Was India Better Under the British ?

[jester]

India pre 1947 was a vast landscape, the Britishers had no choice but to invest in infrastructure like railways and post offices, to control undivided India such measures were necessary. Without railways the raw materials could not be transferred to port cities, so they did not create the railways because of goodwill it was business.

Aside from the whole Hindu Muslim freedom fighter bullshit going on, the freedom struggle was supported by the majority and that include Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and everyone else. Point scoring in 2011 does not change this fact. we wanted freedom.

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh have their own destinies, being under someone, not one of them.

 

[acetophenol]

Was it ?

Never it was.

 

[Rusty]

No it was not.
3) British looked down on Hinduism until they came to know Sanskrit is mother of all Indo-european language

That is not true and no matter how many times you repeat it, it still won be true.

The oldest ancestor to the mother of Indo-European language is Hittite, from present day Turkey.
Sanskrit is the mother of the Indian parts of the Indo European language.

 

[Bang Galore]

That is not true and no matter how many times you repeat it, it still won be true.

The oldest ancestor to the mother of Indo-European language is Hittite, from present day Turkey.
Sanskrit is the mother of the Indian parts of the Indo European language.

Ancestor? Mother? No more than Sanskrit. One of many languages, certainly not ancestor or mother.

 

[Rusty]

Ancestor? Mother? No more than Sanskrit. One of many languages, certainly not ancestor or mother.

I am not saying I am an expert, but I do have a little background in Linguistics.
so let me try my best to explain.

There is one language that is the mother of all the Indo European languages. Unfortunately we don’t know what that language was. But the language that is closest to that language is Hitite
The IE languages have many branches, including European language, the Indo language, and the Persian language. From these 3 categories we have more languages, in the Euro languages we have English French etc. in the Indo languages we have Sanskrit, Hindi, etc.

So the claim that Sanskrit is the mother of all these languages is a lie.
Usually this claim is made by Indians with some sort of inferiority complex.
India has an amazing history, so why tarnish it by making up lies?

 

[Bang Galore]

I am not saying I am an expert, but I do have a little background in Linguistics.
so let me try my best to explain.

There is one language that is the mother of all the Indo European languages. Unfortunately we don’t know what that language was. But the language that is closest to that language is Hitite
The IE languages have many branches, including European language, the Indo language, and the Persian language. From these 3 categories we have more languages, in the Euro languages we have English French etc. in the Indo languages we have Sanskrit, Hindi, etc.

So the claim that Sanskrit is the mother of all these languages is a lie.
Usually this claim is made by Indians with some sort of inferiority complex.
India has an amazing history, so why tarnish it by making up lies?

Nothing I have read suggests that there is any sort of widespread acceptance of the Hittite language as being "closest" to the "mother" language. True, Hittite is regarded by some as the oldest attested Indo-European language but that by itself proves nothing. Sanskrit was never written down for a very long period, all texts being preserved & transmitted orally, it would be impossible to get a correct date for the origin of the language.

However, I'm not one of those who believe in Sanskrit being the mother of any language other than those of its family found in the sub-continent. It remains one of the oldest surviving languages of the Indo-European family & there we must leave it unless some clear, new evidence crops up.

 

[PakShah]

Well it seems the British have taught you well thanks for clearing the misconceptions

Pakistan's problem is that we did not make it British enough – Telegraph Blogs

Ummm. Shut the heck up! If any British a$$h*le said that in Pakistan, people would beat the living the sh*t out of him/her.

WE WILL NEVER FORGET:

THE LAST MUGHAL EMPEROR: Bahadur Shah II

WE WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER THE FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE:

The First Indian War of Independence of 1857.

According to the British terrorists, they call it the Indian rebellion of 1857.

I JUST WANTED TO TO TELL YOU GUYS MY AMMI TOLD ME ONE OF MY RELATIVES BACK IN THOSE DAYS FOUGHT IN THE FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE!

Insh'Allah may my relative be granted Jannah.

My relative was a freedom fighter, but ofcourse the savage britisher would call him a terrorist.

The britishers were truly savages! The britishers were the real terrorists!

 

[Rusty]

However, I'm not one of those who believe in Sanskrit being the mother of any language other than those of its family found in the sub-continent. It remains one of the oldest surviving languages of the Indo-European family & there we must leave it unless some clear, new evidence crops up.

Then we are in agreement

 

[Bang Galore]

Anyways, Muslims were at the forefront of the mutiny, Bahadur Shah Zafar was declared the emperor of India, & in the aftermath of the mutiny, the last Mughal king & the family was killed, & the Muslims had to bear much for the events in 1857.

Not killed, exiled to Burma.( For those interested , William Dalrymple's book "The Last Mughal" is an informative piece on the life of Bahadur Shah Zafar)

 

[Bhairava]

It was if Indians liked slavery, and I don't think anyone on earth likes to be slaves.

I hope you know what Mirza Ghalib once told.

 

[kobiraaz]

only country which wasnt under foreign rule was nepal and british ... british maybe cause majority of historians are of british origin. who knows what truth. it could be all bullshit. history is full of lies and fairy tales too

thailand was never occupied

 

[Śikārī]

THE LAST MUGHAL EMPEROR: Bahadur Shah II

This is the first, the only and the last photograph of him.

 

[harpoon]

The only country in my knowledge hasn't been ruled is Japan.

They were briefly occupied by Americans post WW2. The only country that was not occupied atleast in Asia is Thailand.

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

Why you telling me this for? Do you really understand simple english? How many times i've to tell you it was your indian counterparts who claiming that Mughuls ruled whole Subcontinent, is it that hard to understand?

We never said that , most(NOT FEW) of the Pakistani HERE used to say that crap. just check it

 

[Bhairava]

very true cos hindoos were used to be the serving classes they adjusted easier from one master to another

No it's just that the native people of South Asia were living under the rule of Turko-Mongols/Afghans.

Now decide for yourself who you are.