The larcenies of the Brits are known to all. There is little left to know. But I did find something in Dalrymple's "The Anarchy" which is worth mentioning. On page 411, he quotes a research done in Aiigarh Univ which found that "the Mughal state was unusually extractive and appropriated 56.7 per cent of the total produce". Place this beside Mr. Tharoor's estimate that India's GDP during that period was 24% of the world (same as that of the USA today), a question begs to be asked: What was that enormous revenue being spent on? Certainly not a penny on education - the sine qua non of progress. A Brit king had set up Eton College in the 1440s using money from his coffer. Harrow was set up in the 1570s. Oxford, Camridge even earlier. Result was that the society in that cold gray land, as Mr. Tharoor describes it, produced luminaries like Locke, Bacon, Newton, et al in the 1600s. Come the 1700s, while the Enlightenment lit up that land, the "vast, mighty and magnificent empire", as Mr Tharoor describes India in his book, was but little changed from the 1200s. Blaming the likes of Mr Mir Jafar is our opium, our fall guys. It allows us to wallow in the comfort of victimhood. It encourages us to waste our time in looking for villains, not for causes. What we need to do is to look back, retrospect and identify the CAUSES which led to our downfall. There are countries in our sector of the globe who have done that. The results are there for all to see.
No one plays victim hood in india. But we will remember our past and wont forget. Mughal empire definitely led India to stagnant path. And invested hugely on wars . But Indian public weren't in dire poverty facing famines after famines like in british days. Why? reason is Population was low and India had massive lands available not even cleared for agriculture. The taxes were high but Mughals had to shift farmers to newer lands clean the forest and provide them irrigation , so they produced enuf to pay taxes easily and even maintain food for themselves. There was no hereditary Landlordism which imposed by british and became major cause of poverty and oppression. Land belong to the empire and Empire use to provide relief on taxes in case of drought etc. In case of crop failure too state heard the farmers and provided relief. in case of british Permanent settlement there was no hearing , there was absentee landlordism which crushed farmers, And peasant were oppressed brtually tortured to extract taxes. In one case Dist collector asked superiors that nothing has grown in that season due to droughts , so peasants wont able to pay, Superiors asked him to even cut the grasses and taken it as Revenue. British definitely moved ahead with education and rationality but it spread all over europe. These kind of renaissance have happened in different period in in different regions in history. Like Muslims had golden period under abbasids. but allso fall down later. Europe have been under this golden period for 500 years. But now other civilizations r rising again. Example is China and India. so do u want china to do the same as Brits to europe and all?? Shasi has wrote a good book for indians to understadn our past and be ready to tackle Imperialism. be strong be united . If u r from pakistan , well Pakistan is still a colony. so dont talk with pakistani mindset here
@@GuzzarAwan The US corporations decided to abandon local workforce and move production of goods and services to China and India for cheaper labor which is what led to the rise of these two countries in the last few decades. Shashi is not a historian per se, and his claim about India's GDP of 24% has been called into question by actual historians.
@@srikanths5178 Focussing on GDP and economics alone is a completely stupid paradigm of discussion, or at least a limited one. The genocide of entire towns and villages and destruction of native systems to facilitate that is more fundamental and significant to the whole issue. It was not a conquest, but well-planned annihilation.
@@parjanyashukla176 Yes, GDP and Economics is a superficial if not a stupid paradigm of discussion. The problem is some Indians, particularly the ruling class, were complicit without whose help the Brits couldn't have committed all the atrocities. The notion that somehow everything was fine until the Brits arrived on the scene is preposterous. You could easily find examples of Maharajas who lived in opulence while starving the masses they ruled over. Brits further exploited the extant divisions within the society. after they arrived on the scene. People like Tharoor conveniently ignore this reality and like to squarely blame the British for every ills plaguing the country.
No one really took on the British Empire especially not the colonies except USA. It was only after World War 2 caused by Germany that lead to the decline of the British Empire. The crown wasn't actually any worse compared to the past rulers of the colonies.
Talk about racism: it does exist in India, very much within/between communities as well as @work, in every province too. It's a poison that can only be used or chosen not to be, by each from his own upbringing,attitude & moral atonement. It's high time we stopped discussions about the long ago British rule et al, & try to induce,inculcate good sense, ethics, good morals, into India's Indians in every interior part of the country. Colonial BS is irrelevant today,we have so much to do as far as the justice system goes.There are innocent Indians being victimized in rural India & other parts, the powerful politicians & their kingpins are ruthless. There is a lot of work to correct within India,among the rogue polticians first,bring them to pay the price for crimes committed & not let them walk scot-free just cos they hold political posts....
The best example of how the word took on the British empire comes from China, that is why it wasn't invited to this talk. After the century of humiliation the Chinese had a plan, what a beautiful plan. I grew up with this strategy to counter the 'humiliation' and I knew something was cooking, but didn't have the slightest inkling of what was it. When I realized what was the plan and found both UK and US didn't suspect it was coming, when they felt the jolt it was far too late and I was the happiest to see how a civilized human become an animal and the British went without food (thee tomatoes each and five chilies in total.
When British East Company started to colonize India, local political scene was full of chaos and anarchy. Mughals, Maharajas ( former governors of Mughals), Mararthas and Sikhs were fighting like dogs. Law and order situation was very very bad. Looting and plundering was very common. Britain ( although they came as colonizers) immediately stabilised law and order situation. Britain's occupation of India doesn't fulfil the definition of colonisation.They only took political control of Indian sub-continent, they didn't make huge European settlements. So local Indians were indirect beneficiaries of their reforms. Yes, pace of progress was slow but it was not negative. India gained a lot from a superior administration /governance system. So far as foreign element in political power was concerned, India already had taste of foreign rulers. Turkish speaking Dehli Sultanate and Mughals were non-native kings. Problem is that nobody questions the palanquins of Mughals or other non-white kings but if a video depicts any British official sitting in a man-driven carriage, everyone starts talking about slavery. It is all Psychological. Britain gave huge respect to Nizam and many other Maharajas. So far as horse and saddle relationship was concerned, Britain had already started to offer leadership positions to Indian people. Allowing Indians into local and provincial councils, Federal legislature, Civil and Military beaurcracy, and local judiciary should refute all such claims of racism and apartheid at least in the case of British rule in India. It is intellectual dishonesty to discredit those who gave them parliaments, Acts, Military Codes, Railways, Hospitals and numerous other institutions.
Those who are impressed by Mr Tharoor's words at 35:00 please search "The Economic Time" (of India) with the words "Tharoor's attempt to absolve Hinduism ..........".
so u accept urself as shudra to British white folks. u r defending british here. BTW ur name suggest u to be Moslem why r u so much concerned to defend the british racism ??
What did Mr Tharoor say at 35:00? The Brits were racist and we are not? We didn't even allow our own kind into our homes or our places of worship, and, god forbid, they touch our food.
so u accept Brits as ur master. we know lot of Ppl like u we now a days called Coconut or Brown coolie , use to collaborated with brits to allow them to continue their colonial enterprise. U can serve brits even today very well. Racism is Definitely a global phenomena. But do it in ur home. Dont come to my home and be racist and approve it by saying i m also racist.
Completely false equivalence that makes no sense whatsoever. Indic peoples didn't think of themselves as a "single kind" at the first place. It was a tiny little world, a microcosm of its own before the British era. It's today that you conclude that "Indians were all of the same kind" - no that wasn't true.
The larcenies of the Brits are known to all. There is little left to know. But I did find something in Dalrymple's "The Anarchy" which is worth mentioning. On page 411, he quotes a research done in Aiigarh Univ which found that "the Mughal state was unusually extractive and appropriated 56.7 per cent of the total produce". Place this beside Mr. Tharoor's estimate that India's GDP during that period was 24% of the world (same as that of the USA today), a question begs to be asked: What was that enormous revenue being spent on? Certainly not a penny on education - the sine qua non of progress.
A Brit king had set up Eton College in the 1440s using money from his coffer. Harrow was set up in the 1570s. Oxford, Camridge even earlier. Result was that the society in that cold gray land, as Mr. Tharoor describes it, produced luminaries like Locke, Bacon, Newton, et al in the 1600s. Come the 1700s, while the Enlightenment lit up that land, the "vast, mighty and magnificent empire", as Mr Tharoor describes India in his book, was but little changed from the 1200s.
Blaming the likes of Mr Mir Jafar is our opium, our fall guys. It allows us to wallow in the comfort of victimhood. It encourages us to waste our time in looking for villains, not for causes. What we need to do is to look back, retrospect and identify the CAUSES which led to our downfall. There are countries in our sector of the globe who have done that. The results are there for all to see.
No one plays victim hood in india. But we will remember our past and wont forget. Mughal empire definitely led India to stagnant path. And invested hugely on wars . But Indian public weren't in dire poverty facing famines after famines like in british days. Why? reason is Population was low and India had massive lands available not even cleared for agriculture. The taxes were high but Mughals had to shift farmers to newer lands clean the forest and provide them irrigation , so they produced enuf to pay taxes easily and even maintain food for themselves. There was no hereditary Landlordism which imposed by british and became major cause of poverty and oppression. Land belong to the empire and Empire use to provide relief on taxes in case of drought etc. In case of crop failure too state heard the farmers and provided relief. in case of british Permanent settlement there was no hearing , there was absentee landlordism which crushed farmers, And peasant were oppressed brtually tortured to extract taxes. In one case Dist collector asked superiors that nothing has grown in that season due to droughts , so peasants wont able to pay, Superiors asked him to even cut the grasses and taken it as Revenue.
British definitely moved ahead with education and rationality but it spread all over europe. These kind of renaissance have happened in different period in in different regions in history. Like Muslims had golden period under abbasids. but allso fall down later.
Europe have been under this golden period for 500 years. But now other civilizations r rising again. Example is China and India.
so do u want china to do the same as Brits to europe and all?? Shasi has wrote a good book for indians to understadn our past and be ready to tackle Imperialism. be strong be united . If u r from pakistan , well Pakistan is still a colony. so dont talk with pakistani mindset here
Oo😮orrg❤🎉4q e4
@@GuzzarAwan The US corporations decided to abandon local workforce and move production of goods and services to China and India for cheaper labor
which is what led to the rise of these two countries in the last few decades. Shashi is not a historian per se, and his claim about India's GDP of 24% has been called into question by actual historians.
@@srikanths5178
Focussing on GDP and economics alone is a completely stupid paradigm of discussion, or at least a limited one.
The genocide of entire towns and villages and destruction of native systems to facilitate that is more fundamental and significant to the whole issue. It was not a conquest, but well-planned annihilation.
@@parjanyashukla176 Yes, GDP and Economics is a superficial if not a stupid paradigm of discussion. The problem is some Indians, particularly the ruling class, were complicit without whose help the Brits couldn't have committed all the atrocities. The notion that somehow everything was fine until the Brits arrived on the scene is preposterous. You could easily find examples of Maharajas who lived in opulence while starving the masses they ruled over. Brits further exploited the extant divisions within the society. after they arrived on the scene. People like Tharoor conveniently ignore this reality and like to squarely blame the British for every ills plaguing the country.
No one really took on the British Empire especially not the colonies except USA. It was only after World War 2 caused by Germany that lead to the decline of the British Empire. The crown wasn't actually any worse compared to the past rulers of the colonies.
Talk about racism: it does exist in India, very much within/between communities as well as @work, in every province too. It's a poison that can only be used or chosen not to be, by each from his own upbringing,attitude & moral atonement. It's high time we stopped discussions about the long ago British rule et al, & try to induce,inculcate good sense, ethics, good morals, into India's Indians in every interior part of the country. Colonial BS is irrelevant today,we have so much to do as far as the justice system goes.There are innocent Indians being victimized in rural India & other parts, the powerful politicians & their kingpins are ruthless. There is a lot of work to correct within India,among the rogue polticians first,bring them to pay the price for crimes committed & not let them walk scot-free just cos they hold political posts....
The best example of how the word took on the British empire comes from China, that is why it wasn't invited to this talk. After the century of humiliation the Chinese had a plan, what a beautiful plan. I grew up with this strategy to counter the 'humiliation' and I knew something was cooking, but didn't have the slightest inkling of what was it. When I realized what was the plan and found both UK and US didn't suspect it was coming, when they felt the jolt it was far too late and I was the happiest to see how a civilized human become an animal and the British went without food (thee tomatoes each and five chilies in total.
When British East Company started to colonize India, local political scene was full of chaos and anarchy. Mughals, Maharajas ( former governors of Mughals), Mararthas and Sikhs were fighting like dogs. Law and order situation was very very bad. Looting and plundering was very common. Britain ( although they came as colonizers) immediately stabilised law and order situation. Britain's occupation of India doesn't fulfil the definition of colonisation.They only took political control of Indian sub-continent, they didn't make huge European settlements. So local Indians were indirect beneficiaries of their reforms. Yes, pace of progress was slow but it was not negative. India gained a lot from a superior administration /governance system. So far as foreign element in political power was concerned, India already had taste of foreign rulers. Turkish speaking Dehli Sultanate and Mughals were non-native kings. Problem is that nobody questions the palanquins of Mughals or other non-white kings but if a video depicts any British official sitting in a man-driven carriage, everyone starts talking about slavery. It is all Psychological. Britain gave huge respect to Nizam and many other Maharajas. So far as horse and saddle relationship was concerned, Britain had already started to offer leadership positions to Indian people. Allowing Indians into local and provincial councils, Federal legislature, Civil and Military beaurcracy, and local judiciary should refute all such claims of racism and apartheid at least in the case of British rule in India. It is intellectual dishonesty to discredit those who gave them parliaments, Acts, Military Codes, Railways, Hospitals and numerous other institutions.
Respected, Without Mr Tariq Ali ,its an incomplete discussion
Those who are impressed by Mr Tharoor's words at 35:00 please search "The Economic Time" (of India) with the words "Tharoor's attempt to absolve Hinduism ..........".
so u accept urself as shudra to British white folks. u r defending british here. BTW ur name suggest u to be Moslem why r u so much concerned to defend the british racism ??
What did Mr Tharoor say at 35:00? The Brits were racist and we are not? We didn't even allow our own kind into our homes or our places of worship, and, god forbid, they touch our food.
so u accept Brits as ur master. we know lot of Ppl like u we now a days called Coconut or Brown coolie , use to collaborated with brits to allow them to continue their colonial enterprise. U can serve brits even today very well. Racism is Definitely a global phenomena. But do it in ur home. Dont come to my home and be racist and approve it by saying i m also racist.
Completely false equivalence that makes no sense whatsoever. Indic peoples didn't think of themselves as a "single kind" at the first place. It was a tiny little world, a microcosm of its own before the British era.
It's today that you conclude that "Indians were all of the same kind" - no that wasn't true.
Man destroyed before it even started
Both Fitzwilliam Darcy and Bingley probably got their money from the
Colonies.
Bingley were in trade, not Darcy.
Still they inglorius yuk has not said sorry to anyone.
🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱❤❤❤
Mr sasi can start decolonisation by stop speaking the language of his colonizers .
language doesnt have to do anything with colonisation, perhaps jaishankar can start wearing like mahtma gandhi rather than suits and boots
The English chap can’t speak Hindi so of course Sashi has to speak Hindi!
I meant English!
@@rakeshkrishnan1099 Without English a unified India wouldn't have been possible.
@@vijayvijay4123
Thats just an assumption, may be or maybe not but under colonisation india did suffer a lot