Where did the Maharaja's get their wealth from ? From Indians ?
How was it any different from the monarchies in other countries? Had the British not siphoned off wealth from India, it would have stayed within the Indian economy and the trickle down effect would have helped the masses especially with creation of employment and higher wage support.
They still had the wealth when the British left.
Much much less than they would have had otherwise. They were supposed to pay a hefty part of their revenues to the British as "protection money."
Admit it - before the west arrived.................... India was a land of ragged starving beggars overseen by a regime of money grabbing avaricious feudal elites.
lol. So desperate eh?
The Indian economy comprised a quarter of the world economic output at the time when the British came. In plain words, Indian economy was then what the US economy is today.
Economy of India under the British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
""An estimate by Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison reveals that India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952""
Its a wonder there was never a revolution in pre-British India, along the lines of France - but then I guess the population was so poorly fed they didn't have the strength to get out of bed, let alone fight
That proves that Indians had it better before the Brits came. Revolutions are not triggered when the population is content. They are triggered when there is widespread discontent. e.g. The Renaissance.
Those millions living literally the scraps from the waste bin, so despised that if one of you high caste prima donnas as much as stepped in the shadow of one (let alone touched one) you had to go off for god knows how many days of ritual purification
And there was no religious persecution in Britain? The most powerful nation of the day came to be inhabited with people trying to escape the persecution in Britain.
America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
millions living literally the scraps from the waste bin
Oh no they weren't. The exploiters never starve/kill the exploited because then they cease to take advantage of them. They were well fed but ill-treated. Untouchability was a curse to the society which the Brits never tried to curb so that they could keep the elites on their side. How else did a distant power end up ruling a huge country like India? By getting in bed with the elites.
The reason why untouchability and caste-ism are now defunct is because the constituent assembly that drafted The Constitution of India after independence declared it illegal. In sharp contrast to the British rule, 50% of government jobs and places in colleges were reserved for people affected by caste-ism. And who were the members of this constituent assembly? Overwhelmingly upper caste people!!!
_________________________________________________________
Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
""The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 where changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times. It began in Great Britain, then subsequently spread throughout Western Europe, North America, Japan, and eventually the rest of the world.""
The Industrial Revolution that made Britain what it was until the World Wars co-incided with the establishment of their rule in India giving credence to the claim that the revolution was funded with Indian resources. On top of that, local Indian industry was discouraged to give support to imports from Britain.
__________________________________________________________
Well, when I read comments by pious naive fools who attempt to retcon history into a story in which the western imperial powers are responsible for all the third worlds self inflicted overpopulation ills, I get so annoyed that I want to vomit words.
Population explosions took place in co-relation with the literacy levels of different Indian provinces. Those provinces where literacy levels were low had to face a greater population rise. With the literacy rising, population growth has come down substantially. Had money not been stolen from us, we could have run more stronger literacy drives and countered population explosions much earlier.
__________________________________________________________
The question is not whether if, and how much, of the loses due to the British loot got compensated by the benefits perceived by
some Britishers. The question is whether it is ethical to siphon off money from the people of another country by interfering in their internal affairs? Is it ethical for one country to force upon other nations, the supposed "benefits" perceived by the invading country?