Viewed through the eyes of a small boy in the UK, India was impossibly remote and exotic. The Jungle Book was still as Kipling meant it to be, it was reduced to a money spinning parody by Disney.
Philip Mason at 16:16 is critical to understanding India. Its the first time on film that an Englishman has talked about experiencing the caste system. As a proud Indian myself we Indians need to study this film and analyse our past.
Yes I would agree with that. I had not realsied that Muhammad Jinnah has also specified the territories to make up Pakistan. The British are blamed for the partition and its failings, but it is clear in these interviews from the people who were there, that Britain thought it was bad idea.
@PedroOrtega1993 yes but when British left they didn't leave a United India. They left hundreds of princely states as it was before. Indian leaders brought them under one umbrella one by one.
It is surprising how people actually made great documentaries back then. I can only hope that someone would remaster this and air it back in places like History channel.
Can y’all stop saying you hope they re air shit like this y’all will forever be dumb lol BBC has set up regulations to not show this anymore get your information amd go
“If the history of British rule in India were to be condensed into a single fact, it is this: there was no increase in India’s per capita income from 1757 to 1947.” - Mike Davis
Why no mention of the improvements in social amenities Education. Hospitals , Medical Services not to mention transport ,democracy . with no interference with the many Religions of India .. I say the tangible benefits far ,far outweigh any so called offence caused , Be thankful for the United India they created. Less than a year of independence , came the the INDIAN Governments crazy decision to go down the road to partition Despite Britain’s pleas to abandon such lunacy , As Britain then was only acting in an advisory capacity the Indians blundered on When it came to the crunch the Indian and Pakistani factions could not agree on the exact placement of the proposed Border . Britain was then
asked to dot the I’s and cross the T’s They How ignorant can they be ???? foolishly agreed and ever since the lunatic fanatics on both sides claim that Britain partitioned the sub continent
@@billymorrison7919 Yeah..only thing missing was food. Jobs. Everything else was there. Richest place in the world was systematically destroyed and made into poorest place in the world. Have some shame when u glorify british colonialism. All the infrastructure s they built were only for the purpose of control and loot. It's the indipendent india which made it useful for the people. Yes today india is enjoying many benefits from colonial past. But please don't take pride in that. They caused huge damages and gave few benefits. Who care about democracy, caste, etc..when there is no food and money. India had caste problems, wars etc but people had food to eat before colonialism.
@@billymorrison7919 They were none for the benefit of Indians. First, the British destroyed what has been there for centuries and worked well. Then they imposed the English system to serve the British interests. The British did not unite India. The entity India has always been in existence. I suggest you read Shashi Tharoor's An Era of Darkness. The book is very well researched and will be an eye opener for you.
This is one of the greatest documentary series of all time. I watched it many years ago and loved it but for so long it has been on UA-cam with no sound. I feel like I have won the lottery to see it again. I am from NZ so that interest in the empire was born with me. I also have Irish blood so half the time I hate the Brits.
India was impoverished as a lot of money was weaned one way or the other from the Indian economy. However the Maharaja's were equally complicit. They also lived a life of luxury while the subjects were poor. Partition could have been avoided had saner heads prevailed. Mountbatten was a part of the problem. The British could have done better but people like Churchill was an Imperialist to the core. His removal showed that the British had a better side. The British left but arguably the Indians inherited a fine infrastructure and system matched only by the Catholic Church. To this day we still use it and feel no need to change or reform it.
I am not British or a descendant of the British and I have been living in an English-speaking country. Here is my candid opinion of the Westminster Parliamentary system of the British: Swiss direct democracy is far superior to the Westminster system of government. Even Taiwanese democracy is better than the democracy in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. The people of Taiwan have the power of recall that the people of those English-speaking countries can only dream about. Furthermore, the British and their colonials in Australia, New Zealand, Canada are masters of spin and illusion so that what appears on the surface is not what it is once you take a good, close look underneath the surface. In summary, I urge Indians to emulate the Swiss because Westminster system of government is second-rate at best.
@@karllarsen8797 yup but it won't happen first of all Indian democracy is not yet matured it is not in the level of Westminster let alone Swiss style democracy.
@@karllarsen8797 Thanks Karl for the information. It is a flawed system which corrupt politicians never cease to exploit . I have immense respect for the Swiss . They have made their mark in watches , Chocolates, Milk products , Banking , Pharma and a host of par excellence products . However the system of governance is a new one. How about the Swiss Miss !! I was actually making a larger point about the administration of India at the time . To control a country like India and that also to the village level needed a good system . To this could be added the Public works , Irrigation ,Revenue collection, Law and order , Law, Accounting and Central authority. 35,000 ruled 400,000,000. It was a feat . The Army was second to none , mainly Indians. Too late to change the Westminster System. Harry may have some ideas!!! Take Care
@R T/X On the contrary, the British orchestrated chaos to make their quiet exits from wherever they ruled. The escaped while the newly freed nations were left with dealing with the engineered chaos. For example- the Indo-Pak divide!
@@upadhyayrathiraj1518 Everyone likes someone to blame other than themselves. The brutal religious in-fighting in India was not due to the British but India's own internal hatred and distrust between countrymen and differing religions. What other choice was there but annexation? Britain left their colonies because of each colony's desire for political self independence, finance, and later American pressure to do so. The results in practically ALL cases were a reversal to corruption, in-fighting, brutality, poverty, political turmoil and chaos by choice, that would have never happened under a British administration. The Indian Civil Service and Indian Army under British/Anglo-Indian rule were said to be a world model of efficiency, pride and non corruption, administered only by the elite. Read, overcome your arrogance and inferiority complex and you will discover the first reply above is quite correct. Britain sought peace, prosperity and worked toward an end to corruption everywhere they went, setting an example the world has since emulated, a mother country where countless people now chose to emigrate, Indians included. Many of these former colonies who have since existed in political/economic turmoil speak openly of a desire for a British.
@@upadhyayrathiraj1518 Of the million plus employees of the British Raj only 600 were British. If the people of India had gotten together immediately after British departure India would have been one of the richest countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living. Instead the people opted for petty squabbles on the basis of Race, ethnicity and religion. Millions died in the partition and in the war in Bangladesh. You can't ask someone to leave then blame him for leaving.
@@michaelotieno6524 There was no need for British to unite India, but only for their own sake of profit. You must know India was never a country but a land of several ethnicities, and different little or big kingships ruling it at different parts. It's the British who came and looted and plundered these kingdoms who were ethnically diverse and brought them under one roof which created chaos, and now you claim Britishers are peace makers your statements are absolutely ridiculous.
@@maxwellfan55 Rather a convenient point of view, but if you know anything about it at all, you would know that, starting with the Hunter Commission Report, Hindu-Muslim rivalry was entirely a British creation.
"When the British Empire sinks beneath the waves of history only two monuments will be left standing - the game of association football and the expression f*ck off." - Richard Turnbull (in Aden) in 1967
One good job Indira Gandhi did was to stop privy purses of indian royalty, who were no more than door mats for the british in india. Even tribal leaders of Afghanistan were more patriotic than these Indian bootlickers. These Afghan tribal leaders joined their people to throw out the imperialists. Our leaders polished shoes of british officers in India.
@@strelacstrelac2650 Typing "top 10 most powerful countries in the world" on the internet shouldn't be that hard.. Will reduce a bit of that ignorance of yours..
When the English entered India in the early 1700s India economy was 27% of world economy when the British left in 1947 India accounted for 3% of world economy...there is your Empire benefit.
Min.18= "...we were so far apart that, although we lived next door to each other, we didn't intermarry, we didn't eat together, we were not called to each other ceremonies, the heroes of one were, sort of speak, the villains of the other, and so, you know, we became quite distinct, we were socially distinct..." It seems the enmity went back a long way, partition may have been inevitable, and the actual climate under Modi, with his embrace of Hindutva, may have proven Ali Jinnah right. Perhaps the film (Gandhi) was unfair towards Jinnah and glossed over Gandhi's conservatism and stance on the caste system, even without discrimination (don't know enough to understand how such a thing was even supposed to work).
The British must thank Gandhi and Nehru for their peaceful exit from India after August 1947. They literally vanished without trace, with lock-stock and barrel, as if they never existed in India. The British carefully orchestrated the India-Pakistan divide leading to wide-scale riots and massacres. With Indian and Pakistanis busy in dealing with this precarious situation--the erstwhile British rulers quietly left their quarters and the India shores! I don't think that any Briton was harmed anywhere in India/Pakistan.
Someone really needs to look into what propaganda the Indian government is plying to the children in their doomed attempt to bolster support for the artificial construct of India. Upadhyay, did you ever contemplate or look at the evidence of the severe Muslim-Hindu strife in India pre and post Britain? As a neutral arbiter, Britain was the only thing between peace and constant, low-intensity civil war...
Can you imagine what the world would look like if India and Pakistan had remained together. The best example of this was in the Partition of portions Pakistan into Bangladesh. The result of staying together would have destabilized the whole of Asia all the way from Iran to China and Korea. The area that now keeps the world economy running. Partition was the best thing that ever happened. The area would look like Israel/Palestine if they would have remained joint with all the proxy wars, terror tactics and countries aligning against each other. It would have made the cold war look like kindergarten and the middle East look like high school.
Utter garabage. Muhammed Ali Jinnah wanted nothing to do with Congress, Nehru or Ghandi. He wanted seperation a state called Pakistan or land of the pure. I am not sure about Pure though having to put two hotels behind bars in Lahore in 1978. Pakistan virtually a Muslim state is an abject failure. As for you stop playing the victims card. Why then did the British create larger states such as Malaysia, Central African Union etc. The dislike between Hindu and Muslim is entrenched throughout the history where Islam dominated over the Hindus ever since the 11th century. Congress believed it spoke for all India in that they were wrong. The British were for a united India as did Ghandi. The rulers of India before the British were Muslim.
Winston Churchil exceptionally able and effective operator to navigate through imbroglio of political theater. Not much loyalty for bipartisan cause though. Dangle escrow, divide and rule tactics, harness promises of sinecure to build alliances all to secure British political nisus.
the comments differentiate from the colonialist point of view (which is a little bit weird especially in this era and after the fall of colonialsim which proves its failure and cruelty) and sectarian hate (which is the base that tear apart India and nations) but what about nationality (to love your country and to defend it against any colonial force) and freedom (to be a citizen in your country whether your ideology or religion) that's what modern thinking of a state
Most certainly i would rather follow prophet Muhammed saw teachings in such scenarios than speculating and giving a back seat to my religion. Nationalism is haraam and religion is number 1
This is a brilliant series of uploads. Like so many other others have expressed for video 1 and video 2. I do appreciate it. But I find it shockingly missing, that no one has pointed out, violence and racism were the foundations of the British empire. There are multiple empirical studies to confirm this. Well done to the Brits for winning ww2, but really? Does no one else see the sheer exploiton and carelessness, with which the raj treated their colonies?
This sereis has value because the men involved in history were still alive, but the anti-Western narrative by certain minority relgious acting in concert producers at the BBC is palpable, just like today...
I am not convinced by Ghandi. Instrument of deception. He was for the downtrodden but defended the cast system. He was supposed to be a pacifist but recruted soldiers for war. Mysticism and practical politics...
@@dickmonkey-king1271 He criticised the implementation of the caste system and wanted reform of it but never once did he say the Caste system should be removed.
Gentlemen I watched the video and I have ,read, watched, several narratives on partition and Im saying with conviction that partition , Hindu&Muslim disunity ,riots massive killing happened only because off the craze for power by the leading politicians of that era.Their uncompromising attitude And the British took advantage and aided abetted the politicians which ultimately led to riots, massive killings of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and finally to partition .What's saddening is the hatred is still prevailing 74 yrs later and politicians in India& Pakistan will ensure that even 740 yrs later India & Pakistan remain as enemies only - Nandakumar/Coimbatore.
Britain created Pakistan, whether the Muslims wanted it or not, so that the British Army, Navy and Air Force could stay in India, even after the self rule demanded by the people of India, so as to combat the Soviet Union. As The Congress Party would not allow it, they got their agent Jinnah to create the Pakistan, which very gladly joined the Anglo-American Defence Pacts. It was planned by Churchill in 1940, but later Attlee also agreed to it. The result was millions of death, and millions of destitute refugees, but for the British the price was worth paying to stand up against the Soviet Union.
" Britain created Pakistan, whether the Muslims wanted it or no" Nonsense. Pakistan came into existence against the specific wishes of Ghandi, Neru and UK (represented by Mountbatten) were all opposed to partition. It came about purely at the obstinate insistence of Jinnah.
You are among the few in billions to come to right conclusion. Facts prove that Pakistan utility ended with the end of Soviet Union. Pakistan was created in the name of religion. Muslims are the most dumb nation. They will fight in the name of Allah with anyone , without weighing the advantage of fighting for their own cause. You can see the results now in the world.
Pakistan was created to serve the interests of UK & America to counter Russia after WW2.. As Indian Congress leaders (especially Nehru)were having socialist mindset & were close to Russia. Jinnah (Muslim League) was completely backed by British so that the new state of Pakistan can be used to counter Russia which was also influencing the Afghanistan rulers .. It was the revolt of India Navy & Army which made British run away in hurry... It was failure of Indian leaders ( Gandhi,Nehru) who completely failed to keep India United.. Pakistan was created to serve the interests of UK & America to counter Russia after WW2.. As Indian Congress leaders (especially Nehru)were having socialist mindset & were close to Russia. Jinnah (Muslim League) was completely backed by British so that the new state of Pakistan can be used to counter Russia which was also influencing the Afghanistan rulers .. It was the revolt of India Navy & Army which made British run away in hurry... It was failure of Indian leaders ( Gandhi,Nehru) who completely failed to keep India United.. Such great loss to humanity.. million killed..millions displaced... also leading to permeant enemity between two newly formed nations....millions displaced... also leading to permeant enemity between two newly formed nations..
And just for speaking the English language improperly, a language that is not their native tongue, they should be minimized as sub-humans and be oppressed and reduced to slavery. I have listened to the greatly diverse accents of Australians, Americans particularly in the south, Scottish, BBC English, and Irish. Which one of these different accents is the right way to speak English, when English is your only language? The Indians had their native language, as well as the imposition of this English, that they as servants must learn and speak, so as to accommodate themselves to the narrow understanding of the English overlords. You have to decide whether India is the Jewel on the crown or the filth on your diadem, not us.
Quite right. The Indians have a terrible accent, that only the British could understand. That was the secret of their success; keeping furriners out of comprehension range.
Indrajit Gupta - Haven’t yet met an Indian I couldn’t understand when speaking English. I grew up in Toronto, Canada which has a large Indian community.
Jai Bharath, Jai Hind & Vande Mataram May God bless & protect all Non Muslim Indians. Is Britain great because it is ruling India? Hitler's response was It is because of stupidity of India. Indians are not united, they bicker, fight among them, Congress leaders Mohandas Gandhi & Nehru betrayed India by creating secular state & giving special status to Muslims, giving only to Muslims right for Polygamy to marry up to 4 wives @any time, produce numerous kids from each wife like dogs, divorce easily by saying Talaq 3 times, remarry repeat the process produce numerous kids. This was the reason why Islam invaded India beginning dawn of Islam in 7th Century AD & ruled India, destroyed many 1000 temples, plundered, raped, committed genocide of Hindus, Budhists, Jews, Jains, Zoroashtrians. All non Sunny Muslim Indians including minority Christians, Budhusts, Jains, Jews, Zoroashtrians, Bahais wake up, unite without further delay to avert permanent, irreversible catastrophe @ the door step. History will repeat, India will be transformed to Islamistan instead of Hindustan in about 2 or 3 decades. Muslim population, currently (2011 census) is @ 37%, jumped from 16% in 1947. Population increases geomatrically or exponentially, resulting in takes lot less time.
I'm all for non-violence, but if Britain had lost or simply said, okay India, see ya, bye, did any of these people realize what Japan would do if they invaded? They weren't exactly the sort of colonizing force that Britain was , I'm just saying.
Having a pro-Japanese puppet friendly ruler doesn't exactly indicate the sort of full, complete Independence India and Pakistan achieved in 1947. If anything, it sort of makes India sort of subservient to a dominant Japanese military hegemony that by early 1942 controlled much of East Asia, Phillipines, Malaysia, large sections of western China, Korean peninsula, Dutch imperial possessions of East Timor, Indonesia, Borneo, Papua/New Guinea, Taiwan. It tends to be gets overlooked due to the vicious, bloody toll in terms of loss of lives, territories to American forces beginning with Guadalcanal siege in 1942 but honestly by early 1940s, a growing majority of Japanese generals felt that eventually combined Communist/Nationalist resistance in China's vast central/western hinterlands were dragging down vast amounts of men, resources, and questions began to be raised about whether the cost of pushing further into China at the growing expense of more lives and munitions was really expedient as opposed to re-directing them elsewhere. I believe eventually the Japanese either withdraw militarily further operations against combined Chinese resistance or they fall back closer to their Eastern/coastal-controlled cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanking, but even withdrawing their forces back would signal weakness and very likely Japan would be forced to defend its coastal Chinese cities, too and any protracted conflict sees them surrendering or leaving. In terms of pre-and-current WWII Japanese military operations, China by 1942 had turned into an expensive, bloody, costly series of atrocities and ultimately quagmire they couldn't extract themselves from and a war they were essentially losing, slowly. That's the consensus most Western WWII military historians have taken and even Japanese counterparts concur with. I sort of compare Japan's invasion, series of attacks and atrocities against Chinese cities and civilians in late 1930s, and their military situation so ground down by 1942 that it diverted precious men, weapons, and resources needed on other fronts to Napoleon's attempted conquest of Spain and British-led Coalition that tied down French troops and their Neapolitan Italian allies in the Peninsular War for nearly a decade. Napolean called the messy, guerrilla campaign against his soldiers in Spain, "Spanish Ulcer" and its success in eventually forcing French to withdraw may have been the first few nails in the eventual, large coffin of Napolean Bonaparte's dreams of European-wide conquest and domination.
I think India and Gandhi had received some secret assurance from either America promising support if attacked with or without British permission or on the other hand had received secret assurances from either Germany/Japan of lenient treatment if they don't resist German/Japanese imperialism. Otherwise what they did defies all logic.
@@michaelotieno6524 You are entitled to your opinion; it doesn't matter, of course, that there isn't a shred of evidence bearing that out. On the other hand, naturally, it doesn't matter that Indian patriots spent years explaining to the Americans the benefits of Indian self-rule.
@@hakapeszimaki8369 No, do some proper research fool. The British built India and that cost us! If you are referencing the Bengal famine - it was a natural disaster. India has had famine before in poor rural areas. Perhaps blame Covid on Churchill too......
Maharajas were the real problem who never missed any chance to back stab each other and when it came to Muslims the equation was the same. They rarely united under anyone but thankfully they united to stop Arab invasion into mainland India and thus India of today is not Muslim unlike the region of Pakistan which was under an Arab caliphate and is Muslim. The later Turks and Moghuls were more interested in looting than spreading the religion compared with Arabs and as expected the Maharajas bonded with Turks and Moghuls against other Maharajas. By the way, the same thing happened when East India company was fighting Marathas when as a matter of fact both sides were more or less technologically similar since one side was dependent on French technology and French officers and the other side had was a force made up of East India company and other Marathas. The one thing Mr. Patel did best was to immediately crush all Maharajas right after independence in 1947.
@@peterbradshaw8018Their (English) language gets an absolute delete while communicating with people who are not fed with British spoons while they are too young to be fed by themselves.
Mumtaz Daulatana, A CONVERTED RAJPUT HAD THE AUDACITY TO TALK ABOUT HINDUS AND MUSLIMS HAVING DIFFERENT HISTORICAL HEROES. Of course, his elders had embraced Islam under duress or in lieu of favor to hold on to their heriditary estates and privilidges in the medieval rural Indian milieu. What a Ridiculous Chap! THIS IS WHAT ALL INDIA MUSLIM LEAGUE HAD TO OFFER AS LEADERSHIP OTHER THAN MAJ 😂
How do u account for the fact that they were savages until they were educated, granted there were exploitations but there's always a trade off. After Britain relinquished control they were still better to be able to improve life for the masses
You mean the Brits were savages, when India had the Ashokan empire ! Read comments of Hadrian and his generals of Roman times when they were ruling Britain.
I feel ashamed of India being subjected to "Colonial Rule" Gandhi Ji was a brilliant leader. British rule was a curse in India. The pompous, stiff upper lip was all fake. Whilst we were praying, the British along with collaboration of the self serving so called Indian Maharajas annexed India. If only Indian maharajas had read The decline, and fall of the Roman Empire, & Maccavalli's Prince.
Indians are coming to take what birts stole from their ancestors. And North Ireland and Scotland must be regratting for still dealing with Britain's bullshit rasict behaviour
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 ... guess you don’t know much about Indian food... most ‘Indian’ restaurants are run by Bengalis (from Bangladesh) and serve beef... the best Asian restaurants are Pakistani because they have the real Mughal dishes (korma, Kharai, tikka, Nan, basmati rice...). The steel works are being run on government subsidies so they are milking the UK, the Range Rover group may be ‘owned’ by Indians but it is financed,operated and paid for by Brits... but you knew that didn’t you?
@@supriyam6896 funny how they never actually return any money back to india but enjoy the good life in the UK... if you wanna ‘take back’ what the Brits stole then go to Africa or other countries around the world because that’s where all money was spent ...building railways and roads and indoor toilets...
Viewed through the eyes of a small boy in the UK, India was impossibly remote and exotic. The Jungle Book was still as Kipling meant it to be, it was reduced to a money spinning parody by Disney.
Philip Mason at 16:16 is critical to understanding India. Its the first time on film that an Englishman has talked about experiencing the caste system. As a proud Indian myself we Indians need to study this film and analyse our past.
Thank you Shailesh. You are broad minded and think outside the box.
Caste system was coined by these frauds you idiot. Ours is Varna system.
Yes I would agree with that. I had not realsied that Muhammad Jinnah has also specified the territories to make up Pakistan. The British are blamed for the partition and its failings, but it is clear in these interviews from the people who were there, that Britain thought it was bad idea.
@PedroOrtega1993 yes but when British left they didn't leave a United India. They left hundreds of princely states as it was before. Indian leaders brought them under one umbrella one by one.
indians and pride are two words that don't mix very well.
It is surprising how people actually made great documentaries back then. I can only hope that someone would remaster this and air it back in places like History channel.
Can y’all stop saying you hope they re air shit like this y’all will forever be dumb lol BBC has set up regulations to not show this anymore get your information amd go
@@ais5094 paxman has great Indian series on here.
Hey history channel shows actual history like Pawn Stars , Trucks
It's a Granada Production, and that's all you need to know.
😂😂😂😂@@aniket385
Love the voice of the Narrator!
@Preet S You're sick! Don't give sick comments!
“If the history of British rule in India were to be condensed into a single fact, it is this: there was no increase in India’s per capita income from 1757 to 1947.” - Mike Davis
They ate everything
Why no mention of the improvements in social amenities Education. Hospitals , Medical Services not to mention transport ,democracy . with no interference with the many Religions of India .. I say the tangible benefits far ,far outweigh any so called offence caused , Be thankful for the United India they created. Less than a year of independence , came the the INDIAN Governments crazy decision to go down the road to partition Despite Britain’s pleas to abandon such lunacy , As Britain then was only acting in an advisory capacity the Indians blundered on
When it came to the crunch the Indian and Pakistani factions could not agree on the exact placement of the proposed Border . Britain was then
asked to dot the I’s and cross the T’s They How ignorant can they be ???? foolishly agreed and ever since the lunatic fanatics on both sides claim that Britain partitioned the sub continent
@@billymorrison7919 Yeah..only thing missing was food. Jobs. Everything else was there. Richest place in the world was systematically destroyed and made into poorest place in the world. Have some shame when u glorify british colonialism.
All the infrastructure s they built were only for the purpose of control and loot. It's the indipendent india which made it useful for the people. Yes today india is enjoying many benefits from colonial past. But please don't take pride in that. They caused huge damages and gave few benefits. Who care about democracy, caste, etc..when there is no food and money. India had caste problems, wars etc but people had food to eat before colonialism.
@@billymorrison7919 They were none for the benefit of Indians. First, the British destroyed what has been there for centuries and worked well. Then they imposed the English system to serve the British interests. The British did not unite India. The entity India has always been in existence. I suggest you read Shashi Tharoor's An Era of Darkness. The book is very well researched and will be an eye opener for you.
This is one of the greatest documentary series of all time. I watched it many years ago and loved it but for so long it has been on UA-cam with no sound. I feel like I have won the lottery to see it again. I am from NZ so that interest in the empire was born with me. I also have Irish blood so half the time I hate the Brits.
Well Said
Excellent bit of News at the end there. I was a small boy when those events covered were occuring.
Lol and the Australian government sold protected islands to a company to develop a real state deal lol
But have You still got your little boy,,?
India was impoverished as a lot of money was weaned one way or the other from the Indian economy. However the Maharaja's were equally complicit. They also lived a life of luxury while the subjects were poor.
Partition could have been avoided had saner heads prevailed. Mountbatten was a part of the problem. The British could have done better but people like Churchill was an Imperialist to the core. His removal showed that the British had a better side. The British left but arguably the Indians inherited a fine infrastructure and system matched only by the Catholic Church. To this day we still use it and feel no need to change or reform it.
I am not British or a descendant of the British and I have been living in an English-speaking country. Here is my candid opinion of the Westminster Parliamentary system of the British: Swiss direct democracy is far superior to the Westminster system of government. Even Taiwanese democracy is better than the democracy in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. The people of Taiwan have the power of recall that the people of those English-speaking countries can only dream about.
Furthermore, the British and their colonials in Australia, New Zealand, Canada are masters of spin and illusion so that what appears on the surface is not what it is once you take a good, close look underneath the surface. In summary, I urge Indians to emulate the Swiss because Westminster system of government is second-rate at best.
@@karllarsen8797 yup but it won't happen first of all Indian democracy is not yet matured it is not in the level of Westminster let alone Swiss style democracy.
@@karllarsen8797 Thanks Karl for the information. It is a flawed system which corrupt politicians never cease to exploit . I have immense respect for the Swiss . They have made their mark in watches , Chocolates, Milk products , Banking , Pharma and a host of par excellence products . However the system of governance is a new one. How about the Swiss Miss !! I was actually making a larger point about the administration of India at the time . To control a country like India and that also to the village level needed a good system . To this could be added the Public works , Irrigation ,Revenue collection, Law and order , Law, Accounting and Central authority. 35,000 ruled 400,000,000. It was a feat . The Army was second to none , mainly Indians. Too late to change the Westminster System. Harry may have some ideas!!! Take Care
*Stockholm Syndrome*
I hope you are not Indian or have already have left India.
INDIAN PEOPLE LIKED tamasha poor or rich
Excellent insights into the Partition of India and British shenanigans bringing Pak into being. Perfidious Albion!
I think neharu became first prime minister because of his money and good English communication with knowledge about British people's.
I don't think so
Good documentary, not afraid to highlight the arrogance of Empire, particularly Churchill's imperial pigheadedness.
@R T/X On the contrary, the British orchestrated chaos to make their quiet exits from wherever they ruled. The escaped while the newly freed nations were left with dealing with the engineered chaos. For example- the Indo-Pak divide!
@@upadhyayrathiraj1518 Everyone likes someone to blame other than themselves. The brutal religious in-fighting in India was not due to the British but India's own internal hatred and distrust between countrymen and differing religions. What other choice was there but annexation?
Britain left their colonies because of each colony's desire for political self independence, finance, and later American pressure to do so. The results in practically ALL cases were a reversal to corruption, in-fighting, brutality, poverty, political turmoil and chaos by choice, that would have never happened under a British administration. The Indian Civil Service and Indian Army under British/Anglo-Indian rule were said to be a world model of efficiency, pride and non corruption, administered only by the elite.
Read, overcome your arrogance and inferiority complex and you will discover the first reply above is quite correct. Britain sought peace, prosperity and worked toward an end to corruption everywhere they went, setting an example the world has since emulated, a mother country where countless people now chose to emigrate, Indians included.
Many of these former colonies who have since existed in political/economic turmoil speak openly of a desire for a British.
@@upadhyayrathiraj1518 Of the million plus employees of the British Raj only 600 were British. If the people of India had gotten together immediately after British departure India would have been one of the richest countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living. Instead the people opted for petty squabbles on the basis of Race, ethnicity and religion. Millions died in the partition and in the war in Bangladesh. You can't ask someone to leave then blame him for leaving.
@@michaelotieno6524 There was no need for British to unite India, but only for their own sake of profit. You must know India was never a country but a land of several ethnicities, and different little or big kingships ruling it at different parts. It's the British who came and looted and plundered these kingdoms who were ethnically diverse and brought them under one roof which created chaos, and now you claim Britishers are peace makers your statements are absolutely ridiculous.
@@maxwellfan55 Rather a convenient point of view, but if you know anything about it at all, you would know that, starting with the Hunter Commission Report, Hindu-Muslim rivalry was entirely a British creation.
Linlithgow (as he was habitually known without reference to a title) was a poor choice of Viceroy to replace Willingdon.
"When the British Empire sinks beneath the waves of history only two monuments will be left standing - the game of association football and the expression f*ck off."
- Richard Turnbull (in Aden) in 1967
The more things change the more they remain the same .....and identification is the cause of all suffering
Very interesting
Thanks my left eye enjoyed it
Someday they should do a History OF the History of the British Empire . . . 😺😺😺
Does anyone know the music that's playing around the 14:00 min mark?
Seriously hiphomoster
ua-cam.com/video/DCmh5fvgqq4/v-deo.html
If only Netaji had succeeded 😢
He would have replaced one foreign empire ruling India with another, with himself as quisling.
One good job Indira Gandhi did was to stop privy purses of indian royalty, who were no more than door mats for the british in india. Even tribal leaders of Afghanistan were more patriotic than these Indian bootlickers. These Afghan tribal leaders joined their people to throw out the imperialists. Our leaders polished shoes of british officers in India.
At that time kings are like retired peoples😂😀😂
Brave men and women from the West Indies
Real footage. So good in a way. But there are several places it goes wrong.
today India is one of the most powerfull countries in the world
LOL
India have long way to go to achieve to be in first 50 ...
@@strelacstrelac2650 Typing "top 10 most powerful countries in the world" on the internet shouldn't be that hard.. Will reduce a bit of that ignorance of yours..
Even after 90%. Robbery by our own political parties
What if you every political party s work
For our country. Genuinely
🙏🏽
When the English entered India in the early 1700s India economy was 27% of world economy when the British left in 1947 India accounted for 3% of world economy...there is your Empire benefit.
Min.18= "...we were so far apart that, although we lived next door to each other, we didn't intermarry, we didn't eat together, we were not called to each other ceremonies, the heroes of one were, sort of speak, the villains of the other, and so, you know, we became quite distinct, we were socially distinct..." It seems the enmity went back a long way, partition may have been inevitable, and the actual climate under Modi, with his embrace of Hindutva, may have proven Ali Jinnah right. Perhaps the film (Gandhi) was unfair towards Jinnah and glossed over Gandhi's conservatism and stance on the caste system, even without discrimination (don't know enough to understand how such a thing was even supposed to work).
Maxwellfan55 You are right on point. Look at Zimbabwe and other former colonies. Same with the French Colonies in Africa.
India got independence because of winsten Churchill.
The British must thank Gandhi and Nehru for their peaceful exit from India after August 1947. They literally vanished without trace, with lock-stock and barrel, as if they never existed in India.
The British carefully orchestrated the India-Pakistan divide leading to wide-scale riots and massacres. With Indian and Pakistanis busy in dealing with this precarious situation--the erstwhile British rulers quietly left their quarters and the India shores! I don't think that any Briton was harmed anywhere in India/Pakistan.
Someone really needs to look into what propaganda the Indian government is plying to the children in their doomed attempt to bolster support for the artificial construct of India.
Upadhyay, did you ever contemplate or look at the evidence of the severe Muslim-Hindu strife in India pre and post Britain? As a neutral arbiter, Britain was the only thing between peace and constant, low-intensity civil war...
Can you imagine what the world would look like if India and Pakistan had remained together. The best example of this was in the Partition of portions Pakistan into Bangladesh. The result of staying together would have destabilized the whole of Asia all the way from Iran to China and Korea. The area that now keeps the world economy running. Partition was the best thing that ever happened. The area would look like Israel/Palestine if they would have remained joint with all the proxy wars, terror tactics and countries aligning against each other. It would have made the cold war look like kindergarten and the middle East look like high school.
Utter garabage. Muhammed Ali Jinnah wanted nothing to do with Congress, Nehru or Ghandi. He wanted seperation a state called Pakistan or land of the pure. I am not sure about Pure though having to put two hotels behind bars in Lahore in 1978. Pakistan virtually a Muslim state is an abject failure. As for you stop playing the victims card. Why then did the British create larger states such as Malaysia, Central African Union etc. The dislike between Hindu and Muslim is entrenched throughout the history where Islam dominated over the Hindus ever since the 11th century. Congress believed it spoke for all India in that they were wrong. The British were for a united India as did Ghandi. The rulers of India before the British were Muslim.
@@barron8006 An arbiter in a strife created entirely by themselves? Of course, how convenient.
@@paulfletcher2029 Gandhi. Get your names right, you git.
Winston Churchil exceptionally able and effective operator to navigate through imbroglio of political theater. Not much loyalty for bipartisan cause though. Dangle escrow, divide and rule tactics, harness promises of sinecure to build alliances all to secure British political nisus.
Hello Jo. Impressive writing but are you a parrot though? You sound like you have come from a university. Is this the case?
A bloody murderer. He has 4 million lives on his hands.
@@paulfletcher2029 Not a gullible epigone as you that's for sure.
Stalin kept WC waiting outside while have cigar Roosevelt. That's now pathetic WC was
@@snaik44 Rubbish. Deal in facts not in wishful thinking.
the comments differentiate from the colonialist point of view (which is a little bit weird especially in this era and after the fall of colonialsim which proves its failure and cruelty) and sectarian hate (which is the base that tear apart India and nations) but what about nationality (to love your country and to defend it against any colonial force) and freedom (to be a citizen in your country whether your ideology or religion) that's what modern thinking of a state
Most certainly i would rather follow prophet Muhammed saw teachings in such scenarios than speculating and giving a back seat to my religion.
Nationalism is haraam and religion is number 1
This is a brilliant series of uploads. Like so many other others have expressed for video 1 and video 2. I do appreciate it. But I find it shockingly missing, that no one has pointed out, violence and racism were the foundations of the British empire. There are multiple empirical studies to confirm this. Well done to the Brits for winning ww2, but really? Does no one else see the sheer exploiton and carelessness, with which the raj treated their colonies?
Have you checked out how some other countries ran their empires ? I think you are in for a SHOCK.
This sereis has value because the men involved in history were still alive, but the anti-Western narrative by certain minority relgious acting in concert producers at the BBC is palpable, just like today...
You know England wants some of those Indian battle elephants to fight the nazis with.
Remembering Gandhiji and our other great freedom fighters. Vande Maataram
I didn't know that Gandhi fought for freedom. He didn't want to fight Hitler or the Japanese militarists, did he?
@@MrJm323 Gandhi was neutral. Bose recruited troops captured by the Japanese to attack the British from Burma.
Irrelevant, but... I never noticed that Indira Ghandi's hair was white one one side and dark on the other. Fascinating. 9:00
That's Gandhi, Dr. Sow.
India,is very sad nation where poverty and cast system is problem. Till they abolish the cast system .india will remain poor
It's more than caste system....
I guess you were born in 1940's or 50's..
Anis Hashmi,
From the looks of it, a wily opportunist. Speaks of the Indian Muslims in the flanks of All India Muslim League.
Geezus!! Was there any chance of finding people we could understand???
No.
@@indrajitgupta3280 I know, those Brits talk like they've got marbles in their mouths.
I am not convinced by Ghandi. Instrument of deception. He was for the downtrodden but defended the cast system. He was supposed to be a pacifist but recruted soldiers for war.
Mysticism and practical politics...
He absolutely did NOT defend the caste system. He was completely against it.
@@dickmonkey-king1271 He criticised the implementation of the caste system and wanted reform of it but never once did he say the Caste system should be removed.
I'm wondering why when the empire even at its height, victorian late victorian the population of the country was living in abject poverty.
WHAT NO MENTION OF THE CALCUTTA CURRY RIOTS OF 1943 in which the 4th Kerala Rifles (Trivandrum's Own) gave a distinguished account of themselves?
Rajas raja ? British india or
For give n for get b come pace in your mind if you belive in one god ...god bless to all
NO sound ????
Gentlemen I watched the video and I have ,read, watched, several narratives on partition and Im saying with conviction that partition , Hindu&Muslim disunity ,riots massive killing happened only because off the craze for power by the leading politicians of that era.Their uncompromising attitude And the British took advantage and aided abetted the politicians which ultimately led to riots, massive killings of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and finally to partition .What's saddening is the hatred is still prevailing 74 yrs later and politicians in India& Pakistan will ensure that even 740 yrs later India & Pakistan remain as enemies only - Nandakumar/Coimbatore.
Quite right, Nandakumar.
Coming judgment for the wicked father have no mercy on the wicked
Britain created Pakistan, whether the Muslims wanted it or not, so that the British Army, Navy and Air Force could stay in India, even after the self rule demanded by the people of India, so as to combat the Soviet Union. As The Congress Party would not allow it, they got their agent Jinnah to create the Pakistan, which very gladly joined the Anglo-American Defence Pacts. It was planned by Churchill in 1940, but later Attlee also agreed to it. The result was millions of death, and millions of destitute refugees, but for the British the price was worth paying to stand up against the Soviet Union.
Dipak Basu rubbish, Hindus and Muslims slaughtered each other during partition, no one forced them to, they still hate each other to this day.
"
Britain created Pakistan, whether the Muslims wanted it or no"
Nonsense. Pakistan came into existence against the specific wishes of Ghandi, Neru and UK (represented by Mountbatten) were all opposed to partition. It came about purely at the obstinate insistence of Jinnah.
You are among the few in billions to come to right conclusion.
Facts prove that Pakistan utility ended with the end of Soviet Union.
Pakistan was created in the name of religion. Muslims are the most dumb nation. They will fight in the name of Allah with anyone , without weighing the advantage of fighting for their own cause.
You can see the results now in the world.
Pakistan was created to serve the interests of UK & America to counter Russia after WW2..
As Indian Congress leaders (especially Nehru)were having socialist mindset & were close to Russia.
Jinnah (Muslim League) was completely backed by British so that the new state of Pakistan can be used to counter Russia which was also influencing the Afghanistan rulers ..
It was the revolt of India Navy & Army which made British run away in hurry...
It was failure of Indian leaders ( Gandhi,Nehru) who completely failed to keep India United..
Pakistan was created to serve the interests of UK & America to counter Russia after WW2..
As Indian Congress leaders (especially Nehru)were having socialist mindset & were close to Russia.
Jinnah (Muslim League) was completely backed by British so that the new state of Pakistan can be used to counter Russia which was also influencing the Afghanistan rulers ..
It was the revolt of India Navy & Army which made British run away in hurry...
It was failure of Indian leaders ( Gandhi,Nehru) who completely failed to keep India United..
Such great loss to humanity.. million killed..millions displaced... also leading to permeant enemity between two newly formed nations....millions displaced... also leading to permeant enemity between two newly formed nations..
English is not my native language. I understand almost everything the voice-over says, but not even a word of the Indians interviewed.
And just for speaking the English language improperly, a language that is not their native tongue, they should be minimized as sub-humans and be oppressed and reduced to slavery. I have listened to the greatly diverse accents of Australians, Americans particularly in the south, Scottish, BBC English, and Irish. Which one of these different accents is the right way to speak English, when English is your only language? The Indians had their native language, as well as the imposition of this English, that they as servants must learn and speak, so as to accommodate themselves to the narrow understanding of the English overlords. You have to decide whether India is the Jewel on the crown or the filth on your diadem, not us.
Quite right. The Indians have a terrible accent, that only the British could understand. That was the secret of their success; keeping furriners out of comprehension range.
The only English I can’t understand is that of ‘West Coat rappers’.
@@dorianphilotheates3769 I bet you can't get Indian accents (there are at least seven I can think of). :-)
Indrajit Gupta - Haven’t yet met an Indian I couldn’t understand when speaking English. I grew up in Toronto, Canada which has a large Indian community.
Jai Bharath, Jai Hind & Vande Mataram
May God bless & protect all Non Muslim Indians.
Is Britain great because it is ruling India?
Hitler's response was It is because of stupidity of India.
Indians are not united, they bicker, fight among them, Congress leaders Mohandas Gandhi & Nehru betrayed India by creating secular state & giving special status to Muslims, giving only to Muslims right for Polygamy to marry up to 4 wives @any time, produce numerous kids from each wife like dogs, divorce easily by saying Talaq 3 times, remarry repeat the process produce numerous kids.
This was the reason why Islam invaded India beginning dawn of Islam in 7th Century AD & ruled India, destroyed many 1000 temples, plundered, raped, committed genocide of Hindus, Budhists, Jews, Jains, Zoroashtrians.
All non Sunny Muslim Indians including minority Christians, Budhusts, Jains, Jews, Zoroashtrians, Bahais wake up, unite without further delay to avert permanent, irreversible catastrophe @ the door step.
History will repeat, India will be transformed to Islamistan instead of Hindustan in about 2 or 3 decades.
Muslim population, currently (2011 census) is @ 37%, jumped from 16% in 1947. Population increases geomatrically or exponentially, resulting in takes lot less time.
I'm all for non-violence, but if Britain had lost or simply said, okay India, see ya, bye, did any of these people realize what Japan would do if they invaded? They weren't exactly the sort of colonizing force that Britain was , I'm just saying.
Having a pro-Japanese puppet friendly ruler doesn't exactly indicate the sort of full, complete Independence India and Pakistan achieved in 1947. If anything, it sort of makes India sort of subservient to a dominant Japanese military hegemony that by early 1942 controlled much of East Asia, Phillipines, Malaysia, large sections of western China, Korean peninsula, Dutch imperial possessions of East Timor, Indonesia, Borneo, Papua/New Guinea, Taiwan.
It tends to be gets overlooked due to the vicious, bloody toll in terms of loss of lives, territories to American forces beginning with Guadalcanal siege in 1942 but honestly by early 1940s, a growing majority of Japanese generals felt that eventually combined Communist/Nationalist resistance in China's vast central/western hinterlands were dragging down vast amounts of men, resources, and questions began to be raised about whether the cost of pushing further into China at the growing expense of more lives and munitions was really expedient as opposed to re-directing them elsewhere.
I believe eventually the Japanese either withdraw militarily further operations against combined Chinese resistance or they fall back closer to their Eastern/coastal-controlled cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanking, but even withdrawing their forces back would signal weakness and very likely Japan would be forced to defend its coastal Chinese cities, too and any protracted conflict sees them surrendering or leaving.
In terms of pre-and-current WWII Japanese military operations, China by 1942 had turned into an expensive, bloody, costly series of atrocities and ultimately quagmire they couldn't extract themselves from and a war they were essentially losing, slowly.
That's the consensus most Western WWII military historians have taken and even Japanese counterparts concur with. I sort of compare Japan's invasion, series of attacks and atrocities against Chinese cities and civilians in late 1930s, and their military situation so ground down by 1942 that it diverted precious men, weapons, and resources needed on other fronts to Napoleon's attempted conquest of Spain and British-led Coalition that tied down French troops and their Neapolitan Italian allies in the Peninsular War for nearly a decade. Napolean called the messy, guerrilla campaign against his soldiers in Spain, "Spanish Ulcer" and its success in eventually forcing French to withdraw may have been the first few nails in the eventual, large coffin of Napolean Bonaparte's dreams of European-wide conquest and domination.
I think India and Gandhi had received some secret assurance from either America promising support if attacked with or without British permission or on the other hand had received secret assurances from either Germany/Japan of lenient treatment if they don't resist German/Japanese imperialism. Otherwise what they did defies all logic.
@@michaelotieno6524 You are entitled to your opinion; it doesn't matter, of course, that there isn't a shred of evidence bearing that out. On the other hand, naturally, it doesn't matter that Indian patriots spent years explaining to the Americans the benefits of Indian self-rule.
Love the old timey ABC News reports at the end with the news presenter wearing the pedo glasses.
Lucky Indians, 1747-1947. Unlucky ever afterwards.
3:55 not pro Hitler
I feel ashamed watching all these. We were still giving them VIP treatment when they were exiting our country
And now we are accepting all the crap coming over from India in the UK.
@@itstime6495 don't accept it then your government has a choice make them use it
@@hakapeszimaki8369 No, do some proper research fool. The British built India and that cost us! If you are referencing the Bengal famine - it was a natural disaster. India has had famine before in poor rural areas. Perhaps blame Covid on Churchill too......
@@hakapeszimaki8369 and you can thank us for the Covid support we sent you another time !!!!
@@hakapeszimaki8369 RU even indian?
Damn the Moghuls! Why did the Maharajas allow the muslims to invade?
Because Hindus were coward and defeated in wars.
Maharajas were the real problem who never missed any chance to back stab each other and when it came to Muslims the equation was the same. They rarely united under anyone but thankfully they united to stop Arab invasion into mainland India and thus India of today is not Muslim unlike the region of Pakistan which was under an Arab caliphate and is Muslim. The later Turks and Moghuls were more interested in looting than spreading the religion compared with Arabs and as expected the Maharajas bonded with Turks and Moghuls against other Maharajas. By the way, the same thing happened when East India company was fighting Marathas when as a matter of fact both sides were more or less technologically similar since one side was dependent on French technology and French officers and the other side had was a force made up of East India company and other Marathas. The one thing Mr. Patel did best was to immediately crush all Maharajas right after independence in 1947.
I don't appreciate that in last video that was made fale to brave men that served the British Empire during WW2 I don't like that at all
Gandhi never compromised on his loyalty to the people and so he liberated them. It can not be said about other leaders around him.
Get education.
Veni, vidi audivi
British empire was a curse on mankind......!!
curse*
Delete their language from your brain then.
@@peterbradshaw8018Their (English) language gets an absolute delete while communicating with people who are not fed with British spoons while they are too young to be fed by themselves.
Hum Aapse sehmat Hain Prashant. Aap Sahi Hain.
Here comes a pigmy, another person playing the victims card
It's so sad to realise Indians weren't able to throw the British out before the WW2.
Unfortunately, we could not unite in opposition to British.
Mumtaz Daulatana,
A CONVERTED RAJPUT HAD THE AUDACITY TO TALK ABOUT HINDUS AND MUSLIMS HAVING DIFFERENT HISTORICAL HEROES.
Of course, his elders had embraced Islam under duress or in lieu of favor to hold on to their heriditary estates and privilidges in the medieval rural Indian milieu.
What a Ridiculous Chap!
THIS IS WHAT ALL INDIA MUSLIM LEAGUE HAD TO OFFER AS LEADERSHIP OTHER THAN MAJ 😂
How do u account for the fact that they were savages until they were educated, granted there were exploitations but there's always a trade off. After Britain relinquished control they were still better to be able to improve life for the masses
Savages? If you are talking about anglos then yes
You mean the Brits were savages, when India had the Ashokan empire ! Read comments of Hadrian and his generals of Roman times when they were ruling Britain.
And what a mess India has become. Sad
ब्रिटेन से अच्छा है
ina and bose
Anderson Joseph Martin Mark Miller Lisa
I feel ashamed of India being subjected to "Colonial Rule" Gandhi Ji was a brilliant leader. British rule was a curse in India. The pompous, stiff upper lip was all fake. Whilst we were praying, the British along with collaboration of the self serving so called Indian Maharajas annexed India. If only Indian maharajas had read The decline, and fall of the Roman Empire, & Maccavalli's Prince.
Please don’t obsess over the past. India is long-free of outsiders; make something of it, instead whining about it.
Bet the Indians are regretting that Britain left.... now they are busy trying to come to the UK... they must be missing the Brits
British empire destroyed india economically,it killed so many Indians and you think we regret leaving it.how can be someone so dumb???🙄
Indians are coming to take what birts stole from their ancestors. And North Ireland and Scotland must be regratting for still dealing with Britain's bullshit rasict behaviour
They have taken over the UK steel and motor industry and leadership in cricket as well as improving culinary choice.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 ... guess you don’t know much about Indian food... most ‘Indian’ restaurants are run by Bengalis (from Bangladesh) and serve beef... the best Asian restaurants are Pakistani because they have the real Mughal dishes (korma, Kharai, tikka, Nan, basmati rice...). The steel works are being run on government subsidies so they are milking the UK, the Range Rover group may be ‘owned’ by Indians but it is financed,operated and paid for by Brits... but you knew that didn’t you?
@@supriyam6896 funny how they never actually return any money back to india but enjoy the good life in the UK... if you wanna ‘take back’ what the Brits stole then go to Africa or other countries around the world because that’s where all money was spent ...building railways and roads and indoor toilets...