Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "SLICE Full Doc" channel.

Colonization of India was not a bad thing, at least to Indian standards. After all they have been subjected and ruled by the Muslim Mughols 2-3 centuries before British colonialization set in. Which relied to a large part on cooperation of Maharajas and later the British Indian Army, composed by mainly native troops. That Indian judge was British educated, just as Gandhi was.
4
@joeyartk That is a fabricated claim. Grave famines occurred regularly in pre-British times, as we very well know from historical records of the East Indian companies, when they were just small maritime merchants. In reality later British rule, both direct and indirect (via local principalities) was quite good. Yes, there was the confrontation of cheap, machine made cotton etc. with the local artisanal world. Just as it was the case in Britain itself. The beginning of industrialization was brutal, no matter where. The main flaw of the British rule was arrogance. Not as deep as the Hindu caste system, but still reprehensible according to Western standards. Yet that is a far cry from intentionally starving millions to death. Apparently some members of the contemporary Indian elite have to invent such horror stories, so that their current rule looks better, no matter what they do.
4
@joeyartk Apparently your shallow knowledge about the history of India is exhausted. As you did not counter any of my arguments, but had to switch to another continent. I will not follow your escape. As you are not a promising debate partner. Either a Hindu nationalist or a simplistic US American who wants to press the whole complexity of the world into the "bad guys vs the good guys" framework.
4
@joeyartk Large and by I agree. One could speak about the Japanese atrocities - yet they did not happen before the war started. And there was nothing wrong with Pearl Harbor in times, in which starting a war was not even close to being repugnant. So yes, it was a war for hegemony. The maintainers from far away vs the newcomers from the region.
4
@tcz1757 Many Indians think so . thought so. Take Nirad Chaudhuri for instance. More generally the idea that local elites' rule is automatically preferable to rule of foreigners is a nationalistic point of view.
3
@joeyartk Their empire was less soaked with blood than others and less soaked than what came after them. We shall try to be fair in our judgments. Not for the sake of Brits. But - reality has many shades. If we depict light grey as black, then no one will take us serious when we really encounter something black.
1
@joeyartk Indeed. What I dislike though is bashing one empire selectively / selectively blaming anyone for things which were standard in their times. British rule in India had its good sides and its bad. Unlike say, the rule of the Belgian King in the Kongo (yes, now I am changing continents, lol).
1
@v9ish9li British rule had good and bad sides, as any rule. Overall it was productive and beneficial also to India: Railways, education, a common language, political institutions, and even the very statehood of present India are direct consequences of British rule. As opposed to fragmented local rule and a already declining Mughal Empire, which the first traders of the British, Dutch etc. East Indian Companies encountered. And there were regular famines, despite no food being exported. That later rather small British forces could acquire control over a whole subcontinent was consequence of India's fragmentation, decline and weakness. Not a reason for it. Blame your elites for that. And let's stop romanticizing old times indeed. Yes, there was a heavy price for progress, namely the destruction of traditional artisanal production. See, the share of artisanal production in Europe also sharply declined in the age of industrialization. But then the price of industrially produced goods was and is much lower than that of the traditionally produced ones. Of course you are free to buy garments form traditionally spun cotton at a much higher prices, if you are so scornful towards industrialization. Will you ? And yes, progress is driven by self-interests. Just look at the Indian upper classes today. Who are more ruthless and more materialistic than the British were.
1