British reduced India to one of the poorest countries: Shashi Tharoor

[Kashmiri Pandit]

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on Wednesday said 200 years of British rule had reduced India from its glory of one of richest countries in the world to the poorest one and their claims of bringing development and political unity was false as the British had done nothing intended for the benefit of India or Indians. Speaking during the launch of his new book ‘An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India’ here, he said whatever the British had done in India was only those necessary to consolidate their rule and control over the country.


He said the British era history is needed to be retold on Wednesday and his new book is an attempt to look comprehensively at the legacy of British Empire in India. “The fact is that, before 200 years, the British came to one of the richest countries in the world- a country which had 23 per cent of global GDP… a country where poverty was unknown,” Tharoor said.

“A country that was the world leader in at least three industries- textiles, steel and ship building. A country that had everything… And after 200 years of exploitation, expropriation and clean outright looting, this country was reduced to one of the poorest countries in the world by the time the British left in 1947,” he said.

Governor P Sathasivam released the book by handing over a copy to eminent filmmaker Adoor Gopalakrishnan at a function held here late in the evening.

Tharoor said his 333-page book, published by Aleph Book Company, was an attempt to challenge with fact and figures the notion and claim that “on the whole the British rule was beneficial…I do something that no other books attempted to do-which is to take up each of the argument for the British empire in India… everything from railways, political unity, the rule of law, English language and even cricket,” he said.

“I tried to take up every single thing that is being claimed to be a positive benefit left behind by the British…and I have demonstrated in detail that how and why even not one of them was intended to benefit India or Indians,” the writer said.

Stating that he was not the first one to say about the British exploitation, Tharoor said Dadabhai Naoroji, R C Dutt and Jawaharlal Nehru had written about the aspect before.

“I don’t claim that I am the first one to be saying all these.I believe that in saying it now I am doing a necessary service to my country..,” he said.

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...the-poorest-countries-shashi-tharoor-4439070/

No matter how hard this man tries , he can never win me over .
He killed his wife , that's all I feel , when I look at him

 

[faithfulguy]

“A country that was the world leader in at least three industries- textiles, steel and ship building. A country that had everything… And after 200 years of exploitation, expropriation and clean outright looting, this country was reduced to one of the poorest countries in the world by the time the British left in 1947,” he said.

I stop reading after the third paragraph, which I posted above. If India were a leader in ship building and steel, why is it Britain that sailed to India and colonize India, rather than other way around.

The truth is that India was a geographical expression. Britain created India. This guy and any Indian national should thank Britain for created India.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

“A country that was the world leader in at least three industries- textiles, steel and ship building. A country that had everything… And after 200 years of exploitation, expropriation and clean outright looting, this country was reduced to one of the poorest countries in the world by the time the British left in 1947,” he said.

I stop reading after the third paragraph, which I posted above. If India were a leader in ship building and steel, why is it Britain that sailed to India and colonize India, rather than other way around.

The truth is that India was a geographical expression. Britain created India. This guy and any Indian national should thank Britain for created India.

Ship Builders of South India were the greatest ever ship builders . Centuries before Europeans came sailing to India , Indians were travelling through Ocean to South East Asia . Because we are not Exploiters like Europeans . Brits ruled India directly for 90 years but India didn't saw the same growth like Them , Why ?

They came to plunder just like Early Central Asian Invaders .
Look at Mughals , They made the Country their own and helped its Economy to Grow , unlike Europeans who only came for raw material and wealth for their prosperity .

India was rich that is why , Europeans came to India .
Just like Now , Where Europe is rich and South Asians go their .
The only difference is , we haven't gone their to plunder .

 

[Hassan Guy]

@faithfulguy has a point

If other european countries came to colonize India along with the British - We would have over a dozen countries in South Asia. There wouldn't be a unified republic if the british hadn't come over.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

@faithfulguy has a point

If other european countries came to colonize India along with the British - We would have over a dozen countries in South Asia. There wouldn't be a unified republic if the british hadn't come over.

There already was one . Mughals had control over most of the South Asia .
That is just a prediction .
We already have Afghans , Pakistanis , Indians , Bangladesh , Nepal , Bhutan as Countries despite British people .

We also forget , It were Indians and Pakistanis who joined all Princely states into One , er two .
Brits just left behind 557 princely states .
Its Us who united them into 1 and not the Brits .

 

[faithfulguy]

Ship Builders of South India were the greatest ever ship builders . Centuries before Europeans came sailing to India , Indians were travelling through Ocean to South East Asia . Because we are not Exploiters like Europeans . Brits ruled India directly for 90 years but India didn't saw the same growth like Them , Why ?

Do you Indians brag much. In the age of exploration, it's the Europeans that were the great ship builders. The article use the term 200 year ago, which put us in year 1816. During that time, is India the worlds best ship builder? A big chunk of India was already under the company rule. Even 50 years prior, many Europeans were fighting for Indian spoils.

The truth is that most civilizations build boats that sail around their civilization to conduct trade or raids. In that regard, Indians, Arabs, Ottomans, Vikings, Asians, Europeans, Pacific Islanders and native Americans build ships for that purpose. It's not until the Europeans in the age of exploration make ships that take their navy across the globe. So 200 years ago, it's the Europeans, especially your colonial master, the British, the ruled the waves and had the best ships.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

so india prefer Muslim rulers who made them rich.

 

[faithfulguy]

@faithfulguy has a point

If other european countries came to colonize India along with the British - We would have over a dozen countries in South Asia. There wouldn't be a unified republic if the british hadn't come over.

The other Europeans did tried to colonized India. British expelled them. If Britain have not accomplished that, than India will be split among different countries even today. One reason India unite today because of English. Can you imaging an Indian country if Tamils insist on using French and Kerala wants to use Dutch?

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

so india prefer Muslim rulers who made them rich.

Whoever cares more about Nation and its People is Welcomed .
Please try to look beyond Religion .

The other Europeans did tried to colonized India. British expelled them. If Britain have not accomplished that, than India will be split among different countries even today. One reason India unite today because of English. Can you imaging an Indian country if Tamils insist on using French and Kerala wants to use Dutch?

They have been speaking a different language for 2000 years . Even my people speak language which isn't Hindi .
What's your point ?

Ya Brits couldn't unite Europe but United India .

Its Indians who united India
Brits divided it into India and Pakistan by poisoning the minds of its people .

 

[faithfulguy]

Whoever cares more about Nation and its People is Welcomed .
Please try to look beyond Religion .



They have been speaking a different language for 2000 years . Even my people speak language which isn't Hindi .
What's your point ?

Ya Brits couldn't unite Europe but United India .

Its Indians who united India
Brits divided it into India and Pakistan by poisoning the minds of its people .

What I'm saying is that Tamils use English to communicate with other Indians. Can you imaging if they insist on using French. For sure India would not include Tamil. The point I'm making is that Britain expelled or marginalized other .Europeans in seven year war. After that, India was under British control. If Britain never expelled other Europeans first India would be many countries as French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spainish Indian colonies would be its own countries. Just like Africa is today.

 

[Hassan Guy]

There already was one . Mughals had control over most of the South Asia .
That is just a prediction .
We already have Afghans , Pakistanis , Indians , Bangladesh , Nepal , Bhutan as Countries despite British people .

We also forget , It were Indians and Pakistanis who joined all Princely states into One , er two .
Brits just left behind 557 princely states .
Its Us who united them into 1 and not the Brits .

The british left and handed over the most military power and land to India and to an extent Pakistan. Most of all those princely states wanted to be independent - But where all annexed by India and Pakistan.

If all of South Asia wanted to unite - there would be no Kashmir conflict today.

South Asia would end up as another Africa if wasn't for the British.

What I'm saying is that Tamils use English to communicate with other Indians. Can you imaging if they insist on using French. For sure India would not include Tamil. The point I'm making is that Britain expelled or marginalized other .Europeans in seven year war. After that, India was under British control. If Britain never expelled other Europeans first India would be many countries as French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spainish Indian colonies would be its own countries. Just like Africa is today.

Give this man a positive rating.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

What I'm saying is that Tamils use English to communicate with other Indians. Can you imaging if they insist on using French. For sure India would not include Tamil. The point I'm making is that Britain expelled or marginalized other .Europeans in seven year war. After that, India was under British control. If Britain never expelled other Europeans first India would be many countries as French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spainish Indian colonies would be its own countries. Just like Africa is today.

Portuguese ruled Goa . Goa is part of India . They ( Most of them ) don't speak Portuguese .
Portuguese were first one to come and last one to go .
Many Indians learn German , French , Italian , Japanese .

Does them speaking French makes any difference to them speaking Tamil right now , I can't understand the link
What difference does it make ? They speak their Mother tongue just like I do but when it comes to speaking with people who speak different language , we speak a connector language like Hindi and English .

In my state we speak 7 languages , Do you imply , we can't live together because we speak different languages .

 

[Hassan Guy]

Portuguese ruled Goa . Goa is part of India . They ( Most of them ) don't speak Portuguese .
Portuguese were first one to come and last one to go .
Many Indians learn German , French , Italian , Japanese .

Does them speaking French makes any difference to them speaking Tamil right now , I can't understand the link
What difference does it make ? They speak their Mother tongue just like I do but when it comes to speaking with people who speak different language , we speak a connector language like Hindi and English .

In my state we speak 7 languages , Do you imply , we can't live together because we speak different languages .

If Tamil was colonized by the French
And Gujrat was colonized by the Italians
And Hyderabad colonized by the Spanish

They would be independent sovereign countries today.

Look at Bangladesh - It was under Pakistani rule for just a couple decades when they got independence did they unify with India?

 

[faithfulguy]

Portuguese ruled Goa . Goa is part of India . They ( Most of them ) don't speak Portuguese .
Portuguese were first one to come and last one to go .
Many Indians learn German , French , Italian , Japanese .

Does them speaking French makes any difference to them speaking Tamil right now , I can't understand the link
What difference does it make ? They speak their Mother tongue just like I do but when it comes to speaking with people who speak different language , we speak a connector language like Hindi and English .

In my state we speak 7 languages , Do you imply , we can't live together because we speak different languages .

If you look at post colonial history, areas under same colonial master might end up under one or more countries. But there are zero evidence that different colonies from two different colonial masters gain independence and than join together. Gia is a post independence event. And Goa is much smaller.

What I'm saying is that if Britain didn't unite and create India, the number of countries that exist in India today would be no less than the number of colonial masters that rule India. Again, you need to ignore enclaves and focus on whole states.

Another example is Canada. Would Canada exist as a whole if Britain didn't take Quebec from the French. They took Quebec in the same war that they expelled French from India and thus lay the foundation for uniting India.

If Tamil was colonized by the French
And Gujrat was colonized by the Italians
And Hyderabad colonized by the Spanish

They would be independent sovereign countries today.

Look at Bangladesh - It was under Pakistani rule for just a couple decades when they got independence did they unify with India?

Very good examples.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

If you look at post colonial history, areas under same colonial master might end up under one or more countries. But there are zero evidence that different colonies from two different colonial masters gain independence and than join together. Gia is a post independence event. And Goa is much smaller.

What I'm saying is that if Britain didn't unite and create India, the number of countries that exist in India today would be no less than the number of colonial masters that rule India. Again, you need to ignore enclaves and focus on whole states.

Another example is Canada. Would Canada exist as a whole if Britain didn't take Quebec from the French. They took Quebec in the same war that they expelled French from India and thus lay the foundation for uniting India.



Very good examples.

India was united even before Brits arrived at the scene . What makes one think , it wouldn't have happened again ?
Many parts of India were ruled by different Monarchs and Republic but Mauryan's United India .
Many parts of India were ruled by different Home grown and Foreign rulers but Mughals United India .
What makes one think , if Brits weren't around , No one could have achieved the same feat .

in 1700 with around 100 Million population and World GDP share of 23-25% , India was one of the rich nation Economically .