Does Britain owe reparations to her former colonies?

[Gabbar Singh]

A recent debate at the Oxford Union.

Dr Shashi Tharoor MP speaking for the motion:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f7CW7S0zxv4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The rest of the videos on this debate can be found here.

https://www.youtube.com/user/OxfordUnion/videos

 

[endymion248]

I'd argue that, without Britain, India would never have existed as a centralized entity like they do. They were never really unified in their whole history. Even in big empires like the Maurya, its hold on feudal entities was tenuous at best. So, India definitely benefitted from the British Raj (and that's discounting modernization like railways, canals and GT road).

 

[hussain123]

I'd argue that, without Britain, India would never have existed as a centralized entity like they do. They were never really unified in their whole history. Even in big empires like the Maurya, its hold on feudal entities was tenuous at best. So, India definitely benefitted from the British Raj (and that's discounting modernization like railways, canals and GT road).

Agree here.their would have been no india or pakistan if britiishers hadnt rule indian subcontinent. Infact india would itself have constituted of many big and small nation states like western countries.both contemporary india and pakistan owe their existence to british.

 

[msaaim89]

Agree here.their would have been no india or pakistan if britiishers hadnt rule indian subcontinent. Infact india would itself have constituted of many big and small nation states like western countries.both contemporary india and pakistan owe their existence to british.

Is there anything wrong with having lots of smaller states?

 

[hussain123]

Is there anything wrong with having lots of smaller states?

Big and small in terms of size and population, like the difference between france and belgium.

 

[Deosai]

Agree here.their would have been no india or pakistan if britiishers hadnt rule indian subcontinent. Infact india would itself have constituted of many big and small nation states like western countries.both contemporary india and pakistan owe their existence to british.

Yeah, if the treaty of Amritsar wouldn't have happened in colonial times then there wouldn't have been a dogra state either, there would be no unified princely state of J&K

 

[hussain123]

Yeah, if the treaty of Amritsar wouldn't have happened in colonial times then there wouldn't have been a dogra state either, there would be no unified princely state of J&K

Tragedy with kashmir is that it always found itself at the wrong place at the wrong moment with the wrong leaders leading it to wonger directions.irony is that kashmir would have been an independent or a vassal state with allegiance to pakistan had pakistan not made the cardinal mistake of attacking kashmir with armed tribals thereby playing into the hands of jl nehru.

 

[RWAC]

I don't buy the argument about railways, canals, and other infrastructure.

It is imperative to separate the physical, mental and emotional suffering of people from the physical infrastructure that British built. Mind you, this was for their own benefit, and not out of largesse for the Indians, using Indian taxpayer money. The railways were made to ship raw materials to ports for export to England.

I see it no different than a slave-owner claiming he brought slaves to prosperous America and fed them and kept them alive, otherwise they might have died of some disease or famine in Africa. If slavery was a horrible practice, colonialism too was crippling on the people who were colonized.

Forget everything, but just the sheer callous and racist attitude during the Bengal famine is enough to assert that the British destroyed the local population by choice and will.

The dollar (or pound) amount of reparations is irrelevant. What matters is for the British to have the guts to admit the horrors they committed and say sorry (like Tharoor said), instead of shamelessly gloating that they brought "civilization" to the world.

 

[Deosai]

Tragedy with kashmir is that it always found itself at the wrong place at the wrong moment with the wrong leaders leading it to wonger directions.irony is that kashmir would have been an independent or a vassal state with allegiance to pakistan had pakistan not made the cardinal mistake of attacking kashmir with armed tribals thereby playing into the hands of jl nehru.

It's a myth that Pakistan attacked it, the rebelion started by locals in poonch and then Pukhtun tribes went to go assist them followed by Pak troops, but some of those Laskhars started looting and forgot the end goal which resulted in losing the main valley, the liberation mission was the right way to go about it, like how India annexed so many states such as Hyderabad

http://www.tehelka.com/2013/02/nehr...se-it-would-have-strengthened-pakistans-case/

India and the media keeps recycling the same myths that have been debunked

 

[justarslan]

Yes, Brits owe reparations to us Mughals for taking our Empire and giving this foolish and failed system of democracy to people of South Asia.

 

[PCP_1]

Canada, Australia etc who moved on seem to be doing pretty well, its just the non white people who always had feudal, tribal, religious usw differences that seem to be having problems.

 

[Deosai]

Canada, Australia etc who moved on seem to be doing pretty well, its just the non white people who always had feudal, tribal, religious usw differences that seem to be having problems.

Canada and Australia were founded by settler colonialists and those people descend from them, just look at the native Americans and aboriginals, they're in a very poor state

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Canada, Australia etc who moved on seem to be doing pretty well, its just the non white people who always had feudal, tribal, religious usw differences that seem to be having problems.

Agreed. While countries like Canada, Australia, Nz have moved on and in fact are developed nations, people of subcontinent have totally messed up and blaming Brits for their situation.

 

[Thivagar]

They gave us cricket and a language that I can use to get girls. That is enough for me. I already feel bad for the white kids when every professors blame every white country ever to exist. I was joking about the girls.

 

[Jadz]

Fantastic talk by Shashi Tharoor, was truly informative and inspirational - the sub-Continent is in dire need of more such leaders and speakers.

What matters more than financial reparations, is acknowledgement of historical wrongs. Admission of past injustices helps both the perpetrators and victims of them: the perpetrators learn from their mistakes, crimes and offences, to the extent (hopefully) that they resolve never to repeat them (as with Germany), whilst the victims are given the justice they sought and deserved.

The fact that Britain has not apologised for its terrible colonial record, leads one to the inevitable conclusion:

a) the ruling elites and established order believe the 'benefits' of their colonial past far outweigh its disasters - for those colonised, who, apparently, ought to be grateful that Britain 'civilised' them and taught them 'democracy' - and
b) these elites persist in the belief that intervention, interference, meddling - call it what you will - in foreign lands is essential, for the 'benefit' of the peoples who live there, so that order, 'human rights' 'democracy' or 'freedom' are restored. In truth, as we know, such interventions are self-serving, all about promoting 'national interests' and furthering political agendas.

Thus, unless, until, former colonisers acknowledge the injustices of the past, historical wrongs will never be righted, but they will be repeated. Ad infinitum.

 

[PCP_1]

Canada and Australia were founded by settler colonialists and those people descend from them, just look at the native Americans and aboriginals, they're in a very poor state

Yes but their situation is different as they are minorities (thanks to the whites) and are still under the rule of the invaders. However their situation is improving as many from the opposing side are fighting for their rights and each new generation takes off the shackles of tradition, pride and general stuborness and try to intergrate into the current climate.

Us subcontinent, african etc types have always had a history of tribal, religious etc differences and we tend to sacrifice common sense in the service of some misguided loyalty to some ancient habits. One can cry all one wants about the white invaders but they are all mostly still the same they have been for centuries, only with better infrastructure. They would have continued to kill each other anyway over petty reasons but atleast with the whites it wasn't an excercise in total futility.

 

[RWAC]

Utter lack of comprehension in comparing Canada and Australia to the Indian sub-continent or Africa. The two situations are incomparable.

Canada and Australia were settler colonies. The local, aboriginal population has been decimated and pushed to near extinction, especially in North America. Right up until 1960s the natives were physically and emotionally abused in Canada.

Sure, Canada and Australia have "moved on" because the native population has been subjugated and pushed to the lower rung of society, and the settlers have dominated. So who will ask for reparations on the behalf of Aboriginals? The settlers? Lol Makes "moving on" so much easier when the settlers are the dominant population.

In the case of India, the colonialists left after subjugating the native population, which is trying to find its feet back on its own. It is by fate and resilience that the native population of the subcontinent was not decimated, silenced and pushed to the corner to the extent the Aboriginals were.

THAT is the primary reason sub-continent countries have some voice left to demand reparations. Canada and Australia left the Aboriginal population with no such power.

 

[KB]

I am certainly no defender of colonialism, but before attempting to occupy the moral high ground, we should also never forget the violence inflicted by post-colonial nation states in South Asia on their own citizens.

When it comes to violence, both the Indian and Pakistani states have at times displayed greater ruthlessness against its own citizens than the colonial rulers displayed. One only needs to consider the disgraceful treatment of East Pakistan culminating in the awful events of 1971, 'when the golden hues of eastern Bengal’s lush green landscape had been turned red with the steely might of oppression' in the words of Ayesha Jalal.

‘The cold truth’ wrote Perry Anderson, ‘is that the British massacre at Amritsar which ignited the first great mass movement of the independence struggle was a bagatelle compared with the accumulated slaughter by the Indian army and paramilitary forces of their fellow citizens, or those deemed such, since independence’.

 

[Deosai]

Fantastic talk by Shashi Tharoor, was truly informative and inspirational - the sub-Continent is in dire need of more such leaders and speakers.

What matters more than financial reparations, is acknowledgement of historical wrongs. Admission of past injustices helps both the perpetrators and victims of them: the perpetrators learn from their mistakes, crimes and offences, to the extent (hopefully) that they resolve never to repeat them (as with Germany), whilst the victims are given the justice they sought and deserved.

The fact that Britain has not apologised for its terrible colonial record, leads one to the inevitable conclusion:

a) the ruling elites and established order believe the 'benefits' of their colonial past far outweigh its disasters - for those colonised, who, apparently, ought to be grateful that Britain 'civilised' them and taught them 'democracy' - and
b) these elites persist in the belief that intervention, interference, meddling - call it what you will - in foreign lands is essential, for the 'benefit' of the peoples who live there, so that order, 'human rights' 'democracy' or 'freedom' are restored. In truth, as we know, such interventions are self-serving, all about promoting 'national interests' and furthering political agendas.

Thus, unless, until, former colonisers acknowledge the injustices of the past, historical wrongs will never be righted, but they will be repeated. Ad infinitum.

No country or empire apologizes to anybody for anything, this is the way of the world.

Despite being from a former colony, I don't hold any grudges, anybody in power would have done the same. You can't whine forever, just move on

 

[Deosai]

I am certainly no defender of colonialism, but before attempting to occupy the moral high ground, we should also never forget the violence inflicted by post-colonial nation states in South Asia on their own citizens.

When it comes to violence, both the Indian and Pakistani states have at times displayed greater ruthlessness against its own citizens than the colonial rulers displayed. One only needs to consider the disgraceful treatment of East Pakistan culminating in the awful events of 1971, 'when the golden hues of eastern Bengal’s lush green landscape had been turned red with the steely might of oppression' in the words of Ayesha Jalal.

‘The cold truth’ wrote Perry Anderson, ‘is that the British massacre at Amritsar which ignited the first great mass movement of the independence struggle was a bagatelle compared with the accumulated slaughter by the Indian army and paramilitary forces of their fellow citizens, or those deemed such, since independence’.

This has been the way of the world since forever, it's not just colonial or post-colonial but almost eternal, just look at the pre-colonial history of this region or other continents, people,tribes,nations have been invading,massacring,looting and oppressing other since almost forever

 

[Robert]

Yes, Brits owe reparations to us Mughals for taking our Empire and giving this foolish and failed system of democracy to people of South Asia.

OK, you'll get yours when the Roman Empire reparates us.

 

[James]

Don't we give £12 billion in foreign aid every year?

 

[Robert]

Don't we give £12 billion in foreign aid every year?

Good point well made. Per capita, the people of Britain are the most generous in the world - twice as generous as the Americans, for instance.

 

[endymion248]

OK, you'll get yours when the Roman Empire reparates us.

False equivalency, you were citizens of the Roman Empire and, ethnically, anglo-romans.

Good point well made. Per capita, the people of Britain are the most generous in the world - twice as generous as the Americans, for instance.

In terms of foreign aid, a lot of countries give more per capita (eg Sweden or Norway which didn't have colonial empires or the Netherlands). In terms of charity, again, the nordics and the Netherlands give more than the UK.

 

[Robert]

Forget everything, but just the sheer callous and racist attitude during the Bengal famine is enough to assert that the British destroyed the local population by choice and will.

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.

 

[Robert]

False equivalency, you were citizens of the Roman Empire and, ethnically, anglo-romans.

Tell that to the Iceni. Tell that to the Druids on Anglesey.

Then tell that to the people of the North of England after the Normans turned up. They haven't reparated the Britons either.

And what's all this "you"? I'm half-Celt, matey.

 

[Robert]

The fact that Britain has not apologised for its terrible colonial record, leads one to the inevitable conclusion:

a) the ruling elites and established order believe the 'benefits' of their colonial past far outweigh its disasters - for those colonised, who, apparently, ought to be grateful that Britain 'civilised' them and taught them 'democracy' - and
b) these elites persist in the belief that intervention, interference, meddling - call it what you will - in foreign lands is essential, for the 'benefit' of the peoples who live there

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.

 

[endymion248]

- In 1415, at the Battle of Agincourt, the english killed all the prisonners instead of ransoming them as was the tradition.

- Gibraltar didn't relinquish its sovereignty in the treaty of Utrecht yet the english still illegally occupy it. Spain helped the British when they were being decimated by the pest yet the British still went on to put a dagger in their back.

- In 1755, the British captured 300 french ships without an official war declaration.

- In 1801, the British, under Admiral Nelson (from ''Nelson's syndrome'' or ''short man syndrome'' fame), attacked Copenhaguen without a formal declaration of war.


- In the start of the XXe century, the British killed 26 000 afrikaans women and children in concentration camps (while sending 40 000 men to their death overseas).

- In 1940, the british killed 1300 french soldiers at Mers el Khebir despite them being their allies.

- On 21 november 1920, the british opened fire on an irish football stadium and killed 5 innocent
fans as well as 1 player.

- During the Mau Mau uprising in the 1950s, the british detained and tortured thousands of Kenyans in concentration camps.

 

[endymion248]

- In 1431, the British burned Jeanne d'Arc on the account of being a heretic based on a sham trial.

- In 1953, the British overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh for the oil interests of their corporations.

Many of these exactions were commanded by the House of Windsor, even some (like Kenya or the Suez crisis) under approval of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of nazi salute fame.

 

[endymion248]

Tell that to the Iceni. Tell that to the Druids on Anglesey.

The Empire brought prosperity and integration, especially to South England. You can't blame individual legions on the empire the same way you don't want us to blame the crown for the east India company.

Then tell that to the people of the North of England after the Normans turned up. They haven't reparated the Britons either.

They gave you the gift of bringing the refinement and intellectualism of French to your barbaric language, you should be paying them.

 

[Yossarian]

The worst aspect of colonisation was when the colonisers divided the lands between themselves (and then subdivided them further), usually by some clerk sitting in an office in Whitehall randomly drawing straight or squiggly lines on roughly drawn small scale maps, with no regard to the resulting splitting of communities, tribes, clans, ethnic groups, - or even making use of natural geographical features like rivers and mountain ranges to form the boundaries.

This is why most of the ex-colonies are in such a mess and in conflict with their neighbours - because when the colonisers left, they created artificial nation states with improperly defined borders that ran through the middle of communities, tribal lands, even family holdings, thereby laying the foundations for future conflicts.

 

[MSaad1237]

British ruling Sub-Continent (specially Pakistan) was actually the Best thing happened to the Subcontinent ever.


They gave us our Irrigation System, Railways, Army , ISI, Toilets, King Edward Collage , Several Universities ,Toilets, Democracy and most importantly Pakistan.

 

[MSaad1237]

I won't mind British ruling us again tbh, they'd leave us a civilized country if they rule us for another 100 years.


and I'm dead serious about this .

 

[Yossarian]

I won't mind British ruling us again tbh, they'd leave us a civilized country if they rule us for another 100 years.


and I'm dead serious about this .

Appears some still haven't grown out of the subservient mentality towards the white man.


What if your longing to be ruled by the British again meant shipping over every member of the BNP to be the ones who administered and ruled over you? After all they too are "British" ! Better still, how do you fancy being promoted to the position of being The Groom of the Stool to the said BNP administrator ? You're probably now in seventh heaven at the mere thought !

 

[MSaad1237]

British ruling us is a million times better than any current rulers ruling us or religious bigots which still have powers in current Pakistan, they'd correct our system and leave us a civilized state period !!

 

[MSaad1237]

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

 

[Raw deal]

Yes, Brits owe reparations to us Mughals for taking our Empire and giving this foolish and failed system of democracy to people of South Asia.

Mughal rule was ended by Marathas, not by British.

 

[Slog]

No

And MP Tharoor is a fool.

 

[Modest]

Mughal rule was ended by Marathas, not by British.

Along with Sikhs. Khalsa panth gained prominence due to religious persecution by Aurangzeb afaik. Sikh too are all Hindu converts and are proud of that, (unlike many Pakistanis who are delusional in thinking they are descendents of mughal invaders). Sikh empire was from north india to pak to Afghanistan when British arrived iirc.

 

[Slog]

Mughal rule was ended by Marathas, not by British.

No. Parts of Mughal rule were ended by Marathas but the Marathas had a tenuous control at best

The British ended the Mughal empire

 

[Robert]

The Empire brought prosperity and integration, especially to South England. You can't blame individual legions on the empire the same way you don't want us to blame the crown for the east India company.

So in other words we owe them a lot, but Indians don't owe the British Empire a lot? Double standard, much?

They gave you the gift of bringing the refinement and intellectualism of French to your barbaric language, you should be paying them.

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.

 

[Raw deal]

No. Parts of Mughal rule were ended by Marathas but the Marathas had a tenuous control at best



The British ended the Mughal empire

Delhi came under Maratha's control in 1757 and the there was no mughal empire as such after that since their family members were allowed to live in the palace. They came under British rule once British defeated Marathas in the Panipat war.

 

[Yatoo]

No. Parts of Mughal rule were ended by Marathas but the Marathas had a tenuous control at best

The British ended the Mughal empire

Mughal Emperor Shah Alam || returned to Delhi (after being a captive cum pensioner of East India Company at Allahabad from 1764 to 72) under the protection of Marathas in 1772.
EIC occupied Delhi in 1803

 

[Yatoo]

Delhi came under Maratha's control in 1757 and the there was no mughal empire as such after that since their family members were allowed to live in the palace. They came under British rule once British defeated Marathas in the Panipat war.

Man you are all wrong.
Panipat was between Ahmed Shah Abdali and Maratha Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao

 

[Yatoo]

It was Nadir Shah who plundered Delhi in 1738. Muhammad Shah Rangela was the Emperoror. Abdali also made invasions during his time. This made the Empire weak. So Mughal entered into alliance with Maratha. And Imad ul Mulk was made the wazir at mughal court with help of maratha. Maratha eventually were destroyed by Abdali. And finally second Anglo maratha war made British all supreme.

 

[justarslan]

Delhi came under Maratha's control in 1757 and the there was no mughal empire as such after that since their family members were allowed to live in the palace. They came under British rule once British defeated Marathas in the Panipat war.

Maratha rule ended in 1818. South Asia came under British crown in 1857 after lost in first war for independence and last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled to Burma after that war and this officially finished Mughal empire.

 

[hussain123]

Mughal rule was ended by Marathas, not by British.

No, it was britishers who aided them for their own purposes.mughals had been fighting wars on almost all frontiers, sikhs, rebillous rajputs and a very strong maratha kingdom.muhhal sultante due to aurngzebs policies waa on the verge of disintegration which was fastened by the other kingdoms.they had their chances to completely dismantle mughals but they picked a fight with ahmedshah abdali and got completely humilated against a far inferor afghan force.i think it was 3rd batlle of panipat.

 

[hussain123]

Man you are all wrong.
Panipat was between Ahmed Shah Abdali and Maratha Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao

Amess chen bichares pae

 

[hussain123]

It's a myth that Pakistan attacked it, the rebelion started by locals in poonch and then Pukhtun tribes went to go assist them followed by Pak troops, but some of those Laskhars started looting and forgot the end goal which resulted in losing the main valley, the liberation mission was the right way to go about it, like how India annexed so many states such as Hyderabad

http://www.tehelka.com/2013/02/nehr...se-it-would-have-strengthened-pakistans-case/

India and the media keeps recycling the same myths that have been debunked

Bhai aap theek khte hu.mgr uss time dogras chwnd di mehmaan thei.nobody is doubting the intentions.as I said kashmir has been the victim of circumstances.

 

[Raw deal]

Man you are all wrong.
Panipat was between Ahmed Shah Abdali and Maratha Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao

There was another panipat war which was between Marathas and British which ended Maratha rule. Google it and know about it.

 

[JaDed]

It was Nadir Shah who plundered Delhi in 1738. Muhammad Shah Rangela was the Emperoror. Abdali also made invasions during his time. This made the Empire weak. So Mughal entered into alliance with Maratha. And Imad ul Mulk was made the wazir at mughal court with help of maratha. Maratha eventually were destroyed by Abdali. And finally second Anglo maratha war made British all supreme.

This is true i guess it was Durrani who defeated the Marathas in the third battle of Panipat because Marathas didn't ask the help of Sikhs which was a disaster for them.

 

[JaDed]

It was Nadir Shah who plundered Delhi in 1738. Muhammad Shah Rangela was the Emperoror. Abdali also made invasions during his time. This made the Empire weak. So Mughal entered into alliance with Maratha. And Imad ul Mulk was made the wazir at mughal court with help of maratha. Maratha eventually were destroyed by Abdali. And finally second Anglo maratha war made British all supreme.

just googled Abdali is same as Durrani lol.

 

[Robert]

- In 1415, at the Battle of Agincourt, the english killed all the prisonners instead of ransoming them as was the tradition.

- Gibraltar didn't relinquish its sovereignty in the treaty of Utrecht yet the english still illegally occupy it. Spain helped the British when they were being decimated by the pest yet the British still went on to put a dagger in their back.

- In 1755, the British captured 300 french ships without an official war declaration.

- In 1801, the British, under Admiral Nelson (from ''Nelson's syndrome'' or ''short man syndrome'' fame), attacked Copenhaguen without a formal declaration of war.


- In the start of the XXe century, the British killed 26 000 afrikaans women and children in concentration camps (while sending 40 000 men to their death overseas).

- In 1940, the british killed 1300 french soldiers at Mers el Khebir despite them being their allies.

- On 21 november 1920, the british opened fire on an irish football stadium and killed 5 innocent
fans as well as 1 player.

- During the Mau Mau uprising in the 1950s, the british detained and tortured thousands of Kenyans in concentration camps.

Regular Game of Thrones, innit?

 

[speed]

This is true i guess it was Durrani who defeated the Marathas in the third battle of Panipat because Marathas didn't ask the help of Sikhs which was a disaster for them.

It was good for the Sikhs that they stayed out this is what allowed them to gain power in time to come.

 

[Raw deal]

This is true i guess it was Durrani who defeated the Marathas in the third battle of Panipat because Marathas didn't ask the help of Sikhs which was a disaster for them.

It was mughals who invited Durrani since they were losing to Marathas. Marathas once again got emboldened in 10 years and captured Delhi.

 

[Yatoo]

There was another panipat war which was between Marathas and British which ended Maratha rule. Google it and know about it.

There were three battles of panipat.
One between lodhi and babar.
2nd Hemu and Akbar
3rd Abdali and peshwa's son.

You Google it and help me out. I could find it.

 

[Raw deal]

No, it was britishers who aided them for their own purposes.mughals had been fighting wars on almost all frontiers, sikhs, rebillous rajputs and a very strong maratha kingdom.muhhal sultante due to aurngzebs policies waa on the verge of disintegration which was fastened by the other kingdoms.they had their chances to completely dismantle mughals but they picked a fight with ahmedshah abdali and got completely humilated against a far inferor afghan force.i think it was 3rd batlle of panipat.

Afghan forces were not inferior, mate. They had better artillery force compared to Marathas which was the deciding factor in the war. Afghans suffered heavily as well and never turned towards Delhi and India after that war. The plundering of Delhi by Abdali was prior to this war.

 

[Raw deal]

There were three battles of panipat.
One between lodhi and babar.
2nd Hemu and Akbar
3rd Abdali and peshwa's son.

You Google it and help me out. I could find it.

yeah, mate. Agreed. The Anglo maratha war didn't happen in Panipat. But, Anglo Maratha wars took place and British won the wars and took away control of Dummy Mughal rule from Marathas.

 

[Sidilicious]

There were three battles of panipat.
One between lodhi and babar.
2nd Hemu and Akbar
3rd Abdali and peshwa's son.

You Google it and help me out. I could find it.

They were not battle of Panipat. There were 3 anglo-maratha wars. The third in 1818 leading to the supreme authority of the EIC

The mughals were just puppets from then to 1857

 

[the Great Khan]

This exemplifies the colonials attitude.

 

[Raw deal]

It was good for the Sikhs that they stayed out this is what allowed them to gain power in time to come.

I have lot of respect for Sikhs and how they became a militant religion. They continue this tradition till date I guess.

 

[Yatoo]

It was mughals who invited Durrani since they were losing to Marathas. Marathas once again got emboldened in 10 years and captured Delhi.

Wrong again.
Mughal didn't invite him. After the afghans had occupied punjab and Durani had placed his son as the governor of punjab, marathas advanced towards punjabi and defeated the son of Durani. So Durani came back from Afghanistan and the nawab of awadh shuja ud dula gave his support to him.

 

[Yatoo]

yeah, mate. Agreed. The Anglo maratha war didn't happen in Panipat. But, Anglo Maratha wars took place and British won the wars and took away control of Dummy Mughal rule from Marathas.

Now you are right.
After the maratha were defeated in panipat and Shah Alam || was made the Mughal Emperor by Abdali! he ran away to awadh for fear of his wazir. There british defeated him on battle of bauxar in 1764. And he was captive at allaahabad till 1775. After that he returned to Delhi under the maratha protection.

 

[JaDed]

Wrong again.
Mughal didn't invite him. After the afghans had occupied punjab and Durani had placed his son as the governor of punjab, marathas advanced towards punjabi and defeated the son of Durani. So Durani came back from Afghanistan and the nawab of awadh shuja ud dula gave his support to him.

Timur Shah apparently but there are various reasons for the loss of that battle for the Marthas for one not including all Hindus in the war Rajputs and Jatts.Just reading about how even Hindutva groups have condemned that stupidity of Marathas who had even taxed the Rajputs and Jatts excessively.

 

[Yatoo]

They were not battle of Panipat. There were 3 anglo-maratha wars. The third in 1818 leading to the supreme authority of the EIC

The mughals were just puppets from then to 1857

When did I deny the three Anglo maratha wars.
First between ragunath Rao and madhav narayan Rao wherein British supported ragunath Rao and the nana fadnis was on madhav narayan Rao side.
Second when balaji Baji Rao 2 killed the brother of another maratha chief. And thus by treaty of basein he made subsidiary alliance with British and british helped him defeat holkar, scindia and bhonsle.
Third when the pindaris rose in revolt against the British sepoys again during the time of balaji Baji rao 2

 

[Yatoo]

They were not battle of Panipat. There were 3 anglo-maratha wars. The third in 1818 leading to the supreme authority of the EIC

The mughals were just puppets from then to 1857

The Supreme authority of British was established with the ending of second Anglo maratha war. Not the third. It was right after 2nd Anglo maratha war that British also occupied the Delhi.

 

[the Great Khan]

The British came and exploited a naive nation who looked upon "these savages from a foggy island" as uncivilised. Little did they know they were greedy conniving vagabonds. Well versed in the art of ridding someone of their own money. The British should not only increase aid to the subcontinent they should be holding a special thank you for making us rich week every year where school children are told how a fat unhygienic sociopath from Wales robbed stole and fooled a superpower.

The British destroyed the subcontinent education system created divisions discrimination and subjugated millions. Reparations? I suggest Britain as a nation should be censored in the UN and forced provide a yearly hardship tax to the people for crimes against humanity.

 

[Yossarian]

I won't mind British ruling us again tbh, they'd leave us a civilized country if they rule us for another 100 years.


and I'm dead serious about this .

Is this what you're missing and longing to bring back ?

This exemplifies the colonials attitude.

View attachment 58360

 

[JaDed]

The British came and exploited a naive nation who looked upon "these savages from a foggy island" as uncivilised. Little did they know they were greedy conniving vagabonds. Well versed in the art of ridding someone of their own money. The British should not only increase aid to the subcontinent they should be holding a special thank you for making us rich week every year where school children are told how a fat unhygienic sociopath from Wales robbed stole and fooled a superpower.

The British destroyed the subcontinent education system created divisions discrimination and subjugated millions. Reparations? I suggest Britain as a nation should be censored in the UN and forced provide a yearly hardship tax to the people for crimes against humanity.

+1
Weird how you have the same view as most of the people from SC and yet we are always on the opposite side.

 

[Raw deal]

Wrong again.
Mughal didn't invite him. After the afghans had occupied punjab and Durani had placed his son as the governor of punjab, marathas advanced towards punjabi and defeated the son of Durani. So Durani came back from Afghanistan and the nawab of awadh shuja ud dula gave his support to him.

The Marathas had gained control of a considerable part of India in the intervening period (1707–1757). In 1758 they occupied Delhi, captured Lahore and drove out Timur Shah Durrani,[10] the son and viceroy of the Afghan ruler, Ahmad Shah Abdali. This was the high-water mark of the Maratha expansion, where the boundaries of their empire extended in the north to the Indus and the Himalayas, and in the south nearly to the extremity of the peninsula. This territory was ruled through the Peshwa, who talked of placing his son Vishwasrao on the Mughal throne.[12] However, Delhi still remained under the nominal control of Mughals, key Muslim intellectuals including Shah Waliullah and other Muslim clergy in India who were alarmed at these developments. In desperation they appealed to Ahmad Shah Abdali, the ruler of Afghanistan, to halt the threat.[13]

 

[JaDed]

I think the overall history subjects in India need a bit of shaking up as i don't remember anything after Aurangzeb till 1857.

 

[Raw deal]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_(1761)

 

[Yatoo]

Timur Shah apparently but there are various reasons for the loss of that battle for the Marthas for one not including all Hindus in the war Rajputs and Jatts.Just reading about how even Hindutva groups have condemned that stupidity of Marathas who had even taxed the Rajputs and Jatts excessively.

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.

 

[Yatoo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_(1761)

Abdali appointed his son, Timur Shah Durrani, as his governor in
Punjab and Kashmir. In 1758 the Maratha Empire's Gen.
Raghunathrao marched onwards, attacked and conquered
Lahore and Peshawar and drove out Timur Shah Durrani .
Lahore , Multan , Kashmir and other subahs on the south and
eastern side of Peshawar were under the Maratha rule for the
most part. In Punjab and Kashmir the Marathas were now major
players. [10][11]

 

[Yatoo]

Lahore , Multan , Kashmir and other subahs
on this side of Attock are under our rule for
the most part, and places which have not
come under our rule we shall soon bring
under us. Ahmad Shah Durrani 's son Timur
Shah Durrani and Jahan Khan have been
pursued by our troops, and their troops
completely looted. Both of them have now
reached Peshawar with a few broken
troops... So Ahmad Shah Durrani has
returned to Kandahar with some 12-14
thousand broken troops.. Thus all have risen
against Ahmad who has lost control over the
region. We have decided to extend our rule
up to Kandahar .
– Raghunathrao's letter to the Peshwa, 4
May 1758[10]

 

[Yatoo]

So what I understand is that Abdali (Afghan) plundered Mughals. Maratha pludefrated the afghnis (battle of Peshawar). Abdali came back to help them. And Nawab of Awadh under whose protection was Shah Alam II decided to be on the side of Abdali. Marathas had antagonize Jats, Rajputs and Sikhs and thus had to fight alone. Were defeated and this ended their dream of ruling India. And finally reduced to a small area after 2nd Anglo Maratha War.

 

[hussain123]

Afghan forces were not inferior, mate. They had better artillery force compared to Marathas which was the deciding factor in the war. Afghans suffered heavily as well and never turned towards Delhi and India after that war. The plundering of Delhi by Abdali was prior to this war.

If artillery is a comparison, then marathas should had a walk over abdali.marathis had far superior artillery supplied by french and it had gathered finest of its soldiers,top notch generals majority of which it lost in the war.between, you are confusing abdali with nadir shah, who actually plundered delhi and was pivotal to the weakening of mughal sultanate.

 

[hussain123]

Lahore , Multan , Kashmir and other subahs
on this side of Attock are under our rule for
the most part, and places which have not
come under our rule we shall soon bring
under us. Ahmad Shah Durrani 's son Timur
Shah Durrani and Jahan Khan have been
pursued by our troops, and their troops
completely looted. Both of them have now
reached Peshawar with a few broken
troops... So Ahmad Shah Durrani has
returned to Kandahar with some 12-14
thousand broken troops.. Thus all have risen
against Ahmad who has lost control over the
region. We have decided to extend our rule
up to Kandahar .
– Raghunathrao's letter to the Peshwa, 4
May 1758[10]

Maratha were never anywhere near kashmir in all of expansion.

 

[Raw deal]

If artillery is a comparison, then marathas should had a walk over abdali.marathis had far superior artillery supplied by french and it had gathered finest of its soldiers,top notch generals majority of which it lost in the war.between, you are confusing abdali with nadir shah, who actually plundered delhi and was pivotal to the weakening of mughal sultanate.

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

 

[Robert]

The Desis are arguing with each other about India, it's Divide and Rule all over again