This is a very curious question. I always hear these things from bhakts on Twitter, but more and more, sane people seem to be using such logic. Do you say this about everyone? If someone wins a bronze medal for India do you go and say, "that's allright, but when you you win a silver you useless prick?"So when is his lecture against islamic occupation of India coming? Has he calculated how much the muslims owe us?
By that logic bank robbers are entitled to the money they steal? They are the dominant force during that time (of the robbery). lolIt looks to me that a lot of Indians have this false sense of entitlement.
Why do the British owe anything to India? Anything they took as rulers of the Indian colonies is anyway theirs to take by virtue of them being the rulers and the dominating force at the time. They did as they pleased by virtue of their power over us.
Just because they allowed the colonies to be free again does not mean they are obligated to return everything they took when they ruled.That is how things work and people need to get over this.
Have you considered Late Sir. Kalam in the list??So when is his lecture against islamic occupation of India coming? Has he calculated how much the muslims owe us?
By that logic bank robbers are entitled to the money they steal? They are the dominant force during that time (of the robbery). lol
Think before you speak man.
Have you considered Late Sir. Kalam in the list??
So when is his lecture against islamic occupation of India coming? Has he calculated how much the muslims owe us?
It looks to me that a lot of Indians have this false sense of entitlement.
Why do the British owe anything to India? Anything they took as rulers of the Indian colonies is anyway theirs to take by virtue of them being the rulers and the dominating force at the time. They did as they pleased by virtue of their power over us.
Just because they allowed the colonies to be free again does not mean they are obligated to return everything they took when they ruled.That is how things work and people need to get over this.
When did British give freedom to India ? They were FORCED to hand it over , rather we SNATCHED our freedom from mighty British Empire in a NON VIOLENT WAY !
The Indian contributions to both World Wars is never mentioned, in fact our contributions were far greater than the British themselves. This speech gives proper official account of our contributions.
The so called Wealthy Nations owe large share of their wealth to the crimes committed in their colonial rule. The union of Scotland and England was cemented with the loot in the British colonies. He specifically mentioned that the the bonds (between Scottish & British) are loosening because of absence of colonial loot !!
You don't own the loot, no matter how you acquire it. Now I think even the Chinese counterfeiting of Western brands can be justified in this way of thinking.
... rather we SNATCHED our freedom from mighty British Empire in a NON VIOLENT WAY !
No, we did not snatch our freedom and the so called Non-violent movement has no part to play in the decision. The British were in no position to effectively control the colonies while still looking after the security and well being of Britain. That is the sole reason several colonies were liberated. It was plain and simple strategy to focus their resources more effectively where they wanted to focus. If you ask me it was more like the British abandoned some colonies to fend for themselves.
If not for the World war II and the situation that British were in at the end of it, we would probably be under British rule even now.
British India's contributions are well known and accepted even if not always formally rewarded. We had the largest voluntary army during World War II. However, India was still a colony belonging to British Empire. So it is technically British Empires contribution at the time.
Doesn't make an iota of difference what you want to call it as. Countries get "looted" when they get taken over by other countries. What do you think was happening in all the internal strife that we had within the various kingdoms were part of this Indian sub continent before the Moguls or British came here?
The British has no obligation to return anything to us. We can TAKE IT back when we obtain the authority to take it back. Otherwise, regardless of how we ask for it without having any authority, it is simply nothing than BEGGING for it to be given back.
Why was it difficult to control, after governing for 200 yrs? You should have been more organized in governing, when it's bringing such a great revenues. The fact is the Indian resistance during Quit India movement in 1942 was very powerful. British literally begged to support them in World War 2 in lieu of which they'll leave the country once the war is over.
Were Indian World War veterans rewarded with same amount of benefits? Wasn't it their responsibility to take care of those soldiers also?
We're not begging here, we are not asking something which we don't deserve. We're telling them that the amount you are giving is less than fertilizer subsidy given by the Government of India. It's your moral responsibility (which civilized government diverts the food supplies from starved to death people to Soldiers stock piles? ) to pay for the damages during the colonial rule. It's fine if you say a simple Sorry.. Please listen to the speech carefully.
Ok. So what if they owe billions? Do you really believe that Britain will payback all of 8 billion pounds? And even if they did, what guarantee is there that all of 8 billion pounds will be honestly used by our government to uplift India's unprivileged?
Partially true. But we did benefit albeit to a considerably smaller extent unlike what the British speakers claimed who opined that the colonial rule was mutually beneficial.
Like what @Lord Nemesis said, the Britishers abandoned India for two reasons -
a) Their participation in WW2 weakened them to a point where they were in no position to control their colonies.
b) And let's not forget Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence movement which gave them all the more reason to vacate. The Britisher's were members of the allied powers of WW2. Churchill and Roosevelt signed the Atlantic Charter in an effort to maintain international peace and security; the same charter that would later be instrumental in the founding of the United Nations. Think about it. How could any nation openly claim to support international peace and continue colonialism at the same time? Truth be told, the Britisher's were no match for Mahatma Gandhi's principles. I have always maintained that the Britisher's vacated India because of Mahatma Gandhi (and what he stood for) and not because of the Indian freedom movement.
Look. This speech is supposed to be only educational. Tharoor took part in a debate at the Oxford Union. Please don't confuse eloquence with patriotism.
I really wish this video never went viral. Please don't unnecessarily stir nationalistic sentiments.
Yeah , the whole Indian Freedom Struggle had no effect on the British & they left the country on their own, is too difficult to digest. you are undermining the whole freedom struggle , which is very well acknowledged world wide.
[DOUBLEPOST=1438269595][/DOUBLEPOST]It looks to me that a lot of Indians have this false sense of entitlement.
Why do the British owe anything to India? Anything they took as rulers of the Indian colonies is anyway theirs to take by virtue of them being the rulers and the dominating force at the time. They did as they pleased by virtue of their power over us.
Just because they allowed the colonies to be free again does not mean they are obligated to return everything they took when they ruled.That is how things work and people need to get over this.
Oh! I've forgotten, the modern measurement System too!Yes, Britisher have given us so much in return of what they have taken from India, The constitution, Law& Order[ Police Station, Administration office etc.], Postal Service, Transportation[ Train, Motor etc.] the most Important is they have taught us to wear cloth[Dress Code]
Yep, It really didn't really make much of a difference. You need to understand that the world acknowledging a struggle does not necessarily mean it the struggle achieved its desired result.
For instance, you can proclaim that you would go into a den of wild beasts bare handed in fact do exactly that. The world will acknowledge that you went in to face a den full of wild beasts, but it does not mean that you were able to come out of it alive.
Our "freedom struggle" was to some extent a PITA for the British, but you are crazy to think that it was at any point sufficient enough to make the British leave the country. If anything it was the violence of the revolutionaries was more of a pain for them. Gandhi's version of freedom struggle was all about non cooperation. It was akin to a temper tantrum thrown by a toddler when they don't get what they want and the British weren't the sort who would yield to such tactics.
They had to leave India after the world war 2 simply because they didn't have the resources to keep all the colonies under their control.