the good Impact of BritishRaj in South Asia.

Apr 2018
1,374
Mythical land.
Shivaji is now a 'godly figure'? When did this deification take place? Lol!
How about Patel? Is he the next 'godly figure'? After all, a 500ft statue of Patel (world's tallest) has been erected in Gujarat! Are the Maharastrians going to live with this insult, or erect a 1000ft statue of Shivaji next? Lol!

Shivaji was a clever Hindu ruler, the best of his times, who outsmarted the mighty Mughals, but he only ruled a minor kingdom. Mughal empire did not collapse because Shivaji or what he founded 'the Maratha state'. It collapsed because of various other reasons:
Decline of the Mughal Empire in India

It is unfortunate to say, but there is a dearth of great gallant winning leaders in Hinduism for the last 1500 years or so, for whatever the reasons are. But that is not an excuse for propping up second rate achievers such as Shivaji and Patel as great ones. It just lowers the standard expected of great leaders.
how exactly is a good leader measured??lol seems like being "non hindu" is the first criteria for you to measure a good indian leaders,and you seriously need some very very very basic history lessons if you think nobody from india from the period of 500-1200 AD was a good leader or king,i have 13-14 in my mind i can name without much thought,and this isn't the area which i like the most as well,from 1200 AD and onwards i can name 10s,and if counting small ones then 100s of great hindu leaders from india.
 
Jul 2012
2,787
Dhaka
There is absolutely no positive impact of the British exploitation in Indian subcontinent. Had the subcontinent grown on its own, there would have been half a dozen developed countries with a few not so developed. A lot better proposition than the current state.
 
Aug 2009
5,102
Londinium
Yes, that's true. I agree India did get merited from its Anglicization. But I doubt if it was an underlying achievement of the British. Surely introducing native population to a lingua franca wasn't in Britain's agenda when they colonized around. It happened as a good thing. But that wasn't their plan.
I agree. There could never have been a precognition of the use of English, indeed, during the time of colonization of India, French was more widely spoken as a second language IIRC.
 
Aug 2009
5,102
Londinium
Persian was once a lingua franca in large of medieval Asia before Europe colonialism took over, the main reason was Turkic tribes who ruled large parts of Asia instantly adopted Persian as their own language. For a native speaker of English, global prevalence of English is a matter of matter of pride, there is no surprise in that.
You completely ignore my question and returned, in the last part, some form of dismissal from the point entirely. I have no further response available to me.
 
Aug 2009
5,102
Londinium
There is absolutely no positive impact of the British exploitation in Indian subcontinent. Had the subcontinent grown on its own, there would have been half a dozen developed countries with a few not so developed. A lot better proposition than the current state.
But there are 4 countries within the sub continent...far more if we include British India (Oman, UAE, Myanmar/Burma etc)
 
Jul 2012
2,787
Dhaka
But there are 4 countries within the sub continent...far more if we include British India (Oman, UAE, Myanmar/Burma etc)
If not for the British occupation and exploitation, there would have been developed countries like Bengal, Mysore, Punjab, Gujarat, Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. These would probably be at par with the likes of Spain, Italy economically; instead of the current countries with haphazard national boundaries.
 
Apr 2018
1,374
Mythical land.
Marathas wrecked economies of the subcontinent. Those bandits were the principal reason the British found so many local allies.
Any source to back this? Maratha bureaucracy was certainly very high class so was its military, the areas they ruled like central india, gujarat, oddisha, etc were all very prosperous under their rule. And british mostly were infact allies of marathas especially after first anglo maratha war, and none of allies of british were due "exploitation by marathas"
In short nothing in your post seems historically true.