What's new

Does Britain owe reparations to her former colonies?

But unfortunately, given the present condition of Pakistan! Even if we beg the British or Americans to come and takeover ... they'd refuse it ..

Why would they want to take it over and take on the cost and manpower to run it? Brits and Americans business interests can better be served through influence and economic clout. They aren't there to serve your interests, it's about making the lives of the British and their subjects more prosperous as it has ever been. Sorry Gunga Din but that's just the reality.
 
Durrani had both numeric as well as qualitative superiority over Marathas. The combined Muslim army was much larger than that of Marathas. Though the infantry of Marathas was organized along European lines and their army had some of the best French-made guns of the time, their artillery was static and lacked mobility against the fast-moving Afghan forces. The heavy mounted artillery of Afghans proved much better in the battlefield than the light artillery of Marathas

Numerical superiorty is very ambigious. While pashtuns will say it was 30 thousand odd ragtag soldiers against a highly superior battle hardened 1 lakh martha soldiers with more than 2 lakh helpers, indians have a very different version.you are quoting wikepdeia which is not an authentic source.anyone can go and edit its own version of panipat war.qualitively like I said earlier they had gathered finest of their soldiers, its grandeur rivalled those of akbars forces.the difference was abdali waited for marathas to take first step.marthas due to exhaustion fell for his trap.i have read intially marathas were calling the shots.however, their overconfidence and military acumen shown by abdali and his subordinate generals led to their outright victory.
 
The Desis are arguing with each other about India, it's Divide and Rule all over again ;-)

It always happens because Indians are still smarting over being part of Mughal then British empire, that's why you always start hearing about this Maratha rubbish as if to salve some bruised egos.

As for reparations themselves, that can only happen through power and military clout. That is how following Saddam's overthrow Iraq was made to pay reparations for the cost of rebuilding Iraq indirectly as contracts were mostly handed to US companies. Perhaps one day if India becomes powerful enough they will be able to demand reparations through force, until then they can keep whistling in the wind. Want the crown jewels back? Come and get them.
 
Numerical superiorty is very ambigious. While pashtuns will say it was 30 thousand odd ragtag soldiers against a highly superior battle hardened 1 lakh martha soldiers with more than 2 lakh helpers, indians have a very different version.you are quoting wikepdeia which is not an authentic source.anyone can go and edit its own version of panipat war.qualitively like I said earlier they had gathered finest of their soldiers, its grandeur rivalled those of akbars forces.the difference was abdali waited for marathas to take first step.marthas due to exhaustion fell for his trap.i have read intially marathas were calling the shots.however, their overconfidence and military acumen shown by abdali and his subordinate generals led to their outright victory.


Why don't you provide better website which contradicts whatever I have quoted. ? Most of the neutral websites says Afghans had a better fighting force and they had the numbers in favor of them. 72,000 afghan soldiers and 43,000 maratha soldiers.
The remaining maratha army were pilgrims consisted of women, children, and older people who go for pilgrimage. Its notable that the afgans forces captured 1000s women who were raped and sold in Afghanistan. Now, who goes for war with women by their side? If anything, the maratha army was overburdened with the pilgrims who had to be fed after the afghan seige. these marathas were farmers who had no experience in warfare. Durrani maintained a fine army which was not only had the numbers by their side but well trained waring tribesmen.
 
The problem with Maratha empire was that it was a predatory state.
It had two types of taxes.
Sardeshmukhi. It was 1/10th of produce. And was charged in areas wherein Maratha directly ruled and were responsible of law and order.
Chauth : It was 1/4th of produce. It was a kind of "hafta". It was levied on areas outside the direct control of Marathas wherein they were not responsible for law and order.

Maratha needed revenues to compete with the rich Mughals. But it was hardly a predatory state. The taxes were less harsh than under the Mughals & there was no religious tax. Anyway, the revenue system was inherited from Malik Amber (Ahmadnagar kingdom). The Marathas did not add anything extra in that.

Also,the farmers could pay the revenue in installments & if a there was a famine, the state offered loans to the farmers.



Some comments by contemporary historians:

Cosme da Guarda in "Life of the Celebrated Sevaji" says,

"Such was the good treatment Shivaji accorded to people and such was the honesty with which he observed the capitulations that none looked upon him without a feeling of love and confidence. By his people he was exceedingly loved. Both in matters of reward and punishment he was so impartial that while he lived he made no exception for any person; no merit was left unrewarded, no offence went unpunished; and this he did with so much care and attention that he specially charged his governors to inform him in writing of the conduct of his soldiers, mentioning in particular those who had distinguished themselves, and he would at once order their promotion, either in rank or in pay, according to their merit. He was naturally loved by all men of valor and good conduct."

Khafi Khan (a bitter critic of Shivaji) in 'Muntakhab-ul-Lubab' writes,

"Shivaji had always striven to maintain the honour of the people in his territories and was careful to maintain the honour of the women and children of Muhammadans when they fell into his hands. His injunctions upon this point were very strict",
 
It always happens because Indians are still smarting over being part of Mughal then British empire, that's why you always start hearing about this Maratha rubbish as if to salve some bruised egos.

As for reparations themselves, that can only happen through power and military clout. That is how following Saddam's overthrow Iraq was made to pay reparations for the cost of rebuilding Iraq indirectly as contracts were mostly handed to US companies. Perhaps one day if India becomes powerful enough they will be able to demand reparations through force, until then they can keep whistling in the wind. Want the crown jewels back? Come and get them.



Learning history and knowing stuff as it is not a crime. Im a fan of these wars and empires. Im not proud of mughals ruling India since they plundered Pakistan and converted people to Islam by force.

I know many jokers here will associate themselves with Mughals as if they are direct descendants of mughal dynasty. I can only laugh at them for their fake ego which makes them believe that they are superior to others and ruled undivided India. I despise such people. Go join the list, son.
 
Durrani had both numeric as well as qualitative superiority over Marathas. The combined Muslim army was much larger than that of Marathas. Though the infantry of Marathas was organized along European lines and their army had some of the best French-made guns of the time, their artillery was static and lacked mobility against the fast-moving Afghan forces. The heavy mounted artillery of Afghans proved much better in the battlefield than the light artillery of Marathas

You are right. Maratha infantry was superior, Norman Gash says it was equal to the British. The artillery was weaker.
 
When Ahmed shah durrani made the call for jihad he was joined by 15,000 baloch tribesman.
 
Why don't you provide better website which contradicts whatever I have quoted. ? Most of the neutral websites says Afghans had a better fighting force and they had the numbers in favor of them. 72,000 afghan soldiers and 43,000 maratha soldiers.
The remaining maratha army were pilgrims consisted of women, children, and older people who go for pilgrimage. Its notable that the afgans forces captured 1000s women who were raped and sold in Afghanistan. Now, who goes for war with women by their side? If anything, the maratha army was overburdened with the pilgrims who had to be fed after the afghan seige. these marathas were farmers who had no experience in warfare. Durrani maintained a fine army which was not only had the numbers by their side but well trained waring tribesmen.

On internet, their is a hardly a neutral version.it is either indians websites giving their version while pashtuns prop up theirs.Truth has to be somewhere in between.now if marathas had taken women and farmers that was a terrible mistake especially knowing the how afghan invaders usually operate.anyways, I myself dont know of any neutral source on this war.
 
On internet, their is a hardly a neutral version.it is either indians websites giving their version while pashtuns prop up theirs.Truth has to be somewhere in between.now if marathas had taken women and farmers that was a terrible mistake especially knowing the how afghan invaders usually operate.anyways, I myself dont know of any neutral source on this war.

Try James Grant Duff (History of the Marathas). It is there on Google books. Don't remember the volume in which it is covered though.
 
On internet, their is a hardly a neutral version.it is either indians websites giving their version while pashtuns prop up theirs.Truth has to be somewhere in between.now if marathas had taken women and farmers that was a terrible mistake especially knowing the how afghan invaders usually operate.anyways, I myself dont know of any neutral source on this war.



The marathas were overconfident that they will get support from Rajputs, Sikhs and Jatts in the name of Hindu. But, as history teaches us that Hindus are never a unified force. But, we Muslims always united in the name of Islam and its notable that tribes united from Baluchistan to Rohillas fought under one banner.
 
On internet, their is a hardly a neutral version.it is either indians websites giving their version while pashtuns prop up theirs.Truth has to be somewhere in between.now if marathas had taken women and farmers that was a terrible mistake especially knowing the how afghan invaders usually operate.anyways, I myself dont know of any neutral source on this war.

Older books from neutral sources pre-internet are probably your best bet, since the web there is quite a lot of history revisionism going on.
 
The marathas were overconfident that they will get support from Rajputs, Sikhs and Jatts in the name of Hindu. But, as history teaches us that Hindus are never a unified force. But, we Muslims always united in the name of Islam and its notable that tribes united from Baluchistan to Rohillas fought under one banner.

Unity between muslims is very overrated.infact, it was nadir shahs consistent plundering of delhi which weakened mughal empire to its core.india was never a single unified country as we know it now.imagine if european powers had got together as a single racial unit with similar religion, they would have rule the world till eternity.but that is not how it pans out.
 
Unity between muslims is very overrated.infact, it was nadir shahs consistent plundering of delhi which weakened mughal empire to its core.india was never a single unified country as we know it now.imagine if european powers had got together as a single racial unit with similar religion, they would have rule the world till eternity.but that is not how it pans out.


I don't know why we don't agree that marathas who weakened mughal empire. Lol. Maybe, if Indians are not part of this forum, we would have agreed I think. :D Aurangzeb fought a 22 year battle with marathas and lost thousands of his men and marathas who were relentless in taking back the ports they lost. At the end Aurangzeb went back to Delhi as a broken old man and died leaving mughal rule in chaos.
 
It always happens because Indians are still smarting over being part of Mughal then British empire, that's why you always start hearing about this Maratha rubbish as if to salve some bruised egos.

As for reparations themselves, that can only happen through power and military clout. That is how following Saddam's overthrow Iraq was made to pay reparations for the cost of rebuilding Iraq indirectly as contracts were mostly handed to US companies. Perhaps one day if India becomes powerful enough they will be able to demand reparations through force, until then they can keep whistling in the wind. Want the crown jewels back? Come and get them.

Sorry to say in the 100 years(1757-1857) Mughals were practically useless and didn't change anything as such.The Afghans,Marathas,Sikhs were the last kingdoms that British had to overthrow or be safe from to conquer the SC.
 
Is he abdali or durrani?

I don't know why we don't agree that marathas who weakened mughal empire. Lol. Maybe, if Indians are not part of this forum, we would have agreed I think. :D Aurangzeb fought a 22 year battle with marathas and lost thousands of his men and marathas who were relentless in taking back the ports they lost. At the end Aurangzeb went back to Delhi as a broken old man and died leaving mughal rule in chaos.

Causes of the Mughal Decline
Before turning to these last
years of the Mughal empire, it may be
useful to summarize what appear to
have been certain general causes of
Mughal decline, leaving aside such
specific causes as external invasions
and internal rebellions. One feature of
Islamic power in India, as elsewhere,
was the failure to make progress in
certain vital fields. For example, even
Akbar failed to see the possibilities in
the introduction of printing. The
scarcity of books resulted in
comparative ignorance, low standards
of education, and limitation of the
subjects of study. Because of this, the
governing classes were ignorant of
the affairs of the outside world. The
position becomes clear if we [[274]]
compare the books on India printed in
Europe during the eighteenth century
with the knowledge of the West
current in India. The interest on the
part of Europeans that led travelers
like Bernier to make reports on their
travels finds no parallel in Mughal
India. So far from being concerned
with Europe, the Mughals, after Ain-i-
Akbari, made no real addition to their
knowledge even of their own
dominions.
The stagnation visible in the
intellectual field was visible also in the
military sphere. Babur had introduced
gunpowder in India, but after him
there was no advance in military
equipment, although the organization
and discipline of forces had been
completely revolutionized in the West.
The Portuguese had brought ships on
which cannons were mounted, and
had thus introduced a new element
which made them masters of the
Indian Ocean. What was a fortified
wall round the country became a
highway, and opened up the empire to
those countries which had not
remained stagnant. Mughal
helplessness on the sea was obvious
from the days of Akbar. Their ships
could not sail to Mecca without a
safe-conduct permit from the
Portuguese. Sir Thomas Roe had
warned Jahangir that if Prince Shah
Jahan as governor of Gujarat turned
the English out, "then he must expect
we would do our justice upon the
seas." The failure of the Mughals to
develop a powerful navy and control
the seas surrounding their dominions
was a direct cause of their
replacement by an European power
having these advantages.
On land no real progress or
large-scale training of local personnel
in the use of artillery was made in
Mughal India, and the best they could
do was to hire foreigners for manning
the artillery. The military weakness
resulting from this was obvious, and
was clearly visible to foreign
observers. Bernier wrote in the early
years of Aurangzeb's reign:" I could
never see these soldiers, destitute of
order, and marching with the
irregularity of a herd of animals,
without reflecting upon the ease with
which five-and-twenty thousand of
our veterans from the army in
Flanders, commanded by Prince
Condé or Marshal Turenne would
overcome these armies, however
numerous." /10/ With this condition of
the Mughal army, the downfall of the
empire was only a question of time.
[[275]] Another factor which
contributed to the fall of the Mughal
empire was the moral decay of the
ruling classes. This was partly due to
the affluent standard of living
maintained by monarchs like Shah
Jahan and queens like Nur Jahan.
Ostentatious luxury became the
ambition of everyone who could afford
it, and the puritanical Aurangzeb's
attempts to arrest the tide were
without success. The evil had gone
too far and was only driven
underground, to reappear within ten
years of the emperor's death, in the
uncontrolled orgies of his grandson
Jahandar Shah. Perhaps Aurangzeb's
extreme asceticism and self-denial
only intensified the reaction of the
nobility. Many a Maratha hill fortress
captured after long and dreary siege
was lost because the Mughal
commander, unwilling to spend the
monsoon months in his lonely perch,
came down to the plains, while the
hardy Marathas, awaiting the
opportunity, moved in.
(Continue to 2nd post)
 
The moral decline of the nobility
showed itself in lack of discipline,
laziness, evasion of duties, and even
treacherous conduct. It also made
them rapacious and heartless in
dealing with the public. The
extravagant standards that the
Mughal bureaucrats tried to maintain
were not possible without corruption,
extortion, and the enrichment of the
officers at the expense of the state
and the people. These evils increased
as Mughal authority weakened, but
their seeds had been sown in earlier
days and were a natural result of the
efforts of the officers to maintain
standards beyond their means.
These were the basic factors
responsible for the downfall of the
Mughal empire, but others were
contributory. The fact that after the
death of Aurangzeb no ruler of real
vigor and resourcefulness came to the
throne made recovery of the lost
position almost impossible. Even
Aurangzeb's long life was an asset of
doubtful value in its last stages. He
drove himself hard and resolutely,
conscientiously performing his duties,
but at the age of ninety he was
subject to the laws governing all
human machines. When he died, his
son and successor Bahadur Shah was
already an old man of sixty. He began
well but was on the throne for barely
six years, and with his death a
disastrous chapter opened in Mughal
annals.
Directly related to the troubles of
this period was the absence of a well-
defined law of succession to ensure
the continuity of government. The
result was that each son of a
deceased king felt that he had [[276]]
an equal claim to the crown, and
succession to the throne was
invariably accompanied by bloody
warfare. The disaster was
compounded when the imperial
princes, who were often viceroys
governing vast territories, started
making secret pacts with soldiers to
ensure their support for the time when
the fateful struggle would begin. Soon
not only the imperial army but forces
external to the empire—the East India
Company, the Marathas, the Sikhs—
were being used by claimants to the
throne of Delhi, as well as to control
of the provincial kingdoms. The
results were fatal.
The moral decline of the nobility
showed itself in lack of discipline,
laziness, evasion of duties, and even
treacherous conduct. It also made
them rapacious and heartless in
dealing with the public. The
extravagant standards that the
Mughal bureaucrats tried to maintain
were not possible without corruption,
extortion, and the enrichment of the
officers at the expense of the state
and the people. These evils increased
as Mughal authority weakened, but
their seeds had been sown in earlier
days and were a natural result of the
efforts of the officers to maintain
standards beyond their means.
These were the basic factors
responsible for the downfall of the
Mughal empire, but others were
contributory. The fact that after the
death of Aurangzeb no ruler of real
vigor and resourcefulness came to the
throne made recovery of the lost
position almost impossible. Even
Aurangzeb's long life was an asset of
doubtful value in its last stages. He
drove himself hard and resolutely,
conscientiously performing his duties,
but at the age of ninety he was
subject to the laws governing all
human machines. When he died, his
son and successor Bahadur Shah was
already an old man of sixty. He began
well but was on the throne for barely
six years, and with his death a
disastrous chapter opened in Mughal
annals.
Directly related to the troubles of
this period was the absence of a well-
defined law of succession to ensure
the continuity of government. The
result was that each son of a
deceased king felt that he had [[276]]
an equal claim to the crown, and
succession to the throne was
invariably accompanied by bloody
warfare. The disaster was
compounded when the imperial
princes, who were often viceroys
governing vast territories, started
making secret pacts with soldiers to
ensure their support for the time when
the fateful struggle would begin. Soon
not only the imperial army but forces
external to the empire—the East India
Company, the Marathas, the Sikhs—
were being used by claimants to the
throne of Delhi, as well as to control
of the provincial kingdoms. The
results were fatal.
Source:columbia.edu
[MENTION=130266]RAW[/MENTION]deal that will help
 
The Mughals achieved many successes against the Marathas, but these proved temporary. Often the forts won at great cost and after prolonged effort, would be lost through the treachery or the incompetence of the Muslim commanders. But even though Aurangzeb had conquered most of the Maratha forts, he was unable to suppress the powerful roving Maratha bands which challenged Mughal authority whenever they got an opportunity. In 1699, they carried their first raid in Malwa. Four years later they disrupted the communications between northern and southern India, and in 1706 they sacked Baroda. After Aurangzeb's death, the Marathas became a major factor in the downfall of the Mughal empire.
 
There you go. From the same website you provided. Its pretty thick to ignore and chose what suits us.
 
I propose Britain pays reparations to the following proportion.

1 Maratha = 5 Parathas

Cost of 5 parathas is roughly £2 plus £1 for mango pickle.

So let's say £3 per head for each Maratha, therefore given the population of Maharashtra is about 10 million, a sum of £30 million should satisfy the Indian govt.
 
There you go. From the same website you provided. Its pretty thick to ignore and chose what suits us.
Yeah, the kettle calling pot black.what the source is clearly mentioned is that the seeds of mughal disintegration were some of its doings, a part of was nadir shahs incessant invasions, and other whole lot of factors.after Aurangzeb's death, they were mere pushovers and it wsnt surprising that maratha kingdom reared its head when mughal empire was at its lowest ebb and it was just a matter of time before they were replaced by other powers.rather than picking a solitary one liner from the whole essay, try to read the essay first.
 
Yeah, the kettle calling pot black.what the source is clearly mentioned is that the seeds of mughal disintegration were some of its doings, a part of was nadir shahs incessant invasions, and other whole lot of factors.after Aurangzeb's death, they were mere pushovers and it wsnt surprising that maratha kingdom reared its head when mughal empire was at its lowest ebb and it was just a matter of time before they were replaced by other powers.rather than picking a solitary one liner from the whole essay, try to read the essay first.


Did Aurangazeb won anything? Nope. His 25 year old war with Marathas caused him so much. He lost more than 100,000 men in the war. The mughal empire went into almost bankruptcy in the war. At the end of the war, he left 9 crore rupees in the treasury which subsequently left the all the reasons you have posted. These were Aurangzeb 's final words when he died fighting in deccan region.




Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707. "



He caused all these by fighting with Marathas unnecessarily and left the treasury with very less money. Had, he let it go, mughals would have maintained a proper army which would have defeated shah who plundered Delhi.
 
Did Aurangazeb won anything? Nope. His 25 year old war with Marathas caused him so much. He lost more than 100,000 men in the war. The mughal empire went into almost bankruptcy in the war. At the end of the war, he left 9 crore rupees in the treasury which subsequently left the all the reasons you have posted. These were Aurangzeb 's final words when he died fighting in deccan region.




Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707. "



He caused all these by fighting with Marathas unnecessarily and left the treasury with very less money. Had, he let it go, mughals would have maintained a proper army which would have defeated shah who plundered Delhi.

Bhai mere, where did I doubt the greatness of maratha kingdom.they were great warriors.mei bas itna keh rha tha ki mughals ko giraane mei aur bhi bohut sei wajuhaat hei jin mei shayad martha ka ubarna sare farist rha hoga.
 
Bhai mere, where did I doubt the greatness of maratha kingdom.they were great warriors.mei bas itna keh rha tha ki mughals ko giraane mei aur bhi bohut sei wajuhaat hei jin mei shayad martha ka ubarna sare farist rha hoga.



I don't deny the other reasons. Its important that we learn the history as it is and not be filled with fake pride which many of our Muslim community have been doing. Yes, Mughals were great, but, I have nothing to be associated with them and I am not proud of their many atrocities against our forefathers either. I see many posters here associate themselves with mughals which makes me laugh at these poor souls.
 
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” -Winston Churchill
 
So in other words we owe them a lot, but Indians don't owe the British Empire a lot? Double standard, much?



They were hardly French, though they spoke it. They were second-generation Norsemen, just like the British kinds they replaced.

Sad that their refinement did not extend to avoidance of a policy of punitive mass extermination in England. Have a look at their human rights record in the Crusader states they founded too.

Did you give citizenship and equal rights to the Indians? Britania prospered (with more trade flowing in than out) while India declined.


300px-1_AD_to_2003_AD_Historical_Trends_in_global_distribution_of_GDP_China_India_Western_Europe_USA_Middle_East.png


I was talking about the language, not the normen themselves.
 
I don't deny the other reasons. Its important that we learn the history as it is and not be filled with fake pride which many of our Muslim community have been doing. Yes, Mughals were great, but, I have nothing to be associated with them and I am not proud of their many atrocities against our forefathers either. I see many posters here associate themselves with mughals which makes me laugh at these poor souls.

Dude,people converted to islam because it brought in some obvious previlges and benefits with it.infact earlier the religion of the emperor or the king used to be the state religion and everyone one was forced to follow the same.anyways are you a muslim by choice or compulsion??
 
More likely that the British one-percenters just want to carry on keeping the loot which their ancestors ripped out of the misery of the colonised peoples.


Of course. No-one is suggesting that the general British masses were responsible for colonising the sub-Continent, other parts of the world, or of perpetrating the mass atrocities and injustices which occurred. They, too, suffered under the ruling elites excessive greed and corruption - in fact, the poor still bear the burden of victimisation by the established order. Nothing really changes, because societies, communities and individuals refuse to learn from history.

When examining nations and their historical - or even current - record, we need to set aside all nationalism or tribal affiliations. There is no possibility of moving forward as a species, if we continue using our emotional attachments to blind us to the truth - being objective is key. Humanity should precede nationality.
 
Why should they apologise? India should take steps to make its country better instead of asking for and begging for aid from the UK in this way
 
Why should they apologise? India should take steps to make its country better instead of asking for and begging for aid from the UK in this way
No one is asking for Aid. An apology will do. Plus all those precious pieces of art they stole worth billions of dollars, sending them back would also do.
 
Modi asked for aid

Also, no, it is the UK's now. Should have protected it
There are so many international laws on protection of cultural property. Geneva convention, Hague convention, couple of UN conventions. Give them a read before making a comment like "should have protected them"
 
Of course. No-one is suggesting that the general British masses were responsible for colonising the sub-Continent, other parts of the world, or of perpetrating the mass atrocities and injustices which occurred. They, too, suffered under the ruling elites excessive greed and corruption - in fact, the poor still bear the burden of victimisation by the established order.

Sure. I am just two generations out of the fields. My father's ancestors would have suffered in the Irish Potato Famine too.
 
Yeah, the Raj created a typhoon and a fungal blight just to kill as many people as it could.

As for the series of famines across India in 1940 and 1941 that were dealt with successfully - that was just to set the Bengalis up so they could be knocked down.

The democratically-elected Indian officials in the other provinces who hoarded food when the Japanese invaded Burma and bombed Calcutta had nothing to do with it, of course. Never mind that when the hoarding was identified, a quarter-million tons of rice and a quarter-million tons of wheat were sent to Bengal from the other provinces and from Ceylon.

It was all the fault of the genocidal British.

Ah yes. The power of mock hyperbole to belittle and wish away all the REAL sins and injustices never fails.

I was disappointed to see you did not ascribe some of the blame to the sturdy Greeks who ate all the grains. I mean the British are not completely at fault here.
 
Ah yes. The power of mock hyperbole to belittle and wish away all the REAL sins and injustices never fails.

I felt that a ridiculously hyperbolic statement begged a ridiculously hyperbolic response.

Where the British Army did exacerbate the Famine was the scorched-earth policy in Bengal, destroying the bridges, railway lines and trucks to prevent the Japanese from taking them. This loss of infrastructure hampered the relief effort to move those half-million tons of food.
 
The power of mock hyperbole to belittle and wish away all the REAL sins and injustices never fails.

Indeed.

To be sure, the causes of the famine are contested and there is a particular lively debate around whether there was in fact a food shortage within Bengal, especially in the aftermath of Amartya Sen’s classic work – Poverty and Famines. Some have also pointed to the role of the provincial government, comprised of Indians at this point, to hoarders, traders and speculators.

Yet, it is hard to deny that there was a certain callousness in the British response. This comes out clearly in Lord Wavell’s frustrated correspondence with Churchill. (Churchill had of course pinned the blame of the famine on Indians themselves, because they 'breed like rabbits'). Wavell had become Viceroy of India in 1943.

‘I feel that the vital problems of India are being treated by H.M.G [Her Majesty’s Government] with neglect, even sometimes with hostility and contempt’, he bluntly wrote to Churchill in 1944. He continued, ‘In spite of the lesson of the Bengal famine, I have had during the last nine months literally to fight with all the words I could command, sometimes almost intemperate, to secure food imports’.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">if you'll forgive me for the massive thread, i'd like to talk about an important moment in world history that i wish more people knew about.</p>— Chloi (@_chloi) <a href="https://twitter.com/_chloi/status/899073567731597313">20 August 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
The british set divide and rule policy to extend their rule further which is still being followed in India.. Also the dravidians and aryans still have the differences... The imperialist rule was the worst thing in the world, but now to get back the country from the current looters who save money for their next 100 generations is much more harder than the actual freedom fought against britishers.. india and pak have people in huge numbers now but most of them are kept to think about their next meal or how much can they save for their children in this competitive world and not about ruling in their country which is a major spinning wheel for the corrupted politicians.. british looted a lot but left a country which is india and pakistan, after 70 years of independence still not able build a prosperous country and blaming others to hide their incompetency and corruption is simply brainwashing people to believe that british owe reparations... The actual debate should be does the INC, BJP, PML-N, PPP, owe reparations for their 70 year corrupted rule - YES..
 
Back
Top