Indo-UK: News & Discussion

disha · Post by **disha** » 24 Dec 2009 11:21

Johann wrote:Certainly, increasingly after 1905 many in the British establishment were anxious to win over Indian opinion in order to keep Indo-British ties positive.

Jalianwala Bagh and many in the British establishment.

Facts belies the statement.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Dec 2009 11:36

The conversation between FDR and Churchill during the summit held off the coast of Argentia, Newfoundland on Aug. 13-14, 1941, as related by FDR’s son, Elliot.

I can scarcely believe FDR's nobility and insight. It makes Churchill doubly amoral, immoral and wicked.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 24 Dec 2009 11:50

sanjaykumar,

thats why i have asked who/what influenced FDR.

wo kya khaate the? guru kaun the? bharat aur dusre garib colinized desh ke upar itna prem kyun tha?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 24 Dec 2009 11:52

sanjaykumar wrote:The conversation between FDR and Churchill during the summit held off the coast of Argentia, Newfoundland on Aug. 13-14, 1941, as related by FDR’s son, Elliot.
I can scarcely believe FDR's nobility and insight. It makes Churchill doubly amoral, immoral and wicked.

Amen.

Knew previously that Churchill was a sick puppy. But insight on FDR's thought process specifically as it related to the Brit empire's colonies - new and refreshing.

No doubt the US was interested in cutting free empire to sink UK-stan's big power pretensions, and supported Indian independence to that end. But to think of Indians as people and not merely as pawns on some Royal Geographical society chess-board is appreciated.

Murugan,

wo kya khaate the? guru kaun the? bharat aur dusre garib colinized desh ke upar itna prem kyun tha?

Yup. Almost like the man read Vivekananda.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 24 Dec 2009 11:59

Churchill, Roosevelt and India: Propaganda During World War II - Editorial Review

As the United States was drawn into the Second World War, pressure grew from a number of nations for India’s independence. Prime Minister Churchill, in Britain's name, engaged deliberately in propaganda in the United States to persuade the American public and, through it, President Roosevelt that India should not be granted self-government at that time. Weigold adroitly unravels the reasons why this propaganda campaign was deemed necessary by Churchill, in the process, revealing the campaign’s outcomes for nationalist Indians.

In 1942 Sir Stafford Cripps went to India to offer limited self-government for the duration of the war. However, when negotiations between Churchill and his newly convened India Committee collapsed, the failure of the talks was publicized in the United States as a matter of Indian intransigence and not Britain’s failure to negotiate—a spin of the news that critically affected public opinion. Relying upon extensive archival research, Weigold exposes the gap between Britain’s propaganda account and both the official and unofficial records of the course the negotiations took. Weigold concludes that during the drafting, progress and planned failure of Cripps’ Offer, this episode in the imperial endgame revolved around Churchill and Roosevelt, leaving Indian leaders without influence over their immediate political future.

Google Books has the excerpts

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 24 Dec 2009 12:12

What appalls me is how few outside the enlightened confines of a BRF or an IF even know about these historical facts. The pre-BRF me, raised on Dilli-Billi Romila Thapar BS didn't know.

IMHO, it should be documented and laid out in all our school textbooks - every class X students should know what then Brit leaders have said, on record, about India and Indians.

Every class X student should be able to tell the top 10 reasons why the supposed 'good' the Brits left us (English, Railways, telegraf etc) is no credit to UK-stan.

Every class X student should know that facts were fudged, faked and world leaders misled to break up India in the way the Brits wanted. That the glorious Brits lied, deceived and continue to do so when it suits their agenda. That the challenges India faced were multifaceted and existential in nature and that our survival and strength in the face of Brit atrocity is no small feat.

When every class X student knows and understands what is recorded fact, then we will see an India willing to (as vina gently puts it) kick UK-stan in its nuts when it deserves the kick, show UK-stan its place when our interests collide with theirs and so on. Only then can we exorcise the ghost of colonism and the consequent diffidence and misplaced deference shown to the Brit types, Brit era divisions that still plague us (the Kandha-Pana conflict in Orissa, for example) and move on as a more assuredly self-confident nation-state. Or so I hope.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 24 Dec 2009 12:42

Hari

Enlightened confines of BRF may kindly circulate by email these facts to their friends and relatives. and so on so forth...

Our Hopes to "move on as a more assuredly self-confident nation-state" will turn into Trust.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Dec 2009 13:38

We are now 60+ years on after Independence and must look back and evaluate ourselves whether our rulers have done justice to the people of independent India in their conduct.If we have problems now,we cannot continue to blame our erstwhile colonial rulers for our current woes.The question now is what should be the contours of Indo-British relations in the 21st century,especially as there have been many developments like the growth of the EU into a single political and financial entity,NATO's "surge" towards ASia, and Britain's attempt to continue a priviliged realtionship with the US and an independent foreign policy within the EU.The fact that there is a large diaspora fom the sub-continent is a factor that political parties in the UK take cognisance of,which has manifested itself in foriegn policy attitudes towards Sri Lanka for example,Kashmir,etc.,etc.With the emergence of Indian corporate houses like Tatas,Mittal and Co. investing heavily in the UK (Jaguar-LR,Corus,etc.),a new dynamic economic relationship is developing,where the old ties with the subcontinent are proving their usefulness.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 24 Dec 2009 14:00

Philip wrote:We are now 60+ years on after Independence and must look back and evaluate ourselves whether our rulers have done justice to the people of independent India in their conduct.If we have problems now,we cannot continue to blame our erstwhile colonial rulers for our current woes.The question now is what should be the contours of Indo-British relations in the 21st century,especially as there have been many developments like the growth of the EU into a single political and financial entity,NATO's "surge" towards ASia, and Britain's attempt to continue a priviliged realtionship with the US and an independent foreign policy within the EU.The fact that there is a large diaspora fom the sub-continent is a factor that political parties in the UK take cognisance of,which has manifested itself in foriegn policy attitudes towards Sri Lanka for example,Kashmir,etc.,etc.With the emergence of Indian corporate houses like Tatas,Mittal and Co. investing heavily in the UK (Jaguar-LR,Corus,etc.),a new dynamic economic relationship is developing,where the old ties with the subcontinent are proving their usefulness.

Phillip Sir,
Why the self-flagellation? Didn't post-war Germany apologise and make amends. Also, after WW1, they were made to pay back leading to the economic ruin of the Germany in the 1920s.

Now, the question to Britain is, will it own up to:

- the loot
- the thousands killed during the famines
- an apology for the past actions.

The word here is CLOSURE. We need that to move on....in fact...Britain needs that. As the loot runs out and they face insignificance, they need us more.

Raghz · Post by **Raghz** » 24 Dec 2009 15:27

Longish read, but very good in putting many myths to rest.
[url]http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html[/url]

Railway map of 1909. Almost all of the routes included sea ports so that raw materials could be transported out and men / finished goods could be transported in. Rail routes to places such as Darjeeling had nothing to do with aiding mass transportation of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India ... s1909a.jpg

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 24 Dec 2009 15:44

Philip

If one does not learn from history may probably repeat it.

one cannot progress unless and until is comfortable under the skin.

such exercises like finding out true past and history are necessary to understand our true nature. de-schackle our minds from so called colonial prowess influencing our identity no worthwhile progress from the position of strength can be made.

visiting history is like going for medical check-up. all the previous behaviours are analyzed before diagnosis.

all in all, whatever shape EU takes, whatever UKstan becomes or who so ever US favours, India must not be adversely affected AND all our policies should be formed with one pointedness of becoming a better and better state without putting ourselves in competition with countries with artificial histories.

I won't mind if the above countries form their positive policies with India in mind.

How long such a giant country like India will be forced to see herself as a minnow?

Raghz · Post by **Raghz** » 24 Dec 2009 15:55

Neela,
Not thousands, but Millions died due to man made famines. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) died in the aftermath of 1857 uprising. The british were "desperate to restore order" after the uprising.

Historical GDP graph. I cannot find the picture of just India, China and UK comparison from 1500 to 2002

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 24 Dec 2009 19:53

The British did leave their colonial legacy intact with the Pakistani rape class. Witness the treatment of Bangladeshis.
That is one of the 500 reasons why they love Pakistan.

But now I am beginning to believe in Karma. It works man

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 24 Dec 2009 20:14

I have great anger towards the British for what they have done to us but you know what? I have greater anger towards our kings, aristocracy, and leaders during the 1700s and early 1800s for allowing this to happen. That's where the most of the fault lies. Our leaders were so corrupted and so selfish that they ignored what was really happening. If a lesson has to be learned, I would rather that the lesson be about how our leaders have failed us and India in the face of the greatest threat that India had faced : the British occupiers.

Forget about repatration and return of the loot. I would rather those things stay in Britain for no other reason but to serve us a grim reminder how we can never let this happen again. Let the British keep their museums, artifacts, loots, and their "glorious" heritage as a punishment for our leaders' failings and to serve us a historical reminder that unity in the face of grave dangers and threats existing today such as Pakistan and China is imperative for the survival of the nation. One such example is the breakup of Andhra Pradesh state. I do not support it. I have a suggestion. Let us turn Victoria Memorial in Calcutta into a museum that highlights our leaders' failures, greeds, sins that allowed the British takeover as well as the crimes of the British. That would be a good use of the Victoria Memorial and will poke a black eye in the British.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 24 Dec 2009 20:58

I see the usual suspects lament on this thread that we take such a "one-dimensional" view of the British role in India. The truth is, that "one dimension" is of such significance that it renders everything else negligible.

The British-Indian relationship is defined by the primary dynamic of British-Indian interaction; it is like the Nazi-Jew relationship in this sense. The main difference being that there were not as many Jews to start with, so the Nazis made a proportionally bigger dent in their population over a shorter span of time. Meanwhile there were plenty of Indians, so that genocide was a prohibitively costly option for the British in many cases.

Where genocide was the most cost-effective option, the British willingness to use it, and efficiency in pursuing it have been documented widely enough to make the Third Reich look like amateurs in comparison.

So it's nonsense to argue that we're being one-dimensional about India's experience with the British. I mean, I'm sure some Jews in Germany were able to afford a Volkswagen thanks to Hitler, and even enjoyed it for a while before they were sent to the ghetto. Ask their descendants if it makes any difference.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Dec 2009 22:02

a few years ago, i was in conversation with an austrian guy, much older than myself. this was before the takeoff of the BRIC economies and before India was in its present economic strength. he was asking me about India and the prospects of growth, and then asked about why things were so bad. I began with the 'one dimensional' logic of how empire had left us much denuded and weakened and i repeated many of the arguements that others have presented here on this thread.

he listened for a while and then said 'its been almost two generations since independence, how much longer are you going to keep blaming the british for everything?'; so i said 'but it was such a devastating legacy...'; so he said 'look at what they did to us (including germans) and look at us now'

i am well aware of the legacy and it is one that should be discussed - i would be in favour of a truth and reconciliation council type expose of empire. however, i believe it can be discussed separately to matters of present importance

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 24 Dec 2009 22:32

Lalmohan wrote: he listened for a while and then said 'its been almost two generations since independence, how much longer are you going to keep blaming the british for everything?'; so i said 'but it was such a devastating legacy...'; so he said 'look at what they did to us (including germans) and look at us now'

Sir, the difference between German occupation of Austria and British enslavement of India are different. 150 years of colonial rule in transitional stage (from agrarian to industrial/modern)
1. They destroyed the value system and education system.
2. Thoughtfully the covenant system destroyed rule of law, resulting creeping corruption.
3. Ignited eternal fires at borders, without peaceful borders, the full force of diplomacy could not concentrate on development and upliftment of people.

In one sentence, they took away the desire to search the inner soul.

bart · Post by **bart** » 24 Dec 2009 22:44

Lalmohan wrote:
he listened for a while and then said 'its been almost two generations since independence, how much longer are you going to keep blaming the british for everything?'; so i said 'but it was such a devastating legacy...'; so he said 'look at what they did to us (including germans) and look at us now'

i am well aware of the legacy and it is one that should be discussed - i would be in favour of a truth and reconciliation council type expose of empire. however, i believe it can be discussed separately to matters of present importance

That is a ridiculous comparison:
The Allies merely defeated Germany and bombed them badly (in the process suffering immense losses themselves).

Germany was already a developed country and part of the scientific and industrial revolution for a couple of hundred years before WW I or II. In fact Germany was argueably ahead of Britain in science, industry, music and arts, etc evident from the fact that it was able to match or better Britain and France without having to colonize other countries and loot their wealth. They were already 100% literate and enjoyed a high standard of living.

Britain (the Allies actually) badly damaged German infrastructure, but infrastructure could be rebuilt. It is probably the easiest part of a nation to re-build, unlike the nations soul/psyche or communal unity etc. They also were helped by massive American assistance to get back on their feet. Unlike India, they were never really occupied for an extended time nor were they looted in the colonial manner nor was their knowledge systems destroyed or their literacy dragged down to 12% by the British. Plus the inter-religious, inter caste and regional conflict created by the British and creation of Pakistan. There is no way that the WWII destruction of Germany compares with 300 years of colonial loot of India.

If the Germans were hurt much in WWII it was not due to the British but to two things of their own doing:
1> Kicking out and persecuting Jews, which lead to much of the best intellect leaving for American shores
2> Fighting Russia, something that really depleted their army and population unlike anything including the bombing of Dresden or anything else.

The Austrian guy is entitled to whatever BS he wants to believe, but I am surprised you are buying in to his logic.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Dec 2009 22:46

^^^ (KMK) sorry, you missed my point - the austrians were ofcourse eager to embrace germany, i meant the allied destruction of germany - including greater germany (austria); ofcourse austria itself was not devastated like germany, but many austrians were killed or went missing serving the german cause

edited later - (bart) i am not buying his logic word for word, i am making the point about separating the past from the future after catastrophic change, the point is when does the quest for the future start?

bart · Post by **bart** » 24 Dec 2009 23:01

kmkraoind wrote:
Sir, the difference between German occupation of Austria and British enslavement of India are different. 150 years of colonial rule in transitional stage (from agrarian to industrial/modern)

I think that is the most important thing. We were traditionally a great trading nation, one the ancient cross-roads of the world's civilizations, learning from and sharing knowledge to China, South East Asia (Khmer, Ayuthaya, Srivijaya etc), Arab, Greece and Rome.

The British destroyed our trade networks and took over our trade to profit from that. If we had been free, and able to participate in free trade we would have been able to partake in scientific knowledge and also import technology that we needed and we would have been as developed or more developed than the west (After all, we were vastly more developed than the west for thousands of years and much of their scientific development was based on mathematical concepts learned from us) . China similarly lost out because they chose to be insular, Japan OTOH benefited because they actively tried to end their isolation and absorb knowledge from the rest of the world, we were actively shut out by the British as they killed our entrepreneurship and trade networks, looted all our wealth, and provided piss-poor governance designed to destroy our competitiveness.

There is nothing special about British building railways, even if the British were not there we would have built railways and other infrastructure. We essentially missed the industrial revolution and associated development because of colonial rule.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Dec 2009 23:39

bart - fully agree with your analysis of the past. so what are we going to do about the future?

bart · Post by **bart** » 25 Dec 2009 01:29

In the context of this thread, to start with, we have to learn from the mistakes of the past, and to do that we need to accurately understand it first. That means we have to arrive at our own assessment of colonial rule and our recent history, and form our own narrative and established version of what we see as our actual history, regardless of whether it shows us or the British or any other party in a flattering light or not, and make sure that every generation understands it clearly.

About what to do about the future, I think that is a very wide subject, and most of the threads on this forum are directly or indirectly discussing aspects of that. What you ask is a very fair and relevant question, however focusing on the future or the need to move on IMHO does not mean we allow the wrongs of the past to be glossed over or meekly listen to British folk denying the holocaust that they perpetrated on us or even glorifying it. Apart from any ego and hurt and other emotional topics, if we gloss over the problems of the past and the reasons for them we our doing our own future a disservice as even worse than the lost millennium for India will be not learning from the tragedy.

I think thats what most people on this thread are trying to say, while we should never forget, we can gladly move on. Having said that, for us to move on, both sides need to move on, and often there is little evidence of that from large sections of the British society as evidenced from:
-Periodic media articles glorifying imperial rule of India and it's legacy.
-A general feeling of nostalgia for the Raj
-Patronizing behavior in other areas, for example cricket. The hatred for India just oozes out of many English cricket correspondents, and it is too much to be just about sport.
-A general contempt for India in the mainstream press, including the Economist, Telegraph (check out the blog of their India correspondent), etc. This kind of contempt seems to be reserved mainly for India, it has not been evident towards Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, or apartheid South Africa.
-British folk including general public, media, NGOs etc are at the forefront of condemning India's economic growth as immoral and claiming that there is too much disparity and anybody in India who is successful is bad for being so successful and prosperous when there are poor people around. Where was such enlightened thinking during 250 years of EIC and Imperial rule, one wonders.
-Organized tours of cemeteries in India so offspring of colonial thugs can pay homage to their ancestors.

I think the expectations of Indians are no different from that of Israel about Germans. They have moved on, are happy to collaborate and people of the current generation by and large bear each other no ill-will. However Israelis and Jews in general do expect that Germans do not try to glorify or even deny the Holocaust, and this is something wholeheartedly embraced by the German government and people. Why cant Britain do the same.

Apart from British denying the Holocaust, many of our elites and general population seem to think that colonialism had a lot of positive benefits. This ranges across a wide variety of social strata and different people have different motivations, from Oxbridge type folks like MMS to senile old folk who long for British rule each time they spot something about modernity that they don't like. While that generation is beyond help, at least future generations should have the right perspective, which brings us back to the need for a proper historical narrative defined by Indians rather than colonialists.

bart · Post by **bart** » 25 Dec 2009 02:09

How many Indians have read Great Expectations and Tale of Two Cities etc and greatly admire Dickens but have no idea that he said about Indians:
“I wish I were a commander in chief in India. The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental Race with amazement . . . should be to proclaim to them . . . that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested; and that I was . . .now proceeding, with . . . merciful swiftness of execution, to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the Earth”

If this was something written about Jews, you could be sure that not only Jews but most people on the planet would be aware of it and would be repulsed at the thought of reading Dickens.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 25 Dec 2009 02:27

The problem with slaves is that they remind you of your own god's degeneracy.

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 25 Dec 2009 02:45

^^^^
Didn't Dickens write that after 1857? Shows how deeply shaken the all mighty empire was.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Dec 2009 04:02

derkonig wrote:^^^^
Didn't Dickens write that after 1857? Shows how deeply shaken the all mighty empire was.

the empire was not quite at its zenith by then but it was shaken to the core. those sentiments were commonly echoed by many officers of empire and acted out ruthlessly - and the interesting thing is that it was primarily directed against the then muslim ruling and 'martial' classes of india. it was one 'ruling class' deposing another. the ruled were largely 'inconsequential' to either of these parties. what happens next is that crushed by the weight of empire, muslim thoughts turn towards either deobandi resistance or submission. the latter leads to the road to pakistan. in the meantime, the rest of India awakens to the new era and as the british themselves go through a transition from victorian barbarism to edwardian proto-liberalisation and the empire peaks in 1905, the old order starts to change.

one thing worth remembering is that the british never exceeded 250,000 in India. You can figure out for yourself, how they managed to rule such a vast and populous country with such few numbers. clearly terror was one method (as described by dickens) but there was also the collaboration of many. that part of history is far more complicated and difficult to deal with, and many on this thread will find it very unpalatable.

empire ended when that collaboration could no longer be guaranteed. the US as others have pointed out had its own interests in ending european empires, and did play a critical role in forcing the british hand, particularly churchill who absolutely hated India and routinely lied to the americans about the situation in India.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 25 Dec 2009 05:45

^^^ Can you illustrate the collaboration? In present India, that is the most important aspect

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 25 Dec 2009 11:14

Hitesh wrote:I have great anger towards the British for what they have done to us but you know what? I have greater anger towards our kings, aristocracy, and leaders during the 1700s and early 1800s for allowing this to happen. That's where the most of the fault lies. Our leaders were so corrupted and so selfish that they ignored what was really happening. If a lesson has to be learned, I would rather that the lesson be about how our leaders have failed us and India in the face of the greatest threat that India had faced : the British occupiers.

We learn about corrupt rulers of India of that era from British narration of incidents, which obviously was written to hide their actions. There might have been few corrupt leaders, but to call all of them corrupt indeed stretches it too far. You seem to forget many wars British had to fight to take full control of India.

If you wanted to blame some Indians for its colonization, I would suggest you to blame almost all intellectual Indians lived in that period for not bothering to understand those foeigners who were going length and breadth of India. While Europeans meticulously wrote down every interaction with Indians, none of the Indians felt like sending few Indians on a ship to Europe to find out who those people were, what they did, how they thought etc. They felt that it was not worth understanding those people who were begging for trading rights.

Net effect was that Europeans fully understood the strengths and weaknesses of Indians, where as Indians had no clue about their enemy. And I won't blame Indians of those days. We still have a huge number of Indians who are in the same mold.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 25 Dec 2009 11:20

Lalmohan wrote:and the interesting thing is that it was primarily directed against the then muslim ruling and 'martial' classes of india. it was one 'ruling class' deposing another.

Why? Other than Tipu Sultan earlier and Bahadursha during 1857, I don't know many muslim rulers who fought against British. Can you list some muslim rulers who were deposed after 1857?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Dec 2009 14:43

shyam wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:and the interesting thing is that it was primarily directed against the then muslim ruling and 'martial' classes of india. it was one 'ruling class' deposing another.
Why? Other than Tipu Sultan earlier and Bahadursha during 1857, I don't know many muslim rulers who fought against British. Can you list some muslim rulers who were deposed after 1857?

reprisal executions and killings following the uprising were directed primarily at breaking down the remnants of muslim power in the delhi and doab regions, however many many hindus also were killed

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 25 Dec 2009 14:48

The British took India primarily from the Marathas, NOT from the Mughals . I think we need to understand that fact first.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 25 Dec 2009 15:03

Rony wrote:The British took India primarily from the Marathas, NOT from the Mughals . I think we need to understand that fact first.

Minor correction

From Marathas and the Sikhs

gandharva · Post by **gandharva** » 25 Dec 2009 22:33

India News Reel: Final British Soldiers Leaving India

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r0aRMHzVo1g&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r0aRMHzVo1g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 25 Dec 2009 23:32

Mahendra wrote:
Rony wrote:The British took India primarily from the Marathas, NOT from the Mughals . I think we need to understand that fact first.
Minor correction

From Marathas and the Sikhs

The house was further divided really - from Tipu, from Ahoms, from Burmese, iirc, the southern tip of India (Malabar and southern kerala) was not fully under Tipu/Mughals or Marathas either, The Dogras etc.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 26 Dec 2009 01:13

Having been born in the UK and lived here all my life, apart from a short stretch at boarding school in India, I have never really had any problems. However I can honestly say things are now changing.
One thing I have noticed in the last several years is the deep, deep resentment at India's rise.
The Brits are very resentful of this.Whenever a story appears regarding India one just has to look at the comments from the general public.
Take a look at this discussion regarding a naval version of the Typhoon fighter, the interesting comment is as follows:

"From Meridians link I found this quote interesting: "India has ambitious plans to build three indigenous aircraft carriers (IACs). "

Can anyone tell me why we send India Money? Me am confoooosed"

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic ... art=0.html

The Brits seem to forget that their nations rise was financed by their Empire, when the empire was gone, they had to live on their own resources and wits, which is why they are on the downward spiral.

Or go to the Skynews search screen and search for India, look at the resentment in the comments:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Sky-Search

I used to regard myself as British, because I was born here as was my wife and kids, but to be honest, unless we totally give up any connection with India and change our names we will never be really accepted, even if we change our names we can't change our skin.

I brought a Union Jack flag patch to attach to my Bergan, but you know what I just can't do it, I can't.

I am seriously considering retiring in India and in the meantime will set up a few businesses there, in sunny Punjab.

Fact is Britain doesn't produce anything that can't be brought from other countries.

To be rather crude "£uck them"

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 26 Dec 2009 01:45

Just found this link regarding that idiot David Millibands visit to India.
Again look at the comments:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... rchresults

One of them is as follows:

" Of course Miliband stuck it to his Indian hosts over kashmir, there is a method in his madness. The Indian - ie. Hindu & Sikh community in the U.K. is small , hard working & law abiding & as such they are not a threat to nu-labours Muslim ( ie. Pakistani ) core inner city voters. Miliband , raised a marxist , doesn't like the free enterprise of hard working Indian shopkeepers & businesspeople - he prefers the politicaly active militant muslim welfare scoungers who voted labour into power. Its time for Hindus & Sikhs in the U.K. to end the automatic knee jerk solidarity with the muslims - your integration into british society is a success - the muslims ( pakistanis & arabs ) will never absorb - they are just as much our enemies as they are Indias. Miliband is in India to make trouble & keep the pakistanis happy & in labours pocket.

Posted By: paul sinclair"

And this is where the problem lies, they are scared of and at the same time need/crave the votes of the ever increasing moslem population in the UK.

Let them trade with pak, give pak protection money and import paks.
Great trade relationship.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Dec 2009 01:50

derkonig wrote:^^^^
Didn't Dickens write that after 1857? Shows how deeply shaken the all mighty empire was.

derko ji, read 'the last mughal', highly recommended.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 26 Dec 2009 02:29

Haresh wrote:Fact is Britain doesn't produce anything that can't be brought from other countries.

To be rather crude "£uck them"

Why is that £1 ~= Rs 70?

Why should the currency of a tiny country that produces nothing useful be valued so high?
In fact I think we should see £1 < Rs 1.

What is the secret manipulation there?

I can understand the reason for US$ to be so high. It is linked to the oil that everyone needs to purchase. Also, US is the worlds largest consumer to which every country wanted to export.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 26 Dec 2009 03:04

^^ Sad, but truth is Britain's service sector is bigger than Indian GDP...London handles financial transactions of $600 billion per day. Every good, bad and ugly thing in the world passes and traded in London. Remember constantinople in the past. They did nothing but everyone wanted to capture it. This keeps £££ going.

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Dec 2009 08:15

^^ Sad, but truth is Britain's service sector is bigger than Indian GDP...

Yawnn.. On a PPP basis, that is totally not true. What matters to folks within any particular country how goods and services are in local purchasing power and not in how much it would cost to buy in some hypothetical 3rd country.

After all, if I need to have breakfast, I walk down to the "Dharshini " next door in Bangalore and not any place in London! . So if I pay 20 Rupees for a breakfast of Idli and Coffee , I would probably pay 10 pounds for a similar thing in London!. What matters is that I can eat Idlis and drink coffee. I cant eat the equivalent currency . Idlis are real.. The UK Stani Pound is just Wampum!.

Every good, bad and ugly thing in the world passes and traded in London. Remember constantinople in the past. They did nothing but everyone wanted to capture it.

Of late, more than anything passing "through" , UK Stan seems to be the source and Fount of a majority of Global Pakiness. Nice.

This keeps £££ going

Yeah. With the way the Bank of England has the printing presses going, the only way the £££ is going is down the drain.

At this rate in 2 decades, the Indian Rupee and £ will have no divergence in nominal and PPP rates!. Then do the same math and you will come to startling conclusion like UK Stan's economy is 1/50th the size of the Indian one..