the good Impact of BritishRaj in South Asia.

Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
And as i said,i can give more example of locals liking maratha administration but not before the troll proves that locals in anyway actually resented marathas as claimed by him some post earlier.
rajput and jat kings were not "locals",this is very rudimentary and needs no explanation,jats and rajputs were against marathas simply because they were political powers as well and marathas did threaten them because they were superior to them in almost every possible way.

and as far as support goes,rani lakshmi bai and tantya tope pledged their support for nana saheb not bahadur shah zafar,as i said they were not co-ordinated or even centralized by any stretch of imagination and rebellion was put down before it could reach that stage of deciding,who should be what.
 
May 2011
13,846
Navan, Ireland
shifting goalposts won't do you any good here,the original point was not need of "colonization",you claimed that other members are claiming no influence was required while nobody in the thread claimed so,so prove that or accept,don't shift points.
Sorry I am not shifting any goal posts I will leave the evasions to yourself.

india was definately advanced by almost every standard one could think of,environment of india and china has been described as "proto industrialization" by many historians as well,european influence as in trade,india's huge economy would have surely attracted europeans to india,this is how practically tech and knowledge was shared (other than invasions) throughout history as well..
Not really why would European countries/ companies helped develop competitors?

And anyway we don't have to use hypothetical scenarios Europeans did come and nowhere industrialised.



Do point out who and for what was time frame given..
lets see posts 144, 148,167, 213,219, 223, 227

Apparently the industrialisation of India was inevitable.


Surely,no need of colonization or exploitation,that is the point you are not addressing for long time here.
i don't see how pioneers of industrialization won't be required directly or indirectly..
Where did it occur?

And if you think exploitation still isn't happening then you are naïve in the extreme.


Actually i was doing you a favor by giving the earliest possible date,.
No you were showing a complete lacking of understanding of the Industrial Revolution and British history

even in this date your argument that "brits were in india from 1600s!!!!" fails miserably,.
The British first arrive in India (to trade in an organised way) early in the 1600's, that's a fact.

the more you wrote goes against what you said before..
Sorry this is simply too garbled.

and reason why i choose this date was that atleast textile industry was mechanized by this time AFAIK..
No you simply got the date wrong, you said Britain had finished becoming Industrialised by the 1820's nothing about only the textile industry. You showed that you simply don't understand context of the times.



Fair enough,this only proves that india simply didn't have the time as you claimed in your earlier post..
Sorry time to do what? I was pointing out that the Industrial Revolution is on-going.



More like japan,so 90s is bit closer,maybe a little late..
Sorry India in the early 19th century was no more like Japan than it was the USA or Germany!


It is actually just semantics..
No its you avoiding erroneous statements and showing you don't understand the context of the time.



Why did britain send wellesly to lead company forces in second anglo maratha war then?or hector munro in buxar?doesn't seem like what modern nations would do to save "just a private company",and you should brush up pitt's act of 1784,which did infact made it way more than just a "private company",you seem to be obsessed with .
Wellsely went because his brother was a high ranking official and give his little brother a head start-- commanding Company forces was very different to getting a command of Crown forces.

And I never said that the government and or the crown were not heavily involved (as increasingly so as time moved on) but no matter how much you want to ingnore the fact or dislike it India was not conquered by the 'British' making a concerted effort to invade etc but by a private company who gradually took over by 'hook or by crook'.

If you wanted to think about it I think that very relevant in todays world.
 
Likes: Dewal

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,432
India
These are outright exaggerations. There were minor incidences in absorbing 2 or 3 princely kingdoms into the Indian union. That was the extend of it. Patel's and Menon's diplomacy were not needed in bringing in Travancore. Its own people did it, mainly the Congress party, with an attempt on the life of the chief minister of the King who initiated secession.

Now things were very different with Kashmir. Patel totally failed. Kashmir still remains a problem. So I don't understand why so much credit is given to him.
Sardar Patel's Kashmir Dilemma
I have never heard Patel is ever blamed for Kashmir. Its Nehru's mishandling that led to problem in Kashmir. Beside, Kashmir ended up as a part of India just by chance when it was invaded by Pashtun tribesmen aided by Pakistan army. As for Travancore, princely states couldn't survive the nationalistic wave that was sweeping across India. Majority of princely states didn't want to became independent even though they didn't have access to the sea or tiny territory.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,432
India
India was a divided country long before the British came. Most princely states existed in some fashion during Mughal and Maratha times. The Marathas and Mughals actually exerted less direct control, imposing common legal system and administration, over most of their realms than the Bitish did. That is why India kept the Indian Civil Service organization, since the Mughals and Marathas didn't really have anything to compare.

Note, in Broadberry, Gupta "India GDP, 1600 - 1871: Some Preliminary Estimates and a Comparison with Britain" both table 3 and table 13 show that Indian GDP was declining even before the British came, going from $782 GDP per capita to only $661 in 1751. And India's textile export peaked in around 1800 - 1804 according to Table 6 and Figure 1, which is after Britain colonized India.
The successor states usually keep the pre-existing government model. Like Kushans keep the administrative model of Indo-Greek kings. Even early British rule has certain elements of Mughal administration.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
this shows you have little knowledge about maratha polity,mostly outdated,mostly from 1800s or 1900s at max,i suggest you update your knowledge or refrain from posting nonsense like this.
I don't view the Marathas through the lens of Indian nationalism, that is true. But the Pindari were really just a bunch of bandits using the Marathi as a home base, which led to the further Anglo-Maratha wars. Calling them freedom fighters doesn't make them any less of bandits.

Name any major scientific discovery or engineering invention made by the Mararhas. I know the real history, not the propoganda made by Indians who also claimed the ancent Indians had airplanes and spacecraft.

Provide a non Marathas contemporary source that lamented the defeat of the Marathas be the British, not something nationalistic Indians like yourself claimed many decades later. Truth is, that many Indians were not unhappy to see the Marathas and their Pindari bandits defeated.

I suggest you stop reading Hindu right wing propoganda written by those who defend Hindus right to massacre non Hindus at Gujarat, or defend the tapes and murders committed by Hindus during Partition, and find more objective accounts. Did you hear Maratha Pindaris attack primarily armed soldiers? No, they did not, they attacked civilians during a time when no war was officially declared which made them bandits. My knowledge doesn't.come from any old text books, but reading between the lines.of modern sources. Calling the Pindari irregular military forces when their primary victims are civilians when no war has been officially declared makes them bandits in my book, and the Marathas as well for sponsoring them.
 
Feb 2019
62
Ariaca
I don't view the Marathas through the lens of Indian nationalism, that is true. But the Pindari were really just a bunch of bandits using the Marathi as a home base, which led to the further Anglo-Maratha wars. Calling them freedom fighters doesn't make them any less of bandits.

Name any major scientific discovery or engineering invention made by the Mararhas. I know the real history, not the propoganda made by Indians who also claimed the ancent Indians had airplanes and spacecraft.

Provide a non Marathas contemporary source that lamented the defeat of the Marathas be the British, not something nationalistic Indians like yourself claimed many decades later. Truth is, that many Indians were not unhappy to see the Marathas and their Pindari bandits defeated.

I suggest you stop reading Hindu right wing propoganda written by those who defend Hindus right to massacre non Hindus at Gujarat, or defend the tapes and murders committed by Hindus during Partition, and find more objective accounts. Did you hear Maratha Pindaris attack primarily armed soldiers? No, they did not, they attacked civilians during a time when no war was officially declared which made them bandits. My knowledge doesn't.come from any old text books, but reading between the lines.of modern sources. Calling the Pindari irregular military forces when their primary victims are civilians when no war has been officially declared makes them bandits in my book, and the Marathas as well for sponsoring them.
They learned that from Europeans who killed 6 million Jews for not being white not a long ago.

Genocided millions of natives in America's and Australia for colonization and being non white.

Using Blacks as slaves because they were seen as Sub-humans and animals by Whites/Europeans.

And writing false historical accounts to downplay or deny what they did in past.

Hindu Right wingers learned all this for Europeans or whites.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
I don't view the Marathas through the lens of Indian nationalism, that is true. But the Pindari were really just a bunch of bandits using the Marathi as a home base, which led to the further Anglo-Maratha wars. Calling them freedom fighters doesn't make them any less of bandits.

Name any major scientific discovery or engineering invention made by the Mararhas. I know the real history, not the propoganda made by Indians who also claimed the ancent Indians had airplanes and spacecraft.

Provide a non Marathas contemporary source that lamented the defeat of the Marathas be the British, not something nationalistic Indians like yourself claimed many decades later. Truth is, that many Indians were not unhappy to see the Marathas and their Pindari bandits defeated.

I suggest you stop reading Hindu right wing propoganda written by those who defend Hindus right to massacre non Hindus at Gujarat, or defend the tapes and murders committed by Hindus during Partition, and find more objective accounts. Did you hear Maratha Pindaris attack primarily armed soldiers? No, they did not, they attacked civilians during a time when no war was officially declared which made them bandits. My knowledge doesn't.come from any old text books, but reading between the lines.of modern sources. Calling the Pindari irregular military forces when their primary victims are civilians when no war has been officially declared makes them bandits in my book, and the Marathas as well for sponsoring them.
You don't even know difference between marathas and pindaries yet you claim to know about indian history more than me, ROFL.

Atleast learn the difference between these two, then i could even consider debating you on this topic otherwise its just a waste of time for me
for the basic
Pindaries attacked both civilians and armies, but to say this somehow makes maratha empire as a whole to be bandits shows how nonsensical your position is, after all genocidal rape campaign in germany did not make entire allies side as rape nations, now did it?
Pindaries attacked mostly attacked supply lines as well in terms of warfare, and used to take tax from other kingdoms by marathas to sponsor their war machinery
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions