Posted on 08/14/2005 7:47:48 PM PDT by voletti
On midnight 14th August 1947, Great Britain ceded soverignity over the Indian subcontinent to its native people. The struggle for Independence was led by Mohandas K Gandhi and boasted stalwarts like Nehru. The day also marked the birth in blood of 2 new nations - India and Pakistan - in one ancient land .
(Excerpt) Read more at sify.com ...
"India is a third-world backwater joke and always will be"
Weren't serious about that, were you?
The phrase, "gunboat diplomacy" originated with the actions of the British in one of their colonies. British gunboats cruised up and down a river, blasting villages as a punitive measure.
Ghandi raised an impressive amount of support in India by peaceful means, and Britain was facing the impending support aroused there. India has come far since her independence but not before.
My ancestors who fought in the American Revolutionary War would also have disagreed with your comments.
France didn't do any worse than Britain with her many Muslim colonies. In fact, in at least one British colony in a Muslim territory, the Arabs beheaded a who city of British men, women and children. Their heads were piked all around the city.
Western Europe is western Europe--not one of those countries much better than another.
Happy Birthday to India, though! It's quickly becoming a great country without the help of any "empire!"
happy birthday India, now can someone there please reset my netscape email password?
And you neatly sidestepped, gobshite, the whole Democracy issue - it's not just a matter of actually voting, but its the education and laws your leaders received. Gandhi was a solicitor, remember? Without British laws and traditions, there was no philosophical basis in the Indian tradition to have come up with the democratic system India now enjoys.
As for suttee - don't lie about that either. As this shows::
British governors generally taxed fairly and improved their holdings, often building roads in the region. Eventually, though, the British also began to impose their own ideas of culture on the people they governed in South Asia. For instance, they forbade the religious practice of suttee, in which, where women threw themselves on the burning funeral pyres of their husbands.
Never, ever lie to my face. Just don't try it.
Ivan
True the British did a few good things. But they only did it for their profit, not with the motive to govern the people fairly.
What possible directly deriveable economic benefit was there in educating the likes of Nehru and Gandhi? What benefit was there from killing the Thugee?
Answer: none.
Try again.
Ivan
Gandhi - You solely asked for economic benefits. Well, under Gandhi India started producing -salt- something that the British Raj forced India to import from UK.
Nehru - Hundreds of Dams, Schools, Universities, and othe rinsitutions under his govt. You ask "what benefit?".
Try you? No thanks, you seem to be pretty ill informed. I'm all to happy to leave it at that.
You're being stupid on purpose. Why would Britain offer the opportunity to educate Gandhi and Nehru. It served no economic purpose that one could see.
Second, there was no economic purpose in killing the Thugee.
Try again. And don't be a complete, blithering idiot this time.
Ivan
Worth repeating!
Yes ofcourse! The queen paid for their education didn't she.
Bah! Rest of your posts, you resorted to flaming. Obviosuly you have no arguments against the facts I quoted. Britain did somethings to develope India. But those were primarily done so that the East India Company earned a huge profit, and the wealth kept on draining to UK. Most of the jewels on the Queen's crown, from India. You'll still spew your anti India hate campaign, for the likes of you I have no time.
Couple of good reads on India.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/677105/posts
We also explored the many burned houses. How were they burned? I would ask the locals. Back would come the casual reply. 'They belonged to Hindus and Sikhs. Our fathers and uncles burned them.' Why? 'So they could never come back, of course.' Why? 'Because we are now Pakistan. Their home is India.' Why, I persisted, when they had lived here for centuries, just like your families, and spoke the same language, even if they worshipped different gods? The only reply was a shrug. It was strange to think that Hindus and Sikhs had been here, had been killed in the villages in the valleys below. In the tribal areas - the no-man's-land between Afghanistan and Pakistan - quite a few Hindus stayed on, protected by tribal codes. The same was true in Afghanistan itself (till the mujahedin and the Taliban arrived).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/773340/posts
But Javed, a high school student here, says his parents might as well be describing life on the moon. He was 3 when a violent insurgency against Indian control tore apart the state, causing Hindus to flee by the hundreds of thousands. He has never had a Hindu teacher or friend, never tasted Hindu food.
>>Why would Britain offer the opportunity to educate Gandhi and Nehru. It served no economic purpose that one could see.
The British understood they needed local administrators to help govern the country.
With the British Govt taking over administration of the East India Co after the Indian Rebellion, some local color was needed to alleviate the administrative burdens.
Of course, education can be dangerous.
Ping to Post #54. Links to informative articles if interested.
"SO THAT INDIANS CAN KICK THEIR DIRTY ASS"
good and you
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.