What went wrong?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj
nber.org/papers/w10586)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

brits

pajeets, pakis, and bengalis inhabit it

br*ts

youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

anglos

an*Los
They love to talk about how they brought civilization, but the British Raj's economy grew literally just 1% over its entire 100 year existence.

We were too generous in our assumptions. We thought we could civilise these subhumans. Alas, we were wrong.

anglos being shit at economy

your mom

unironically this
There is no excuse for being conquered by a fucking tea company

> no excuse for being conquered by a fucking tea company
> gets conquered by a fucking fur trading company


WEEEEW

said the men from greece

said the men who did a second world war because couldn't pay the debts from the first and was too butthurt about it

Brits should have done what the Spanish did and breed with the population

>who did a second world war
ww2 was started by poland

Oi. Goa was Portuguese!

The plumbing apparently.

it was governed by two guys and a bicycle

dumb racist brits moving all muslins to same spot

Too much country for a tiny European island to govern thousands of kilometres away.

Unironically this

Britbongs failed to build industry and schools. Instead, they mined the place for all it's worth.

brits unironically did more good for india/pakistan than they did bad

they should have introduced eugenics and population contorl programs so that we wouldnt have as many of us subhumans alive today

brits basically created Pakistan moving muslims there, they almost went to nuclear war many times

Brits basically de-industrialised the whole region and mined it for all its resources. They went from being 25% of the worlds wealth to little over 2% under the Brits. They basically created generations upon generations of uneducated infighting population. The division of India and Pakistan was done in a very callous fashion, the Brits basically washed their hands of any responsibility after they were done exploiting the region. Saying the Brits did more good than harm shows how little you know of world history.
Link to get you started you can read up more about it

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

>Saying the Brits did more good than harm shows how little you know of world history.
Did you even read what I wrote?

kek gtfo pajeet pootel, the brits did more good than harm and you know it, they almost civilized us and had they succeeded you and I would not be alive

I never said anything of the sort. Just very succinctly summarized that British India had to be governed through the Indians themselves, which necessitated education. Exposure to British society and European ideology made them more determined to seek independence than they would have otherwise sought.

You lousy bum.

Not an Indian.
Just wanted to reply to everyone discussing the topic

>de-industrialised the whole region
Pretty sure they do that everywhere.
Here Malays were barred from settling in cities and forming trade companies for divide and conquer resulting in near extinction of the middle class merchants and chinese filling the gap. Post independence the entire malay society had to be rebuild from the ground up in a country with 90%+ poverty and racial tension from 60% immigrant population forced upon locals.

>Just very succinctly summarized that British India had to be governed through the Indians themselves
no it wasn't, Indians always topped the civil services examinations but the brits didn't take us because "we weren't white".
There were many instances throughout the COLONIAL HISTORY that jeets came 1st, 2nd, 3rd in the CS exam but anglos were preferred because of their skin colour.

Yup they did something similar in China, which is way they are more demonized in Asia than Nazis.
Malaysia had the advantage of being a smaller country and could get back on its feet a lot quicker than Pajeetland.

The British tactics for control were ingenious desu. They would turn people against each other and benefit from the chaos.

this .
17% of Indians were educated when british left .

I wish we were fortunate as Japanese desu, they patronized Prussians to get their technology.

THE FUCKING AMERICANS

even after the independence our ancestors voted for a socialist government and what they did was took billions out of our country into tax havens.

>De-industrialized a non-industrial country.

The shit lefties actually believe.

what ?

The East India Company did have a private army twice the size of Britain's.

Taboo is pure East India Company kino.

All it takes is a Google search user. Stop being a brainlet.

Then why educate the Indians, or let them take the examinations at all?

In any case, I am not referring to the civil services alone. There are people in other administrative settings: lawyers, doctors, and other professionals. They all had to be educated, and not all of them were British.

The point I'm making is that the British needed educated people to help them govern India.

>Brits basically de-industrialised the whole region
global south posters are so fucking thick i'm surprised more of you don't forget how to breathe

>We dindu nuffin. We wuz juss helpin da poos

nono user, please tell me more about how india was "basically de-industrialised"
in detail sweetheart x

>controlling a countries market so it sells you shit for a low price and buys all the shit you make for a long term wealth transfer
>use their own people to occupy it

>Then why educate the Indians
There's documented proof of the fact that education deteriorated after colonial rule. Almost every village before had schools before the Brits arrived.

>or let them take the examinations at all?
to maintain the facade of equality and other Brit bullshit.

India would have indigenously industrialsed under the sikh and maratha empires.

>India was a major player in the world export market for textiles in the early 18th century, but by the middle of the 19th century it had lost all of its export market and much of its domestic market. Other local industries also suffered some decline, and India underwent secular de-industrialization as a consequence. While India produced about 25 percent of world industrial output in 1750, this figure fell to only 2 percent by 1900. We use an open, specific-factor model to organize our thinking about the relative role played by domestic and foreign forces in India's de-industrialization. The construction of new relative price evidence is central to our analysis. We document trends in the ratio of export to import prices (the external terms of trade) from 1800 to 1913, and that of tradable to non-tradable goods and own-wages in the tradable sectors going back to 1765. With this new relative price evidence in hand, we ask how much of the de-industrialization was due to local supply-side influences (such as the demise of the Mughal empire) and how much to world price shocks (such as world market integration and rapid productivity advance in European manufacturing), both of which had to deal with an offset the huge net transfer from India to Britain before 1815. Whether the Indian de-industrialization shocks and responses were big or small is then assessed by comparisons with other parts of the periphery.


(nber.org/papers/w10586)

zzz tldr rapjeet

This is why Sikhs disgust. While all other indian kingdoms were trying their hardest to overthrow the brits the Sikhs actually helped the subhuman anglo invaders wtf? Why haven't you Hindus genocided these traitors yet?

>can't even read a 100 words abstract.

They didn't make it into a white colony. Imagine Anglos that are tanned like Aussies in the outback, and they also eat spicy food as well. They would also teach the Indians how to poo in the loo.

The British treated the populace badly and paid the price.

the fact that whoever wrote it seems to believe there were any industrial societies in 1750 already makes it 100 words not worth reading

Why could the marathas or sikhs not industrialise indigenously like japan or thailand or china?

lol

can't really understand what you're asking me user. those societies didn't industrialise indigenously, all of them had huge technical assistance from west european powers. even then two of those were still backward and agrarian until recent

you know he's probably one of those invaders

They opened themselves up to the west and imitated but did so as sovereigns

Why did india need to be occupied but not china?

They lost their turko-mongol rulers.
They need to be BABUR'D again!

I wish the brits still ruled us till this day.