Re: British atleast treated
by Sriram R on Nov 27, 2017 07:49 PM
This is exactly the kind of misconception the author is talking about by stating - ...popular delusions -- held by some Indians too..
As British ruled for more than 450 yrs,only for their convenience& benefit only did introduce Railways,postal services& infrastructure development which our forefathers cherish.Also there was very limited corruption&good quality of wwork pk executed as top controlling heads were British with all perks needed and no need for them to be dishonest with their own money unlike our own politicians. As they never thought of loosing control of their rule on our country were developing needed infra& irrigation and other projects only with selfish interest.once confirmed that they had to leave deliberately divided people& regions& religions and started ruling last 50 years,Finally created internal wars out of sheer jealousy and responsible for creation of Pakistan.if it was not for Sardar pastels iron will our India could have been conglomeration of more than 200 small kingdoms.Had Kashmir also had been left to Patel( Nehru being a kashmiri kept his state to himself for solving).British smuggled lot of wealth of Bharat to Britain which helped it to be in present healthy financial position with lot of heritage also taken to their country.British too were pucca commercial squeezing as much as possible for smggling to their own country no different from md ghajini& ghori
Re: British rule for 450 yrs
by edgardesouza on Nov 26, 2017 11:35 PM
As British ruled in previous centuries and many officers were honest& principled& hard working unlike our present Indians,naturally the quality of works was far fat superior than our present projects,forwhich full credit npmust be given to them regardless of racism& superiority complex exhibited by aall most all Indian British rulers/governors except mackalay& Mountbaten.Had British ruled modern India quality&rule tho certainly better than us could not have been as in theppast as thought by our old people
Re: British rule
by Aravind Nair on Nov 27, 2017 12:30 PM
Sorry, but it can also be argued that British rule caused the creation of India. We would still be fighting among our 600 odd princely states if there were no common enemy.
Re: Re: British rule
by Sriram R on Nov 27, 2017 07:50 PM
This is exactly the kind of misconception the author is talking about by stating - ...popular delusions -- held by some Indians too
Re: Re: British rule
by Sriram R on Nov 27, 2017 07:54 PM
India was always united throughout its history either culturally or politically. There were only brief spells in between when there was no strong central power and invaders poured in for the loot. The British came when both British and Maratha power was diminishing and many Governors and ministers declared themselves as rulers and if the British had delayed their arrival by 50 years then another strong Indian ruler would have definitely emerged as it happened in the past. Do remember that Britain itself was always in a state of war between England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland
