[Football] A genuine question - what did the UK gain from Indian occupation?

[Swansman]

That’s an incredibly simplistic statement. British occupation had huge benefits as well as huge draw backs. Perhaps one of the biggest benefits was that it meant that some countries were not colonised by Nazi Germany because the Brits had got there first in the last century.

Would there be a Nazi Germany if it wasn't for British colonialism bringing William Jones to India though?

 

[London Irish]

Just watching the news and a discussion around our occupation of India. I don’t argue the fact that we weren’t welcome.

But did we exploit the sub-continent to an extent that it was worse off than it was before than before we arrived.

The East India company was pretty much the birth of multinational capitalism so I'm going to go with we benefited a **** of a lot and obviously by doing so ruined alternative development models for India by the crudest means possible, raw military power

 

[GT49er]

I genuinely can't think of a single country which can be considered to have benefited from British occupation, and I'm happy to be challenged on that. One of my beloved grandads was in the army helping to destroy the Turkish Empire during WW1 in Iraq and Palestine and look at the mess that Britain left behind them there...

Turkey, iraq and Palestine were never part of the British Empire, so totally irrelevant.

The strange thing about the British Empire which anti-imperialists (such as the USA, who are a bit hypocritical when it comes to identifying with anti-imperialsm!) can't grasp is the fact that when the British Empire voluntarily dissolved, almost every country freed from Empire (including India and Pakistan) signed up to join in the Commonwealth of Nations which Britain instituted as a friendship among nations and the successor to Empire.

No other Empire has ever done that. Yes, there was good and bad about the British Empire - and I understand Empires are vilified today and that many people think it is cool to judge historical events by modern mores, ridiculous though that is - but there was obviously enough good for newly independent nations to voluntarily opt to join the Commonwealth and stay in it.

Difficult one for the haters of their own country's history too argue against, really .............. though doubtless some will try

 

[knocky1]

We teamed up with the Maharajas to take the wealth and then Lord Mountbatten's partition plan was all over the place much like himself years later in Mullaghmore.

 

[mr sheen]

That’s an incredibly simplistic statement. British occupation had huge benefits as well as huge draw backs. Perhaps one of the biggest benefits was that it meant that some countries were not colonised by Nazi Germany because the Brits had got there first in the last century.

Interesting position to take. Which countries would you put in that category? And how did they benefit?

 

[chip]

I spent around 3 months in India. I spoke to several Indians who thanked me for the British Raj. At the time, I was quite shocked and wanted to apologise. I then read a book on India by V.S Naipaul and realised how complex the questions of Britain’s involvement are.

One thing is clear though, India should be viewed more as a continent such as Europe rather than a single country.

I've had the same experience too. Oddly, some people at a wedding in Pune, who I had never met before, were keen to tell me how less corrupt India was under British rule. They wouldn't entertain my argument that there might have been a different form of corruption going on.

On your last point, are we including Pakistan, Bangledesh and Sri Lanka in this India? I have a very good friend from Sri Lanka and in many ways he is more English than me, mostly in a good way.

Sory I can't answer the OP

 

[Bakero]

I spent around 3 months in India. I spoke to several Indians who thanked me for the British Raj. At the time, I was quite shocked and wanted to apologise. I then read a book on India by V.S Naipaul and realised how complex the questions of Britain’s involvement are.

One thing is clear though, India should be viewed more as a continent such as Europe rather than a single country.

Might I suggest that chatting to a few English-speaking Indians and reading a book by a famed apologist for colonialism, great writer though he was, isn't the best way to get informed about the history of the British Empire in India.

ps. I've also travelled around India from Kashmir to Kerala and met many who were nostalgic about British rule too.

 

[knocky1]

Turkey, iraq and Palestine were never part of the British Empire, so totally irrelevant.

The strange thing about the British Empire which anti-imperialists (such as the USA, who are a bit hypocritical when it comes to identify with anti-imperialsm!) can't grasp is the fact that when the Brotish Empire voluntarily dissolved, almost every country freed from Empire (including India and Pakistan) signed up to join in the Commonwealth of Nations which Britain instituted as a friendship among nations and the successor to Empire.

No other Empire has ever done that. Yes, there was good and bad about the British Empire - and I understand Empires are vilified today and that many people think it is cool to judge historical events by modern mores, ridiculous though that is - but there was obviously enough good for newly independent nations to voluntarily opt to join the Commonwealth and stay in it.

Difficult one for the haters of their own country's history too argue against, really .............. though doubtless some will try

Palestine was a British Mandate from end of WW1 until 1948. Wonder what happened in 1948?

 

[lasvegan]

Slightly off track, but still on topic. An interesting perspective that no one on here will agree with.

https://twitter.com/tuckercarlson/status/1568034996622970880

 

[faoileán]

That’s an incredibly simplistic statement. British occupation had huge benefits as well as huge draw backs. Perhaps one of the biggest benefits was that it meant that some countries were not colonised by Nazi Germany because the Brits had got there first in the last century.

Really? Which countries in particular are you referring to?

 

[maltaseagull]

What are you talking about? The guy asked if Britain exploited the sub-continent. The answer is yes, yes we did, on an industrial scale.

I replied to YOUR post:
India had the stongest economy in the world prior to Brtitish occupation. It's safe to say it did not by the time we left.

 

[knocky1]

Turkey, iraq and Palestine were never part of the British Empire, so totally irrelevant.

The strange thing about the British Empire which anti-imperialists (such as the USA, who are a bit hypocritical when it comes to identify with anti-imperialsm!) can't grasp is the fact that when the Brotish Empire voluntarily dissolved, almost every country freed from Empire (including India and Pakistan) signed up to join in the Commonwealth of Nations which Britain instituted as a friendship among nations and the successor to Empire.

No other Empire has ever done that. Yes, there was good and bad about the British Empire - and I understand Empires are vilified today and that many people think it is cool to judge historical events by modern mores, ridiculous though that is - but there was obviously enough good for newly independent nations to voluntarily opt to join the Commonwealth and stay in it.

Difficult one for the haters of their own country's history too argue against, really .............. though doubtless some will try

Iraq and Turkey for 4 years from 1918.

 

[Bakero]

I replied to YOUR post:
India had the stongest economy in the world prior to Brtitish occupation. It's safe to say it did not by the time we left.

Ok, I still don't understand your point, I'm afraid. Like I said, the British exploited India. Whatever history occured elsewhere doesn't alter this fact.

 

[Happy Exile]

There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain.

So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.

It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

Was going to say the same. Estimates are the UK made around $45 trillion over 170 years, and anything from 35 million to 80 million Indians died from avoidable famines caused by or ignored by policies of British occupation.

 

[Bakero]

Was going to say the same. Estimates are the UK made around $45 trillion over 170 years, and anything from 35 million to 80 million Indians died from avoidable famines caused by or ignored by policies of British occupation.

But what about railways? And Vikings? And Hitler?

 

[faoileán]

Turkey, iraq and Palestine were never part of the British Empire, so totally irrelevant.

The strange thing about the British Empire which anti-imperialists (such as the USA, who are a bit hypocritical when it comes to identify with anti-imperialsm!) can't grasp is the fact that when the Brotish Empire voluntarily dissolved, almost every country freed from Empire (including India and Pakistan) signed up to join in the Commonwealth of Nations which Britain instituted as a friendship among nations and the successor to Empire.

No other Empire has ever done that. Yes, there was good and bad about the British Empire - and I understand Empires are vilified today and that many people think it is cool to judge historical events by modern mores, ridiculous though that is - but there was obviously enough good for newly independent nations to voluntarily opt to join the Commonwealth and stay in it.

Difficult one for the haters of their own country's history too argue against, really .............. though doubtless some will try

Please refer back to the OP and my response, they both referred to British OCCUPATION, not Empire. And in a grown-up world it's not about hating your own country's history, it's about not wearing rose-tinted spectacles and accepting a pretend version of history in which our ancestors were always the good guys...

 

[knocky1]

I've had the same experience too. Oddly, some people at a wedding in Pune, who I had never met before, were keen to tell me how less corrupt India was under British rule. They wouldn't entertain my argument that there might have been a different form of corruption going on.

On your last point, are we including Pakistan, Bangledesh and Sri Lanka in this India? I have a very good friend from Sri Lanka and in many ways he is more English than me, mostly in a good way.

Sory I can't answer the OP

Two people's opinion from a census of 1.4 Billion is pushing it.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Might I suggest that chatting to a few English-speaking Indians and reading a book by a famed apologist for colonialism, great writer though he was, isn't the best way to get informed about the history of the British Empire in India.

ps. I've also travelled around India from Kashmir to Kerala and met many who were nostalgic about British rule too.

I have a lot more sources than that. My point was about the complexity of the question, was British Colonial rule bad for India. I’d had a simple ‘colonial rule was always bad’ mentality but in actual fact, it’s incredibly difficult to make that judgement, perhaps the judgement can only be made on an individual basis to each Indian?

What is clear to me is that the wealth in India has never been shared, no matter who was ruling. I visited a number of Indian palaces in and around the golden triangle and it was clear that the Indians who ‘gave’ power to Britain lived equally rich, entitled, powerful and luxurious lives. Many visited England and wined and dined with the British aristocracy in what seemed like equal and respectful partnerships.

 

[mr sheen]

Two people's opinion from a census of 1.4 Billion is pushing it.

And given they've been independent for 75 years, memories may be a little blurry, for an imagined better past.

 

[GT49er]

Would there be a Nazi Germany if it wasn't for British colonialism bringing William Jones to India though?

Short answer: yes, there would. Long answer: yes there would have been.