NATION

PASSWORD

Should India Have Become Independent?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Makko Oko
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Jan 20, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Should India Have Become Independent?

Postby Makko Oko » Thu May 26, 2022 10:18 pm

Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

User avatar
Space Squid
Diplomat
 
Posts: 806
Founded: Feb 04, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Space Squid » Thu May 26, 2022 10:24 pm

No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.
Last edited by Space Squid on Thu May 26, 2022 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠔⠒⠒⠠⠄⢠
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣁⠴⠛⠋⠀⠀⡎
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠔⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⡎⠰⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠜⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠒⠁⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⢀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣶⡓⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠜⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⢠⣪⠖⠒⢮⣢⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⢊⢕⣢⡌⢦⠀⢤⣠⠔⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢳⣴⠷⠃⠔⣒⠚⠇⡢⠠⠤⠺⠃⠘⢞⣋⠅⢠⠧⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⡀⠀⣔⣕⣁⣤⣬⢦⣤⣭⠤⢂⡀⠀⣀⡀⠔⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠉⢋⡿⢛⣭⣴⣶⡿⢉⣤⣴⣿⠀⠁⡇⠀⢀⠠⠤⠀⠤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣮⠁⣾⠟⠉⠀⢰⡘⡿⠁⣿⣄⠣⡍⠉⠔⠊⠉⠉⢱⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠿⠀⢹⠀⢀⣼⠟⠉⢊⠆⠻⣿⢓⠪⠥⡂⢄⠀⠀⢗⢅⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠘⡹⡉⠀⢸⣟⠀⢀⢜⠆⠀⠹⣻⢦⡀⠈⡄⡇⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠈⠺⢄⠀⠹⡆⠻⠁⠀⢀⡴⡹⠀⠻⣄⣽⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⣜⣦⠀⠀⠀⢠⡗⠉⠀⠀⠀⢩⡌⠙⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢽⣿⠀⠀⠀⠈⠓⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠫⣛⡄⠀⢀⢴⣾⣗⡶⢠⡴⠗⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

User avatar
Il Borgia Vaticano
Diplomat
 
Posts: 844
Founded: Jul 13, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby Il Borgia Vaticano » Thu May 26, 2022 10:29 pm

God no. India's post colonial history has been one jump from catastrophe to another. Dear lord, they couldn't even guarantee their whole population access to clean water until 2015.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 726_1.html
"He who builds on the people, builds on the mud."~Machiavelli, The Prince
Papal Bulls and Governmental Info/News
NEWS TICKER:
After agreements between Vatican Bank and foreign merchant groups, mass importation of chattel labor to rebuild Rome begins. A separate stream of bed-companions is being imported as well, to bolster genetic diversity.-|-Second kinetic weapon launched, used to destroy Scientologist cruise vessel.-|-Fearing the withering of the dynasty due to many Borgia deaths in the last civil war, Pope Soter II has legalized 'ius primae noctis' for all members of the Borgia family.

User avatar
Page
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16218
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Thu May 26, 2022 10:42 pm

Decolonization was not an act of benevolence. Britain and France didn't let go of all their far away possessions because it was the right thing to do. Colonies were just no longer sustainable. They were more trouble than they're worth.

So had Britain clung to India despite the writing on the wall, I think it's fair to say things would be worse for both countries, nationalist terrorism and suicide bombings on one side and an apartheid-type minority government that commits daily atrocities on the other.
I am an internationalist, geolibertarian anarcho-futurist with syncretic egoist and Marxist tendencies. I consider authoritarianism to be intrinsically and irrevocably evil regardless of the authoritarians' intentions or economic inclinations. I do not recognize any law, government, border, or claim to private property.

I don't believe in kink-shaming unless your kink is submitting to the state.

Protect yourself from Covid-19: Stop licking boots.

User avatar
Frisemark
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Aug 07, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Frisemark » Fri May 27, 2022 12:06 am

Page wrote:Decolonization was not an act of benevolence. Britain and France didn't let go of all their far away possessions because it was the right thing to do. Colonies were just no longer sustainable. They were more trouble than they're worth.

So had Britain clung to India despite the writing on the wall, I think it's fair to say things would be worse for both countries, nationalist terrorism and suicide bombings on one side and an apartheid-type minority government that commits daily atrocities on the other.


In France's case, they most certainly didn't let their possessions go without a fight. The horrors of the Algerian War are not something so easily forgotten. Nor is the brutality with which French forces acted in general towards their colonies.

Britain let go of their Colonies because they didn't have the money to maintain their grip. France let go of their Colonies because the French people got tired of sending boys to wars maintaining them and coming back dead-eyed shells.

Hell, even when the French people decided enough was enough, some Frenchmen—mostly commissioned officers of the military who didn't want their nationalist fervor and pride rebuked—decided "no it wasn't" and tried to use bombs, terror and assassination to reinforce that—as you mentioned things would be in India had Britain not let go.


Anyways, yes, India should have become independent. The issue lies in the fact that the "preparations" for independence were laughable at best from the colonial authorities who wished to spite the newly-independent India.
The Kingdom of Frisemark
GOOD MORNING HAGENAV: Cloudy today in our beloved capital, high of 67° F
Denmark and the Netherlands had a kid, and it loves the color blue.
Proud shitlib and owner of gorilla lamp. This nation is only partially for me to autofellate my personal views. I HATE THE POLITICAL COMPASS. Used NS since 2016.

I WILL revive your page 9 thread at 2am. F7’s resident sleep paralysis demon, striking from the shadows at 2AM.

What music am I listening to right now?

User avatar
LEGENDARIS
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: May 25, 2022
Ex-Nation

Postby LEGENDARIS » Fri May 27, 2022 12:18 am

Makko Oko wrote:Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

The brits didn't do much to develop the places they colonized,they only wanted their resources,spread their influence and show their might.

User avatar
Mawshire
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: May 05, 2022
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Mawshire » Fri May 27, 2022 2:22 am

Il Borgia Vaticano wrote:God no. India's post colonial history has been one jump from catastrophe to another. Dear lord, they couldn't even guarantee their whole population access to clean water until 2015.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 726_1.html


I don't think Britain was exactly guaranteeing them that either - they couldn't even guarantee access to food a lot of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... itish_rule
"It is certainly true that I have observed the greater part of the length and breadth of Mawshire, its market towns and coal-enriched dales, only from the cursory vantage-point of a Hansom traversing it, for I fear to look any deeper; the beauty of its land, people and customs is best appreciated at first glance, lest any further contemplation thereof drive one down a path leading to utter spiritual and physical ruination. It is simply a country which one would do well not to contemplate for too long..."

- Edmond Holmfrith (1835-1881), Mawshire national poet, from his introduction to the 1879 anthology The Silent Hour and Other Poems

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54192
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Fri May 27, 2022 2:52 am

Makko Oko wrote:Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

India as we know it to-day didn't use to be British territory; the British Raj was far larger than India.
I think it would have been better to split the Raj back into the various pre-British countries. Much more interesting.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Engadine Mcdonalds 1997
Envoy
 
Posts: 310
Founded: Jan 21, 2021
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Engadine Mcdonalds 1997 » Fri May 27, 2022 2:59 am

With these sorts of questions we must ask the native population of whether or not the overlord should have left, for truly we do not understand the ground situation, nor have experienced it. If the majority say that independence was a terrible move, then we should understand as such, but if independence from Great Britain is seen as a positive force by the majority, then we must also understand as such
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXtq4a8829g&t=1s

"I’ll tell you about the Greens. You know what the Greens are? They are a bunch of opportunists and trots hiding behind a gum tree trying to pretend they’re the Labor Party"- Paul Keating

"When you look back on these last days, you will realize that all you've built was a tomb"- Escharum

Proud anti-ideologist and chief architect of Jordan Shanks Thought

User avatar
The Jat
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: May 24, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Ofc

Postby The Jat » Fri May 27, 2022 3:13 am

Look at India now and what it could've been by now! The British set back the Indians so much and they could actually had a powerful ally so big mistake on the British part.

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 16419
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Fri May 27, 2022 3:16 am

Absolutely. Neither Britain nor India stood to benefit from any attempt to prolong the life of the Raj against the will of the great majority of the Indian population, who, after all, vastly outnumbered their occupiers. It would have been nice if the Anglo-Indian personal union could have been preserved but I don't think that was a realistic possibility by the 1940s. The monarchies of the princely states should have been preserved, though, and the Indian monarchy could have been reformed into an elective monarchy along the Malaysian model after the death of King George VI.
Space Squid wrote:No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Was this because of British misrule, though, or was it the consequence of other economies undergoing rapid growth and industrialisation? You might argue that the British could have taken greater steps to industrialise India rather than shipping raw materials back to the home nations to be converted into goods, but it's difficult to argue that India would have actually faired better economically had it never been colonised at all, especially since the consolidation of British rule brought to an end a long period of intermittent warfare between various native Indian states, particularly the Mughals and the Marathas.
Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

I question the assertion that the British actually had the "resources and ability" to avert the Bengal Famine. Certainly relief efforts could have been more effective, but Britain was dealing with a world war at the time, which placed significant strain on its ability to deal with any other crises.
Whisky-loving Anglican monarchist and one time moderator.
"It is spiritless to think that you cannot attain to that which you have seen and heard the masters attain. The masters are men. You are also a man. If you think that you will be inferior in doing something, you will be on that road very soon."
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo

User avatar
Mostrov
Minister
 
Posts: 2730
Founded: Aug 06, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mostrov » Fri May 27, 2022 4:04 am

Space Squid wrote:No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

The decline, if it could be called that, was due to the massive growth of Europe's wealth from the industrial revolution: the causes of which were largely confined to Europe and had little to do with European colonial expansion—90% of Britain's trade during this period was with Europe. India was in an almost medieval state of development when Britain achieved paramount power on the subcontinent.

LEGENDARIS wrote:The brits didn't do much to develop the places they colonized,they only wanted their resources,spread their influence and show their might.

Britain spent an enormous amount of money and effort in creating the institutions of India: can they be criticized for establishing a uniform system of laws, from an essentially medieval fundament, or a civil service, police, hospital system and so on?

User avatar
Chan Island
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6466
Founded: Nov 26, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Chan Island » Fri May 27, 2022 4:09 am

By the time the independence happened, it was less a question of whether it should -more whether it must become so with violence or without, and whether it ought to be one country or multiple. So from the point of view of avoiding mass death, especially so soon after WW2, the answer is yes.
Last edited by Chan Island on Fri May 27, 2022 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=513597&p=39401766#p39401766
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56875
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 27, 2022 4:14 am

Space Squid wrote:No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.


The economy of India was in free fall before the British arrived. It's why Britain was able to conquer them in the first place. The 38% figure is from the height of the Mughal period, but the Marathi rebellion had shattered the country and they were in a process of de-industrialization (from their proto-industrialization phase that they were in) and de-urbanization as a consequence. The first major inroad the British made was when the Bengali King couldn't afford to pay tax collectors due to the collapse of Bengali industry as a consequence of Marathi raiders and the collapse of their economy. He turned to the British East India company and asked them to collect the taxes for him and keep a share. The British considered this him ceding sovereignty to them and as evidence that Indians were unable to govern a country. The company then began collecting taxes on his behalf and informed him his territory was annexed into the company, but that he would continue to be paid a stipend. This formed the basic pattern that continually repeated across India as various Indian princes turned to the British because they were unable to keep order or manage the budget as a result of India's collapsing economy, and wanted to keep being kings and princes, and so needed the British to prop them up.

The British didn't grow India's economy, but they are not the reason India is poor. It was poor before they arrived, and then kept poor by the British. But even this is misleading when we examine "Why is India so poor?" as a question.

India was equal in GDP per capita to the Asian Tiger economies at the time of independence, but the Asian Tigers rapidly developed and are now as rich or richer than many western nations. India did not as a consequence of their own poor governmental policies.

The Jat wrote:Look at India now and what it could've been by now! The British set back the Indians so much and they could actually had a powerful ally so big mistake on the British part.


India's poverty and lack of development is nothing to do with the British at this point. Both Indian nationalists and westerners who hate the west are keen to insist it is despite comparative examples like the Asian Tiger economies because the alternative is to say that a third world country is third world because they keep making stupid policy decisions and that it's not actually anything to do with the evil white man or colonialism.

The westerners who hate the west are also keen to insist India is poor because of the British because the actual reason it is poor is that it pursued socialism for decades while the Asian tiger economies pursued liberal economics and as a result rapidly developed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_rate_of_growth

"The Hindu rate of growth is a term used by advocates of liberalisation referring to the lower annual growth rate of the economy of India before the economic reforms of 1991, which stagnated around 3.5% from 1950s to 1980s, while per capita income growth averaged around 1.3%.

The usage of the term has been criticized by modern neoliberal economists as they believe that the cause of the low growth rate was the failed dirigist model and economic mismanagement.

The term contrasts with South Korea's Miracle on the Han River and the Taiwan Miracle. While these Asian Tigers had similar income level as India in the 1950s, exponential economic growth since then has transformed them into developed countries today. The economy of India accelerated and has grown at a rate of around 3–9% since economic liberalisation began in the 1990s with the exception of 2020.".

It really is as simple as that. The only time the British can be said to have been responsible for India's poverty is during the colonial period (As in, the reason India *remained* poor, not *became* poor) and in the immediate decade after decolonization. Everything since then has been a result of their own mismanagement and poor policy decisions.


Indian Nationalists and various western "Social Justice" types whine and mewl about how the British are responsible, but no economist takes any of these people seriously.

----------

As to the OP, India probably should not have been independent without a tutelage period, but once they'd set their minds to it that was that. If they were going to go Independent, they shouldn't have done so with Gandhi or his ilk leading the way. It has impoverished billions when you take a generational view of it.

The progressive whining about "Well the British only built trains from the resources to the ports" in response to "The British gave India trains" as though this proves the British were bad is also staggeringly stupid from an economic point of view. An Export-orientated economy is cited as one of the key reasons the Asian Tiger economies rapidly developed to become peers to the colonial powers. The British left India with everything it needed to become a superpower. They fucked it up, and then turn around and blame us.

Don't blame us. We told you you weren't able to govern yourselves, and you're proving us right. Well, you were until the 90s when you finally realized your mistake... until Modi, that is.

From 1850 to 1947, India's GDP in 1990 international dollars grew from $125.7 billion to $213.7 billion, a 70% increase or an average annual growth rate of 0.55%. This was a higher rate of growth than during the Mughal era (1600-1700), when it had grown by 22%, an annual growth rate of 0.20%, or the longer period of mostly British East Indian company rule from 1700 to 1850 where it grew 39% or 0.22% annually...

India's GDP (PPP) per capita was stagnant during the Mughal Empire and began to decline prior to the onset of British rule... From 1850 to 1947 India's GDP per-capita had grown by 16%, from $533 to $618 in 1990 international dollars.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ritish_Raj

I'm bored of people making shit up because they hate white people.

Indian nationalists harp on the "Share of global GDP" point to make their case that the British were bad for India because if the point to GDP or GDP per capita, they can't pretend everything was amazing before the UK arrived. But the reasons for India's declining share of global GDP are nothing to do with British rule either. It's to do with the rest of the world developing.

The USA for instance used to have an enormous share of global GDP. What changed? Well, other places got factories. It's as simple as that.

India was still able to compete during the early stages of industrialization abroad, but its market share was already declining. With the Marathi rebellion and de-urbanization, India's economy entered a free fall.

The only way "It's the British's fault our share of global GDP went down" makes sense is if you think the British are evil for inventing the steam engine. It's just the seething and coping of angry Indian nationalists who hate that the world moved away from them, not an actual sensible articulation of social justice. They're grasping at straws. And again, they have nothing to back this up.

See here.

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/orou ... nDeind.pdf

Economic decline in India has been traced to before British colonial rule and was largely a result of increased output in other parts of the world and Mughal disintegration. India's share of world output (24.9%) was largely a function of its share of the world population around 1600.


https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-sh ... over-time/

The US ofcourse very famously being occupied and looted in the 60s, causing their share of global GDP to drop from 40% to 24% over those 60 years. :roll:
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri May 27, 2022 5:10 am, edited 20 times in total.
The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 28295
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Fri May 27, 2022 5:06 am

Risottia wrote:
Makko Oko wrote:Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

India as we know it to-day didn't use to be British territory; the British Raj was far larger than India.
I think it would have been better to split the Raj back into the various pre-British countries. Much more interesting.


Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

And who wouldn't want to be ruler of Tonk?
Last edited by The Archregimancy on Fri May 27, 2022 5:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54192
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Fri May 27, 2022 5:53 am

The Archregimancy wrote:
Risottia wrote:India as we know it to-day didn't use to be British territory; the British Raj was far larger than India.
I think it would have been better to split the Raj back into the various pre-British countries. Much more interesting.


Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

Wouldn't it be awesome? Also, more stamps, more currencies, all kind of extra collectibles!

And who wouldn't want to be ruler of Tonk?

Well I wouldn't because I wouldn't like to be saluted with a prime number of guns. I'd prefer a power of 2 greater than 8.
Also, I dislike warm climates.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Makko Oko
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Jan 20, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Makko Oko » Fri May 27, 2022 6:24 am

Okay let's put this into perspective, India took until 2018 to legalize same-sex marriage, meanwhile Britain had it decriminalized back in 1967 with the Sexual Offences Act. Now, I'm all for independence of governments and countries, but if you want me to be honest, which would be better? Living in an outdated society of rights, or living in an up to date society of rights?

User avatar
The Nihilistic view
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11168
Founded: May 14, 2013
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The Nihilistic view » Fri May 27, 2022 6:24 am

It would be better and worse, just depends what you value and what aspect you are looking at.
Slava Ukraini

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122189
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri May 27, 2022 7:19 am

People tend to prefer to be ruled by one of their own rather than a benevolent outsider. That said the brits were not that benevolent.

So yes, India should be, and is better off being independent.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Samrif
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Apr 13, 2022
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Samrif » Fri May 27, 2022 8:16 am

Was there a huge movement for independence in India?
Since there was it is safe to assume that British rule in India was not positive.
Could the British keep India after WW2?
No as Britains economy and military power had taken a huge hit. They could not have kept control as there were rebellions and mutinies in the British Indian Armed Forces as it was mostly made of Indians and it was with the help of those Armed Forces the British had managed to maintain their power for this long.

User avatar
Kerwa
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1286
Founded: Jul 24, 2021
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Kerwa » Sat May 28, 2022 3:10 am

38% is way too high. Try 20+.

And it wasn’t deindustriliazed, it just didn’t industrialize at the same rate as Western Europe.

Whatever. They really crazy thing is that based upon Victorian writings people thought they were “helping” India. They really did. 100% convinced they were a righteous force for good.

Those sort of people are still around today. And they are still a menace.

User avatar
Kingdom of the Indus
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Apr 14, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Kingdom of the Indus » Sat May 28, 2022 3:25 am

Risottia wrote:
The Archregimancy wrote:
Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

Wouldn't it be awesome? Also, more stamps, more currencies, all kind of extra collectibles!


A German Empire-type federal monarchy system in modern India would be very cool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_monarchy
Last edited by Kingdom of the Indus on Sat May 28, 2022 3:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
♔ Indusian Colonial Empire ♔
- The Constitutional Monarchy of Kingdom of the Indus
- The Colony of New Indusia
- The Colony of Rhyddhad
- The Colony of Chandra Luna


User avatar
Bistritza
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Apr 20, 2022
Capitalizt

Postby Bistritza » Sat May 28, 2022 3:38 am

I don't think people who ask these questions know why or how colonization during the 18th-20th centuries occurred. Without this knowledge, they don't know why or how decolonization occurred either. This is speaking from a general aspect. In the case of UK and their colonial holdings, it's even more apparent that sufficient knowledge is lacking.
Most people answering are assuming that you're asking ''What would've been more beneficial for the British Raj, in retrospective'', completely hypothetically.
So to answer that^ question instead; Yes. If British Raj was kept as a colonial possession, retaining the same status it had, it would've been a complete mayhem. This scenario would make The Troubles look like a peaceful conflict.
Main Nation | General Info | The Constitution | NSEconomy Stats | Military Info, Main and Puppets
Other nations | BeeStreetz, Political Parties, More Info | Bistritza TSP-MP Representative, The Regional Alliance
Mediums: Hard OOC; Soft OOC; Soft IC; Hard IC | The accounts' posts are rarely Hard OOC.

User avatar
Samudera Darussalam
Senator
 
Posts: 4249
Founded: Aug 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Samudera Darussalam » Sat May 28, 2022 7:11 am

Kingdom of the Indus wrote:
Risottia wrote:Wouldn't it be awesome? Also, more stamps, more currencies, all kind of extra collectibles!


A German Empire-type federal monarchy system in modern India would be very cool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_monarchy

I suppose the problem is in "who would become the emperor", unless this rhetorical India adopted the Malaysian system or retain the Queen as the figurehead. That said, if many of these states manage to reach some compromise, it would be really interesting.

Ethel mermania wrote:People tend to prefer to be ruled by one of their own rather than a benevolent outsider.

Also, I agree with this.
With that kind of popular support for independence, I doubt keeping the British Raj is worth it.

User avatar
PhilTech
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 441
Founded: Sep 29, 2020
Corporate Bordello

Postby PhilTech » Sat May 28, 2022 8:07 am

Yes of course! Else we won't have free tutoring services from the internet.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crylante, Duvniask, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, Impiron, Kingdom of Englands, PhilTech, San Lumen, Spirit of Hope, Tarsonis, The Holy Therns, The Nihilistic view, The Notorious Mad Jack, Washington Resistance Army, Yasuragi

Advertisement

Remove ads