Thanks for watching everyone! Also, a quick error-correction: in the video, I mention the number is $43 trillion. Patnaik has estimated the true number at $45 trillion. Of course, there is much scholarly debate on this matter.
Bro I appreciate the video but to be honest I don't care for how much was stolen, I am more concerned with state of my country right now as we speak. The amount of disinformation in country is staggering, no one knows what's true and the government has censored the hell out of our past to keep us together as country with fancy political terminology like "freedom" and shit but really we know that we were united under the umbrella of religion, at least that is the case for the common man, and that sucks man. Watching this only makes me sad for the future of India cause it feels like history going to repeat that too more profoundly in the age of seamless flow of information. props to you for a great video.
today our one of the biggest problem is this: global domination of western narrative, and increasing numbers of western minded indian people in india, and a heavily lack of indians who cant create their own objective deep observational skills to re label the realities and label newly found realities and also who have their own subjective vision and culture and who create their own fantasy, their own dream to make their own path for the future to turn the tables of the world and create a new normal, our made normal. Some other important things which we need are keep fighting the challenges again and again and again, and have huge stamina for it
Patnaik is brilliant. What terrifies me most is that the hundreds of millions genocided in India in the last couple centuries will pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions lost within years to decades as the region becomes uninhabitable due to capitalogenic climate genocide (I don't refer to it as anthropogenic because it's caused at most by 9% of the human population, nor as climate change because that invokes passivity). So not only does the imperial core owe upwards of $50 trillion in reparations, they owe likely multiple fold that amount pre-emptively for the impending mass displacement and death on the subcontinent they caused.
This reminds me of a quote I read a little while ago. ‘Studying history will sometimes disturb you. Studying history will sometimes upset you. Studying history will sometimes make you furious. If studying history always makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren’t studying history.’
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805the fact that reading this made me a little uncomfortable is enough reason to stop and look at the bigger picture. It's definitely not so simple and straightforward
Maybe because this is over-simplistic propaganda. An easily comforting and tribalistic victim narrative for Indian nationalists that paints the world in black-and-white, good and evil, oppressor and oppressed. Very little self-reflection needed. Ask yourself how did Britain manage to conquer an entire subcontinet? Ask why India had so many loyal vassals, princely states, allies, and collaborators its entire rule? Why non-Hindi speaking Indians prefer english to Hindi? Ask why Britain let India - apparently pricelessly valuable to them - go without a fight?
@@chico9805 it was the common British people who were doing this,officers from both east India company and the British govt were common British people, and even if they were not involved in this shouldn't they still sorry and be ashamed because of this
@@theultimategamer8322 No, they weren't. Most officers and govt officials were aristocrats or part of the professional upper-middle class. These are not commoners - The average Brit, at that time, barely knew of India's existence.
Thanks for making this well researched video. It might interest your viewers to know that UK barely teaches about colonialism in its schools even today. 10th grade students dont learn even a single paragraph about it.
That is extremely sad, but perhaps not surprising. Hopefully people will understand better now. Conquest is forgivable - incompetent and malicious rule is not.
Same with American colonialism in American schools. Our history education was essentially just the revolutionary war and then WWII over and over again to craft dutiful soldiers. Lower classes everywhere are victims, even the brutal prison guards -- although we can't hold a candle to the national suffering of the Guatemalan or Indian.
thats bs we are legally required to learn about parts of it (slavery specifically), just not in depth ( theres no time to cover all that stuff anyway). I know as I am going through it currently ( typically its one of the main 9 colonies in depth and just a broad view of the entire thing). Unfortunately we can't do anything to make up for what we did other than teach it ( we need to teach more) but we do have to learn about it so please don't spread misinformantion. Have a good day
I love how in the comments everyone from different countries are understanding what india had truly gone through instead of just calling them poor bless those people
Well if the majority hindu Indian diaspora really understood they'd not consider themselves as masters over other minorities...both in the west and back home. You only need to hear the rhetoric of Indian heritage politicians in the UK to understand how much they want to forget how their colonial masters screwed them, and now they're emulating them. A joke.
Growing up in England, it's amazing to see the differences between what we're taught in school about the industrial revolution and the shocking reality of where the money and raw materials came from.
@@rishikeshsangole7254What is taught: So we bought cotton from india Reality: So we inslaved farmers and forced them to give is free cotton. I'am not british though.
Keep these videos coming, The day is near where we will see India in its past glory. These videos will help heal people from the colonial mindset which is still a reality. We need to stick and work together regardless of our cast, religion or any deference and that dream will be a reality soon. Jai Hind
The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938. Shame on those who understand this and yet knowingly spread it on the internet, they clearly have some kind of agenda. It's misinforming the public, and a gross distortion of the truth.
India is growing quickly, but the ruling government needs to stop its blind optimism and take a hard look at the challenges the country faces. Additionally, if the BJP keeps crushing its 200-million strong Muslim minority, it will continue to sabotage India’s own stability and potential.
@@CatastrophicDisease In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
Thanks for making this video, the details you have presented are still unknown to many Indians. I knew British rule was cruel & unjust but did not know to what extent. Your video puts things in a different perspective for me.
A different, but inaccurate perspective. Indian textiles were actually given preferential access to the British market, which eventually over many decades made products from Manchester uncompetitive. This was so debts owed by India to the UK, for loans and development funds could actually be repaid. The reason Britain didn’t hold on to India? Because the amount we paid Indian soldiers for their service during World War 2 massively indebted the UK to India, meaning we could no longer afford to administrate it effectively.
@@danieledwardbennett A classic case of a brainwashed pommy ! I bet you believe the colonial loot you have staged in the British Museum, London actually was unearthed somewhere in the West Midlands !
Thanks As an Indian I am shocked that the history which we were tought as a kid and history which each and every kid in Indian Street knows is not known to the world in its original version !!! Its shocking to see now a days, when Britishers keep their spirit high thinking they have done good by colonising country . This video is doing justice to the country after seventy six years of independence. World is amazing place 🙏
Spend little money and read books of SRI VIVEKANANDA SWAMY JI he you will fall down what great great astonishing history of India. How many Indians know that Buddha told that he is 25th Buddha then who are those 24 Buddha..Now india needs spiritual leaders who can took BHARAT into glorious country ..We have everything but what we don't have is time..
In order to take back into glorious country we need STRONG SPIRITUAL LEADERS NOT SOFTWARE PROJECT LEADERS. These SPIRITUAL thing is permanent and will change entire world into glorious thing.What world is lagging is SPIRITUALITY which BHARAT has surplus.EVERY BHARATIAN HAS TO BECOME SPIRITUAL LEADER WHICH IS PERMANENT THING.EVERY ONE HAS TO FIGHT FOR BRAHMA KNOWLEDGE RIGHT RIGHT FROM CHILDHOOD.Our education has to completely change to acquire this knowledge eradicate present education which is ruthless given by British and ignored by our culprit politicians. Present education system teaches how to ear money only but don't teach moral values.JAI BHARAT MATA KI JAI
You would not believe how often I’ve heard that “yeah, but at least Britain left India with democracy and the English language”. Sure, thank you very much…
@@gozzilla78 Oh, the resounding echoes of colonial benevolence! How could one possibly fathom the depths of gratitude we should all feel for Britain's gracious bestowal of democracy, rapes, looting, torture, savagery, indentured labour, and the English language upon India? It's as if centuries of exploitation, cultural suppression, and oppression were mere trinkets in the grand treasury of imperialism. Yes, thank you ever so much, Britain, for your selfless act of leaving behind a "democracy" where the decisions were made across continents and an "English language" that replaced millennia of linguistic diversity.
My respects to you brother for making this video. This video highlights the plight of British ruled India but should also provide viewers an insight that 200 years of plunder led to struggling independent India. Many western commentators berate India for poor human indices. Atleast video like yours will make them understand that it takes time to get back what we lost (finance, culture, education, character) over 2 centuries. It’s only the resilient nature of Indians that despite all these setbacks, in just 70 years we have become 5th largest economy, beating the very same tyrants, Britain, who pushed us into poverty in the first place.Thanks!
India was the 6th largest economy in 1950s. Countries like Japan and Germany had less GDP than India at that time. The reason why India is still poor is because they are still blaming British for their own post-colonial failure. If British were the reason why many countries are poorer then why non colonized countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Liberia etc. are poorer than India? Why many colonized countries like America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are one of the richest countries in the world. India had 23% of world's GDP in 1750s only because it had 25% of world's population at that period. Countries like Britain, Netherland had 3 times the per capita of India even at that time. Looking at the per-capita, India was one of the poorest countries in the world even in 1750s. Most of the east Asian countries, Middle eastern countries, European countries had more per-capita than India in 18th century. Saying India was one of the richest countries in 17th century just because it had large share of GDP in the world is like saying at present India is richer than UK because India had more GDP than UK. We have to look at per-capita income to find which country is richer and which is not. Countries like Singapore, Hong Kong had accepted British colonization brought more positives than negatives to them. Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, said that before the British arrived, “there was no organized human society in Singapore, unless a fishing village can be called a society”. Countries like Singapore are richer than India now because they had honest politicians like Lee Kuan Yew who don't unnecessarily blame Britishers and had the courage to accept the fact that colonialism brought more positives than negatives to them unlike Indian politicians.
@jeanettewee8805 This write up is a joke. First off America, canada was only a colony until 1776. India was a colony until 1947. So, India was a colony of Britain for nearly 150 years longer. On per capita yes, Netherlands, Britain was wealthier than India but not by much. There is chart historical gdp by regions that lists the numbers. This data was compiled by famous economist Angus Maddison. Europe moved ahead bc of its intrests in sciences. Britain did as this video points out extract all or most of India's wealth. What Europe did to Asia and India. To draw a similarity they got ahead fairly ( bc of their progress in science, ship building etc..) but once ahead to kill competition they dug ditches its others pathways so to keep these Asian, Arab and African societies behind. By 2050 India will be the second largest economy and hopefully by the end of this century it will be the largest economy..
@@jeanettewee8805 Japan and Germany are great powers and industrialized countries before WW2 and they are just a puppet of US after WW2 so it's easy for them to return to their past economic superiority. countries like Canada, australia are populated british they are carbon copy in the other words extension of UK, British saw them as their own people were india on the other hand seen as a inferior, resourceful countries, UK intention is just to drain wealth and resources from India not to develop us but in the case of NZ, australia, canada not like that.
Okay. Now that the Brits are no longer here, what stopped us from liberalising the economy? India is still poor because, it has adopted all the bad policies of both socialism and capitalism. Look at the PSUs and their sloppy products. Yes, I agree, the British did all the dirty works on Indians. But, still blaming the British is like kicking the dead horse.
I'm a British teenager and we had a whole few months learning about the British empire and it's doings in history lessons. And this is in year 8 before we even picked our GCSE subjects so everyone learnt about it atleast in our school
@@नागशक्ति_का_वारिस you can 'imagine' what they teach us but you don't actually know do you? Take it from me who has recently studied it at school in the UK, they are pretty open about lots of the horrific things the empire did. Things like the Irish potato famine, slave trade, the famines in the Indian subcontinent and plenty of other things. Well that was some of what my school taught us atleast
@@नागशक्ति_का_वारिस Not all of the things you listed but we did look at looted artifacts (not just from India), famine, the empire during WW1 & 2 and the rebellion of 1857. Could my school have covered it more? Yes! but then again this is 150 years in a country with over 2000 years of history, and within the British empire we also studied it's negative effects on other countries too. Also I'm not sure if this was in the national curriculum or something my school decided to do themselves.
@@GiacomoLockhart James u should be worried abt ur Thiefs country.... Ur economy is in recession somehow stablelize by Indian other taxpayer... Ur country is fked up ur capital London is burning ... Sooner colonial country get dets More developing worser ur Thiefs family future gonna become.
@@GiacomoLockhart Iran handle Western sanctions & humble usa Europe efforts .. ur whole western countries army cant able to stop Iran yet. 😂🤣 Lmfao 😂 still u have confidence to say this 🤣🤣.
The famine was a result of the British forcing Indian farmers to grow cash crops such as hemp, cotton tobacco indigo ink tea and so and not edible food crops. The lack of food crop production was a result of the heavy handed taxation. Farmers could not generate enough revenue by selling food crops and had to cultivate cash crops to pay the draconian taxes.
Those people are gone and that's a long time ago. What about now? Are the British currently responsible for the high suicide rate among the farmers? Are they?? Why not focus on the present, and prepare for the future , huh??!
@@emmanuel8310 not once did the original comment say we are better off now than under British rule, even though as a society we undoubtedly are. The need for you to question the current dispensation in an effort to somehow make light of the British tyranny, instead of being able to accept the historical fact being stated, says a lot. Accept what has been done to us by the Brits, the implications of that in the present day, and move on. Trust me, the young new India doesn't spend more time than the duration of this video thinking about British wrongdoings in a whole year's time.
@@darksoulsgt5006 Well, who asked for you coment either? I spoke my mind because we seem to be obsesses with being victims when we were never really one. Our ancestors were not as strong as the British, and we're therefore subjected. We are not the same. We can learn from it not cry about it. And am I pro British empire? 🤔 Maybe. The world will not be this way, if not for them. They did horrible things, but, they also did awesome things too...like almost every other powers in the world
Bro, that’s past, and we are the result of the past, conquerors and conquered is the history of the whole world not only India, we only have our future to make it better, greetings from Mexico
Done worry bro, they will pay for it we forced them to pay price not through money but also through there life there self respect and others ways Work on progress You will see all results in next 40-50 years I know many of our still mentally colonised bharat varsh people say that forgive them or that's is part of history or others But We teach them ( turkish Race or brittish Race) a strong lesson for 1 millennium of humiliation
@@julions777 In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
And the colonialism defenders will have us believe that India could not build trains! The mental gymnastics that the English (Scotish and Welsh) people do to justify their hegemonic and murderous history is mind-boggling.
@@vaagai9808 Well you see, none of that belongs to India because westerners made the technology first, and nothing the westerners did was based on anything from any other culture (this is sarcasm but it's the argument they will use)
@@YouAreStillNotablaze The cryogenic engine technology was denied by the west, so India went on to build on its own. The western civilization were just hunter gatherers when most of mathematics was invented/discovered. Each civilization stands on the shoulders of the previous one.
A thoroughly well researched video to substantiate my rants on the postcolonial psychological and infrastructural limitations we still have to get over. Big thanks.
In the UK we are not taugh this in school but our colonial history is merely glossed as a period of global advancement of civilisation where we modernised the 'natives' giving them infrastructure and blessing them with our langauage ignoring the mass enslavement and plundering. Outrageously, the dehumanising evil of colonialism still flourishes today in places like Israel / Palestine where daily atrocities are normalised by the complicity of western media. Yet the enraging injustices of the ongoing genocide & ethnic cleansing only serve to fuel justfied resistance denounced as terrorism by all those complicit in its perpetuation.
@Joshpox not when I was at school,, glad things are finally changing. Though I doubt the devastating impact to the colonised nations and it's peoples is covered in enough detail otherwise just reparations would be brought up.
As someone from Ireland, it’s difficult to think of the obscene wealth of London, the British royal family, and aristocracy gained directly or indirectly from the exploitation of other countries and not feel resentful at times, especially as so many of these countries are still recovering from British invasion while many Britons continue to benefit.
Yeah, you Irish hate the English so much you sided with the NAZIs. The British offered Northern Ireland to the Republic, if you joined the war. But your victim mentality and hatred, of a people and culture basically identical to your own, you quietly cheered on Hitler, figuring he would defeat the British and you would get Ulster anyway. I think the Irish should remove that huge victim chip from their shoulder.
@@Kfcdeedeefagwell from the top of my head, Jimmy Cumslayer, the British royal family and tens of thousands of the British aristocracy have enough generational wealth to insulate themselves and future generations against almost any problem; British industry and infrastructure funded by invasions and predatory trading practices are still going strong while invaded countries are still recovering from British exploitation; the British Museum and British museums are stuffed with ransacked artefacts from invaded countries that they refuse to return; the City of London is a massive money laundering racket that wouldn’t exist without the remaining British Overseas Territories; and many Britons continue to benefit from their blissful ignorance of Britain’s role in arbitrarily partitioning land it used to occupy, leading to much of the geopolitical instability in the world today. 🤷🏼♂️
@@tbird-z1r None of those wars killed nearly 40 million people, looted anything close to $45 trillion or reduced the Indian economy from 27% of the global economy to just 3%. No one who invaded India can claim to have done as much damage.
That's just cope. Britain built your railways and gave you modern technology and yet you still come in your armies to London and turn nice places into third world places.
@@taigahiiragi4729 ahh yes you first world folks acting as if being born in a first world country is a big achievement. You're just lucky so be grateful that you were born in the first world, but stop bragging about it as if you worked to achieve this or something. By the way use common sense that those who migrate to your countries are all RICH, EDUCATED third world folks. Your countries give them citizenship only because these folks are useful to YOUR GOVT. Not the average slum dweller is allowed in your country. Just COPE ig.
Thanks man! You have very nicely presented our story, especially the comparison of holocaust, stalin and mao’s killing. People actually forget how brutally we were tortured and killed
@@Ragebait01 absolutely. But the atrocities needs to called out. Even jews are not weak but then don’t forget to remind people about the atrocities. If you don’t speak people won’t know.
The most important thing that everyone should think about now is how to invest in different sources of income that do not depend on the state.especially considering the current real estate cryptocurrency market,stocks,NFTs and forex are good area to explore thanks Mrs Sophia for coaching me
Yes! I'm celebrating £132K stock portfolio today... Started this journey with £13K.... I've invested no time and also with the right terms, now I have time for my family and life ahead of me.
And when Churchill was informed about the devastation of the famine, his one comment was : " How come Gandhi is not dead yet?" He wrote this in the margins of the report on the famine. Excellent report. Thank you.
Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. Don't believe everything you see on social medias.
@jeanettewee8805 there are two large areas where the facts disagree with your statement: The Sikhs: the fought for independence . 87% to 90% of the prisoners who were hanged in the Andabar prison colonies were Sikh. There is no other community who sacrificed more for Bharat.
@@jeanettewee8805 The 2nd: Switzerland: They control a great deal, but in a different way. When you look into their history, you will see their purpose in world politics, as well as wired control
@jeanettewee8805 Brits were not benevolent. They were pirates ☠️ it's how they gained control. You will see examples of their piracy through history. If you get a chance to read 'A Perfect Red' by Amy Greenfield you will get an insight into their piracy. They stole for their Queen. The facts behind Mutiny and the Bounty ...I can give many examples.
@jeanettewee8805 one aspect to consider .. consequence of my research on British Missionary schools. Is the Victor -Vanquished Psychology. The British would go in, change the names of people, of land, as part of the systematic destruction of the culture they are invading, then go in and change laws. Bharat is still vanquished, raising up
This video made me tear up imagining what my forefathers would have gone through. I’m proud to be an Indian. India is a rising Phoenix from ashes. We will rise back to the top and I will see it in my lifetime.
@@emmanuel8310 Do you realize over a third of Brits take pride in this nonsense? If no one keeps reminding them how big dicks they were everywhere they went they'll keep feeding their imperial pride and the hypocritical holier than thou attitude that comes with it well into the future. This isn't about the past. It's about ensuring the west knows just how terrible it was so it can't claim to know better than everyone else how to run the world. That IS about making a better future - for everyone.
Indians problem is grotesque inequality. Some knew what Independence meant was there will be rulers & exploiters like the British, just the time they will be their own kinsman. This is what is holding India back. When you see Billion dollar house next to slums in Mumbai, you see what that really means.
Great summary, and heart wrenching at the same time. The biggest lesson to learn from this, for Indians, is that no matter how much effort you spend in making your population prosperous, if you can't protect it, foreign powers WILL come and exploit the people and the economy. This is why when I look at India's current ~$72 Billion or so Defence budget, my first instinct is "Why that high? May be we can spend more on people and economy?", but then thinking more about the threats faced (especially now from China), I'm glad we have it. Never again!
The biggest loot ever done in the history of mankind. Is how britishers looted each and everything from india. Which was once called a golden bird before British colonial rule in india.
@@Ario55-cc That is not something to be proud about, even if it's true the person who is forcefully converted does not have to actually convert, I highly doubt it though! And the opposite is true, today we have right-wing extremist hindutva and RSS goons forcefully making people chant their slogans, like "Jai Shree Ram" but since it's the people you have a soft spot for, you won't talk about that ever!
@@hsnindustryPoint to be noted is, INDIA was already looted to an extent by the Islamic invaders even before the arrival of British. But India still had enough wealth that it was still the wealthiest country on earth. The Islamic invaders bot only looted our wealth, coverted people but ultimately took 2 big parts of our land too in 1947😥 I feel absolutely terrible when I see the ancient map of India. No country becomes a super power if they it keeps loosing its Land. India's wealth was looted by many turks, mughals and invaders from central Asia, and Afganistan. What the hell you are talking about?
@@mercedesbenz3751 Yes, that I can agree with.. India was so rich but could not afford to protect itself? I can only imagine.. Those who invaded were not Islamic Invaders, they were Muslims.. In Islam there are rules for Invasion, No invasion can take place unless there is oppression in the lands and Muslims are called upon for help, Even then the Caliph (Leader) sends letters first, inviting the other leaders to Islam and to fear GOD (Allah s.w.t) that they may be answerable on the day of Judgement, IF the letter is answered in a positive way then there is no need for invasion or war, If they refuse and continue their tyrranical ways then Caliphs (Leaders) gather their forces and start the invasion. But one thing I should mention, In Islam, Caliphate (Leadership) ended after the Fourth Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib (AS) was assasinated by his former follower in 661 CE. From then on, Caliphate (Islamic Leadership) was replaced with Kingship. What you said correct, but that's a little anecdote that I would like to share with you, and it means the Emperors and Kings were in fact Muslims and they fought for Land, Power and Money etc. which they still do, even the poor raggedy arab bedouins are now competing to build 1000 storeyed buildings in a desert.. Such a shame what Muslims have come down to be , once the protectors of the world peace are now enslaved to their desires, riches and power.
I grew up in Canada. Im speechless in regards to this video. India is covered a multiple points in our school curriculum, and the gist of what we're taught is "India conducted peaceful protests against the British under mahatma ghandi, and as a result the British pulled out, taking all of their industry with them which resulted in the impoverishment of the Indian people, taking decades to very slowly get a semblance of what they once had". There is absolutely nothing about the mass planned genocide, crippling taxes, and overly aggressive extraction of resources to the point of when they had pulled what little industry was left, was simply the tip of the iceberg
@@ErnestTremeerwas this before or after the 60-165million Indians had died to mistreatment and starvation under British occupation? For reference, near 6 million Jewish people were killed during WWII in Germany.
Thank you for telling the truth. The UK destroyed India in every way possible economically, culturally, geographically. We'll never forgive nor forget what happened to us.
As an Indian myself it is important to understand that 90% of the English population today wasn’t even alive for the colonial period, let alone myself. Can’t continue hating forever can we, can hate the governments all you want but at the end of the day it’s the common people that make up a country
Thanks for spreading awareness. Learned more about cruelty of British rule in India from this video than from the entire history classes during my school days combined.
That's because schools have a job to teach impartially and critical thinking rather than one sided nonsense like this on youtube that serves one agenda.
The Dutch had been in India for sometime before they took over from the Portuguese who were in India. The oldest ally to the Portuguese is the English since (1373) "The Anglo-Portuguese Treaty" England who had been at war with the Dutch since the 1600 to the I8th century. New York was called New Amsterdam until 1664. There was a lot of unrest in the country of India at that time. Please try not to blame anyone or any country. Because they have all gone, the people and the governments have all cease to be. He's post on RUclips is Flake News to make money not friends. The 2 richest people in the UK are Indian. The Prime Minister of the UK is of Indian descent and he's wife was born in India a place called Hubli, Karnataka. Peace'.. dhanysvaad .
Ironically, I think Britain is a victim of its own success. It established successful democracies with the Rule of Law and Free Speech. Hence the millions of Indians with internet access and a Revisionist Nationalism to pitch to the world. Compare that to, for example, Spain ... Who ever hates on Spain? No one, because as with almost every power in history (except Britain) it was policy to eradicate native cultures ... there's no Aztec film industry (AzWood?) ... there's almost no criticism. I actually think Brits should be proud that its children have grown up and have the freedom to bad-mouth their mother
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later). The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us. It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t. This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well. One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru. Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn. Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant. His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage. Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years. While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia. People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
@@OddCompass No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later). The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us. It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t. This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well. One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru. Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn. Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant. His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage. Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years. While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia. People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
@@PaTrick-cf6evno thousands of Indian immigrants move to UK and one family living in Scotland made a change to butter chicken which ended up being tikka malasa. It became very popular and is now a national dish :)
This video should go viral..no ones asking for any money back..there isn't enough money to pay back and the descendents shouldn't pay for the crimes of their ancestors..but there should be absolute acknowledgement of what happened. No apologies needed..just an acknowledgement
@@HemantKumar-id3jg Brazilians can’t. Their historical artifacts were destroyed in a fire due to poor maintenance. I don’t know if India can protect their artifacts better.
@@HemantKumar-id3jg I just was asking if indians can, im on the side of the preservation of the artifacts. Brazilian artifacts would had been better in english hands. You are sure you can protect them? If su h is the case, im ok. And don’t say nothing, it would be far less attractive, but they could expose their own artifacts.
@@HemantKumar-id3jg Certainly, I dont think japanese or chinese would travel to see the celt, saxon, viking or norman artifacts. Still, english and other european would. Japanese has been relevant to world just one century, and people goes there. Thats not true, king&geneals is one of the biggest history channels in youtube, is done by azeris, one of his subjects are english history. By the way, they almost enver touch indian history. India is quite underrated.
In British primary schools they like to teach about post-Roman Britain and the Tudors, and in Secondary school it's pretty much all about WWI and WW2 with strict focus on Europe. The Colonial Era is skipped out completely.
Even though it ain't taught head on, people still know about it and what it involved. When I was in secondary school, we were taught a bit about it in English class due to a book we were reading. We also read some poems that involved it. Also, every curriculum can differ on what it teaches and then some schools themselves can choose more specific topics - for example, in my History class we didn't do colonialism, but other exam boards for history do. BBC Bitesize also has colonialism and the British Empire as topics. Essentially what I'm trying to get to is that even though there isn't a complete national distinct effort on teaching the topic, it is still perfectly available for people to learn about and it is talked about a bit in some lessons in secondary school.
Of course they don’t. As far as I can tell, the only country that actually teaches kids about the f*cked up sh*t in their history is Germany. Britain downplays colonialism and slavery, America also downplays slavery and Native American genocide, and India downplays classism and faithism, France also downplays colonialism. Only Germany (from what I’ve heard, I’m not German) has the guts to tell kids their country wasn’t perfect and teaches about the holocaust and nazi atrocities comprehensively.
It is such a research driven work. I really appreciate it. Many thanks for surfacing the blatant truth that the whole world needs to listen to. Dhanyawad 🙏
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@subhajitkarmakar1 India's population increased from 170 to 400 million during the colonial period. Still, that doesn't justify colonization and mismanagement of famines. Yes, British did exacerbate famines.
I rarely ever comment or engage with a video. But this is a video that summarises my answer to every taunt by colonial apologists regarding the numerours problems in India. The day is not far away where this history would be noticed and acknowledged by EVERYONE. It would be followed by India hopefully once again becoming a superpower. Thank you very much for working on this. I just wish this video is viewed by hundreds of millions of people.
Thank you very much, Hemant, for your comment and your support. That being said, I’m merely summarizing and presenting the scholarly work of many others who have done an exemplary job of showcasing what really happened. 👍🏽
Britain has committed multiple genocides across five continents (from neighbouring Ireland in Europe to North America to Africa to Asia to Oceania), a fact they shamelessly continue to deny. Britain has committed so many crimes against humanity (and crimes against the planet), it would take several volumes of books to explain their countless acts of cruelty. Britain (and it's predecessor state, England) has committed multiple genocides in neighbouring Ireland, from the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland to the Great Irish famine/Genocide to the murdering and torturing of Irish Republicans by the Black and Tans to murdering innocent civilians in the Dublin Monaghan bombings and the civilians gunned down in two Bloody Sundays in Ireland (google all of it). Britain was the second largest enslaver in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, a trade which resulted in the deaths of millions of African slaves as they were treated like cattle and worked to near death. Britain abolished slavery after paying reparations not to the slaves but to the slave owners!!!. Britain continued with slavery in another name with indentured labour, where the plight of the labourers was no better than that of the slaves. Britain maintained concentration camps in the Boer War where tens of thousands of men, women and children perished (google 'Boer war concentration camp'). Britain committed genocide in the 1950s in Kenya (google 'Caroline Elkins Imperial Reckoning'). In addition to committing slavery and genocide in Africa, Britain looted the resources of several African countries and stole away countless valuable artefacts, artefacts which the British Museum shamelessly continues to possess (search 'John Oliver Museums' on RUclips). During their rule in India, Britain siphoned off 45 trillions dollars in today's money (watch the VICE video on it). Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Indian rebels were tortured and murdered in the aftermath of the 1857 war of independence (entire rebel towns were 'cleansed'). Tens of millions of Indians starved to death during the dozens of famines as the inhumane British rulers looked away (google 'late Victorian Holocausts'). In modern day Sri Lanka, in the aftermath of the Uva rebellion, the entire male population was put to death (google 'Uva rebellion'). The Bengal Famine of 1943 was genocide committed by a genocidal racist bastard called Winston Churchill (google 'Madhushree Mukherjee Churchill's Secret War'). The British murdered countless innocent civilians in massacres like Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre, Pathorughat Massacre (google them all; these are the ones we know of, imagine the countless massacres Britain destroyed all records of). British forces murdered tens of thousands of Indians during the Quit India movement. In China, Britain fought the Opium Wars. Britain also used 'divide and rule' to turn different groups against each other. Btw, all the railways, ports, infrastructure Britain built in India were to help them transport the resources it stole. Britain committed genocide in North America (google 'small pox infected blanket'). Also, google 'British genocide america'. Britain committed genocide in Oceania (google 'British genocide in Australia'). If you thought that was all in the distant past, think of the Iraq War in 2003 twenty years ago where the UK illegally invaded and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Also think of the bombing of Libya by British warplanes, the funding of Al Nusra by Britain (google 'Britain Al Nusra'). Britain also armed Saudi Arabia with bomber jets and munitions to bomb the poorest Arab country Yemen. Britain is a shameless, genocidal, warmongering nation that continues to deny, deflect and obfuscate it's countless crimes against humanity (google 'Operation Legacy'; THAT'S HOW SHAMELESS THE BRITISH ARE!!!).
@@veteranclips007 yea you need to stop getting your history from your biased british propaganda side lol. read it from anywhere else. it is very clear to literally everyone in the world what British did in india was just straight evil. Poverty? India was the wealthiest nation before Britain stepped in. was there poverty in some places sure every nation has but, Britian made it way worse. Your acting like Britian helped everyone get along. Their strategy was literally divide and conquer, they exploited religous and regional differences to make it even worse. Infrastructure? The railways and most things built were to transport raw materials to british ports not in the interest of local development. You are the minority that think that British was great for India general consensus among many historians, particularly post-colonial scholars, is that British rule caused profound suffering, poverty, and cultural disruption in India, leading many to regard it as one of history’s more destructive colonial enterprises.
@@veteranclips007 1. India was the wealthiest nation in the world before Britain stepped in. was there poverty in some plaves over course every nation has it 2. You act like britian helped unite everyone. Their strategy was literally called divide and conquer exploiting religious and regional differences to sow long term divisions. So that was also worse after British came in. 3. prety much all the infrastrcture that was built was built in mind for british rule not for the local people. Railways so they can send raw materials to ports. Ports so they can send raw materials back to Britain. Roads so they can easily move around troops and also for resource extraction (sure some indians benefiited from it but it was not built with them in mind). No one said India was a perect Utopia before Britian, stop creating a strawman argument. The general consensus among many historians, particularly post-colonial scholars, is that British rule caused profound suffering, poverty, and cultural disruption in India, leading many to regard it as one of history’s more destructive colonial enterprises. You are the minority that think Britian was a net positive. maybe stop getting your facts from british side and get it from a more unbiased perspective. you probably think winston churchhill was a great righteous man LOL, not sure why i am even bothering.
Great video. Well researched. Reminded me of when Tucker Carlsen was bloviating about how the Brits "civilised" India by pointing out that Indians could never build something as magnificent as the Victoria Terminal Railway Station in Mumbai. People in the West are so uninformed about the history of South-east Asia!
Lol. He is so ignorant. Literally ancient indian archetecture from thousands of years ago far surpasses modern british archetecture and he was out there boasting about some train station in mumbai 😂
Last year, we were in the observation deck of the Top of the World building at New York City, where we met an old British couple. Casually, we started chatting. we came to know that both of them worked as government officials in an island which was a British colony until recently, and then they asked about us, we said we are from India. They specifically wanted to know which part of India, we said Bengal and it seems they know about the place and they exclaimed. After these small chats, just before leaving, the old man said, "I would like to apologize on behalf of my country for what we did to India" There was genuine apology in his eyes, and we were spell bound...we did not know how to react, because these is something we never expected to ever happen to us. I could just manage to say, "Thank you, I appreciate". But the impact of what just happened within a few minutes is beyond my capacity to express! So, yes, even they know what they did, just that there are very few people like that old man who has the courage to accept it.
It's brutal. The French also forced Vietnamese farmers to grow cash crops, which led to a shortage of food and the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.
This makes me truly so sad. My Nanna was born in India in 1934 to a British soldier who met her mother (my great grandmother) as a catholic Indian. They all returned to England together to have a better life, which is why I was eventually born in England. I visited India in 2019 after my Nanna passed away and it was like going home in so many ways. Even now it is a beautiful country with the kindest people you could possibly meet. I wish one day India will fully thrive once again 🙏
@@sarahramkissoon8537 Sorry it wasn’t written too well! So my great grandfather was a British soldier from The North Staffordshire Regiment, and my great grandmother was an Indian woman from Bangaluru. They met during the early 30s and had a child together, who was my maternal grandmother.
@@charliejames6434In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
You may want to look up details on "Anglo Indians". Only British men came to India when East India Company was in control of India. Most British men in India during that time had Indian women as concubines - not as wives or members of family. Many had children with Indian women - they primarily worked as domestic servants, or later on for railways in India. Very few "Anglo Indian" people went to the UK after the British men returned after India’s independence.
@@Overwatch17 by bribing the Mughals and backstabbing the marathas . No wonder india lost,1857 first war independence as a consequence india had to face untold colonial atrocities.and by divide and rule strategy they broke india internally in the basis of religion, ethnicity, colour and language there can be no unity among the indians so they don't rebell against the British imperialism.
Exactly. How they divided india before they left...by drawing a line through punjab with no rhyme or reason. They left ensuring religions will be at each other's throats so they don't feel threatened in future. Everywhere colonialists went they ensured chaos would remains after they'd gone. Sometimes they did this by propping up stooge opposition.
@@chutney-h3o The British didn't want to divide India. That was never their plan. It was Hindu and Muslim nationalists that made it mandatory that partition must happen.
Great India respect from Japan. and Chandra Bose. Chandra Bose's tomb is located in Tokyo. He cooperated with the Japanese Empire and worked hard for the independence of Asian countries.🇮🇳🇯🇵
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 simpel, if you are british, american or from any of the former colonial countries you don't get to critize Japan. i agree japan did some really evil things back then, but so did all western nations, it's just that most of that history was erased, the winner writes the history obviously.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India - as horrible as it may have been - was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long - the story goes - was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence. New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik - just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. How did this come about? It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way - mostly with silver - as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade. Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them. It was a scam - theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat. Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain’s industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India. On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they “bought” them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the markup. After the British Raj took over in 1858, colonisers added a special new twist to the tax-and-buy system. As the East India Company’s monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London. How did this work? Basically, anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills - a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were “paid” in rupees out of tax revenues - money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not in fact paid at all; they were defrauded. Meanwhile, London ended up with all of the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports. This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world - a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century - it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India’s exports was appropriated in its entirety by Britain. Some point to this fictional “deficit” as evidence that India was a liability to Britain. But exactly the opposite is true. Britain intercepted enormous quantities of income that rightly belonged to Indian producers. India was the goose that laid the golden egg. Meanwhile, the “deficit” meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control. Britain used the windfall from this fraudulent system to fuel the engines of imperial violence - funding the invasion of China in the 1840s and the suppression of the Indian Rebellion in 1857. And this was on top of what the Crown took directly from Indian taxpayers to pay for its wars. As Patnaik points out, “the cost of all Britain’s wars of conquest outside Indian borders were charged always wholly or mainly to Indian revenues.” And that’s not all. Britain used this flow of tribute from India to finance the expansion of capitalism in Europe and regions of European settlement, like Canada and Australia. So not only the industrialisation of Britain but also the industrialisation of much of the Western world was facilitated by extraction from the colonies. Patnaik identifies four distinct economic periods in colonial India from 1765 to 1938, calculates the extraction for each, and then compounds at a modest rate of interest (about 5 percent, which is lower than the market rate) from the middle of each period to the present. Adding it all up, she finds that the total drain amounts to $44.6 trillion. This figure is conservative, she says, and does not include the debts that Britain imposed on India during the Raj. These are eye-watering sums. But the true costs of this drain cannot be calculated. If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development - as Japan did - there’s no telling how history might have turned out differently. India could very well have become an economic powerhouse. Centuries of poverty and suffering could have been prevented. All of this is a sobering antidote to the rosy narrative promoted by certain powerful voices in Britain. The conservative historian Niall Ferguson has claimed that British rule helped “develop” India. While he was prime minister, David Cameron asserted that British rule was a net help to India. This narrative has found considerable traction in the popular imagination: according to a 2014 YouGov poll, 50 percent of people in Britain believe that colonialism was beneficial to the colonies. Yet during the entire 200-year history of British rule in India, there was almost no increase in per capita income. In fact, during the last half of the 19th century - the heyday of British intervention - income in India collapsed by half. The average life expectancy of Indians dropped by a fifth from 1870 to 1920. Tens of millions died needlessly of policy-induced famine. Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary - as Patnaik’s work makes clear - India developed Britain. What does this require of Britain today? An apology? Absolutely. Reparations? Perhaps - although there is not enough money in all of Britain to cover the sums that Patnaik identifies. In the meantime, we can start by setting the story straight. We need to recognise that Britain retained control of India not out of benevolence but for the sake of plunder and that Britain’s industrial rise didn’t emerge sui generis from the steam engine and strong institutions, as our schoolbooks would have it, but depended on violent theft from other lands and other peoples.
The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938. Shame on those who understand this and yet knowingly spread it on the internet, they clearly have some kind of agenda. It's misinforming the public, and a gross distortion of the truth.
@@jeanettewee8805 still too low. India went from holding 27% of world GDP to 3%. I don't think that number will only add up to 5 billion from 1700s to 1947.
@@unwisely In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
I'm not Indian, but when I hear one saying that colonization had good sides it boils my blood - this video should be mandatory for students both in India (so they stop saying stupid things) and in UK - to once and for all prove Brits where "their" wealth came from
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
How about the Dutch the Danish and the Portuguese and also the French. That country alone was there 300 years. These countries all together Took alot out.of India.
Or maybe because in the 1700 wealth was generated through agriculture and India is fertile and vast and has a huge unskilled workforce. Whereas in 1947 wealth was generated by industry and technology innovations which came from Europe and the US not India.....
And where does the technology and innovations arise from ? it can only occur in a country whose people are not left to grovel on crumbles while their food is exported to foreign land for pennies
@@volcano_neo " . . . their food exported to foreign land for pennies." - Do you have any verifiable data or other evidence to support this? I'm trying to think what food India exported to Britain in significant quantity. Rice? - Not widely consumed until after WW2. Meat? - That came in quantity from Australia, Canada, South America, New Zealand and the USA. Dairy? - Nope! Vegetables? - Hardly feasible, at least until the early 19th century, if then. Maybe tea, but tea is just leaves. Oh - and spices. But until post-WW2, most Indian spices were not widely consumed. . . .
I am deeply saddened thinking about how our ancestors saw their downfall. Still, the colonial mindset is in our minds. This video should help us Indians to get up and start doing things that matter rather than fight over petty issues and be united. Hope our country regains its position back. Thanks for the video.
Keep up this amazing work man! Thanks a lot for making this video, it truly puts things into perspective of what we lost and what is needed to be conquered again
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later). The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us. It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t. This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well. One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru. Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn. Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant. His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage. Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years. While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia. People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
@@OddCompass No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later). The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us. It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t. This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well. One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru. Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn. Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant. His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage. Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years. While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia. People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
India wasn't united, there were many Kings in different parts, British United with one king to defeat the others, that's how they eventually conquered India, our kings were fools to not let foreigners in the country.
One of the contributing factors to the longevity of ships produced in historical India was the utilization of teak wood, while furniture was crafted from materials like teak and Indian rosewood.
Hey, the figure of 45 trillion dollars was calculated by a Marxist economist named UTSA Patnaik, using a flawed methodology of compounding the loot taken by the British with a 5% interest rate. This method is inaccurate as the inflation rate in the 1950s was around 3.68%. Additionally, Patnaik arrived at a figure of 9 trillion pounds using this flawed method, which was then converted to dollars by multiplying it with 4.68. You can find these details in her article. Furthermore, Patnaik made an exaggerated claim that the British killed 1.8 billion people in India, which is obviously false. It's puzzling that channels like Vice and Wion omitted her outrageous claim of genocide. Unfortunately, spreading lies and misinformation is not uncommon in India. For instance, some stories claim that the Vikramaditya Empire controlled 40% of the world's land, or that India had airplanes 7000 years ago during the Vedic period. These are clearly baseless claims. There is also a story that Shivakar Talpade invented the airplane 8 years before the Wright Brothers, but that the British stole his idea and gave it to the Wright Brothers. India needs to stop perpetuating such false claims.
@@jeanettewee8805 Tens of millions of death by famine under British Raj is documented by non-marxist British historians. Read "Late Victorian famine" for example. For the same episode of worldwide drought due to strong El Nino episod, Russian czar provided rescue to Russian and Ukrainian peasants, while British governors forbade rescue to Indian peasants.
@@jeanettewee8805 You know that inflation rate changes every year right so if he did compound at 5% average over the course of 200-300 years then it is not flawed. While 1.6 billion figure and vikramaditya empire control claims are definetly absurd. India did have more gdp than the entire europe before british came to India. Colonial british people were worse than the nazi's period. Fuck the monarchy hope they all go to hell.
@@gengis737 Agreed, just adding the fact that the population of India increased from 170 million to 370 million during the colonial period. But still that doesn't justify how British handled the famines.
Thank you for enlightening about horrible things done to Indian in past. Hope British to grateful that they lives is gift from innocent lives lost. 😢that’s happening in modern day different part of world too
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@bhavyajoshiihe is a paid British bot, the last hope of Falling Britian. Let them bark, we can witness the fall of UK live now isn't that worth living for. Soon India will choke Britian after our people control their political system. All I can say is read their comments and enjoy the fall of the British.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805bruh stop spamming this everywhere 💀 , Before british Came 25% of the world had 23% of wealth And they fucked_em so hard that after they left , 20 to 25 percent of population had less than a single percent of the wealth
Great video, although its dishonest to claim India would have built railways and industrialised because "it was rich" China was similarly powerful an economy but this stagnated industrialisation. Europe industrialised not because it was already a big economy but because it had the right institutions and competetion.
The tireless apologist for imperial "virtue," brandishing the banner of "institutions" as if it were a magician's wand! How delightfully convenient to dismiss the wealth extracted from India and elsewhere as though Europe's industrial miracle sprang pristine from the soil of virtue and ingenuity alone. One can almost hear the self-congratulation echoing down the corridors of time. China, you say, stagnated? Pray, let us not overlook the opium-soaked hand that tipped the scales against it-your "right institutions" presumably including the ones that forced open its ports at cannon-point. And as for India, that "rich" land, gutted of its riches to fuel the very engines of your industrial glory, it’s a marvel indeed to suggest that railways built to expedite plunder and troop movements were gifts of altruism. Competition, you claim, was the lodestar of Europe’s progress? True, but let us not forget the peculiar advantage of being competitors armed with the spoils of conquest. If theft is the mother of invention, then, by all means, toast your triumphs! But do not presume to lecture the looted on the virtues of your institutions, lest you find yourself answered by the hollow clang of empty treasure chests and the ghosts of economies bled dry.
I'm not Indian and I was seething through my teeth watching this video!!! Just pure evil... I hope the Indian people will heal and rise again with love and peace
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805 You trying to justify colonization and drying up booming economy, forced exploitation and unreasonable taxes as well as utter devastation of traditional manufacturer hubs in India just because some other countries even without those hardships didn't flourish is like justifying holocaust because all jews didn't die, and they are still some of the wealthiest people on earth.
@@jeanettewee8805 China was repeatedly invaded by the British with backing from other European powers throughout the 19th century. In the 18th century, China was almost entirely self-sufficient, and was a mass exporter of tea and luxury goods in return for silver - Britain had nothing else they wanted or needed. The British East India Company was running out of silver and wanted to bust open the Chinese market to force them to buy British goods, so in the late 1700s they started smuggling opium (which was illegal in China) across the border to manufacture an opium epidemic, making huge profits selling an addictive drug, while also crippling the Chinese economy. By 1833, British and American smugglers funded by the East India Company were selling over 2000 TONS of opium to China every year, funnelling massive amounts of silver into British hands, which were then used to buy Chinese goods - essentially buying Chinese products with their own money. Eventually in 1839, the Chinese government decided to blockade Canton (Hong Kong) and seize ALL opium found in the port. In retaliation, Britain decided to invade in order to claim "reparations" and force China to accept the future trade of opium indefinitely. After losing the First Opium War in 1842, China was forced to cede control of Hong Kong to the British, open 5 more ports to European traders, and pay 21 million dollars to Britain in reparations, as well as exempting British citizens from Chinese laws. 14 years later the Second Opium War was started after a Chinese governor seized an opium merchant's ship and crew, as opium was still technically illegal. Britain bombarded Chinese cities from the coast with assistance from France, until they conceded defeat. This time, Britain and France demanded total legalisation of opium, the exporting of Chinese labourers to British and French colonies as replacements for freed slaves, free travel for British and French citizens throughout China, as well as exemption from all tariffs and internal transit duties, and the opening of further ports to British opium and further reparations. Following this, China was invaded by Russia (1858), France (1884-85), Britain (1888), Japan (1894-95), the Eight-Nation Alliance (1900), Russia (1900), Britain (1903-04), Japan (1905), Japan (1931-32), the USSR (1934), Japan (1937-45). As a result of the Opium Wars and all following conflicts and unequal treaties - many of which were "mediated" by the British even if they weren't directly involved in the conflict, China's economy was crippled, its population drugged, millions were killed or treated as little more than slaves, its territory gradually chipped away, and guess who stepped in to fill the gap left in the market by China? Britain, using resources taken from India.
Thanks for retelling the true story of people largely forgotten to a point they are trolled so badly all around the world for poverty and for being a impecunious civilization. Like my history teacher put it, "India went from golden bird to beggar bird, never forget that". This channel is doing something I wished I could do and I'd love to volunteer to help make more of these!! For others who want to know more, this Oxford debate taught me more than my Indian history curriculum ever did "ruclips.net/video/mCgBQFhQGf0/видео.html" (Also a related book by him, "The Era of Darkness, : The British Empire in India" )
British are so low-minded they are still arguing in the comment section. I guess they don't know who is gonna get bullied in future if their attitude doesn't change lol
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later). The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us. It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t. This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well. One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru. Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn. Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant. His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage. Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years. While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia. People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
@@OddCompass No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later). The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us. It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t. This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well. One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru. Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn. Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant. His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage. Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years. While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia. People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
Thank you ! Thank you ! Thank you so much, my brother 🙏. Thank you so much for covering this topic thoroughly without showing any bais for british 🙏. As an Indian i cant explain how fed up I was since my childhood after learning this british colonial history of india and how India was the wealthiest civilization in that world before britishers plundered and looted everything leaving Indians to ruins. On top of that, I was so sad looking at the audacity of people in the west telling me that British Colonization "civilized" Indians. I mean wtf!!. Thank you for showing the real history of british colonial era.
Its crazy that Indians are still alive and thriving. For every Indian alive it is crazy to think what their forefathers had to go through for it to be possible for them to be alive.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
Geuinly hope India can recover and become even richer than before, I'm british and have known quite a few Indian people they are kind and don't hold a grudge which i appreciate, big respect to there country!
@@gerrardjones28 "Geuinly [sic] hope India can recover . . . " - Recover from what? " . . . and become even richer than before." - Before what? "I'm british [sic] and have known quite a few Indian people they are kind and don't hold a grudge which i appreciate, big respect to there [sic] country!" - I'm also British, and have also known quite a few Indian people. I too have found them kind. But they aren't the ones posting their hate and lies on here, are they? . . .
This video literally made me cry. I have heard stories of my forefathers eating in gold and silver plates but when british Left india our family didn't even had a roof on their heads
@@forret read first hand accounts of foreign travellers to india. You will get to know. India was a very prosperous nation and gold and silver dinnersets was common . Even today after barbaric loot having a sliver plate as your dinner plate is pretty common for Indians. Almost ever middle class household will have silver plates and glasses at home. Do your research before replying else people will dismiss you as an ignorant person.
@@TheRajmah yes, most Indians eat from silver dinner sets. They all did when I lived there. Perhaps it is you that needs to do some research, rather than getting the history of India from a Marxist teenager on RUclips.
I cried watching this, my grandfather was born during colonial rule and told me how as a kid he experienced extreme impoverishment, his father(my grandpa) was a weaver and because of the brits he left weaving(because he was trapped in debt and it took everything to repay it)and became a cultivator, they had to pay exorbitantly high taxes and at one time they had to sell all jewelleries and valuables they had to pay taxes, entire gangetic plain region became the poorest region of India after goras left it.
those high taxes and the lack of exports had nothing to do with Britain as both came AFTER the British left. They were mistakes by the Indian government and to blame the British is just silly.
@@Dstar-km9fi1hs2j In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
This is eye opening. I had no idea this is how economic history played out in India. Can you do a follow up on how the British managed to keep India under their control for so long? Were there any significant revolts that came up during the colonial period?
@@shrey.theholyswan those "british propagandists" did a bad job "covering" up claims made countless times. If anything this is propaganda: overslimplistic, tribalistic, black-and-white, propaganda full of blatant misinformation and exaggeration (not least that "modern economists" 45T estimate). Its a comforting "evil britian" and "victim India" narrative which the Raj certainly wasnt.
There was always some revolution against British rule somewhere. But by and large, extreme revolution was avoided by a well oiled propoganda machine and regional administration ensuring that most people scarcely knew of the true profiteers of their misery
Nah, we are going to help Pakistan to keep you in the mud, fire off a few nukes. Pakistan Zindabad 🇵🇰 You should have been thankful for our help, the countries Britain didn't colonise are the poorest now
Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. To have a more understanding on this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire. Also watch the debate between Shashi Tharoor and Zareer Masani. Just because these videos have less views than 45 trillion dollars loot, Vikramaditya Empire doesn't make the latter one true.
@jeanettewee8805 agreed. Many former British colonies are prosperous (usa, Ireland, Botswana, HK, Canada, Australia) Blaming the British is dumb, without them India would be Balkans 2.0
I grew up with my grandparents, hearing first hand stories of the times towards the end of the british rule in india. My grandfather's elder brother had slapped his british boss because he verbally abused his staff saying "bloody natives" so he had to run away from his district (now Jessore, Bangladesh) to now India as he would be arrested if he visited. My grandfather had to look after his brother's family and bring them to the Indian side of the border during partition of Bengal. I listened to how my ancestors secretly listened to Netajis radio transmission to masses and engaged in freedom movements. I heard the horrible first hand stories of the times between 20-40s so I do not stand by anyone saying or believing the British did good for us
Calling someone a blood native isn’t verbally abusive. The word bloody is equivalent to silly. That would be the same as me calling a Native American a silly native. Depending on the context, it might not be the nicest thing to say, but it certainly isn’t abusive. If you heard what African slaves, Italian immigrants, and Irish immigrants were called by their bosses in the USA, you would truly understand abusive language. Today, it’s Hispanic illegal immigrants who are verbally and physically abused by their bosses here. They can’t even do anything about it, like go to HR, because they are working illegally. It’s very, very sad, but adults often need to let a mean words roll off their back, in order to support their families. It’s so sad that your uncle lost his temper and put the finical support of his family on someone else. That wasn’t fair to your uncle’s family, and it definitely wasn’t fair to your grandfather, who had already worked his whole life and raised his family. My heart breaks that your grandfather couldn’t have it easy in his older years. He is a saint!
@@findingbeautyinthepain8965 thank you. While I don't deny anyone's suffering, I can understand why the situation came to be that way. India's struggle for independence is often underrated and watered down mostly in western countries, but if you ever come to know about the real situation at that time it was bad for us. The slap resulted from years of abuse and the atrocities caused by British everywhere around them. Especially around the first and second world wars the independence movement rose at its peak, and not one Indian was immune to it. We just wanted our freedom back. Many of my family members were directly and indirectly connected in some way with this movement. Even if it can be seen as a selfish thing to do with mouths to feed, anybody can do lash out if they face years of oppression. Ironically today is my country's independence day, and I am glad and proud of all my ancestors who helped in even the most micro way possible to give me this freedom! Coming to your kind comment about my grandfather, Yes he was the kindest man I ever saw in my life. He actually paid for his brother's entire family - and they had 8 children! He never stopped helping others till his last breath. I grew up with him, holding to my heart all the stories about those days, idolizing him and I miss him terribly now that my best teacher is not here anymore.! I hope we can all come out of the hate and oppression and become like him!
@@rimrm2232 Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. To have a more understanding on this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire. Also watch the debate between Shashi Tharoor and Zareer Masani. Just because these videos have less views than 45 trillion dollars loot, Vikramaditya Empire doesn't make the latter one true.
As an Indonesian myself, we do lost a lot from VOC and Dutch Colonization, even we colonized two times longer than India. But we are recovering together my brothers and sisters. The moment when i saw the news that you guys landing on the moon for the first time, i'm tearing feel proud of y'all 🥺 Warm greetings from Indonesia 🙌🏼 🇮🇩🤝🇮🇳
India should Forgive but never forget, our ancestors held this land for 5000 years and our culture is still living and it’s the duty of current generation of Indians to make sure the culture and country can rise again.
In this mad world of power. It's highly illogical to forgive and let go. They still make money till date of all the looted treasures + money they invested in monuments/ art/ tourism/ development of their nation. You need to make them pay back/ reparations + give India back all the stolen arts/ jewels/ antiques or take away their resources.
@@Obelixlxxvi usa gifted back India 104 antiques when modi visited New York or Washington which city I forgot about that but this antiques, sculptures will play an important and divine role in making British India Bharath 🇮🇳 again...
Its 1 am at night and I am almost teary after watching this video. The effects of the colonisation can still be felt in India today. The mindset of the people has become poor. But its changing. The global order is changing and India will regain what it lost.
As an Indian who's forefathers were brought to South Africa by the British in 1860 to work on the sugar cane Fields this truly makes me sad, angry and all other emotion's
brought? They chose to go for economic benefits and were treated like whites in Africa and not like the locals who received endless racism. Unless you are telling me everything ghandi wrote about Africa is lies? The Indians were famously the most anti-black racists in Africa, far more so than the Europeans. Learn your own history. They went there as colonisers the same as the British. Nothing about Indian involvement in Africa back then was any better than what the British did.
YES, AND MANY INDIANS WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE CARRIBBEAN ISLANDS AND ESPECIALLY, MAURITIUS, BY THE BRITISH, DURING THE 1800'S, TO WORK ON THE SUGAR CANE FIELDS. THE BRITISH NAMED THESE INDIANS, THE " COOLIES " WHICH MEANS UNSKILLED CHEAP LABOUR WORKERS. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RELIGIONS IN MAURITIUS BUT MOST ARE HINDUS.
@@RS-ln3nsAs an Indian, this makes me really sad You comment was really sad... and also quite informative Also could you please turn off your capslock from the next time you type... because according to the rules of netiquette (internet-etiquette), typing with a capslock on, implies that you're shouting, either angrily or excitedly... I know, for you it might look like a cool font type thing, but its quite odd tbh...
@@souptikchakraborty2004 NO, I WILL NOT BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD REASON WHY I USE CAPITAL LETTERS IN MY COMMENTS AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M SHOUTING. IF I WAS SHOUTING, I WOULD DEFINITELY, END MY COMMENTS WITH AN EXCLAMATION "❗" MARK WHICH EXPRESSES SHOUTING. USING CAP LETTERS ONLINE MAY MEAN SHOUTING BUT PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. YOU SHOULD ASK ME FIRST, WHY I USE IT IN MY COMMENTS, INSTEAD OF MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT I'M SHOUTING BECAUSE ONLY THEN YOU'LL FIND OUT THE TRUE REASON, WHY I USE IT.
@@myurinavaratnam3418 No it would be just as poor if not more cause India was wealthier than China after independence and is now a shithole in comparison, wonder why, probably have something to do with the people living there instead of an outside boogeyman. Blaming others is pathetic when others suffered the same and got back on their feet without flooding youtube with these cringey videos and comments, improve yourself instead of whining.
Despite the staggering $45 trillion looted by the British 🇬🇧, India's unwavering spirit has propelled its economy to reach $3 trillion today. Remarkably, 🇮🇳India proudly secures its place among the top 5 global economies by GDP. This remarkable journey showcases India's resilience and unyielding determination to rise above adversity.
The Indian subcontinent will rise again, stronger than ever. We still have the blood of those brilliant people in our veins. I'm a Bangladeshi and I believe in the resurrection of the glory in this region.
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later). The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us. It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t. This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well. One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru. Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn. Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant. His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage. Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years. While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia. People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
Hum... First you need to solve your internal issues : - cancel the caste system, which creates a brain drain of smart indians to other places (like the US) - more unity, less regional divisions - pollution and infrastructure management (which China is doing, by building energy plants, bullet trains, highways, modern buildings, etc etc).
I hope that India continues to flourish over the next few decades and finds its place as a preeminent economy and power once again; India is a natural ally for the United States. I was ignorant to the 35 million deaths caused by colonial rule -- this fact shocked me. I will continue to read about India to understand its history.
India's population exploded under the Raj, going from about 100 million in 1700, to almost 500 million, by 1947. If you are going to blame them for 35 million deaths, then you must also give them credit for 350 million births.
The worst part is the amount of effort that so many British put into maintaining the lie that India was always like that. They have the audacity to imply the Indians should be grateful.
@@Alejojojo6 And that relative prosperity is no thanks to the british, and all thanks to Indians themselves. India is THE only post-colonial nation that has managed to stay a democracy and is a thriving nation, atleast on the Eurasian continent between Israel and South Korea. The natural fate for post-colonial countries can be witnessed in Africa. At India's independence, british left India with per capita GDP equivalent to(and even lower in some parts like BIhar, which was historically the economic/cultural heartland of the region) that of sub-saharan africa, which has never been the case before in recorded history. It is precisely patriotism and our unique strength and perseverance that we are thriving as a country. Not bcz of some pasty tyrants of the past who couldn't even manage their own nations properly in the absence of such erstwhile tyranny.
Just to point out that JT Sunderland was an anti imperialist who lived during the time of the Raj, he wasnt describing what he saw and he wasnt a historian, he was writing specifically to porpagate a narrative.Its hard to tell what the state of India was pre colonization becausde it had already been colonized by the muhgals and, following that, was split up into smaller, independent kingdoms who were constantly at odds with one another from the Maratha Empire,the Skih empire and numerous others.. Indeed India as a unified country is a colonial invention, it was the British who fostered that sense of a unified country for its own administrative ends, it helps to extract worth when everyone is pulling in the same direction. The video talks about Indias exports in textiles in the 17th centtury but it shows a map of 3 cities in 3 different kingdoms who would have considered themselves independent and separate at the time. By the end of the British Raj, British control extended over almost all of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Also the reason those trade routes developed for textiles? The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe in the 17th century to the Mughal court secured an accord (in the form of a farmān, or grant of privileges) by which the English secured the right to trade and to establish factories in return for becoming the virtual naval auxiliaries of the empire. Britain were chief exporters of goods from the continent although both the Dutch and the French mainained economic footholds in different strongholds. So when you hear of India being this hugely successful nation prior to the British then are we talking about one of these smaller principalities or when they were ruled by their colonial overlords of the mughal empire? Its actually very hard to get a picture of how the country was doing overall as it was so fragmented ( its also impossible to get things like GDP from pre industrial nations so ignore that silly 30% of wolrd GDP that gets thrown around, that calculation is simply due to the fact that the continent had 30% of the worlds population. Look it up, Im not joking lol), this video portrays it as if it was one singular prosperous nation: it simply wasnt. If you think about it, there were never more than 65,000 British troops in India at its peak, if you had a rich and prosperous nation with a cohesive national identity as portrayed in this video then India would have flicked off the British like a fly but they didnt. The fractious nature df the country allowed the British to negotiate, intimidate and collude with different kingdoms at different times for its own ends, something that was fairly easy to do as each principality was constantly jockeying for position against the others. If India had been this advanced collective civilization and a unified economic superpower with a strong national identity then no way do 65 thousand troops subdue a nation of 200 million people. It just isnt possible, native cooperation was key to British rule. It simply wouldnt have been possible without it, the Raj was facilitated by Indians themselves ( Notice the video skips over HOW the British took power....). Collaboration from the disparate and autonomous native kingdoms on the continent was the only thing that made British rule possible and allowed them to consolidate their control of the country and become the preminent power in the region. Its actually an incredible achievement for such a tiny island nation which had a population of around 10 million people at the time. A fracrion of the size of India as a whole. Just dont mention any of this to Indians, they will try and claim the Muhgal empire WAS a unified India because apparently some colonizers are better than others but the fact is that the new colonizers,the British, built their empire on the burnt foundations of the previous one lol
The effects of British colonialism have been reduced to a few main events in the eyes of mainstream discourse. I appreciate this video for going in-depth and covering the lesser known effects. As we currently see, once India reasserts itself and begins to recover from colonial hangover, it is able to recapture its position as one of the world's largest economies even from the clutches of former colonial masters.
@@desiputtar89 Hey, the figure of 45 trillion dollars was calculated by a Marxist economist named UTSA Patnaik, using a flawed methodology of compounding the loot taken by the Britishers with a 5% interest rate. This method is inaccurate as the inflation rate in the 1950s was around 3.68%. Additionally, Patnaik arrived at a figure of 9 trillion pounds using this flawed method, which was then converted to dollars by multiplying it with 4.68. You can find these details in her article. Furthermore, Patnaik made an exaggerated claim that the British killed 1.8 billion people in India, which is obviously false. It's puzzling that channels like Vice and Wion omitted her outrageous claim of genocide. Unfortunately, spreading lies and misinformation is not uncommon in India. For instance, some stories claim that the Vikramaditya Empire controlled 40% of the world's land, or that India had airplanes 7000 years ago during the Vedic period. These are clearly baseless claims. There is also a story that Shivakar Talpade invented the airplane 8 years before the Wright Brothers, but that the British stole his idea and gave it to the Wright Brothers. India needs to stop perpetuating such false claims.
@@jeanettewee8805stop pasting the same comment again and again you troll. All serious historians are 'Marxist' of some sort. Stop trying to diminish what the British did. No need to be hung up on the actual figure. Even a single rupee taken is exploitation. Are you seriously saying the Brits 'administered' India out of benevolence? Are you stupid?
@@jeanettewee8805looks like a british cuck doesn’t like what it says in the video. I agree that you think that this is exaggerated to some extent, but it could be around a few trillion. You can’t believe that a country which had global share in world trade was reduced to shit and the generations of wealth that was accumulated over thousands of years was not even worth 45 trillion usd. I see how you try to discredit her by saying she’s a marxist woth delusional claims and by also saying this is common in india. This really says how much of a british sympathizer you are that you have to spam in every comment by sharing your inconclusive ideals of still trying to preserve the image of genocidal colonialists.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching everyone!
Also, a quick error-correction: in the video, I mention the number is $43 trillion. Patnaik has estimated the true number at $45 trillion. Of course, there is much scholarly debate on this matter.
Bro I appreciate the video but to be honest I don't care for how much was stolen, I am more concerned with state of my country right now as we speak. The amount of disinformation in country is staggering, no one knows what's true and the government has censored the hell out of our past to keep us together as country with fancy political terminology like "freedom" and shit but really we know that we were united under the umbrella of religion, at least that is the case for the common man, and that sucks man. Watching this only makes me sad for the future of India cause it feels like history going to repeat that too more profoundly in the age of seamless flow of information. props to you for a great video.
A Marxist witch doctor can't even keep her numbers right? Pretends to be shocked
today our one of the biggest problem is this: global domination of western narrative, and increasing numbers of western minded indian people in india, and a heavily lack of indians who cant create their own objective deep observational skills to re label the realities and label newly found realities and also who have their own subjective vision and culture and who create their own fantasy, their own dream to make their own path for the future to turn the tables of the world and create a new normal, our made normal. Some other important things which we need are keep fighting the challenges again and again and again, and have huge stamina for it
Wanted to clarify that moa killed anywhere from 40-80 million people depending on if we count only famine or include work camps and purges
Patnaik is brilliant. What terrifies me most is that the hundreds of millions genocided in India in the last couple centuries will pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions lost within years to decades as the region becomes uninhabitable due to capitalogenic climate genocide (I don't refer to it as anthropogenic because it's caused at most by 9% of the human population, nor as climate change because that invokes passivity). So not only does the imperial core owe upwards of $50 trillion in reparations, they owe likely multiple fold that amount pre-emptively for the impending mass displacement and death on the subcontinent they caused.
This reminds me of a quote I read a little while ago. ‘Studying history will sometimes disturb you. Studying history will sometimes upset you. Studying history will sometimes make you furious. If studying history always makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren’t studying history.’
Apply that to your white race.
Great quote
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805the fact that reading this made me a little uncomfortable is enough reason to stop and look at the bigger picture. It's definitely not so simple and straightforward
@@kitty7492 What I have said were facts if not debunk it.
The sad part is the most of the British people don't want to accept this fact
Even sad part is most Indians do not want to accept this.
Maybe because this is over-simplistic propaganda. An easily comforting and tribalistic victim narrative for Indian nationalists that paints the world in black-and-white, good and evil, oppressor and oppressed. Very little self-reflection needed. Ask yourself how did Britain manage to conquer an entire subcontinet? Ask why India had so many loyal vassals, princely states, allies, and collaborators its entire rule? Why non-Hindi speaking Indians prefer english to Hindi? Ask why Britain let India - apparently pricelessly valuable to them - go without a fight?
Why would they? The British people had nothing to do with it.
@@chico9805 it was the common British people who were doing this,officers from both east India company and the British govt were common British people, and even if they were not involved in this shouldn't they still sorry and be ashamed because of this
@@theultimategamer8322 No, they weren't. Most officers and govt officials were aristocrats or part of the professional upper-middle class. These are not commoners - The average Brit, at that time, barely knew of India's existence.
Thanks for making this well researched video. It might interest your viewers to know that UK barely teaches about colonialism in its schools even today. 10th grade students dont learn even a single paragraph about it.
That is extremely sad, but perhaps not surprising. Hopefully people will understand better now. Conquest is forgivable - incompetent and malicious rule is not.
Same with American colonialism in American schools. Our history education was essentially just the revolutionary war and then WWII over and over again to craft dutiful soldiers. Lower classes everywhere are victims, even the brutal prison guards -- although we can't hold a candle to the national suffering of the Guatemalan or Indian.
thats bs we are legally required to learn about parts of it (slavery specifically), just not in depth ( theres no time to cover all that stuff anyway). I know as I am going through it currently ( typically its one of the main 9 colonies in depth and just a broad view of the entire thing). Unfortunately we can't do anything to make up for what we did other than teach it ( we need to teach more) but we do have to learn about it so please don't spread misinformantion. Have a good day
@@joshuahodnett4643 it's about emphasis, how much time are you going to spend on the 1960-1980 period compared to WWII and the revolutionary war?
exactly as French don't tell about Indochina, nor burning down shanghai palace... and they both NEVER apologized
I love how in the comments everyone from different countries are understanding what india had truly gone through instead of just calling them poor bless those people
Well if the majority hindu Indian diaspora really understood they'd not consider themselves as masters over other minorities...both in the west and back home. You only need to hear the rhetoric of Indian heritage politicians in the UK to understand how much they want to forget how their colonial masters screwed them, and now they're emulating them. A joke.
India was the septic tank of Britishers but now it's septic tank of world
@@SoldierofGodAkiYou just became the septic tank of youtube spreading shit everywhere..
I’d call them smelly, and crooks.
@@Lancer498u need to seek medical help
Growing up in England, it's amazing to see the differences between what we're taught in school about the industrial revolution and the shocking reality of where the money and raw materials came from.
I have a name to share with you - Rishi Sunak! Are the British the terrible monsters this twit is actively peddling?
Don't worry, its our turn now, We immigrants will take over europe and white people and do the same things.
Would u like to share with us just for information purposes what they taught or teach u in schools
@@rishikeshsangole7254What is taught: So we bought cotton from india
Reality: So we inslaved farmers and forced them to give is free cotton.
I'am not british though.
You should become a citizen of India. It will be a most enlightening experience for people like you.
Keep these videos coming, The day is near where we will see India in its past glory. These videos will help heal people from the colonial mindset which is still a reality. We need to stick and work together regardless of our cast, religion or any deference and that dream will be a reality soon. Jai Hind
Kudos for the donation man..agree with everything you said👍
Great from u....we should inspire these kind of creator bro.
The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938. Shame on those who understand this and yet knowingly spread it on the internet, they clearly have some kind of agenda. It's misinforming the public, and a gross distortion of the truth.
India is growing quickly, but the ruling government needs to stop its blind optimism and take a hard look at the challenges the country faces. Additionally, if the BJP keeps crushing its 200-million strong Muslim minority, it will continue to sabotage India’s own stability and potential.
@@CatastrophicDisease In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
Thanks for making this video, the details you have presented are still unknown to many Indians. I knew British rule was cruel & unjust but did not know to what extent. Your video puts things in a different perspective for me.
Bro 8k.. cool..
If you get a chance, you should visit Andaman islands too. That gives you more idea about how the freedom fighters were treated.
@@the_nomadic_ajith Haven't visited, but have read stuff and watched similar videos on the plight of our freedom fighters on those islands.
A different, but inaccurate perspective.
Indian textiles were actually given preferential access to the British market, which eventually over many decades made products from Manchester uncompetitive. This was so debts owed by India to the UK, for loans and development funds could actually be repaid.
The reason Britain didn’t hold on to India? Because the amount we paid Indian soldiers for their service during World War 2 massively indebted the UK to India, meaning we could no longer afford to administrate it effectively.
@@danieledwardbennett A classic case of a brainwashed pommy ! I bet you believe the colonial loot you have staged in the British Museum, London actually was unearthed somewhere in the West Midlands !
Incredible content!! Keep making more of it.
Thank you, will do!
Thanks As an Indian I am shocked that the history which we were tought as a kid and history which each and every kid in Indian Street knows is not known to the world in its original version !!! Its shocking to see now a days, when Britishers keep their spirit high thinking they have done good by colonising country . This video is doing justice to the country after seventy six years of independence. World is amazing place 🙏
I’m happy to spread some history knowledge with the world! Thanks for supporting the channel.
Spend little money and read books of SRI VIVEKANANDA SWAMY JI he you will fall down what great great astonishing history of India. How many Indians know that Buddha told that he is 25th Buddha then who are those 24 Buddha..Now india needs spiritual leaders who can took BHARAT into glorious country ..We have everything but what we don't have is time..
In order to take back into glorious country we need STRONG SPIRITUAL LEADERS NOT SOFTWARE PROJECT LEADERS. These SPIRITUAL thing is permanent and will change entire world into glorious thing.What world is lagging is SPIRITUALITY which BHARAT has surplus.EVERY BHARATIAN HAS TO BECOME SPIRITUAL LEADER WHICH IS PERMANENT THING.EVERY ONE HAS TO FIGHT FOR BRAHMA KNOWLEDGE RIGHT RIGHT FROM CHILDHOOD.Our education has to completely change to acquire this knowledge eradicate present education which is ruthless given by British and ignored by our culprit politicians. Present education system teaches how to ear money only but don't teach moral values.JAI BHARAT MATA KI JAI
You would not believe how often I’ve heard that “yeah, but at least Britain left India with democracy and the English language”. Sure, thank you very much…
@@gozzilla78 Oh, the resounding echoes of colonial benevolence! How could one possibly fathom the depths of gratitude we should all feel for Britain's gracious bestowal of democracy, rapes, looting, torture, savagery, indentured labour, and the English language upon India? It's as if centuries of exploitation, cultural suppression, and oppression were mere trinkets in the grand treasury of imperialism.
Yes, thank you ever so much, Britain, for your selfless act of leaving behind a "democracy" where the decisions were made across continents and an "English language" that replaced millennia of linguistic diversity.
My respects to you brother for making this video. This video highlights the plight of British ruled India but should also provide viewers an insight that 200 years of plunder led to struggling independent India. Many western commentators berate India for poor human indices. Atleast video like yours will make them understand that it takes time to get back what we lost (finance, culture, education, character) over 2 centuries. It’s only the resilient nature of Indians that despite all these setbacks, in just 70 years we have become 5th largest economy, beating the very same tyrants, Britain, who pushed us into poverty in the first place.Thanks!
India was the 6th largest economy in 1950s. Countries like Japan and Germany had less GDP than India at that time. The reason why India is still poor is because they are still blaming British for their own post-colonial failure. If British were the reason why many countries are poorer then why non colonized countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Liberia etc. are poorer than India? Why many colonized countries like America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are one of the richest countries in the world. India had 23% of world's GDP in 1750s only because it had 25% of world's population at that period. Countries like Britain, Netherland had 3 times the per capita of India even at that time. Looking at the per-capita, India was one of the poorest countries in the world even in 1750s. Most of the east Asian countries, Middle eastern countries, European countries had more per-capita than India in 18th century. Saying India was one of the richest countries in 17th century just because it had large share of GDP in the world is like saying at present India is richer than UK because India had more GDP than UK. We have to look at per-capita income to find which country is richer and which is not. Countries like Singapore, Hong Kong had accepted British colonization brought more positives than negatives to them. Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, said that before the British arrived, “there was no organized human society in Singapore, unless a fishing village can be called a society”. Countries like Singapore are richer than India now because they had honest politicians like Lee Kuan Yew who don't unnecessarily blame Britishers and had the courage to accept the fact that colonialism brought more positives than negatives to them unlike Indian politicians.
@jeanettewee8805 This write up is a joke.
First off America, canada was only a colony until 1776. India was a colony until 1947. So, India was a colony of Britain for nearly 150 years longer.
On per capita yes, Netherlands, Britain was wealthier than India but not by much. There is chart historical gdp by regions that lists the numbers. This data was compiled by famous economist Angus Maddison.
Europe moved ahead bc of its intrests in sciences. Britain did as this video points out extract all or most of India's wealth. What Europe did to Asia and India. To draw a similarity they got ahead fairly ( bc of their progress in science, ship building etc..) but once ahead to kill competition they dug ditches its others pathways so to keep these Asian, Arab and African societies behind.
By 2050 India will be the second largest economy and hopefully by the end of this century it will be the largest economy..
@@jeanettewee8805 Japan and Germany are great powers and industrialized countries before WW2 and they are just a puppet of US after WW2 so it's easy for them to return to their past economic superiority. countries like Canada, australia are populated british they are carbon copy in the other words extension of UK, British saw them as their own people were india on the other hand seen as a inferior, resourceful countries, UK intention is just to drain wealth and resources from India not to develop us but in the case of NZ, australia, canada not like that.
@@jeanettewee8805 Your views on colonialism is weird so far you must come to india to see the actual reality and then give your opinion
Okay. Now that the Brits are no longer here, what stopped us from liberalising the economy? India is still poor because, it has adopted all the bad policies of both socialism and capitalism. Look at the PSUs and their sloppy products. Yes, I agree, the British did all the dirty works on Indians. But, still blaming the British is like kicking the dead horse.
Thanks! The British do not have the humility to acknowledge the crimes they did. This is an eye-opener for young Brits.
That’s frustrating how they don’t teach it! Even in the US, growing up they taught us extensively about the colonial genocide of Native Americans.
I'm a British teenager and we had a whole few months learning about the British empire and it's doings in history lessons. And this is in year 8 before we even picked our GCSE subjects so everyone learnt about it atleast in our school
@@elyrexo we don't need white MP's in our country. Now it's our time to rule you be ready we are coming 👿.
@@नागशक्ति_का_वारिस you can 'imagine' what they teach us but you don't actually know do you? Take it from me who has recently studied it at school in the UK, they are pretty open about lots of the horrific things the empire did. Things like the Irish potato famine, slave trade, the famines in the Indian subcontinent and plenty of other things. Well that was some of what my school taught us atleast
@@नागशक्ति_का_वारिस Not all of the things you listed but we did look at looted artifacts (not just from India), famine, the empire during WW1 & 2 and the rebellion of 1857. Could my school have covered it more? Yes! but then again this is 150 years in a country with over 2000 years of history, and within the British empire we also studied it's negative effects on other countries too. Also I'm not sure if this was in the national curriculum or something my school decided to do themselves.
As an Iranian who is married an Indian,this story broke my heart into pieces,beautiful India you didn’t deserve this 😭
Persia india two old civilization we share quite common history.
Does violent Persian History upset you also?
As an Iranian you should be more worried about your own country which is now a totalitarian hell-hole.
@@GiacomoLockhart James u should be worried abt ur Thiefs country.... Ur economy is in recession somehow stablelize by Indian other taxpayer... Ur country is fked up ur capital London is burning ... Sooner colonial country get dets More developing worser ur Thiefs family future gonna become.
@@GiacomoLockhart Iran handle Western sanctions & humble usa Europe efforts .. ur whole western countries army cant able to stop Iran yet. 😂🤣
Lmfao 😂 still u have confidence to say this 🤣🤣.
The famine was a result of the British forcing Indian farmers to grow cash crops such as hemp, cotton tobacco indigo ink tea and so and not edible food crops. The lack of food crop production was a result of the heavy handed taxation. Farmers could not generate enough revenue by selling food crops and had to cultivate cash crops to pay the draconian taxes.
Those people are gone and that's a long time ago.
What about now?
Are the British currently responsible for the high suicide rate among the farmers?
Are they??
Why not focus on the present, and prepare for the future , huh??!
@@emmanuel8310 not once did the original comment say we are better off now than under British rule, even though as a society we undoubtedly are. The need for you to question the current dispensation in an effort to somehow make light of the British tyranny, instead of being able to accept the historical fact being stated, says a lot. Accept what has been done to us by the Brits, the implications of that in the present day, and move on.
Trust me, the young new India doesn't spend more time than the duration of this video thinking about British wrongdoings in a whole year's time.
@@emmanuel8310 F*ck you
Now I said it and I can't take it back
Gone is gone 😅
@@emmanuel8310 lmfao look at this kid rage because British Raj doesn't exist anymore. The great white race has fallen indeed.
@@darksoulsgt5006
Well, who asked for you coment either?
I spoke my mind because we seem to be obsesses with being victims when we were never really one.
Our ancestors were not as strong as the British, and we're therefore subjected.
We are not the same.
We can learn from it not cry about it.
And am I pro British empire? 🤔
Maybe.
The world will not be this way, if not for them.
They did horrible things, but, they also did awesome things too...like almost every other powers in the world
Watching this on Indian independence day and me being an Indian feel bad for all my ancestors who suffered British oppression 😭
Bro, that’s past, and we are the result of the past, conquerors and conquered is the history of the whole world not only India, we only have our future to make it better, greetings from Mexico
I'm British and I feel bad for all my ancestors who suffered from Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish Vikings.
@@julions777 Imperialism is definitely not in the past...
Done worry bro, they will pay for it we forced them to pay price not through money but also through there life there self respect and others ways
Work on progress
You will see all results in next 40-50 years
I know many of our still mentally colonised bharat varsh people say that forgive them or that's is part of history or others
But We teach them ( turkish Race or brittish Race) a strong lesson for 1 millennium of humiliation
@@julions777 In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
The fact that yesterday India arrived to the moon first than the UK is incredible, congratulations from Mexico 🇲🇽🤝🏻🇮🇳 the future is bright
Based
🇮🇳❤🇲🇽
And the colonialism defenders will have us believe that India could not build trains! The mental gymnastics that the English (Scotish and Welsh) people do to justify their hegemonic and murderous history is mind-boggling.
@@vaagai9808 Well you see, none of that belongs to India because westerners made the technology first, and nothing the westerners did was based on anything from any other culture (this is sarcasm but it's the argument they will use)
@@YouAreStillNotablaze The cryogenic engine technology was denied by the west, so India went on to build on its own. The western civilization were just hunter gatherers when most of mathematics was invented/discovered. Each civilization stands on the shoulders of the previous one.
it will make you cry. those poor innocent souls. so many. im actually crying. thank you for informing people.
Thanks! Keep such facts about India coming in!
Indians shouldn't forget especially when their elite repress minorities.
Thanks for explaining this important aspect of our history in such accessible way. You are doing great work.
❤️❤️
Spark of motivation like this will go and inspire more creators... 👍
Of course! Thank you for the support and encouragement.
@@OddCompass British took India from Maratha Empire, Not Mughal Empire.
@@khittaykachoudhary2360will read up a bit more in depth. Clearly, I didn't pick up on that.
A thoroughly well researched video to substantiate my rants on the postcolonial psychological and infrastructural limitations we still have to get over. Big thanks.
Haha, I’ve had too many similar rants myself! Glad the video was enjoyable, and thanks for the support ✌🏽
kangana ka dialogue yaad aa gya aapka contribution dekhke.😂
Yar paisa kyu Diya yar didi
this does seem like propaganda though... @@OddCompass
Hey Queen, you dropped this..👑 ❤
In the UK we are not taugh this in school but our colonial history is merely glossed as a period of global advancement of civilisation where we modernised the 'natives' giving them infrastructure and blessing them with our langauage ignoring the mass enslavement and plundering. Outrageously, the dehumanising evil of colonialism still flourishes today in places like Israel / Palestine where daily atrocities are normalised by the complicity of western media. Yet the enraging injustices of the ongoing genocide & ethnic cleansing only serve to fuel justfied resistance denounced as terrorism by all those complicit in its perpetuation.
That isn't true. Colonialism is covered very extensively in the British curriculum
@Joshpox not when I was at school,, glad things are finally changing. Though I doubt the devastating impact to the colonised nations and it's peoples is covered in enough detail otherwise just reparations would be brought up.
@@robensy1359Why don't you just pay your part first?
Well it was a good thing.
that is such a simple minded, untrue and biased account as any colonial advocate
As someone from Ireland, it’s difficult to think of the obscene wealth of London, the British royal family, and aristocracy gained directly or indirectly from the exploitation of other countries and not feel resentful at times, especially as so many of these countries are still recovering from British invasion while many Britons continue to benefit.
Yeah, you Irish hate the English so much you sided with the NAZIs. The British offered Northern Ireland to the Republic, if you joined the war. But your victim mentality and hatred, of a people and culture basically identical to your own, you quietly cheered on Hitler, figuring he would defeat the British and you would get Ulster anyway. I think the Irish should remove that huge victim chip from their shoulder.
What “continue to benefit” are you referring to exactly? 😂
@@Kfcdeedeefag Inheritance exists
@@Kfcdeedeefagwell from the top of my head, Jimmy Cumslayer, the British royal family and tens of thousands of the British aristocracy have enough generational wealth to insulate themselves and future generations against almost any problem; British industry and infrastructure funded by invasions and predatory trading practices are still going strong while invaded countries are still recovering from British exploitation; the British Museum and British museums are stuffed with ransacked artefacts from invaded countries that they refuse to return; the City of London is a massive money laundering racket that wouldn’t exist without the remaining British Overseas Territories; and many Britons continue to benefit from their blissful ignorance of Britain’s role in arbitrarily partitioning land it used to occupy, leading to much of the geopolitical instability in the world today. 🤷🏼♂️
people still enjoy generational wealth accumulated while this looting
This channel know more about India than most Indians. Its monumental suffering endured by our people at the hands of British
Have you watched this channel before? There's been constant wars prior to the British. This even starts with an invasion from Persia!
It’s just not true… India was divided with petty states butchering each other until the British created India!
@kris501 should've focussed in class when hisyory was being taught
@@tbird-z1rdo you know the meaning of colony, we were not even a colony under any rule until the British came
@@tbird-z1r None of those wars killed nearly 40 million people, looted anything close to $45 trillion or reduced the Indian economy from 27% of the global economy to just 3%. No one who invaded India can claim to have done as much damage.
To all the fello Indians here, remeber this, and I've always said: "we are not developing, we are recovering". the center of the economic earth.
Well said.
Yep, It's sad but okay. Give a us another 50 years or so, we'll rebuild our country. The challenge is on.
That's just cope. Britain built your railways and gave you modern technology and yet you still come in your armies to London and turn nice places into third world places.
@@taigahiiragi4729 ahh yes you first world folks acting as if being born in a first world country is a big achievement.
You're just lucky so be grateful that you were born in the first world, but stop bragging about it as if you worked to achieve this or something.
By the way use common sense that those who migrate to your countries are all RICH, EDUCATED third world folks. Your countries give them citizenship only because these folks are useful to YOUR GOVT. Not the average slum dweller is allowed in your country. Just COPE ig.
@@taigahiiragi4729 the nice place you talk about was build on the ruins on the ancient civilisation and their ashes.
And now britain suffers with an immigrant crisis. Call it karma call it guilt
Also there economy is not working from last many years and is almost on the edge of total collapse 😮😢
@@user-hx7fe6rx2z call it revenge I think
Government mismanagement crashed India like the British economy where things are outsourced overseas.
Then you admit that mass immigration is in fact a crisis. Now we're getting somewhere.
its not karma. britain willingly allowed these poor people to come because indians cant do it themselves.
as a westerner, India as gone through a lot. Imagine being looted several times and they call you poor
Except India wasn't "looted" by the British.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 it was lol what are you on about Britain brutally stole wealth and horrendously looted from us
Then?@@mauricebuckmaster9368
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 ok "maurice"
@@mauricebuckmaster9368it was stabbed stepped on spit on and then they said sorry and left
Thanks for being brutally honest. This is the story so eagerly waiting to be told.
Damn dude 😳
pappan scam
Well that's ironic since nothing about this video or channel is honest.
@@alexcallendercan you outline the dishonesty?
@@alexcallenderjust like your mom
Thanks man! You have very nicely presented our story, especially the comparison of holocaust, stalin and mao’s killing. People actually forget how brutally we were tortured and killed
but Indians are not weak unlike other victims.
WE STAND TALL
@@Ragebait01 absolutely. But the atrocities needs to called out. Even jews are not weak but then don’t forget to remind people about the atrocities. If you don’t speak people won’t know.
British had signs saying No dogs and Indians allowed
Now UK PM has indian origins and a pet dog
Jai hind
@@thepronoob1529 hahahahhaha. You just dropped a nuclear bomb on pro colonists. 😂😂
Brutality in India was not a British invention. If anything brutality reduced during the Raj.
The most important thing that everyone should think about now is how to invest in different sources of income that do not depend on the state.especially considering the current real estate cryptocurrency market,stocks,NFTs and forex are good area to explore thanks Mrs Sophia for coaching me
Yes you are right I have been trading under Mrs Sophia for a year now, and I can say she really made me who I'm today ❤
All thanks to her Sophia
Isn't this the same woman Sophia that my neighbors are talking about, she must be a perfect expert for people to talk so well about her.
Yes! I'm celebrating £132K stock portfolio today... Started this journey with £13K....
I've invested no time and also with the right terms, now I have time for my family and life ahead of me.
Testimony from UK 🇬🇧, SophiaI queen of crypto
And when Churchill was informed about the devastation of the famine, his one comment was : " How come Gandhi is not dead yet?" He wrote this in the margins of the report on the famine. Excellent report. Thank you.
Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. Don't believe everything you see on social medias.
@jeanettewee8805 there are two large areas where the facts disagree with your statement: The Sikhs: the fought for independence . 87% to 90% of the prisoners who were hanged in the Andabar prison colonies were Sikh. There is no other community who sacrificed more for Bharat.
@@jeanettewee8805 The 2nd: Switzerland: They control a great deal, but in a different way. When you look into their history, you will see their purpose in world politics, as well as wired control
@jeanettewee8805 Brits were not benevolent. They were pirates ☠️ it's how they gained control. You will see examples of their piracy through history. If you get a chance to read 'A Perfect Red' by Amy Greenfield you will get an insight into their piracy. They stole for their Queen. The facts behind Mutiny and the Bounty ...I can give many examples.
@jeanettewee8805 one aspect to consider .. consequence of my research on British Missionary schools. Is the Victor -Vanquished Psychology. The British would go in, change the names of people, of land, as part of the systematic destruction of the culture they are invading, then go in and change laws. Bharat is still vanquished, raising up
This video made me tear up imagining what my forefathers would have gone through. I’m proud to be an Indian. India is a rising Phoenix from ashes. We will rise back to the top and I will see it in my lifetime.
Good mindset!
Learn from the past, and build a better future instead of playing a blame game.
We sure will my friend
@@emmanuel8310 Do you realize over a third of Brits take pride in this nonsense? If no one keeps reminding them how big dicks they were everywhere they went they'll keep feeding their imperial pride and the hypocritical holier than thou attitude that comes with it well into the future. This isn't about the past. It's about ensuring the west knows just how terrible it was so it can't claim to know better than everyone else how to run the world. That IS about making a better future - for everyone.
Indians problem is grotesque inequality. Some knew what Independence meant was there will be rulers & exploiters like the British, just the time they will be their own kinsman. This is what is holding India back. When you see Billion dollar house next to slums in Mumbai, you see what that really means.
You should see what they did to Ireland.
Great summary, and heart wrenching at the same time. The biggest lesson to learn from this, for Indians, is that no matter how much effort you spend in making your population prosperous, if you can't protect it, foreign powers WILL come and exploit the people and the economy. This is why when I look at India's current ~$72 Billion or so Defence budget, my first instinct is "Why that high? May be we can spend more on people and economy?", but then thinking more about the threats faced (especially now from China), I'm glad we have it. Never again!
Bhai 50$.. Wow 👏🏻👍🏻🙏🏻
@MughalNationalist Jai Shivaji the Mughal Hunter
@MughalNationalistwhat now?
_"especially now from China"_
😂 good one, good one 🤣
The threat is the West. Not China. Give your head a shake and heal your colonialism of the mind.
The biggest loot ever done in the history of mankind.
Is how britishers looted each and everything from india.
Which was once called a golden bird before British colonial rule in india.
Yes but that's because Muslims ruled here from 8th century (Conquered by Ummayyads, to 18th Century Mughal Empire)
@@hsnindustryand yes, brutally converted your forefathers
@@Ario55-cc That is not something to be proud about, even if it's true the person who is forcefully converted does not have to actually convert, I highly doubt it though!
And the opposite is true, today we have right-wing extremist hindutva and RSS goons forcefully making people chant their slogans, like "Jai Shree Ram" but since it's the people you have a soft spot for, you won't talk about that ever!
@@hsnindustryPoint to be noted is, INDIA was already looted to an extent by the Islamic invaders even before the arrival of British. But India still had enough wealth that it was still the wealthiest country on earth.
The Islamic invaders bot only looted our wealth, coverted people but ultimately took 2 big parts of our land too in 1947😥
I feel absolutely terrible when I see the ancient map of India. No country becomes a super power if they it keeps loosing its Land.
India's wealth was looted by many turks, mughals and invaders from central Asia, and Afganistan. What the hell you are talking about?
@@mercedesbenz3751 Yes, that I can agree with.. India was so rich but could not afford to protect itself? I can only imagine.. Those who invaded were not Islamic Invaders, they were Muslims.. In Islam there are rules for Invasion, No invasion can take place unless there is oppression in the lands and Muslims are called upon for help, Even then the Caliph (Leader) sends letters first, inviting the other leaders to Islam and to fear GOD (Allah s.w.t) that they may be answerable on the day of Judgement, IF the letter is answered in a positive way then there is no need for invasion or war, If they refuse and continue their tyrranical ways then Caliphs (Leaders) gather their forces and start the invasion.
But one thing I should mention, In Islam, Caliphate (Leadership) ended after the Fourth Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib (AS) was assasinated by his former follower in 661 CE.
From then on, Caliphate (Islamic Leadership) was replaced with Kingship.
What you said correct, but that's a little anecdote that I would like to share with you, and it means the Emperors and Kings were in fact Muslims and they fought for Land, Power and Money etc. which they still do, even the poor raggedy arab bedouins are now competing to build 1000 storeyed buildings in a desert.. Such a shame what Muslims have come down to be , once the protectors of the world peace are now enslaved to their desires, riches and power.
I grew up in Canada. Im speechless in regards to this video. India is covered a multiple points in our school curriculum, and the gist of what we're taught is "India conducted peaceful protests against the British under mahatma ghandi, and as a result the British pulled out, taking all of their industry with them which resulted in the impoverishment of the Indian people, taking decades to very slowly get a semblance of what they once had". There is absolutely nothing about the mass planned genocide, crippling taxes, and overly aggressive extraction of resources to the point of when they had pulled what little industry was left, was simply the tip of the iceberg
Read "Rowlatt Act".
In India still many believes Gandhi got us independence and was names Father of our Nation. Am proud of failing in history subject as a kid.
Population increased exponentially under British rule
@@ErnestTremeerwas this before or after the 60-165million Indians had died to mistreatment and starvation under British occupation? For reference, near 6 million Jewish people were killed during WWII in Germany.
Never forget that what the British arranged in India they first experimented on Ireland!
Thank you for telling the truth. The UK destroyed India in every way possible economically, culturally, geographically. We'll never forgive nor forget what happened to us.
Yeto 1 dollar bhi na hua bhai
@@cristiano274148 cents hua par itna to sahi
40 rs bhi kafi hai support karne ke liye
Utter nonsense.
Complete garbage.
@@mauricebuckmaster9368yeah your wrong I hate brits and mughals for invading such a peaceful nation
Thank you for your research on India’s history
HE DOESNT REPLIED U 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 EVEN AFTER SENDING MONEY 💰😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 YOUR MONEY 💰 GOT WASTED 🤣😁👍
You know what’s sad there’s Indians that literally love England despite what the country has done
Grade A Dhimmis
we might have "forgiven" but not forgotten.
That's good. Racism is always wrong, and love is always right
As an Indian myself it is important to understand that 90% of the English population today wasn’t even alive for the colonial period, let alone myself. Can’t continue hating forever can we, can hate the governments all you want but at the end of the day it’s the common people that make up a country
Indians want apologies for britain past like canada and Australia and other western countries apologies.
Thumbnail didnt indicated how emotional this would get geez, you got me bawling my eyes out man fuck 😿. Phenomenal content great work!
Thank you so much for the kind words! I’m glad the video had an impact. Your support is appreciated 🙏🏽
@@OddCompass
British implemented Final Solution on India, just like Hitler implemented Final Solution on Jews.
@@OddCompassyou great work bro
Thanks for spreading awareness. Learned more about cruelty of British rule in India from this video than from the entire history classes during my school days combined.
That's because schools have a job to teach impartially and critical thinking rather than one sided nonsense like this on youtube that serves one agenda.
The Dutch had been in India for sometime before they took over from the Portuguese who were in India. The oldest ally to the Portuguese is the English since (1373) "The Anglo-Portuguese Treaty" England who had been at war with the Dutch since the 1600 to the I8th century. New York was called New Amsterdam until 1664. There was a lot of unrest in the country of India at that time. Please try not to blame anyone or any country. Because they have all gone, the people and the governments have all cease to be. He's post on RUclips is Flake News to make money not friends. The 2 richest people in the UK are Indian. The Prime Minister of the UK is of Indian descent and he's wife was born in India a place called Hubli, Karnataka. Peace'.. dhanysvaad .
@@apollocreed5391says a brit with 0 proofs.....😂😂
Ironically, I think Britain is a victim of its own success. It established successful democracies with the Rule of Law and Free Speech. Hence the millions of Indians with internet access and a Revisionist Nationalism to pitch to the world. Compare that to, for example, Spain ... Who ever hates on Spain? No one, because as with almost every power in history (except Britain) it was policy to eradicate native cultures ... there's no Aztec film industry (AzWood?) ... there's almost no criticism. I actually think Brits should be proud that its children have grown up and have the freedom to bad-mouth their mother
No problem, glad I could explain things and try and spread the knowledge around!
Hope this video is taught in our syllabus. so articulate and amazing research. Please continue your work. You have got a supporter in me.
Thank you, Keshav - that’s very kind of you!
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
@@OddCompass No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
Congress created by British for his hidden indian strategy make over
This is what we call historical revisionism
LOL. Westerners hate facing reality.
Britain cannot and will not acknowledge its debt to India. Why? Because the debt is so huge that it can never be repaid.
Their national dish is curry I think the debt is paid
💀
@@sidauthur7836I don't get it. Did British steal that too? Or did they make it India's national dish?
Because no one except the elite got rich. There was still poverty in UK. Just like now.
@@PaTrick-cf6evno thousands of Indian immigrants move to UK and one family living in Scotland made a change to butter chicken which ended up being tikka malasa. It became very popular and is now a national dish :)
This video should go viral..no ones asking for any money back..there isn't enough money to pay back and the descendents shouldn't pay for the crimes of their ancestors..but there should be absolute acknowledgement of what happened. No apologies needed..just an acknowledgement
At least they should return all the important peices of the museums.
At least if India can take good care of them.
@@HemantKumar-id3jg Brazilians can’t.
Their historical artifacts were destroyed in a fire due to poor maintenance.
I don’t know if India can protect their artifacts better.
@@HemantKumar-id3jg I just was asking if indians can, im on the side of the preservation of the artifacts.
Brazilian artifacts would had been better in english hands.
You are sure you can protect them?
If su h is the case, im ok.
And don’t say nothing, it would be far less attractive, but they could expose their own artifacts.
@@HemantKumar-id3jg Certainly, I dont think japanese or chinese would travel to see the celt, saxon, viking or norman artifacts.
Still, english and other european would.
Japanese has been relevant to world just one century, and people goes there.
Thats not true, king&geneals is one of the biggest history channels in youtube, is done by azeris, one of his subjects are english history.
By the way, they almost enver touch indian history.
India is quite underrated.
Boycott English goods ! That's a start 🤔 Jai Hind 🙏
In British primary schools they like to teach about post-Roman Britain and the Tudors, and in Secondary school it's pretty much all about WWI and WW2 with strict focus on Europe. The Colonial Era is skipped out completely.
because they don't want you to know about stuff like this.
Didn't expect this given the colonial age was most of modern British history.
Even though it ain't taught head on, people still know about it and what it involved. When I was in secondary school, we were taught a bit about it in English class due to a book we were reading. We also read some poems that involved it. Also, every curriculum can differ on what it teaches and then some schools themselves can choose more specific topics - for example, in my History class we didn't do colonialism, but other exam boards for history do. BBC Bitesize also has colonialism and the British Empire as topics.
Essentially what I'm trying to get to is that even though there isn't a complete national distinct effort on teaching the topic, it is still perfectly available for people to learn about and it is talked about a bit in some lessons in secondary school.
In the age of internet, blaming textbooks for chosen ignorance is pointless. History is just one click away.
They are not able show their shameless past bloody thieves
I bet they don’t teach this in British schools
They don't
Of course they don’t. As far as I can tell, the only country that actually teaches kids about the f*cked up sh*t in their history is Germany. Britain downplays colonialism and slavery, America also downplays slavery and Native American genocide, and India downplays classism and faithism, France also downplays colonialism. Only Germany (from what I’ve heard, I’m not German) has the guts to tell kids their country wasn’t perfect and teaches about the holocaust and nazi atrocities comprehensively.
They never do that
And they shouldn’t we can’t have any more woke minds poisoning our education system
They do but unlike most Germans, most Brits are proud of their history.
It is such a research driven work. I really appreciate it. Many thanks for surfacing the blatant truth that the whole world needs to listen to. Dhanyawad 🙏
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805 tell something about famines created by britishers
@@subhajitkarmakar1 India's population increased from 170 to 400 million during the colonial period. Still, that doesn't justify colonization and mismanagement of famines. Yes, British did exacerbate famines.
Well researched and objective! Well done 👍
Thanks for the kind words, and for supporting the channel!
I rarely ever comment or engage with a video. But this is a video that summarises my answer to every taunt by colonial apologists regarding the numerours problems in India.
The day is not far away where this history would be noticed and acknowledged by EVERYONE. It would be followed by India hopefully once again becoming a superpower.
Thank you very much for working on this. I just wish this video is viewed by hundreds of millions of people.
Thank you very much, Hemant, for your comment and your support. That being said, I’m merely summarizing and presenting the scholarly work of many others who have done an exemplary job of showcasing what really happened. 👍🏽
And now indians are scamming everyone with phone calls, emails for cyber theft and $ fraud
India has never been a "superpower", and this video is a joke riddled with distortions and falsehoods.
@@OddCompass You're a hack and a fraud pushing a shameless victimhood narrative based on lies. Shameful and contemptible. Delete your channel.
Britain has committed multiple genocides across five continents (from neighbouring Ireland in Europe to North America to Africa to Asia to Oceania), a fact they shamelessly continue to deny.
Britain has committed so many crimes against humanity (and crimes against the planet), it would take several volumes of books to explain their countless acts of cruelty.
Britain (and it's predecessor state, England) has committed multiple genocides in neighbouring Ireland, from the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland to the Great Irish famine/Genocide to the murdering and torturing of Irish Republicans by the Black and Tans to murdering innocent civilians in the Dublin Monaghan bombings and the civilians gunned down in two Bloody Sundays in Ireland (google all of it).
Britain was the second largest enslaver in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, a trade which resulted in the deaths of millions of African slaves as they were treated like cattle and worked to near death. Britain abolished slavery after paying reparations not to the slaves but to the slave owners!!!. Britain continued with slavery in another name with indentured labour, where the plight of the labourers was no better than that of the slaves. Britain maintained concentration camps in the Boer War where tens of thousands of men, women and children perished (google 'Boer war concentration camp'). Britain committed genocide in the 1950s in Kenya (google 'Caroline Elkins Imperial Reckoning'). In addition to committing slavery and genocide in Africa, Britain looted the resources of several African countries and stole away countless valuable artefacts, artefacts which the British Museum shamelessly continues to possess (search 'John Oliver Museums' on RUclips).
During their rule in India, Britain siphoned off 45 trillions dollars in today's money (watch the VICE video on it). Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Indian rebels were tortured and murdered in the aftermath of the 1857 war of independence (entire rebel towns were 'cleansed'). Tens of millions of Indians starved to death during the dozens of famines as the inhumane British rulers looked away (google 'late Victorian Holocausts'). In modern day Sri Lanka, in the aftermath of the Uva rebellion, the entire male population was put to death (google 'Uva rebellion'). The Bengal Famine of 1943 was genocide committed by a genocidal racist bastard called Winston Churchill (google 'Madhushree Mukherjee Churchill's Secret War'). The British murdered countless innocent civilians in massacres like Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre, Pathorughat Massacre (google them all; these are the ones we know of, imagine the countless massacres Britain destroyed all records of). British forces murdered tens of thousands of Indians during the Quit India movement. In China, Britain fought the Opium Wars. Britain also used 'divide and rule' to turn different groups against each other. Btw, all the railways, ports, infrastructure Britain built in India were to help them transport the resources it stole.
Britain committed genocide in North America (google 'small pox infected blanket'). Also, google 'British genocide america'.
Britain committed genocide in Oceania (google 'British genocide in Australia').
If you thought that was all in the distant past, think of the Iraq War in 2003 twenty years ago where the UK illegally invaded and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Also think of the bombing of Libya by British warplanes, the funding of Al Nusra by Britain (google 'Britain Al Nusra'). Britain also armed Saudi Arabia with bomber jets and munitions to bomb the poorest Arab country Yemen.
Britain is a shameless, genocidal, warmongering nation that continues to deny, deflect and obfuscate it's countless crimes against humanity (google 'Operation Legacy'; THAT'S HOW SHAMELESS THE BRITISH ARE!!!).
British response: " BuT wE BulILT ROADS so ungrateful" lol
Correct. The "stolen" resources were spent on development in India.
@@Overwatch17 did you even watch the video lmao.
@@Overwatch17 they were used in Army and the British who lived in India
It was, spent in India but only British Benefitted it
@@veteranclips007 yea you need to stop getting your history from your biased british propaganda side lol. read it from anywhere else. it is very clear to literally everyone in the world what British did in india was just straight evil. Poverty? India was the wealthiest nation before Britain stepped in. was there poverty in some places sure every nation has but, Britian made it way worse. Your acting like Britian helped everyone get along. Their strategy was literally divide and conquer, they exploited religous and regional differences to make it even worse. Infrastructure? The railways and most things built were to transport raw materials to british ports not in the interest of local development. You are the minority that think that British was great for India
general consensus among many historians, particularly post-colonial scholars, is that British rule caused profound suffering, poverty, and cultural disruption in India, leading many to regard it as one of history’s more destructive colonial enterprises.
@@veteranclips007
1. India was the wealthiest nation in the world before Britain stepped in. was there poverty in some plaves over course every nation has it
2. You act like britian helped unite everyone. Their strategy was literally called divide and conquer exploiting religious and regional differences to sow long term divisions. So that was also worse after British came in.
3. prety much all the infrastrcture that was built was built in mind for british rule not for the local people. Railways so they can send raw materials to ports. Ports so they can send raw materials back to Britain. Roads so they can easily move around troops and also for resource extraction (sure some indians benefiited from it but it was not built with them in mind).
No one said India was a perect Utopia before Britian, stop creating a strawman argument. The general consensus among many historians, particularly post-colonial scholars, is that British rule caused profound suffering, poverty, and cultural disruption in India, leading many to regard it as one of history’s more destructive colonial enterprises. You are the minority that think Britian was a net positive. maybe stop getting your facts from british side and get it from a more unbiased perspective. you probably think winston churchhill was a great righteous man LOL, not sure why i am even bothering.
The best summarised video about the british extortion imo. Keep the good work guys!!
Thank You for making this video and letting the world know.
Great video. Well researched.
Reminded me of when Tucker Carlsen was bloviating about how the Brits "civilised" India by pointing out that Indians could never build something as magnificent as the Victoria Terminal Railway Station in Mumbai. People in the West are so uninformed about the history of South-east Asia!
Lol. He is so ignorant. Literally ancient indian archetecture from thousands of years ago far surpasses modern british archetecture and he was out there boasting about some train station in mumbai 😂
Last year, we were in the observation deck of the Top of the World building at New York City, where we met an old British couple. Casually, we started chatting. we came to know that both of them worked as government officials in an island which was a British colony until recently, and then they asked about us, we said we are from India. They specifically wanted to know which part of India, we said Bengal and it seems they know about the place and they exclaimed. After these small chats, just before leaving, the old man said, "I would like to apologize on behalf of my country for what we did to India" There was genuine apology in his eyes, and we were spell bound...we did not know how to react, because these is something we never expected to ever happen to us. I could just manage to say, "Thank you, I appreciate". But the impact of what just happened within a few minutes is beyond my capacity to express! So, yes, even they know what they did, just that there are very few people like that old man who has the courage to accept it.
and then the whole rooftop clapped
yup, and the heavens, the queen and yourself too!@@burgerboi0689
What a bs story.
. . . .
looks like a movie script.
Imagination that is your creation hero
It's brutal. The French also forced Vietnamese farmers to grow cash crops, which led to a shortage of food and the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.
I'm half-Filipino, the Spanish fucked up the the Philippines indigenous culture.
wasn't that the japanese?
@@khangaroo8166
It was French, Vietnam defeated the French in the end with support from China.
@@BruhTNT4258 no, i know that, but the french didn't starve 2 million people, that was the japanese who invaded and occupied vietnam.
Was it French or Japanese? Either way the same colonial mentality
This makes me truly so sad. My Nanna was born in India in 1934 to a British soldier who met her mother (my great grandmother) as a catholic Indian. They all returned to England together to have a better life, which is why I was eventually born in England. I visited India in 2019 after my Nanna passed away and it was like going home in so many ways. Even now it is a beautiful country with the kindest people you could possibly meet. I wish one day India will fully thrive once again 🙏
I don't quite understand. Is your grandfather married to a british female soldier?
@@sarahramkissoon8537 Sorry it wasn’t written too well! So my great grandfather was a British soldier from The North Staffordshire Regiment, and my great grandmother was an Indian woman from Bangaluru. They met during the early 30s and had a child together, who was my maternal grandmother.
Thanks for the clarification.
@@charliejames6434In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
You may want to look up details on "Anglo Indians".
Only British men came to India when East India Company was in control of India.
Most British men in India during that time had Indian women as concubines - not as wives or members of family. Many had children with Indian women - they primarily worked as domestic servants, or later on for railways in India.
Very few "Anglo Indian" people went to the UK after the British men returned after India’s independence.
British didn’t just divide on lines of caste & creed . But religious grounds too!
Other way round. Britain created a united India by defeating the Hindu nationalist Marathas, the Muslim nationalist Mughals and the Sikh Empire
@@Overwatch17 by bribing the Mughals and backstabbing the marathas . No wonder india lost,1857 first war independence as a consequence india had to face untold colonial atrocities.and by divide and rule strategy they broke india internally in the basis of religion, ethnicity, colour and language there can be no unity among the indians so they don't rebell against the British imperialism.
Exactly. How they divided india before they left...by drawing a line through punjab with no rhyme or reason. They left ensuring religions will be at each other's throats so they don't feel threatened in future. Everywhere colonialists went they ensured chaos would remains after they'd gone. Sometimes they did this by propping up stooge opposition.
@@chutney-h3oMuslims had been plundering and exterminating Hindus since around 1000AD. The world wasn't at peace before.
@@chutney-h3o The British didn't want to divide India. That was never their plan. It was Hindu and Muslim nationalists that made it mandatory that partition must happen.
Great India respect from Japan. and Chandra Bose.
Chandra Bose's tomb is located in Tokyo. He cooperated with the Japanese Empire and worked hard for the independence of Asian countries.🇮🇳🇯🇵
You mean - he gave Japanese atrocities the stamp of his approval?
. . . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 i wouldn't throw stones from a glass house ...
@@binskee677
Neither would I. So - what was the point you were trying to make?
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 simpel, if you are british, american or from any of the former colonial countries you don't get to critize Japan. i agree japan did some really evil things back then, but so did all western nations, it's just that most of that history was erased, the winner writes the history obviously.
@@binskee677
P.S. What history has been “erased”, when, and by who?
. . .
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India - as horrible as it may have been - was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long - the story goes - was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik - just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.
How did this come about?
It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way - mostly with silver - as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.
Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.
It was a scam - theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.
Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain’s industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India.
On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they “bought” them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the markup.
After the British Raj took over in 1858, colonisers added a special new twist to the tax-and-buy system. As the East India Company’s monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London.
How did this work? Basically, anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills - a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were “paid” in rupees out of tax revenues - money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not in fact paid at all; they were defrauded.
Meanwhile, London ended up with all of the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports.
This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world - a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century - it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India’s exports was appropriated in its entirety by Britain.
Some point to this fictional “deficit” as evidence that India was a liability to Britain. But exactly the opposite is true. Britain intercepted enormous quantities of income that rightly belonged to Indian producers. India was the goose that laid the golden egg. Meanwhile, the “deficit” meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control.
Britain used the windfall from this fraudulent system to fuel the engines of imperial violence - funding the invasion of China in the 1840s and the suppression of the Indian Rebellion in 1857. And this was on top of what the Crown took directly from Indian taxpayers to pay for its wars. As Patnaik points out, “the cost of all Britain’s wars of conquest outside Indian borders were charged always wholly or mainly to Indian revenues.”
And that’s not all. Britain used this flow of tribute from India to finance the expansion of capitalism in Europe and regions of European settlement, like Canada and Australia. So not only the industrialisation of Britain but also the industrialisation of much of the Western world was facilitated by extraction from the colonies.
Patnaik identifies four distinct economic periods in colonial India from 1765 to 1938, calculates the extraction for each, and then compounds at a modest rate of interest (about 5 percent, which is lower than the market rate) from the middle of each period to the present. Adding it all up, she finds that the total drain amounts to $44.6 trillion. This figure is conservative, she says, and does not include the debts that Britain imposed on India during the Raj.
These are eye-watering sums. But the true costs of this drain cannot be calculated. If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development - as Japan did - there’s no telling how history might have turned out differently. India could very well have become an economic powerhouse. Centuries of poverty and suffering could have been prevented.
All of this is a sobering antidote to the rosy narrative promoted by certain powerful voices in Britain. The conservative historian Niall Ferguson has claimed that British rule helped “develop” India. While he was prime minister, David Cameron asserted that British rule was a net help to India.
This narrative has found considerable traction in the popular imagination: according to a 2014 YouGov poll, 50 percent of people in Britain believe that colonialism was beneficial to the colonies.
Yet during the entire 200-year history of British rule in India, there was almost no increase in per capita income. In fact, during the last half of the 19th century - the heyday of British intervention - income in India collapsed by half. The average life expectancy of Indians dropped by a fifth from 1870 to 1920. Tens of millions died needlessly of policy-induced famine.
Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary - as Patnaik’s work makes clear - India developed Britain.
What does this require of Britain today? An apology? Absolutely. Reparations? Perhaps - although there is not enough money in all of Britain to cover the sums that Patnaik identifies. In the meantime, we can start by setting the story straight. We need to recognise that Britain retained control of India not out of benevolence but for the sake of plunder and that Britain’s industrial rise didn’t emerge sui generis from the steam engine and strong institutions, as our schoolbooks would have it, but depended on violent theft from other lands and other peoples.
The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938. Shame on those who understand this and yet knowingly spread it on the internet, they clearly have some kind of agenda. It's misinforming the public, and a gross distortion of the truth.
@@jeanettewee88051 billion in over 200 years of exploitation is an understatement.
@@unwisely it's not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation it may worth upto 500 billion US dollars.
@@jeanettewee8805 still too low. India went from holding 27% of world GDP to 3%. I don't think that number will only add up to 5 billion from 1700s to 1947.
@@unwisely In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
As someone who lives in England as of now, its shocking to see how the country just shoves its past under the rug
You used the right words European colonialism. The limeys will fokus on other countries, but will deminish their own involvement
@@overwatch17least delusional colonial apologist.
Maybe you should take citizenship in India. That might cure you.
Don't worry, its not all true..
@@andrewst9797says a brit with 0 facts.....😂😂
My great grandfather was also a freedom fighter, the British imprisoned him for 16 years.
Huge respect for ur grandfather 🔥
Or....another word might be...?
I'm not Indian, but when I hear one saying that colonization had good sides it boils my blood - this video should be mandatory for students both in India (so they stop saying stupid things) and in UK - to once and for all prove Brits where "their" wealth came from
Thanks brother.
@@minophilic6577 Sister ;)
Nice brother
@@RomaInvicta202 No one is saying colonization was good, but many things in this video are factually incorrect.
@@jeanettewee8805Its most accurate info. Go cry and praise your ancestors somewhere else.
It's heartbreaking to see my country was robbed for centuries like this
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
How about the Dutch the Danish and the Portuguese and also the French.
That country alone was there 300 years. These countries all together Took alot out.of India.
Even today without Indian emigration into the west, the west would have collapsed.
Quit moaning, and start learning history.
@@jeanettewee8805is that how history is taught in the Uk?
Bharat is not just country is a civilization 🇮🇳 I’m so happy for this nation, god bless you from Mexico 🇲🇽…Viva bharat
🙏😊♥️Love and respect to Mexico from Bharat
@@dailydoseofgaming3593 always bro 😎
❤❤❤
stop saying bharat for God's sake😂
I would argue it is several civilizations and not a single one. After all for a majority of it's history India was not united
Or maybe because in the 1700 wealth was generated through agriculture and India is fertile and vast and has a huge unskilled workforce. Whereas in 1947 wealth was generated by industry and technology innovations which came from Europe and the US not India.....
Spot on.
And where does the technology and innovations arise from ? it can only occur in a country whose people are not left to grovel on crumbles while their food is exported to foreign land for pennies
@@volcano_neo
" . . . their food exported to foreign land for pennies."
- Do you have any verifiable data or other evidence to support this? I'm trying to think what food India exported to Britain in significant quantity. Rice? - Not widely consumed until after WW2. Meat? - That came in quantity from Australia, Canada, South America, New Zealand and the USA. Dairy? - Nope! Vegetables? - Hardly feasible, at least until the early 19th century, if then.
Maybe tea, but tea is just leaves. Oh - and spices. But until post-WW2, most Indian spices were not widely consumed.
. . .
And they say people in power aren't psychopaths...
Nobody says that
@@wutrudoin the people in power do 🤪
A lot of people have that laying dormant, power brings it out
Who says that? 😂
Dont generalize. For most its true yes, but not all.
I am deeply saddened thinking about how our ancestors saw their downfall. Still, the colonial mindset is in our minds. This video should help us Indians to get up and start doing things that matter rather than fight over petty issues and be united. Hope our country regains its position back. Thanks for the video.
Indians need to stop identifying themselves with their British colonizers and the West. And pivot to Asia.
The West will never treat you as equals.
Don't worry brother. Rise of India is inevitable. Europe already started falling and we are on the rise.
@@IidentifyAsTheRightPerson As an Indian in Europe, you are very right
@@IidentifyAsTheRightPerson Thank you for affirming words brother...
@@UNFRIENDLYSTRANGER ✌️
Keep up this amazing work man! Thanks a lot for making this video, it truly puts things into perspective of what we lost and what is needed to be conquered again
Thank you, thanks for watching!
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
@@OddCompass No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
If India was so powerful, how did the British dominate it so easily?
One of the reason would be that the Nations in India became fractured and you can see in the video from the beginning which I already stated.
If the British empire was so powerful then why did it collapse? Nothing stays the same forever.
If the Queen was so steadfast how did that hore died?
India wasn't united, there were many Kings in different parts, British United with one king to defeat the others, that's how they eventually conquered India, our kings were fools to not let foreigners in the country.
u ever hear about divide & conquer?
One of the contributing factors to the longevity of ships produced in historical India was the utilization of teak wood, while furniture was crafted from materials like teak and Indian rosewood.
Hey, the figure of 45 trillion dollars was calculated by a Marxist economist named UTSA Patnaik, using a flawed methodology of compounding the loot taken by the British with a 5% interest rate. This method is inaccurate as the inflation rate in the 1950s was around 3.68%. Additionally, Patnaik arrived at a figure of 9 trillion pounds using this flawed method, which was then converted to dollars by multiplying it with 4.68. You can find these details in her article. Furthermore, Patnaik made an exaggerated claim that the British killed 1.8 billion people in India, which is obviously false. It's puzzling that channels like Vice and Wion omitted her outrageous claim of genocide. Unfortunately, spreading lies and misinformation is not uncommon in India. For instance, some stories claim that the Vikramaditya Empire controlled 40% of the world's land, or that India had airplanes 7000 years ago during the Vedic period. These are clearly baseless claims. There is also a story that Shivakar Talpade invented the airplane 8 years before the Wright Brothers, but that the British stole his idea and gave it to the Wright Brothers. India needs to stop perpetuating such false claims.
@@jeanettewee8805 Tens of millions of death by famine under British Raj is documented by non-marxist British historians. Read "Late Victorian famine" for example.
For the same episode of worldwide drought due to strong El Nino episod, Russian czar provided rescue to Russian and Ukrainian peasants, while British governors forbade rescue to Indian peasants.
@@jeanettewee8805 You know that inflation rate changes every year right so if he did compound at 5% average over the course of 200-300 years then it is not flawed. While 1.6 billion figure and vikramaditya empire control claims are definetly absurd. India did have more gdp than the entire europe before british came to India. Colonial british people were worse than the nazi's period. Fuck the monarchy hope they all go to hell.
@@gengis737 Agreed, just adding the fact that the population of India increased from 170 million to 370 million during the colonial period. But still that doesn't justify how British handled the famines.
@@jeanettewee8805Spamming this nonstop eh?
Thank you for enlightening about horrible things done to Indian in past. Hope British to grateful that they lives is gift from innocent lives lost. 😢that’s happening in modern day different part of world too
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805 bro stop spamming
@@bhavyajoshiihe is a paid British bot, the last hope of Falling Britian. Let them bark, we can witness the fall of UK live now isn't that worth living for. Soon India will choke Britian after our people control their political system. All I can say is read their comments and enjoy the fall of the British.
@@bhavyajoshiiwhy? Cuz it goes against your narrative lol?
As an Indian, this brought tears to my eyes. Many unspeakable things were done, no doubt! But our spirit has not and can not be broken.
Yes it has. You still work for anglo nations. Prop up Canadian economy praise rishi, Sundar ect
@@skp8748lol how is that even the same thing? The Indian economy is also being built by Indians. We are running the world, by our own will.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@gagworks 🙄😂
@@jeanettewee8805bruh stop spamming this everywhere 💀 ,
Before british Came 25% of the world had 23% of wealth
And they fucked_em so hard that after they left , 20 to 25 percent of population had less than a single percent of the wealth
Great video, although its dishonest to claim India would have built railways and industrialised because "it was rich"
China was similarly powerful an economy but this stagnated industrialisation. Europe industrialised not because it was already a big economy but because it had the right institutions and competetion.
The tireless apologist for imperial "virtue," brandishing the banner of "institutions" as if it were a magician's wand! How delightfully convenient to dismiss the wealth extracted from India and elsewhere as though Europe's industrial miracle sprang pristine from the soil of virtue and ingenuity alone. One can almost hear the self-congratulation echoing down the corridors of time.
China, you say, stagnated? Pray, let us not overlook the opium-soaked hand that tipped the scales against it-your "right institutions" presumably including the ones that forced open its ports at cannon-point. And as for India, that "rich" land, gutted of its riches to fuel the very engines of your industrial glory, it’s a marvel indeed to suggest that railways built to expedite plunder and troop movements were gifts of altruism.
Competition, you claim, was the lodestar of Europe’s progress? True, but let us not forget the peculiar advantage of being competitors armed with the spoils of conquest. If theft is the mother of invention, then, by all means, toast your triumphs! But do not presume to lecture the looted on the virtues of your institutions, lest you find yourself answered by the hollow clang of empty treasure chests and the ghosts of economies bled dry.
I'm not Indian and I was seething through my teeth watching this video!!! Just pure evil... I hope the Indian people will heal and rise again with love and peace
I'm British, and I am absolutely sickened by the actions of my ancestors.
yes India is rising. Now UK is behind us.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805 You trying to justify colonization and drying up booming economy, forced exploitation and unreasonable taxes as well as utter devastation of traditional manufacturer hubs in India just because some other countries even without those hardships didn't flourish is like justifying holocaust because all jews didn't die, and they are still some of the wealthiest people on earth.
@@jeanettewee8805 China was repeatedly invaded by the British with backing from other European powers throughout the 19th century. In the 18th century, China was almost entirely self-sufficient, and was a mass exporter of tea and luxury goods in return for silver - Britain had nothing else they wanted or needed. The British East India Company was running out of silver and wanted to bust open the Chinese market to force them to buy British goods, so in the late 1700s they started smuggling opium (which was illegal in China) across the border to manufacture an opium epidemic, making huge profits selling an addictive drug, while also crippling the Chinese economy.
By 1833, British and American smugglers funded by the East India Company were selling over 2000 TONS of opium to China every year, funnelling massive amounts of silver into British hands, which were then used to buy Chinese goods - essentially buying Chinese products with their own money.
Eventually in 1839, the Chinese government decided to blockade Canton (Hong Kong) and seize ALL opium found in the port. In retaliation, Britain decided to invade in order to claim "reparations" and force China to accept the future trade of opium indefinitely. After losing the First Opium War in 1842, China was forced to cede control of Hong Kong to the British, open 5 more ports to European traders, and pay 21 million dollars to Britain in reparations, as well as exempting British citizens from Chinese laws.
14 years later the Second Opium War was started after a Chinese governor seized an opium merchant's ship and crew, as opium was still technically illegal. Britain bombarded Chinese cities from the coast with assistance from France, until they conceded defeat. This time, Britain and France demanded total legalisation of opium, the exporting of Chinese labourers to British and French colonies as replacements for freed slaves, free travel for British and French citizens throughout China, as well as exemption from all tariffs and internal transit duties, and the opening of further ports to British opium and further reparations.
Following this, China was invaded by Russia (1858), France (1884-85), Britain (1888), Japan (1894-95), the Eight-Nation Alliance (1900), Russia (1900), Britain (1903-04), Japan (1905), Japan (1931-32), the USSR (1934), Japan (1937-45). As a result of the Opium Wars and all following conflicts and unequal treaties - many of which were "mediated" by the British even if they weren't directly involved in the conflict, China's economy was crippled, its population drugged, millions were killed or treated as little more than slaves, its territory gradually chipped away, and guess who stepped in to fill the gap left in the market by China? Britain, using resources taken from India.
Thanks for retelling the true story of people largely forgotten to a point they are trolled so badly all around the world for poverty and for being a impecunious civilization. Like my history teacher put it, "India went from golden bird to beggar bird, never forget that". This channel is doing something I wished I could do and I'd love to volunteer to help make more of these!!
For others who want to know more, this Oxford debate taught me more than my Indian history curriculum ever did "ruclips.net/video/mCgBQFhQGf0/видео.html" (Also a related book by him, "The Era of Darkness, : The British Empire in India" )
Interesting point by your teacher. And thank you for the kind words and support!
Again actual name of the book written by Shashi Tharoor is "An Inglorious Empire"
Stop gang raping women, then.
British are so low-minded they are still arguing in the comment section. I guess they don't know who is gonna get bullied in future if their attitude doesn't change lol
It's literally not true though. The clown who made this video has literally no idea what he's talking about.
Thank you for your time and effort in making this video.
You’re very welcome. I appreciate the kind words, and your support for the channel!
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
@@OddCompass No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
Thank you ! Thank you ! Thank you so much, my brother 🙏. Thank you so much for covering this topic thoroughly without showing any bais for british 🙏.
As an Indian i cant explain how fed up I was since my childhood after learning this british colonial history of india and how India was the wealthiest civilization in that world before britishers plundered and looted everything leaving Indians to ruins.
On top of that, I was so sad looking at the audacity of people in the west telling me that British Colonization "civilized" Indians. I mean wtf!!.
Thank you for showing the real history of british colonial era.
It’s a pile of perfect piffle, you purblind pinbrain.
. . .
Its crazy that Indians are still alive and thriving. For every Indian alive it is crazy to think what their forefathers had to go through for it to be possible for them to be alive.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
Yikes, these mental gymnastics are kinda impressive ngl.
@@jeanettewee8805it's you again, copy pasting everywhere. just thought i'd say this so that others knoe about you.
@@jeanettewee8805 so your logic is that the only reason asian countries are poor is because they're just inferior?
@@jeanettewee8805Don't spread rumors kid I wonder what they teach you all in history books
Geuinly hope India can recover and become even richer than before, I'm british and have known quite a few Indian people they are kind and don't hold a grudge which i appreciate, big respect to there country!
"their" country.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 so your mocking my spelling just cos I disagree with you, wow
@@gerrardjones28
Mocking? I think you meant correcting.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 I really don't care if my spelling is bad as long as I get get message across, are you a grammar n*zi or something lol?
@@gerrardjones28
"Geuinly [sic] hope India can recover . . . "
- Recover from what?
" . . . and become even richer than before."
- Before what?
"I'm british [sic] and have known quite a few Indian people they are kind and don't hold a grudge which i appreciate, big respect to there [sic] country!"
- I'm also British, and have also known quite a few Indian people. I too have found them kind.
But they aren't the ones posting their hate and lies on here, are they?
. . .
As a Sri Lankan, I can reasonably say that it is a matter of time that India regains its former glory and this time.... there is no turning back.
Thanks. ♥️ I hope Sri Lanka soon recovers from its economic troubles, and is also a prosperous nation in the future. Love from India. ❤❤❤
@@rohitkanwar-livit
Agree 👍
@@rohitkanwar-livit thank you and that really means a lot 🙏🏼
@@trivanannakkarage9893 I hope that it will agains become 'sone ki lanka' (Golden Lanka)
Awesome. Copy Korea's manufacturing process, then. We can all learn from Korea, or Netherlands.
This video literally made me cry. I have heard stories of my forefathers eating in gold and silver plates but when british Left india our family didn't even had a roof on their heads
Yes they all drove Rolls Royces, smoked cigars and drank champagne too
😂
@@forret read first hand accounts of foreign travellers to india. You will get to know. India was a very prosperous nation and gold and silver dinnersets was common . Even today after barbaric loot having a sliver plate as your dinner plate is pretty common for Indians. Almost ever middle class household will have silver plates and glasses at home. Do your research before replying else people will dismiss you as an ignorant person.
@@TheRajmah yes, most Indians eat from silver dinner sets. They all did when I lived there.
Perhaps it is you that needs to do some research, rather than getting the history of India from a Marxist teenager on RUclips.
@@forretyou’re an ignoramus
I cried watching this, my grandfather was born during colonial rule and told me how as a kid he experienced extreme impoverishment, his father(my grandpa) was a weaver and because of the brits he left weaving(because he was trapped in debt and it took everything to repay it)and became a cultivator, they had to pay exorbitantly high taxes and at one time they had to sell all jewelleries and valuables they had to pay taxes, entire gangetic plain region became the poorest region of India after goras left it.
those high taxes and the lack of exports had nothing to do with Britain as both came AFTER the British left. They were mistakes by the Indian government and to blame the British is just silly.
@@richbob9155 Did you even watch the video or just came here to comment?
It’s so sad! And the monarchy lived/lives unnecessary luxurious lives off of everything they stole from people around the world. It’s disgusting.
@@Dstar-km9fi1hs2j In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
And now you can type the masters language perfectly and wish to live amongst them if you haven't already, ancestors must be proud👍😉
This is eye opening. I had no idea this is how economic history played out in India.
Can you do a follow up on how the British managed to keep India under their control for so long? Were there any significant revolts that came up during the colonial period?
1857 revolt is considered the most important one
British policy of 'Divide and Rule' made it possible to hold India for so long. Look it up👍
maybe you've never heard it becuase this video is oversimplistic and misleading BS.
@@shrey.theholyswan those "british propagandists" did a bad job "covering" up claims made countless times. If anything this is propaganda: overslimplistic, tribalistic, black-and-white, propaganda full of blatant misinformation and exaggeration (not least that "modern economists" 45T estimate). Its a comforting "evil britian" and "victim India" narrative which the Raj certainly wasnt.
There was always some revolution against British rule somewhere. But by and large, extreme revolution was avoided by a well oiled propoganda machine and regional administration ensuring that most people scarcely knew of the true profiteers of their misery
Guns
All that wealth and technology...and they couldn't beat a few thousand men!!
We were deprived of war and cultural development long before British by those muslim invaders
No because Indians did not doubt
It's only natural to see India rise back to her glory days! Jai Hind.
Like what? Killing Muslims and Hindus everywhere Lmao. Backwards society
Nah, we are going to help Pakistan to keep you in the mud, fire off a few nukes. Pakistan Zindabad 🇵🇰
You should have been thankful for our help, the countries Britain didn't colonise are the poorest now
What glory days? When you were under Mughal rule?
Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. To have a more understanding on this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire. Also watch the debate between Shashi Tharoor and Zareer Masani. Just because these videos have less views than 45 trillion dollars loot, Vikramaditya Empire doesn't make the latter one true.
@jeanettewee8805 agreed.
Many former British colonies are prosperous (usa, Ireland, Botswana, HK, Canada, Australia)
Blaming the British is dumb, without them India would be Balkans 2.0
I grew up with my grandparents, hearing first hand stories of the times towards the end of the british rule in india. My grandfather's elder brother had slapped his british boss because he verbally abused his staff saying "bloody natives" so he had to run away from his district (now Jessore, Bangladesh) to now India as he would be arrested if he visited. My grandfather had to look after his brother's family and bring them to the Indian side of the border during partition of Bengal. I listened to how my ancestors secretly listened to Netajis radio transmission to masses and engaged in freedom movements. I heard the horrible first hand stories of the times between 20-40s so I do not stand by anyone saying or believing the British did good for us
Calling someone a blood native isn’t verbally abusive. The word bloody is equivalent to silly. That would be the same as me calling a Native American a silly native. Depending on the context, it might not be the nicest thing to say, but it certainly isn’t abusive. If you heard what African slaves, Italian immigrants, and Irish immigrants were called by their bosses in the USA, you would truly understand abusive language. Today, it’s Hispanic illegal immigrants who are verbally and physically abused by their bosses here. They can’t even do anything about it, like go to HR, because they are working illegally. It’s very, very sad, but adults often need to let a mean words roll off their back, in order to support their families. It’s so sad that your uncle lost his temper and put the finical support of his family on someone else. That wasn’t fair to your uncle’s family, and it definitely wasn’t fair to your grandfather, who had already worked his whole life and raised his family. My heart breaks that your grandfather couldn’t have it easy in his older years. He is a saint!
@@findingbeautyinthepain8965 thank you. While I don't deny anyone's suffering, I can understand why the situation came to be that way. India's struggle for independence is often underrated and watered down mostly in western countries, but if you ever come to know about the real situation at that time it was bad for us. The slap resulted from years of abuse and the atrocities caused by British everywhere around them. Especially around the first and second world wars the independence movement rose at its peak, and not one Indian was immune to it. We just wanted our freedom back. Many of my family members were directly and indirectly connected in some way with this movement. Even if it can be seen as a selfish thing to do with mouths to feed, anybody can do lash out if they face years of oppression. Ironically today is my country's independence day, and I am glad and proud of all my ancestors who helped in even the most micro way possible to give me this freedom!
Coming to your kind comment about my grandfather, Yes he was the kindest man I ever saw in my life. He actually paid for his brother's entire family - and they had 8 children! He never stopped helping others till his last breath. I grew up with him, holding to my heart all the stories about those days, idolizing him and I miss him terribly now that my best teacher is not here anymore.! I hope we can all come out of the hate and oppression and become like him!
lol ... plumbing is still overwhelming
@@andrewmclaughlin2701 justifying your own ignorance through the means of sarcasm isn't something to be proud of.
@@rimrm2232 Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. To have a more understanding on this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire. Also watch the debate between Shashi Tharoor and Zareer Masani. Just because these videos have less views than 45 trillion dollars loot, Vikramaditya Empire doesn't make the latter one true.
As an Indonesian myself, we do lost a lot from VOC and Dutch Colonization, even we colonized two times longer than India. But we are recovering together my brothers and sisters. The moment when i saw the news that you guys landing on the moon for the first time, i'm tearing feel proud of y'all 🥺
Warm greetings from Indonesia 🙌🏼
🇮🇩🤝🇮🇳
Thank you
Thanks
❤from India🇮🇳
Before Europeans Islamic invaders came and brutally looted India
@TPDTND you dropped your 🧢
India should Forgive but never forget, our ancestors held this land for 5000 years and our culture is still living and it’s the duty of current generation of Indians to make sure the culture and country can rise again.
We shouldn't forgive either.
In this mad world of power. It's highly illogical to forgive and let go. They still make money till date of all the looted treasures + money they invested in monuments/ art/ tourism/ development of their nation. You need to make them pay back/ reparations + give India back all the stolen arts/ jewels/ antiques or take away their resources.
No forgiveness without accountability and reparations.
No forgive we will invade the whole europe by end of this century
@@Obelixlxxvi usa gifted back India 104 antiques when modi visited New York or Washington which city I forgot about that but this antiques, sculptures will play an important and divine role in making British India Bharath 🇮🇳 again...
Its 1 am at night and I am almost teary after watching this video. The effects of the colonisation can still be felt in India today. The mindset of the people has become poor. But its changing. The global order is changing and India will regain what it lost.
@@whykoks Through technology and education
Yet u hv no shame and pride. Following them
Same watching this at 1AM
As an Indian who's forefathers were brought to South Africa by the British in 1860 to work on the sugar cane Fields this truly makes me sad, angry and all other emotion's
brought? They chose to go for economic benefits and were treated like whites in Africa and not like the locals who received endless racism. Unless you are telling me everything ghandi wrote about Africa is lies? The Indians were famously the most anti-black racists in Africa, far more so than the Europeans. Learn your own history. They went there as colonisers the same as the British. Nothing about Indian involvement in Africa back then was any better than what the British did.
YES, AND MANY INDIANS WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE CARRIBBEAN ISLANDS AND ESPECIALLY, MAURITIUS, BY THE BRITISH, DURING THE 1800'S, TO WORK ON THE SUGAR CANE FIELDS. THE BRITISH NAMED THESE INDIANS, THE " COOLIES " WHICH MEANS UNSKILLED CHEAP LABOUR WORKERS. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RELIGIONS IN MAURITIUS BUT MOST ARE HINDUS.
@@RS-ln3nsAs an Indian, this makes me really sad
You comment was really sad... and also quite informative
Also could you please turn off your capslock from the next time you type... because according to the rules of netiquette (internet-etiquette), typing with a capslock on, implies that you're shouting, either angrily or excitedly...
I know, for you it might look like a cool font type thing, but its quite odd tbh...
@@souptikchakraborty2004 NO, I WILL NOT BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD REASON WHY I USE CAPITAL LETTERS IN MY COMMENTS AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M SHOUTING. IF I WAS SHOUTING, I WOULD DEFINITELY, END MY COMMENTS WITH AN EXCLAMATION "❗" MARK WHICH EXPRESSES SHOUTING. USING CAP LETTERS ONLINE MAY MEAN SHOUTING BUT PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. YOU SHOULD ASK ME FIRST, WHY I USE IT IN MY COMMENTS, INSTEAD OF MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT I'M SHOUTING BECAUSE ONLY THEN YOU'LL FIND OUT THE TRUE REASON, WHY I USE IT.
@@RS-ln3ns hey, i wasn't trying to offend you dude....
Ok, tell me why you use caps
How would India be today without the western civilization values the British brought
Maybe like the UAE, Saudi Arabia.
@@myurinavaratnam3418 No it would be just as poor if not more cause India was wealthier than China after independence and is now a shithole in comparison, wonder why, probably have something to do with the people living there instead of an outside boogeyman.
Blaming others is pathetic when others suffered the same and got back on their feet without flooding youtube with these cringey videos and comments, improve yourself instead of whining.
We don't need what western has they wanted us go have deep search you will learn brother ❤
Fantastic video and brilliantly done explainer.
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for sharing something that we have known for a long time but is not well known outside india
Absolutely. Glad I can reach audiences outside of India! Thanks for your support.
Despite the staggering $45 trillion looted by the British 🇬🇧, India's unwavering spirit has propelled its economy to reach $3 trillion today. Remarkably, 🇮🇳India proudly secures its place among the top 5 global economies by GDP. This remarkable journey showcases India's resilience and unyielding determination to rise above adversity.
Britain did not loot 45 trillion that number is hypothetical if india had industrialized which it didn’t
That's just because your population was too overpopulated, billions of people contributing each one individual GDP per capita.
@@RaulGonzalez-sw5dn Britain looted what’s equivalent to $45 trillion in todays currency. Did we watch the same video?
@@mohamedsaleh7540Britain took what India was too weak to keep. Cry me another river snowflake
Yeah but GDP per capita is bottom 160! Making the indian people one of the poorest in the world.
I hope one day the government will get their act together....would still love to go and explore India.
The Indian subcontinent will rise again, stronger than ever. We still have the blood of those brilliant people in our veins. I'm a Bangladeshi and I believe in the resurrection of the glory in this region.
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
Hum... First you need to solve your internal issues :
- cancel the caste system, which creates a brain drain of smart indians to other places (like the US)
- more unity, less regional divisions
- pollution and infrastructure management (which China is doing, by building energy plants, bullet trains, highways, modern buildings, etc etc).
@@goofygrandlouis6296bs,china is far from managing pollution. It is second biggest polluter after USA.
infra is something government is working on tech is not a problem in india brain drain is a lot @@goofygrandlouis6296
First - we need more people like us to care enough to do something about it. Be homies.
I hope that India continues to flourish over the next few decades and finds its place as a preeminent economy and power once again; India is a natural ally for the United States. I was ignorant to the 35 million deaths caused by colonial rule -- this fact shocked me. I will continue to read about India to understand its history.
I recommend the podcast “Empire”
Lies
It's actually 100 million, by our estimates. He was being nice, saying 35 million
@@nicolkatanji1980my boy coping hard
India's population exploded under the Raj, going from about 100 million in 1700, to almost 500 million, by 1947. If you are going to blame them for 35 million deaths, then you must also give them credit for 350 million births.
The worst part is the amount of effort that so many British put into maintaining the lie that India was always like that. They have the audacity to imply the Indians should be grateful.
India 300 years ago was poorer than it is today. Dont be fooled by ego and patriotism. This video has a lot of bias.
@@Alejojojo6yeah, Brits were here 300 years ago that's why. Thanks for your input.
@@Alejojojo6 And that relative prosperity is no thanks to the british, and all thanks to Indians themselves. India is THE only post-colonial nation that has managed to stay a democracy and is a thriving nation, atleast on the Eurasian continent between Israel and South Korea. The natural fate for post-colonial countries can be witnessed in Africa.
At India's independence, british left India with per capita GDP equivalent to(and even lower in some parts like BIhar, which was historically the economic/cultural heartland of the region) that of sub-saharan africa, which has never been the case before in recorded history. It is precisely patriotism and our unique strength and perseverance that we are thriving as a country. Not bcz of some pasty tyrants of the past who couldn't even manage their own nations properly in the absence of such erstwhile tyranny.
@@Alejojojo6 Britain was poorer that's why it colonized and looted resources from India and many other countries.
@llamagaming8998 You are a fool.
Just to point out that JT Sunderland was an anti imperialist who lived during the time of the Raj, he wasnt describing what he saw and he wasnt a historian, he was writing specifically to porpagate a narrative.Its hard to tell what the state of India was pre colonization becausde it had already been colonized by the muhgals and, following that, was split up into smaller, independent kingdoms who were constantly at odds with one another from the Maratha Empire,the Skih empire and numerous others.. Indeed India as a unified country is a colonial invention, it was the British who fostered that sense of a unified country for its own administrative ends, it helps to extract worth when everyone is pulling in the same direction.
The video talks about Indias exports in textiles in the 17th centtury but it shows a map of 3 cities in 3 different kingdoms who would have considered themselves independent and separate at the time. By the end of the British Raj, British control extended over almost all of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Also the reason those trade routes developed for textiles? The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe in the 17th century to the Mughal court secured an accord (in the form of a farmān, or grant of privileges) by which the English secured the right to trade and to establish factories in return for becoming the virtual naval auxiliaries of the empire. Britain were chief exporters of goods from the continent although both the Dutch and the French mainained economic footholds in different strongholds.
So when you hear of India being this hugely successful nation prior to the British then are we talking about one of these smaller principalities or when they were ruled by their colonial overlords of the mughal empire? Its actually very hard to get a picture of how the country was doing overall as it was so fragmented ( its also impossible to get things like GDP from pre industrial nations so ignore that silly 30% of wolrd GDP that gets thrown around, that calculation is simply due to the fact that the continent had 30% of the worlds population. Look it up, Im not joking lol), this video portrays it as if it was one singular prosperous nation: it simply wasnt.
If you think about it, there were never more than 65,000 British troops in India at its peak, if you had a rich and prosperous nation with a cohesive national identity as portrayed in this video then India would have flicked off the British like a fly but they didnt. The fractious nature df the country allowed the British to negotiate, intimidate and collude with different kingdoms at different times for its own ends, something that was fairly easy to do as each principality was constantly jockeying for position against the others. If India had been this advanced collective civilization and a unified economic superpower with a strong national identity then no way do 65 thousand troops subdue a nation of 200 million people. It just isnt possible, native cooperation was key to British rule. It simply wouldnt have been possible without it, the Raj was facilitated by Indians themselves ( Notice the video skips over HOW the British took power....).
Collaboration from the disparate and autonomous native kingdoms on the continent was the only thing that made British rule possible and allowed them to consolidate their control of the country and become the preminent power in the region. Its actually an incredible achievement for such a tiny island nation which had a population of around 10 million people at the time. A fracrion of the size of India as a whole.
Just dont mention any of this to Indians, they will try and claim the Muhgal empire WAS a unified India because apparently some colonizers are better than others but the fact is that the new colonizers,the British, built their empire on the burnt foundations of the previous one lol
Read chinese and unbiased mughal accounts to understand what pre-colonial india looked like.
Excellent riposte - with facts. At independence in 1947 "India" was created but had nearly 300 princely states which were disempowered.
The effects of British colonialism have been reduced to a few main events in the eyes of mainstream discourse. I appreciate this video for going in-depth and covering the lesser known effects. As we currently see, once India reasserts itself and begins to recover from colonial hangover, it is able to recapture its position as one of the world's largest economies even from the clutches of former colonial masters.
Nope. We haven't recovered. We are still writing in English 🥴🥴🥴🥴
@@desiputtar89 Hey, the figure of 45 trillion dollars was calculated by a Marxist economist named UTSA Patnaik, using a flawed methodology of compounding the loot taken by the Britishers with a 5% interest rate. This method is inaccurate as the inflation rate in the 1950s was around 3.68%. Additionally, Patnaik arrived at a figure of 9 trillion pounds using this flawed method, which was then converted to dollars by multiplying it with 4.68. You can find these details in her article. Furthermore, Patnaik made an exaggerated claim that the British killed 1.8 billion people in India, which is obviously false. It's puzzling that channels like Vice and Wion omitted her outrageous claim of genocide. Unfortunately, spreading lies and misinformation is not uncommon in India. For instance, some stories claim that the Vikramaditya Empire controlled 40% of the world's land, or that India had airplanes 7000 years ago during the Vedic period. These are clearly baseless claims. There is also a story that Shivakar Talpade invented the airplane 8 years before the Wright Brothers, but that the British stole his idea and gave it to the Wright Brothers. India needs to stop perpetuating such false claims.
@@jeanettewee8805stop pasting the same comment again and again you troll. All serious historians are 'Marxist' of some sort. Stop trying to diminish what the British did. No need to be hung up on the actual figure. Even a single rupee taken is exploitation. Are you seriously saying the Brits 'administered' India out of benevolence? Are you stupid?
@@jeanettewee8805looks like a british cuck doesn’t like what it says in the video. I agree that you think that this is exaggerated to some extent, but it could be around a few trillion. You can’t believe that a country which had global share in world trade was reduced to shit and the generations of wealth that was accumulated over thousands of years was not even worth 45 trillion usd. I see how you try to discredit her by saying she’s a marxist woth delusional claims and by also saying this is common in india. This really says how much of a british sympathizer you are that you have to spam in every comment by sharing your inconclusive ideals of still trying to preserve the image of genocidal colonialists.
@@jeanettewee8805keep spamming keep crying
2:24 As an Indian I loved the way he referred India as “she/her” 🇮🇳
Why? Feminine pronouns are standard for referring to countries.
@@SohanDsouzabecause we treat our country as mother
@@swarnithhegde4679yeah mother india
@@swarnithhegde4679 what about UK THE ANTHEM GOD SAVE THE QUEEN the statue of liberty 🗽 is considered as she her
SOME PEOPLE REFER TO INDIA AS " MOTHER INDIA ".