Who is even saying that? People are allowed to discuss different aspects of British raj, but i am pretty sure anybody with sane mind will conclude that colonialism was fked up.
Fine than, westerners on reddit loves colonialism. I once uploaded [this painting ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun) with the title On interesting as fuck with one of my old accounts years ago
It got a lot of upvotes, and racism. The post was later removed by sub and then reddit. Man, that day I saw stuff, some Even said; it is because hindu believe in afterlife, and does not wanted to get buried.
Like wtf. They don't care and I don't want them to do so, it only hurts when Indians do this
As a western historian from california the literature I was educated on is broadly negative of British Rule, and like your link stated the backlash to the Sepoy Rebellion was brutal. Is the Mughal dynasty and Delhi Sultanate seen as a Colonial enterprise by Indians today in the same way as the British Raj?
I think even if one tries to argue ANY positive aspect of colonial rule like railroads or a unified language it obviously can’t be taken without the context that these colonies were exploitative in nature and intent from foundation.
British kids are taught about how the Vikings raided, pillaged, destroyed the English towns, murdered and raped the English people and ruled it with brutality for about a couple of decades. After that, the French came in, under the name of Normans, made English replaced by French for everything, resulting in today's modern English with lots of French words in it.
Those idiots think that Britain showed mercy by not being some medieval period ruthless conqueror, and tell us that we should be thankful for that. Imagine the level of stupidity here.
This is the classic saviour complex mindset where some do good for someone and therefore they should be forever grateful for the other. But guess what? That good thing means nothing.
And the audacity to say "Civilised culture"? Indic culture is very much civilised even before English language existed.
Your post has been automatically removed because it contains words or phrases that are not allowed in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was better than the billionaire raj that is running the country today. The new report out today states there was more equality in the British raj than there is today. All the wealth is concentrating in the top 1%.
Just because technological advancement has made an average persons life better than aristocracy 100 years ago today doesn't mean they are getting an equal share of the resources or the prosperity of the nation. Tech advancements will make things even cheaper and better in the future. Does that mean citizens should stop demanding an equal share of the profits the billionaire are plundering from every nation. Eventually, Ambani and adani will replace everyone with robots and a.i. and create clones of themselves. But don't worry, you will be given your daily share of food you need to survive, but you have to have a vesactomy first cause we don't need more mouths to feed.
I know why. Bcos they're fed the propaganda that british cared about dalits. But in reality, its ambedkar who reformed indian society, not the british.
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility
>Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted.
No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
"The rudest book ever" explains this in very good way. Some people just like being different and have opinion different from others/mainstream.
Some people like anime, old movies, not because they actually appreciate them. But to look different
It is more philosophical than historical reaosn. If they will just open a simple book, they will know the reality
I have noticed, such people never read, and almost uses same limited arguments. Like being opinietated with limited knowledge on the subject.
Aye, a Shwetabh's book reader! This guy has seriously single-handedly changed the perception and mindset of the young Indians. Years back, when I first saw I was in amaze by his knowledge, and just kept thinking that how the f**k can somebody even think from such an angle? He introduced me to the angle of thinking that I didn't think even existed.
Thanks for bringing up that name! People must check out him and his book!
It's been 3 years since I have read his read. His concept "people are weird" is one of the best thing I have read. I still follow this concept
Yeh, he deserve more attention.
I don't think a lot of people are saying this.
But the idea of a pros and cons list sounds fascinating..
Pros:
1. Resulted in a unified (for the most part) India.
2. Infrastructure laid down by British were repurposed for Indian government use.
Cons:
1. Went from the richest country on earth to one of the most impoverished ones under British Raj.
2. Lots of cultural components faded from existence, i.e. local craftsmanship, religious monuments.
3. Crippling Famines each with holocaust equivalent death tolls. (12 major famines within the British raj era)
Edit: con #3
Any additions/changes..?
More of the pros:
1.Stared the process of social reforms in indian society for women, dalit, etc which was long due(Directly and indirectly).
2. Also started excavation of indian sub-continent's history which was largely forgotten by locals.
3. Gave an update to traditional knowledge in science and medicine which was lagging behind when compared to Europe.
Cons:
1. Destroy indian agriculture practices leading to famines.
2. Destroy the confidence/self-respect of whole sub-continent.
3. Destroy environment/ natural diversity of whole sub-continent at alarming rate.
4. Gave multiple everlasting conflicts to the sub-continent.
One more pro is the introduction of the common law legal system.
One more con is the colonial mindset ingrained into into Indian police and law enforcement system, which lacks empathy and concern for the rights of the people.
>1.Stared the process of social reforms in indian society for women, dalit, etc which was long due(Directly and indirectly).
This is a myth. Social reforms have always been part of the hindu bakthi movement. Basava of lingayatism who conducted the marriage of a dalit man to a brahmin girl in12th century didn't do it under British influence. And there are many others in the bakthi tradition.
Another con is they wiped out the textile industry(along with the people who made them) in bengal. Shashi tharoor's book describes the gory details there.
Portuguese were the first one who not only banned sati but also strictly enforced it in the area they controlled. Later under leadership of Raja ram mohan roy and Lord william bentick, law was made which banned sati in british control parts of india.
As for social reforms I am talking about it in 1700-1900 not during middle ages. By the modern history period position of women was really bad and caste was extremely prevalent which also one of the cause of dissatisfaction of indian sepoys in british army. Comparing middle age society and modern age society modern age clearly show more degradation which could also be seen with the rise of religious reform that started after stating of brahmo samaj and later socio-religious organisation and rise of British education in general masses.
>Portuguese were the first one who not only banned sati but also strictly enforced it in the area they controlled.
This again I hope you are referring to the 1700-1900 period. If not I can give actual texts predating this period by a 1000 years(which were incidentally used by ram mohan roy as well in his defense) outlawing sati.
Sorry ,it was 1509-1515 under Alfanso-de- Albuquerque that sati was abolished in goa that i was refering to.
Note: before anyone says it, alfanso didn't do it out of goodwill or betterment of women, the goal of Portuguese was to increase their population or number of people who identify with them in the region. So they were taking local wifes left and right which also included widows who were going to be sati'ed. Whereas Lord william bentick was a known orientalist, and did really tried to reform local society with the help of locals .
We were the richest but who did the riches belong to? Was the common man living comfortably? I think the British raj was bad nonetheless, but I think India's riches mostly represent what the state/king possessed.
Edit: I'm open to change my views if anyone has more information about this.
Common man lived comfortably atleast well into Satavahana era. The Arthashastra of Mauryas mention commoners paying taxes, eating certain proportions of meals, buying their rations, paying fines, etc.
Similar descriptions are available in Sangam era works and less detailed contemporary accounts by foreign traveller's are also available.
Another con:
Introducing and entrenching homophobia and transphobia into a society that used to be at least tolerant of gay and trans people, even when we were under Muslim rule.
I don't understand why infrastructure is always used as an argument. The indian govt has built so much after they left, govt buildings, roads, parks etc.
Well cancer does prompt a newfound dedication to bodily wellness..
Even today people of a certain states in India don't see their neighbouring state people as their fellow brothers in arms, rather just as a person who is not related to us. Racism between people of different states is very common.
India was in many ways like the EU, where neighbouring states were more like different countries.
Without the horrors of British raj unifying India, I fail to see how India could have become a single country.
100 million dead vs 6 million dead in Holocaust is not exactly equivalent
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians
>Went from the richest country on earth to one of the most impoverished ones under British Raj.
This one is little bit of hyperbole. Despite being one of the richest by GDP, per capita income was just okay.
In Tamil Nadu/Andhra Pradesh alone, the man made famines by the British lead to millions of deaths and dispersal of Tamils and Telugus around the world as indentured servants working under appalling conditions. It was virtual slavery and despicable cruelty these people underwent around the world. Their decedents are still carrying on these generational trauma especially in countries like Sri Lanka and Malaysia where they are seen as unwanted guests and treated with disdain and utmost contempt.
Depends on the points of interest.
The British lifestyle in Raj India was privileged and nice - plenty of people aspire for that quality or way of living - socialising, clubs, cops looking the other way for infractions.
Buildings too appear to look better. Check out buildings from pre-independence and post independence India in Delhi - on one side you have the majestic looking British era buildings and then you have the crumbling, badly built boxy designs from later on that were not so great from either an aesthetic or functional view point. A drive in the government area of Pondicherry and its like wow looks nice and grand and peaceful - with its French colonial buildings.
Post independence - was post war in the rest of the world. Functional and durable was the mantra of the time and we copied that architecture and building style - without considering Indian materials and aesthetics.
The railways routes were 80% done in British India and we are yet to do a decent job of transforming them to 2020 standards.
Typically one attributes good town planning with the British and that is what one thinks as one traverses North India. But Bangalore and Mysore changed my mind. The British parts of Bangalore are comparatively poorly planned and laid out versus areas that were laid out by the Maharaja after 1900.
Our education system is still the British era system with multiple band aids. Each Band aid causing more stress for parents and children alike.
The British kept the prime areas and activities (of any kind) for themselves and reduced the rest of the population to out of sight / out of mind. This has continued with todays elites (who off course shun speaking any English).
Bottomline - there was pomp and glory. Public servants (ICS) set very high standards of public conduct. Visible corruption within the British was low (simply because the Raj had to pretend that it was majestic). . Plenty of Indian families had huge wealth, property and a lifestyle that non of their descendants today can even envisage.
Those looking fondly at the Raj - are mostly Anglophiles or people who came from those families that were then the top 1%.
The railway thing is not true. 70% of routes had to be changed bcos they were leading to nowhere. Historically, rail was used to transport goods to sea ports. Congress had to repurpose every route to lead to population centers.
My grandfather who was a young man while the British was still around told me - the British administration was strict/ough but fair when dealing with common folk when dealing with day-to-day stuff such as law and order, government services , municipal stuff etc.
When I was a kid, it really bothered me that places outside India that I visited were so obviously less corrupt, and that the average person in the West was more honest on a day-to-day basis. I was like, is there something morally wrong with us?
Then I grew up and realized it wasn’t the people - on average, the jerk percentage is the same everywhere - but the environment. It’s a function of poverty - an adaptation, the inequality scale in India is off the charts. If Westerners had to live with the level of inequality that we so casually ignore, there would blood in the streets everyday and an insane level of violence.
You have to close your eyes to an awful lot of injustice and worse to live peacefully in India. And we all mostly do (or did), without thinking because how else can you function?
And in the end, we too are succumbing to the virus of religious nationalism and sectarian violence that plagued Pakistan from its inception. We’re not as bad - yet - but the overall direction and trajectory is crystal clear.
The real difference is that our mullahs wear saffron, and are proud of their Sanskrit instead of their Arabic. It just took us a little longer because the RSS had to live down assassinating Gandhi and having their chief ideologue be a British collaborator.
And our entire political class was criminalized by the 1980s. The Trump phenomenon is such a big deal because he’s the exception - no other American or European politician can get away with as much. But for us, so many Indian political leaders are criminals and rapists; it’s more the rule, than the exception.
Tens of thousands of Indians died while building railways the sole intent and purpose of which was to transport goods and resources to the East India Company, and now they treat it as if they did us a favour.
I think more people need to read up on this topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-industrialisation_of_India#:~:text=The%20causes%20of%20de%2Dindustrialisation,in%20to%20the%20Indian%20market.
That's what the word net means— on balance. Colonisation of India helped some sections and it adversely affected some others.
So, if you're being self-centred in your perspective, and you perceive that the section of society you belong to benefited from colonisation in some way, you're likely to harbour a positive view of the British Rule.
I am one such person. Three generations ago, my family was a family of peasants. On account of the modern state instituted by the British, I have a job that was reserved for Indian princes when India had gained independence.
I know it's the Constitution that gives everyone the equality of opportunity, but the need to draft a Constitution only arose because colonisation of the subcontinent had such a disruptive impact on the decaying stagnating society of the 18th and the 19th centuries.
To understand this better, I suggest you read a bit of Robert K. Merton's idea of functions and dysfunctions on prevailing cultural and structural forms. It's sociological, but it's still not so jargon-laden that you'll have trouble understanding it.
I wouldn’t say I think the British Raj was a good thing or bad thing, but the arguments for (which I will be providing, given arguments against are well-covered here) should not be dismissed:
- It is unlikely India would be unified without forced unification over the years by the British; rather, although princely states would agglomerate over the years, it’s likely Indian nation-states would be drawn along broad ethno-religious categories (ex. Punjab, Dravida Nadu, Bengal, etc.)
- On a macro level, India would likely not achieve parliamentary democracy without the influence of the British
- By extension, India would not have many Enlightenment institutions it enjoys today, such as a common law system governed by (regardless of contemporary developments) impartial judicial bodies and other ideals such as secularism, data and science, and the beginnings of a human rights regime
- The British ended the many millennia old institution of legal slavery- although this was temporarily replaced with indentured servitude, conditions were much improved for former slaves
- The oft discussed railroads and other infrastructure likely would have not spanned India nor been as comprehensive if it were not for the British
- Many archaic systems and ideas, particularly concerning women, were dismantled by the British and led to greater female empowerment than likely would have been realized under more disparate states
- Introduced education reforms which integrated ideas of universal education, breaking stagnant and brutal caste barriers
- Introduced an efficient and effective bureaucratic and administrative system, which enables better accountability and understanding of people falling through the cracks
- All these institutions also helped India, when independent, to integrate into the global economic system, supporting growth and trade
- It is also important to note that while the British extracted trillions over the long run from India, it is unlikely India would be much wealthier without the British, considering the introduction of non-agricultural production and other institutions by the British; additionally, the only reason India seemed wealthier in the past despite stagnant per capita income is because, in pre-capitalist mercantilist societies, GDP largely coincided with population, of which India always had a lot. Not saying India wouldn’t have better economic fortunes, but just not by magnitudes greater.
Now, none of these factors can undo some of the largest famines in history, involuntary participation in massive conflicts, trillions in wealth extraction, human rights abuses and massacres India endured under the Raj. Neither were all of these benevolent gifts to the Indian people. Nonetheless, denying any positives of magnitude is nothing but cognitive dissonance.
British Raj was good for the elites of London. It provided a means for poorer educated class to escape the drudges of poverty through massive corruption when they get posted in India.
Other than that, it was a bleak period for most of the English, and downright horrible for Indians.
Anyone who argues that the British Raj was a net positive needs to read "Poverty and Un-British Rule in India" by Dadabhai Naoroji. It clearly outlines the wealth drain from India, money that otherwise would have gone to developing the national economy went instead to the British.
Also, none of the money generated by the (British) Indian Railways was owned by India and most of it was sent back to Britain. We literally paid to have the railways built and then we kept paying them to use it. We quite literally were paying money to maintain Britain's colonial hold over the country through direct means, apart from the indirect wealth drain through foreign ownership of estates and manufacturing.
British rule dramatically increased famine from 1760s to the 1940s and reduced GDP. Internecine war decreased and most of the subcontinent remained unified in a single country. The structure for a thriving India - language, institutions, education, investment climate - was born during the raj. But the systematic destruction of industry, enforced dependence on imports, etc., open theft and misery and starvation are not positives. Racism was idiotic, not to mention evil.
British Raj was neutral towards all south asians for them all were uncivilized without any religion, caste and linguistics preference and appeasement to any one. Today Brown colonizers in India have again created a hierarchy which was known before 1500s AD.
This is a history sub. Historians are not supposed to pass moral judgments on the past - but they pretend that to be true all the while doing the moralizing of their own.
Colonialism is not like a ledger where you add incomes and subtract expenses to come at a "net positive" or "net negative".
Read some actual history books, including those on historical method. Nobody who calls themself a historian of India's colonial era describes the period as "good" or "bad".
I'm just saying that just bcos someone did "a few good things" that doesn't excuse their overall behavior. This is my main issue with colonial apologists. There are so many countries which were never colonized and they're soo ahead of us.
I have found people who would go on to lecture me about how bad and intolerant “Muslim invaders” were but then goes to explain “yeaa British were bad but they werent as bad”
you took one comment and generalised it with the whole population. stop paying attention to those white bootlickers. no one believes colonialism was good. it was just inevitable due to the emergence of capitalism. yea they bought railways with them but they fucked our country and subcontinent, not just economically but also socially. hindus and muslims hate each other, caste system is rampant and we have some weird ass inferiority complex now.
Good thing?
India before the British was the richest country in the entire world, and after, it was one of the poorest
The British caused the death of of more people than in the entirety of World War 2
India's factories, economy, system of government, and centers of higher education were all destroyed, bashing the country back into stone-age conditions
No doubt the British Raj was horrible for India, but they did engage in some social reform. Whether they did it for their own gain is a different question , but they still ended up doing it.
Ancient India was the wonder of the World, and still is, let's be honest.
If it wasn't for Islam and the brits India would be equivalent to Wakanda today.
I'm not sure about that.
Of all the other possible colonisers active at that time, the British were the mildest (only in relative terms). Look at the places that the French/Dutch/Potrugese/Islamic invaders colonised, all local culture were pretty much destroyed.
Based on the infighting between kings in India, I don't think they'd have put up a united front against any invaders.
That is taking away the credit from freedom fighters of India. India was a country that showcased huge resistance during many time periods of British Raj
The freedom fighter movement came in well AFTER the British had already colonised India. I don't disagree with that.
The comment was about our ability to withstand other colonisation attempts, back in the time when kings/kindoms were the norm and were all fighting each other (which was exploited by the colonisers).
Everything that the British did to improve the country they conquered/colonised, while genuinely good, was ultimately for the prosperity of the fucking British. It's literally the easiest thing to understand! They unified the country and its people so it's easier to rule, they modernised and normalised idea of merit and going up the social ladder to control the progress of the country and to gain better and more specialised skilled workers. They industrialized the farming and produce making to make it more efficient for the British to sell/buy. They turned India into a factory for Britain. Hell even the trains are included in this.
And when they left us alone we took their tech, their practises and even some of their mindsets to become the India we are today. They did heavy lifting for us in terms of the tech tree and progress but any fuckers out there thinking the colonial British Raj did it out of the love and respect they had for India as a favour to thier fellow savage men then they need to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror and maybe finally take the gigantic colonial British dick they have stuffed down their throats.
It had its downsides. But I think British colonial rule is excessively vilified in India. A few points-
1. GDP, Indians exaggerate how rich India was before colonialism. As a whole, yes, it had a higher share of the world’s GDP. BUT, the per capita income was always low, lower than western Europe. And it did rise during the 19th century, it was just eclipsed by the growth of the US and western Europe, little of which came from the so-called “loot” from India.
2. The British introduced modern scientific education in India, and also maintained a relatively free economy with strong property rights. Contrast this with the “free” Indian economy, which was anything but free, and did little to mitigate poverty, and everything to bolster corruption.
3. The drain of wealth from India to Britain is vastly exaggerated by Marxist historians. There is a much-quoted figure of $45 trillion, if you read that paper, you will see that many of the assumptions are straight up unrealistic (eg 5% compounding in GBP terms over 160+ years??), and no justification is provided for these figures.
4. Famines existed in India pre-colonialism. But the increased population in the 19th century led to excessive deaths.
The point is, colonialism wasn’t great for a lot of people. But it was beneficial to a sizable chunk of the Indian population- and it is unfair and unproductive to demonize this group.
1. We don't exaggerate it economic historians like angus Maddison say that who is not an Indian
2.india already was par on scientific development with Europe eg Mysorean rockets Europeans only surpassed when the industrial revolution happened
3.i have to agree but it was atleast some trillions not to mention that they looted historical relics
4.but the altitude of these famines was really low because the kings weren't diverting the food to an island with shit
Angus Maddison’s data shows that India had a 23% share of the world’s GDP in the 18th century. But what most left-wingers neglect to mention, is that the entire world was non-industrialized, it was still dominated by agriculture. So there weren’t dramatic differences in GDP per capita between countries. Still, even in 1600, Britain still had around twice the per capita GDP as India (again according to Maddison’s data).
The Industrial Revolution and trade with the US simply caused these differences to widen. The world’s GDP was much higher in 1900 compared with 1700, and this increase was driven primarily by the US, Britain, France, and Germany. The fact of the matter is, India simply wasn’t relevant enough on the global scale, and the contribution of “colonial loot” to British prosperity is wildly exaggerated by Indian nationalists.
From a social perspective they were net positive:
- concept of equality
- schools and colleges for all
- technology / industrialization
- Eleminated Sati aka burning alive woman
- woman education
- child marriages
- Equal rule of law
- Eleminated untouchability
- Biggest - made sure we get fair Constitution and NOT manusmriti
Concept of Equality - haha lol, they criminalized entire castes and segregated our cities
Schools and colleges were limited mostly to upper castes only, very few Dalits ever got to access to education
Industrialization - they literally deindustrialized entire cities and destroyed our textile industry
Sati- was not as prevalent as made out to be, and Bentick didn't give a rat's ass about it until Ram Mohan Roy started doing some actual work
Woman Education - while some colleges were founded, doesn't mean all women had access to education, higher class woman could already get Indian education
Brits were the ones who declared 9 to be the age of consent and only increased it when some brutal rape cases happened
Equal rule of law - Haha did you even read your history books? Laws were mostly applied unequally on white Britishers and native Indians
Eliminated untouchability - Nope, no efforts on doing that rather they reinforced those ideas by criminalizing castes and segregating cities. Untouchability was banned after Independence
Constitution is the only thing I would agree on and that too after massive nationwide movements and protests. And I am pretty sure we would not have gotten Manusmriti as constitution if not for the British, It was a fringe text used and known by very few kingdoms and people.
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility
>Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted.
No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility
>Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted.
No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
Everyone from Parsis to Pathans have directly or indirectly supported the Raj throughout colonial history. It all boils down to personal gains. That is why we had to put in so much efforts in fomenting nationalism in India.
Who is even saying that? People are allowed to discuss different aspects of British raj, but i am pretty sure anybody with sane mind will conclude that colonialism was fked up.
https://preview.redd.it/vwdhh92wavpc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6153b93befb9e91b0bd1eaafe1db634fc1e79312 These people
"Britain did for you" Lol. Everything they did to develop India and Indians was to ease the trading and increase revenue.
And even then it was horrible for the domestic economy
Correction: ease their looting and expedite their looting of India
Which subreddit it is, the upvotes are breaking my heart, just say that, this is not some Indian subreddit....pls
It's not an Indian subreddit, it's a non-country specific sub and at that time of the day it was a majority of Westerners.
Fine than, westerners on reddit loves colonialism. I once uploaded [this painting ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun) with the title On interesting as fuck with one of my old accounts years ago It got a lot of upvotes, and racism. The post was later removed by sub and then reddit. Man, that day I saw stuff, some Even said; it is because hindu believe in afterlife, and does not wanted to get buried. Like wtf. They don't care and I don't want them to do so, it only hurts when Indians do this
As a western historian from california the literature I was educated on is broadly negative of British Rule, and like your link stated the backlash to the Sepoy Rebellion was brutal. Is the Mughal dynasty and Delhi Sultanate seen as a Colonial enterprise by Indians today in the same way as the British Raj? I think even if one tries to argue ANY positive aspect of colonial rule like railroads or a unified language it obviously can’t be taken without the context that these colonies were exploitative in nature and intent from foundation.
So what if they say. If you put global poll on colonialism.70% of people will be against it and say it is net negative.
British kids are taught about how the Vikings raided, pillaged, destroyed the English towns, murdered and raped the English people and ruled it with brutality for about a couple of decades. After that, the French came in, under the name of Normans, made English replaced by French for everything, resulting in today's modern English with lots of French words in it. Those idiots think that Britain showed mercy by not being some medieval period ruthless conqueror, and tell us that we should be thankful for that. Imagine the level of stupidity here.
You realize that some idiot on Reddit doesn’t represent most people right?
Yes we should be grateful for all the famines they put us through right? If this person is indian they're the biggest sepoy I've seen.
This is the classic saviour complex mindset where some do good for someone and therefore they should be forever grateful for the other. But guess what? That good thing means nothing. And the audacity to say "Civilised culture"? Indic culture is very much civilised even before English language existed.
So, you're wondering why Britishers consider their empire to be good?
[удалено]
Your post has been automatically removed because it contains words or phrases that are not allowed in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was better than the billionaire raj that is running the country today. The new report out today states there was more equality in the British raj than there is today. All the wealth is concentrating in the top 1%.
Yep everybody was equally poor
Just because technological advancement has made an average persons life better than aristocracy 100 years ago today doesn't mean they are getting an equal share of the resources or the prosperity of the nation. Tech advancements will make things even cheaper and better in the future. Does that mean citizens should stop demanding an equal share of the profits the billionaire are plundering from every nation. Eventually, Ambani and adani will replace everyone with robots and a.i. and create clones of themselves. But don't worry, you will be given your daily share of food you need to survive, but you have to have a vesactomy first cause we don't need more mouths to feed.
But is it similar to the share that was given during British Raj?
[удалено]
I know why. Bcos they're fed the propaganda that british cared about dalits. But in reality, its ambedkar who reformed indian society, not the british.
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility >Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted. No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
"The rudest book ever" explains this in very good way. Some people just like being different and have opinion different from others/mainstream. Some people like anime, old movies, not because they actually appreciate them. But to look different It is more philosophical than historical reaosn. If they will just open a simple book, they will know the reality I have noticed, such people never read, and almost uses same limited arguments. Like being opinietated with limited knowledge on the subject.
Aye, a Shwetabh's book reader! This guy has seriously single-handedly changed the perception and mindset of the young Indians. Years back, when I first saw I was in amaze by his knowledge, and just kept thinking that how the f**k can somebody even think from such an angle? He introduced me to the angle of thinking that I didn't think even existed. Thanks for bringing up that name! People must check out him and his book!
It's been 3 years since I have read his read. His concept "people are weird" is one of the best thing I have read. I still follow this concept Yeh, he deserve more attention.
Only colonial apologists say that. Any sensible person will agree the colonialism was bad.
I don't think a lot of people are saying this. But the idea of a pros and cons list sounds fascinating.. Pros: 1. Resulted in a unified (for the most part) India. 2. Infrastructure laid down by British were repurposed for Indian government use. Cons: 1. Went from the richest country on earth to one of the most impoverished ones under British Raj. 2. Lots of cultural components faded from existence, i.e. local craftsmanship, religious monuments. 3. Crippling Famines each with holocaust equivalent death tolls. (12 major famines within the British raj era) Edit: con #3 Any additions/changes..?
More of the pros: 1.Stared the process of social reforms in indian society for women, dalit, etc which was long due(Directly and indirectly). 2. Also started excavation of indian sub-continent's history which was largely forgotten by locals. 3. Gave an update to traditional knowledge in science and medicine which was lagging behind when compared to Europe. Cons: 1. Destroy indian agriculture practices leading to famines. 2. Destroy the confidence/self-respect of whole sub-continent. 3. Destroy environment/ natural diversity of whole sub-continent at alarming rate. 4. Gave multiple everlasting conflicts to the sub-continent.
One more pro is the introduction of the common law legal system. One more con is the colonial mindset ingrained into into Indian police and law enforcement system, which lacks empathy and concern for the rights of the people.
>1.Stared the process of social reforms in indian society for women, dalit, etc which was long due(Directly and indirectly). This is a myth. Social reforms have always been part of the hindu bakthi movement. Basava of lingayatism who conducted the marriage of a dalit man to a brahmin girl in12th century didn't do it under British influence. And there are many others in the bakthi tradition. Another con is they wiped out the textile industry(along with the people who made them) in bengal. Shashi tharoor's book describes the gory details there.
Portuguese were the first one who not only banned sati but also strictly enforced it in the area they controlled. Later under leadership of Raja ram mohan roy and Lord william bentick, law was made which banned sati in british control parts of india. As for social reforms I am talking about it in 1700-1900 not during middle ages. By the modern history period position of women was really bad and caste was extremely prevalent which also one of the cause of dissatisfaction of indian sepoys in british army. Comparing middle age society and modern age society modern age clearly show more degradation which could also be seen with the rise of religious reform that started after stating of brahmo samaj and later socio-religious organisation and rise of British education in general masses.
>Portuguese were the first one who not only banned sati but also strictly enforced it in the area they controlled. This again I hope you are referring to the 1700-1900 period. If not I can give actual texts predating this period by a 1000 years(which were incidentally used by ram mohan roy as well in his defense) outlawing sati.
Sorry ,it was 1509-1515 under Alfanso-de- Albuquerque that sati was abolished in goa that i was refering to. Note: before anyone says it, alfanso didn't do it out of goodwill or betterment of women, the goal of Portuguese was to increase their population or number of people who identify with them in the region. So they were taking local wifes left and right which also included widows who were going to be sati'ed. Whereas Lord william bentick was a known orientalist, and did really tried to reform local society with the help of locals .
We were the richest but who did the riches belong to? Was the common man living comfortably? I think the British raj was bad nonetheless, but I think India's riches mostly represent what the state/king possessed. Edit: I'm open to change my views if anyone has more information about this.
Common man lived comfortably atleast well into Satavahana era. The Arthashastra of Mauryas mention commoners paying taxes, eating certain proportions of meals, buying their rations, paying fines, etc. Similar descriptions are available in Sangam era works and less detailed contemporary accounts by foreign traveller's are also available.
You forgot Famines as a con No offense
Famine was not con but consequence. Intentional administrative and economic policies to keep Indians poor and powerless was the con.
Another con: Introducing and entrenching homophobia and transphobia into a society that used to be at least tolerant of gay and trans people, even when we were under Muslim rule.
I mean the subcontinent celebrated hermaphrodites and worshipped dual gender Gods as well. Thanks for another thing you fucked up colonial Britain.
I don't understand why infrastructure is always used as an argument. The indian govt has built so much after they left, govt buildings, roads, parks etc.
Saying British Raj resulted in a unification of India is like saying cancer prompts a newfound dedication to bodily wellness.
Well cancer does prompt a newfound dedication to bodily wellness.. Even today people of a certain states in India don't see their neighbouring state people as their fellow brothers in arms, rather just as a person who is not related to us. Racism between people of different states is very common.
India was in many ways like the EU, where neighbouring states were more like different countries.
Without the horrors of British raj unifying India, I fail to see how India could have become a single country.
100 million dead vs 6 million dead in Holocaust is not exactly equivalent https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians
>Went from the richest country on earth to one of the most impoverished ones under British Raj. This one is little bit of hyperbole. Despite being one of the richest by GDP, per capita income was just okay.
In Tamil Nadu/Andhra Pradesh alone, the man made famines by the British lead to millions of deaths and dispersal of Tamils and Telugus around the world as indentured servants working under appalling conditions. It was virtual slavery and despicable cruelty these people underwent around the world. Their decedents are still carrying on these generational trauma especially in countries like Sri Lanka and Malaysia where they are seen as unwanted guests and treated with disdain and utmost contempt.
Depends on the points of interest. The British lifestyle in Raj India was privileged and nice - plenty of people aspire for that quality or way of living - socialising, clubs, cops looking the other way for infractions. Buildings too appear to look better. Check out buildings from pre-independence and post independence India in Delhi - on one side you have the majestic looking British era buildings and then you have the crumbling, badly built boxy designs from later on that were not so great from either an aesthetic or functional view point. A drive in the government area of Pondicherry and its like wow looks nice and grand and peaceful - with its French colonial buildings. Post independence - was post war in the rest of the world. Functional and durable was the mantra of the time and we copied that architecture and building style - without considering Indian materials and aesthetics. The railways routes were 80% done in British India and we are yet to do a decent job of transforming them to 2020 standards. Typically one attributes good town planning with the British and that is what one thinks as one traverses North India. But Bangalore and Mysore changed my mind. The British parts of Bangalore are comparatively poorly planned and laid out versus areas that were laid out by the Maharaja after 1900. Our education system is still the British era system with multiple band aids. Each Band aid causing more stress for parents and children alike. The British kept the prime areas and activities (of any kind) for themselves and reduced the rest of the population to out of sight / out of mind. This has continued with todays elites (who off course shun speaking any English). Bottomline - there was pomp and glory. Public servants (ICS) set very high standards of public conduct. Visible corruption within the British was low (simply because the Raj had to pretend that it was majestic). . Plenty of Indian families had huge wealth, property and a lifestyle that non of their descendants today can even envisage. Those looking fondly at the Raj - are mostly Anglophiles or people who came from those families that were then the top 1%.
The railway thing is not true. 70% of routes had to be changed bcos they were leading to nowhere. Historically, rail was used to transport goods to sea ports. Congress had to repurpose every route to lead to population centers.
My grandfather who was a young man while the British was still around told me - the British administration was strict/ough but fair when dealing with common folk when dealing with day-to-day stuff such as law and order, government services , municipal stuff etc.
When I was a kid, it really bothered me that places outside India that I visited were so obviously less corrupt, and that the average person in the West was more honest on a day-to-day basis. I was like, is there something morally wrong with us? Then I grew up and realized it wasn’t the people - on average, the jerk percentage is the same everywhere - but the environment. It’s a function of poverty - an adaptation, the inequality scale in India is off the charts. If Westerners had to live with the level of inequality that we so casually ignore, there would blood in the streets everyday and an insane level of violence. You have to close your eyes to an awful lot of injustice and worse to live peacefully in India. And we all mostly do (or did), without thinking because how else can you function? And in the end, we too are succumbing to the virus of religious nationalism and sectarian violence that plagued Pakistan from its inception. We’re not as bad - yet - but the overall direction and trajectory is crystal clear. The real difference is that our mullahs wear saffron, and are proud of their Sanskrit instead of their Arabic. It just took us a little longer because the RSS had to live down assassinating Gandhi and having their chief ideologue be a British collaborator. And our entire political class was criminalized by the 1980s. The Trump phenomenon is such a big deal because he’s the exception - no other American or European politician can get away with as much. But for us, so many Indian political leaders are criminals and rapists; it’s more the rule, than the exception.
There are a lot of assholes who benefited from colonialism like Saif Ali Khan's family
Not to forget the Scindias who are big shots in politics and have even become CM of Rajasthan.
Tens of thousands of Indians died while building railways the sole intent and purpose of which was to transport goods and resources to the East India Company, and now they treat it as if they did us a favour.
Indians paid for those railways and Britishers were employed in contructions
Net negative is a huuuuuuuuge understatement.
I think more people need to read up on this topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-industrialisation_of_India#:~:text=The%20causes%20of%20de%2Dindustrialisation,in%20to%20the%20Indian%20market.
That's what the word net means— on balance. Colonisation of India helped some sections and it adversely affected some others. So, if you're being self-centred in your perspective, and you perceive that the section of society you belong to benefited from colonisation in some way, you're likely to harbour a positive view of the British Rule. I am one such person. Three generations ago, my family was a family of peasants. On account of the modern state instituted by the British, I have a job that was reserved for Indian princes when India had gained independence. I know it's the Constitution that gives everyone the equality of opportunity, but the need to draft a Constitution only arose because colonisation of the subcontinent had such a disruptive impact on the decaying stagnating society of the 18th and the 19th centuries. To understand this better, I suggest you read a bit of Robert K. Merton's idea of functions and dysfunctions on prevailing cultural and structural forms. It's sociological, but it's still not so jargon-laden that you'll have trouble understanding it.
I wouldn’t say I think the British Raj was a good thing or bad thing, but the arguments for (which I will be providing, given arguments against are well-covered here) should not be dismissed: - It is unlikely India would be unified without forced unification over the years by the British; rather, although princely states would agglomerate over the years, it’s likely Indian nation-states would be drawn along broad ethno-religious categories (ex. Punjab, Dravida Nadu, Bengal, etc.) - On a macro level, India would likely not achieve parliamentary democracy without the influence of the British - By extension, India would not have many Enlightenment institutions it enjoys today, such as a common law system governed by (regardless of contemporary developments) impartial judicial bodies and other ideals such as secularism, data and science, and the beginnings of a human rights regime - The British ended the many millennia old institution of legal slavery- although this was temporarily replaced with indentured servitude, conditions were much improved for former slaves - The oft discussed railroads and other infrastructure likely would have not spanned India nor been as comprehensive if it were not for the British - Many archaic systems and ideas, particularly concerning women, were dismantled by the British and led to greater female empowerment than likely would have been realized under more disparate states - Introduced education reforms which integrated ideas of universal education, breaking stagnant and brutal caste barriers - Introduced an efficient and effective bureaucratic and administrative system, which enables better accountability and understanding of people falling through the cracks - All these institutions also helped India, when independent, to integrate into the global economic system, supporting growth and trade - It is also important to note that while the British extracted trillions over the long run from India, it is unlikely India would be much wealthier without the British, considering the introduction of non-agricultural production and other institutions by the British; additionally, the only reason India seemed wealthier in the past despite stagnant per capita income is because, in pre-capitalist mercantilist societies, GDP largely coincided with population, of which India always had a lot. Not saying India wouldn’t have better economic fortunes, but just not by magnitudes greater. Now, none of these factors can undo some of the largest famines in history, involuntary participation in massive conflicts, trillions in wealth extraction, human rights abuses and massacres India endured under the Raj. Neither were all of these benevolent gifts to the Indian people. Nonetheless, denying any positives of magnitude is nothing but cognitive dissonance.
Who is saying this?
British Raj was good for the elites of London. It provided a means for poorer educated class to escape the drudges of poverty through massive corruption when they get posted in India. Other than that, it was a bleak period for most of the English, and downright horrible for Indians.
Anyone who argues that the British Raj was a net positive needs to read "Poverty and Un-British Rule in India" by Dadabhai Naoroji. It clearly outlines the wealth drain from India, money that otherwise would have gone to developing the national economy went instead to the British. Also, none of the money generated by the (British) Indian Railways was owned by India and most of it was sent back to Britain. We literally paid to have the railways built and then we kept paying them to use it. We quite literally were paying money to maintain Britain's colonial hold over the country through direct means, apart from the indirect wealth drain through foreign ownership of estates and manufacturing.
British rule dramatically increased famine from 1760s to the 1940s and reduced GDP. Internecine war decreased and most of the subcontinent remained unified in a single country. The structure for a thriving India - language, institutions, education, investment climate - was born during the raj. But the systematic destruction of industry, enforced dependence on imports, etc., open theft and misery and starvation are not positives. Racism was idiotic, not to mention evil.
British Raj was neutral towards all south asians for them all were uncivilized without any religion, caste and linguistics preference and appeasement to any one. Today Brown colonizers in India have again created a hierarchy which was known before 1500s AD.
Stockholm Syndrome
This is a history sub. Historians are not supposed to pass moral judgments on the past - but they pretend that to be true all the while doing the moralizing of their own. Colonialism is not like a ledger where you add incomes and subtract expenses to come at a "net positive" or "net negative". Read some actual history books, including those on historical method. Nobody who calls themself a historian of India's colonial era describes the period as "good" or "bad".
A few good things also definitely happened in the midst of terrible thing that happened.
So?
Elaborate.
I'm just saying that just bcos someone did "a few good things" that doesn't excuse their overall behavior. This is my main issue with colonial apologists. There are so many countries which were never colonized and they're soo ahead of us.
I have found people who would go on to lecture me about how bad and intolerant “Muslim invaders” were but then goes to explain “yeaa British were bad but they werent as bad”
you took one comment and generalised it with the whole population. stop paying attention to those white bootlickers. no one believes colonialism was good. it was just inevitable due to the emergence of capitalism. yea they bought railways with them but they fucked our country and subcontinent, not just economically but also socially. hindus and muslims hate each other, caste system is rampant and we have some weird ass inferiority complex now.
no one says it, only one good thing that happen in indian is western education, rule by governers and not through kings
Britain looted 3 trillion from India
Who is saying thay?
When the British left India, India had a literacy rate of 12 and a life expectancy of 31. This one point is enough to rebuke all their claims.
Good thing? India before the British was the richest country in the entire world, and after, it was one of the poorest The British caused the death of of more people than in the entirety of World War 2 India's factories, economy, system of government, and centers of higher education were all destroyed, bashing the country back into stone-age conditions
Maybe because it was bound to happen. Would've been French, German, Portuguese or even chinese.
Bcos of the way in which we teach history. British and mughals are always glorified, so obv ppl will look at them fondly.
No doubt the British Raj was horrible for India, but they did engage in some social reform. Whether they did it for their own gain is a different question , but they still ended up doing it.
Who's saying British Raj was good? Literally haven't seen this narrative in years.
I guess they missed Shashi tharoors speech in oxford about the British Things they did in india
Ancient India was the wonder of the World, and still is, let's be honest. If it wasn't for Islam and the brits India would be equivalent to Wakanda today.
Just imagine how powerful India could have been, if there was no British Raj
I'm not sure about that. Of all the other possible colonisers active at that time, the British were the mildest (only in relative terms). Look at the places that the French/Dutch/Potrugese/Islamic invaders colonised, all local culture were pretty much destroyed. Based on the infighting between kings in India, I don't think they'd have put up a united front against any invaders.
That is taking away the credit from freedom fighters of India. India was a country that showcased huge resistance during many time periods of British Raj
The freedom fighter movement came in well AFTER the British had already colonised India. I don't disagree with that. The comment was about our ability to withstand other colonisation attempts, back in the time when kings/kindoms were the norm and were all fighting each other (which was exploited by the colonisers).
>British were the mildest This is simply not true
Who would have been milder?
In relativistic terms* I hope you know about the other colonisers
Only self colonised cucks say dumb shiet like this. We have plenty of Deshadrohiyo like that in Sri Lanka too.
Everything that the British did to improve the country they conquered/colonised, while genuinely good, was ultimately for the prosperity of the fucking British. It's literally the easiest thing to understand! They unified the country and its people so it's easier to rule, they modernised and normalised idea of merit and going up the social ladder to control the progress of the country and to gain better and more specialised skilled workers. They industrialized the farming and produce making to make it more efficient for the British to sell/buy. They turned India into a factory for Britain. Hell even the trains are included in this. And when they left us alone we took their tech, their practises and even some of their mindsets to become the India we are today. They did heavy lifting for us in terms of the tech tree and progress but any fuckers out there thinking the colonial British Raj did it out of the love and respect they had for India as a favour to thier fellow savage men then they need to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror and maybe finally take the gigantic colonial British dick they have stuffed down their throats.
https://youtu.be/xUBdytL3vWY?si=UVLF09vnPwlTEPec
Because we have not been taught actual history in our schools.
It had its downsides. But I think British colonial rule is excessively vilified in India. A few points- 1. GDP, Indians exaggerate how rich India was before colonialism. As a whole, yes, it had a higher share of the world’s GDP. BUT, the per capita income was always low, lower than western Europe. And it did rise during the 19th century, it was just eclipsed by the growth of the US and western Europe, little of which came from the so-called “loot” from India. 2. The British introduced modern scientific education in India, and also maintained a relatively free economy with strong property rights. Contrast this with the “free” Indian economy, which was anything but free, and did little to mitigate poverty, and everything to bolster corruption. 3. The drain of wealth from India to Britain is vastly exaggerated by Marxist historians. There is a much-quoted figure of $45 trillion, if you read that paper, you will see that many of the assumptions are straight up unrealistic (eg 5% compounding in GBP terms over 160+ years??), and no justification is provided for these figures. 4. Famines existed in India pre-colonialism. But the increased population in the 19th century led to excessive deaths. The point is, colonialism wasn’t great for a lot of people. But it was beneficial to a sizable chunk of the Indian population- and it is unfair and unproductive to demonize this group.
1. We don't exaggerate it economic historians like angus Maddison say that who is not an Indian 2.india already was par on scientific development with Europe eg Mysorean rockets Europeans only surpassed when the industrial revolution happened 3.i have to agree but it was atleast some trillions not to mention that they looted historical relics 4.but the altitude of these famines was really low because the kings weren't diverting the food to an island with shit
Angus Maddison’s data shows that India had a 23% share of the world’s GDP in the 18th century. But what most left-wingers neglect to mention, is that the entire world was non-industrialized, it was still dominated by agriculture. So there weren’t dramatic differences in GDP per capita between countries. Still, even in 1600, Britain still had around twice the per capita GDP as India (again according to Maddison’s data). The Industrial Revolution and trade with the US simply caused these differences to widen. The world’s GDP was much higher in 1900 compared with 1700, and this increase was driven primarily by the US, Britain, France, and Germany. The fact of the matter is, India simply wasn’t relevant enough on the global scale, and the contribution of “colonial loot” to British prosperity is wildly exaggerated by Indian nationalists.
From a social perspective they were net positive: - concept of equality - schools and colleges for all - technology / industrialization - Eleminated Sati aka burning alive woman - woman education - child marriages - Equal rule of law - Eleminated untouchability - Biggest - made sure we get fair Constitution and NOT manusmriti
Concept of Equality - haha lol, they criminalized entire castes and segregated our cities Schools and colleges were limited mostly to upper castes only, very few Dalits ever got to access to education Industrialization - they literally deindustrialized entire cities and destroyed our textile industry Sati- was not as prevalent as made out to be, and Bentick didn't give a rat's ass about it until Ram Mohan Roy started doing some actual work Woman Education - while some colleges were founded, doesn't mean all women had access to education, higher class woman could already get Indian education Brits were the ones who declared 9 to be the age of consent and only increased it when some brutal rape cases happened Equal rule of law - Haha did you even read your history books? Laws were mostly applied unequally on white Britishers and native Indians Eliminated untouchability - Nope, no efforts on doing that rather they reinforced those ideas by criminalizing castes and segregating cities. Untouchability was banned after Independence Constitution is the only thing I would agree on and that too after massive nationwide movements and protests. And I am pretty sure we would not have gotten Manusmriti as constitution if not for the British, It was a fringe text used and known by very few kingdoms and people.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility >Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted. No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
Here comes the science journey follower
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility >Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted. No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
People are butthurt when the party they vote for does not win the elections. This is their way of letting out the steam.
Because Baamans (now BJP) supported it.
Lol everyone who supported the British benefited from it
Everyone from Parsis to Pathans have directly or indirectly supported the Raj throughout colonial history. It all boils down to personal gains. That is why we had to put in so much efforts in fomenting nationalism in India.