Plus you have the understanding of a child when it comes to religion. Don't talk about something you have no knowledge of and don't go offending everyone and their mom just because you do not believe in religion.
Take a couple of years and learn what religion and philosophy is all about before you open your mouth.
I'm done with this argument as you still need a couple of years to grow up. Come back once you've matured.
@TheRishmister i'm the one that needs to mature? your the one who needs to learn to accept other views and do proper research. 80% of what you have said is pure bollocks which, with a decent search in google, can be proven to be false.
what you're going to eat, or where you're going to work and the reason for all of this was politics. The British had a hand in causing a split of the Muslim leaders if you know anything.
Tell me how happy you would be when that was done to you and how willingly you would accept the verdict. Food for thought.
Who is ghandi? Do you mean Gandhi? You're calling Gandhi a liar? WOW
You honestly believe the British were not deeply hated? What have you been reading exactly? Do you know any Indian history at all?
Also, I work in Medicine, so don't tell me that whole health infrastructure crap you're spewing.
How about we take your family and remove them from their homes with only what they can carry 1000 miles and tell them to live in a new strange land where you do not know where you're going to live
@TheRishmister "You're calling Gandhi a liar" yes, i am. Ghandi said that every indian could live free and happy under his leadership, but when it came down to it millions died in the split because of religious hatred which stemmed, either intentionally or not, from Gandhi. I have this fact from a group of Sikh-indian historians who specialise in south asian and middle eastern history.
And can you prove that you work in medicine? or is that another lie to try and shut me up?
@titytit I haven't lied about a single thing I have said so far. I do work in medicine I don't need to prove that to you.
BTW this whole slavery is banned business is a load. All colonized peoples were still second class humans in the eyes of the British.
Last thing, if the British were such great rulers looking out for the best interests of the Indians, why didn't they give India back to the Indians when enough revolutionary leaders appeared? Also, why did they go out of their way to kill
@TheRishmister it all hinged on the 1857 indian rebellion. IF that had not have happened, India would have been given dominion status - alongside australia, canada, new zealand, south africa etc - and therefore a lot of autonomy. The british didnt want another 1857 on their hands, where atrocities were committed by both indian rebels and british troops wanting revenge (alot of innocent civilian colonists and indians were killed by the rebels) which is why they denied independence
@TheRishmister also, if you work in medicine, why do you think your such an authority on history?
There are many flaws in your argumment. You say what you say is true probably because you havent done enough research. And before you say you have, give me a nice list of all the books, net links etc that you have used to build your argument. If they are non bias and detailed, not vague or obviously bias, then i might change my view. The more recent, the better.
@TheRishmister because the only person you have quoted so far is Prof. K.S. Lal, and yet his 'evidence' was only a suggestion, which means theory, not fact.
Also, you admitted that the British didn't increase the granary stockpile inline with the population. They not only did not increase the stockpile they sold off large chunks of it to make a profit.
Again when you have a population of 250 million people it doesn't matter if you lose 20 million. You still have a huge number of people to replace the loss. Life was extremely cheap to the British. They couldn't care less if a million Indians died. They still have millions more to replace them.
@TheRishmister "they sold off large chunks of it to make a profit" your evidence?"250 million people it doesn't matter if you lose 20 million.You still have a huge number of people to replace the loss.Life was extremely cheap to the British. They couldn't care less if a million Indians died. They still have millions more to replace them"your missing the point.the fact is less died in india than europe, whilst europe had a fantastic healthsystem and,according to you,india had none
British did all bad things with India so i support Zeonism .Today the world economy is in the hands of Jews in USA Jews are filthy rich and these british and americans keep blaming them
Cmmon its britain and only Britain who divided India,British were very diplomatic British had bled very much,Brtish also used Indians in 2nd world war by force.
@abhijithero Britain didnt divide india into Bangladesh, pakistan and india....that was your own doing as you were too inept and stupid to live together in one country because of something as petty as religion.
@titytit Yeah actually the British did divide India when it left. They were the ones who decided what territory everyone got. Yes the Muslims because of ideological differences wanted their own county, but that didn't mean they got to choose what the borders were or where they would get to live. The British decided not to do their homework and made borders on dinner napkins at times knowing full well that it would incite tensions between the two communities. Have you heard of the crusades? The
@TheRishmister britain planned the partitioning well. From Wiki: "India was formed out of the majority Hindu regions of British India, and Pakistan from the majority Muslim areas"
that seems like a common sense approach. Group all the muslims together and group all the hindus together. Simple. Its not britains fault that the idiots cant play nice because of religion.
@titytit You honestly think the British planned the partition well?? You think that it makes sense to say hey lets bunch the muslims in say this area, and the hindus in this area. That will work! It's not like millions of lives will be uprooted or their livelihoods lost. It's not like they are going to be mad or anything!
That may seem like a common sense approach to someone who has a high school education, but not to anyone else.
Many times the British viceroy knew that it would cause civil
@TheRishmister the british partitioned india so that muslim-majority areas were grouped together, and hindu majority areas were grouped together. I will repeat what i said before:
IT IS NOT BRITAINS FAULT THAT THE IGNORANT TWATS WHO LIVE IN INDIA COULDNT LIVE WITH EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF SOMETHING AS STUPID AND PETTY AS RELIGION.
@titytit Europeans warred with the Muslims for over a thousand years. There were no hindu-muslim tensions when the British arrived. They purposely incited tension between the communities to better rule the country. Have you heard of divide and rule? A catch phrase that probably became popular during the British era. And I can hardly say that the British religious communities live in piece even today. Does home-grown terrorists ring a bell? Or Europe's growing fear of the growth and
@TheRishmister what waffle are you goign on about? no hindu-muslim tensions before british rule? what bullshit have you been reading? and you ahve the cheek to tell me i dont know history! i suggest having a good look at the open source pages on the net about this very subject just so you dont make a fool of yourself again.
@titytit You honestly don't. The type of hindu-muslim tension you keep referring to is BS. Constant genocide or total war?? Yeah right! You seem to just keep moving on trying to make more claims ignoring all the times I have disproved your statements.
I don't think I have made a fool of myself yet. I have not been trying to justify the murder of millions of people by saying 'hey! they could have been stuck with the germans and millions more could have died.' If anything, you have been the one
@TheRishmister look up the 'persecution of hindus' and 'muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent' for places to start when refering to religious violence towards hindus by muslims and vice versa (although most violence was directed towards hindus than muslims).
@TheRishmister and, FYI, the british were the only crusaders. the crusades also only happened in the first place because the muslims wouldnt allow christians to visit jerusalem, although i hate religion and think it s a very immature and idiotic reason to go to war.
@titytit I don't think you have any idea about the crusades do you? The muslims allowed the jews and christians to visit Jerusalem. I cannot say that is a sweeping statement that can span back 500 years, but they were none the less welcome. The crusades started because the Muslim religion was starting to spread to Europe and the Christian clergy was getting nervous. Why don't you read up on Muslims in Spain . There is a great video on youtube made by a reputable source that documents it.
@TheRishmister the first crusades, aka the first 3-5, were started because the muslims didnt allow christians to visit jerusalem. The reaons christians were allowed later is because the muslims didnt want to go to war with the crusaders as the crusader armies were deadly, and the muslims for the most part couldnt beat them, until leaders like saladin came along.
And the muslims in spains didnt last very long. look at the reconquista....
@titytit emigration of Muslim populations. Don't act like the British aren't a bunch of racist xenophobic people. I have seen the growth of xenophobia in England and seen the passage of legislation to prevent the prosperity of immigrants. Not to mention all of the videos on youtube lately where colored British citizens are harassed on subways by white British citizens.
@TheRishmister i'm going to assume you dont live in britain.if you do,youd know that what you just said is completely wrong. The government in britain has pretty much stripped rights away from the indiginous population and piled favour on the immigrants. That to me justifies the dislike certain british minorities have for the immigrant population.You should also know that britsin has a problem with immigrants,usually muslims,sponging off the state and effectively stealing millions
@titytit Yeah I don't think the indigenous population has been stripped of its' rights... Immigrants represent a small minority in the UK. 190,000 long term immigrants as reported in March 2011. Thats hardly anything worth noting. .3%. It's called xenophobia. The racist in England want someone to blame, so that is there target.
Most muslims are there to make a livelihood. Not steal millions and run.
@TheRishmister If you lived in england, you'd know that isnt the way it works. The native population, aka white brits, cant do anything without constantly living under the threat of being called racist by people who use the word too often.
And many of the videos showing white brits being racist are from council estates, where the scum of england live anyway, whether they are white black or whatever.
@TheRishmister Will Durant argued in his book 'The story of civilisation: Our oriental heritage' the following:
"The Muslim conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. muslims have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus,forced conversions,abduction of Hindus to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."
@TheRishmister Prof. K.S. Lal, suggests a calculation in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India which estimates that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million
@TheRishmister Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations,Islam rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent",and the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror.Cruelty was normal–burnings,summary executions,crucifixions,impalements,inventive torture.Hindu temples destroyed, forced conversions.If ever an uprising,was instantly and savagely repressed:houses were burned,the countryside was laid waste,men were slaughtered, slaves taken
@titytit This is obviously a pointless argument we're having. You don't seem to want to look at facts that I presented, you'd rather just brush past them and pretend I am lying.
I especially like your what if arguments! They definitely hold up well!
So if the Indians 'even in 1910' were so pro-Britain why don't you explain the Sepoy rebellion. The cow/pork magazine bit was the catalyst for years of pent up anger towards the British.
BTW I already acknowledged that at one point in Mughal
@titytit history the Muslims did kill/enslave Hindus. It was not something that occurred in a large genocidal fashion throughout Mughal rule as you suggest. The Prof. K.S. Lal projection of the decrease in the Hindu population can't be summed up as a simple Muslims killed hindus nonsense. A 500 year time span is an incredibly large amount of time for a populations fertility rate to go up or down depending on a variety of factors that he definitely did not account for.
@titytit books I have read were not written by pro-Indian historians, so sorry to disappoint you.
I have more important things to do that fight with a kid that is in denial about facts and tries to justify the actions of murders. You honestly think India was a place where people were constantly being murdered and enslaved before the arrival of the British?? I can't believe that is your single most important justification for British colonization and murder of Indians. How do you explain the
@TheRishmister you seem to be the person denying the facts. you know nothing of the bhistory. Britain built massive irrigation systems to complement the ones already there. Look it up. Also, most evidence suggests that the mughals committed genocide and other things for most of its history. Another fact. look it up instead of denouncing me or ignoring facts. The british did not enslave, as slavery was banned. we didnty murder, unless it was a one off masacre by a bad commander.
@TheRishmister OR, it was a miscommunication. If it was a bad commander, he would be severrely reprimanded. And calling my argument about famine bull whilst obviously not researching the subject is arrogant. and i would like links, dates, books and places of these other atrocities in other parts of the empire.
@titytit british conquering, enslaving, and murdering of millions of other people in the rest of the brutish empire?
BTW how was that bad phrasing? You made it pretty clear what you were thinking.
BTW the facts that I
I am tired of your famine argument. It's pure bull. BTW The British did not build a new irrigation system. The irrigation system that was built in India over thousands of years was destroyed by the British East India company because the maintenance cost was too high.
@titytit presented are easily found. I am not fudging details to make the British look bad. The historical evidence clearly shows the British were murderers during this time period. Plane and simple.
Sorry kid, but I don't have time to repeat the same facts to you because you don't have a better argument and you just want to repeat the same things over and over again.
@titytit emigration of Muslim populations. Don't act like the British aren't a bunch of racist xenophobic people. I have seen the growth of xenophobia in England and seen the passage of legislation to prevent the prosperity of immigrants. Not to mention all of the videos on youtube lately where colored British citizens are harassed on subways by white British citizens. So don't try your lame duck argument. It is a bunch of BS.
BTW even Gandhi advocated the violent removal of the British from India. He knew it was not possible because weapons could not be acquired, so he had to find another way that would work. Economic and social upheaval were the only routes.
@TheRishmister India would be much more of a shit hole today if the Britain did not help India to what it is today. You are just a another typical Liberal.
@superbread12345 So you're saying colonization of India was beneficial to her people? Wow! You need a history lesson!
When the British set up trading post in India, India's monthly income was the same as the annual income of the British government. I doubt India would be in a worse position today if the British never appeared. It would have most definitely been in a better position. Typical racist British attitude.
@TheRishmister Indian was crumbling. the major nations in the subcontinent were on the verge of civil war. your economy would have been in ruins given another 10 years.
@titytit See the detailed response I gave to you for basically the same statement you said above. All of those nations were strong until the British arrived and destroyed them economically, culturally, and militarily. Read the British officer memoirs-They talk about how they were tasked with breaking the back of the society and culture to better facilitate colonization. It was one of their first tasks upon arriving. Sri Lanka had it the worst from many accounts.
@TheRishmister Ok, lets, for one minute, say that Britain won the USA war of independence and continued focussing on the americas, eventually taking them over. Who do you think would have taken over india then?
I can think of several. The Russians, the French, the Spainish, the Dutch, the Germans and even the Japanese! Now, they all have something in common:
They were all much, much more brutal than the british ever were in their colonies.
@superbread12345 I stand corrected. Looking at your profile. You just seem like a typical white conservative racist. I suggest you open up a history book and read about India.
Up until American culture took over the world stage and American racism spread the Europeans and especially the British tried to define Indians in their dictionaries as White. Our wealth, culture, and heritage far exceeded anything the Europeans could hope to dream of, so they tried to pretend we were all the same by labeling us as White people darkened by the Indian sun.
@titytit Well I'll give you one example among many. Look up Bengal famine 1770 on wikipedia. It clearly states that the company ignored shortfalls in crop yields due to low levels of rainfall. They could have prevented the famine had they headed the warnings and sold less crops during that time period. They could have also purchased reserves from other regions and countries to make sure if the drought continued there would be no famine. Food storage is not a new concept. It has been done forever
@TheRishmister At that time britain was new to the Indian subcontinent. The EIC also thought that the indian farmers were exagerrating the problem. it wasnt until the famine actually hit that the EIC saw something was a miss. If you look at history, it didnt happen again until the late 1800's.
@titytit They were present in Bengal for at least ten years when the famine hit. It was Britain's first major victory in the subcontinent. I think ten years is enough time to say that they should have been prepared. Food granaries are not a new concept! They have been around since the time of the Egyptians.
The only thing the British brought was death, destruction, and suffering for which the repercussions are still being felt today. The death of millions due to starvation and disease while the British ate 20 course meals are perfect examples of what they gifted India with (seen throughout the 18th and early 19th century).
@TheRishmister actually no, the main famines were in the late 1800's, and, if you knew anything about history, you'd know that the british spent millions of pounds trying to help the indian subcontinent.
The famines werent britains fault. A combination of bad rains (not our fault) and a change in the way the world market ran contributed to a sudden lack of food that neither the British Raj nor the Brit government could forsee.
@titytit So the death of 10 million people in Bengal in the 1770s is not a major famine? Disgusting.
BTW those 'millions of pounds' were from the India treasury. England was a poor nation before it colonized India thus the name India is the crown Jewel of the British empire.
The fault lies squarely on the British for a lack of proper planning and the removal of safety measures to prevent famines that were in place.
@TheRishmister England wasnt poor.I dont know what you have been reading but britain was rich,and was heavily industrialised even before it started expandingThe reason india was called the crown jewel is because it was the most culturally rich and diverse part of the empire.the millions of pounds were from the British treasury,not just from the indians.Britain never removed safety plans and britain was aas prepared as it could be.The fact is,noone expected the famines in the 1890s
@titytit I think you have your facts completely wrong. Again food granaries were in place all across Asia to prevent famine. The British were there to make as much money as they could. They saw excess amounts of food stored away and they sold it for a profit. England did not start full scale industrialization until the mid 1700s. I don't know how else I could make that more clear to you.
The Turks were able to build railroad lines in the 19th/20th century during their decline. They did not have the expertise to build them themselves, so they paid the germans to do it for them. Same goes for the postal and telegraph.
3) Conquering the subcontinent and stealing its' wealth was what provided England with the finances to Industrialize. No money=no industrialization period. With wealth you can buy anything you please. The British did India no favor by building the railroads. They would have come by themselves.
@TheRishmister Britain was already very well industrialised when it first started expansion in the indian subcontinent so what you just said is a load of rubbish. I'm beginning to thing that your trying to pass of anti british propaganda and lies/fatasies as truth.
@titytit I think you need to reread your history. Google British industrial revolution timeline and look at the first link. There is much evidence and many well renowned historians that have shown Indian wealth was the reason for the British industrialization.
@TheRishmister I have extensively studied the industrial revolution, and i can tell you that industrialisastion in Britain started in the 1690's, well before Britain even focussed on India. By the time of major british involvement in the latter 18th C and early 19th C, britain was already a major economic powerhouse, producing more than the entire indian subcontinent put together.
@titytit I know you 'extensively studied' the industrialisation of Britain in the British equivalent of high school. That doesn't mean a thing. Go to college and open your eyes. Education is different when the state doesn't have a say in what should be taught. Why don't you look at the the percentage of global trade and global GDP by country. You will find that in the 18th century India controlled 20-25% of Global trade/GDP. China controlled about the same amount as well. You can see
@titytit within 25 years of arrival of the British that number steadily decreased until India controlled 2-3% by the time the British left. Look at England in comparison during the same time period and you'll see what I mean. What do you think the opium wars were for in China?? England was the biggest debtor nation in the world while China was the wealthiest. What did the British do? The Chinese people did not want anything from the west or any other country. The only thing they actually
@titytit had an interest in was opium. An addictive drug that would not let go of you once you start using. The British produced opium in India and exported it to the Chinese to fix the balance of trade between the two countries. Ten years after the end of the opium wars the balance of trade had been reversed. England was not a major economic powerhouse during the 18th century compared to the Chinese or the Indians.
@titytit I never said that the India was the source of British technology. India provided the financial backing for the British industrial revolution. By the mid 18th century the British East India Company had complete monopolies across most Indian industries. Within a couple of years of taking over trade in India ~circa 1760s the increased revenue gained through these monopolies allowed the British to fund the revolution.
@TheRishmister Your times are off. Britain didnt start to focus on India until after the USA war of independence, which was the 1775-1783. Until that time, the british only had small trade outposts on the coast of india. Britain wasnt interested in India very much as it thought that more wealth was to be gained from the americas, however the WoI with the USA forced the brits to think it wasnt worth it. That is when the EIC decieded to start monopolising.
@titytit Umm they controlled East India and the Mughal empire by the 1770s. They were both extremely rich. The wealth found in Delhi was famed throughout the world for centuries. With the British victory and substantial increase in tax revenue they were able to start full scale industrialization. Look up the Battle of Buxar of 1764. With its treaty the British East India company had the right to collect taxes on 100 million acres of land. Thats close to three times the size of England alone!
@titytit FYI Just because I speak the truth it doesn't mean I'm spreading anti-British propaganda. Don't hate and call the truth and bunch of 'lies/fantasies.' It's easy to claim that I lying, but its worth sh*t until you back it up with factual evidence. Everything that I have said is open source material. BTW I have family in England and I have English friends. I have nothing against the British. I just don't think we should glorify the British empire and the 'benefits' they brought India.
@TheRishmister I'll call what i know as false lies if i have to. I have read many books and studied large sections of britains history and the empire. I am also constantly in touch with a group of 5 highly knowledgable historians which support my argument.
@titytit It's easy to claim having knowledge. I have years of research under my belt. I have shown source for all of my facts. Everything I have cited can be found being said by World Renowned historians. 5 highly knowledgable high school teachers is probably what you mean when you say that. Give me sources from internationally recognized historians first then we will talk.
@TheRishmister but look at what india got out of it! Free healthcare/education, good weelpaying jobs in a wide range of industries, good treatment all round. The Indians were respected, the british knew the worth of the indian people.
1 out of every 3 british colonists was married to an indian. Britain wanted to coexists with the indians.
@titytit WOW! Free healthcare/education!! Thats hilarious! The education system that India has today was built because of efforts of Independent India. Read India after Gandhi. One of the best accounts of modern day India by a renowned historian. What healthcare do you speak of?? The Spanish flu that claimed the lives of 17 million Indians alone was due to poor and inadequate health infrastructure the British built.
@TheRishmister If you knew anything about the spainish flu, then you'd know that more people than that died in europe. 17 million is nothing compared to other parts of the world.
To me that shows that india had a very good healthcare infrastucture and good enough education to know how to hadnlt problems.
@titytit Okay, India's population was roughly 250 million in 1915. India experienced the death of 17 million people meaning that 10% of the population of India died during the 1917-1919 of the spanish flu. 70 million reported worldwide deaths puts India's share of the death toll at 25%. You can verify my calculations if you want.
To me that shows that India had terrible healthcare infrastructure. You have no idea how health infrastructure works do you?
@TheRishmister 17 million is not 10% of 250 million. Do you knwo how many died in europe? over 30 million. now, if india was the poor backwater coutry you say it was because of the british, with a near nonexistant healthcare system and no support, then how did it have a lower death toll (with a population larger than the entirety of europe put together) than the european countries which were supposed to have better healthcare? i'm sorry, but your argument doenst hold water.
@titytit My mistake on the math. 17 million is more like 7%, but it is estimated that 10% of the population was killed. That is a very good estimate.
Europe is much larger than India in terms of territory with many governments which did not have unity to act. India did and yet India alone saw the loss of 10% of its population. Soo..... again this isn't a contest to see how far you can piss. There was such thing as hospitals in India before the arrival of the British. If you care to read the
@TheRishmister india is about the same size as europe, but with a much larger population. To have only 17 millions deaths compared to between 30-50 millions in europe, the place where many of the best healthcare systems in the world resided, then india must have had suficcient healthcare to keep death rates down.
@titytit accounts made by travelers to India as far back as 400 CE you would know that India had a vast healthcare network. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the British were in India to make as much money as possible before they were kicked out. They had no plan to sink money into assets that did not directly benefit them. They kindly got rid of the health infrastructure when they came by many methods. Their tactics allowed them to stay longer than they should have. And who said the European
@TheRishmister where is the veidence to suggest britiain systimatically destroyed indians existing healthcare? i havent found any whatsoever. Give me names of books, articles and other sources you used to come up with that argument. The british knew that if they had a healthy workforce they could make more money, so what would the british gain from destroying the indian healthcare systems inplace already? they would gain a lot more by expanding the system, which they did.
@titytit countries had better healthcare??? Just because they were Europeans they had better healthcare?? I'm sorry, but YOUR argument doesn't hold water.
@TheRishmister the countries in europe at the time of the spainish flu had the best healthcare systems in the world, according to many sources. If they had a higher death toll than a country that, your saying, had a nonexistant healthcare system then either your sources are BS or your lying about the healthcare system in india. The fact india had only 1 thirds the death toll of europe shows that india must have had at least a good level of healthcare.
@titytit Umm Indians in Britain and in India were not allowed to walk on the same piece of pavement as the British. They were forced to walk on the road where horses and other transport used to travel in their own country.
Show me where it says 1 out of 3 British colonists married Indians. More like 1 in 3 male British colonists took up Indian wives while posted in India. I don't recall ever seeing and common Indian man marry and British female colonists. 'White male superiority complex'
2)The school system that was set up by the British was meant to turn the elite into subservient dogs. I hardly consider that a benefit. The elites were going to receive a good education whether or not the British introduced their own education because they had the money to do it. Anyone with money could do that.
@TheRishmister The british built schools were open to all indians. as were british built healthcare facilities. Britain new that they needed a well cared for workforce in every part of the empire to maintain stability and excourage growth.
And, if you look at what started british expansion into india in the first place, you'd see that they treated the british like tools, trying to use the british for their own selfish ends, usually trying to destroy other kingdoms.
@titytit Again, the British built schools for the elites, not the general population! I'm not going to looking for specific sources I'll leave that to you. The first line of literacy in India wikipedia states Indian literacy grew from 12% in 1947 to 85% in 2011! Have fun trying to argue the benefits of British built schools!
They only needed a bunch of subservient dogs to write down meal orders and act like target practice on battlefields.
@titytit You're history education is very shallow. Yes, the British were tools for the Indian elite- They were tasked with organizing and defending Indian trading posts. The british were conniving little weasels. They pitted the elite against each other, destroyed them, and picked up the pieces. An example is shown below. The succession in the Maratha empire.If that's not enough look see fall of the Sikh empire and how the British bought out and pitted elites/military officers against each other
@TheRishmister the british were used by the indian elites. Britain had no interest in indian politics before hand. Its just there was a severe case of Norman Syndrome, wihch evetually meant that the british turned the tables. The Indians had noone to blame but themselves.
@titytit So the Indians can only blame themselves fo British opportunism and backstabbing? Of course they had an interest in Indian politics. Their survival in India depended on it. Without the favors they were given the British would not have been able to set up trading posts in India in any meaningful way.
@TheRishmister but thats just what they were. trading posts. not a monopoly. that came later. Britain maintained the trade posts by allying themselves with the right poeple. what those popele did britain could only influence. at first, the british only wanted secure trade posts. its not britains fault that the indian tried to use the brits but the indians plan backfired.
@titytit You seem to color history in a way that favors the British. The Indians did not actively seek out the British for support. At least not until they became major powers in India. The British actively went out and offered support to people that they knew could help defeat their rivals. The Maratha succession is a perfect examples of this.
@TheRishmister after the original indian diplomats, who offered the british alliances to take on other indian kingdoms, effectily trying to make the brits fight other people wars, THEN was the time the british started taking an active role in indian politics, making alliances and crushing other people enemies to try and take land/make themselves stronger. the indians have noone else to blame but themselves for getting the british interested in territorial conquest of india.
@titytit And I still don't understand this whole justification you are making about how the Indian plan backfired! So you're acknowledging that the British were living backstabbers that would screw the Indians over and they should have known their plan would have backfired??
@TheRishmister the british were not interesting in territorial aquisition. they wanted trade, as thats where the money was. the thing that got the british interested, or at least instilled in the british the idea of territorial gains, came from the indians trying to manipulate the british EIC into fighting their wars for them.
Its an age old strategy, and they should have known it wasnt going to work. Its exactly what happened to Naples in the early middle ages with the Normans.
1)India already had stability and order before the arrival of the British. Several major Indian powers controlled the subcontinent. The idea of an Independent India came about after the arrival of the British.
@TheRishmister what? you obviously dont know indian history. The maratha confederacy was crumbling, another 3-4 years and it would have been full blown civilw ar. There were dozens of smaller kingdoms fighting bloody wars all over what is now burma, bangladesh, pakistan and india. The Mughal empire was also cumbling but was also trying to commit genocide against any and all hindus!
@titytit Umm buddy its not that hard to google any of this stuff. Heres a quote directly from wikipedia: 'In 1775, the British East India Company intervened in a succession struggle in Pune, which became
@titytit Yeah.... The uncle of the aire to the thrown of the Maratha Empire. He sure is part of the ruling class. That doesn't mean the people that mattered asked them to intervene...The uncle was a nobody that the British propped up for their own ends. YOU seem to choose to view history in a way that is extremely biased and favoring in ways towards the British and ster controversy on historical facts that are not debated or argued by historians.
@titytit the First Anglo-Maratha War. Marathas remained the preeminent power in India until their defeat in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars (1805–1818)' What 3-4 years are you speaking of,pray tell! If the British had no backed the uncle against the King's son (the rightful aire) during the succession struggle in 1775 there would have been no problems. Raghunathrao would not have moved against his family and the Maratha would have remained a strong empire.
@TheRishmister The maratha conederacy was crumbling, as i have said before. The reason it stayed the preedminent power is because there wasnt any other indian kingdom large enough to challege it AND because they started to see the EIC as a threat, they banded together again.
Threat breeds unity. Had the british not made themselves known, the maratha confederacy would have crumbled into nothing, succeeded by bloody civil wars in which millions of indians would have died.
@titytit The Maratha empire as you yourself state fought against the Mughals, so tell me how they unified to fight the British threat?? The Maratha and Mughal empires fought one of the longest wars on the Indian subcontinent. 27 years. 1681-1708 Maratha war of Indepedence. Before the arrival of the British. The British arrived and took control of large parts of India in the 1750s-1770s engaging in war against the major Kingdoms. By the time the British starting waring against the Marathas they
@TheRishmister the reason the marathas and the mughals were fighting when britain started xpanding was because they simply didnt have the means to. They didnt have the money, the manpower or the resources to continue fighting.
@titytit Yeah North India had the Sikh Empire. South India- Marathas and maybe someone else I can't recall off the top of my head. East India-the Bengal Empire. Central and West India-Mughals. None of these were 'small kingdoms' by any measure. They commanded large populations.
You are incredibility ill-informed. The Mughal empire was crumbling BECAUSE of the British colonization and monopolization of trade! By the time the Mughals realized what had happened it was already too late!
@TheRishmister The mughal empire had been in decline for decades before the british even arrived!
Look up the wars between the mughals and the marathans. The Mughal empire was falling apart becuase it had been at war with the marathans since the late middle ages (due to religion no less). The British came along and picked up the pieces.
@titytit They had been in decline, but that is a relative term! They were still the wealthiest and the strongest of the Kingdoms in India. BTW the British were there during the decline. They did not magically appear in 1764 and defeat the Mughals.
The Mughal empire was falling apart because of the marathans?? Yeah right! They were in decline because of a succession struggle in 1707. They were further weakened because of the constant attacks by the Persians. The Marathas formed because of
@TheRishmister so your saying that 400+ years of constant war didnt have any effect what so ever on the mughal empire?
and i love the way your dodging the fact that the mughals commited many of the wrose crimes against humanity the indian subcontinent had ever seen. Multiple counts of genocide, multiple massacres, to many to list. Most of them dont even have names they are so numerous, and the british are supposed to be the bad guys? dont make me laugh.
@titytit the Mughal empires decline in the mid 18th century. Before the decline the Marathas were a thorn in the Back of the Mughals. They were a bunch of insurgents trying to gain independence. It was not about religion. It was about power. I have no idea what they are teaching you in the British school system, but it's junk. The Marathas were not a independent power until the mid 18th century.
@TheRishmister it was all about religion you fool. The mughals, as i have said before, commited dozens, if not hundreds, of horrible crimes against humanity, mostly hindus because they were...guess what...hindu! The marathans wanted independece to try and stop the ruthless killing of hindu and sikh indians.
@TheRishmister The sikh empire wasnt very large at all, and there is no such thing as the 'Bengal empire' unless you mean Deva Bengal, which was not very large, equal in size to the Sikh Empire.
@titytit The Bengal empire I refer to is the collection of Nawabs that controlled Bengal. It was twice the size of England and referred to as the Paradise of Nations by the Mughals because they were impressed by the Bengali wealth. The Sikh empire was not very large? By what measure. It was definitely larger than England and controlled large parts of North India.
@TheRishmister The sikh empire was not ever twice the size of the kashmir region, so dont tell meit controlled 'large parts of northern india'. The most it ever controlled was a large portion of the Punjab region and the kashmir region.
And going off the fact that england is in fact a very small nation, not that much bigger than the netherlands, an 'empire' that is only twice the size is nothing to brag about.
@titytit Kashmir and Punjab are fairly large pieces of land. Those areas are larger than England, so I do not know how you can call them small considering they had millions of people under their control. Nothing to brag about? The Sikh empire had millions of people they ruled. How is that small?? They had incredible wealth that most countries envied.
@titytit Only one Mughal ruler comitted geneocide in India, during its long history. You can hardly claim that genocide of Hindus was a common practice.
P.S. Heres a kicker! I didn't see this before, but theres a table on wiki called Famines in India. Before british rule from 1000-1745 ad=18 famines of which most were local No death toll reported. Under British rule-1770-1947=40 famines claiming the lives of 59 million Indians! Which is most definitely a low number estimate.
@TheRishmister did it ever occur to you that no death toll was reported because noone cared if people died in the famines?
The british would have cared and therefore would have taken a toll of the dead, to make sure that it didnt happen again. AND if you look at what caused the famines, you'd see that it was almost always bad weather, which couldnt be predicted back then so the british would not have known to stockpile food.
@titytit I think you missunderstand what I said. When I said no death toll was reported I did not mean it was because they didn't know how many people died in the famines. I meant that wikipedia did not report death tolls. Now I can see you are a shallow witted person from this statement. You honestly think that the only people to have any sense of humanity are the British?? It's sad that you think Indians have no moral fiber and do not care about the number of people who died in the famines.
@TheRishmister i'm not saying the indians didnt or dont have 'mral fibre' i'm saying that the indians woulnd thave had the resources or manpower to conduct such a survey, especially taking into account the constant warring and the fact that they had JUST gotten out of a famine.
@titytit What kind of perception do you have of Indians during this time period?? They weren't in the stone. They were as modern as any other country. You can look up historical records, including population, food granary levels, trade, taxation revenue, and anything else you want for the Mughal empire and the Maratha. There is no way for a state to maintain itself without records. Where are you coming up with this stuff??
And you are definitely accusing Indians of not having any moral fiber!
@titytit If anything the British were the ones with no morality or humanity. History is complete with their atrocities that rival and exceed the Nazis in Germany. The wars and atrocities that the British fought are not seen anywhere else in the world. The British government was ruled by a bunch of thugs. No other region in the world has seen as much war and destruction as that perpetrated by the British. 100 years war?? Crazy!
@TheRishmister the 100 years war wasnt just englands fault. Blame france for constantly trying to take land away from us. Land that rightfully belonged to the normans. i would love for you to tell me of a list of these apparent atrocities that were sanctioned by the british government.
I would then like you to compare them to the atrocities commited by the Ottomans, japanese, russians, spainish, dutch, french, germans and many others. You will see britain is the most benevolent.
@titytit Umm I wouldn't know where to start to with the list of atrocities the British government sanctioned against Indigenous people...
Also, I don't need to compare the atrocities committed by other countries. It's not a contest. You can't say one murder is less of a murder than another murder. Murders are murders and they are all bad.
@TheRishmister well give me links, book titles, articles etc that list the atrocities sanctioned by the british government.
and i dont mean atrocities dont by a single commander without the knowledge of the government, i mean atrocities DIRECTLY sanctioned by the government.
@titytit You think that food is only stockpiled when there are shortages. I am glad you do not lead a country. The point of a food granary is to ensure that food is stored away during times of excess so that when that are periods of scarcity there is no starvation. The British definitely had food granaries in England during the same time period. Again food granaries are not a modern concept. Better educate yourself.
@TheRishmister again, i will reiterate what i said earlier. The british, at the time of the first famines, didnt hve the proper experience of the climate in india, so a famine was boud to happen. Britain learned from that mistake. the reasont he famines in the late 1800's were so devastating is becuase the stockpile the british had crated was eaten through so very quickly, probably due to a larger population in india at the time. The stockpile hadnt grown with the population.
@titytit Climate has nothing to do with it when it comes to the storage of food in food granaries. The British had food granaries in England that they maintained quite nicely even during some of the worst winters. See the Industrial pollution in England causing one of the worst winters in over a century. What is the point of a food granary that is exhausted too quickly?? It defeats the purpose. You built food granaries so that the stockpiles last several years during draught years. Famines
@TheRishmister the industrial pollution didnt cause the mini ice age. I see you believe in AGW, but thats a different argument where we disagree and thats also off topic but anyway.....
and, i will say it YET AGAIN. the famines took everyone by surprise. even the british. they didnt think that another famine like that could happen after the new irrigation systems the brits had built had been completed.
The first major famines were seen in the 1770s in Bengal. How is it that it happened again in the late 1800s even though they learned their lessons. I hardly believe they couldn't adjust to the indian climate in a 100 years.
@TheRishmister they did, but as i said, the british hadnt increased the stockpile in line with indian population growth. The famines in the 1800's took everyone by surprise. The british spent millions trying to alleviate the problems, importing food from Oceania, africa and even the americas and china.
@TheRishmister In short, the hindus and muslism fought each other for centuries, from approximately the early middle ages up until british expansion in the late 1700's.
Millions were killed, on both sides, and the mughals constantly commited atrocities, including genocide on multiple occasions to both sikhs and hindus. Its all there on the internet as well.
@titytit I don't even know where to begin. The Muslim elites under the Mughal empire controlled most of Hindu India. The muslims were the minority and their subjects were the Hindus. There was no killing of millions as you speak of. Only one ruler of the Mughal empire committed genocide in ints entire history. Give me actual legitimate sources to show that there was constant warfare between the two religions. If that were true the Muslim minority would not have been able to rule of the Hindu
@TheRishmister the mughal empire was created out of the muslim timurid empire, and there was a very large number of muslims, definitly enough to commit the crimes that can be found plastered all over the internet. remember, the timurids main source of manpower was fron what is now modern day Iran, afghanistan and the former soviet muslim republics of central asia. Combined, the number of muslims the mughals could command was half the hindu number, but better equipped and trained.
@titytit majority. The Mughal empire would not have been able to stay in power without the support of the people of India. I don't need to read anything on the internet because I know what the truth is. I have read your replies and they are fraught with inaccuracies and twists on history that do not make sense. Again you have a very childish white view of India.
@TheRishmister i'm not going to argue with someone who denouces other people argument by always bringing race into it. The views i have put forwards are based on vast research and much reading done on my part.
I am not saying the british empire was perfect, or that there wasnt a racist minority in the british chain of command but, compared to the alternitives, it was probably the best deal india was going to get. If britian hadnt taken over, another more brutal power would have.
@titytit Just because you 'research' doesn't mean you're doing it correctly. Apparently you're the only one not reading what everyone else is!
So Indians ruling themselves or having a foreign power rule them? WHICH is better? hmmm..... India had a much better deal with the Mughals and the Marathas than the British. You don't have any basis in reality. First hand accounts are better than state sponsored world history classes.
dislike, because you used turkish music, probably because you're a retarded american who associates the middle east with india.
issareign 1 month ago
Plus you have the understanding of a child when it comes to religion. Don't talk about something you have no knowledge of and don't go offending everyone and their mom just because you do not believe in religion.
Take a couple of years and learn what religion and philosophy is all about before you open your mouth.
I'm done with this argument as you still need a couple of years to grow up. Come back once you've matured.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRishmister i'm the one that needs to mature? your the one who needs to learn to accept other views and do proper research. 80% of what you have said is pure bollocks which, with a decent search in google, can be proven to be false.
titytit 1 month ago
what you're going to eat, or where you're going to work and the reason for all of this was politics. The British had a hand in causing a split of the Muslim leaders if you know anything.
Tell me how happy you would be when that was done to you and how willingly you would accept the verdict. Food for thought.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
Who is ghandi? Do you mean Gandhi? You're calling Gandhi a liar? WOW
You honestly believe the British were not deeply hated? What have you been reading exactly? Do you know any Indian history at all?
Also, I work in Medicine, so don't tell me that whole health infrastructure crap you're spewing.
How about we take your family and remove them from their homes with only what they can carry 1000 miles and tell them to live in a new strange land where you do not know where you're going to live
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister "You're calling Gandhi a liar" yes, i am. Ghandi said that every indian could live free and happy under his leadership, but when it came down to it millions died in the split because of religious hatred which stemmed, either intentionally or not, from Gandhi. I have this fact from a group of Sikh-indian historians who specialise in south asian and middle eastern history.
And can you prove that you work in medicine? or is that another lie to try and shut me up?
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I haven't lied about a single thing I have said so far. I do work in medicine I don't need to prove that to you.
BTW this whole slavery is banned business is a load. All colonized peoples were still second class humans in the eyes of the British.
Last thing, if the British were such great rulers looking out for the best interests of the Indians, why didn't they give India back to the Indians when enough revolutionary leaders appeared? Also, why did they go out of their way to kill
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister it all hinged on the 1857 indian rebellion. IF that had not have happened, India would have been given dominion status - alongside australia, canada, new zealand, south africa etc - and therefore a lot of autonomy. The british didnt want another 1857 on their hands, where atrocities were committed by both indian rebels and british troops wanting revenge (alot of innocent civilian colonists and indians were killed by the rebels) which is why they denied independence
titytit 1 month ago
@TheRishmister also, if you work in medicine, why do you think your such an authority on history?
There are many flaws in your argumment. You say what you say is true probably because you havent done enough research. And before you say you have, give me a nice list of all the books, net links etc that you have used to build your argument. If they are non bias and detailed, not vague or obviously bias, then i might change my view. The more recent, the better.
titytit 1 month ago
@TheRishmister because the only person you have quoted so far is Prof. K.S. Lal, and yet his 'evidence' was only a suggestion, which means theory, not fact.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit or imprison the leaders?
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister names, dates and locations please of when british apprently went out to kill revolutionary leaders.
titytit 1 month ago
Also, you admitted that the British didn't increase the granary stockpile inline with the population. They not only did not increase the stockpile they sold off large chunks of it to make a profit.
Again when you have a population of 250 million people it doesn't matter if you lose 20 million. You still have a huge number of people to replace the loss. Life was extremely cheap to the British. They couldn't care less if a million Indians died. They still have millions more to replace them.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister "they sold off large chunks of it to make a profit" your evidence?"250 million people it doesn't matter if you lose 20 million.You still have a huge number of people to replace the loss.Life was extremely cheap to the British. They couldn't care less if a million Indians died. They still have millions more to replace them"your missing the point.the fact is less died in india than europe, whilst europe had a fantastic healthsystem and,according to you,india had none
titytit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
British provided small number of communication lines for whom for themselves to crush revolts.
British opened some convent schools for what? to convert more hindus into christianity
British opened transport lines for what? To bring troops immediately against freedom fighters.
Few Hospitals for what? to treat their soldiers who got injured while attacking Indian freedom fighters
British invested few millions in India for their own benefits to get trillions from India.
abhijithero 1 month ago
Bravo Jews i support Zionism 101% keep beating our enemies.
abhijithero 1 month ago
Jews are acting the way Brits acted with us .
abhijithero 1 month ago
British did all bad things with India so i support Zeonism .Today the world economy is in the hands of Jews in USA Jews are filthy rich and these british and americans keep blaming them
abhijithero 1 month ago
Cmmon its britain and only Britain who divided India,British were very diplomatic British had bled very much,Brtish also used Indians in 2nd world war by force.
abhijithero 1 month ago
British divided India into Bangladesh and Pakistan and that lead to the deaths of millions of millions Britain must pay for that.
Afghanistan since long ago kept attacking India now just whats happening their? theres no peace like thing there.
Brist didnt just ruled india but asia and Africa .BRITAIN MUST PAY FOR THAT ONE DAY.
abhijithero 1 month ago
@abhijithero Britain didnt divide india into Bangladesh, pakistan and india....that was your own doing as you were too inept and stupid to live together in one country because of something as petty as religion.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Yeah actually the British did divide India when it left. They were the ones who decided what territory everyone got. Yes the Muslims because of ideological differences wanted their own county, but that didn't mean they got to choose what the borders were or where they would get to live. The British decided not to do their homework and made borders on dinner napkins at times knowing full well that it would incite tensions between the two communities. Have you heard of the crusades? The
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister britain planned the partitioning well. From Wiki: "India was formed out of the majority Hindu regions of British India, and Pakistan from the majority Muslim areas"
that seems like a common sense approach. Group all the muslims together and group all the hindus together. Simple. Its not britains fault that the idiots cant play nice because of religion.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit You honestly think the British planned the partition well?? You think that it makes sense to say hey lets bunch the muslims in say this area, and the hindus in this area. That will work! It's not like millions of lives will be uprooted or their livelihoods lost. It's not like they are going to be mad or anything!
That may seem like a common sense approach to someone who has a high school education, but not to anyone else.
Many times the British viceroy knew that it would cause civil
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the british partitioned india so that muslim-majority areas were grouped together, and hindu majority areas were grouped together. I will repeat what i said before:
IT IS NOT BRITAINS FAULT THAT THE IGNORANT TWATS WHO LIVE IN INDIA COULDNT LIVE WITH EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF SOMETHING AS STUPID AND PETTY AS RELIGION.
please do not force me to cap-spam again.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit but they went ahead with it not caring. Don't be so naive. You are playing with peoples lives! grow up!!!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit Europeans warred with the Muslims for over a thousand years. There were no hindu-muslim tensions when the British arrived. They purposely incited tension between the communities to better rule the country. Have you heard of divide and rule? A catch phrase that probably became popular during the British era. And I can hardly say that the British religious communities live in piece even today. Does home-grown terrorists ring a bell? Or Europe's growing fear of the growth and
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister what waffle are you goign on about? no hindu-muslim tensions before british rule? what bullshit have you been reading? and you ahve the cheek to tell me i dont know history! i suggest having a good look at the open source pages on the net about this very subject just so you dont make a fool of yourself again.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit You honestly don't. The type of hindu-muslim tension you keep referring to is BS. Constant genocide or total war?? Yeah right! You seem to just keep moving on trying to make more claims ignoring all the times I have disproved your statements.
I don't think I have made a fool of myself yet. I have not been trying to justify the murder of millions of people by saying 'hey! they could have been stuck with the germans and millions more could have died.' If anything, you have been the one
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister look up the 'persecution of hindus' and 'muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent' for places to start when refering to religious violence towards hindus by muslims and vice versa (although most violence was directed towards hindus than muslims).
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit making a fool of yourself.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister and, FYI, the british were the only crusaders. the crusades also only happened in the first place because the muslims wouldnt allow christians to visit jerusalem, although i hate religion and think it s a very immature and idiotic reason to go to war.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I don't think you have any idea about the crusades do you? The muslims allowed the jews and christians to visit Jerusalem. I cannot say that is a sweeping statement that can span back 500 years, but they were none the less welcome. The crusades started because the Muslim religion was starting to spread to Europe and the Christian clergy was getting nervous. Why don't you read up on Muslims in Spain . There is a great video on youtube made by a reputable source that documents it.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the first crusades, aka the first 3-5, were started because the muslims didnt allow christians to visit jerusalem. The reaons christians were allowed later is because the muslims didnt want to go to war with the crusaders as the crusader armies were deadly, and the muslims for the most part couldnt beat them, until leaders like saladin came along.
And the muslims in spains didnt last very long. look at the reconquista....
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit emigration of Muslim populations. Don't act like the British aren't a bunch of racist xenophobic people. I have seen the growth of xenophobia in England and seen the passage of legislation to prevent the prosperity of immigrants. Not to mention all of the videos on youtube lately where colored British citizens are harassed on subways by white British citizens.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister i'm going to assume you dont live in britain.if you do,youd know that what you just said is completely wrong. The government in britain has pretty much stripped rights away from the indiginous population and piled favour on the immigrants. That to me justifies the dislike certain british minorities have for the immigrant population.You should also know that britsin has a problem with immigrants,usually muslims,sponging off the state and effectively stealing millions
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Yeah I don't think the indigenous population has been stripped of its' rights... Immigrants represent a small minority in the UK. 190,000 long term immigrants as reported in March 2011. Thats hardly anything worth noting. .3%. It's called xenophobia. The racist in England want someone to blame, so that is there target.
Most muslims are there to make a livelihood. Not steal millions and run.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister If you lived in england, you'd know that isnt the way it works. The native population, aka white brits, cant do anything without constantly living under the threat of being called racist by people who use the word too often.
And many of the videos showing white brits being racist are from council estates, where the scum of england live anyway, whether they are white black or whatever.
titytit 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Will Durant argued in his book 'The story of civilisation: Our oriental heritage' the following:
"The Muslim conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. muslims have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus,forced conversions,abduction of Hindus to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."
titytit 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Prof. K.S. Lal, suggests a calculation in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India which estimates that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million
titytit 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations,Islam rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent",and the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror.Cruelty was normal–burnings,summary executions,crucifixions,impalements,inventive torture.Hindu temples destroyed, forced conversions.If ever an uprising,was instantly and savagely repressed:houses were burned,the countryside was laid waste,men were slaughtered, slaves taken
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit This is obviously a pointless argument we're having. You don't seem to want to look at facts that I presented, you'd rather just brush past them and pretend I am lying.
I especially like your what if arguments! They definitely hold up well!
So if the Indians 'even in 1910' were so pro-Britain why don't you explain the Sepoy rebellion. The cow/pork magazine bit was the catalyst for years of pent up anger towards the British.
BTW I already acknowledged that at one point in Mughal
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit history the Muslims did kill/enslave Hindus. It was not something that occurred in a large genocidal fashion throughout Mughal rule as you suggest. The Prof. K.S. Lal projection of the decrease in the Hindu population can't be summed up as a simple Muslims killed hindus nonsense. A 500 year time span is an incredibly large amount of time for a populations fertility rate to go up or down depending on a variety of factors that he definitely did not account for.
Honestly, most of the
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit books I have read were not written by pro-Indian historians, so sorry to disappoint you.
I have more important things to do that fight with a kid that is in denial about facts and tries to justify the actions of murders. You honestly think India was a place where people were constantly being murdered and enslaved before the arrival of the British?? I can't believe that is your single most important justification for British colonization and murder of Indians. How do you explain the
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister you seem to be the person denying the facts. you know nothing of the bhistory. Britain built massive irrigation systems to complement the ones already there. Look it up. Also, most evidence suggests that the mughals committed genocide and other things for most of its history. Another fact. look it up instead of denouncing me or ignoring facts. The british did not enslave, as slavery was banned. we didnty murder, unless it was a one off masacre by a bad commander.
titytit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRishmister OR, it was a miscommunication. If it was a bad commander, he would be severrely reprimanded. And calling my argument about famine bull whilst obviously not researching the subject is arrogant. and i would like links, dates, books and places of these other atrocities in other parts of the empire.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit british conquering, enslaving, and murdering of millions of other people in the rest of the brutish empire?
BTW how was that bad phrasing? You made it pretty clear what you were thinking.
BTW the facts that I
I am tired of your famine argument. It's pure bull. BTW The British did not build a new irrigation system. The irrigation system that was built in India over thousands of years was destroyed by the British East India company because the maintenance cost was too high.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit presented are easily found. I am not fudging details to make the British look bad. The historical evidence clearly shows the British were murderers during this time period. Plane and simple.
Sorry kid, but I don't have time to repeat the same facts to you because you don't have a better argument and you just want to repeat the same things over and over again.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit emigration of Muslim populations. Don't act like the British aren't a bunch of racist xenophobic people. I have seen the growth of xenophobia in England and seen the passage of legislation to prevent the prosperity of immigrants. Not to mention all of the videos on youtube lately where colored British citizens are harassed on subways by white British citizens. So don't try your lame duck argument. It is a bunch of BS.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
British provided small number of communication lines for whom for themselves to crush revolts.
British opened some convent schools for what? to convert more hindus into christianity
British opened transport lines for what? To bring troops immediately against freedom fighters.
Few Hospitals for what? to treat their soldiers who got injured while attacking Indian freedom fighters
British invested few millions in India for their own benefits to get trillions from India.
abhijithero 1 month ago
BTW even Gandhi advocated the violent removal of the British from India. He knew it was not possible because weapons could not be acquired, so he had to find another way that would work. Economic and social upheaval were the only routes.
P.S. Sorry for spamming!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister India would be much more of a shit hole today if the Britain did not help India to what it is today. You are just a another typical Liberal.
superbread12345 1 month ago
@superbread12345 So you're saying colonization of India was beneficial to her people? Wow! You need a history lesson!
When the British set up trading post in India, India's monthly income was the same as the annual income of the British government. I doubt India would be in a worse position today if the British never appeared. It would have most definitely been in a better position. Typical racist British attitude.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Indian was crumbling. the major nations in the subcontinent were on the verge of civil war. your economy would have been in ruins given another 10 years.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit See the detailed response I gave to you for basically the same statement you said above. All of those nations were strong until the British arrived and destroyed them economically, culturally, and militarily. Read the British officer memoirs-They talk about how they were tasked with breaking the back of the society and culture to better facilitate colonization. It was one of their first tasks upon arriving. Sri Lanka had it the worst from many accounts.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Ok, lets, for one minute, say that Britain won the USA war of independence and continued focussing on the americas, eventually taking them over. Who do you think would have taken over india then?
I can think of several. The Russians, the French, the Spainish, the Dutch, the Germans and even the Japanese! Now, they all have something in common:
They were all much, much more brutal than the british ever were in their colonies.
titytit 1 month ago
@TheRishmister and you were wrong about overtaxation. An exert from Wiki:
"land tax revenue claiming 15% of India's national income during Mogul times compared with 1% at the end of the colonial period"
titytit 1 month ago
@superbread12345 I stand corrected. Looking at your profile. You just seem like a typical white conservative racist. I suggest you open up a history book and read about India.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
Up until American culture took over the world stage and American racism spread the Europeans and especially the British tried to define Indians in their dictionaries as White. Our wealth, culture, and heritage far exceeded anything the Europeans could hope to dream of, so they tried to pretend we were all the same by labeling us as White people darkened by the Indian sun.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the british tried to do that to prevent racism towards the indians.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit LMAO are you serious?? Show me a reputable source anywhere that says that!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
You cannot justify the colonization and murder of millions of humans by citing the 'benefits' they brought to the country. There is no silver lining.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister and when, may i ask, did the british murder millions of indians?
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Well I'll give you one example among many. Look up Bengal famine 1770 on wikipedia. It clearly states that the company ignored shortfalls in crop yields due to low levels of rainfall. They could have prevented the famine had they headed the warnings and sold less crops during that time period. They could have also purchased reserves from other regions and countries to make sure if the drought continued there would be no famine. Food storage is not a new concept. It has been done forever
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister At that time britain was new to the Indian subcontinent. The EIC also thought that the indian farmers were exagerrating the problem. it wasnt until the famine actually hit that the EIC saw something was a miss. If you look at history, it didnt happen again until the late 1800's.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit They were present in Bengal for at least ten years when the famine hit. It was Britain's first major victory in the subcontinent. I think ten years is enough time to say that they should have been prepared. Food granaries are not a new concept! They have been around since the time of the Egyptians.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
I am not trying to insight anger or cause trouble, but to show the facts. Don't take this as an assault on you I am only adding to your presentation.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
The only thing the British brought was death, destruction, and suffering for which the repercussions are still being felt today. The death of millions due to starvation and disease while the British ate 20 course meals are perfect examples of what they gifted India with (seen throughout the 18th and early 19th century).
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister actually no, the main famines were in the late 1800's, and, if you knew anything about history, you'd know that the british spent millions of pounds trying to help the indian subcontinent.
The famines werent britains fault. A combination of bad rains (not our fault) and a change in the way the world market ran contributed to a sudden lack of food that neither the British Raj nor the Brit government could forsee.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit So the death of 10 million people in Bengal in the 1770s is not a major famine? Disgusting.
BTW those 'millions of pounds' were from the India treasury. England was a poor nation before it colonized India thus the name India is the crown Jewel of the British empire.
The fault lies squarely on the British for a lack of proper planning and the removal of safety measures to prevent famines that were in place.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister England wasnt poor.I dont know what you have been reading but britain was rich,and was heavily industrialised even before it started expandingThe reason india was called the crown jewel is because it was the most culturally rich and diverse part of the empire.the millions of pounds were from the British treasury,not just from the indians.Britain never removed safety plans and britain was aas prepared as it could be.The fact is,noone expected the famines in the 1890s
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I think you have your facts completely wrong. Again food granaries were in place all across Asia to prevent famine. The British were there to make as much money as they could. They saw excess amounts of food stored away and they sold it for a profit. England did not start full scale industrialization until the mid 1700s. I don't know how else I could make that more clear to you.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
The Turks were able to build railroad lines in the 19th/20th century during their decline. They did not have the expertise to build them themselves, so they paid the germans to do it for them. Same goes for the postal and telegraph.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
3) Conquering the subcontinent and stealing its' wealth was what provided England with the finances to Industrialize. No money=no industrialization period. With wealth you can buy anything you please. The British did India no favor by building the railroads. They would have come by themselves.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Britain was already very well industrialised when it first started expansion in the indian subcontinent so what you just said is a load of rubbish. I'm beginning to thing that your trying to pass of anti british propaganda and lies/fatasies as truth.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I think you need to reread your history. Google British industrial revolution timeline and look at the first link. There is much evidence and many well renowned historians that have shown Indian wealth was the reason for the British industrialization.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister I have extensively studied the industrial revolution, and i can tell you that industrialisastion in Britain started in the 1690's, well before Britain even focussed on India. By the time of major british involvement in the latter 18th C and early 19th C, britain was already a major economic powerhouse, producing more than the entire indian subcontinent put together.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I know you 'extensively studied' the industrialisation of Britain in the British equivalent of high school. That doesn't mean a thing. Go to college and open your eyes. Education is different when the state doesn't have a say in what should be taught. Why don't you look at the the percentage of global trade and global GDP by country. You will find that in the 18th century India controlled 20-25% of Global trade/GDP. China controlled about the same amount as well. You can see
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit within 25 years of arrival of the British that number steadily decreased until India controlled 2-3% by the time the British left. Look at England in comparison during the same time period and you'll see what I mean. What do you think the opium wars were for in China?? England was the biggest debtor nation in the world while China was the wealthiest. What did the British do? The Chinese people did not want anything from the west or any other country. The only thing they actually
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit had an interest in was opium. An addictive drug that would not let go of you once you start using. The British produced opium in India and exported it to the Chinese to fix the balance of trade between the two countries. Ten years after the end of the opium wars the balance of trade had been reversed. England was not a major economic powerhouse during the 18th century compared to the Chinese or the Indians.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit I never said that the India was the source of British technology. India provided the financial backing for the British industrial revolution. By the mid 18th century the British East India Company had complete monopolies across most Indian industries. Within a couple of years of taking over trade in India ~circa 1760s the increased revenue gained through these monopolies allowed the British to fund the revolution.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Your times are off. Britain didnt start to focus on India until after the USA war of independence, which was the 1775-1783. Until that time, the british only had small trade outposts on the coast of india. Britain wasnt interested in India very much as it thought that more wealth was to be gained from the americas, however the WoI with the USA forced the brits to think it wasnt worth it. That is when the EIC decieded to start monopolising.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Umm they controlled East India and the Mughal empire by the 1770s. They were both extremely rich. The wealth found in Delhi was famed throughout the world for centuries. With the British victory and substantial increase in tax revenue they were able to start full scale industrialization. Look up the Battle of Buxar of 1764. With its treaty the British East India company had the right to collect taxes on 100 million acres of land. Thats close to three times the size of England alone!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit Britain wasn't interested in India??? You are kidding right?
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit FYI Just because I speak the truth it doesn't mean I'm spreading anti-British propaganda. Don't hate and call the truth and bunch of 'lies/fantasies.' It's easy to claim that I lying, but its worth sh*t until you back it up with factual evidence. Everything that I have said is open source material. BTW I have family in England and I have English friends. I have nothing against the British. I just don't think we should glorify the British empire and the 'benefits' they brought India.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister I'll call what i know as false lies if i have to. I have read many books and studied large sections of britains history and the empire. I am also constantly in touch with a group of 5 highly knowledgable historians which support my argument.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit It's easy to claim having knowledge. I have years of research under my belt. I have shown source for all of my facts. Everything I have cited can be found being said by World Renowned historians. 5 highly knowledgable high school teachers is probably what you mean when you say that. Give me sources from internationally recognized historians first then we will talk.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister but look at what india got out of it! Free healthcare/education, good weelpaying jobs in a wide range of industries, good treatment all round. The Indians were respected, the british knew the worth of the indian people.
1 out of every 3 british colonists was married to an indian. Britain wanted to coexists with the indians.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit WOW! Free healthcare/education!! Thats hilarious! The education system that India has today was built because of efforts of Independent India. Read India after Gandhi. One of the best accounts of modern day India by a renowned historian. What healthcare do you speak of?? The Spanish flu that claimed the lives of 17 million Indians alone was due to poor and inadequate health infrastructure the British built.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister If you knew anything about the spainish flu, then you'd know that more people than that died in europe. 17 million is nothing compared to other parts of the world.
To me that shows that india had a very good healthcare infrastucture and good enough education to know how to hadnlt problems.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Okay, India's population was roughly 250 million in 1915. India experienced the death of 17 million people meaning that 10% of the population of India died during the 1917-1919 of the spanish flu. 70 million reported worldwide deaths puts India's share of the death toll at 25%. You can verify my calculations if you want.
To me that shows that India had terrible healthcare infrastructure. You have no idea how health infrastructure works do you?
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister 17 million is not 10% of 250 million. Do you knwo how many died in europe? over 30 million. now, if india was the poor backwater coutry you say it was because of the british, with a near nonexistant healthcare system and no support, then how did it have a lower death toll (with a population larger than the entirety of europe put together) than the european countries which were supposed to have better healthcare? i'm sorry, but your argument doenst hold water.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit My mistake on the math. 17 million is more like 7%, but it is estimated that 10% of the population was killed. That is a very good estimate.
Europe is much larger than India in terms of territory with many governments which did not have unity to act. India did and yet India alone saw the loss of 10% of its population. Soo..... again this isn't a contest to see how far you can piss. There was such thing as hospitals in India before the arrival of the British. If you care to read the
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister india is about the same size as europe, but with a much larger population. To have only 17 millions deaths compared to between 30-50 millions in europe, the place where many of the best healthcare systems in the world resided, then india must have had suficcient healthcare to keep death rates down.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit accounts made by travelers to India as far back as 400 CE you would know that India had a vast healthcare network. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the British were in India to make as much money as possible before they were kicked out. They had no plan to sink money into assets that did not directly benefit them. They kindly got rid of the health infrastructure when they came by many methods. Their tactics allowed them to stay longer than they should have. And who said the European
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister where is the veidence to suggest britiain systimatically destroyed indians existing healthcare? i havent found any whatsoever. Give me names of books, articles and other sources you used to come up with that argument. The british knew that if they had a healthy workforce they could make more money, so what would the british gain from destroying the indian healthcare systems inplace already? they would gain a lot more by expanding the system, which they did.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit countries had better healthcare??? Just because they were Europeans they had better healthcare?? I'm sorry, but YOUR argument doesn't hold water.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the countries in europe at the time of the spainish flu had the best healthcare systems in the world, according to many sources. If they had a higher death toll than a country that, your saying, had a nonexistant healthcare system then either your sources are BS or your lying about the healthcare system in india. The fact india had only 1 thirds the death toll of europe shows that india must have had at least a good level of healthcare.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Umm Indians in Britain and in India were not allowed to walk on the same piece of pavement as the British. They were forced to walk on the road where horses and other transport used to travel in their own country.
Show me where it says 1 out of 3 British colonists married Indians. More like 1 in 3 male British colonists took up Indian wives while posted in India. I don't recall ever seeing and common Indian man marry and British female colonists. 'White male superiority complex'
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister i'm going to use one of your favorite phrases:
look it up.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Yeah it is one of my favorite phrases because you don't seem to want to look at history. You'd rather make it up!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
2)The school system that was set up by the British was meant to turn the elite into subservient dogs. I hardly consider that a benefit. The elites were going to receive a good education whether or not the British introduced their own education because they had the money to do it. Anyone with money could do that.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister The british built schools were open to all indians. as were british built healthcare facilities. Britain new that they needed a well cared for workforce in every part of the empire to maintain stability and excourage growth.
And, if you look at what started british expansion into india in the first place, you'd see that they treated the british like tools, trying to use the british for their own selfish ends, usually trying to destroy other kingdoms.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Again, the British built schools for the elites, not the general population! I'm not going to looking for specific sources I'll leave that to you. The first line of literacy in India wikipedia states Indian literacy grew from 12% in 1947 to 85% in 2011! Have fun trying to argue the benefits of British built schools!
They only needed a bunch of subservient dogs to write down meal orders and act like target practice on battlefields.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit You're history education is very shallow. Yes, the British were tools for the Indian elite- They were tasked with organizing and defending Indian trading posts. The british were conniving little weasels. They pitted the elite against each other, destroyed them, and picked up the pieces. An example is shown below. The succession in the Maratha empire.If that's not enough look see fall of the Sikh empire and how the British bought out and pitted elites/military officers against each other
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the british were used by the indian elites. Britain had no interest in indian politics before hand. Its just there was a severe case of Norman Syndrome, wihch evetually meant that the british turned the tables. The Indians had noone to blame but themselves.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit So the Indians can only blame themselves fo British opportunism and backstabbing? Of course they had an interest in Indian politics. Their survival in India depended on it. Without the favors they were given the British would not have been able to set up trading posts in India in any meaningful way.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister but thats just what they were. trading posts. not a monopoly. that came later. Britain maintained the trade posts by allying themselves with the right poeple. what those popele did britain could only influence. at first, the british only wanted secure trade posts. its not britains fault that the indian tried to use the brits but the indians plan backfired.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit You seem to color history in a way that favors the British. The Indians did not actively seek out the British for support. At least not until they became major powers in India. The British actively went out and offered support to people that they knew could help defeat their rivals. The Maratha succession is a perfect examples of this.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister after the original indian diplomats, who offered the british alliances to take on other indian kingdoms, effectily trying to make the brits fight other people wars, THEN was the time the british started taking an active role in indian politics, making alliances and crushing other people enemies to try and take land/make themselves stronger. the indians have noone else to blame but themselves for getting the british interested in territorial conquest of india.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit And I still don't understand this whole justification you are making about how the Indian plan backfired! So you're acknowledging that the British were living backstabbers that would screw the Indians over and they should have known their plan would have backfired??
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the british were not interesting in territorial aquisition. they wanted trade, as thats where the money was. the thing that got the british interested, or at least instilled in the british the idea of territorial gains, came from the indians trying to manipulate the british EIC into fighting their wars for them.
Its an age old strategy, and they should have known it wasnt going to work. Its exactly what happened to Naples in the early middle ages with the Normans.
titytit 1 month ago
1)India already had stability and order before the arrival of the British. Several major Indian powers controlled the subcontinent. The idea of an Independent India came about after the arrival of the British.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister what? you obviously dont know indian history. The maratha confederacy was crumbling, another 3-4 years and it would have been full blown civilw ar. There were dozens of smaller kingdoms fighting bloody wars all over what is now burma, bangladesh, pakistan and india. The Mughal empire was also cumbling but was also trying to commit genocide against any and all hindus!
what part of that screams stability?
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Umm buddy its not that hard to google any of this stuff. Heres a quote directly from wikipedia: 'In 1775, the British East India Company intervened in a succession struggle in Pune, which became
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister Yes the EIC intervened becuase it was asked to by the ruling classes of india....
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Yeah.... The uncle of the aire to the thrown of the Maratha Empire. He sure is part of the ruling class. That doesn't mean the people that mattered asked them to intervene...The uncle was a nobody that the British propped up for their own ends. YOU seem to choose to view history in a way that is extremely biased and favoring in ways towards the British and ster controversy on historical facts that are not debated or argued by historians.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit the First Anglo-Maratha War. Marathas remained the preeminent power in India until their defeat in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars (1805–1818)' What 3-4 years are you speaking of,pray tell! If the British had no backed the uncle against the King's son (the rightful aire) during the succession struggle in 1775 there would have been no problems. Raghunathrao would not have moved against his family and the Maratha would have remained a strong empire.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister The maratha conederacy was crumbling, as i have said before. The reason it stayed the preedminent power is because there wasnt any other indian kingdom large enough to challege it AND because they started to see the EIC as a threat, they banded together again.
Threat breeds unity. Had the british not made themselves known, the maratha confederacy would have crumbled into nothing, succeeded by bloody civil wars in which millions of indians would have died.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit The Maratha empire as you yourself state fought against the Mughals, so tell me how they unified to fight the British threat?? The Maratha and Mughal empires fought one of the longest wars on the Indian subcontinent. 27 years. 1681-1708 Maratha war of Indepedence. Before the arrival of the British. The British arrived and took control of large parts of India in the 1750s-1770s engaging in war against the major Kingdoms. By the time the British starting waring against the Marathas they
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the reason the marathas and the mughals were fighting when britain started xpanding was because they simply didnt have the means to. They didnt have the money, the manpower or the resources to continue fighting.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I don't know what you are referring to.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit had not fought as a united Maratha Empire for 40 years.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@titytit Yeah North India had the Sikh Empire. South India- Marathas and maybe someone else I can't recall off the top of my head. East India-the Bengal Empire. Central and West India-Mughals. None of these were 'small kingdoms' by any measure. They commanded large populations.
You are incredibility ill-informed. The Mughal empire was crumbling BECAUSE of the British colonization and monopolization of trade! By the time the Mughals realized what had happened it was already too late!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister The mughal empire had been in decline for decades before the british even arrived!
Look up the wars between the mughals and the marathans. The Mughal empire was falling apart becuase it had been at war with the marathans since the late middle ages (due to religion no less). The British came along and picked up the pieces.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit They had been in decline, but that is a relative term! They were still the wealthiest and the strongest of the Kingdoms in India. BTW the British were there during the decline. They did not magically appear in 1764 and defeat the Mughals.
The Mughal empire was falling apart because of the marathans?? Yeah right! They were in decline because of a succession struggle in 1707. They were further weakened because of the constant attacks by the Persians. The Marathas formed because of
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister so your saying that 400+ years of constant war didnt have any effect what so ever on the mughal empire?
and i love the way your dodging the fact that the mughals commited many of the wrose crimes against humanity the indian subcontinent had ever seen. Multiple counts of genocide, multiple massacres, to many to list. Most of them dont even have names they are so numerous, and the british are supposed to be the bad guys? dont make me laugh.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit the Mughal empires decline in the mid 18th century. Before the decline the Marathas were a thorn in the Back of the Mughals. They were a bunch of insurgents trying to gain independence. It was not about religion. It was about power. I have no idea what they are teaching you in the British school system, but it's junk. The Marathas were not a independent power until the mid 18th century.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister it was all about religion you fool. The mughals, as i have said before, commited dozens, if not hundreds, of horrible crimes against humanity, mostly hindus because they were...guess what...hindu! The marathans wanted independece to try and stop the ruthless killing of hindu and sikh indians.
titytit 1 month ago
@TheRishmister The sikh empire wasnt very large at all, and there is no such thing as the 'Bengal empire' unless you mean Deva Bengal, which was not very large, equal in size to the Sikh Empire.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit The Bengal empire I refer to is the collection of Nawabs that controlled Bengal. It was twice the size of England and referred to as the Paradise of Nations by the Mughals because they were impressed by the Bengali wealth. The Sikh empire was not very large? By what measure. It was definitely larger than England and controlled large parts of North India.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister The sikh empire was not ever twice the size of the kashmir region, so dont tell meit controlled 'large parts of northern india'. The most it ever controlled was a large portion of the Punjab region and the kashmir region.
And going off the fact that england is in fact a very small nation, not that much bigger than the netherlands, an 'empire' that is only twice the size is nothing to brag about.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Kashmir and Punjab are fairly large pieces of land. Those areas are larger than England, so I do not know how you can call them small considering they had millions of people under their control. Nothing to brag about? The Sikh empire had millions of people they ruled. How is that small?? They had incredible wealth that most countries envied.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister england had millions of people. so what? the areas are quite small. saying they are large doenst make them large.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Only one Mughal ruler comitted geneocide in India, during its long history. You can hardly claim that genocide of Hindus was a common practice.
P.S. Heres a kicker! I didn't see this before, but theres a table on wiki called Famines in India. Before british rule from 1000-1745 ad=18 famines of which most were local No death toll reported. Under British rule-1770-1947=40 famines claiming the lives of 59 million Indians! Which is most definitely a low number estimate.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister did it ever occur to you that no death toll was reported because noone cared if people died in the famines?
The british would have cared and therefore would have taken a toll of the dead, to make sure that it didnt happen again. AND if you look at what caused the famines, you'd see that it was almost always bad weather, which couldnt be predicted back then so the british would not have known to stockpile food.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I think you missunderstand what I said. When I said no death toll was reported I did not mean it was because they didn't know how many people died in the famines. I meant that wikipedia did not report death tolls. Now I can see you are a shallow witted person from this statement. You honestly think that the only people to have any sense of humanity are the British?? It's sad that you think Indians have no moral fiber and do not care about the number of people who died in the famines.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister i'm not saying the indians didnt or dont have 'mral fibre' i'm saying that the indians woulnd thave had the resources or manpower to conduct such a survey, especially taking into account the constant warring and the fact that they had JUST gotten out of a famine.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit What kind of perception do you have of Indians during this time period?? They weren't in the stone. They were as modern as any other country. You can look up historical records, including population, food granary levels, trade, taxation revenue, and anything else you want for the Mughal empire and the Maratha. There is no way for a state to maintain itself without records. Where are you coming up with this stuff??
And you are definitely accusing Indians of not having any moral fiber!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@titytit Go read your own post. You said the British care while the Indians don't.
'did it ever occur to you that no death toll was reported because noone cared if people died in the famines?
The british would have cared and therefore would have taken a toll of the dead, to make sure that it didnt happen again.'
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister well that was bad phrasing on my part then.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit If anything the British were the ones with no morality or humanity. History is complete with their atrocities that rival and exceed the Nazis in Germany. The wars and atrocities that the British fought are not seen anywhere else in the world. The British government was ruled by a bunch of thugs. No other region in the world has seen as much war and destruction as that perpetrated by the British. 100 years war?? Crazy!
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the 100 years war wasnt just englands fault. Blame france for constantly trying to take land away from us. Land that rightfully belonged to the normans. i would love for you to tell me of a list of these apparent atrocities that were sanctioned by the british government.
I would then like you to compare them to the atrocities commited by the Ottomans, japanese, russians, spainish, dutch, french, germans and many others. You will see britain is the most benevolent.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Umm I wouldn't know where to start to with the list of atrocities the British government sanctioned against Indigenous people...
Also, I don't need to compare the atrocities committed by other countries. It's not a contest. You can't say one murder is less of a murder than another murder. Murders are murders and they are all bad.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister well give me links, book titles, articles etc that list the atrocities sanctioned by the british government.
and i dont mean atrocities dont by a single commander without the knowledge of the government, i mean atrocities DIRECTLY sanctioned by the government.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit You think that food is only stockpiled when there are shortages. I am glad you do not lead a country. The point of a food granary is to ensure that food is stored away during times of excess so that when that are periods of scarcity there is no starvation. The British definitely had food granaries in England during the same time period. Again food granaries are not a modern concept. Better educate yourself.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister again, i will reiterate what i said earlier. The british, at the time of the first famines, didnt hve the proper experience of the climate in india, so a famine was boud to happen. Britain learned from that mistake. the reasont he famines in the late 1800's were so devastating is becuase the stockpile the british had crated was eaten through so very quickly, probably due to a larger population in india at the time. The stockpile hadnt grown with the population.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Climate has nothing to do with it when it comes to the storage of food in food granaries. The British had food granaries in England that they maintained quite nicely even during some of the worst winters. See the Industrial pollution in England causing one of the worst winters in over a century. What is the point of a food granary that is exhausted too quickly?? It defeats the purpose. You built food granaries so that the stockpiles last several years during draught years. Famines
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister the industrial pollution didnt cause the mini ice age. I see you believe in AGW, but thats a different argument where we disagree and thats also off topic but anyway.....
and, i will say it YET AGAIN. the famines took everyone by surprise. even the british. they didnt think that another famine like that could happen after the new irrigation systems the brits had built had been completed.
titytit 1 month ago
The first major famines were seen in the 1770s in Bengal. How is it that it happened again in the late 1800s even though they learned their lessons. I hardly believe they couldn't adjust to the indian climate in a 100 years.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister they did, but as i said, the british hadnt increased the stockpile in line with indian population growth. The famines in the 1800's took everyone by surprise. The british spent millions trying to alleviate the problems, importing food from Oceania, africa and even the americas and china.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit BTW you have no idea how Hindu-Muslim relations have worked over the centuries do you? You seem to have a very high school view of history.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister In short, the hindus and muslism fought each other for centuries, from approximately the early middle ages up until british expansion in the late 1700's.
Millions were killed, on both sides, and the mughals constantly commited atrocities, including genocide on multiple occasions to both sikhs and hindus. Its all there on the internet as well.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit I don't even know where to begin. The Muslim elites under the Mughal empire controlled most of Hindu India. The muslims were the minority and their subjects were the Hindus. There was no killing of millions as you speak of. Only one ruler of the Mughal empire committed genocide in ints entire history. Give me actual legitimate sources to show that there was constant warfare between the two religions. If that were true the Muslim minority would not have been able to rule of the Hindu
TheRishmister 1 month ago
Comment removed
titytit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRishmister the mughal empire was created out of the muslim timurid empire, and there was a very large number of muslims, definitly enough to commit the crimes that can be found plastered all over the internet. remember, the timurids main source of manpower was fron what is now modern day Iran, afghanistan and the former soviet muslim republics of central asia. Combined, the number of muslims the mughals could command was half the hindu number, but better equipped and trained.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit majority. The Mughal empire would not have been able to stay in power without the support of the people of India. I don't need to read anything on the internet because I know what the truth is. I have read your replies and they are fraught with inaccuracies and twists on history that do not make sense. Again you have a very childish white view of India.
TheRishmister 1 month ago
@TheRishmister i'm not going to argue with someone who denouces other people argument by always bringing race into it. The views i have put forwards are based on vast research and much reading done on my part.
I am not saying the british empire was perfect, or that there wasnt a racist minority in the british chain of command but, compared to the alternitives, it was probably the best deal india was going to get. If britian hadnt taken over, another more brutal power would have.
titytit 1 month ago
@titytit Just because you 'research' doesn't mean you're doing it correctly. Apparently you're the only one not reading what everyone else is!
So Indians ruling themselves or having a foreign power rule them? WHICH is better? hmmm..... India had a much better deal with the Mughals and the Marathas than the British. You don't have any basis in reality. First hand accounts are better than state sponsored world history classes.
TheRishmister 1 month ago