How much of the green can the British lay claim to?
Posted on 07/09/2005 11:02:14 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday acknowledged the "beneficial consequences" of British colonial rule like "free press, constitutional government, professional service, modern universities and research laboratories".
Speaking at Oxford after receiving a honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law, Dr Singh said, "Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian prime minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too."
He added: "Our notions of the rule of law, of a constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age-old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day."
Dr. Singh said India's struggle for independence was more an assertion by Indians of their "natural right to self-governance" than an outright rejection of the "British claim to good governance."
Both India and Britain had "learnt" from each other and had much to teach the world. "This is perhaps the most enduring aspect of the Indo-British encounter," Dr. Singh added.
That's one way to look at it.
Ping!
How much of the green can the British lay claim to?
And how much of the yellow here?
Much, much better! Thanks!
Going by that map , not much of the world is free is it ....
I'm not sure the British rule was necessarily a good thing for my ancestors who were around at that time. The British were evil , cruel , treated the natives like insects , created artificial scarcity of food , heavily taxed the poor farmers , resulting in artificial man-made famines , and millions of starvation deaths.By the time the British left India in 1947 , 84% of the country lived in abject starvation level sub-saharan poverty and average life expectancy was a mere 24 years. Today 23% of Indians live in poverty and average life expectancy is 59 years.
But still , I agree with what the Prime Minister said.
The British Raj created modern India. Without the Raj, there simply wouldn't be an India, it would likely be several different countries at best.
Possible. But the nazi like cruelty of the British should not be forgotten.They effectively starved to death millions every year they ruled India.
"Nazi" sure is thrown around a lot these days.
nazis were harmless pussies compared to the british of old..
I've got to take the bait. Millions every year? 1858-1947 would be 89 years. Millions per year would be around 270 million. What was the British methodology for starvation? I'm familiar with the British Corn Laws concerning Ireland, but in all my reading on the Raj I've never come across anything like what your are talking about.
What a stretch.
I'm not disputing the entrenched racism of the British colonial rule, and the fact that it wasn't necessarily "good" for the Indians living at the time.
I am wondering, however, if many of the period's ills haven't been conveniently laid on the British. If I recall the Raj correctly, the local kings retained control of local governance. Many early British (and other European) accounts speak of the vast differences between the castes. Vast wealth and unfathomable poverty. It doesn't seem to have started with the British.
Forceful cultivation of Indigo in place of foodcrops to keep the Industrial revolution fed......
Prohibitive taxrates as well as restrictions on sales of indegnious items throughout the British colonies...
The unbelievably callous handling of the Great Bengal famine of 1943 which left over 3 million dead...
Recommended reading: Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant"
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/
Actually British ruled India from 1750-1950 ..thats 200 years. 1858 is the year when the Queen officially declared herself the head od state of India. Before that British ruled India as under East Indi Company.
270 million may be a strech ...but there were 50-60 serious artifically created famines during the 200 year British rule. Estimates are during each famine , 2-3 million poor Indians were starved to death. Thats easily 100 million starvation deaths. Considering the subcontinent's population was maintained constantly at 350 millionm (1750)-550 million(1940) ...that was still manageable.
Famines never happened before British came to India. As I said before they were artifically created by British by heavy taxation of poor farmers and holding of food stocks.
You may not have heard of it because the historians in the west have deliberately ignored the ill effects of British rule to make it look like even benign and kindhearted.But every Indian school kid is taught a slightly different version.
But thats okay..lot of water has flown below the bridge and we have moved on.
Oh really!!!! If that's true then its payback time!!!Let give the stupid queen and her husband the Gandhi peace prize for spreading peace and democracy!!!!/sarcasm
The only reason british came to India was to exploit her wealth.They modernised and united india for their own benefit. So stop making a virtue of necessity !!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.