- Apr 2015
Perhaps you are not aware with the concept of princely states, British had complete control over them although they were ruled by local kings. There were around 565 princely states at the eve of India's independence and most of them were British creations. After Tipu Sultan was defeated, Mysore's former ruler Woodeyars were reinstated and Mysore ended up as a part of British Empire as princely state.And the Second Anglo-Maratha War was from 1803-1805, I said that from 1805 Britain was expanding into inland India, so you agree with me on that. Industrial revolution is considered to have begun in the 1760s at earliest. I also claimed that Britain didn't own most, let alone all of India until the period from 1805-1820. You seem to agree as you say that in 1805 most of India was under British influence, so not in the 18th century.
Here's a map:
You can add Mysore after 1799, still not most of IndiaView attachment 18520
The language of Mysore is Kannada, with Tamil and English being spoken as well. I don't know what this has to do with the British Empire in the 19th century but still.
So you claim it is propaganda but you don't refute the claim? Means nothing to me. Tharoor just recited what was said earlier in the thread about India's economy dropping among other things and half his speech was composed of aggressive jokes mocking colonialism.
What is the international standard for taxes? Saying taxes were collected at gunpoint is again exaggerating. The American Revolution started for dozens of reasons and you can't just boil down to ''high taxes, so revolution''. This also doesn't compare to India in this case.
Yes, and? Since you complain that India was not industrialised because it was exploited why should the same not stand for the white dominions? Or could it be that your comment on the War in France in 1940 was just ridiculous, because you are either trolling by this point or just don't understand military history and military theory.
Irrelevant to our discussion. But again there is more than just ''they nationalised their oil fields, so it's good.'' You again demonstrate a lack of economic knowledge. USA, France, the UK etc. didn't conquer Libya in a boots-on-the-ground invasion and stayed. If they did and ran it like a legitimate colony, the region might be more stable. This ''New Imperialism'' is much different than old imperialism of the 19th century. Anyhow new imperialism is irrelevant to our discussion.
I and several others have answered for India. China was never colonised except for small outposts like Hong Kong so you can't compare it to India or others. They industrualised under Xiaoping. South Korea was a Japanese colony. Indonesia was under the Dutch, my knowledge on the Dutch Empire ends in 1830 so I can't comment for it.
In school I was thought a very brief history on the Napoleonic Wars, the Eastern Question and the history of Serbia between 1804 and 1914, this is what is thought in schools here on the 19th century. The British Empire is irrelevant to my country so why would we learn about it in schools?
I'm convinced that it's not worth arguing with you if you continue to talk nonsense like this.
Industrializing India was not in British interest, India was meant to be the source of cheap raw material for factories in Britain and the dumping ground for the factory goods of Britain. Even rail network was built for that purpose. Infact, the regions that were connected with railways were more vulnerable to famines than isolated areas.