Misc.

How british stole 45 trillion from India ?

Qualcomm life345
Jan 8

comments

Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
  • Flagged by the community.

  • New HBhogle
    But today’s Brits and Americans celebrate Churchill as a hero as who defeated Hitler. Churchill and Hitler are no different when it comes to individual character both are racist and killed millions with their actions.
    Jan 87
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      How is Churchill racist?! Wtf
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      "Indians are ghastly people with ghastly religion"

      "How is that naked fakir not dead yet?"
      Jan 8
    • New HBhogle
      “They breed like rats anyway”
      “Why didn’t Gandhi die yet”

      His favorite days are when he raided tribal civilization in Africa and burnt their tents

      In Sudan bragged he personally shot three savages.

      Concentration camps in South Africa. Wow conveniently we ignore these facts about Churchill.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      He said "they breed like rats anyway", and then diverted all the grains and food from Bengal in 1943 for British army, creating an artificial famine that killed 3 million Indians.

      Churchill was as bad as Hitler, no less.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      This is all Fake News
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      Prove it.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Churchill was responsible for more death than hitler.
      Jan 8
  • Nvidia mkg
    More than taxes, it was the divide and rule policy that they implanted that totally destroyed India.
    Jan 810
    • Cisco / Design
      nasdaq

      CiscoDesign

      PRE
      Intel Corporation
      nasdaqmore
      Yeah exploited the existing bad culture (like caste) and brought in more bad culture.
      Jan 8
    • Nvidia mkg
      Yeah. I don’t think it’s ever going to change. Not even education.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      And importing democracy, education, English, and the best legal system known to mankind. How awful of the British Empire.
      Jan 8
    • Nvidia mkg
      All you said is not something worth importing. Do you really thing English was worth importing ? Think about what would have happened if they didn’t come at all. Democarcy - my foot. What is happening in India currently is not democracy.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      English is the international language of business, and one of the key things that has enabled India to bring itself out of poverty.

      Pick two people from two different countries who speak different native tongues. If at least one of them knows a 2nd language, and they have a language in common, chances are that language they both have in common is English.

      India’s strategy has been to outsource really low level white collar jobs, and slowly increase the skill level over time. Without a good English education, this wouldn’t have happened.

      India has an issue with low quality candidates and uninformed voters. This is unfortunate but a common problem that can be solved.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      As much as I hate the british for what they did to india, I must admit, if there was no british invasion, there would not be an India. There would be a bunch of small countries quarrelling with each other stuck in medieval times. It would have been another Africa or middle east(without oil) instead.

      Industrialization, infrastructure, railways, roads, education, legal system,modern medicine and science all were imported thanks to the British. And the biggest factor was that the British conquered and united those qurraelling small kingdoms and uprooted the evil mughal dynasty. There was no India. India was born when British left.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      @tier 1: your statement shows you have bought into what the colonizers have told you to believe in.

      Democracy: Where was democracy in India in 1947 ? Did Britishers leave behind a democratic system for India ? The cornerstone of Indian democracy is it's constitution, but Britain doesn't even have a codified constitution. India ADOPTED democracy because of the "second wave of democracy". A lot of countries which adopted democracy in this wave didn't even had Britain as their colonizers. Finland adopted democracy in 1919 after gaining independence from Tsarist Russia.

      English: Are you seriously suggesting there is something such as "better language" ? Let me tell you, had America adopted German, you would be talking in German today.

      Education: Again, this is a ridiculous point. As I pointed above, you have lapped into whatever your masters have thrown before you. Let me tell you, in 1800s, there were hundreds of Sanskrit department all around Europe to learn and translate the vast amount of literatures of India.

      Best legal system: what does this even mean ? What knowledge of present and past legal system do you have to have made such a claim ?
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      English is the best because it’s widely spoken throughout the world. It’s easy to get a translator from English to any other language. If someone speaks 2 languages, chances are they speak English.

      Any language could have became the international standard, but only one is.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      @horizontal from MS: I replied to your comment in the other thread.

      @Tier 1: You continue to embarrass yourself. It seems you are still suggesting English has some innate quality by which people around the world started speaking it. Stop propagating your opinions.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      That’s not what I said. It’s widely spoken because it’s widely spoken.
      Jan 8
  • Microsoft horizontal
    As much as I hate the british for what they did to india, I must admit, if there was no british invasion, there would not be an India. There would be a bunch of small countries (probably hundreds) quarrelling with each other stuck in medieval times. It would have been another Africa or middle east(without oil) instead.

    Industrialization, infrastructure, railways, roads, education, legal system,modern medicine and science all were imported thanks to the British. And the biggest factor was that the British conquered and united those qurraelling small kingdoms and uprooted the evil mughal dynasty. There was no India. India was born when British left.
    Jan 811
    • Google romo
      That's stupid, most of the 3rd world is poor because they have been heavily exploited in the past and now by the west. It's a huge loss for the countries being colonised.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      "There was no India. India was born when British left".
      The administratively united India maybe emerged after Britishers. The culturally united India has been present for thousands of years. Bharatvarsh has been defined as the land South of Himalayas. Present day South indians have been traveling to Varanasi for thousand of years. Adi Shankara from Kerala established his peethams in 4 corners of India, and has a hill named in Kashmir valley. Administrative disunity earlier never hindered cultural exchanges.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      "Industrialization..... were imported thanks to British".
      Any sort of cultural exchange is bound to transmit good ideas from both sides. Does this seriously justify colonialism ?
      Going by this logic, India should now choose it's next invader for itself, because apparently Indians are unable to decide what's good for themselves.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Culturally united india ? What are you talking about. Still today we are very diverse. India is like a mix of hundreds of cultures, languages, societies. Nope india never was culturally united and never will be.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Regarding your other point about industrialization justifying colonialism. No it doesnt justify. I never said what British did was justified. I am merely pointing out that the alternative could have been far worse.

      The mughals were not going to take you to a golden age. Nor the marathas or other small kingdoms. Most likely it would have ended up like a bunch of small poor countries like in Africa or middle east.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      It's unfortunate you choose to see only the surface diversity, without seeing the beautiful underlying unity of thought and behavior. I pity you. I suggest you make friends with people over the country. Nothing I say here will.

      "The alternatives could have been far worse". Please don't propagated your own hypothesis. You have no way of knowing what course the history would have taken. Not being able to learn from the history and hold the perpetrators accountable is cowardice.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      I am just not going to drink the nationalism kool aid and ignore all of history. Read multiple sources of history and not blindly believe what congress party put in history books in our indian schools.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      You aren't talking in historical terms. You are proposing your own hypothesis on what "would have happened" to India.

      You are starting from the hypothesis that India would have been stuck in medieval times with no road, no railways, no unity. From there you propose that British rule was good because it "brought" those things.

      Your analysis is prejudiced by your hypothesis.

      What sources do you want me to read ? What will those sources tell me ?
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      Or perhaps, you are prejudiced against Islamic rule, and think Britishers were "less" bad. I am not comparing them. They were both bad. The lies that have been told to justify both the Islamic rule and British rule need to confronted and exposed.

      My only interest is in confronting the lies and unfounded hypothesis.

      It is an unfounded hypothesis that India took a turn for the better under Britishers.
      Jan 8
    • Qualcomm life345
      OP
      Americans rejected Britishers and came up with lot of good stuff.. may be India would have invented few things too.. look Ayurveda, Yoga, Shampoo, dance/music forms, first surgery, first martial arts born in India...
      Jan 8
  • Microsoft UMbR31
    As an Indian person, it blows my mind even today that a few thousand visibly foreign individuals ruled such a giant nation for centuries. One wonders if it's the same 'FANG dev hating Infosys contractor' at play in the 21st century.
    Jan 88
    • Microsoft ramare
      Good point. Indian masses were never really interested in Independence. They probably had the same chalta hai attitude we have today.

      On the other end of spectrum are Afghan people who have replled 3 invasion attempts by superpowers (British, Russian, US) in face of a massive technology gap.

      Only reason India got Independence was WW2 and maybe a little bit of Gandhi mass mobilization. I'm doubtful they would have left without WW2.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Initially they werent interested. They were not worse off than under the ruling of mughal dictators. To them mostly it didnt matter who was ruling. Until the british raised taxes massively and forced the farmers to cultivate crops that only benefits them an d let them starve. Then it did matter. But I think their will for fighting a war for it and risking death/injury wasnt there much. The only notable armed rebellion happened after 100 years of british rule was by the sepoys(indian army people working for british) called sepoy mutiny and it was for a laughable reason. Yes you guessed it religious reason. And yes, most of the british army were comprised of indian working for them. They didnt care until they heard a rumour that the british gun cartridges and grenades are made of cow/pig leather which is against hindu/muslim faith.

      Aeons of ruling by foreign oppressive forces broke the backbone of general public. We still feel the effect of this. Indian public do not trust any government. Do not care about paying taxes if they could avoid. Save kilograms of gold in their home instead of putting money in banks. Looking after oneself and hiding wealth from goverment is a result of this.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Gandhi had 0 effect in indias freedom. They were intrigued by Gandhi's philosophy but none of Gandhi's demand were ever met. British simply refused to give him anything. All his movements (satyagraha, quit india, salt march) all of them failed without an iota of success. Only success I would attribute to him is uniting masses and creating a sense of nationalism.
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      It's because of people like Mir Jafar who sold out, because of which a few hundred Britishers were able to defeat Sirajuddin daula. The unfortunate part is, people like him are still present in today's society, who praise whatever their masters have shoved down their throats. We need to learn from history.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Mir jafar wasnt responsible alone. Also mir jafar's master was shiraz ud doula. He didnt praise what his masters shoved. In fact he did the opposite.

      But yes Shiraz was incompetent, immature and stupid. He was an addict, violent to his people and administration and had no battle plan. Mir Jafar bit is overstressed in history. Even without him (and multiple others in his administration betraying), that kingdom would have still fallen. East India Company had guns and advanced weapons.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft ramare
      East India company had a lot of discipline too. They would form 3-4 lines of a total of few hundred soldiers and defeat tens of thousands of Indian soldiers. I have read several such battle accounts.

      Look at civil war reenactment or movies to see how British keep the line and march forward even with casualties.

      Most likely Indian soldiers didn't use to have this discipline and started running when seeing fallen soldiers around them. Civilian indians still behave exactly like that even today and we get news of stampede deaths every few years.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      ^yes that too. Most indian kings just piled the armies and went straight ahead into traps, clever maneuvers and get themselves slaughtered. They didnt understand the concept of battle formations, choke points, terrain advantage, proper utilization of weapons and artillery and discipline.

      The stampede thing you brought up is interesting. But i think huge population and poor infrastructure, narrow entrances/roads to temples etc are contributing factor there.

      But fleeing soldiers from battlefield was definitely a common factor in many battles in indian history. You would not read about these in indian history books though.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft ramare
      Lack of collective discipline and purpose is the more probable reason of defeat.

      Eg we copied bureaucracy from British which they used to rule the world and we used the same thing to be corrupt and inefficient.

      British introduced a culture of extensive paperwork to keep track of things so that "concerned authorities" or "whomsoever it may concern" can handle the issue. We used to create red tape and bribery.
      Jan 8
  • Apple KGHP41
    The main reason Europeans especially British folks felt the need to colonize other parts of the world was because they didn’t have any natural resources. They couldn’t grow shit while India and Africa was rich with natural resources and could grow very valuable crops.
    Jan 85
    • New HBhogle
      Wow did you just justify colonization ?
      There is something called Trade.If you feel like you don’t have something you buy you don’t threaten and steal.
      Jan 8
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      Yes, naked plunder and brutal forced labor was required by early capitalism to jump-start industry and seek out new profitable investments.
      Jan 8
    • Apple KGHP41
      I think you missed my point. The point being that while the Indian civilization was flourishing, European were squabbling over pepper, spices and other natural resources for survival. Colonization began with trade for their survival. They turned that trade into slavery for hundreds of years. Ironically the Caucasian race would’ve been eliminated if it weren’t for India, Africa, South America and bunch of other Asian countries.
      Jan 9
    • Credit Karma EllisDee25
      Colonialism wasn’t driven by hunger or desperation.

      Compared to the aging feudal societies of Russia and Central Europe, the colonizing countries were flourishing with trade and new urban life.

      It was the need to expand the economy that drove colonialism.
      Jan 9
    • Apple KGHP41
      Trade began as a means to survive because they couldn’t migrate to warmer places in the world.
      Jan 10
  • Microsoft / EngTier 1
    All taxes are stealing.
    Jan 80
  • Amazon ewj
    World isn't fair and it never was. British did the "needful" to help grow their empire, Indians kingdoms should have done the same!
    Jan 81
    • Goldman Sachs / OtherNeedful TC
      Done the needful on the same, you mean?
      Jan 8
  • Amazon / Engmashup
    Huh??? Makes no sense... how many crore is that???
    Jan 88
    • Google romo
      Come back after you leetcode some more
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      What is crore? Doesn’t India use INR?

      3.16 quadrillion INR
      Jan 8
    • Cisco / Design
      nasdaq

      CiscoDesign

      PRE
      Intel Corporation
      nasdaqmore
      INR is counted in hundreds, thousands, lakhs and crores
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      Wat.

      Why not use metric?
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft ramare
      We go with 2 zeros instead of 3 zeros for successive units.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Crore is not a unit, its a number multiplier just like million/thousand/billion.

      1 crore = 10 million.
      1 lakh = 100,000.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft / EngTier 1
      Is it used outside of the context of rupees?
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Yes like india's population is 120 crores. Its a just a number denomination like hundred/thousand/million/billion. Nothing to do with currency or units.
      Jan 8
  • Google Union dues
    The worst part is our very own people justifying the British rule by saying we got tea, cricket and English from the Britishers. They even credit Britishers for "unification" of India. These are the signs of a colonized mind. These are the same people who laugh at Philippines, completely enamored with a culture that completely subdued them for years. Such fellow Indians need to be debated and taught the real history whenever and wherever they are located.
    Jan 80
  • Fake news
    Jan 82
  • Cisco / Otherscoobysnax
    Numbers courtesy of the same people who claim that software piracy costs the industry trillions of dollars...
    Jan 80
  • Microsoft horizontal
    Yes that is my hypothesis. At this point whether it was good or bad can only be hypothesized. We dont have time machine to see alternate history. But my hypothesis is based on continuation of what had happened in history before British rule. It was dark age. I do not expect "that india" could have a renaissance and scientific progress. Religious conflict and culture clash and agriculture based economy would not have produced a miracle. Unless another scientifically advanced civilization invaded/colonized/co-habitated india.
    You need to see the examples of history of middle east and some part of Africa.

    Read some British viewpoints too. That will be biased yes, but indian history books are biased too. Like watching CNN and Fox to find the actual truth.
    Jan 84
    • Microsoft brosephs
      Bruh, you serious right now?
      Jan 8
    • Bruhhh
      Jan 8
    • Google Union dues
      The key here is co-habited. Cultural/technological exchange is always welcome. Colonialism is not. A lot of scientific advancement of western Europe was actually based on looting the colony countries. Their talks of liberty, democracy were limited to themselves. The first thing the Dutch did after the WW2 was to send ships in 1946 to recapture Indonesia.

      You seem to be convinced that Indians needed sticks and stones to get "better", I think India would have progressed without it, without facing the abject poverty and sufferings. There is of course no way to prove either.

      But please, one thing is clear is that Britishers weren't benevolent. They didn't intentionally do anything to help India. Whatever good happened to India in those times happened because Indians were actually intelligent and resilient enough to make something good out of those horrible times. Whatever good was left because people held on to what they considered good. Those times were bad, and all we have to show for it is that we have learnt a lesson that we should never allow it to happen again.
      Jan 8
    • Microsoft horizontal
      Of course they werent benevolent. Neither did they intentionally help us, mostly for themselves. But without their scientific knowledge and industrial development we would have been even worse off.

      We didn't allow it, we got beaten. What lesson ? We lost all wars. If there is ever any return of colonialism we wont have the power to defend. For our defense also we are mostly dependent on western technologies, weapons and we have basically embraced them as allies.

      I dont believe indians needed sticks and stones to get better. They needed to embrace science & technology, accept and learn from western scientific progress, industrialization and advancement instead of wasting time in religious conflicts and superstitions. All of these we eventually did and are still doing. And we did faster than Africa or Middle east because British gave us headstart. Africa and middle east is still stuck there.
      Jan 8
  • Symantec O (1)
    Divide & Conquer. We know that it works very well
    Jan 80
  • Spotify Lajuheit
    China is doing much the same right now in Africa, without firing a single shot.
    Jan 80

Join verified employees in our anonymous social network!Download the app!

close