Britain gave India railways

>Britain gave India railways
For resource extraction and for rapid deployment of British forces. The railway cars were not mean't in anyway for the Indian people
>Britain gave India education
More like Britain created British civil servants. Indians were taught engineering and the art of railway construction. In fact, Indian engineers were taught to create the railway line that ran from Lake Victoria to Mombasa (Uganda Railway). Many schools were not open to Indians and only to the Anglo-Indian ruling class.
>Britain civilized India
>my civilization is morally superior to yours because of Sati
>not mentioning the practice is similar to Viking women who choose to drink poison or be burned alive on her husband's ship after death of the husband

Attached: 600px-British_Raj_Red_Ensign.svg.png (600x300, 35K)

Also Sati had lot of opposition in India as well.

it is a joke to call India a 'civilisation'. it's entire history is being conquered and civilised by better peoples

t. edgy retard

It is a joke to call Britain a 'civilisation." Its entire history is being conquered and civilised by Romans and their cultural descendants.

>We're not savages! Think about how similar this practice is to what the Vikings did 1000 years ago!

Why do you come in every thread about India and spam this trash? You've been doing this for years on nearly every board. Get a life.

>invaded by Aryans
>invaded by Greeks
>invaded by Scythians
>invaded by Arabs
>invaded by Turks
>invaded by Afghans
>invaded by Mongols
>invaded by Persians
>invaded by Portuguese
>invaded by French
>invaded by British
>invaded by Pakistan
>lost all of it's rebellions against invaders
>got independent only because the British were bored of them in 1947
>Indus Valley might have been just created by Middle-Eastern immigrants, not Dravidians or Indians proper
>It's main religions were created by either Europeans (Hinduism and Buddhism are spinoff of Proto-Indo-European Nordic faith), or Middle-Easterners (Islam)
>The most of people speak in a language brought there by Europeans
>Racially mongrels
>Zero culture, except some more Middle-Eastern parts, and what the invaders brought to them (for an example Taj Mahal was built by Muslims).
>>Golden
>>Age
>>Of India

>lost all of it's rebellions against invaders
Not even remotely true.

>the customs of the Kievan Rus are anything to do with England
>O-OTHER PEOPLE SACRIFICED WOMEN AT FUNERALS AS WELL, IT WASN'T SAVAGERY

>Nordic faith
Not this faggot again.
Rest is on point though

>Rest is on point though
No it's not (well apart from the bit about being invaded and being mongrels)

Are there actually any people outside UKIP who think the raj was for the benefit of the Indians? Everyone knows it was purely to benefit the British

How about the banning and military stop to the tuggee cults?
How about the caste system was something the British constantly disapproved of.

The raj was only there to benefit the British ultimately but to achieve that goal it was trying to bring western civilisation to an otherwise irredeemable shithole

>How about the caste system was something the British constantly disapproved of.
But they didn't disapprove it. They allied with Brahmins and turned a blind eye to a lot of crimes to consolidate power after the 1857 rebellion.
For example, in the shithole state I live in now of Tamil Nadu they used their power to institutionalize greater prejudice against non-Brahmins than anywhere else.
When the British left they lost their power and now whine about their glory days.
>The raj was only there to benefit the British ultimately
Yes.
>but to achieve that goal it was trying to bring western civilisation to an otherwise irredeemable shithole
No.

Although it's important to note that this wasn't all Brahmins. Many weren't blinded by money and fought for independence (i.e Bose).

>Bose
>when you ally with Hitler and Imperial Japan, fight against your own countrymen, face trial for war crimes, but still somehow come out as a national hero, with movies made about you and airports named after you
I wish he was better known on Veeky Forums

I wasn't aware Vikings were still around when the Raj was founded

Ah yes, the vikings that operated in the time of the British Raj

Britain did unify india under a single polity, which then gained independence, where was the pan-indianism before Britain?

They were momentarily united as a united india during the war of 1857. Ultimately, the british divided and destroyed permanently the idea of united india and led to partition.

Blame your Muslim friends for that one, Mountbatten was more than happy to have a united India because he wouldn't have to deal with Paki shit then

No there wasn't. Ajaigarh, Alwar, Bharathpur, Bhopal, Bijawar, Bikaner, Bundi, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Jaora, Jodhpur, Kapurthala, Jammu-Kashmir, Kendujhar, Nabha, Patiala, Rampur, Rewa, Sirmur, Sirohi, Udaipur, Mysore, and Travancore all fought for the British and stayed organized in their little princely states.

>reeeee it's immoral to help others and make some money on the side
Enjoy getting colonized by china

Britain was more a sadistic parent than making money off the sides. Stop pretending to be retarded.

>people did colonialism to help others