British Raj; was it good or bad for India?

STOP IT
WE STOPPED THEM FROM BURNING THEIR WIVES
RIGHT AFTER WE LEGALIZED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE

bad
they destroyed proud indian culture, like the widow burning

burn mind

Germanboo detected, jealous that you never had a real empire there is no place in the sun for you.

We have an Empire right now
And you are gonna vote to remain our subject, like the cuck you are

I'm British myself.

Just telling the truth, whilst the Raj was good for Britain, it was shit for Indians.

Some good, mostly bad to neutral.

There's a reason why it was called the jewel of the crown.

It was enourmously succesful, as long as you picture India the way it was pictured during colonial times by the British; a gigantic explotaition colony from.where to suck off the very life out of it.

Things about "indian people", "progress", "better life", "local economic growth", etc were not even part of the vocabulary of the British administration.

The Dutch in Indonesia, on the other hand while being focused on profit ofc, also promoted some western-enlightenment measures to improve the life, education and well being of the indos, and developed as well infrastructure and a local economic network not as much related to the needs of the colonial Metropoli as to the interest of the colony in itself.

Is it true that the British provided all the vaccines and medicines that further pushed India's population? I guess that's a pretty good thing.

How is the increase of the Indian population in any way a good thing? India's over population issue is an environmental disaster.

So basically the brits were to India what the iberians were to latin america.

India isn't overpopulated, the rest of the world just needs to sort themselves out.

Good for Britain mixed at best for India

Wait until you see the laws in colonial British Africa.

Total mess

The Iberian colonies were wealthy and successful under European rule

That wholely depends on what you deem to be 'good' for India. In modern humanitarian terms it was awful. Abhorrent in practice. In ecanomic terms it was a godsend for the subcontinent (whilst some other nations, specifically the Dutch may have done better it was an improvement from what it had been). Demographically the area was changed completely. The boarders that resulted are still fluctuating so its neither here nor there on if that is good or bad.

Regardless of the many atrocities committed by the British in India they still united the entire subcontinent. Something that had not been done previously by anybody and did away with the feudal conflict that had stifled development before. Now all Indians are united (disregarding the pakis and other pakis) under one nation. India separate would have nowhere near the amount of global power it has today.

Famines where common place in India throughout recorded history. They where even expected by the population which is why some grain was always placed in reserve to provide relief if a famine was to arrive. Upon the East India Company's arrival, this was not really understood. They didn't know the climate nor fully understand how common famine was. In short, they sold the grain reserves for profit and low and behold, a famine wiped out two million people. This was not done out of malice rather incompetence. Now later famines where not relieved by the crown for different reasons however I do not believe they where perpetuated in contempt. This does however not excuse what happened.

Due to Britain's early start in the industrial revolution (partly caused by India) infrastructure was brought to the area far before most places in Asia. This improved productive capacity massively and paved the way for India's ecanomic success post Raj. This is an undeniable benefit as it allowed India to keep up with the industrial might of Maoist China after the great leap forward and today.

Cont...

>In ecanomic terms it was a godsend for the subcontinent
TOP KEK

Are you telling me they would be better if left alone?

Yes, absolutely.

Indians weren't backwards savages, they had their own domestic industry that Britain deliberately destroyed.

Cont'd

Economically, the European system that replaced the systems held by the princely kingdoms before it allowed India's vast workforce to challenge Europe even into the industrial era. The British system, was very flawed. Incredibly so. It was less unified and protectionist than its Dutch counterpart, which inhibited ecanomic growth and limited profits however it was still considerably better than the systems that where present prior to Britain's arrival which worked primarily to make the prince rich, the army strong and little more. The ecanomic system put in place by the raj was specifically for export of goods however. This limited indias ecanomic growth like many other post colonial nations in the latter part of the 20th century.

Militarily a united India is far more effective than a fractured one. With a vast population for manpower and modernised weaponry, the British Raj was a massive military force in Asia and whilst it was losing somewhat to Japan, this was not the fault of the Raj but of the overextended British empire and incompetence of its leaders.

Diplomatically, India has benefited from a largely English speaking population making it easy for its population to engage in world trade as well as membership in the commonwealth which provides further trade benefits. It's fighting with Pakistan (the fault of the empire) has not yet ceased however.

Britain's protectionist policies towards India did harm it's overall productive capacity and did in one way or another increase poverty however the implementation of infrastructure was far more benifical in the long run.

I wouldn't say so.

China wasn't much better off than India back in the late 1700s, yet now they're lightyears ahead of them. I would say that if India was left alone it would be much closer to China's level of development by now.

China was by no means left alone, massive soviet intervention post world war two and countless millions of deaths brought the nation into a position of industrial strongman in a short period of time. With no soviet intervention and no communist history the nation would be largely agricultural, modernising but slowely.

India largely lacked in a good ecanomic system post Raj to increase ecanomic output and profits for itself as a nation. The system it has been left with albeit by the British was that of an export economy. It was very effective at exporting materials and other goods but not much else. That system is still being dismantled however I do see India overtaking China in production capacity and economic strength once a new system if fully implemented. And largely this is due to infrastructure and trade agreements attributable to the British.

Who would unite India? I doubt a bunch of sultanates and rajput cities would have been THAT productive compared to a united india.

Probably the Marathas.
>productive compared to a united india.
Yes, even if unification failed it would still be just as big but it would be divided. And perhaps that might even be better.

Lmao

China was worse than India in 1990.

An Indian confederacy would be better.

They did unite the sub continent more or less under one banner and more importantly laid down the infrastructure to keep it knit together with the rails. While the direct economy was reduced to raw material production, one could argue the English laid the groundwork for a rapid boom.

Actually many Indian Princes and private businesses contributed very heavily to the infrastructure.

What's your first language?

India is nearly a region

was good
t. actual pajeet and not butthurt diaspora

I believe I am qualified to hold forth on this subject.

India post Independance was one of the poorest countries per capita in the entire world at the time (and that's saying something).

India now is still shit, but far less shit than it used to be. That's not to say British colonization was entirely bad for India, but it did far better after Independance than before it.

>soviet intervention actually helped (something unheard of in history)
>the millions of deaths from the cultural revolution and great leap forward weren't an economic disaster for the country

It was Western capital that allowed China to develop, something that India rejected until 1990.

also, the example of Taiwan (as well as Hong Kong and maybe Singapore) disagrees with your predictions on the pace of modernization. All the non-communist Sinitic East Asian countries managed to modernize rapidly after WWII (including Japanese reconstruction), China would have been no different if the commies hadn't won the civil war.

China is much huger though and spread out.

>China would have been no different if the commies hadn't won the civil war.

Not him, but I doubt the KMT would have been much better. They were an incredibly backwards, corrupt, infighting lot, and honestly Chiang's rule during the 30s was more akin to a feudal monarch demanding tribute from his vassals on occasion than anything resembling a modern nation.

If the KMT had somehow come out on top, I would think that another round of civil war was likely after Chiang's death.

KMT did well in in Taiwan and, contrary to popular perception, did decently in the Mainland before the Japanese invasion despite political instability.

Pros:
- United all of South Asia for the first time in history
- Built infrastructure that's still used today
- Ended dreadful Hindu practices

Cons:
- A few massacres

Feel free to add more.

>German empire
>Every single nation has a veto on the council and commission including memes like malta, luxembourg and cyprus
>Only have about 100/750 MEPs

when will this meme end, the EU is not a german empire

KMT didn't have an unstable and shifting network of semi-independent warlords to deal with on Taiwan.

And while they did add stuff, the transportation network was still horrible and most industrial traffic went along by canal, they somehow managed to stumble into famines, and the wholesale repression of most intellectual classes speaks ill for their ability to continue developing.

Plus, I really do think that they'd have another round of civil war somewhere down the line, although that's not a fact I can prove, which would likely erase most if not all of their gains.

not yet. aber deutschland wird seinen platz an der sonne haben desu

this is a BS analysis because you have no consideration of opportunity cost

if you assume that NOTHING would have happened in history if it didn't happen exactly the way it did, then sure, everything would be shit today if anything were changed.

in order to have some sense of what India could have achieved, be best data is to consider India's trajectory before the presence of the Raj.

The British argued that India would become a Brahmanocracy without their presence, which was BS and displays complete misunderstanding of the nature of Hindu culture.

In the caste system Brahmans were specifically chosen as the intellectuals and priests because they would serve as arbiters in all legal and spiritual matters. You don't have Kings and Generals interpret the law, you need an independent agency with minimal distraction in terms of need for material wealth; which is why the lower castes existed to support the Brahmans.

As far as the worst elements of Hindu culture, including caste system, they were outlawed following India regaining sovreignity, and India still stuggles with untouchable discrimination today, that was not eradicated.

Efforts to reform Hinduism have always originated from within India itself; there was no need of colonial input let alone subjgation of Indians.

There was no need to subjugate Indians, India today is a secular constitutional democracy and Indians strive for modernity for their children same as every other country.

India became overpopulated during its time as a British colony, as population growth continued same as in England except economic growth stagnated. At its worst, there was a mass famine in India roughly once per decade. Yet there has not been a single famine since independence. India was left an almost entirely illiterate, starving, backward, divided country by the colonialists.

>yeah but that would happen under any colonial regime at least now they speak English.
that's doubtful, most colonial powers didn't have the resources the UK did to lay claim to vast areas of Asia for long.

The UK's exceptional maritime strength made sustaining its sort of empire possible

>they destroyed proud indian culture, like the widow burning

sati was a voluntary practice for a wife to show devotion to husband on his deathbed.
it is based on a mythology wherein the wife is so ashamed at the defeat of her husband by a man in battle she takes her own life.

it gained prevalence among Kshatrya caste during Islamic invasion because muslim conquest meant they would be allowed to take the wives and children of the defeated as slaves.

It probably continued in prevalence during the Raj because desparate poverty and no means for a widow to support herself following her husband's death.

The practice was corrupted by forced burningS. Indian philosophies speak out against the practice long before presence of the Raj.

I don't think without the Raj we would still have Sat today.

>DUDE INFRASTRUCTURE LMAO XD
>DUDE WIFE BURNING
They completely destroyed the native Indian industry, and believe it or not you fucking autist, but not everyone needs to be united. India would have been far better left as a group of disparate princely states
And a couple massacres is more than enough to make it not worth it

The only time India attempted unification was under emperor Ashoka and the Mughals that fought with each other but failed to unite India.

In both cases they were militaries commanded by non-Hindus.

Indian military tradition is based on Kshatrya caste. they are forbidden from pillaging, plundering, or taking slaves upon conquest. The only purpose to combat is it was a caste obligation to Kshatrya; doesn't matter the cost.

In Vedic era India it was common for two kings to fight a war without any territorial gain or loss and conclude by reaffirming friendship.

Hindu Kings were not interested in world empire. But most modern day Indians understand the importance of working together against competition from foreign powers.
Most will agree there needs to be some centralized institutional framework for cooperation between Indian states.

India was the richest country in the world before brit shits ruined it

Hello, Panjeet Dikshit.

Good. There wouldn't be a unified India now if not for the Raj so that alone outweighs all other issues.

India isn't unified Pakistan and Bangladesh were separated

Hello, /pol/

economic*

>Pakistan and Bangladesh were separated

That's because they don't consider themselves Indian. The Raj had areas in places like Burma, doesn't mean they were ever truly part of India.

Pakistan literally has the Indus river which India is named after

Marathas divided it more.
As I recall, they were the ones who brought back the caste system.
Quality of Life was worse during their rule.

it's the only way that landmass would have been unified. the mughals would have broken up.

depends on whether you think a reasonably unified india or the 4 successor states are a good or bad thing.

The practice of burning wives started in the mughal era and pre mughal era because they used to take away any widowed non muslim woman and add her to their harem

The caste system was always there, it's just that prior to them the Mughals were in power who were Muslim and thus did not endorse the caste system.

This.

Indians always use the "its da british fault".

It's not. India is shit because of Indians. They are unable to build a country. The poorest nation in the world in 1945 was South Korea, not India.

India is poor because it's full of retarded Indians who are scared of the toilet witch.

And England is named after a region in northern Germany. Doesn't mean shit.

No it isn't

England is named after the Angles

>We have an Empire right now
an empire you will loose in a couple of years regardless of whether the UK stays or goes

his point still stands