Thread: India

Originally Posted by crackerjack101

For quite a while now I've been interested in the hypocrisy of the state known as India.
The disparity twixt wealth and poverty, the obscene wealth of the few and the abject poverty of the many.
The fact that the concept of the "unclean" still persists whilst multi billionaires build huge multi story homes in the midst of poverty and homelessness.
Now we appear to have further evidence of the insanity and stupidity of Indian "HiSos" with this little missive;


www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46778879


Often touted as an emerging economic power the UK Government still gives aid, as do many other other countries.
It's an absurd situation whereby the rich get richer and the poor just rot.

How can any country offer support to a system that still supports the concept of the Dalit, "unclean" caste and the horrendous abuse they are subjected to?

I've worked with NGO's in the 3rd. world and I felt good about helping, but the obscenity that is modern day India is unconscionable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-in...-idUSKCN10C2RB

End of rant for the time being.

Psst. Know why they call it the sub continent? Coz there fooken sub human

Any opinions on the accuracy of this article? From 2015. Just trying to get a better personal understanding on this...

The Great Divide: The violent legacy of Indian Partition.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ooks-dalrymple

specifically this bit:

In March, 1947, a glamorous minor royal named Lord Louis Mountbatten flew into Delhi as Britain’s final Viceroy, his mission to hand over power and get out of India as quickly as possible. A series of disastrous meetings with an intransigent Jinnah soon convinced him that the Muslim League leader was “a psychopathic case,” impervious to negotiation. Worried that, if he didn’t move rapidly, Britain might, as Hajari writes, end up “refereeing a civil war,” Mountbatten deployed his considerable charm to persuade all the parties to agree to Partition as the only remaining option.

In early June, Mountbatten stunned everyone by announcing August 15, 1947, as the date for the transfer of power—ten months earlier than expected. The reasons for this haste are still the subject of debate, but it is probable that Mountbatten wanted to shock the quarrelling parties into realizing that they were hurtling toward a sectarian precipice. However, the rush only exacerbated the chaos. Cyril Radcliffe, a British judge assigned to draw the borders of the two new states, was given barely forty days to remake the map of South Asia. The borders were finally announced two days after India’s Independence.

None of the disputants were happy with the compromise that Mountbatten had forced on them. Jinnah, who had succeeded in creating a new country, regarded the truncated state he was given—a slice of India’s eastern and western extremities, separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory—as “a maimed, mutilated and moth-eaten” travesty of the land he had fought for. He warned that the partition of Punjab and Bengal “will be sowing the seeds of future serious trouble.”

Another interesting article from 2017.

How the Partition of India happened – and why its effects are still felt today
https://theconversation.com/how-the-...lt-today-81766

Mountbatten and wife with Gandhi in 1947


Map with accompanying links:
Map of major South Asian migration flows | Striking Women

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Falklands is a small group of insignificant, remote islands with little or no economic or political value. Like Hawaii :-)

so gold oil gas ,,, means.???

Originally Posted by lob

so gold oil gas ,,, means.???

It is a Thatcher line from the movie. Well the "Like Hawaii" bit.....

Originally Posted by crackerjack101

the abject poverty of the many.

Could this have had anything to do with the abject poverty that remains today in India?

How Britain Stole $45 Trillion From India And Lied About It
https://www.blackagendareport.com/in...-lied-about-it



a couple of excerpts from the article:

There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonization of India -- as horrible as it may have been -- was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long -- the story goes -- was a gesture of Britain's benevolence.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik -- just published by Columbia University Press -- deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.

It's a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

How did this come about?

It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way -- mostly with silver -- as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.

Here's how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third)to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, "buying" from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.

It was a scam -- theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.

-------

How did this work? Basically, anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills -- a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were "paid" in rupees out of tax revenues -- money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not in fact paid at all; they were defrauded.

Meanwhile, London ended up with all of the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports.

This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world -- a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century -- it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India's exports wasappropriatedin its entirety by Britain.

Some point to this fictional "deficit" as evidence that India was a liability to Britain. But exactly the opposite is true. Britain intercepted enormous quantities of income that rightly belonged to Indian producers. India was the goose that laid the golden egg. Meanwhile, the "deficit" meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control.

Now let me take a wild guess at who ended up with the gold in London...nevermind...too easy.

Full article at the link...

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

You really are a complete fooking imbecile.
A selection of Countries settled by Spain.
Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela,Hondoras, columbia, nicargua, bolivia, Guatamala

A selection of countries settled by the British
USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore

What would you like to compare? Poverty? GDP? Democracy? number of Dictatorships? Rule of law? corruption? Military coups? etc etc etc.

BTW sorry about the red and the "brain dead moron" comment I meant "idiot". you could not possibly clinically qualify as highly as a moron.
Did you stick your head in the propellor on the boat from Algeria to Europe?

oh noooo, another proud British chav who believe in fairy tales

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

You really are a complete fooking imbecile.
A selection of Countries settled by Spain.
Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela,Hondoras, columbia, nicargua, bolivia, Guatamala

A selection of countries settled by the British
USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore

What would you like to compare? Poverty? GDP? Democracy? number of Dictatorships? Rule of law? corruption? Military coups? etc etc etc.

What are you comparing exactly ...American Indian vs Mexican Indian vs Maori vs..?

Are we just ignoring the 10s of millions who were eradicated like vermin in the various genocides?