Umm... how did India benefit from British colonialism again????

tfw tumblrfag uses a long debunked quote.

Here you go. All your points addressed. Don't let the title deter you, the guy doesn't really want reparations (and neither do Indians).
youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

The important part is between when Britain started conquering India and when Britain left India.

Under British rule, India was stagnant.

I think it would be ridiculous to say that India didn't benefit from colonisation but its controversial like all things. India went shit after Britain left because they adopted an isolationist near communist economic policy. Only after they dropped that in the early 90s did the boom start.

An English aristocrat with poor grammar who praises India, confuses cause and effect ("We will be able to administer a country after we completely replace its educational system,") thinks that drinking urine is not necessarily such a bad idea, and presumably also works for a call centre offering tech support. Sounds legit.

I am another user, but if the points that Indian guy brings up are true don't that make any benefits Britain may have contributed to India little else then a part of a plan to exploit the continent, like a slave owner sets up a plantation for his slaves to live at?

>Umm... how did India benefit from British colonialism again????

By growing opium there to sell in China, because at that point China basically owned Britain economically.
Without India, there is no opium, there is no opium war, Britain goes bankrupt from giving away too much silver for tea at unreasonable prices, Bismarck was right all along and colonies aren't worth it, European Union tier confederacy happens instead of WWI, Germany unites the continent and incorporates the European part of Russia into its bulk via a mix of diplomacy and war, Europe remains the world leader and the USA never raises above being a raw resources exporter, Veeky Forums is never created, we are all free men, with wives and children, eating warm dinner while listening to bad german rap on TV.

Of course there was exploitation but that wasn't all the British were there for, they considered India part of their empire and sought to develop it and Anglicise the Indians. They wouldn't have built schools, set up law and courts, infrastructure, government and such if they were only concerned with bleeding the land dry.

the feels..

>They wouldn't have set up law and courts, infrastructure, government and such if they were only concerned with bleeding the land dry.
Uh...

This makes the same mistakes as virtually all those who claim that India benefitted, which is the assumption that if the British didn't do anything to administer to India, then nothing would have happened.

India had one of the largest economies prior to colonization, and with continued trade with the outside world and competition between kingdoms, it is more than likely some infrastructure and legal reforms would have occured prior to the 1940s.

The North and South spoke different languages but why does India have to homogenize? The North and South still speak different languages today but they don't communicate with English, they almost always use Hindi, which has been influenced by Dravidian languages, even if it isn't their mother tongue. Sanskrit in general is a beautiful and precise language, and Hindi is precise as well; Indians needed English to communicate with the British eith whom they had no common linguistic footing at all.

Why the heck not? They stole something, it should be paid back. I don't expect to get repatriation, and I wouldn't want to spoil a friendship with a good country that has benefitted immensely from our common history, but we should at least have the intellectual honesty to claim India is owed something for having been recently looted and faced mass famine from whites.

The cotton gins operating in Brittain and US and Brittain (based off an American design which itself based of a variant that had been in use by Indians for centuries prior to colonialism) were essential in powering the first wave of European industrialization, for which they relied heavily on Africans who were made to work by force for whites, to compete with Indian production that otherwise dominated. Brittain banned the import of Indian cotton and saturated Indian markets with its own products during the colonial period.
Europeans owe a great debt to the cotton producers they colonized. Considering the interest on that debt it would leave white countries pennyless if they even thought to pay, so it's understandable that Europeans are sensitive defensive about this but it's questionable at what pace industrialization might have spread without India, not to mention the severe opportunity cost to India's textile industry and economy as a whole.
Thankfully we are now picking up the pieces in India, we are undeveloped but have not had a single famine after agricultural revolution following independence, and have remained one of the fastest growing economies for over a decade now.

>India is owed something for having been recently looted and faced mass famine from whites.
What have we Swedes and other non Anglo whites done against you?

Um, excuse me, Britain has given India over 12 billion pounds in "aid", about 300 million a year. India, the country with a space programme.

When Britain had colonized India, did the Indians decide how much aid to send to Britain?

So surely India should decide how much aid Britain sends to India now?

Um, excuse me, Indian has given Britain 100 million (old) pounds in "aid" during WWI. India, the country with the famines.

The problem with reparations is that they would be a complete mess. Iran would have to give north India reparations, turkey would have to pay the Greeks, the west Africans would have to pay the African Americans for selling them into slavery, the Burmese would be forced to give money to the Thais for invading them. Mongolia would owe trillions to the world. Shall the Muslims in India be forced to pay for the sacking of vijayanagar?

>Famines
India has always faced famines, during the mughal period something like 60% of the doab died from a famine, and you'll find that the locals in the princely states didn't do much better than otherwise. The famine codes implimented by the Brits in the 1880s were still in use until the 1990s I think. However the colonial policy must bear some of the blame as it was very restrictive.

You make it sound like we stole the cotton from you, instead of making plantations and paying the owners.

Oh yeah, I agree. We dominated you. I rather reject the childish idea that I am defensive. though.

Aid?
To defeat Nazis, who despite any sanskritized trappings would have exterminated you as subhuman

kys

>implying hitter ever wanted to expand in Asia

No shit. That's when British colonialism ended.

/thread

>Nazis
>Asia

This, no way I'm paying the eternal Anglo back because my viking ancestors ruined some of his shit churches, at least not until Denmark has paid back Norway for the hundreds of years of exploiting our natural resources.

I don't think there are many countries/cultures around whose ancestors didnt conquer and/or pillage at some points. Cultures rise and fall, they conquer and get conquered.

The user you reply to said WW1, not WW2.

If you genuinely believe that the nazis had no respect for non-white cultures and peoples and had goals to exterminate every non-white person on the planet, you're so fucking retarded I think you should stick to the Buzzfeed comment section.

>Umm...
Quirky memes aside...

Compare India to Japan, Central and South America, China and Thailand. Thailand was never colonialized, though the great powers no doubt interfered it was not much different to what Japan experienced. Despite gaining independence and being westernized, Central and South America did not see much growth, excluding the more temperate regions of South America. With China it is a different story, though its geography is ideal, the Taiping rebellion, instability and wars made it less desirable than Japan.

In the global economy at the time most of the population was still working in the primary sector (agriculture and mining) and there was only a limited demand for industry. Large capital investments were made in the most ideal locations with the best competitive advantage, tropical regions like Thailand couldn't compete with an area like the Kanto plain (Japan), which already had high levels of urbanization pre-industrialization.

Thailand and India experienced capital flight, successful native merchants who benefited from modernization could make more money using western banks, investing in western companies or moving somewhere like Singapore or Hong Kong.

England brought them diversity. India was other wise a hodgepodge of parallel societies until geographic continuity. Esp due to infrastructure.

>muh economy and le progress
>mfw

As I understood Sati started as a mercy kill during Islamic invasions given they were raping like westward Soviets.

It seems to me from that chart that India (India is a subcontinent btw, not a historic country) was stagnant before the British.

It seems to me you've never attended History Classes in your school

It seems to me you've never attended History Classes in your school.

I think you must mean the Indian subcontinent in general. India would simply not exist if it weren't for the British empire.

Nah he would've wiped/ rendered into a labour or slave caste any people out in the way of Germans. Slavs, Blacks in the colonies (Nambia genocide: Fuhrer strikes back) or hypothetically the parts off India they can get.

Indian rebel forces were already allied with japan and germany so I doubt that would happen.
Also hitler only had his eyes on europe

Revisionist piece of shit

If colonialism is the reason why India lagged behind, why did China do even worse?

Redditors BTFO

He's factual mate. Partition was result of forced integration brought upon by brits between peoples of Indian subcontinent.

>Oh yeah, I agree. We dominated you. I rather reject the childish idea that I am defensive. though.

I reject the buddy idea that you're my guy.

Civil war and Japan

Which only started after ww1.

Why didn't catch up during the 19th century?

Taiping rebellion, First Sino-Japanese War

and Boxer Rebellion

and Boxer rebellion

And you assume that India would have magically advanced into being a first world industralized country had it not been impeded by the British, despite its northern neighbor descending into anarchy?

Who knows, they did have stability though and good relations and maybe some royal,marriages to unite some kingdoms?

What if are useless.

18th century India is a complete mess with declining Mughals, Marathas, competing nawabs and invasions by Persians and Afghans.

To assume that it would be somehow an island of stability if Britbongs didn't show up is a complete pipedream.

No, their infrastructure were basically all built by British and not much has improved.

>No, their infrastructure were basically all built by British and not much has improved.

Lol on the latter part.
You know how much they had to spend to unify their railroad standards because of how haphazard the planning process when the rails were made or the fact they developed their own over the years?

>they did have stability though
Are you historically illiterate? The Brits arrived during the collapse of the Mughal empire.

>Lol on the latter part.
Lol about what? How is what he said not factually true?

How many railroads were there in India prior to the arrival of the British?

> To assume that it would be somehow an island of stability if Britbongs didn't show up is a complete pipedream.
It wouldn't be nearly as bad. Indians might've broken windows in their house, but it was British who set everything on fire and salted the earth afterwards.

> How many railroads were there in India prior to the arrival of the British?
How many railroads were in Braitain at the time? Oh, wait. NONE.

You are a pitiful creature, /pol/ack.

and you're making the same mistake in assuming that something would happen

still doesn't explain anything, germany among others had far more damage done upon them than china

>For the first time, India was gifted a lingua franca
>What is Sanskrit?

Is this a meme chart or is this supposed to be serious?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleton_Railway

yes, there were

Sounds fucking terrible
More dead germans the better

>britain goes bankrupt
which scifi book is this from

>It wouldn't be nearly as bad. Indians might've broken windows in their house, but it was British who set everything on fire and salted the earth afterwards.

All accounts say that the Marathas, contrary to what Hindu nationalists fabricate today, were a real-life equivalent of a horde of Orcs on a Waaaagh. Several native rulers quite voluntarily submitted to the British rule, because Britbongs offered a measure of protection against the Marathas and Afghans.

I am not saying that the Limey rule was good. Quite the contrary, Brits fucked up India good. However, it's a complete pipedream to assume that things would be certainly better without them. Rather, India was entering a period of warlordism which would very likely fuck her up even more.

still just assumptions

Hol' up

There is nothing wrong with the chart, OP is just leaping to conclusions. The left wing view of economics is incredibly oversimplified, they imagine that all economic inequality is due to exploitation.