India be in a better position had it been ruled by Indians and not British? - Letsdiskuss
LetsDiskuss Logo
Gallery
Ask Question

Sweety Sharma

fitness trainer at Gold Gym | Posted 15 Aug, 2018 |

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

mudas saraziz

Blogger | Posted 02 May, 2020

To start with, let me assault the fantasy that there was no India when the British came. Of course, in eighteenth century when the British vanquished, India was a befuddling wreckage of fighting states. In any case, it was not constantly like that.

The name India may be outside (From Persians) and generally new (2500 years of age), however even now in Indian dialects, for example, Hindi the elective name "Bharat" is all the more regularly used to allude to our country. The term Bharat is presumably 1000s of years old and utilized all through the country to allude to this land. In Brahminical customs we day by day present about Bharatavarsha (India) in Bharathakanda (Indian subcontinent) and these psalms in Vedas are 1000s of years old. In this manner, the idea of India is neither new nor remote.

India during Mauryas in third century BC(very near the Indian guide in 1947)

mudas saraziz

Blogger | Posted 30 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 vote based system, which British abandoned on Independence Day in 1947; on account of noteworthy relationship, India imparts to Britannia an autonomous legal executive, a free press, the English language, and our affection for cricket. There's an inheritance of pilgrim design and Merchant Ivory scenes of sahibs and memsahibs of the Raj clunking sun killjoys on their cabin 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 mortification: grisly slaughters, mass captures, the concealment of equitable political developments and the displacing of its indigenous societies to make a servile, anglicized first class.

jacob graves

Blogger | Posted 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.

Prreeti Radhika Taneja

Entrepreneur | Posted 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)