Cobra Arbok
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2018
- Messages
- 2,636
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
And I may be in the minority, but I do not see how the hindutwa movement is in anyway comparable to ISIS
As for the British vs. Mughuls, I disagree with your assertion that the Mughals were better economically for India. In no wasy do I admire the Brits, who were only in South Asia for colonial greed and self-enrichment. With that being said, they definitelybenefitted SA more in the long run. Railroads and English are good examples. Railroads allowed connection between Indian states which helped India's economy grow. Not to mention, railways provide a cheap mode of transport aafordable for most Indians. And English is what gave India the advantage in the Western-dominated global economy in the post WWII world over China. Why do you think India has a strong IT, outsourcing, and call center industry that provides jobs for tens of millions of Indians? The English language. Good English skills also makes it easier for Indians to migrate to the US and UK and send back remittances.
There are countless other examples, such as Tea, Sugar, and film, all of which were brought by the Brits and now benefit India economically. Although, now that I think about it, most of what I said applies mainly to modern India, as Pakistan does not have as long a railway system, or a strong IT and Film industry, and does not produce as much tea or sugar or other tropical cash crops as India. Maybe for Pakistan, the Moghuls were better.
One last thing. The Brits introduced cricket, biscuits, and Cadbury chocolates to India. I don't know how you can beat that
Also, I have to disagree about Shivaji not being popular among anyone other than Hindu nationalists. He is extremely popular among Maratis and Konkanis, regardless of caste and religion. As I mentioned before, I have a lot of family in Mumbai and have been there many times, and he is overall popular among the general population. He is also popular in other parts of India. That is because if you think about it, Shivaji was India's version of George Washington. Is Washington popular in Britain? Obviously not. Was he perfect? No. But he was largely responsible for taking down a global superpower that many Americans viewed as oppressive foreigners. Overall, Indians view SHivaji the way Pakistanis view Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. The irony is both those men were born in modern India, but that is besides the point.
BTW, I added a new post on my history of urbanization in India thread. You should check it out.
Always a pleasure to debate with you.
The Mughal Empire included Pakistan and BD though. Not to mention, it is hard to get an accurate measure of GDP, especially when we consider inflation. Anyway, GDP does not accurately measure the standards of living of ordinary people. In no way I am saying I do not admire Mughal architecture. With that being said, I do not think architecture alone justifies Mughal rule and invasions as he seems to think, especially when India has thousnads of years of indigenous architecture that I think is superior(Just my opinion of course)Agreed, only brought it up since he did the same.
I'll leave my response here:
The Muslim rule over South Asia certainly did improve the region greatly, especially during the reign of the Mughals (although, the Ghaznavids and Ghurids also did excellent things for Afghanistan and Pakistan).
They didn't just build architecture, they also composed literature, developed cities/towns, kept the region in (relative) order, etc.
They both generated more than enough revenue to compensate for their large amount of spending.
Not exactly, the British didn't develop the region as much as the Mughals did.
The Mughals did much more for the region than the British Empire did.
Under Mughal rule, the GDP of South Asia made up 1/4th of the world's entire GDP. They used this revenue for many purposes (e.g building/developing plenty of towns/cities) that improved the life of the common man.
He's only popular among Hindus and Hindustani nationalists.
As for the British vs. Mughuls, I disagree with your assertion that the Mughals were better economically for India. In no wasy do I admire the Brits, who were only in South Asia for colonial greed and self-enrichment. With that being said, they definitelybenefitted SA more in the long run. Railroads and English are good examples. Railroads allowed connection between Indian states which helped India's economy grow. Not to mention, railways provide a cheap mode of transport aafordable for most Indians. And English is what gave India the advantage in the Western-dominated global economy in the post WWII world over China. Why do you think India has a strong IT, outsourcing, and call center industry that provides jobs for tens of millions of Indians? The English language. Good English skills also makes it easier for Indians to migrate to the US and UK and send back remittances.
There are countless other examples, such as Tea, Sugar, and film, all of which were brought by the Brits and now benefit India economically. Although, now that I think about it, most of what I said applies mainly to modern India, as Pakistan does not have as long a railway system, or a strong IT and Film industry, and does not produce as much tea or sugar or other tropical cash crops as India. Maybe for Pakistan, the Moghuls were better.
One last thing. The Brits introduced cricket, biscuits, and Cadbury chocolates to India. I don't know how you can beat that
Also, I have to disagree about Shivaji not being popular among anyone other than Hindu nationalists. He is extremely popular among Maratis and Konkanis, regardless of caste and religion. As I mentioned before, I have a lot of family in Mumbai and have been there many times, and he is overall popular among the general population. He is also popular in other parts of India. That is because if you think about it, Shivaji was India's version of George Washington. Is Washington popular in Britain? Obviously not. Was he perfect? No. But he was largely responsible for taking down a global superpower that many Americans viewed as oppressive foreigners. Overall, Indians view SHivaji the way Pakistanis view Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. The irony is both those men were born in modern India, but that is besides the point.
BTW, I added a new post on my history of urbanization in India thread. You should check it out.
Always a pleasure to debate with you.