How Britain committed Genocide in India

[Hong Key]

Old news, get with the times. Today's headlines are how Britain committed Genocide in Britain.

[Astronaut]

I'll take a look at this later, but you try to govern a huge mass of people, and when a famine rolls around, YOU try to manage famine relief, and you see if you do a better job. It may be the new move to blame the Britishers, but they built railroads and I don't think you can look at things so simplistic.

The word "Holocaust" is too much, to be tantamount to INCENDIARY. Are you on the side of SATYA or shortsighted political motivations?

SATYAMEVA JAYATE Brother....

This is not blaming anyone but merely an attempt to state the correct facts.You know just like African history,Indian history too was whitewashed into how the British civilized the filthy creatures of India and civilized them into modernity.

They probably forgot that this is the same civilization that gave us the numerical system of 012345789 without which nothing on this planet would have been functioning as we see today.

[silver_surfer]

I see you haven't updated a lot of your historical Knowledge.Today India is a net donor and not a recipient.Just last year,India gave 2 billion $ to Afghanistan,1 billion $ to Bangladesh,50 million $ to Nepal and Africa and 200 million $ to Butan.Above all India gave 10 billion $ to EU.

You conveniently forgot that TATA's,Mittals and other rich Indian industrialists invested billion of pounds into your country, thus saving your country from falling into deep financial crisis and unemployment.


Almost all of Aid that India receives is credit which has to be repaid back with a handsome interest.

As for Indian economy being smaller than that of UK,you should know that much of Indian economy is informal in nature.True size of Indian economy can never be determined because of this.It is estimated that Indian economy is at least 30% bigger than the current estimates.Some say India's informal economy is as big as it's formal economy.So if that is taken into account then the Indian economy would be twice bigger.


Also even after financial difficulties India still manages a 5% growth rate which is stated to increment to 6% next year.If India manages this growth rate,then it would certainly become the 3rd largest economy in the next 20 years.

Having said that, I say India tried to follow a mix of capitalism and socialism, sort of like what many European nations do, but the sheer levels of corruption prevented this from being successful almost all the money stayed in the hands of corrupt government officials, and businesses couldn't get licenses or property without knowing who to pay off. This is true to today. Liberalization has helped, but the nation is still hugely corrupt. The Nehruvian socialism was supposed to make India a superpower similar to USSR by adopting the centrally-controled, highly-regulated, planned development activities. However, unlike the USSR, this was to be done in a democratic setup inspired by the British governance model. After all, a single dictator would not have been accepted in a country that has several strong ethnic identities based on castes, regions, religions and languages.

If you compare China and India in gapminder's chart you can see that they follow similar trajectory.


Life expectancy increased but economic growth was small.
After economic liberalization started in 1975 the GDP/capita started to increase significantly.

[Graham]

Exactly the same thing happened in Ireland. Potatoes were diverted from Ireland to London, during the bad seasons.

Kind of a shame, because without India, the Empire wouldn't have as strong as it was.

[Damião de Góis]

There was a Portuguese colony is Nagasaki, Japan.

It was actually an enclave. But it's good you pointed that one out.

More like a trading post. But i'm pretty sure we had Ormuz in Iran for more than one hundred years.

[Astronaut]

Having said that, I say India tried to follow a mix of capitalism and socialism, sort of like what many European nations do, but the sheer levels of corruption prevented this from being successful almost all the money stayed in the hands of corrupt government officials, and businesses couldn't get licenses or property without knowing who to pay off. This is true to today. Liberalization has helped, but the nation is still hugely corrupt. The Nehruvian socialism was supposed to make India a superpower similar to USSR by adopting the centrally-controled, highly-regulated, planned development activities. However, unlike the USSR, this was to be done in a democratic setup inspired by the British governance model. After all, a single dictator would not have been accepted in a country that has several strong ethnic identities based on castes, regions, religions and languages.
.

India was a mixed economy only in name.But in actuality it was a hardened command economy.Even today India cannot be classified as a proper capitalist economy because it's economy is still very much unfree.

According to some economist had India adopted a capitalist form of economy instead of a socialist one in 47,it would have become economically twice bigger than the US and average standard of living would have been atleast at par with Greece instead of Sub saharan Africa.

[Äijä]

And still they are a overpopulated shithole, India is a crime against the planet.

[Balmung]

Can you imagine 2 billion more Spaniards, Chileans, Iberians, Brazilians...? yeah just what the world needs, more LATINS LOL. Male strippers, lazy homos, artistic fags, or machismo womanizers.

At least India contributes scientists, engineers, call center technicians, doctors, lawyers, business owners, tech start up founders.

Iberians are better looking than Indians. I could imagine more of them in the world over Indians quite fine.

[Astronaut]

Iberians are better looking than Indians. I could imagine more of them in the world over Indians quite fine.

Looks are very deceiving in nature,my friend.It's whats inside that matters.