What was the British Raj actually like?

>The industrial revolution happened after acquiring our resources.
Didn't know Belgium and Prussia had Indian colonies
>You need resources for that :^)
India is probably the most resource rich country on the planet.
>leech all the raw material out of India to mills in UK for pennies
lol, sure.
>use India as a source and a market and make no effort to grow a local industry
yep, they just built thousands of factories and miles and miles of track for the lulz
>make sure to heavily tax the Indian products and in some cases even ban them
Oh please. the indians were doing the same thing

>Sharshi Tharoor
Why would I watch this liar?

...

People always leave out the violent riots that killed innocent non-British people in Amritsar as well

>no need to be so butthurt
Huh, what made you say that?

>leech all the raw material out of India to mills in UK for pennies
This is completely wrong. Domestic British industries and the Indian raiyats were in competition with one another. The home parliament was opposed to free trade within India because it would negatively impact Manchester

>they just built thousands of factories and miles and miles of track for the lulz
The laying down of infrastructure was not a benevolent act. It was essential to transport materials and to keep a population subjugated. You really think the British got up one day and got a compassionate thought of traveling half way around the world and giving a bunch of pajeets modern industry and infrastructure?

>why would I watch this liar
Because he's pretty articulate in challenging you clearly biased views on this topic. Stop it with the name calling and address his matter.

>Because he's pretty articulate in challenging you clearly biased views on this topic. Stop it with the name calling and address his matter.
He's a fraud.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/britains-empire-matter-pride-not-guilt-indians-
>You really think the British got up one day and got a compassionate thought of traveling half way around the world and giving a bunch of pajeets modern industry and infrastructure?
Just because it wasn't benevolent doesn't make it malevolent.
Indians benefited under Empire.
If Indians want to keep getting their turbans in a twist over it then they are welcome to return the billions of pounds sunk into that shithole

>Moderneconomic historians have blamed the colonial rulefor the dismal state ofIndia's economy, investment inIndian industries was limitedsinceit was a colony.
badly written sentence, respectable economists don't blame colonialism for India's poverty.
>The railways were only built to help transfer resources from out of the country.
Yeah? and when the British had gone the Indians could have kept exporting, what do you think the British bought from India anyway? It's textiles, teas and spices, the notion that Brits excavated the wealth of India is ridiculous.
>Not to mention the British stopped building them the moment they were planning on deconolizing.
You mean they stopped improving infrastructure when their position became untenable? wow what a colonial atrocity. I bet when you have builders round you throw feaces at them then complain when they leave without finishing the job.

>You need resources for that :^)
Like what? The industrial revolution happened first and foremost in Britain because they produced a higher concentration of geniuses, I'm really sorry Isaac Newton wasn't born a furry little dalit in Mughal India, it's just not fair is it!

oops messed up link
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/britains-empire-matter-pride-not-guilt-indians-know/

>Didn't know Belgium and Prussia had Indian colonies
The industrial revolution started in britain tho

>India is probably the most resource rich country on the planet.
Which we didn't have control of at the time.
>why didn't you do it before
Well for one, technology wasnt as developed then for most of history.
And two, from 1200 to 1800 there wasn't a single peaceful moment in Indian sub-continent. It was a series of resisting invasions and struggling to keep your state independent after rebelling.

You need peace for things like that to happen. It's easy to say that stuck on a lone island which wasn't directly attacked until the 20th century.
It's like asking why there weren't any advances from Greece under the ottomans.

You seem to be taking his revisionism too seriously. Relax and stop being such a typical cringe worthy nationalist.

The industrial revolution started in 1760, when most of india was not under british control.
stop wewuzzing

>a lone island which wasn't directly attacked until the 20th century
Ever heard of Philip II?

American here

Indians are a bunch of subhuman bitches. As an American I realize the spirit and structure of our society was implanted by britain because they were the best colonizers in europe. Other european nations milked the shit out of their colonies with absolutely nothing given back so they could take it all back to their Estates in europe and enjoy high society. It was the british colonies that actually had europeans that wanted to live and build a new life in the new world, so they made "new britains" everywhere that had the qualities to succeed and thrive in the world. Just look at british colonies today compared to French or Spanish colonies, there's no comparison.

The indians are just mad they aren't badasses like Americans and couldn't take their freedom by force. They had to bitch and moan and cry about it until their colonial masters felt sorry for them, that's why they have such a whiny ungrateful culture that can't appreciate the hard lessons daddy britain taught them.

so sad they had an unfair trade relationship with you boo hooo how dare they act in their own self interest just like everyone else for all of history? If Indians actually fought for their freedom they'd be different

>The laying down of infrastructure was not a benevolent act. It was essential to transport materials and to keep a population subjugated. You really think the British got up one day and got a compassionate thought of traveling half way around the world and giving a bunch of pajeets modern industry and infrastructure?
That's not the argument. Capitalism isn't benevolent, it still creates wealth - this is exactly why India is poor, you have a primitive understanding of economics.
Read Adam Smith.
The colonial policy was to improve the infrastructure to make India more prosperous (as they would have been among the chief beneficiaries) Of-course it wasn't benevolence. Once the Brits left, Indians could have taken up the mantle but they didn't.
They languished in their stupid parochial nationalism, and listened to Gandhi's romantic policies of psuedo-collectivism and now the subcontinent is more impoverished than Africa.

> every village should be its own republic, "independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants and yet interdependent for many others in which dependence is necessary," according to Gandhi, writing in 1942. Each village should be basically self-reliant, making provision for all
necessities of life - food, clothing, clean water, sanitation, housing, education and so on, including government and self-defence, and all socially useful amenities required by a community.

This economic policy would be considered backwards in the early days of Uruk.

>Which we didn't have control of at the time.
you've had control of it for 70 years and your people still shit on the street and starve to death
Guess that's the evil bwits fault too, huh?
India could have been a superpower by 1970 under british, or even semi-competent control.
Now you have completely missed the opportunity and your population is so large and impoverished that you will NEVER be anything more than a regional power. And even in asia, China dwarfs you.

>calls Indians subhuman

>Amerifat
>60%white

Lmfao

Technically the reason they didn't let India go and let America go was how profitable India was for them, so technically India was more important than America.

>he's a fraud
Again with the name calling instead of addressing the matter.

>doesn't make it malevolent
>Jallianwala Bagh
>Bengal famine
Not malevolent at all.

>You seem to be taking his revisionism too seriously. Relax and stop being such a typical cringe worthy nationalist.
Wtf are you on? How are my posts any different from yours?

I'm 3rd Gen from England.

My great granddaddy fought in the british army during WW1, I have more connection to England than the United States family-wise. I'm Anglo as fuck: pale as snow, blue eyes and brown hair, big fucking nose, bad teeth, the whole nine yards.

Cry more shitskin

or maybe because they suck at planning rebellions? Americans chose the best time possible because they knew time would be on their side. Indians should have tried shit during WW1 or something, not our fault you guys couldn't organize and get a strong foreign ally to back you

ah, so you didn't bother reading the link
And yes, neither of those were malevolent. First was a mistake, and the bengal famine was caused by hindu merchants hoarding grain in the hopes the price would go up

>Yeah? and when the British had gone the Indians could have kept exporting, what do you think the British bought from India anyway? It's textiles, teas and spices, the notion that Brits excavated the wealth of India is ridiculous.
That was our main trade.

>ou mean they stopped improving infrastructure when their position became untenable? wow what a colonial atrocity. I bet when you have builders round you throw feaces at them then complain when they leave without finishing the job.
I was just saying it was only ever to transport large amounts of resources out of the country wew

>Like what? The industrial revolution happened first and foremost in Britain because they produced a higher concentration of geniuses, I'm really sorry Isaac Newton wasn't born a furry little dalit in Mughal India, it's just not fair is it!
Industrialisation mainly happened in Britain first because Britain was tiny compared to the other powers surrounding it so they looked into ways to save labour. This, with the resources got from Bengal later allowed it to largely get ahead. Mixing up history so my bad on kg case.

If you're being serious then no I haven't.

>The indians are just mad they aren't badasses like Americans and couldn't take their freedom by force. They had to bitch and moan and cry about it until their colonial masters felt sorry for them, that's why they have such a whiny ungrateful culture that can't appreciate the hard lessons daddy britain taught them
Our revolution was a lot more complicated compared to yours. I don't even know where to begin with this.

>If Indians actually fought for their freedom they'd be different
We did fight for our freedom? Several times.

>so sad they had an unfair trade relationship with you boo hooo how dare they act in their own self interest
Then stop saying it was a good thing for India? That's my main Point.

>muh great grand daddy fought in the British army in Le World War 1 XD

>American education

How stupid do you have to be to not realize Indians fought for Britain in World War 1? Do you feel like a special snowflake? Stay stupid cumskin snow nigger.

>they made "new britains" everywhere that had the qualities to succeed and thrive in the world. Just look at british colonies today compared to French or Spanish colonies, there's no comparison
Kek what a moron
>american
Ok now this makes sense

>Industrialisation mainly happened in Britain first because Britain was tiny compared to the other powers surrounding it so they looked into ways to save labour.

>The industial revolution was a labour saving enterprise

Want proof of the inferiority of Indian nationalists?
A 5 minute conversation with one

ah, so you didn't bother watching the link.
>h-hehe just a mistake guys

>bengal famine was caused by hindu merchants hoarding grain in the hopes the price would go up
>brit Veeky Forumstorians everyone
If you were baiting all this time you definitely got me. But this one was too obvious.

It's not actually clear that India was consistently profitable for Britain taken as a whole. It was profitable for the EIC in its early years, given that it was a trading company, but they were some ten million pounds in debt (an enormous sum in 19th Century Britain) by the time they were rescued and taken under administration by the crown. In fact many authors and politicians (especially in the Tories) at the time decried the explicit annexation of territories because they incurred much heavier costs at no real gain over simple direct trade with other bodies, like the princely states that were largely left intact. Taxes could be levied, but those taxes would be reimbursed into the local government machinery that was largely responsible for local development and its own non-trivial expenses. The chief benefit to the British public via its government was likely the simple ease of trade, because with a direct say in the Indian state it was possible to negotiate or abolish customs duties and establish a stable and predictable system of law.
There is no one simple answer as to why Britain eventually established a state in India, any more than there is one simple answer as to why they colonised the Americas. It's worth noting that to even speak of a "they" is an anachronistic simplification.

your picture proves him right you mong

>ah, so you didn't bother watching the link.
I've already seen it. It's just your typical indian begging for more aid from the uk, as they wasted all of it launching satellites into space while most of the people starve and street shit
>If you were baiting all this time you definitely got me. But this one was too obvious.
But it's true? Explain how it's the uk's fault that indian merchants cared more about making a few pennies than the lives of their countrymen

>the resources got from Bengal
what resources?

Kek I know right?
not him either but literally 3 of the largest countries on earth are profoundly British and extremely prosperous.

>your picture proves him right you mong
It proves that most British colonies are shitholes and the ones who aren't are strategic commerce hubs or huge uninhabited land that is full of mineral resources.Claiming that every British colony was a "new Britain" is just retarded

>you've had control of it for 70 years and your people still shit on the street and starve to death
That's more due to us not opening our economy until a few decades after China. Life has unironically greatly improved since then.

>India could have been a superpower by 1970 under british
Lol no
>Cry more shitskin
Very mature of you
>Indians should have tried shit during WW1 or something, not our fault you guys couldn't organize and get a strong foreign ally to back you
Do people not teach history in America? Our original industry was destroyed by the British to stop the transfer of arms to rival Indian armies. You need more than patriotism for a revolution.

>The industial revolution was a labour saving enterprise
I'm saying that's the main reason it happened in Britain first and not elsewhere in Europe. Powers like Russia, France etc etc didn't need to compensate for a smaller population so its unknown if they would have ever had their own IR.

The wealth. Bengal was one of the richest states in the sub-continent back then.

>Life has unironically greatly improved since then.
...as has life in the rest of the world. That's to be expected.
The fact is India has been growing at a disappointing rate for decades.
>Our original industry was destroyed by the British to stop the transfer of arms to rival Indian armies
yet another thing you pulled out of your curry filled rectum
>The wealth. Bengal was one of the richest states in the sub-continent back then.
Explain how you can extract ''wealth'' as a resource?
That's one of the most stupid things I've read today

>The wealth.
In the form of what?

I think coal is more important for running your steam engines instead of throwing wealth into em.

sorry for being retarded

>It's just your typical indian begging for more aid from the uk
The fact that you say that proves that you are a liar and haven't seen the video.

>Explain how it's the uk's fault that indian merchants cared more about making a few pennies than the lives of their countrymen
>Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks
>Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet.

>The fact that you say that proves that you are a liar and haven't seen the video.
the entire video is street shatoor whinging about britain not giving india reparations

>The fact is India has been growing at a disappointing rate for decades.
It was opened in the 90s IIRC.
I won't say there hasn't been a lot of hijinks but that's to be expected with a country like ours.
You can say a one nation party/dictator would be better like it was for China, but that'd only work for a somewhat more homogeneous country.

>yet another thing you pulled out of your curry filled rectum
It's true tho?

>In the form of what?
Tbh, I'm not sure what it exactly was myself.
But Bengal was always the richest state in the country due to it's trade relations with China, Egypt and East Africa. It was called the paradise of nations by the mughals haha.

I don't think it had anything specific like spices but it was beyond rich for sure.

>Tbh, I'm not sure what it exactly was myself.
lad, you're embarrassing yourself.

>lad, you're embarrassing yourself.
Yeah haha. Tbh while I know my own state pretty well it gets harder to know the nitty gritty details of other territories. It's just too much history because every 50 years there'd be a new upstart kingdom/empire somewhere with their own society, industry, trade etc etc
The mughal empire/raj time is a lot more simpler so I guess that's why people tend to know more about it.

But I do know that even after Britain hired tens of thousands jobless soldiers/sepoys with the Bengal money it was still considered one of the wealthiest states in India.

>Yeah haha
Please stick to quora with your people and stop embarrassing yourself

>quora
Wew why would I go there? I'm the opposite of a brain dead nationalist. Didn't realize it was so controversial to say "haha".

XD lol

So I decided to give this video a fair chance, and while it was quite pleasant to listen to I can't say I was too persuaded by it. It was heavy on wordplay and clever asides but the arguments he made were specious and sweeping with little to substantiate them. For instance, he states that India was the largest market for finished British goods (possibly true), but he simply takes it as a given that this was a negative -- well, why would Indian people buy the goods in the first place, then? He states that Indian civil servants held prestigious and lucrative positions, true, but those lavish salaries were shouldered by the British tax-paying public. It's too shallow.

>but he simply takes it as a given that this was a negative -- well, why would Indian people buy the goods in the first place, then?

local industry dead and/or only British products can come in

so the british exploited india SO much that they.... didn't exploit their industry???
you've been spending too much time on /pajeetpol/

You don't need to take over a country and rule it for 200 years to give it railways and infrastructure.

India was just a cash cow and it was sucked dry

>India was just a cash cow and it was sucked dry
India has been independent for 70 years and people still shit in the ganges. What's there excuse?

Had some pretty fucking aesthetic borders

People seem to not realize the effect of modern medicine and government legacy colonization had on India. India prospered intellectually through having small access to the luxury of British rule. Colonials could attend University or obtain a position in the administration. Compared to the rule by mughals and their kin who sought to eradicate the Hindu and tax farm them into nothing British rule truly is benevolent.

Irrelevant to the topic.

>yfw they're sitting down for dinner