between the Muslim and British invaders. What about Anglo Indians ? I never said Muslim invasion was 'hurtful'. I would adopt a similar stand I adopted towards the British. There are pros and cons of the Muslim invasion and yes they are very much an integral part of persent day India
> 
> All I want is to get the facts right and I see no necessity to shove the negative influence of Muslim rule below the carpet and blame it all on British which we can safely do as sentiments aren't going to get affected as might the case be if we adopt a more introspective analysis of Indian history between 14th to 18th century.
> 
> Yet again I can only add that these would be for learning from the past and being brutally honest with history and NOT for 'witch hunting' and excluding parts of society as being 'external influence' and disowning them, I see modern Indian culture as an inseperable mix that assimilates British and Muslim influence amongst others... in short an inclusive society yet at the same time with an honest rational appraisal of its past


my post wasnt even directed to you. but anyways, yes i dont have a rosy view of the islamic reign in india. nor do i have of any other empire that has ever been ruling any part of india. they all had good sides and their bad sides

what i meant about not comparing british and islamic rule in india is that muslims had a huge population also forming part of the subcontinent and they still do. so it can be considered almost a homegrown empire, unlike the british, who never made india home. if you want to be pednatic ever empire was an invading power at some point in time


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Bombay Boy said:


> erm, i said subcontinent. modern india is not what was considered india pre-1947


Oh, I didn't know you were considering pre-1947. :runaway:


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> But if you want to talk about a scandal as well, the Government of South Africa is doing exactly the same thing as the British government did in SA, but they are supporting a black regime in Zimbabwe. So should we say 'South Africa is responsible'?


South Africa isn't selling hordes of weapons to Zim the way the UK sold hordes of weapons to apartheid South Africa. 
There aren't any South African citizens supplying the Zim government with chemical weapons or helping Zim scientists conduct chemical experiments on civilians.


----------



## indosky (Feb 11, 2005)

Fact
Both Muslims and British were in India to make money. Both were invaders. Muslims however integrated with the Indians more than the Brits. Neither would have invaded india if it didnt have the riches on offer.

Fact
Muslims were able to invade India so easily because they could the exploit weakness in India's caste system. Muslims offered lower caste Indians a more egalitarian religion. 
Centuries later the Brits were able to exploit India because they could divide and conquer the Indian Muslims and Hindus. It has to be said that the Indians were stupid enough to allow that. 

Fact
While the Muslims integrated with the society the British did not. Hence under the Muslim rule Indian wealth stayed in India while under the British huge amout of wealth was siphoned out of India into Britain.

Fact
Before the British rule Indian sub continent was one of the richest regions in the world. After the 2 centuries of British rule they left it as one of the poorest regions in the world.

Fact
India would have developed anyway without the Muslim or British invasion. Just look at Japan and even Thailand, they developed fine without being colonised.

Fact
India will become a wealthy superpower again when its people concentrate on improving their lives rather than bickering about religion. I think the early signs are there.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

i agree with everthing except with Japan and Thailand developed with western capital. 

There are very few countries that developed with their own capital


----------



## indosky (Feb 11, 2005)

pricemazda said:


> i agree with everthing except with Japan and Thailand developed with western capital.
> 
> There are very few countries that developed with their own capital


Ofcourse that is how global economy works. I meant these countries developed without being invaded or colonised. 
Dont forget Japan was developed and a superpower on par with the europeans before ww2 anyway.


----------



## kshatriya (Jun 14, 2004)

indosky said:


> Fact
> Both Muslims and British were in India to make money. Both were invaders. Muslims however integrated with the Indians more than the Brits. Neither would have invaded india if it didnt have the riches on offer.
> 
> Fact
> ...


Good post.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

the sooner indians lose their religion the better it will be


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

pricemazda said:


> i agree with everthing except with Japan and Thailand developed with western capital.
> 
> There are very few countries that developed with their own capital


Japan wasn't developed with western capital, they did it by reverse engineering, i think. Japan was able to defeat the entire Russian baltic and Pacific fleet navy in the 1905 war, and the Zero fighters built by Mitsubishi was the best fighter plane of it's time.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

indosky said:


> Fact
> Both Muslims and British were in India to make money. Both were invaders. Muslims however integrated with the Indians more than the Brits. Neither would have invaded india if it didnt have the riches on offer.
> 
> Fact
> ...


Fact
India will take over the US economically by the year 2050!


----------



## indodude (Aug 17, 2005)

guys from UK shud believe in law of average.....think abt the long term....India is way ahead now compared to what we were 50 yrs ago....whereas UK is getting poorer and poorer.....India now has skills, knowledge, people force.....everything a peaceful country should have......history says tht India never attacked any poor or less powerful country.....UK has to face more and more terrorists attacks......Britain govt is sacrificing its people for the sake of oil, gas and natural resources of middle east....

PLEASE STOP CORPORATE IMPERIALISM !!!!


----------



## Fusionist (Jul 7, 2004)

indodude said:


> guys from UK shud believe in law of average.....think abt the long term....India is way ahead now compared to what we were 50 yrs ago....whereas UK is getting poorer and poorer.....India now has skills, knowledge, people force.....everything a peaceful country should have......history says tht India never attacked any poor or less powerful country.....UK has to face more and more terrorists attacks......Britain govt is sacrificing its people for the sake of oil, gas and natural resources of middle east....
> 
> PLEASE STOP CORPORATE IMPERIALISM !!!!


hmm.. just curious are you working in London ? 

but you do have some valid points !


----------



## Fusionist (Jul 7, 2004)

effer said:


> Fact
> India will take over the US economically by the year 2050!


2050 AD.... After Dharmendra that is ? 
:jk:


----------



## andy22 (Aug 18, 2005)

I have no damn sympathy for THE WEST and the Imperial/ Capitalist nations.

Fact: UK/England developed India for selfish interests (dont forget they treated India rurals like slaves). Only those who learnt English progressed during British rule. 

Fact: Yet, the credit goes to British rule for India's modern life and unity as a nation. If not for them, we would had been 500 small countries in South Asia.


Western progress is propelled by Asian intelligence, no doubt about this. Yet the Western outlook has not changed for Asians *esp. Indians. * 


US & UK (diplomacy) nourishes a devil in disguise - Pakistan. Then they chase Osama !! 

Somehow I really hope that communist Russia should rise to power again  and India should align with its old, loyal and only Western friend, Russia, to counterattack these dirty capitalist nations.


----------



## indodude (Aug 17, 2005)

forgeting the past and thinking abt the future.......US has around 5 million Indians and the average annual salary is high $50K to low $60K.....its the highest among all nationalities.......I wud agree with fusionist as well for saying that britains bought english to India.....all Indians have to agree with this...Indians are here to stay and will dominate all economic sectors.....if US and Europeans were the powers during last couple of centuries...India is the future one (ofcourse without attacking other nations)


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

andy22 said:


> I have no damn sympathy for THE WEST and the Imperial/ Capitalist nations.
> 
> Fact: UK/England developed India for selfish interests (dont forget they treated India rurals like slaves). Only those who learnt English progressed during British rule.
> 
> ...


Dirty capitalist nations? I suggest, India convert to Communism since Indians have admitted that capitalism isn't helping them. If this is the opinion of educated and professional Indians, what about the villagers??? 

The current system isn't working and is failing. It's time to bite the bullet.

The capitalist Indians can then migrant to America and UK, where they will continue to have a good life and earn >average income.


----------



## Fusionist (Jul 7, 2004)

indodude said:


> forgeting the past and thinking abt the future.......US has around 5 million Indians and the average annual salary is high $50K to low $60K.....its the highest among all nationalities.......I wud agree with fusionist as well for saying that britains bought english to India.....all Indians have to agree with this...Indians are here to stay and will dominate all economic sectors.....if US and Europeans were the powers during last couple of centuries...India is the future one (ofcourse without attacking other nations)


India is one of the most capitalist nation I have seen.. a lot more than European nations. Yes India might dominate on economic sector but seriously lack behind in social equality


----------



## Jai (Jan 5, 2003)

Indians are capitalistic on the individual level, but the government is severly restrictive of capitalism. The Heritage Group's *Index of Economic Freedom* lists India as mostly economically unfree, *about the same* as Communist China in this regard. The wost areas being Trade/Tarrif Policy and Fiscal Burden, the best being Monetary Policy, Property Rights and Wages and Prices.


Also, I know I haven;t replied to the people who addressed things to me before, esp touchring. I still am very limited on time, will reply as soona s I can, sorry

Though tocuchring, can you please explain the following statement


touchring said:


> The current system isn't working and is failing. It's time to bite the bullet.
> 
> The capitalist Indians can then migrant to America and UK, where they will continue to have a good life and earn >average income.


Failing? Not working? Please explain with economic indicators 

Are you seriously suggesting India become a communist nation?


----------



## indodude (Aug 17, 2005)

why are so called "SOLDIERS" from USA, UK, AUSTRALIA, CANADA still in Middle East??
what do they want now??

Are these sent by the government or local companies from these countries?? History says that war is always between 2 more or less powerful states......if doing this gives the citizens of these countries a peaceful, "social equality", high quality life, high rise buildings, strong currency then sh** on this........


----------



## desiguy8179 (Jul 6, 2005)

effer said:


> Fact
> India will take over the US economically by the year 2050!


Indians cant even take care of their garbage with filthy cities,forget about taking over US


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

desiguy8179 said:


> Indians cant even take care of their garbage with filthy cities,forget about taking over US


Dude, India is going to change alot in 45 years! Get used to it!


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

Jai said:


> Indians are capitalistic on the individual level, but the government is severly restrictive of capitalism. The Heritage Group's *Index of Economic Freedom* lists India as mostly economically unfree, *about the same* as Communist China in this regard. The wost areas being Trade/Tarrif Policy and Fiscal Burden, the best being Monetary Policy, Property Rights and Wages and Prices.
> 
> 
> Also, I know I haven;t replied to the people who addressed things to me before, esp touchring. I still am very limited on time, will reply as soona s I can, sorry
> ...



Maybe communist is not an appropriate word, but definitely socialist system that takes care of the common people. Economic indicators are only for developed Western nations. We can only believe what we see with our own eyes. 

Dun you think my proposal is better than those "wait 50 years later! get used to it!". Of cos, waiting isn't a problem, like the guy who waits for someone, maybe his neighbor to clear the garbage that blocked part of the road. So everyone will wait till India becomes like USA before life improves for every Indian.

See my point?


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

Here is a question, would India even be a country if the British Empire had not got involved?


----------



## Mike (Sep 12, 2002)

pricemazda said:


> That is why english is successful it changes and adapts to evolves into something new where ever and whenever it is.


Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. Every language on the face of this planet changes and adapts and evolves and integrates foreign terms. That is no speciality of English. The reason why English is so successfull has nothing to do with imaginary linguistic advantages but simply with military might. The British empire first spread this language around the globe (which was also the case for French, Spanish and Portugese) and layed the seed and then after WW2 the US became the sole economic and military superpower of this planet and made English dwarf all other major languages (including competing colonial languages like French, Spanish, Portugese).


----------



## Jai (Jan 5, 2003)

touchring said:


> Maybe communist is not an appropriate word, but definitely socialist system that takes care of the common people. Economic indicators are only for developed Western nations. We can only believe what we see with our own eyes


Ok, sorry for the 1/2-replies, will reply later in more detail

But socialist system? India is already a socialist state. Not as much as in previous years, but it still definiately is.

You still havent really said anything or brought up any facts to prove your point. Just that India is a capitalistic failing state and socialism will make it all better. 

You haven't said how India is failling, nor pointed to any data. You even said that economic indicators (and by this I mean everything from income, GDP, literacy, social development, growth rates, debt, etc.) are only 'for Western nations', and as such aren't ways to measure the quality of life of the average person??


It is very easy to say 'its failing! the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer! economic growth isn't helping! socalism is the only way!' and it is another to actually prove India is failing, and to explain exactly what needs to be changed. You still have not done so apart from repeating the same line.


----------



## indosky (Feb 11, 2005)

cardiff said:


> Here is a question, would India even be a country if the British Empire had not got involved?


This is hard to say because other empires centuries before brits also managed to rule india as a whole eg the mughal empire and even earlier 400bc-250bc gupta empire and Asoka empire.

India was not one country when British were occupying it. Brits use to have local puppet kings ruling different regions of India as separate states anyway. 

Unity came due to common struggle for independence from British rule. It become one country after independence (correction Pakistan and Bangladesh are still separated).


----------



## indosky (Feb 11, 2005)

desiguy8179 said:


> Indians cant even take care of their garbage with filthy cities,forget about taking over US


That’s exactly what the Spanish and Portuguese use to say about the Dutch and British when they were more powerful. We all know what happened there. Not long ago Americans were saying the same thing about Japan and china. Look at Japan now and look out, here comes china. In 20 years it will be competing with US for economic supremacy. The only country that can compete with china in the future will be India. Just like European countries before, Asian countries will not be in the dark ages forever. So get use to the changing future.


----------



## Jai (Jan 5, 2003)

indosky said:


> That’s exactly what the Spanish and Portuguese use to say about the Dutch and British when they were more powerful. We all know what happened there. Not long ago Americans were saying the same thing about Japan and china. Look at Japan now and look out, here comes china. In 20 years it will be competing with US for economic supremacy. The only country that can compete with china in the future will be India. Just like European countries before, Asian countries will not be in the dark ages forever. So get use to the changing future


Though I am loathe to make any 50 year predictions, I've said it once, and I'll say it again: all developmental indicies show that India is developing in every sector. And developing with higher growth rates than Japan, China, etc. were at the same economic level.

Barring an act of God, India will follow faster paths toward development than these countries in the near and middle term. People who dismiss realistic predictions for the future for some moronic sloganeering are people worth ignoring. You can't reason with people fundamentally unwilling to listen to fact. Juding from this desiguy's history of posting, I think this is very much the case. 

Cheers,
JAi


----------



## desiguy8179 (Jul 6, 2005)

indosky said:


> That’s exactly what the Spanish and Portuguese use to say about the Dutch and British when they were more powerful. We all know what happened there. Not long ago Americans were saying the same thing about Japan and china. Look at Japan now and look out, here comes china. In 20 years it will be competing with US for economic supremacy. The only country that can compete with china in the future will be India. Just like European countries before, Asian countries will not be in the dark ages forever. So get use to the changing future.


keep dreaming....wishful thinking nothing else
India may become a large consumer market but not a superpower,its fundamentals are still very weak....third class infrastructure,political corruption,caste system,illetracy...places like bihar and jharkhand are no better than central africa,communal riots..gujarat riots happened not so long ago.India economy is healthy but nowhere near challenging superpower like US


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

hmmm.. no


----------



## indosky (Feb 11, 2005)

desiguy8179 said:


> keep dreaming....wishful thinking nothing else
> India may become a large consumer market but not a superpower,its fundamentals are still very weak....third class infrastructure,political corruption,caste system,illetracy...places like bihar and jharkhand are no better than central africa,communal riots..gujarat riots happened not so long ago.India economy is healthy but nowhere near challenging superpower like US


Yeah desi guy you have to have a dream first before you can make it a reality. 
Thank god the new generation of indians are not as cynical or defeatist like you. They are too busy rebuilding their country without baggage of the older generations. One thing is for sure, with cynical and deafitist attitude like yours no country can ever hope to make progress.


----------



## desiguy8179 (Jul 6, 2005)

share your dream with laloo yadav and mayawati!


----------



## C-Kompii (Oct 12, 2004)

Jai said:


> all developmental indicies show that India is developing in every sector. And developing with higher growth rates than Japan, China, etc. were at the same economic level.


Just some corrections, The Indian economy is currently growing at approximately 5-6% per year. During the 50's to 70's, Japan was growing at an average rate of 11% a year, and more so in periods before the war. China in the 80's and early 90's were constantly growing at more than 12% a year, and is still averaging around 10% right now.

-G'day-


----------



## Jai (Jan 5, 2003)

Well China first liberalized its economy in 1978. India started economic reforms from roughly the same GDP as 1978 China in the 1994. Only by 1998 did India reform its economy to the extent that China did in 1978.

China, in this 5-6 year period from reform, had economic growth fluxuating between 5-8% per year. India, from 1998-2003 (last offiical numbers) from 4-7% increasing each year. However, in terms of greater development indices, in most areas like, for example, literacy growth, or reduction in percentage of people living below the poverty line, India is growing faster. 

Up till 1998, India's economy remained virtually stagnant, where economic growth was negated by population growth.


----------



## indosky (Feb 11, 2005)

desiguy8179 said:


> share your dream with laloo yadav and mayawati!


For sure dude. From your attitude you sound like a failure and a has been with a chip on his shoulder. You belong with all the has beens. 
People with your attitude needs to be weeded out of india.


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

Jai said:


> Well China first liberalized its economy in 1978. India started economic reforms from roughly the same GDP as 1978 China in the 1994. Only by 1998 did India reform its economy to the extent that China did in 1978.
> 
> China, in this 5-6 year period from reform, had economic growth fluxuating between 5-8% per year. India, from 1998-2003 (last offiical numbers) from 4-7% increasing each year. However, in terms of greater development indices, in most areas like, for example, literacy growth, or reduction in percentage of people living below the poverty line, India is growing faster.
> 
> Up till 1998, India's economy remained virtually stagnant, where economic growth was negated by population growth.


In 1978, China was a hardcore communist country nearly like North Korea. Go to North Korea, and you know what i mean. Everything was arranged by the state. 

India is no way near China in 1970s at any point in time. It's a market economy since the day Tamils were speaking Tamil in Chennai. Even Bengal, which is most socialist is a market economy.

India grows 6-7% a year. As i understand, India's population increases by 20 million a year. So, you need to minus 2% off the growth rate. Minus another 5% inflation, 

*India needs an economic growth rate of at least 7% a year just to prevent the country from sinking further into poverty, assuming that the 7% growth is 100% genuine, and not some figures to win the election.*


In comparison, China has 'real' economic growth, even if you impose a 2% penalty on "over-estimation".

China's economic growth: 9%
Less over-estimation (2%)
Less inflation: (4%)
Less population growth: (1%)
---------------------------------
Real economic growth: 2%


See the point?


----------



## desiguy8179 (Jul 6, 2005)

indosky said:


> For sure dude. From your attitude you sound like a failure and a has been with a chip on his shoulder. You belong with all the has beens.
> People with your attitude needs to be weeded out of india.


people like you created slogan 'India Shining',got screwed big time in elections with majority of indians rejected it.Its fine to talk about india's economic progress but dont be a "shekhchilli",reality check is important once a while!


----------



## Jai (Jan 5, 2003)

touchring said:


> India grows 6-7% a year. As i understand, India's population increases by 20 million a year. So, you need to minus 2% off the growth rate. Minus another 5% inflation,
> 
> *India needs an economic growth rate of at least 7% a year just to prevent the country from sinking further into poverty, assuming that the 7% growth is 100% genuine, and not some figures to win the election.*
> 
> ...


What the hell kind of crazy bogus math is this? :|

Dude. I'm *STILL* waiting for real figures, facts, statistics to prove any of your statements. 

Prove with real, and not made up, numbers that 
1. the poor have not benefitted from economic growth
2. the economic growth has not affected the level of development in India
3. India's is a true market economy
4. India can only succeed through a socialist state. Please be specific what needs to be changed.


Your posts in this thread have become increasingly delusional and your claims increasingly inflated. Until you sit back and prove the fundamentals of your inane arguments with *real, verifiable fact* and not some made up algebra, I'm just going to ignore you from here on out.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

touchring said:


> In 1978, China was a hardcore communist country nearly like North Korea. Go to North Korea, and you know what i mean. Everything was arranged by the state.
> 
> India is no way near China in 1970s at any point in time. It's a market economy since the day Tamils were speaking Tamil in Chennai. Even Bengal, which is most socialist is a market economy.
> 
> ...


That is very confusing! Can you please write it in plain english!
BTW where in the world did you get those numbers(which are utter nonsense)!?!


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

effer said:


> That is very confusing! Can you please write it in plain english!
> BTW where in the world did you get those numbers(which are utter nonsense)!?!


I got those numbers from CIA statistics on China and India.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

I never believed that statistical numbers are never reliable, so i didn't bother to take the exact decimals, but nevertheless, they give a rough picture - you got to take into consideration, there is inflation and population growth, so the growth of an economy does not mean that the average villager is getting better off by 6-7% a year.


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

Jai said:


> What the hell kind of crazy bogus math is this? :|
> 
> Dude. I'm *STILL* waiting for real figures, facts, statistics to prove any of your statements.
> 
> ...


I think i've spent enough time on this argument, we can talk about it until the cows leave ND and it will still never get a conclusion.


----------

