Well...You are enitled to your opinions...
There is a tendency in the anglophone world to depict the British colonial rule as somehow beneficial to the 'Brown' races of India. The color equation is alway just below the surface. The beneficial nature of british rule is a very incorrect assesment..I am going to dispute whatever is written in Wikipedia article..I was not aware of this article in Wikipedia...
The reason why India could not expand econimically when the whole world was expanding was the blood sucking british that you think so highly of. They created conditions that would benefit themselves and whatever so called development they carried out (say railways..etc) were precisely geared to exploit the resources of India for their own development...The british rule was worse than the Muslim rule..The muslims came..conquered but left most of the population and the economy alone. The british on the other had ruined India economically.....
The british left India economically ruined and left her with the festering issues like Kashmir as a parting gift...
After 60 years of independence, I would not say that all that is wrong is because of British but certainly some blame goes to them and that outweighs any 'favors' the british did to India......India had nothing to thank for to the British...
Well this whole thing has nothing to do with the US-India relations... Bygones are bygones and US and India are natural partners...
There is a tendency in the anglophone world to depict the British colonial rule as somehow beneficial to the 'Brown' races of India. The color equation is alway just below the surface.
I made no mention of color, nor was I thinking about color. Indeed, I made a post on another thread a few days ago pointing out that East Asians (which includes Indians) score about 6 points higher on standardized I.Q. tests than do Caucasians. Moreover, the few Indians I know are among the smartest people I've ever met, as well as being warm and wonderful folks. So nothing I said should be taken to be coming from a racial point of view.
The british rule was worse than the Muslim rule..The muslims came..conquered but left most of the population and the economy alone.
It's impossible to re-write history, of course, but I would submit that had India been colonized completely by muslims and had muslim rule extended to the present day, India would be in the same predicament as other islamically controlled nations are today, to wit, completely dependent upon Western ideas and technologies for their continued survival. India has been fortunate indeed to avoid such a potential catastrophe.
"There is a tendency in the anglophone world to depict the British colonial rule as somehow beneficial to the 'Brown' races of India. The color equation is alway just below the surface. The beneficial nature of british rule is a very incorrect assesment.."
I agree completely. The anglophone world including their supporters in India try to portray the british rule as "taming the barbaric & uneducated" Indians. Without the british rule, India would be an economy today rivalling he US.
One question: Were the British any worse than Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Yadav and the countless other corrupt scoundrels who plundered millions in the name of "social justice" and other archaic slogans ?