Now study show Britain drained $10 trillion from India during the years 1765 to 1938

[django]

People of this sub continent are the worst in this world. The most incompetent and corrupt minded people. 400 Million People ruled by 20k British officials.....if this is not shameful, then I don't know what is. And we Bengali are worst of that lot.

No question about it!

 

[Kailash Kumar]

I do think that the British did loot al their colonies, dependencies, protectorates etc.
But the figure of 10 trillion dollars is a bit much. That cannot be accurate.

- Side note -

I did saw a documentary on tv where they read a letter in which an official of the administration of British India had said (something along the lines of): There are 6000 of us administrating (British) India and their are 300 million (British) Indians. If they would all grab a hand filled with sand and throw it at us, we would be buried.

My point is, that you can research how much money they (the British) owe you (and probably will never get it).
Yet you could also research how they were able to conquer so many people (and most of you know the answer to that).

So,
You do not blame a wolf for wanting a sheep.
You blame the sheep for being a sheep.

- End of side note -

 

[Gadkari]

I do think that the British did loot al their colonies, dependencies, protectorates etc.
But the figure of 10 trillion dollars is a bit much. That cannot be accurate.

- Side note -

I did saw a documentary on tv where they read a letter in which an official of the administration of British India said (something along the lines of): There are 6000 of us administrating (British) India and their are 300 million (British) Indians. If they would all grab a hand filled with sand and throw it at us, we would be buried.

My point is, that you can research how much money they (the British) owe you (and probably will never get it).
Yet you could also research how they were able to conquer so many people (and most of you know they answer to that).

So,
You do not blame a wolf for wanting a sheep.
You blame the sheep for being a sheep.

- End of side note -

It does not matter what you think or how much in denial you are in .

This is a study published after extensive research and due diligence. If you want to prove them wrong, read the study and point out the gaps.

Otherwise your uninformed opinion is just a projection of your desire.

As to how the British managed to do what they did, they could not do it for too long. 90 years is for how long they ruled us.

In 1857 revolt, it was the sikhs, gurkhas and the Pathans who fought for the british, along with the Kings of India who had signed a military contract with the EIC. That is when we became part of the british empire.

Before that the land was ruled by the East India company who outsourced the ruling to Indians for a fixed sum. The entire system was designed to ensure Indian exploited other Indians and the british for most parts, remaind invisible.

 

[Kailash Kumar]

It does not matter what you think or how much in denial you are in .

I am not in denial. I did confirm that the British looted their colonies. So how is that denial?
I am however in doubt of the exact number of 10 trillion dollars.
But even if the number is true, what will you do about it?
Nothing. You will not even get one pound from them.
So who is in denial now?

As to how the British managed to do what they did, they could not do it for too long. 90 years is for how long they ruled us.

In 1857 revolt, it was the sikhs, gurkhas and the Pathans who fought for the british, along with the Kings of India who had signed a military contract with the EIC. That is when we became part of the british empire.

Before that the land was ruled by the East India company who outsourced the ruling to Indians for a fixed sum. The entire system was designed to ensure Indian exploited other Indians and the british for most parts, remaind invisible.

The company rule of the East India Company started 100 years before the beginning of British India.
So the total number of years the British ruled India was more than 90 years.

According to you the British were invisible during the time of the East India Company.
Yet their lack of visibility did not stop them from creating a system where they were able to rule Indians by dividing them and letting them fight against eachother.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Well at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that you have gone around the world with a bowl seeking it in bits and pieces

Dont worry.. you bastards out did the entire world when it comes to the begging bowl...

 

[Sully3]

Well at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that you have gone around the world with a bowl seeking it in bits and pieces

okay slumdog millionaire

India has highest number of people living below poverty line in the world: World Bank
https://www.businesstoday.in/curren...low-poverty-line-world-bank/story/238085.html

 

[Gadkari]

I am not in denial. I did confirm that the British looted their colonies. So how is that denial?
I am however in doubt of the exact number of 10 trillion dollars.
But even if the number is true, what will you do about it?
Nothing. You will not even get one pound from them.
So who is in denial now?

Quantifying how much was looted and demanding it back are two different things.

So far no one has demanded it back, so your attempt to spin a strawman argument is pointless.
he figure is 3 times Uk's current GDP in any case.

So unless you can prove factual reasons for your doubts , the only one in denial is you.

The company rule of the East India Company started 100 years before the beginning of British India.
So the total number of years the British ruled India was more than 90 years.

According to you the British were invisible during the time of the East India Company.
Yet their lack of visibility did not stop them from creating a system where they were able to rule Indians by dividing them and letting them fight against eachother.

For the average Indian, his immediate ruler was his Zamindar who collected his taxes and offered him justice / injustice.

It was the Indian zamindar who policed his land, acted as officials and provided service.

The vaste majority of Indians would probably have seen a white man maybe once or twice in his lifetime, and he would not even know who they were.

When eventually he figured out that it was the white man who was ruling us, that is when the freedom struggle really took off.

Even the 1857 war was between the Indians who worked for the british. The vaste majority of Indians had no clue who was really ruling.

Everybody who oppressed him had a brown skin and spoke his language. When that changed, the fight became real too.

 

[TopCat]

In return they produced a country called india.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

U.K should return back our money and divide that money between Pakistan, India and Bangladesh

 

[Mage]

U.K should return back our money and divide that money between Pakistan, India and Bangladesh

Lol...UK will have to sell itself 4 times to pay that money back.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Lol...UK will have to sell itself 4 times to pay that money back.

Then they should give in Instalments, spread on 50, 100 year.

 

[Kailash Kumar]

Quantifying how much was looted and demanding it back are two different things.

So far no one has demanded it back, so your attempt to spin a strawman argument is pointless.
he figure is 3 times Uk's current GDP in any case.

So unless you can prove factual reasons for your doubts , the only one in denial is you.

It is not a strawman argument. It is an argument given to understand the purpose of such studies.
What do you achieve by quantifying the amount of money that was stolen?
What is your purpose?
Is it just for a couple of sentences in history books?
Is it just that you can feel good about yourself?
Is it just that you are able to condemn the British for what they did in the past if something does not go well in the present?

If someone stole something from my house, I would want to know what it was.
Not because it could be written in some police report and end up in their archive,
but because I would have wanted it back.

For the average Indian, his immediate ruler was his Zamindar who collected his taxes and offered him justice / injustice.
It was the Indian zamindar who policed his land, acted as officials and provided service.
The vaste majority of Indians would probably have seen a white man maybe once or twice in his lifetime, and he would not even know who they were.
When eventually he figured out that it was the white man who was ruling us, that is when the freedom struggle really took off.
Even the 1857 war was between the Indians who worked for the british. The vaste majority of Indians had no clue who was really ruling.
Everybody who oppressed him had a brown skin and spoke his language. When that changed, the fight became real too.

You are right that Zamindars were the rulers of most Indians and that they predate the East India Company and British India.
And yes, most Indians probably did not know who was actually ruling them, because of low literacy rates and lack of modern media and technology.

But even so, why should it matter what the colour of the skin of your oppressor is?
Why should you not fight against oppressors of you own colour?
How does having the same colour make oppression less of problem?

 

[Gadkari]

It is not a strawman argument. It is an argument given to understand the purpose of such studies.
What do you achieve by quantifying the amount of money that was stolen?
What is your purpose?
Is it just for a couple of sentences in history books?
Is it just that you can feel good about yourself?
Is it just that you are able to condemn the British for what they did in the past if something does not go well in the present?

If someone stole something from my house, I would want to know what it was.
Not because it could be written in some police report and end up in their archive,
but because I would have wanted it back.

If forms the foundation for future negotiations. Hard data and Facts, not youtube debates.

Let's say when we want to replace UK as the next permanent member of the UN.

Will this be sufficient ? not, but it will play its role in swinging global opinion.

You are right that Zamindars were the rulers of most Indians and that they predate the East India Company and British India.
And yes, most Indians probably did not know who was actually ruling them, because of low literacy rates and lack of modern media and technology.

But even so, why should it matter what the colour of the skin of your oppressor is?
Why should you not fight against oppressors of you own colour?
How does having the same colour make oppression less of problem?

Because Hindus always fought against oppressors who spoke persian and prayed different and looked different and destroyed his school, universities and temples.

And to fight them, they banded together with those who spoke his samge language, looked like him and prayed to his god.

The Islamic invaders used the same system of having Hindus opress the other Hindus to keep their kingdom stable. EIC only took up from where they left off.

In a land where resources, opportunities, education, water, food and self respect became rare, people fought among themselves for survival, rather than figure out the big picture about who to fight. That needs a system and when the british put the system of english education in place, that too happen.

Hindus were already used to living as second class citizens under 600 years of islamic rule and most of their fight had been taken out of them till the british came. In fact, initially the british was looked upon as the saviors in Bengal and the current day durga pooja celebrations is the extension of the celebration that took place when the british first freed Bengal from Islamic rule.

It's only when leaders like the Sikh gurus or Shivaji came, the hindus banded together to fight the outsiders. Even then , most times they were defeated by infighting rather than the enemy themselves. That infightin was due to a lack of social consciousness missing and that was missing because all our schools and universities were destroyed.


Anyway this is not a simple question to answer. There are layers within layers which has to been seen, to understand the full picture.

 

[Mage]

Then they should give in Instalments, spread on 50, 100 year.

These things are not given but taken.

 

[Kailash Kumar]

If forms the foundation for future negotiations. Hard data and Facts, not youtube debates.
Let's say when we want to replace UK as the next permanent member of the UN.
Will this be sufficient ? not, but it will play its role in swinging global opinion.

What?
I do not think that the United Kingdom will give up their seat as permanent member of the UN Security Council (which I think you meant).
So India will never replace them.

In general these type of studies do not have the effect which you want them to have.
You might try to used them to influence global opinion to achieve certain goals, but I do not think it will work.

This is because no one actually cares.
They will (act like they are) listen(ing), nod their head in agreement, say some soothing words where they agree with you but in the end they do not care en will not act upon on which they might have agreed upon.