Was India Better Under the British ?

[PakShah]

Bangalis made worthless soldiers?

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------



The Internet? Nah it's all thanks you lot

I think what he is trying to say, that the British terrorists did their best to westernize South Asia, when in reality they failed miserably.

I think he is talking about how the Britishers spread their English language in South Asia, and hence if Britain and America cannot colonize the people by force, they can colonize the people through culture.

@xLancex

I know my mother tongue Urdu, and believe me most if not all Pakistanis are not westernized at all. The Britishers failed miserablely, and eventually got kicked out of lands that make up Pakistan, and the other lands that make up present-day Bharat/India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar.

 

[IND151]

My post is very clear, the Muslims were at the forefront on the events in 1857, & they bore much of the aftermath of it as well.

no one is denying that Muslims opposed Brits

however Hindus. Sikhs too fought for freedom

also remember that Marathas were last to put down weapons

millions of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus have given their blood

 

[IND151]

India was better under any ruler who came from outside there was no chaos strict rule of law. whenever hindus got to rule india it disintegrated very fast reason being hindus dont trust hindus and fight like dogs.hindus can only be a good slave/coolie etc but can not ever make good master or ruler.Thats the only reason of all the 180 countries of the world india remain under foreigh rule only india remain under foreign rulers 90% of the ti,e of its existence.One more reason being hindus are bloody cowards.

why you do think so?

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

^ majority of countries have been ruled once or other times.. egypt was always under foreign rule.. so were greeks and europeans ..iranians were under foreign rule majority of their history... afghanistan is a pawn of world powers even now.

even a part of Britain was under roman rule in 3rd century

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

If you want to go by that logic, then even England was under foreign rule. Look up William of Normandy. Or his alias William the Conqueror.

correct

England faced roman invasion in 3rd century and french invasion in 10th century

not many people know that London was built by Romans

 

[jatt+gutts]

no one is denying that Muslims opposed Brits

however Hindus. Sikhs too fought for freedom

also remember that Marathas were last to put down weapons

millions of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus have given their blood

last to put down weapons were sikhs. remember punjab was under british rule less than 90 years.

 

[harpoon]

BSZ was just the dummy figurehead. The real muscle behind the rebellion were Rani Laxmi Bhai, Tantia Tope,Kunwar Singh, some Scindhia rulers, followers of Nawab of Oudh etc.

And proclamation of BSZ was the reason why the Sikhs never supported the rebellion even though they were just defeated by the English some 15-20 years ago. A strategic blunder.

All in all 1857 was a complex event - Hindus and Muslims fought against Hindus and Muslims. It was more of a Central Indian rebels vs British troops and allies.

Agreed. The declaration of BSZ as the as the emperor of India scared the Sikhs that India would once again come under the Mughlas against whom they fought many a bloody wars. This caused them to side with British.

 

[jatt+gutts]

another reason was lack of nationalism .. everyone was fighting to save his kingdom. and it was other indians who fought alongside british inanglo sikh wars which antagonised sikhs

 

[boris]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...9561-pakistan-schools-teach-hindu-hatred.html

If BJP comes back into power kids will be learning that Hindu Culture is more advanced than the latest super computer,more pure than distilled water and Hindu civilization beats the Greek,Romans,Egyptians by a long shot.It will in a peaceful manner teach us to shun western things and adopt hindu way of living/yoga the same way islamic's teach in an aggressive manner.

 

[53fd]

Wrong.

They were plenty of Muslim supporters of British too like the hyderabad Nizam, the Punjabi Musalmans, Pathans etc. The social backwardness of the Muslims at that time had very different reasons and the revolt was not one among them.

There is no doubt there were certain Muslims (like Aga Khan, who was given the title of 'Sir') that supported the British against the mutinists. But I quoted you the names of prominent Muslim leaders that called for Jihad, & the majority of the insurgents in Delhi were Muslim.

 

[American Pakistani]

after partition India lost fertile lands of west Punjab and east Pakistan

and whole British India was benefited from some good things done by Brits-including Pakistan



Pakistan had not just Lahore but rich cities like Karachi and Dhaka too

so both pak and India started their journey with lot problems and some infra made by Brits

Karachi was not comparable to big cities of that times like Lahore, Delhi, Mumbay, Madras, Kolkata etc, Karachi got attention after it was made capital of Pakistan & its population went up. Dhaka was there but it had huge East population to look after & even Dhaka was not enough for East peoples.

^^This is Karachi in 1947.

VS

^^Mumbay in 1947.

I don't understand why Indians are soo ungrateful, British only looted Pakistan & spend & developed India, yes some people say most agricultural lands came under Dominion of Pakistan but than British intentionally leave Kashmir issue unresolved & India in control of waters. Whereas they made India truly indepandant because all developed parts went to India all iindustries etc.

 

[Abingdonboy]

In a word? NO!!

Yes the Brits gave India railways and a civil service. But this wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts but to expediate their looting of the country.

In the process of this theft the Brits massacred and subverted millions of innocents and condemned many more to a horrible existence. The legacy of this is still apparent today with the poverty stricken in India/Pakistan and the Brits have the audacity to look down their noses at Indians for having this poverty.

Jallianwala Bagh massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Atrocities in India

1857 British Raj atrocity exposed - from 1.8 bn victim Indian Holocaust to 10 bn First World Climate Genocide : Gideon blogs on sulekha, Current Affairs blogs, Gideon blog from india

For reference points.


If this $hit happened today the world would be calling for military intervention by the UN.

 

[Bhairava]

There is no doubt there were certain Muslims (like Aga Khan, who was given the title of 'Sir') that supported the British against the mutinists. But I quoted you the names of prominent Muslim leaders that called for Jihad, & the majority of the insurgents in Delhi were Muslim.

Fair enough.

But the insurgency was not limited to Delhi alone.Much of the insurgency took place in Central India.

---------- Post added at 04:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 AM ----------

Bangalis made worthless soldiers?

No they were deemed untrustworthy. Because it was started by a Bengali (wasn't Pandey a Bengali ?) in Bengal.

 

[Bhairava]

... British only looted Pakistan & spend & developed India,

What was there to loot in Northwest India and Frontier (both comprising modern day Pakistan) ?

Much of the resources were from modern-day India. And that is why they dropped anchor in Calcutta..not Karachi.

.. India in control of waters.

What can British do about geography....you wanted them to move the Himalayas by about 200 km west so that all the rivers originate in Pakistan ?

 

[IND151]

last to put down weapons were sikhs. remember punjab was under british rule less than 90 years.

thanks for info

so sikhs put down weapons after 1818? ( peshwai was defeated in 1818 )