Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hong Kong is rich and prosperous because
1) it is at most a mid sized city. India is 200 times the size.
2) HK serves a window to the giant and fast growing Chinese market with a lot of preferential treatment. Without mainland China and such policies, HK is nothing.
People should stop looking at one very unique case and thinking it applies to all. Among London's previous colonies, few of them are developed today.
Comparing to China, India should get its infrastructure built well first. How can a country grows when the transportation network looks like sh**t, and how do people have the sense of pride when there are not enough toilets in the cities ... but wait, it is a proud democracy where everything takes forever to be approved and completed.
What's moronic about the thinking? You cant compare Hong Kong to India! What you stated about Hong Kong is exactly why the British held on to it as long as they could. They used it to as a gateway to enter the Chinese market (Opium for example). I also pointed out why you shouldn't compare one unique case and apply it to all.
The differences between communism and democracy are there. But more than focusing on democracy, its the corruption and red tape bureaucracy. I think you got your points mixed up. Do you see other democracies in such a state. How many other democracies are ruled by a family dynasty off and on for the past 60 yrs? If you think pride is due to having the ability to **** in a toilet, then you are the moron. China's path to development has been copying the US since 1950's post WW2 in terms of infrastructure devleopment with a high debt load.
That being said, I think everyone human being should have access to proper sanitary practices but there are problems that have to be addressed. With limited water resources, no proper infrastructure to treat sewage and most importantly, the cost, it's not an easy solution.
Read up on China pays for its infrssturcture and issues...
Since you are so interested in how ppl ****, here's a link. China was in the same boat but when the poor started getting better economic opportunties, the quality of life improved naturally. Now, do you have any idea when India opened up its economy? In 1991! Im sure in time, it wont be an issue. CHina had a long start in economic opportunities, not to mention it had good relations with the US (Since Nixon) whereas India did not.
Botticell - let us go from the IMF list of 2013 for GDP (PPP)
1) Qatar (Independence from UK, 1971)
3) Singapore (Independence from UK, 1965)
5) Brunei (Independence from UK, 1965)
6) Hong Kong and the United States (Independence 1997 and 1783 respectively)
9) Canada (Independence from UK, 1867)
10) Australia (Independence from UK, 1901)
18) Republic of Ireland (Independence from UK, 1922)
And that is in the top 20 only. The only other formerly colonised nations that make it in the top 20
are Norway (no.4) Iceland (no.14) Taiwan (no.16) so it goes without saying London's colonies aren't doing that badly.
Don't they all count?
The British Empire included a lot more former colonies than all others and a much larger population. I'd say that if you were going to look at the entire spectrum, the British have a pretty mixed record with the majority of countries, and certainly the majority of population, doing fairly poorly.
Bose collaborated with the Third Reich and Imperial Japan, two of the most despicable regimes of the 20th century. I don't have much of an opinion when it comes to Bhagat Singh, but I'll say that I detest violence and believe that armed conflict should be the last resort when it comes to addressing grievances. When it comes to Mahatma Gandhi, I don't believe there is any purely historical/political figure who had a purer heart and represented the best of human ideals than him; however, I think that that his economic vision for India(which was to some degree adopted by Nehru/the Congress Party) was "misguided." Industrialization and capitalism should have been the economic way forward for India.
The (mainstream) Indian Independence Movement, in which Gandhi played a key role, is what ultimately discredited the supposed moral justifications for colonialism. I don't see why you would consider taking the moral high ground as being "soft." It's a lot harder to continue to receive blows than to dish them out.
Albert Einstein said the best when it comes to Gandhi, "Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."
Bose collaborated with the Third Reich and Imperial Japan, two of the most despicable regimes of the 20th century. I don't have much of an opinion when it comes to Bhagat Singh, but I'll say that I detest violence and believe that armed conflict should be the last resort when it comes to addressing grievances. When it comes to Mahatma Gandhi, I don't believe there is any purely historical/political figure who had a purer heart and represented the best of human ideals than him; however, I think that that his economic vision for India(which was to some degree adopted by Nehru/the Congress Party) was "misguided." Industrialization and capitalism should have been the economic way forward for India.
The (mainstream) Indian Independence Movement, in which Gandhi played a key role, is what ultimately discredited the supposed moral justifications for colonialism. I don't see why you would consider taking the moral high ground as being "soft." It's a lot harder to continue to receive blows than to dish them out.
Albert Einstein said the best when it comes to Gandhi, "Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."
Bose had no choice but to collaborate with those two since they were the only regimes opposed to the British Empire. There is no indication that he held views similar to those held by the leaders of those countries. Finland also collaborated with Nazi Germany in fighting the Soviets but few would criticize them for doing so. Most people simply do not have worldly views and are more concerned with local surroundings which is why many people are willing to collaborate with people who aren't saints.
Bose collaborated with the Third Reich and Imperial Japan, two of the most despicable regimes of the 20th century. I don't have much of an opinion when it comes to Bhagat Singh, but I'll say that I detest violence and believe that armed conflict should be the last resort when it comes to addressing grievances. When it comes to Mahatma Gandhi, I don't believe there is any purely historical/political figure who had a purer heart and represented the best of human ideals than him; however, I think that that his economic vision for India(which was to some degree adopted by Nehru/the Congress Party) was "misguided." Industrialization and capitalism should have been the economic way forward for India.
The (mainstream) Indian Independence Movement, in which Gandhi played a key role, is what ultimately discredited the supposed moral justifications for colonialism. I don't see why you would consider taking the moral high ground as being "soft." It's a lot harder to continue to receive blows than to dish them out.
Albert Einstein said the best when it comes to Gandhi, "Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."
I guess Albert Einstein forgot about Buddha and Jesus LOL. As for Bose, what choice did he have? As for despicable regimes, you can add the British to your list as well. Gandhi was a leader in some ways but he wasn't a pragmatist. He completely missed the boat on quite a few issues. He was the reason why Nehru (colonial ass licker) was selected for PM over SARDAR PATEL. If you want to see a true visionary who would have and could have changed INDIA it would come down to these two ppl, SARDAR PATEL AND NETAJI.
Did you ever think what have been the benefit of gaining Independence via violence? Netaji had no choice and his death is directly attributed to the British SAS. The Indian gov't to this day still hides information on him which is ruled on and off by the same family who changed their surname to GANDHI just to garner control. Democracy in India is a bloody sham when you have more than 5 members of the same family running India. I thought India got rid of Kings and dictators?
Political figures can have the purest hearts and intentions but it means very little if you cannot get the job done.
Gandhi's role in the Independence movement was critical but don't undermine the efforts of those who fought with violence. The greatest threat to the British was the Sepoy Mutiny almost 100 yrs earlier. It was almost successful and India could have gained Independence by force but Sikhs and Gurkhas loved the goras more than their own blood.
YOu see a common theme among the British and Muslims were they both divided and conquered. If the Hindu populace realized their numbers and put aside their petty differences, India would have broken free a long, long time ago.
Bose absolutely had a choice, and him attempting to achieve independence by collaborating with outright murderous regimes that were ultimately bent on world domination is moronic at best. There's a reason people ignored him.
The Indian Independence Movement not only achieved its goal of independence, it changed global opinion regarding colonialism and played an important role in helping to change the way the world fundamentally worked as well. It won in the marketplace of ideas at home and abroad. I get the impression that this is something that you either don't appreciate or understand.
Bose absolutely had a choice, and him attempting to achieve independence by collaborating with outright murderous regimes that were ultimately bent on world domination is moronic at best. There's a reason people ignored him.
The Indian Independence Movement not only achieved its goal of independence, it changed global opinion regarding colonialism and played an important role in helping to change the way the world fundamentally worked as well. It won in the marketplace of ideas at home and abroad. I get the impression that this is something that you either don't appreciate or understand.
You never heard the expression the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Bose did whatever he could to gain Independence for India. Bose was the biggest threat to the British, not Gandhi! This was even admitted by the British! Gandhi did not guarantee independence. In fact, after WW2, the British were looking for ways to get out of that agreement. Where is the Nobel Prize for Gandhi?
You really think the India independence Movement forced the British to give India up? LOL
Europe was in shambles.
Even the British, who had been spared the horrors of invasion and fighting in the streets, were exhausted, impoverished and far more focused on the domestic needs of the British people, than previously. Additionally, one might argue that the long war against totalitarian governments had opened many Europeans' eyes to the injustices of colonialism.
France, sadly, is a different matter. France was also impoverished, but it had been humiliated, and sought to regain its prestige and prosperity by reasserting colonial control over its colonies in Africa, Southeast Asia and of course, North Africa. It was only able to do so because of a great deal of US military aid, and in the end, it proved completely futile.
I am not sure you are right, or it depends what you mean by abruptly. The French lost Indochina fairly quickly (early 50's) largely due to a lack of will and resources. The Belgians kept the Congo until the late 50's, and the British kept most of their colonies until the late 50's and mid 60's, so this was 15-20 years after the end of the war. In the case of the British it was a combination of local armed struggle and lack of political will. Britain was able to keep the larger colonies because they were a net commercial benefit to the Empire, due to natural resources ( eg the Gold Coast -Ghana, and the Rhodesia's.) Kenya and Uganda were not so valuable. The mid 60's coincided with the election of the first Socialist government in Britain for over a decade, and they were very anti-colonial so they set about 'divesting' the remains of the Empire as they viewed it anachronistic.
The Portuguese fought very hard to keep their Colonies, especially in Africa, and these were not lost until the late 70's.
The Axis powers were forced to give up their colonies in treaties that they signed at the end of the war. Britain faced pressure from Russia at the Yalta Conference to give up their colonial possessions, but Churchill refused. (This was one of the factors leading to the Cold War and the division of Germany.) Eventually, the British colonies, the last ones to survive, asked/fought for their independence. Britain could not keep her colonies unified under one crown (and government) and began to slough them off. Many European nations also lost the money to be able to support their colonies or their colonies ran out of valuable resources (diamonds, coal, etc.) and they decided to leave them.
Last edited by Mistertee; 05-07-2014 at 07:09 PM..
YOu see a common theme among the British and Muslims were they both divided and conquered. If the Hindu populace realized their numbers and put aside their petty differences, India would have broken free a long, long time ago.
It does seem amazing that India was ruled for so long, but it shows how military might and intimidation can contain such a huge nation and an old and proud civilisation. Just look at Britain's frightful reaction to the Indian Mutiny...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
