Would you say the British colonization of India was a net positive or negative towards the current state of India

Would you say the British colonization of India was a net positive or negative towards the current state of India.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
unz.com/akarlin/the-puzzle-of-indian-iq-a-country-of-gypsies-and-jews/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Positive. It unintentionally created the idea of a unified Indian people (unified in their desire to throw out the British and decide their own lives, of course) that in no way existed before.

I mean, India is a literal shithole now and hasn't improved in the slightest, but still.

>created the idea of a unified Indian people
Akhand Bharat was achieved during the Maurya Empire.

Net positive, but far from ideal. India would have been better off had the Marathas unified the region and went down a route similar to Japan or Thailand.

And then never achieved again until 1948. The modern day Indian identity is absolutely nothing like what people in the Maurya Empire would have thought of themselves.

What were the pros of the colonization? Westernization?

I'd say it would be a lot more positive if they were colonized by someone else. Who that is, idk, but the Brits fucked it up.

In material terms, positive, but negative in the long term. The Brits interrupted the Hindu reconquista which would have genocided the muslims out of south asia and bring peace to the subcontinent again. Now India is stuck with hundreds of millions of muslims.

>Muslims never did anything for Ind-

Go back to /pol/

The general stuff. Improved technology and access to better higher education. The British also ended a lot of practices like Sati. Also, like mentioned, the time spent as a colony inadvertently sparked nationalism which inspired the region to be united under non-muslim rule for the first time since the Gupta at least. Again though, like I said before, most if not all of this could have also been achieved under a unified Maratha government and with much less bloodshed, famine, and exploitation.

Yeah I think India needed a Leopold II to get them to use toilets

Whooooaaah they built a building that serves as one of the only worth while sights to see in a country of more than a billion people, so cool. India has one of the largest Muslim populations on earth and they cause tons of problems, hence Bangladesh

Every colonizer would have had its issues. About the only three that could even hope to manage India properly other than the UK are France, Germany, and the Netherlands. All three of these alternatives come with their own problems. The French would never let go of India without a fight just like with Algeria and Vietnam. With Germany you risk genocide, and I'm talking German Empire here, not nazis. The Dutch might be the safest bet, but with them you risk Apartheid.

Overall positive. Life expectancy went up under the Raj. Railroads were built. Barbaric practices like sati (the expectation of ritual suicide by widows) were stopped.

But of course, there's always winners and losers with imperialism. I'm sure the people who died at Amritsar would have a different perspective.

>Apartheid
Much like a caste system?

Pretty much. I don't personally support either, but I'm looking at this from the perspective of Indians and what would be personally better for India to them. I don't think Indians would have taken kindly to a new caste system that always puts them below some white foreigner.

Boy are you a pompous ass. Over 50 million dead in the Bengal famines under the British yoke and you are pushing a hypothetical genocide towards germany.

>Bengal famines
>50 million

Yes, famines, plural
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
Addition is that thing with +

Only 2 of the famines are called bengal famines. And most of those others were caused by drought

Caused by Britain forcing the people to grow other stuff than they used to like indigo and opium. And the point of not being Bengal famines doesn't help. British rule caused over 50M dead, yet genocide is a German thing.

The total of all of those famines is just under 50m, and 2 of the largest were clearly caused by El Nino failing to deliver the rainy season.

He was comparing what other colonial powers would do. While he said Germany was at risk of genocide wouldn't that be a risk with most of them?

Yes of course it would. Brits being on a high horse pointing fingers is just their factory setting. A country running concentration camps after WW2 and claiming the moral high ground with their genocidal empire is just absurd.

10 000 000
+ 11 000 000
+ 11 000 000
+ 800 000
+ 2 000 000
+ 1 000 000
+ 1 500 000
+ 5 500 000
+ 5 000 000
+ 1 000 000
+ 1 500 000
-------------------
= 50 300 000
But hey, a few hundred thousand Indians more or less don't really matter.

>Go back to /pol/

The go-to garbage response for small brained twats

Not really, no.

>and hasn't improved in the slightest, but still.
sure nigel

>could have posted fatehpur as an example of mughal rule in india
>posts meme tomb instead

funny you assume that the behavior of colonial governments were due to nationality instead of actual practical problems in colonizing. The earlier british french and dutch trade companies in india operated in largely the same way until the english got lucky with Plassey and got a large amount of revenue income from it.

you forgot
>india's economy literally grew at 0 percent
>entire communities of artisans ruined because the brits wouldn't allow industrialization in india until they absolutely had to.
>railways were such a fucking hodgepodge that there were unironically 5 different railway gauges that went from the middle of nowhere to major ports to ship out raw resources.
>technical education almost non existent until the early 1900s

So what you are saying is that Apu went from farming to being international IT support in only 100 years?

lmao its just shitskins
they all deserve to die for breeding out their rightful nordic aryan masters

Please post your family tree

all blonde haired blue eyed aryans
just like me

back to 1800, first names and nationality are enough, you can leave out the last name

lmao
>l-l-l-l-l-l-l-let me n-n-n-nitpick a-a-at your f-f-f-famil-l-l-ly t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-tree

Usually aryan larpers are untermenschen themselves.
>And when you absolutely have to namefag you should bother to get the spelling right, too.

lmao
i dont larp
i am pure aryan

Im 100% aryan
Pic is of me

>lmao
>lmao
>lmao
of course you are.

lmao stay jealous subhuman

Und solche Vögel berufen sich ernsthaft auf das Land der Dichter und Denker. Tragisch.

lmao
>speaking germutt
face it, american germans preserved the traditions wayyyy better than the larpers
the last european germans died in ww2
true germans speak english natively

India wasn't managed much worse than other colonies but Indian nationals and headline grabbers make out that it was a lot worse for them than it was.

That isn't to say of course that the Bengal famine wasn't abhorrent.

Shut up you fucking gypsie you're worse than pajeets. At least they can code, all you do is steal and shitpost as the underage faggot you are. Fuck off bob

?????
you seem to have mistaken me
classic subhuman

A mother tongue shapes people's thinking. You cannot be German if you don't speak the language. That's why the term "volksdeutsch" (yes, with a Fugen-S in the middle you little fucktard) is farcical at best when die Sprache isn't involved anymore.

*pets*

lmao
>you right now
no wonder american germans think better
the kike soviet shamble that is the european german """""""""""language""""""""""" is absolute trash
pic applies to you as well

t. expert

It was a net-negative for over 800 years prior to British colonization of India. India had been under attack by Muslim invaders from the Arabs of the Umayyad and Abbasid-Dynaties to the Ghurids, the Seljuk-Turks, the Ghazanids, certain Uyghur-tribes some-of which were Sunni-Muslims but also ones that were "Nestorian-Christians and Manichests," among other religions. And of course later the Lodhis and the Mughals under Babur. There were also the Mongols who the Muslim-Turks drove out of parts of India ensuring that areas from the Deccan-southward would never fall under Mughal-control, Mongke-Khan tried invading southern-India and failed, Hulagu-Khan led a force to conquer central and souther Indian this was the same Hulagu-Khan that destroyed Baghdad and killed the last Abbasid-Caliph in 1258 A.D. The numerous Islamic-invasions of India between 700 A.D.-1,500 A.D. resulted in the deaths of over 80,000,000 million Hindu-Indians. When the British had conquered them the Indian-population had been devastated after centuries of Muslim-Conquest. Its like kicking a man when he's down.

Anyone have any other thoughts?

You’re too afraid to show it because you’re a mutt.

Colonization was generally a net negative. Literally the only thing "good" about colonization was the introduction to European military, civil and political technologies. But the Chinese got all of that in the years following Deng Xiaoping with trading as supposed to colonization.

That's because immediately after getting Independence, India shut itself away from the rest of world because they feared Western subversion and rightly so. Its only recently that they have started to trade with the rest of the world and their economy has now outpaced their former colonizers. hurr durr more people.

They still have a long way to go but they are at least unlocking their potential.

This whole thread is refuted by this one Indian MP, he is a dirty congressi socialist, but he is mostly correct.
youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

>hasn't improved in the slightest, but still.
It has a billion people in it, and there's been some growth. It's astounding to me.

>united india was achieved more than 2000 years ago and never achieved until the british arrived to unite it again

really makes you think

>80 million Hindus were killed
citation?

also, it's not like india wasn't attacked by foreigners prior to the arrival of islamic invaders. invaders have attacked india from the steppe for centuries. your post sounds like a bitch excuse to demean britain's achievement

>80,000,000 million

[non-Indian Citations needed]

>I want to be German
>But I'm lazy and have poor language skills
>I'll claim German is for subhumans and not TRUE Germans
>I'll also speak almost entirely in memes

Sie hat versuchen, Schätzchen

*Sie haben versucht or du hast versucht, Liebchen :)

>Oy vey sahib, don't forget the fifty- I mean eighty billion Bengalis killed in the famines!

>When the British had conquered them the Indian-population had been devastated after centuries of Muslim-Conquest. Its like kicking a man when he's down.
When the British """"conquered"""" India, the Mughal Empire was dead. The """""empire""""" that took over was the Hindu Maratha Confederacy.

And guess what that Hindu power did?
>DUDE, RULING ALL THESE PPLS IS SO HARD. EVERYONE YOU HAVE AUTONOMY SO LONG AS YOU PAY TRIBUTE XD
>Result: Warring Princes. Warring Princes everywhere.

This is the India that Britain, France, and the Dutch did their colonial games upon. A Warring Shithole of competing princedoms and kingdoms all because the ruling Hegemonic power was fucking lazy. Muslims didn't do this. Hindus did. For all the brutality of Muslim Invasions at least they left a centralized Empire at the end of it. The Marathas didn't.

Jesus none of the Europeans truly """conquered""" India. There was no Great Invasion force of Whiteys. How could they? European countries were as big as a single measly Indian Prince's Realm. The Kingdom of Mysore alone was bigger than Great Britain. You know how Europeans managed to subdue India? Their merchants and realms bankrolled wars of the princes who gladly gave more and more concessions and trade posts to Europeans to the point that wars between them reflected wars between European colonizers like Britain VS. France. It just so happened that at the end.

I'm not letting off Muslims or the Europeans for what they did, but blaming either for the state of India in the 18th Century is fucking ludicrous because Hindu Indians created a situation in which Hindus princes were mauling each other as well as Muslim Indian Sultanates.

Forget my pic.

There's your "Muslim ravaged India" that the British found.

Yeah user, that also happened 2000 years ago and didn't last

>Sees bad grammar i foreign language
>Corrects it
>Doesn't deride user for being wrong

You are everything right with this board and I hope you get laid at your leisure very soon.

In terms of education, it did wonders for a big chunk of the population

The pros are not truly appreciated they unified/forcibly integrated the subcontinent albeit kicking and screaming
>English as lingua franca for an incredibly pluralist people, this headstart matters for the contemporary global economy
>Exported British institutions and common law that even managed to hold P*kistan together
>Muh railroads and infrastructure that operate this very day

Not really it did wonders for the the ones that were selected for elite education. India has a MASSIVE disparity between it's elite and non-elite education that extended to it's colonial years.

>Muh railroads and infrastructure that operate this very day

Most Railroads where built by Indians though . The Brits did build their own but that was really limited in certain areas. In the later year as Indians were making their own and the princely states had their own.

>railroads
>5 different standards

India had this additude organically grown out of the caste system.
>. And according to Sailer, even today whereas “China focuses on giving the masses a solid basic education that prepares them for manufacturing jobs” India on the other hand “focuses more on giving outstanding university educations to the meritocratic elite.”
unz.com/akarlin/the-puzzle-of-indian-iq-a-country-of-gypsies-and-jews/

>Barbaric practices like sati (the expectation of ritual suicide by widows) were stopped.

But many Indians were against that practice. It was only concretely stopped with a joint effort by many Hindus and 3 Christian missioanries in the Brtish areas and in the Princely States it was either abolished after the Brits did or they never sanctioned it.

No India is like this because Britain needs people to help run the place. They just need to send a few back to the UK for university or other unis in the colony.

The Indian system was built around generating pencil pushers not innovative thinkers or researchers.

that does not explain indian contributions which ipso facto demanded a continuous population stream of cognitive elite. They selectively bred for scholars just as they did for the other roles (administers and soldiers, merchants and artisans and farmers.etc) necessary for a civilization.

the best thing to do with India is to fence it off,and take away their doctors,surgeons and sheit

the marathas themselves went on to work with the british in defeating the kingdom of mysore

indians love bitching about everyone's crimes but forget about their own misdeeds

>It was a net-negative for over 800 years prior to British colonization of India. India had been under attack by Muslim invaders from the Arabs of the Umayyad and Abbasid-Dynaties to the Ghurids, the Seljuk-Turks, the Ghazanids, certain Uyghur-tribes some-of which were Sunni-Muslims but also ones that were "Nestorian-Christians and Manichests," among other religions. And of course later the Lodhis and the Mughals under Babur. There were also the Mongols who the Muslim-Turks drove out of parts of India ensuring that areas from the Deccan-southward would never fall under Mughal-control, Mongke-Khan tried invading southern-India and failed, Hulagu-Khan led a force to conquer central and souther Indian this was the same Hulagu-Khan that destroyed Baghdad and killed the last Abbasid-Caliph in 1258 A.D.

800 years? Nestorian Christians? Seljuks? South India-Mongol war? 80,000,000???

Literally none of this is correct. Where are you getting this from? This sounds like literal Hindu propaganda.

Will Durant would like a word with you.
That kind of body count took centruries and they had centuries. It was massacres and forced conversion after another and even kebab sources gloat.

>reinforced caste system
>1% literacy rate at independance