Was British Raj actually good for South Asia?

[scorpionx]

Administration, railways, telegraph? Yes. But undeniable fact is the self sufficient village economies were completely ruined which had and still has deep bottom effect on our national psyche. Too much have been discussed about this so dont have much to add, but still those who have doubts just look at 1943 famine figures.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

@Jackdaws @scorpionx

Those who harp on the famines of British era conveniently ignore farmer suicides of 21st century India. Is it any different from British Raj era famines?

 

[scorpionx]

@Jackdaws @scorpionx

Those who harp on the famines of British era conveniently ignore farmer suicides of 21st century India. Is it any different from British Raj era famines?

You are shifting goal posts. You asked if Raj was good for South Asia or not. Had you framed your question as a comparative study between the two governances, I could have framed my answer accordingly.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

@Joe Shearer @Verve @Jackdaws @Mage @m.sarmad @Taimur Khurram @jbgt90 @fitpOsitive

To understand the sentence, "Better genes by facilitating inter-province marriages through modern transportation." you have to know the context. Click on below link reposted. Without modern transportation inter-province marriages on a massive scale wouldn't have been impossible. People would have married within their towns and villages and the horrendous genes described below would have perpetuated. The dreadful diseases would have continued.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/hoarding-junk-mental-illness-or-individuals-nature.553557/

You are shifting goal posts. You asked if Raj was good for South Asia or not. Had you framed your question as a comparative study between the two governances, I could have framed my answer accordingly.

Ok. Answer to that question because it is related to the topic.

 

[Hamza913]

Small numbers? 10% is sizeable.

They make up less than 2% of Pakistan's population. And roughly 5,000 of them migrate to India every year.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1105830

It may be depressing, but facts are facts. Muslims and Hindus just haven't gotten along in the history of South Asia.

The armies were composed of people from multiple faiths.

Right, but the non-Muslims weren't very religious, and they ended up converting to Islam. This is pretty much how Rajputs and others like them converted. They sided with the Muslim empires to join them in looting Hind, and eventually embraced Islam.

Except for the small fact that almost all freedom fighters jailed fighting the British were Hindus/Sikhs.

Because the Muslim ones either died fighting, or used politics to achieve their means (a much smarter move which worked out in the long run). Examples included Ahmed Khan Karral, Walidad Khan, Syed Ahmed Barelvi, etc. Remember, during the rebellion of 1857, the Mughal emperor was chosen to be the new King of Hind. Not one of you.

Muslims were slaves under Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim rulers and happily under the British too. Didn't bother fighting for freedom either - happy to be slaves.

You were our slaves for hundreds of years so don't give me this crap.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1105830

You trust Dawn media house?

 

[Jackdaws]

@Jackdaws @scorpionx

Those who harp on the famines of British era conveniently ignore farmer suicides of 21st century India. Is it any different from British Raj era famines?

Lots. Famines kill millions.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Lots. Famines kill millions.

Farmer suicides kill lakhs.

 

[Jackdaws]

They make up less than 2% of Pakistan's population. And roughly 5,000 of them migrate to India every year.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1105830

It may be depressing, but facts are facts. Muslims and Hindus just haven't gotten along in the history of South Asia.



Right, but the non-Muslims weren't very religious, and they ended up converting to Islam. This is pretty much how Rajputs and others like them converted. They sided with the Muslim empires to join them in looting Hind, and eventually embraced Islam.



Because the Muslim ones either died fighting, or used politics to achieve their means (a much smarter move which worked out in the long run). Examples included Ahmed Khan Karral, Walidad Khan, Syed Ahmed Barelvi, etc. Remember, during the rebellion of 1857, the Mughal emperor was chosen to be the new King of Hind. Not one of you.



You were our slaves for hundreds of years so don't give me this crap.

Nope. They simply obeyed the British just like they had obeyed the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim landlords, rajas and nawabs before them. For them the British were just some new masters who replaced the old.

That's why you didn't see them opposing the British tooth and nail and being jailed - no Muslim equivalent of a Bose, Bhagat Singh, Gandhi, Tilak or even Nehru.

I specifically asked about Sindh.

Farmer suicides kill lakhs.

Lakhs? Where is the source?

 

[scorpionx]

@Joe Shearer @Verve @Jackdaws @Mage @m.sarmad @Taimur Khurram @jbgt90 @fitpOsitive

To understand the sentence, "Better genes by facilitating inter-province marriages through modern transportation." you have to know the context. Click on below link reposted. Without modern transportation inter-province marriages on a massive scale wouldn't have been impossible. People would have married within their towns and villages and the horrendous genes described below would have perpetuated. The dreadful diseases would have continued.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/hoarding-junk-mental-illness-or-individuals-nature.553557/


Ok. Answer to that question because it is related to the topic.

Both are equally unfortunate but still there are hell and heaven differences. There is a difference in scale. How many farmers have committed suicide so far? Whereas 3 Million people perished in 1943-44 alone. Secondly, there is a difference in bad governmental policies and governmental callousness. Farmers are committing suicide for various reasons where we can not attribute each and every farmer suicide to bad governmental policies. On the other side, in 1943 Bengal was a food surplus province. People died due to autocratic arrogance and deliberate governmental callousness. Can you imagine any Indian politician dare to say even in essence what Churchill said about the famine? Can you see the difference?

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

what Churchill said about the famine?

What?

Who is jumping from one poll option to another? @Taimur Khurram is one of them. Earlier there were 12 in favour of British Raj. Now 10.

 

[scorpionx]

What?

Who is jumping from one poll option to another? @Taimur Khurram is one of them. Earlier there were 12 in favour of British Raj. Now 10.

"Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

"Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

@Jackdaws said there a was famine every four years during British Raj. Is he exaggerating?

And what were the usual regions of these Raj famines?

 

[scorpionx]

@Jackdaws said there a was famine every four years during British Raj. Is he exaggerating?

And what were the usual regions of these Raj famines?

There are data easily available on line, buddy. Please take a look into it. And you can try hard but you can't make this me against @Jackdaws .

 

[Hamza913]

Nope. They simply obeyed the British just like they had obeyed the Hindu, Sikh

No, we didn't. I already told you, plenty of Muslims fought against the British Empire as well as the Sikh and Hindu empires.

Ruhullah Khan, Muslim Gujjar from Kashmir who defeated Ranjit Singh 3 times in battle:

https://javaidrahi.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/the-gujjars-vol-1-ed-dr-javaid-rahi.pdf (page 33)

Ahmed Khan Karral, Muslim Punjabi rebel who resisted the Sikh Empire until their very collapse, after which he died fighting against the British:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Khan_Kharal

Source cited in Wikipedia link:

AD Ejaz 'Ahmad Khan Kharal', 1985

https://www.dawn.com/news/802754

https://www.dawn.com/news/793732

Shah Waliullah, Muslim Imam from Delhi who sent a letter to Ahmed Shah Durrani to invade Hind, and Durrani gleefully accepted his request and killed over 100,000 Indians at Panipat:

https://storyofpakistan.com/shah-wali-ullah

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...e&q=Ahmad Shah Durrani Shah Waliullah&f=false

Syed Ahmed Barelvi, raised a resistance movement to fight against the Sikh Empire (and also planned to fight against the British Empire) and died in battle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmad_Barelvi

And don't forget, your beloved freedom fighters all came begging to the Mughal emperor to lead them because you stupid idiots couldn't lead yourselves.

Muslim landlords, rajas and nawabs

Lmao first you said Muslims were made the "slaves" of Hindus, Sikhs and the British, and now you're separating Muslims into the common masses and ruling elite. As per your argument, I can easily say most Indians accepted being the slaves of the Muslims, British and Hindu landlords, rajas and nawabs. So your peasants were slaves just as much as ours.

And my family used to be landlords so I don't know why you're bringing this up with me. We owned land in India which your peasants would work on.

no Muslim equivalent of a Bose

Your ignorance is astounding, clearly you've never heard of Dr Muhammad Iqbal Shedai:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Iqbal_Shedai

Bhagat Singh

Already named you some, but I'll give you another, Maulvi Liaquat Ali:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulvi_Liaquat_Ali

Gandhi

You're right. None of our freedom fighters or independence activists walked around half-naked or starved themselves in stupidity.

Tilak or even Nehru.

Now you're just trolling to try and poke me. We all know how many Muslim politicians campaigned for independence. How else did Pakistan come about? Did Jinnah, Rehmat Ali, Syed Ahmed Khan and others just not exist lol?

I specifically asked about Sindh.

And I specifically told you they're all converting or fleeing.