During Mughals period we were 100% disturbed by their brutal acts without doing any wrong to them. During British particulars peoples were disturbed due to agitation but very little. However we go much much development during their periods. it's true fact and you need to know it.
the kanpur incident was tragic but what britishers did during those times was more barbaric. The writer seems to be sympathetic towards britishers rather than towards indian who were fighting for their freedom. Even william dalrymple has told more about british atrocities in his books...
Re: biased article
by Pinto Sakar on Aug 14, 2017 05:03 PM
nothing sympathetic indeed you have no written clues about brutal tortures by Mughalism raaj. at least during British period all records are maintained and told by them but before all is hidden and have no records so you are not aware of it.
Re: Re: biased article
by Anurag Nigam on Aug 14, 2017 05:24 PM
when victors write history they write it as it benefits them... Same with britishers. U only accepted that all records maintained and told by them. i pity people like you who blindly follow as if u were present at that time. The article is about british and not mughals who were equally bad... So go read your history with open mind
the kanpur incident was tragic but what britishers did during those times was more barbaric. The writer seems to be sympathetic towards britishers rather than towards indian who were fighting for their freedom. Even william dalrymple has told more about british atrocities in his books...
Because of Gandhi ?? No Way!!. When in 2nd World War Hitler Attacked London And Abducted Their Ladies And Girls For Child Production Houses To Produce More NAZIs. and Here S.C.Bose Shake Hands With Japan. Azad Hind Fauz Created a Clear Fear of Their Killings by Any Armed Indan Soilders. If Japan Would have Not Attack US Perl Harbour, US Will not Attack on Germany and Japan
A scoundrel said India's GDP was 25% of world's in 1700 and fools believe it. There is a Enlish adage which says 'Where there are fools, there are scoundrels (to fool them more).
Unfortunately even former PM Man Mohan Singh uttered this statement once, which shows the extent this false belief has gained currency.
A primitive economy's size in based on population, not on anythings else. If there are 1000 people in a Country A (say India), then there will be 1000 houses, 1000 begging bowls, 1000 spears, 1000 cheddis, etc. Similarly, there are only 10 people in another Country B everying things will be 10 times less. But if you look carefully, the per capita income is more or less same. That does not mean that Country A is richer than Country B.
I have no intention to call anyone fool or scounrel here, I just want to explain the concept.
"BritishersandChristians" are White Collerd Terrorists. To Rule 57 Countries Was Not Easy. Like Intruders Mugals TheseMissionaries Are Doing Same in Poor Area.
Re: 'BritishersandChristians' are White Collerd Terrorists. To
by ravi mohota on Aug 14, 2017 03:36 PM
"Britishers and Christians" are White Collerd Terrorists. To Rule 57 Countries Was Not Easy. Like Intruders Mugals These Missionaries Are Doing Same in Poor Area.
"Britishers and Christians" are White Collerd Terrorists. To Rule 57 Countries Was Not Easy. Like Intruders Mugals These Missionaries Are Doing Same in Poor Area.
Re: 'Britishers and Christians' are White Collerd Terrorists. T
by ravi mohota on Aug 14, 2017 03:34 PM
"Britishers and Christians" are White Collerd Terrorists. To Rule 57 Countries Was Not Easy. Like Intruders Mugals These Missionaries Are Doing Same in Poor Area.
After this one mutiny, how did the British Rule remain for another 90 years, and why did this mutiny never inspire another such mutiny (not even attempted?) among the Indian sepoys?
Re: Interesting, but one question on my mind
by MISSIONARY on Aug 14, 2017 01:20 PM
Britishers were the most liberal among all colonizers. Though thier objective was economic exploitation of the colonies, they allowed sufficient room to the subjects to live and prosper. They introduced an equitable Justice system for though for all, though British citizens enjoyed better protection. British taxation system is said to be very generous, though there was mismanagement in the Initial stages when they took over power in Bengal.
Re: Re: Interesting, but one question on my mind
by Chaitanya on Aug 14, 2017 02:01 PM
Just because, by your claim, the British were more liberal among the colonizers, and less oppressive, how does that make the British Rule the "goldern era in Indian history", as claimed by you in another post on this message board?
Oppression is oppression, colonization is colonization, it can never, by any stretch of imagination, be a "golden era"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting, but one question on my mind
by Sriram R on Aug 14, 2017 03:33 PM
Who said so? For 150 years we have been reading only the British version of Indian history which says everything was wrong with India before they came. It was not so. It was not for nothing that before the British came the region of India was producing 20 to 25% of world GDP. 70% of youngsters in the presidencies were attending gurukuls. On what basis are you saying things were worse. Heavens - pleasee come out of this doctored British and Marxist version of history
Re: Re: Interesting, but one question on my mind
by S M on Oct 23, 2017 03:02 PM
Average life span of an Indian in 1947 was 27 years. add to the millions who died of famine because food was taken away to feed the British army.. What exactly are you smoking?
Re: Interesting, but one question on my mind
by ravi mohota on Aug 14, 2017 03:35 PM
"Britishers and Christians" are White Collerd Terrorists. To Rule 57 Countries Was Not Easy. Like Intruders Mugals These Missionaries Are Doing Same in Poor Area.
Re: Interesting, but one question on my mind
by Sriram R on Aug 14, 2017 03:42 PM
Till the mutiny we were only ruled by the East India Company. After the mutiny the British Government took over and started to administer India. That sort of helped I guess
1. British unified over 550 princely states into a single entity. 2. They ended Moslem domination in India and liberated Hinddus from 1000-year long subjugation that eventually led to the rise of Hinddu intellectual class who could eventually fight for the freedom of India. 3. British rule prevented India from becoming a BarbaricIslamicState by ending forced conversions to Izzlam. 4. British built excellent dams, bridges, railways, roads, etc which unheard in the rest of Asia (during 19th century). 5. British opened many universities and colleges in India, which helped Hinddus to rise as an intellectual class. 6. British introduced English helped India to become a software superpower in the world today. 7. British rule considerably weakened the barbaric caste-system, even though remnants of the system remain. Even superstitions decreased to a great extent. 8. Due to better medical services, death rate dropped and life-span increased. 9. Railways, postal services, modern education, English medicine, etc rapidly improved the standards and quality of life. 10. HHindus were living under complete subjugation of Mozlems. British rule gave great religious freedom to HHindus 11. British rule altogether gave a new direction to Indians who were mired in ignorance, superstitions, caste-barbarity and opened an era of modern civilization in India.
Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by Chaitanya on Aug 14, 2017 01:18 PM
Shashi Tharoor's speech delivered at some unitversity in the UK touches upon the subject of the proclaimed "benefits" to India from British Rule. You might be able to Google that.
There may have been just a LITTLE benefit, but definitely not out of any generosity from the British rulers.
The entire British economy was running on the natural resources and raw produce being transported to Britain, and finished goods being dumped back from the freshly industrialized Britain.
Railways were crucial for ensuring this.
And certainly it was more convenient for the British to get the Indians to learn English, rather than the British themselves learn the Indian languages, to facilitate their rule.
I believe we should avoid the "Stockholm syndrome" of seeing kindness in an oppressor where none really exists.
Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by Chaitanya on Aug 14, 2017 01:21 PM
And I forgot to mention that most acts of kindness, compassion, and education, were packaged with their egotistic motive of conversion to Christianity.
But your user name "MISSIONARY", I guess you must already be well aware of that part.
Re: Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by MISSIONARY on Aug 14, 2017 01:30 PM
British stongly discouraged conversions to Christianity. Total numeber converts during the British rule of 200 years amounted to just less than 1%. Most coversions (in Goa, Kerala and Tamil Nadu) took place during the Potugese rule in Goa.
Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by Chaitanya on Aug 14, 2017 01:25 PM
It's not as if Indians never had education, knowledge, culture.
From the heights of Nalanda University, we would have been at even greater heights but for the continuous invasion, occupation, exploitation, and subjugation, first by the Mughals, and then by the British.
Re: Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by MISSIONARY on Aug 14, 2017 01:41 PM
Before British came, life in India was horrible. One side Mozlims were opressing HHindus which included murder, rapes and looting. On the other hand caste system was opressing 80% of HHindu population. British rule weaked both the evils.
Re: Re: Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by Chaitanya on Aug 14, 2017 01:52 PM
For a long time, the terms "English education" remained synonymous with another term "Convent education".
Name one school that the British started, in the whole of India, which did not have an attached Christian mission.
Re: Re: Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by S M on Oct 23, 2017 03:07 PM
slamic rule was on a decline. Marathas were ruling Delhi and Mughal ruler was paying tribute to the marathas. The neighbouring states of Gwalior and rajashtan were also conquered by the marathas. In fact British were welcomed as liberators by Muslims. Keep your fake history to yourself
Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by Chaitanya on Aug 14, 2017 02:33 PM
Your very first point "The British unified over 550 princely states into a single entity" is a huge falsehood.
They neither unified, nor encouraged, unity among the princely states.
They were the original inventors of the "Divide and Rule" principle, and used it repeatedly to get one princely state to attack or weaken another.
When they left India, they left behind whatever was under their occupation, which, some great additional efforts from Patel, became today's India.
But if you're actually feeling grateful for that last part, that's bizarre.
Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by Chaitanya on Aug 14, 2017 02:34 PM
If you're actually feeling grateful to the British for that last part, that's bizarre.
Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by ravi mohota on Aug 14, 2017 03:57 PM
You are a Convrted Christian. Originally your Forefathers Were Hindus Only. Try to Look Deep into Your Past Family Tree..Ask And Reply
Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by MISSIONARY on Aug 14, 2017 04:05 PM
Agreed. I never insulted or denounced Hinduism as it is. I respect Xtianity, Hinduism and Buddhism equally.
Re: Re: Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by S M on Oct 23, 2017 03:10 PM
Dont spread falsehoods like your christain missionaries. Marathas has won Delhi and neighbouring areas right up to Peshawar when the British Came. Spreading falsehood is in your blood
Re: British rule was golden era in Indian History!
by S M on Oct 23, 2017 03:05 PM
Islamic rule was on a decline. Marathas were ruling Delhi and Mughal ruler was paying tribute to the marathas. The neighbouring states of Gwalior and rajashtan were also conquered by the marathas. In fact British were welcomed as liberators by Muslims. Keep your fake history to yourself
The so-called "Indian War of Independence" was a sham. The writer says 'Bahadur Shah had been forced by the sepoys to become the leader of the rebellion'. This means a FORCED leader could never have yielded a significant result. By attacking harmless women and children, sepoys only displayed their inherent barbaric nature and so later invited harsh British retaliation. The 'Indian War of Independence' wasn't technically a national movement as it was restricted only to Gangetic plains. No one supported from Punjab, Rajputana, Maharashtra and South. Why???
Re: Indisciplined Revolt
by ajay on Aug 14, 2017 06:25 PM
Whole article is written with biased facts. It looks more British version. Yes it was not spread to whole India but not slao limited to Northern part e.g. Satara, nagpur, Andeman nikobar, barrackpur, Bangal and Patna were also the part in revolution. Massacre of women & kids from Sepoys are a fabricated story of British to prove their butchery right what they did with Indians. These bastards never let us respect our ancestors for their bravery and wrote them coward in their manuscripts. and now their missionary slaves taking the plight ahead. Please investigate the things deeply you will come to know the truth. They fought for a cause but that time also most of us were not interested for our mother land. Otherwise few thousand people couldn't make us slaves for 200 years.
