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.
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 civilization. Just look at Britain's frightful reaction to the Indian Mutiny...
Well, you see its very complex. Not all of India was conquered as some may suggest. South India and The Northeast were relatively unaffected for long time.
A variety of reasons explain why but its very exhaustive. Even Hinduism and Buddhism are to blame as well. The British were smart and lucky. They used diplomatic spies to get all types of information, ranging from terrain, sizes, anything of use for later use in war. And don't forget they arrived onto the scene when wars were being raged between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. They stood by quietly observing, playing each side off, arming one against the other, building alliances, etc. Finally, when the Maratha Empire defeated the Mughals once and for all, the British with impeccable timing came in and routed the first Hindu Empire to take control of India along with the Sikhs after a long, long time.
The British did not modernised India, just modernised their homelands in the British Isles.
Also a large country is different from small countries such as the ex British ruled countries in the Carribean and Singapore.
The British did not modernised India, just modernised their homelands in the British Isles.
Also a large country is different from small countries such as the ex British ruled countries in the Carribean and Singapore.
Excellent point. In fact, the British prescence in India caused the downfall of India's manufacturing economy and a fall in India's share of world trade in the 19th century, not to mention famines when the British forced India to plant cash crops (cotton) which displaced a lot of food crops.
lol I prefer Netaji Bose or Bhagat Singh...Gandhi was too soft for my liking
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerJAX
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistertee
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 attitude was the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, I think bose would have ended up like Mao or mugabe. He would have been a dictator. Gandhi had the right idea. THe british would have beaten anyone else. However, Gandhi and nehru split up the subcontinent. Sardar patel would have been great for india. The British also created pakistan to protect their middle east interests. The british also have a fetish for the followers of the bedoiun for some reason. I think its a Lawerence of arabia thing. I guess yoga wasn't popular at the time.
Also gandhi gave the image of indians around the world as push overs. Of course, its going to look bad on the British if they beat a man wearing a diaper. They think of themselves as civilized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman
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...
Indian mutiny failed because just like before Indians were not united. Some of them wanted to bring back mogul rule. Do you think sikhs and marathas would want that? No one wants to speak farsi. the arabic alphabet is foreign, reads right to left, and is a bunch of squiggly lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistertee
Well, you see its very complex. Not all of India was conquered as some may suggest. South India and The Northeast were relatively unaffected for long time.
A variety of reasons explain why but its very exhaustive. Even Hinduism and Buddhism are to blame as well. The British were smart and lucky. They used diplomatic spies to get all types of information, ranging from terrain, sizes, anything of use for later use in war. And don't forget they arrived onto the scene when wars were being raged between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. They stood by quietly observing, playing each side off, arming one against the other, building alliances, etc. Finally, when the Maratha Empire defeated the Mughals once and for all, the British with impeccable timing came in and routed the first Hindu Empire to take control of India along with the Sikhs after a long, long time.
British came right at the time of pagan reconquesta. Everything was in disarray. I think all of subcontinent could have been reunited under pagan rule had the east india company not interfered and the followers of the bedoiun idealogy pushed back to the middle east.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomboy-
The British did not modernised India, just modernised their homelands in the British Isles.
Also a large country is different from small countries such as the ex British ruled countries in the Carribean and Singapore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris
Excellent point. In fact, the British prescence in India caused the downfall of India's manufacturing economy and a fall in India's share of world trade in the 19th century, not to mention famines when the British forced India to plant cash crops (cotton) which displaced a lot of food crops.
agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
Aren't the Anglo-Indos still the dominant group?
no
The only thing the british were good for was spreading the english language. They cursed parts of the world with driving on the wrong side of the road! I also don't think it would have been cleaner if the british had stayed. The goal of british colonization was to make money. The infrastructure they built was only to administer in the task of making more money. quality of life was not a concern unless they were going to settle there.
Last edited by Dangerous-Boy; 11-14-2019 at 10:34 PM..
So I take it the anglo-indos, the porty geez mestiffs, the trotskyites & the francais de couleur have all fused with the domiciled settlers into one homogeneous corporatist grouping?
So I take it the anglo-indos, the porty geez mestiffs, the trotskyites & the francais de couleur have all fused with the domiciled settlers into one homogeneous corporatist grouping?
i think they went to europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistertee
Well, you see its very complex. Not all of India was conquered as some may suggest. South India and The Northeast were relatively unaffected for long time.
A variety of reasons explain why but its very exhaustive. Even Hinduism and Buddhism are to blame as well. The British were smart and lucky. They used diplomatic spies to get all types of information, ranging from terrain, sizes, anything of use for later use in war. And don't forget they arrived onto the scene when wars were being raged between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. They stood by quietly observing, playing each side off, arming one against the other, building alliances, etc. Finally, when the Maratha Empire defeated the Mughals once and for all, the British with impeccable timing came in and routed the first Hindu Empire to take control of India along with the Sikhs after a long, long time.
I've noticed that a lot of the U.S. media they seem to get the imperials from either across the north atlantic pond or from one of their neo-colonials to showcase as a role to be modeled after (not saying the locals here are not basket cases either).
Either indefinitely or if the British became more embedded in Indian society?
I just watched a documentary on the later stages of Raj and partition and it almost made the British leaving sound like a huge detriment. Admittedly, I know very little of the Raj, and I'm not sure what the general opinion seems to be of its effect on the subcontinent.
Here is the documentary if you happen to be interested. It uses colour film footage entirely from that era and a lot of colonial India looks to have a much different vibe than you might expect.
If they had stayed, india wouldnt be overtakng them as the 5th largest economy in 2020.
12-19-2019, 02:55 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 12 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,926,035 times
Reputation: 4052
Impossible that late. Reminds me of Portugal with Brazil. The entire territory is just too disproportionate to the other one. Not able to continue relations that way for that extra long in ages. Although, surprisingly maybe improving if they stayed around. At least in some regions of India. One of the most outlandish ones in conjunction of colonizing.
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.
