India be in a better position had it been ruled by Indians and not British?

Preeti Taneja

Entrepreneur | Posted on 15-Aug-2018

Indeed this question is quite intriguing. A blunt answer is NO. It’s unfortunate that we Indians

take democracy as granted and politics as something dirty, reserved for only selected few. These two simple ideas, which I believe is the biggest setback why our country is failing to inch towards definite growth, would have been fatal for the country has a whole.

The railway lines, telephone lines, bridges, many monuments and more—all these have been, excuse my expression, a gift of British to India. If we go by our political will that of today, had we been ruling India back then, few would have really cared about setting up railway lines and installing telephone lines. Our ministers would have been busy claiming power and abusing their status quo. It’s a sad hypothetical reality. Indian would have been worse off had it been ruled by Indians and not English.

Yes, on papers, after 72 years, we have come a long way. But on ground, the reality is just as same as it was so many decades back. There are so many poor people, people are dying of hunger, real illiteracy level exist, electricity hasn’t reached to so many villages and so many villages aren’t yet connected to the rest of the country. The progress could have and should have been better but having British rule isn’t an option. However the current state of affair is better than cruelty that British rule bestowed on Indians.

Excuse me for sounding Pessimist but I have full belief on Indian system and its incompetency. And this system includes not just the government and politicians but also common citizens like you and me.

So many people lost their lives under British rule. The country struggled. People fought for human rights. BUT to believe that India would have been positioned in a much better place was it ruled by Indians is absurd on many levels. We’re ruling now, aren’t we?!

What they did to India , is enough.... we cannot expect more!

(Courtesy: Countercurrents)

islam maya

Blogger | Posted on 14-Jul-2020

have a private family association with the freedom development in India.

It isn't something I regularly talk about in light of the fact that it is not something to be pleased with - an incredible inverse.

Be that as it may, as India commends 70 years of autonomy, this individual connection has made me consider India's perplexing and regularly conflicting mentalities to Britain.

What India considers us is seemingly more significant now than any other time in recent memory, given how much the British government is nailing to our future relationship with this tremendous and progressively powerful country.

Theresa May picked India as her first major abroad visit as head administrator intentionally. As Britain looks towards its post-Brexit future, it is connecting with India for help.

The head administrator trusts that reviving the UK's exchanging attaches with our previous state can shape a significant piece of the nation's new worldwide monetary procedure.

However, India's reaction to her suggestions has been unmistakably lukewarm, and maybe all things considered.

jacob graves

Blogger | Posted on 23-Apr-2020

The issue is that Britons and Indians see the "mutual history" in an unexpected way. To Britain , India is the world's biggest majority rules system, which British deserted on Independence Day in 1947; as a result of memorable relationship, India imparts to Britannia an autonomous legal executive, a free press, the English language, and our adoration for cricket. There's a heritage of pioneer design and Merchant Ivory scenes of sahibs and memsahibs of the Raj ringing sun killjoys on their cottage verandas.

For some, the Anglo-Indian relationship is summarized in symbols, for example, chicken tikka masala, presently viewed by some as our national dish, a 16 ounces of Kingfisher.

Be that as it may, for some Indians, the history they "share" with us is one of embarrassment: wicked slaughters, mass captures, the concealment of equitable political developments and the overriding of its indigenous societies to make a servile, anglicized world class.