The Unmaking of India: How the British Impoverished the World’s Richest Country
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2024
- Over 190 years of colonial rule, the British collapsed India's institutions and economy, and destroyed the equivalent of $45 TRILLION. This is the shocking story of how the British -- through the East India Company first, then the Crown -- actually accomplished such a horrible feat.
Special thanks to Shashi Tharoor for his book, "Inglorious Empire," which inspired this video.
Thanks for watching everyone!
Also, a quick error-correction: in the video, I mention the number is $43 trillion. Patnaik has estimated the true number at $45 trillion. Of course, there is much scholarly debate on this matter.
Bro I appreciate the video but to be honest I don't care for how much was stolen, I am more concerned with state of my country right now as we speak. The amount of disinformation in country is staggering, no one knows what's true and the government has censored the hell out of our past to keep us together as country with fancy political terminology like "freedom" and shit but really we know that we were united under the umbrella of religion, at least that is the case for the common man, and that sucks man. Watching this only makes me sad for the future of India cause it feels like history going to repeat that too more profoundly in the age of seamless flow of information. props to you for a great video.
A Marxist witch doctor can't even keep her numbers right? Pretends to be shocked
today our one of the biggest problem is this: global domination of western narrative, and increasing numbers of western minded indian people in india, and a heavily lack of indians who cant create their own objective deep observational skills to re label the realities and label newly found realities and also who have their own subjective vision and culture and who create their own fantasy, their own dream to make their own path for the future to turn the tables of the world and create a new normal, our made normal. Some other important things which we need are keep fighting the challenges again and again and again, and have huge stamina for it
Wanted to clarify that moa killed anywhere from 40-80 million people depending on if we count only famine or include work camps and purges
Patnaik is brilliant. What terrifies me most is that the hundreds of millions genocided in India in the last couple centuries will pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions lost within years to decades as the region becomes uninhabitable due to capitalogenic climate genocide (I don't refer to it as anthropogenic because it's caused at most by 9% of the human population, nor as climate change because that invokes passivity). So not only does the imperial core owe upwards of $50 trillion in reparations, they owe likely multiple fold that amount pre-emptively for the impending mass displacement and death on the subcontinent they caused.
The sad part is the most of the British people don't want to accept this fact
Even sad part is most Indians do not want to accept this.
Maybe because this is over-simplistic propaganda. An easily comforting and tribalistic victim narrative for Indian nationalists that paints the world in black-and-white, good and evil, oppressor and oppressed. Very little self-reflection needed. Ask yourself how did Britain manage to conquer an entire subcontinet? Ask why India had so many loyal vassals, princely states, allies, and collaborators its entire rule? Why non-Hindi speaking Indians prefer english to Hindi? Ask why Britain let India - apparently pricelessly valuable to them - go without a fight?
Why would they? The British people had nothing to do with it.
@@chico9805 it was the common British people who were doing this,officers from both east India company and the British govt were common British people, and even if they were not involved in this shouldn't they still sorry and be ashamed because of this
@@theultimategamer8322 No, they weren't. Most officers and govt officials were aristocrats or part of the professional upper-middle class. These are not commoners - The average Brit, at that time, barely knew of India's existence.
This reminds me of a quote I read a little while ago. ‘Studying history will sometimes disturb you. Studying history will sometimes upset you. Studying history will sometimes make you furious. If studying history always makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren’t studying history.’
Apply that to your white race.
Great quote
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
@@jeanettewee8805the fact that reading this made me a little uncomfortable is enough reason to stop and look at the bigger picture. It's definitely not so simple and straightforward
@@kitty7492 What I have said were facts if not debunk it.
To all the fello Indians here, remeber this, and I've always said: "we are not developing, we are recovering". the center of the economic earth.
Well said.
Yep, It's sad but okay. Give a us another 50 years or so, we'll rebuild our country. The challenge is on.
That's just cope. Britain built your railways and gave you modern technology and yet you still come in your armies to London and turn nice places into third world places.
@@taigahiiragi4729 ahh yes you first world folks acting as if being born in a first world country is a big achievement.
You're just lucky so be grateful that you were born in the first world, but stop bragging about it as if you worked to achieve this or something.
By the way use common sense that those who migrate to your countries are all RICH, EDUCATED third world folks. Your countries give them citizenship only because these folks are useful to YOUR GOVT. Not the average slum dweller is allowed in your country. Just COPE ig.
@@taigahiiragi4729 the nice place you talk about was build on the ruins on the ancient civilisation and their ashes.
As an Indian who's forefathers were brought to South Africa by the British in 1860 to work on the sugar cane Fields this truly makes me sad, angry and all other emotion's
brought? They chose to go for economic benefits and were treated like whites in Africa and not like the locals who received endless racism. Unless you are telling me everything ghandi wrote about Africa is lies? The Indians were famously the most anti-black racists in Africa, far more so than the Europeans. Learn your own history. They went there as colonisers the same as the British. Nothing about Indian involvement in Africa back then was any better than what the British did.
YES, AND MANY INDIANS WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE CARRIBBEAN ISLANDS AND ESPECIALLY, MAURITIUS, BY THE BRITISH, DURING THE 1800'S, TO WORK ON THE SUGAR CANE FIELDS. THE BRITISH NAMED THESE INDIANS, THE " COOLIES " WHICH MEANS UNSKILLED CHEAP LABOUR WORKERS. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RELIGIONS IN MAURITIUS BUT MOST ARE HINDUS.
@@RS-ln3nsAs an Indian, this makes me really sad
You comment was really sad... and also quite informative
Also could you please turn off your capslock from the next time you type... because according to the rules of netiquette (internet-etiquette), typing with a capslock on, implies that you're shouting, either angrily or excitedly...
I know, for you it might look like a cool font type thing, but its quite odd tbh...
@@souptikchakraborty2004 NO, I WILL NOT BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD REASON WHY I USE CAPITAL LETTERS IN MY COMMENTS AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M SHOUTING. IF I WAS SHOUTING, I WOULD DEFINITELY, END MY COMMENTS WITH AN EXCLAMATION "❗" MARK WHICH EXPRESSES SHOUTING. USING CAP LETTERS ONLINE MAY MEAN SHOUTING BUT PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. YOU SHOULD ASK ME FIRST, WHY I USE IT IN MY COMMENTS, INSTEAD OF MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT I'M SHOUTING BECAUSE ONLY THEN YOU'LL FIND OUT THE TRUE REASON, WHY I USE IT.
@@RS-ln3ns hey, i wasn't trying to offend you dude....
Ok, tell me why you use caps
Growing up in England, it's amazing to see the differences between what we're taught in school about the industrial revolution and the shocking reality of where the money and raw materials came from.
I have a name to share with you - Rishi Sunak! Are the British the terrible monsters this twit is actively peddling?
Don't worry, its our turn now, We immigrants will take over europe and white people and do the same things.
Would u like to share with us just for information purposes what they taught or teach u in schools
@@rishikeshsangole7254What is taught: So we bought cotton from india
Reality: So we inslaved farmers and forced them to give is free cotton.
I'am not british though.
You should become a citizen of India. It will be a most enlightening experience for people like you.
The fact that yesterday India arrived to the moon first than the UK is incredible, congratulations from Mexico 🇲🇽🤝🏻🇮🇳 the future is bright
Based
🇮🇳❤🇲🇽
And the colonialism defenders will have us believe that India could not build trains! The mental gymnastics that the English (Scotish and Welsh) people do to justify their hegemonic and murderous history is mind-boggling.
@@vaagai9808 Well you see, none of that belongs to India because westerners made the technology first, and nothing the westerners did was based on anything from any other culture (this is sarcasm but it's the argument they will use)
@@YouAreStillNotablaze The cryogenic engine technology was denied by the west, so India went on to build on its own. The western civilization were just hunter gatherers when most of mathematics was invented/discovered. Each civilization stands on the shoulders of the previous one.
Nigerian here, and totally not hating on a generation that wasn't involved in the crippling acts perpetrated by their predecessors. Hopefully India and all the other countries that were brutalized by the Great powers of old can recover from all the inhumane treatments they received.
Thank you for spreading the awareness ❤
Its crazy that Indians are still alive and thriving. For every Indian alive it is crazy to think what their forefathers had to go through for it to be possible for them to be alive.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
Yikes, these mental gymnastics are kinda impressive ngl.
@@jeanettewee8805it's you again, copy pasting everywhere. just thought i'd say this so that others knoe about you.
@@jeanettewee8805 so your logic is that the only reason asian countries are poor is because they're just inferior?
@@jeanettewee8805Don't spread rumors kid I wonder what they teach you all in history books
The famine was a result of the British forcing Indian farmers to grow cash crops such as hemp, cotton tobacco indigo ink tea and so and not edible food crops. The lack of food crop production was a result of the heavy handed taxation. Farmers could not generate enough revenue by selling food crops and had to cultivate cash crops to pay the draconian taxes.
Those people are gone and that's a long time ago.
What about now?
Are the British currently responsible for the high suicide rate among the farmers?
Are they??
Why not focus on the present, and prepare for the future , huh??!
@@emmanuel8310 not once did the original comment say we are better off now than under British rule, even though as a society we undoubtedly are. The need for you to question the current dispensation in an effort to somehow make light of the British tyranny, instead of being able to accept the historical fact being stated, says a lot. Accept what has been done to us by the Brits, the implications of that in the present day, and move on.
Trust me, the young new India doesn't spend more time than the duration of this video thinking about British wrongdoings in a whole year's time.
@@emmanuel8310 F*ck you
Now I said it and I can't take it back
Gone is gone 😅
@@emmanuel8310 lmfao look at this kid rage because British Raj doesn't exist anymore. The great white race has fallen indeed.
@@darksoulsgt5006
Well, who asked for you coment either?
I spoke my mind because we seem to be obsesses with being victims when we were never really one.
Our ancestors were not as strong as the British, and we're therefore subjected.
We are not the same.
We can learn from it not cry about it.
And am I pro British empire? 🤔
Maybe.
The world will not be this way, if not for them.
They did horrible things, but, they also did awesome things too...like almost every other powers in the world
It's heartbreaking to see my country was robbed for centuries like this
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
How about the Dutch the Danish and the Portuguese and also the French.
That country alone was there 300 years. These countries all together Took alot out.of India.
Even today without Indian emigration into the west, the west would have collapsed.
Quit moaning, and start learning history.
@@jeanettewee8805is that how history is taught in the Uk?
I cried watching this, my grandfather was born during colonial rule and told me how as a kid he experienced extreme impoverishment, his father(my grandpa) was a weaver and because of the brits he left weaving(because he was trapped in debt and it took everything to repay it)and became a cultivator, they had to pay exorbitantly high taxes and at one time they had to sell all jewelleries and valuables they had to pay taxes, entire gangetic plain region became the poorest region of India after goras left it.
those high taxes and the lack of exports had nothing to do with Britain as both came AFTER the British left. They were mistakes by the Indian government and to blame the British is just silly.
@@richbob9155 Did you even watch the video or just came here to comment?
It’s so sad! And the monarchy lived/lives unnecessary luxurious lives off of everything they stole from people around the world. It’s disgusting.
@@Dstar-km9fi1hs2j In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
And now you can type the masters language perfectly and wish to live amongst them if you haven't already, ancestors must be proud👍😉
As a non Indian, I shed tears while watching this 😞😞😞😞😞
British implemented Final Solution on India, just like Hitler implemented Final Solution on Jews.
Then know this, this video does not even cover 0.00000001% of actual pain and suffering of the native populations. I am an Indian, and I've met people who were part of freedom fight.
As an Indian, I'm just disappointed, imagining what a great and prosperous country we may have been if not for the Britisher, we could've theoretically become an Asian version of the US, a democratic China... So sad.
@@AryanSharma-xy8oo
Amusing. If it hadn’t been for the British, you’d still be a conglomeration of endlessly warring petty states, mired in conflict, starvation and barbarism.
. . .
@@AryanSharma-xy8oo
As it is, India is on course to be a world power, economically, militarily and politically. You can thank Britain for that.
. . .
And when Churchill was informed about the devastation of the famine, his one comment was : " How come Gandhi is not dead yet?" He wrote this in the margins of the report on the famine. Excellent report. Thank you.
Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. To have a more understanding on this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire. Also watch the debate between Shashi Tharoor and Zareer Masani. Just because these videos have less views than 45 trillion dollars loot, Vikramaditya Empire doesn't make the latter one true.
@jeanettewee8805 there are two large areas where the facts disagree with your statement: The Sikhs: the fought for independence . 87% to 90% of the prisoners who were hanged in the Andabar prison colonies were Sikh. There is no other community who sacrificed more for Bharat.
@@jeanettewee8805 The 2nd: Switzerland: They control a great deal, but in a different way. When you look into their history, you will see their purpose in world politics, as well as wired control
@jeanettewee8805 Brits were not benevolent. They were pirates ☠️ it's how they gained control. You will see examples of their piracy through history. If you get a chance to read 'A Perfect Red' by Amy Greenfield you will get an insight into their piracy. They stole for their Queen. The facts behind Mutiny and the Bounty ...I can give many examples.
@jeanettewee8805 one aspect to consider .. consequence of my research on British Missionary schools. Is the Victor -Vanquished Psychology. The British would go in, change the names of people, of land, as part of the systematic destruction of the culture they are invading, then go in and change laws. Bharat is still vanquished, raising up
Geuinly hope India can recover and become even richer than before, I'm british and have known quite a few Indian people they are kind and don't hold a grudge which i appreciate, big respect to there country!
"their" country.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 so your mocking my spelling just cos I disagree with you, wow
@@gerrardjones28
Mocking? I think you meant correcting.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 I really don't care if my spelling is bad as long as I get get message across, are you a grammar n*zi or something lol?
@@gerrardjones28
"Geuinly [sic] hope India can recover . . . "
- Recover from what?
" . . . and become even richer than before."
- Before what?
"I'm british [sic] and have known quite a few Indian people they are kind and don't hold a grudge which i appreciate, big respect to there [sic] country!"
- I'm also British, and have also known quite a few Indian people. I too have found them kind.
But they aren't the ones posting their hate and lies on here, are they?
. . .
Fun Fact: British left India kinda "willingly" because *India no longer had any value* and War struck Britain was losing more on it.
Who said that INA Indian national army founded by Subash chandra bhose was the reason and Indian Navy was on revolt against British officers after 2nd world war they lost lot of wealth that made them weak that time the INA emerged as Main army against British 🙏
Time for all Indians living in UK to leave willingly.
All treasures should be returned to India, where they belong.
All Indian people should be returned to India, where they belong.
Everything Indian should be returned to India, where it belongs.
Willingly? They ran scared of another Indian Army mutiny that was threatening to kill every British soul in India.
As someone from Ireland, it’s difficult to think of the obscene wealth of London, the British royal family, and aristocracy gained directly or indirectly from the exploitation of other countries and not feel resentful at times, especially as so many of these countries are still recovering from British invasion while many Britons continue to benefit.
Yeah, you Irish hate the English so much you sided with the NAZIs. The British offered Northern Ireland to the Republic, if you joined the war. But your victim mentality and hatred, of a people and culture basically identical to your own, you quietly cheered on Hitler, figuring he would defeat the British and you would get Ulster anyway. I think the Irish should remove that huge victim chip from their shoulder.
What “continue to benefit” are you referring to exactly? 😂
@@jimmycumslayer9439 Inheritance exists
@@jimmycumslayer9439well from the top of my head, Jimmy Cumslayer, the British royal family and tens of thousands of the British aristocracy have enough generational wealth to insulate themselves and future generations against almost any problem; British industry and infrastructure funded by invasions and predatory trading practices are still going strong while invaded countries are still recovering from British exploitation; the British Museum and British museums are stuffed with ransacked artefacts from invaded countries that they refuse to return; the City of London is a massive money laundering racket that wouldn’t exist without the remaining British Overseas Territories; and many Britons continue to benefit from their blissful ignorance of Britain’s role in arbitrarily partitioning land it used to occupy, leading to much of the geopolitical instability in the world today. 🤷🏼♂️
people still enjoy generational wealth accumulated while this looting
This channel know more about India than most Indians. Its monumental suffering endured by our people at the hands of British
Have you watched this channel before? There's been constant wars prior to the British. This even starts with an invasion from Persia!
It’s just not true… India was divided with petty states butchering each other until the British created India!
@kris501 should've focussed in class when hisyory was being taught
@@tbird81do you know the meaning of colony, we were not even a colony under any rule until the British came
@@tbird81 None of those wars killed nearly 40 million people, looted anything close to $45 trillion or reduced the Indian economy from 27% of the global economy to just 3%. No one who invaded India can claim to have done as much damage.
The Hindus and Sikhs have endured and persevered so much.
Don't forget muslims aswell
@@harriskhan4604 converted Muslims not real Muslims... Real Muslims are lootera just like brits
@@harriskhan4604Muslims only hated British because they were against the caliphate
@@harriskhan4604nope they forced religion conversion
@hydragaming4265 that explains why so many westerners come to islam without being forced jn the 21st century ??????
F.J. Shore who died at the age of 37 was one of the brave voices of the East India Company who was openly critical of the company Raj. He published under the pen name “A friend to India” in the India gazettte in my original hometown of Calcutta (now Kolkata).
It's brutal. The French also forced Vietnamese farmers to grow cash crops, which led to a shortage of food and the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.
I'm half-Filipino, the Spanish fucked up the the Philippines indigenous culture.
wasn't that the japanese?
@@khangaroo8166
It was French, Vietnam defeated the French in the end with support from China.
@@bruhtnt4258 no, i know that, but the french didn't starve 2 million people, that was the japanese who invaded and occupied vietnam.
Was it French or Japanese? Either way the same colonial mentality
I grew up in Canada. Im speechless in regards to this video. India is covered a multiple points in our school curriculum, and the gist of what we're taught is "India conducted peaceful protests against the British under mahatma ghandi, and as a result the British pulled out, taking all of their industry with them which resulted in the impoverishment of the Indian people, taking decades to very slowly get a semblance of what they once had". There is absolutely nothing about the mass planned genocide, crippling taxes, and overly aggressive extraction of resources to the point of when they had pulled what little industry was left, was simply the tip of the iceberg
Read "Rowlatt Act".
In India still many believes Gandhi got us independence and was names Father of our Nation. Am proud of failing in history subject as a kid.
Population increased exponentially under British rule
@@user-ig1oe6iw7xwas this before or after the 60-165million Indians had died to mistreatment and starvation under British occupation? For reference, near 6 million Jewish people were killed during WWII in Germany.
Never forget that what the British arranged in India they first experimented on Ireland!
I think the Irish are going to agree with me on this one.
During the British rule, a total of 31 famines struck the 'Indians'. The most detrimental was the Great Famine of Bengal (1943). Almost 4 million people died in that famine. There were more dead bodies than there were people alive, and those who were alive looked like a living skeleton. This was the case of Bengalis. The Prime Minister of the UK denied that it was a the fault of the British, instead he blamed the Indians for all the mishap and called Indian rascals. Churchill, till his last breath, denied that the adversity was a product of the misadministration.
You are right Churchill was a racist pig, no better than Hitler. Churchill prohibited mixed-race boxing contests so that white competitors would not be shown losing to black fighters. He insisted on "Anglo-Saxon superiority" between Britain and the United States. He referred to anti-colonialists as "savages armed with ideas."
Even his contemporaries found his views on race shocking. In the context of Churchill’s hard line against providing famine relief to Bengal, the colonial secretary, Leo Amery, remarked: “On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane … I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”
as a filipino whos been colonized by spanish,american and japanese,
we felt great sympathy to what happened in India. this is much worse for just 200 years compared to Philippines’ over 400 years
In British primary schools they like to teach about post-Roman Britain and the Tudors, and in Secondary school it's pretty much all about WWI and WW2 with strict focus on Europe. The Colonial Era is skipped out completely.
because they don't want you to know about stuff like this.
Didn't expect this given the colonial age was most of modern British history.
Even though it ain't taught head on, people still know about it and what it involved. When I was in secondary school, we were taught a bit about it in English class due to a book we were reading. We also read some poems that involved it. Also, every curriculum can differ on what it teaches and then some schools themselves can choose more specific topics - for example, in my History class we didn't do colonialism, but other exam boards for history do. BBC Bitesize also has colonialism and the British Empire as topics.
Essentially what I'm trying to get to is that even though there isn't a complete national distinct effort on teaching the topic, it is still perfectly available for people to learn about and it is talked about a bit in some lessons in secondary school.
In the age of internet, blaming textbooks for chosen ignorance is pointless. History is just one click away.
They are not able show their shameless past bloody thieves
This video made me tear up imagining what my forefathers would have gone through. I’m proud to be an Indian. India is a rising Phoenix from ashes. We will rise back to the top and I will see it in my lifetime.
Good mindset!
Learn from the past, and build a better future instead of playing a blame game.
We sure will my friend
@@emmanuel8310 Do you realize over a third of Brits take pride in this nonsense? If no one keeps reminding them how big dicks they were everywhere they went they'll keep feeding their imperial pride and the hypocritical holier than thou attitude that comes with it well into the future. This isn't about the past. It's about ensuring the west knows just how terrible it was so it can't claim to know better than everyone else how to run the world. That IS about making a better future - for everyone.
Indians problem is grotesque inequality. Some knew what Independence meant was there will be rulers & exploiters like the British, just the time they will be their own kinsman. This is what is holding India back. When you see Billion dollar house next to slums in Mumbai, you see what that really means.
You should see what they did to Ireland.
Africa and India have so much more in common than differences. I feel for our brothers in India.
Yup , kick out sepoys
Yes brother. Africa and India have been exploited like no other region in the world
Yeah Indians are same as Africans
Long live AFRICA form India 🙏
@@wor53lg50 If India is going backwards then I do not want to know what forwards looks like to you.
I had no idea, they don’t teach this in the UK schools. I’ll visit India soon with my British passport. I apologise in advance for what happened in the past but thank you for granting me a visa to travel to India
They don't "teach it" because it's garbage.
. . . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 They don't teach colonial history because they do not want their children to become savage and barbaric, like their ancestors.
@@apollocreed5391 What is stopping you from finding this out?
@@arunnaik3375
"They don't teach colonial history because they do not want their children to become savage and barbaric, like their ancestors."
- Or like your people who massacred several thousand Sikhs in our lifetime, maybe?
Do you count the British orientalists who rescued your cultural heritage from obliteration among the "savage and barbaric"?
What a numpty you are.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 British have killed millions all over the world.
" rescued your cultural heritage" my ass. They almost destroyed our cultural heritage.
Colonialism, by its very nature, involves unequal power dynamics and can lead to violence and oppression. British imposition of forced labor, exploitation, suppression of revolts, and violent crackdowns on local populations in different colonies led to loss of life and suffering.
The presence of Brits in various locations frequently transmitted illnesses to which indigenous inhabitants lacked protection.
British colonial rule imposed Western values and systems, often undermining and marginalizing existing cultural practices, traditions, and knowledge.
Colonial officials and collectors amassed vast collections of Indian artifacts, often through dubious means. These treasures, including sculptures, paintings, and manuscripts, ended up in museums and private collections across Europe, severing their connection to their cultural context and communities.
The British education system, while introducing modern knowledge and skills, often denigrated Indian languages, literature, and history. This contributed to a sense of cultural inferiority and alienation among some sections of the Indian population.
The economic exploitation of India had a profound impact on its cultural heritage. The drain of wealth from India to Britain affected the patronage of arts and culture, leading to a decline in artistic pursuits and cultural advancements.
The colonial administration often interfered in social and religious matters, causing disruptions in local traditions and customs. Religious practices were sometimes suppressed, leading to social unrest and cultural disintegration.
The introduction of administrative divisions and policies often created fragmentation within Indian society, disrupting cultural unity and leading to tensions among different regions, communities, and cultures.
Its a pity, that you have sunk so low, that you had to resort to name calling. This is is a sign of your intellectual laziness and an indication that you have no substantive arguments to make.
Looting over 43trillions dollars is not joke...😢as a indain...we are facing in this generation ..that effect..done by british raj..
45 trillion is an assumption by the British it is more ......
Philippines will always be a friend with India ❤️ 🇵🇭🇮🇳
Hey, the figure of 45 trillion dollars was calculated by a Marxist economist named UTSA Patnaik, using a flawed methodology of compounding the loot taken by the British with a 5% interest rate. This method is inaccurate as the inflation rate in the 1950s was around 3.68%. Additionally, Patnaik arrived at a figure of 9 trillion pounds using this flawed method, which was then converted to dollars by multiplying it with 4.68. You can find these details in her article. Furthermore, Patnaik made an exaggerated claim that the British killed 1.8 billion people in India, which is obviously false. It's puzzling that channels like Vice and Wion omitted her outrageous claim of genocide. Unfortunately, spreading lies and misinformation is not uncommon in India. For instance, some stories claim that the Vikramaditya Empire controlled 40% of the world's land, or that India had airplanes 7000 years ago during the Vedic period. These are clearly baseless claims. There is also a story that Shivakar Talpade invented the airplane 8 years before the Wright Brothers, but that the British stole his idea and gave it to the Wright Brothers. India needs to stop perpetuating such false claims.
I dIdn't know PH had witchcraft, wait, u mean the v popular phony witch doctors who do in front of your eyes performs take your stomach organs out clean them& put it right back, no pains, no slit or stitches,no anesthtic just bit of blood that washed clean all for affordable fees, is it that witchcraft or?
I came here to say I know Pinoys would get it as they had near 300 yrs of mostly similar horrendous Spanish Colonization there with near 100% succes converting the whole country to Christianity (except the Mindano muslims), there are many stories of good& bad, similar to India..
Asto @Jeanettewee.., me to thought there must be many/some errors in calculating the amount losses but inflation near 4% & 190 yrs long period, then using 5% interest by Patnaik on money estimates is not far off, worst its 10-15 % off, you're also not too far off on Indian commentors exaggeration on their scientists, etc, but definitely there are several US & Indian etc vloggers do exaggerate their videos with Indian Myths/ puranas,etc as true science( Vimana vs temples, flying gods, timelines etc)( Moses, Greeg, Roman old& new Bibles, etc too are most part mythologies too)
Yet there's no myths about Portugese Dutch started Brits hit it home( homerun/ touch down/ sixers in US/ Brits jargons) taken it to highest level of the Colonization's exploits/ plunders/ then Rail to Ships to Europe ( as agents with Permissons to take Ships, Soldiers, Armory of of Spain, Dutch, British Monarchies)
Then the African Slavery, Indian indenture Labourers usage, etc, etc, by all three & similar early started by French & Spanish Monarchies in Africa, Philipine, South& Central America, Macau, HK, Fiji,Mauritius,..etc,etc
& Yes this can be debated in many angles & many $$ totals, etc too but mostly no times
@@jeanettewee8805u seem indian in disguise who can't digest the fact that someone is actually making the britishers responsible for what they did.
Love Philippines brothers from INDIA ❤
@@jeanettewee8805 hey stop making some weird excuses without reading the history fully
Bharat is not just country is a civilization 🇮🇳 I’m so happy for this nation, god bless you from Mexico 🇲🇽…Viva bharat
🙏😊♥️Love and respect to Mexico from Bharat
@@dailydoseofgaming3593 always bro 😎
❤❤❤
stop saying bharat for God's sake😂
I would argue it is several civilizations and not a single one. After all for a majority of it's history India was not united
The gaint is raising again.......but this its much stronger and stable.......the prosperity will again flows in india.....❤️🔥🔥
As an Indian I can assure you that this video does give you a brief idea of what British was doing here but the real thing was even more cruel. We hear stories from our grandparents. If you read the policies introduced by the British during that period then you would bite your nails in anger.
You need help.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 Keep seeing you here, are you an indophobe racist?
@@mauricebuckmaster9368why he needs help??
@@cristopher7019
Your question should have been: “why does he need help?” not “why he needs help”.
Please correct and resubmit.
. . .
Well, it seems you were able to comprehend what was being asked............bravo.
Nice distraction strategy by the way , it seems to be in trend. Now would you be so kind enough to explain, why does he need help?
I'm not Indian and I was seething through my teeth watching this video!!! Just pure evil... I hope the Indian people will heal and rise again with love and peace
I'm British, and I am absolutely sickened by the actions of my ancestors.
yes India is rising. Now UK is behind us.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@jeanettewee8805 You trying to justify colonization and drying up booming economy, forced exploitation and unreasonable taxes as well as utter devastation of traditional manufacturer hubs in India just because some other countries even without those hardships didn't flourish is like justifying holocaust because all jews didn't die, and they are still some of the wealthiest people on earth.
@@jeanettewee8805 China was repeatedly invaded by the British with backing from other European powers throughout the 19th century. In the 18th century, China was almost entirely self-sufficient, and was a mass exporter of tea and luxury goods in return for silver - Britain had nothing else they wanted or needed. The British East India Company was running out of silver and wanted to bust open the Chinese market to force them to buy British goods, so in the late 1700s they started smuggling opium (which was illegal in China) across the border to manufacture an opium epidemic, making huge profits selling an addictive drug, while also crippling the Chinese economy.
By 1833, British and American smugglers funded by the East India Company were selling over 2000 TONS of opium to China every year, funnelling massive amounts of silver into British hands, which were then used to buy Chinese goods - essentially buying Chinese products with their own money.
Eventually in 1839, the Chinese government decided to blockade Canton (Hong Kong) and seize ALL opium found in the port. In retaliation, Britain decided to invade in order to claim "reparations" and force China to accept the future trade of opium indefinitely. After losing the First Opium War in 1842, China was forced to cede control of Hong Kong to the British, open 5 more ports to European traders, and pay 21 million dollars to Britain in reparations, as well as exempting British citizens from Chinese laws.
14 years later the Second Opium War was started after a Chinese governor seized an opium merchant's ship and crew, as opium was still technically illegal. Britain bombarded Chinese cities from the coast with assistance from France, until they conceded defeat. This time, Britain and France demanded total legalisation of opium, the exporting of Chinese labourers to British and French colonies as replacements for freed slaves, free travel for British and French citizens throughout China, as well as exemption from all tariffs and internal transit duties, and the opening of further ports to British opium and further reparations.
Following this, China was invaded by Russia (1858), France (1884-85), Britain (1888), Japan (1894-95), the Eight-Nation Alliance (1900), Russia (1900), Britain (1903-04), Japan (1905), Japan (1931-32), the USSR (1934), Japan (1937-45). As a result of the Opium Wars and all following conflicts and unequal treaties - many of which were "mediated" by the British even if they weren't directly involved in the conflict, China's economy was crippled, its population drugged, millions were killed or treated as little more than slaves, its territory gradually chipped away, and guess who stepped in to fill the gap left in the market by China? Britain, using resources taken from India.
The worst part is the amount of effort that so many British put into maintaining the lie that India was always like that. They have the audacity to imply the Indians should be grateful.
India 300 years ago was poorer than it is today. Dont be fooled by ego and patriotism. This video has a lot of bias.
@@Alejojojo6yeah, Brits were here 300 years ago that's why. Thanks for your input.
@@Alejojojo6 And that relative prosperity is no thanks to the british, and all thanks to Indians themselves. India is THE only post-colonial nation that has managed to stay a democracy and is a thriving nation, atleast on the Eurasian continent between Israel and South Korea. The natural fate for post-colonial countries can be witnessed in Africa.
At India's independence, british left India with per capita GDP equivalent to(and even lower in some parts like BIhar, which was historically the economic/cultural heartland of the region) that of sub-saharan africa, which has never been the case before in recorded history. It is precisely patriotism and our unique strength and perseverance that we are thriving as a country. Not bcz of some pasty tyrants of the past who couldn't even manage their own nations properly in the absence of such erstwhile tyranny.
@@Alejojojo6 Britain was poorer that's why it colonized and looted resources from India and many other countries.
yeh sure mate, and mr beast is homeless
One is left almost without air at the level of British atrocities against India! I highly recommend - Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India - by Shashi Tharoor
I highly recommend you chuck Tharoor's lies and garbage in the bin, stop believing the trash you find on UA-cam, and start doing some real research.
. . .
Why don’t you talk about all of the amazing things they did, oh I don’t know, like abolish slavery, introduce education systems, the rule of law, medicine, technology, transportation advancements like jet engines and railways… But of course you only focus on the negative aspects. You also very conveniently leave out the fact that the Islamists conquered India under several different empires, and did not benefit India in the way that the British did. Actually, the Islamist onslaughts of India - forced conversion - saw the peope living under it much worse off than those who were subjugated under British rule. Ironically, the British empire was so despicable and contemptible that all of the former colonies joined up to the political union of the Commonwealth under the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which comprised about 60 countries. Can you tell me if any other former empire who has formed and continues to share political union with their former colonies other than the British. 🤔
@@cookieking1996 Why don't you ask the Irish about union with Britain? You mention "abolish slavery" why did they introduce it in the first place? Not to mention the centuries of semi-slavery ie indentured servitude that generations of Irish, Africans and Indians were subjected to? And don't even get me started on the Commonwealth racket?? Countries joined because there is a logic of regional economic integration that benefited everyone especially the UK after extracting untold amounts of wealth and life from the 4 corners of the Earth!! It is the only reason why Scotland remains in the Union! Are you suggesting that prior to the arrival of the Brits there was no " law, medicine, technology, or transportation" Have you ever heard of the Taj Mahal? Read Shashi Tharoor's- An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India!! I haven't even gotten started!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and England GTFO of Ireland!!!
Many people in India love the architecture and beauty of London and many Indian students want to study in Cambridge and Oxford but they should think that it is made bigger because of money from India.Otherwise Britishers were beggers
As though the British never ever worked hard in their lives.
Come down off your pedestal.
The British built their own wealth. What we took from India just about built Windsor Castle. The British built Britain.
@@thenakedtruth7136 British built their own wealth, by looting other countries. Have some shame. $43 trillion is not a joke!
Thanks! The British do not teach this in schools nor they have the humility to acknowledge the crimes they did. This is an eye-opener for young Brits.
That’s frustrating how they don’t teach it! Even in the US, growing up they taught us extensively about the colonial genocide of Native Americans.
I'm a British teenager and we had a whole few months learning about the British empire and it's doings in history lessons. And this is in year 8 before we even picked our GCSE subjects so everyone learnt about it atleast in our school
@@elyrexo we don't need white MP's in our country. Now it's our time to rule you be ready we are coming 👿.
@@elyrexo We had enough of them! No chance. Keep them to yourself, we saw how they governed, oh sorry, LOOTED.
@@TheManHimself94 I know what they teach you, how British "civilized" India and the lies about Industrial revolution, like they always keep blabbering in media and conveniently avoid the dark parts. The fact is India was more civilized, one of the oldest civilizations with a culture oriented towards education. The British destroyed our Gurukul system and produced clerks and yes mans, educated just enough to handle a puny job. What did they teach you about Gurukuls? Ideas like democracy, biology, politics, astronomy, maths and much more that existed in India for many centuries.
As someone who lives in England as of now, its shocking to see how the country just shoves its past under the rug
You used the right words European colonialism. The limeys will fokus on other countries, but will deminish their own involvement
@@overwatch17least delusional colonial apologist.
Maybe you should take citizenship in India. That might cure you.
Don't worry, its not all true..
@@andrewst9797says a brit with 0 facts.....😂😂
Here in Bengal our elders tell us about their sufferings their starvation days and about the sufferings of partition which is the ever bledding scar of Bengal and India .
India will become a super power again, it’s just matter of time.
@Absolutely-tg8wm You are no one to decide.
@Absolutely-tg8wm I didn't decide, I said time decides but you said time never comes..so you are no one to decide and let the time decide.
Check India's progress and economy growth rate in the past 30 years then you will understand whether it's going to be super power or not.
R u sure
@@cugxut 1000%
@Absolutely-tg8wm okay hater ..let see
This makes me truly so sad. My Nanna was born in India in 1934 to a British soldier who met her mother (my great grandmother) as a catholic Indian. They all returned to England together to have a better life, which is why I was eventually born in England. I visited India in 2019 after my Nanna passed away and it was like going home in so many ways. Even now it is a beautiful country with the kindest people you could possibly meet. I wish one day India will fully thrive once again 🙏
I don't quite understand. Is your grandfather married to a british female soldier?
@@sarahramkissoon8537 Sorry it wasn’t written too well! So my great grandfather was a British soldier from The North Staffordshire Regiment, and my great grandmother was an Indian woman from Bangaluru. They met during the early 30s and had a child together, who was my maternal grandmother.
Thanks for the clarification.
@@charliejames6434In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
You may want to look up details on "Anglo Indians".
Only British men came to India when East India Company was in control of India.
Most British men in India during that time had Indian women as concubines - not as wives or members of family. Many had children with Indian women - they primarily worked as domestic servants, or later on for railways in India.
Very few "Anglo Indian" people went to the UK after the British men returned after India’s independence.
As an American who has lived and traveled throughout India, I have observed that Indians are bright, enterprising, skilled, and hardworking people. Now, if they can only get past their infighting and clean up the political corruption, it will just be a matter of time before they're on top again. ❤
Yes you are right 😊❤
Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. To have a more understanding on this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire. Also watch the debate between Shashi Tharoor and Zareer Masani. Just because these videos have less views than 45 trillion dollars loot, Vikramaditya Empire doesn't make the latter one true.
@@jeanettewee8805 you have no Idea about Indian history. People suffered from heavy taxes. Gandhi was not stupid neither Millions of freedom fighters were. British abled to rule was because of huge army they had made by recruitment of the indian soldiers. They used divide and rule policy.
@@Deepak_Dhakad British were able to rule India because of their technological superiority. India was already divided.
@@jeanettewee8805 ofcourse not. For example Mysore Kingdom used world's first rockets against British. It is because of choas British was able to rule.
As a British indian whose forefathers came from india thank you for educating me
wow, you are a British indian? that means you live in britain?
@@Dinosaarr yes
I had no idea that the Brits had done this to India. Thank you for the edification.
You had no idea because none of it is true.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 Oh to be a colonial apologist, delusional and pathetic.
@@HemantKumar-id3jg only weak and victims will cry about. Most benefited from colonial era and led to modern era
@@samster9370 "Most" of the world didn't live in tiny European countries. It lived in China, India and other places. You know where millions died due to colonisation. Millions more on whom poverty and conflicts were thrusted upon.
@@samster9370 Only pa*asites and thieves pat themselves on the back about colonisation.
I'm not Indian, but when I hear one saying that colonization had good sides it boils my blood - this video should be mandatory for students both in India (so they stop saying stupid things) and in UK - to once and for all prove Brits where "their" wealth came from
Thanks brother.
@@minophilic6577 Sister ;)
Nice brother
@@RomaInvicta202 No one is saying colonization was good, but many things in this video are factually incorrect.
@@jeanettewee8805Its most accurate info. Go cry and praise your ancestors somewhere else.
Last year, we were in the observation deck of the Top of the World building at New York City, where we met an old British couple. Casually, we started chatting. we came to know that both of them worked as government officials in an island which was a British colony until recently, and then they asked about us, we said we are from India. They specifically wanted to know which part of India, we said Bengal and it seems they know about the place and they exclaimed. After these small chats, just before leaving, the old man said, "I would like to apologize on behalf of my country for what we did to India" There was genuine apology in his eyes, and we were spell bound...we did not know how to react, because these is something we never expected to ever happen to us. I could just manage to say, "Thank you, I appreciate". But the impact of what just happened within a few minutes is beyond my capacity to express! So, yes, even they know what they did, just that there are very few people like that old man who has the courage to accept it.
and then the whole rooftop clapped
yup, and the heavens, the queen and yourself too!@@burgerboi0689
What a bs story.
. . . .
looks like a movie script.
Imagination that is your creation hero
The wealth that looted still be recoverable.
But the wisdom,temples,Ancient knowledge,Ancient Universities, Ancient libraries that we lost.
Broke the Backbone of our Society 😢
It was the British who saved your cultural heritage for you!
. . .
The British colonization of India led to significant destruction and distortion of its rich cultural heritage. They ravaged historical buildings, temples, and monuments, while imposing English as the primary language and undermining indigenous languages and education systems. The British policies exploited India's economy, leading to the decline of traditional industries and crafts. Moreover, colonial interference clashed with Indian customs, impacting religious, social, and cultural practices. Artifacts and treasures were looted and taken away, affecting India's historical legacy. Overall, British rule severely disrupted and damaged various aspects of India's cultural heritage, leaving a lasting impact that India continues to grapple with in preserving its cultural identity.
@mauricebuckmaster9368 in their museum loots?
As a Pakistani, I really applaud your effort here. and I loved how you compared that we don't have famine anymore in present day South Asia. Reading on different famines in India and role of British govt I never thought that why we never faced such a famine after 1947.
Famines - which had been endemic in India since time immemorial - began to disappear from around 1900, thanks to the British. I haven't bothered watching this video (I know what it says), but does it really try peddling the lie that independence and the end of famines coincided?
. . . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 please check Bengal famine of 1943 during world war 2 and how Churchill\British are responsible
@@guru5455
Churchill was NOT “responsible” for the Famine, and neither were the British. Most of the blame for it rests with the Bengal Provincial Government and the Bengal community itself. Churchill was arguably the one who did the most to alleviate it.
Anything else I can help you with?
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368it looks good when people think commenting on videos makes them intellectuals, after the fall of Burma, which was the primary source of rice export for British, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was caught up in World War II and was focused on feeding its army. Food grains from India were diverted to feed British troops, leading to crippling shortages in India. Now people would argue there was also cyclone before all this happened, sure there was, and it had impacted rice production but not that much that people of Bengal would starve, it was 95% British made famine. Agree or not doesn't change the reality. I haven't even included the Sri Lanka scenario here.
And these British created problems between hindus and muslims and parted Pakistan from us
Western media are saying that Indians should learn more about holocaust due to recent Bollywood controversy. But I bet they will not even accept about this genocide in India. Even I did not know till now that soo people died in my country under their rule. 😞
They don't care about us, we shouldn't care abt them. We are subhuman in their eyes. Animals. They don't acknowledge our contributions at all.
What was the controversy?
@@mayankbhaskar1654 ua-cam.com/video/Ifl44cfiGCE/v-deo.html
@@mayankbhaskar1654 nothing. They want us to cry abt their killer and celebrate our killers.
2 things can be correct at the same time. India does treat its minorities like shit AND the British were also shit. Both are true. An educated person can see that
Thanks for making this well researched video. It might interest your viewers to know that UK barely teaches about colonialism in its schools even today. 10th grade students dont learn even a single paragraph about it.
That is extremely sad, but perhaps not surprising. Hopefully people will understand better now. Conquest is forgivable - incompetent and malicious rule is not.
Same with American colonialism in American schools. Our history education was essentially just the revolutionary war and then WWII over and over again to craft dutiful soldiers. Lower classes everywhere are victims, even the brutal prison guards -- although we can't hold a candle to the national suffering of the Guatemalan or Indian.
thats bs we are legally required to learn about parts of it (slavery specifically), just not in depth ( theres no time to cover all that stuff anyway). I know as I am going through it currently ( typically its one of the main 9 colonies in depth and just a broad view of the entire thing). Unfortunately we can't do anything to make up for what we did other than teach it ( we need to teach more) but we do have to learn about it so please don't spread misinformantion. Have a good day
@@joshuahodnett4643 it's about emphasis, how much time are you going to spend on the 1960-1980 period compared to WWII and the revolutionary war?
exactly as French don't tell about Indochina, nor burning down shanghai palace... and they both NEVER apologized
British textbooks will NEVER show this.
That's because they don't want their children to become savages or barbarians.
@@apollocreed5391 Bullshit. Slaveholders were paid money to give up their slaves. Although a law was passed, this action didn't really constitute a ban; rather, it was an attempt at appeasement to convince slave holders to relinquish their slaves. Slaveholders were still permitted to utilize slaves for an additional seven years in Britain without the obligation to provide them with payment, and this practice persisted for an even more extended period in their colonies. Some colonies rejected the law, continued use of slaves. Eventually, they rebranded it as "Indentured Labor," effectively prolonging the system of slavery. While the British introduced laws to regulate indentured labor, there wasn't a comprehensive prohibition of the practice itself in the legal sense as it transitioned and adapted into other forms of labor systems over time.
Just when you think there might be a boundary to savagery and barbarism, the British find a way to surpass it.
The establishment of concentration camps in Kenya in by the British was characterized by brutality and savagery. This was between 1899-1902. These were so barbaric, it would put a Nazi to shame.
The act of permitting millions of Indians to perish due to starvation and forbidding assistance to the starving was strongly denounced. Lord Lytton's directive mandated that any relief efforts would be met with imprisonment as punishment. One dissident civil servant, Lt-Colonel Ronald Osborne, described staggering through the horror: "Scores of corpses were tumbled into old wells, because the deaths were too numerous for the miserable relatives to perform the usually funeral rites. Mothers sold their children for a single scanty meal. Husbands flung their wives into ponds, to escape the torment of seeing them perish by the lingering agonies of hunger. This was far beyond barbaric.
Amid these scenes of death, the government of India kept its serenity and cheerfulness unimpaired. The newspapers of the North-west were persuaded into silence. Strict orders were given to civilians under no circumstances to countenance the pretence that civilians were dying of hunger.
@@apollocreed5391 There are far more brutal things that the Brits did than slavery.
@@apollocreed5391 Tell that to a 10 year old child, he might believe it.
@@arunnaik3375 but leaning abt the past will make them avoid doing that again.
As a British Person, its Strange how we were never taught this in school history
Did the books mention the Brit’s distributed blankets infected with cholera and typhoid to the aboriginals?
@@aussienik6518 basically nothing about colonialism and not much mention of Australia either.
@@nil4309cause your king and queen still sit on the crown :D
@@Theysayimcursed not my king
As a Sri Lankan, I can reasonably say that it is a matter of time that India regains its former glory and this time.... there is no turning back.
Thanks. ♥️ I hope Sri Lanka soon recovers from its economic troubles, and is also a prosperous nation in the future. Love from India. ❤❤❤
@@rohitkanwar-livit
Agree 👍
@@rohitkanwar-livit thank you and that really means a lot 🙏🏼
@@trivanannakkarage9893 I hope that it will agains become 'sone ki lanka' (Golden Lanka)
Awesome. Copy Korea's manufacturing process, then. We can all learn from Korea, or Netherlands.
I always found it ironically hysterical during WW2 how Britain was able to showcase themselves as defenders of the free world, fighting against the racist tyranny of Nazi Germany. 🤣🤣😂
What’s ironically hysterical is that you think people are exactly the same humans as their ancestors were. Do you realize how many generations were born and died between the British colonization of India and WWII? The Brits that fought in WWII didn’t even know their ancestors that colonized India. Do you realize how many people immigrated to Britain, in that time span, and had no relation to the Brits that colonized India? I’m so sick of the narrative that people are exactly the same as their ancestors. It’s completely illogical and has been disproven over and over. You need to stop seeing everything in this one dimensional, over simplistic light. It has absolutely no baring in reality.
India declared independence in 1947! What in the colonized world are you talking about? @@findingbeautyinthepain8965
At least UK and the allies were democracies at the time, whereas Nazi Germany wasn't and was instead totalitarian.
@findingbeautyinthepain8965 are you for real? India did not get independence until after world war 2. Not only that most of the British war effort was funded by Indian taxes.Not only that ever heard of Bengal famine? Literally millions of people died because the great churchill wanted to keep extra reserves of food for the war effort, just in case. I repeat not because the food was needed by the British but just to keep the reserves extra stocked for war just in case. The fact that you are defending the people who did these atrocities makes you part of the problem.
@@findingbeautyinthepain8965The Englishman is never wrong, He fights with you on Republican principle ,He loots you on Buisness principle, He Enslaves you On god knows what principle, He Cuts off the Head of the King on Republican principle ,British must have left India on some principle I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT PRINCIPLE IS- George Bernard Shaw.
These Pirates got the Chinese addicted to Opium
I’m from Sweden, and we learned about British colonialism to an extent. When talked about India specifically we learned about the famine during world war 2, “the white mans burden”, theft of culture, art and natural resources and some propaganda. I thought I had a pretty good idea about how things were for India. But holy hell I was wrong. Had Britain never come to India, India could have been the world leading economic powerhouse today. And the famines… I don’t think we talk about how the British empire has more blood on their hands than Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Wow.
This video literally made me cry. I have heard stories of my forefathers eating in gold and silver plates but when british Left india our family didn't even had a roof on their heads
Yes they all drove Rolls Royces, smoked cigars and drank champagne too
😂
@@forret read first hand accounts of foreign travellers to india. You will get to know. India was a very prosperous nation and gold and silver dinnersets was common . Even today after barbaric loot having a sliver plate as your dinner plate is pretty common for Indians. Almost ever middle class household will have silver plates and glasses at home. Do your research before replying else people will dismiss you as an ignorant person.
@@TheRajmah yes, most Indians eat from silver dinner sets. They all did when I lived there.
Perhaps it is you that needs to do some research, rather than getting the history of India from a Marxist teenager on UA-cam.
@@forretyou’re an ignoramus
As an Indian, this brought tears to my eyes. Many unspeakable things were done, no doubt! But our spirit has not and can not be broken.
Yes it has. You still work for anglo nations. Prop up Canadian economy praise rishi, Sundar ect
@@skp8748lol how is that even the same thing? The Indian economy is also being built by Indians. We are running the world, by our own will.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
@@gagworks 🙄😂
@@jeanettewee8805bruh stop spamming this everywhere 💀 ,
Before british Came 25% of the world had 23% of wealth
And they fucked_em so hard that after they left , 20 to 25 percent of population had less than a single percent of the wealth
Thanks for making this video I really appreciate this
As a Indian I'm happy to see that there are no Indian comments of people trying to get useless likes by trying to get sympathy 🙄🙄 I mean like....on every video where a person from another country make a video on a topic related to India....their comment section is always full of Indian people's comments and I never get to know what actually the viewers ( other than Indians) think about that particular topic.... It's irritating for me😬😬. ❤love from India 🇮🇳🪷
Keep these videos coming, The day is near where we will see India in its past glory. These videos will help heal people from the colonial mindset which is still a reality. We need to stick and work together regardless of our cast, religion or any deference and that dream will be a reality soon. Jai Hind
Kudos for the donation man..agree with everything you said👍
Great from u....we should inspire these kind of creator bro.
The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938. Shame on those who understand this and yet knowingly spread it on the internet, they clearly have some kind of agenda. It's misinforming the public, and a gross distortion of the truth.
India is growing quickly, but the ruling government needs to stop its blind optimism and take a hard look at the challenges the country faces. Additionally, if the BJP keeps crushing its 200-million strong Muslim minority, it will continue to sabotage India’s own stability and potential.
@@CatastrophicDisease In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
Watching this on Indian independence day and me being an Indian feel bad for all my ancestors who suffered British oppression 😭
Bro, that’s past, and we are the result of the past, conquerors and conquered is the history of the whole world not only India, we only have our future to make it better, greetings from Mexico
I'm British and I feel bad for all my ancestors who suffered from Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish Vikings.
@@julions777 Imperialism is definitely not in the past...
Done worry bro, they will pay for it we forced them to pay price not through money but also through there life there self respect and others ways
Work on progress
You will see all results in next 40-50 years
I know many of our still mentally colonised bharat varsh people say that forgive them or that's is part of history or others
But We teach them ( turkish Race or brittish Race) a strong lesson for 1 millennium of humiliation
@@julions777 In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
Love Indias rich history and hopefully rich future 😊
Love from Austria
Unbelievable that this was managed by the British. Meanwhile today they are struggling with mange and hold together there own Little Island.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India - as horrible as it may have been - was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long - the story goes - was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik - just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.
How did this come about?
It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way - mostly with silver - as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.
Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.
It was a scam - theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.
Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain’s industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India.
On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they “bought” them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the markup.
After the British Raj took over in 1858, colonisers added a special new twist to the tax-and-buy system. As the East India Company’s monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London.
How did this work? Basically, anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills - a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were “paid” in rupees out of tax revenues - money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not in fact paid at all; they were defrauded.
Meanwhile, London ended up with all of the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports.
This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world - a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century - it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India’s exports was appropriated in its entirety by Britain.
Some point to this fictional “deficit” as evidence that India was a liability to Britain. But exactly the opposite is true. Britain intercepted enormous quantities of income that rightly belonged to Indian producers. India was the goose that laid the golden egg. Meanwhile, the “deficit” meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control.
Britain used the windfall from this fraudulent system to fuel the engines of imperial violence - funding the invasion of China in the 1840s and the suppression of the Indian Rebellion in 1857. And this was on top of what the Crown took directly from Indian taxpayers to pay for its wars. As Patnaik points out, “the cost of all Britain’s wars of conquest outside Indian borders were charged always wholly or mainly to Indian revenues.”
And that’s not all. Britain used this flow of tribute from India to finance the expansion of capitalism in Europe and regions of European settlement, like Canada and Australia. So not only the industrialisation of Britain but also the industrialisation of much of the Western world was facilitated by extraction from the colonies.
Patnaik identifies four distinct economic periods in colonial India from 1765 to 1938, calculates the extraction for each, and then compounds at a modest rate of interest (about 5 percent, which is lower than the market rate) from the middle of each period to the present. Adding it all up, she finds that the total drain amounts to $44.6 trillion. This figure is conservative, she says, and does not include the debts that Britain imposed on India during the Raj.
These are eye-watering sums. But the true costs of this drain cannot be calculated. If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development - as Japan did - there’s no telling how history might have turned out differently. India could very well have become an economic powerhouse. Centuries of poverty and suffering could have been prevented.
All of this is a sobering antidote to the rosy narrative promoted by certain powerful voices in Britain. The conservative historian Niall Ferguson has claimed that British rule helped “develop” India. While he was prime minister, David Cameron asserted that British rule was a net help to India.
This narrative has found considerable traction in the popular imagination: according to a 2014 YouGov poll, 50 percent of people in Britain believe that colonialism was beneficial to the colonies.
Yet during the entire 200-year history of British rule in India, there was almost no increase in per capita income. In fact, during the last half of the 19th century - the heyday of British intervention - income in India collapsed by half. The average life expectancy of Indians dropped by a fifth from 1870 to 1920. Tens of millions died needlessly of policy-induced famine.
Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary - as Patnaik’s work makes clear - India developed Britain.
What does this require of Britain today? An apology? Absolutely. Reparations? Perhaps - although there is not enough money in all of Britain to cover the sums that Patnaik identifies. In the meantime, we can start by setting the story straight. We need to recognise that Britain retained control of India not out of benevolence but for the sake of plunder and that Britain’s industrial rise didn’t emerge sui generis from the steam engine and strong institutions, as our schoolbooks would have it, but depended on violent theft from other lands and other peoples.
The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938. Shame on those who understand this and yet knowingly spread it on the internet, they clearly have some kind of agenda. It's misinforming the public, and a gross distortion of the truth.
@@jeanettewee88051 billion in over 200 years of exploitation is an understatement.
@@unwisely it's not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation it may worth upto 500 billion US dollars.
@@jeanettewee8805 still too low. India went from holding 27% of world GDP to 3%. I don't think that number will only add up to 5 billion from 1700s to 1947.
@@unwisely In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
As an Indian, this made me so angry and sad. Life for modern Indians is unbelievably unfair and cruel.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm laughing how White Europeans now fleeing Europe HAHAHHAHA @@digitalcommunist6335
You should only be angry with your compatriots: this video is fake and it is thanks to the British and Western technology that you are better off. The problem is that you have children like rabbits.
Skill issue
Should have built stronger institutions
well how else if not for your exploitation would the Empire have flourished?
Thanks for the concise, well researched and well structured presentation.
Thanks for the kind words! Much appreciated 🙏
That was a great video. Educational and interesting on a tough subject. Liked and subscribed by way of thanks. Keep up the good work.
Shame it's a heap of distortions, misrepresentations and lies.
. . . . .
Despite the staggering $45 trillion looted by the British 🇬🇧, India's unwavering spirit has propelled its economy to reach $3 trillion today. Remarkably, 🇮🇳India proudly secures its place among the top 5 global economies by GDP. This remarkable journey showcases India's resilience and unyielding determination to rise above adversity.
Britain did not loot 45 trillion that number is hypothetical if india had industrialized which it didn’t
That's just because your population was too overpopulated, billions of people contributing each one individual GDP per capita.
@@RaulGonzalez-sw5dn Britain looted what’s equivalent to $45 trillion in todays currency. Did we watch the same video?
@@mohamedsaleh7540Britain took what India was too weak to keep. Cry me another river snowflake
Yeah but GDP per capita is bottom 160! Making the indian people one of the poorest in the world.
The Indian subcontinent will rise again, stronger than ever. We still have the blood of those brilliant people in our veins. I'm a Bangladeshi and I believe in the resurrection of the glory in this region.
No absolutely not, don’t listen to people like Shashi Tharoor, matter of fact his party is one of the reasons why India is poor right now (I’ll come back to that later).
The global share of economy of India was 24% before the Europeans came around and after colonization it was 3%. Some people argue that British had plundered India and taken away al of our wealth. Some people even argue that, British took home 45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth from us.
It could be said that India was economically well off place in 1500s, but in between the 1500s and 1945 Europe went through an era of Industrial revolution, India never went through that, as their of economy grew and our economy was stagnant. As a result our share of global economy dropped to just 3%, not because they plundered all our money, but because their economy grew and ours didn’t.
This continued on until 1945, world war was just ended and Britain was in rubbles, France was in rubbles, Germany was in rubbles, Japan was in Rubbles, China was in Rubbles every major country was in Rubbles, including India, British left India just as it was during the 1500s in the dark ages. But they were not well off either, their cities were broken as well.
One country was untouched during the war, you guessed it Murica, they started to help war torn countries and newly independent colonies through economic aid (debts), America was at India’s doorstep waiting with millions of dollars, but one man turned it down, Nehru.
Nehru was a socialist, so he supported the soviet union, what did the soviet union give in return, nothing just ideologies and political theories. US turned their back on India because they were soviet allies, whereas Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia endorsed US and got money. Matter of fact all of these countries were in the same position as India was. Post colonial or war torn.
Back home did he do anything good, nothing he just kept nationalizing industries and bombarding businesses with regulations and Tariffs, he came up with plans on how to socialize India and make it into a socialist country. India’s economy was stagnant, totally fucking stagnant.
His policies were in effect until 90s, then Manmohan Singh open up the trade borders and started to de regulate the economy. But by that time, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore Europe, every one else was back on track where as India was just entering global stage.
Because of one man’s socialist dream, an entire country was stagnated for almost 40 years.
While their party could not lift India out of poverty they kept coming up with explanations on how India was poor because of British, they failed to address the elephant in the Room - Nehru and his socialist Utopia.
People like Shahsi Tharoor constantly keep claiming that Britain just looted all our wealth in the past, and just keep blaming them for basically everything wrong with India. But actually they were the ones who ruined our country.
Hum... First you need to solve your internal issues :
- cancel the caste system, which creates a brain drain of smart indians to other places (like the US)
- more unity, less regional divisions
- pollution and infrastructure management (which China is doing, by building energy plants, bullet trains, highways, modern buildings, etc etc).
@@goofygrandlouis6296bs,china is far from managing pollution. It is second biggest polluter after USA.
infra is something government is working on tech is not a problem in india brain drain is a lot @@goofygrandlouis6296
First - we need more people like us to care enough to do something about it. Be homies.
As an Indian this video make me very angry and sad. We will be no 1 again till 2050 so that no country can do this to another. And everyone born on earth can live in peace and harmony
Thanks for the video, so proud 👏 of India.
India should Forgive but never forget, our ancestors held this land for 5000 years and our culture is still living and it’s the duty of current generation of Indians to make sure the culture and country can rise again.
We shouldn't forgive either.
In this mad world of power. It's highly illogical to forgive and let go. They still make money till date of all the looted treasures + money they invested in monuments/ art/ tourism/ development of their nation. You need to make them pay back/ reparations + give India back all the stolen arts/ jewels/ antiques or take away their resources.
No forgiveness without accountability and reparations.
No forgive we will invade the whole europe by end of this century
@@Obelixlxxvi usa gifted back India 104 antiques when modi visited New York or Washington which city I forgot about that but this antiques, sculptures will play an important and divine role in making British India Bharath 🇮🇳 again...
Thanks As an Indian I am shocked that the history which we were tought as a kid and history which each and every kid in Indian Street knows is not known to the world in its original version !!! Its shocking to see now a days, when Britishers keep their spirit high thinking they have done good by colonising country . This video is doing justice to the country after seventy six years of independence. World is amazing place 🙏
I’m happy to spread some history knowledge with the world! Thanks for supporting the channel.
Spend little money and read books of SRI VIVEKANANDA SWAMY JI he you will fall down what great great astonishing history of India. How many Indians know that Buddha told that he is 25th Buddha then who are those 24 Buddha..Now india needs spiritual leaders who can took BHARAT into glorious country ..We have everything but what we don't have is time..
In order to take back into glorious country we need STRONG SPIRITUAL LEADERS NOT SOFTWARE PROJECT LEADERS. These SPIRITUAL thing is permanent and will change entire world into glorious thing.What world is lagging is SPIRITUALITY which BHARAT has surplus.EVERY BHARATIAN HAS TO BECOME SPIRITUAL LEADER WHICH IS PERMANENT THING.EVERY ONE HAS TO FIGHT FOR BRAHMA KNOWLEDGE RIGHT RIGHT FROM CHILDHOOD.Our education has to completely change to acquire this knowledge eradicate present education which is ruthless given by British and ignored by our culprit politicians. Present education system teaches how to ear money only but don't teach moral values.JAI BHARAT MATA KI JAI
You would not believe how often I’ve heard that “yeah, but at least Britain left India with democracy and the English language”. Sure, thank you very much…
@@gozzilla78 Oh, the resounding echoes of colonial benevolence! How could one possibly fathom the depths of gratitude we should all feel for Britain's gracious bestowal of democracy, rapes, looting, torture, savagery, indentured labour, and the English language upon India? It's as if centuries of exploitation, cultural suppression, and oppression were mere trinkets in the grand treasury of imperialism.
Yes, thank you ever so much, Britain, for your selfless act of leaving behind a "democracy" where the decisions were made across continents and an "English language" that replaced millennia of linguistic diversity.
When the queen died I saw a comment by an indian mentioning about this history and the brits replied and justified this saying "you got robbed becasue you couldnt defend yourself". I was shocked that they still believe it was okay.
India wasn't "robbed". I think you are telling a false story.
. . . . .
There’s no Shame in being a Victor
I literally see indians mocking the usa for being unable to stop mexican immigrants, mocking the europeans by saying they will get replaced. Guess what? It's only wrong when white people do it. We have built factories over the destroyed homes of nomadic tribes, displaced several ethnicities and mocked basically everyone else.
Love ur videos..keep making more🙏🏻👍🏻👍🏻Make one comparison before and after Mughal empire on various aspects like economy, manufacturing, cultural etc
I grew up with my grandparents, hearing first hand stories of the times towards the end of the british rule in india. My grandfather's elder brother had slapped his british boss because he verbally abused his staff saying "bloody natives" so he had to run away from his district (now Jessore, Bangladesh) to now India as he would be arrested if he visited. My grandfather had to look after his brother's family and bring them to the Indian side of the border during partition of Bengal. I listened to how my ancestors secretly listened to Netajis radio transmission to masses and engaged in freedom movements. I heard the horrible first hand stories of the times between 20-40s so I do not stand by anyone saying or believing the British did good for us
Calling someone a blood native isn’t verbally abusive. The word bloody is equivalent to silly. That would be the same as me calling a Native American a silly native. Depending on the context, it might not be the nicest thing to say, but it certainly isn’t abusive. If you heard what African slaves, Italian immigrants, and Irish immigrants were called by their bosses in the USA, you would truly understand abusive language. Today, it’s Hispanic illegal immigrants who are verbally and physically abused by their bosses here. They can’t even do anything about it, like go to HR, because they are working illegally. It’s very, very sad, but adults often need to let a mean words roll off their back, in order to support their families. It’s so sad that your uncle lost his temper and put the finical support of his family on someone else. That wasn’t fair to your uncle’s family, and it definitely wasn’t fair to your grandfather, who had already worked his whole life and raised his family. My heart breaks that your grandfather couldn’t have it easy in his older years. He is a saint!
@@findingbeautyinthepain8965 thank you. While I don't deny anyone's suffering, I can understand why the situation came to be that way. India's struggle for independence is often underrated and watered down mostly in western countries, but if you ever come to know about the real situation at that time it was bad for us. The slap resulted from years of abuse and the atrocities caused by British everywhere around them. Especially around the first and second world wars the independence movement rose at its peak, and not one Indian was immune to it. We just wanted our freedom back. Many of my family members were directly and indirectly connected in some way with this movement. Even if it can be seen as a selfish thing to do with mouths to feed, anybody can do lash out if they face years of oppression. Ironically today is my country's independence day, and I am glad and proud of all my ancestors who helped in even the most micro way possible to give me this freedom!
Coming to your kind comment about my grandfather, Yes he was the kindest man I ever saw in my life. He actually paid for his brother's entire family - and they had 8 children! He never stopped helping others till his last breath. I grew up with him, holding to my heart all the stories about those days, idolizing him and I miss him terribly now that my best teacher is not here anymore.! I hope we can all come out of the hate and oppression and become like him!
lol ... plumbing is still overwhelming
@@andrewmclaughlin2701 justifying your own ignorance through the means of sarcasm isn't something to be proud of.
@@rimrm2232 Have you ever wondered how a tiny island was able to conquer a subcontinent 20 times it's size from a distance of 5000 km. It's quite difficult to believe if India was such a rich country how a tiny island was able to conquer it. Even Shashi Tharoor acknowledged that the whole subcontinent containing more than 300 million people was ruled by 100,000 Britishers. Have you wondered how this happened? It's because most Indians at that time found British to be more benevolent than the native rulers. That's why Sikhs, Gurkhas, lower castes, many industrialists like tata supported Britishers. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sree Narayana Guru, Savitri Phule found Britishers to be good. Look at their quotes on the British Empire. BR Ambedkar was a person who even opposed Quit India movement. Is it British fault that Brits were more benevolent than native rulers. It is not because of colonization many countries are rich and many are poor. Just look at the top 10 richest countries in the world in terms of Per-capita PPP, 7 of them are British former colonies. Look at most richest countries in Europe ie Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Switzerland who hadn't colonized other countries etc. They are more rich than Britain. It's because Brits were more technologically and economically advanced that they were able to colonize other countries. Same reason why Germany conquered half of Europe and America able to influence other countries. Look at the richest countries like Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland they having less resources and haven't colonized other countries. Look at Singapore, Ireland which was an ex-colony British Empire having per-capita double that of Britain. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew accepted that before British colonization Singapore was a fishing village. Just Google Singapore Quarell over colonialism. Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the positive impact of British colonization unlike Indian leaders crying even after 75 years claiming nonsense like British looted 45 trillion dollars, killed 1.8 billion people, prevented Shivakur Talpade from inventing aeroplane, cut the thumbs of weavers etc. That's why Singapore is 100 times more successful than India. To have a more understanding on this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire. Also watch the debate between Shashi Tharoor and Zareer Masani. Just because these videos have less views than 45 trillion dollars loot, Vikramaditya Empire doesn't make the latter one true.
My blood boils on hearing about the atrocities inflicted upon my ancestors!
And Britain can't even seem to acknowledge the fact that they did something wrong
Ironic when you support coutnries like Russia
Edit: Jesus I upset 80% of the Indian populations lmao 😂
@@ivanexell-uz4mv we support those who support us...and India is not aiding Russia in the war in terms of military involvement...we are buying oil because it's cheap
@@kuntal_singhvi Hey, the figure of 45 trillion dollars was calculated by a Marxist economist named UTSA Patnaik, using a flawed methodology of compounding the loot taken by the British with a 5% interest rate. This method is inaccurate as the inflation rate in the 1950s was around 3.68%. Additionally, Patnaik arrived at a figure of 9 trillion pounds using this flawed method, which was then converted to dollars by multiplying it with 4.68. You can find these details in her article. Furthermore, Patnaik made an exaggerated claim that the British killed 1.8 billion people in India, which is obviously false. It's puzzling that channels like Vice and Wion omitted her outrageous claim of genocide. Unfortunately, spreading lies and misinformation is not uncommon in India. For instance, some stories claim that the Vikramaditya Empire controlled 40% of the world's land, or that India had airplanes 7000 years ago during the Vedic period. These are clearly baseless claims. There is also a story that Shivakar Talpade invented the airplane 8 years before the Wright Brothers, but that the British stole his idea and gave it to the Wright Brothers. India needs to stop perpetuating such false claims.
@@jeanettewee8805you seem to be crying everywhere bot
@@ivanexell-uz4mvmuch lesser evil, the British killed much more than Stalin or the Nazi wake up
Defo one of my favourite channels!! keep it up!
I come from Bangladesh part of Bengal before colonisation and richest state of India, now one of the poorest countries on earth, the poverty is so unimaginable. I am totally disgusted how my ancestors suffered from colonisation.
😂😂😂😂😂
I once got chatting to a British Indian cab driver and he asked me what book I was reading (it was in my hand). I told him it was a biography on Churchill, but quickly added that I did not defend the atrocities he was responsible for in India. He laughed and told me that I need not worry and that India was the wonderful place it was thanks to the British. I was absolutely shocked. I couldn’t fathom that he genuinely believed that. In hindsight, I wish I had corrected him, but I just changed the subject. Made me feel really sad actually!
Maybe he watched Monty Pythons movie "Life of Brian" and refered to the "what have the Romans ever done for us"-scene.
Or maybe he just didn't know. Or one of the few who benefitted from British rule.
The $45 trillion figure was calculated by Marxist
economist Utsa Patnaik at 5% compounded annual interest from 1765 right up until 2016. It was based on Mughal empire's PPP
GDP, not India's. These two entities are not the same. Mughal empire didn't encompass many of present day ROI's regions, and
they did encompass many lands which present day ROI don't have. Is it fair to equate western Roman empire's GDP to present
day Italy's? Patnaik also updated her calculations, compounding up to 2020 instead of 2016 and found Britain had stolen an
additional $19 trillion in 4 years , @5% compounded interest, bringing the figure up to $64 trillion. It will keep ballooning as
years pass by. It has been trashed by many economists. It's just a comfort-lie to seek solace that , "we didn't progress because
we were looted". Nations do spread these lies, for tickling national sentiment. Pakistan still teaches their kids that they'd won the
1971 war with India.
breaking news: indian knows more about his country than you do
@@hegantank6495 As much as I love your humorous reply, the man was British with Indian ancestry. He may well have visited India, but he had evidently grown up/ been educated in London. Maybe I am completely wrong, but a lot of what I understand to be true is quite devastating.
@@jeanettewee8805 hey like yu Know you seeem to have pretty god knowledge do you have discord or smth. Where i can talk abt it with you? I wanna learn stuff+i agree with ya fella...
Greetings from Germany. Decades ago I drank a beer at evening sitting on the veranda of the 'Civil And Military Hotel' in India. For an hour I truly felt like one of those sahib gentlemen of old times. Without the loot and plunder.
The sad part is that India is still till today listening to its old master the brits and the Americans instead of suing the bits for brutal colonialism and mass scale robery 😅😅😅yes sa'r
I’d love it if there were any attempts at “suing” Britain. It ‘d be a wonderful chance to demonstrate the stupidity of modern Indian nationalism.
. . .
Along with Nazi atrocities, crimes committd by colonial rulers should be taught in all the countries including former colonial powers so that current generation is aware of history and take lessons to evolve as better human beings and societies.
100% agreed. Thanks for your support!
Not just for India and the entire subcontinent, but for the unheard (i.e. ignored) voices of the Global South - Thank you.
The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938. Shame on those who understand this and yet knowingly spread it on the internet, they clearly have some kind of agenda. It's misinforming the public, and a gross distortion of the truth.
@@jeanettewee8805 lol, that's just one piece of the story. Of course it's a mathematical construction - but your rebuttal also doesn't account for what the construction is attempting to say. The economy of India was truly pillaged from the leading one in the world to the dearth of poverty, all for british greed
@@culturedealer4464 India's economic growth during colonial period was way higher than that during mughal rule.
From 1850 to 1947, India's GDP in 1990 international dollars grew from $125.7 billion to $213.7 billion, a 70% increase, or an average annual growth rate of 0.55%. This was a higher rate of growth than during the Mughal era (1600-1700), when it had grown by 22%, an annual growth rate of 0.20%, or the longer period of mostly British East Indian company rule from 1700 to 1850 where it grew
39%, or 0.22% annually.[12]
Source:Wikipedia
@@jeanettewee8805 of course - the mughal empire degraded India (not just financially, but along other vectors) - India's gdp was high despite the mughal empire, not because of it. India's global share of gdp drastically reduced during the span of the mughal empire.
Also this is a ridiculous point anyways since global gdp increased drastically during this time. What you need to do is compare gdp growth as compared to global gdp growth rate during mughal rule vs british rule. The global gdp growth rate was incredible post industrialization - and I guarantee the proportional growth during the mughal empire was greater than the proportional growth during the british empire
You're using statistics in a malicious manner to push your agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself
@@culturedealer4464 In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty.
My respects to you brother for making this video. This video highlights the plight of British ruled India but should also provide viewers an insight that 200 years of plunder led to struggling independent India. Many western commentators berate India for poor human indices. Atleast video like yours will make them understand that it takes time to get back what we lost (finance, culture, education, character) over 2 centuries. It’s only the resilient nature of Indians that despite all these setbacks, in just 70 years we have become 5th largest economy, beating the very same tyrants, Britain, who pushed us into poverty in the first place.Thanks!
India was the 6th largest economy in 1950s. Countries like Japan and Germany had less GDP than India at that time. The reason why India is still poor is because they are still blaming British for their own post-colonial failure. If British were the reason why many countries are poorer then why non colonized countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Liberia etc. are poorer than India? Why many colonized countries like America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are one of the richest countries in the world. India had 23% of world's GDP in 1750s only because it had 25% of world's population at that period. Countries like Britain, Netherland had 3 times the per capita of India even at that time. Looking at the per-capita, India was one of the poorest countries in the world even in 1750s. Most of the east Asian countries, Middle eastern countries, European countries had more per-capita than India in 18th century. Saying India was one of the richest countries in 17th century just because it had large share of GDP in the world is like saying at present India is richer than UK because India had more GDP than UK. We have to look at per-capita income to find which country is richer and which is not. Countries like Singapore, Hong Kong had accepted British colonization brought more positives than negatives to them. Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, said that before the British arrived, “there was no organized human society in Singapore, unless a fishing village can be called a society”. Countries like Singapore are richer than India now because they had honest politicians like Lee Kuan Yew who don't unnecessarily blame Britishers and had the courage to accept the fact that colonialism brought more positives than negatives to them unlike Indian politicians.
@jeanettewee8805 This write up is a joke.
First off America, canada was only a colony until 1776. India was a colony until 1947. So, India was a colony of Britain for nearly 150 years longer.
On per capita yes, Netherlands, Britain was wealthier than India but not by much. There is chart historical gdp by regions that lists the numbers. This data was compiled by famous economist Angus Maddison.
Europe moved ahead bc of its intrests in sciences. Britain did as this video points out extract all or most of India's wealth. What Europe did to Asia and India. To draw a similarity they got ahead fairly ( bc of their progress in science, ship building etc..) but once ahead to kill competition they dug ditches its others pathways so to keep these Asian, Arab and African societies behind.
By 2050 India will be the second largest economy and hopefully by the end of this century it will be the largest economy..
@@jeanettewee8805 Japan and Germany are great powers and industrialized countries before WW2 and they are just a puppet of US after WW2 so it's easy for them to return to their past economic superiority. countries like Canada, australia are populated british they are carbon copy in the other words extension of UK, British saw them as their own people were india on the other hand seen as a inferior, resourceful countries, UK intention is just to drain wealth and resources from India not to develop us but in the case of NZ, australia, canada not like that.
@@jeanettewee8805 Your views on colonialism is weird so far you must come to india to see the actual reality and then give your opinion
Okay. Now that the Brits are no longer here, what stopped us from liberalising the economy? India is still poor because, it has adopted all the bad policies of both socialism and capitalism. Look at the PSUs and their sloppy products. Yes, I agree, the British did all the dirty works on Indians. But, still blaming the British is like kicking the dead horse.
it genuinely makes me furious that some people think that what the british did was good for those people and they should be thanking them
The facts make you “furious”? Then you have a problem.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 right because hundreds of millions dying due to an avoidable famine was a good thing. coming into foreign lands massacring their native people into submission, and proclaiming it as their own is a good thing.
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 right because hundreds of millions dying due to an avoidable famine was a good thing. coming into foreign lands massacring their native people into submission, and proclaiming it as their own is a good thing.
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 right because hundreds of millions dying due to an avoidable famine was a good thing. coming into foreign lands massacring their native people into submission, and proclaiming it as their own is a good thing.
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 right because hundreds of millions dying due to an avoidable famine was a good thing. coming into foreign lands massacring their native people into submission, and proclaiming it as their own is a good thing.
Don't expect forgiveness from us, cause nothing is forgotten everything will be paid
But thanks for speaking and sharing the truth
Whats the use? its not like the damages caused will be gone.
It's crazy how even in this comment section people excuse or downplay what the British did.
Although there's not a lot to be proud of as a German, I think one thing we did really well was actually educating the further generations about the shit we did. This is a big part of why to this day every person who tries to downplay our history immediately gets called out.
Which is why Germany deserves respect.
What hitler did doesn't even compare to what the British did to india. They literally killed 35 million people from starvation and caused the worst famine in history.
This is a point I frequently bring up in discussions as well, the stark difference in the way Germans and the British think about and speak about their past despite the numerous similarities says a lot.
u can go ahead pay up ur reparations to poland, cuz ur words are worthless lol. Nobody needs your pity or self hate
@@cynicalidealist11
British lmplemented Final Solution on India, just like Hitler implemented Final Solution on Jews.
It’s crazy for me to think that my grandmother was alive when India was still in British control.
Britishers were mostly bad around central India. Other states lived more or less in harmony and didn't care about Britishers much.
I'm from uttrakhand and my great grandfather used to tell stories of Britishers to my mother. I might be wrong, but people of uttrakhand didn't care about Britishers. They were village cultivators
@@Dr.Kay_R True I'm from Kerala. The first europian (Portugeese) Vasco Da Gama landeed in India on Kerala's Kapad beach situated in Kozhikode (British can't pronounce it and call it 'Calicut'). At that time Kerala was doing high volume spice trades with Arabs, Egyptians and East Asian countris. Mostly black pepper, gold and stuff where valued as treassures and Kerala is abundant with it. Vasco Da Gama tried to make a deal into that time's King of Kozhikode Samuthiri (British can't pronounce it and calls 'Zamorin') to make a trade deal. The Arabs where loyal trades unlike british. They bring goods from Arabia and Persia however Britishes had bad intensions. To everyone who's confused about Kerala and South India in particlar. This is how Islam comes to south India. Through loyal trade and trust. That's why you see a difference in people's attitude towards Muslims in Kerala or south India compared to North where Islam comes with war and brutal killings. So it's obvious. Also that's how India's first Mosque has been build. It's called 'Cheraman Juma Majsid' where 'Cheraman' was a Hindu King of that time. It's still standing proud in our state. By the way although all these happened and had many fights with British Kerala was relatively safe. And that's because Britishes had more focus on today's Kerala Karnataka border which is a small part at north of Kerala. Southern kindgoms like Kochi (Cochin), Kozhikode (Calicut) and Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum) somehow resisted it by making some deals
Unbelievable. Thank you for creating and sharing vital history. Shameful how many people dont know and dont care
Sri Lanka recently requested the copies for native medicine scripts british looted in the past. They wanted charge £30K for that. Dude you didn't pay when they were stolen from Sri Lanka .
Our history shows the price of being economically rich but militarily poor. Military power is the basis of lasting prosperity
The psychological technologies that came about in the enlightenment dictated that any impedances to the flow of energy (a.k.a. capital) had to be eliminated, no matter how tragic, ridiculous, or wasteful. So having a military doesn't really matter in the long run. The Brits kind of came in under the radar.
Is the Hindu caste system the problem with weak militaries? India has been invaded and ruled by foreigners since like ancient history.
In 1750, India had 23% of the world's GDP because it had 25% of the world's population. However, Britain was already a wealthy country even before it colonized India. If we look at the per-capita income of India and Britain in the 1750s, Britain's per-capita income was three times that of India as per Maddison's data, and India's per-capita income had been declining for a century before Britain won the Battle of Plassey. Comparing the total GDP of India and Britain in the 1750s to argue that India was richer than Britain is like saying that Uttar Pradesh is richer than Goa today. Later, the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Western world after the Scientific Revolution, with the invention of machines and technologies like the steam engine, and their wealth increased exponentially. Meanwhile, India's global share of GDP dropped to 4% in 1950. The same thing happened in China, which was not directly colonized. In fact, China's per-capita income was even lower than India's at the time of independence. During the 1750s, China's per-capita income was higher than India's. Therefore, if we say that Asian countries are poorer because of colonization, then what happened to countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Ethiopia, and Liberia, which were not colonized? It's worth noting that Nepal has a similar history and culture to India, yet it is the poorest country in Asia. The fact that Nepal was not colonized by the British undermines the argument that colonization is solely responsible for a country's level of poverty. For more information about this topic watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about colonialism.
@@jeanettewee8805 HEY kid talk me in term of PPP
@@rajitshrivastava1769 This is what is brought out by Maddison’s estimates of GDP per capita, again in PPP terms in 1990 dollars. In 1 AD, India’s GDP per capita was $450, as was China’s. But Italy under the Roman Empire had a per capita income of $809. In 1000 AD, India’s per capita income was $450 and China’s $466. But the average of the West Asian countries, such as Turkey and Iraq, was much higher at $621. In terms of general prosperity, therefore, it was the Arab world that was doing well a millennium ago. The Caliphate in Baghdad was a centre of power at the time and both science and culture flourished. By 1500, though, new centres of prosperity had emerged. India’s per capita income was $550 and China’s $600 in 1500. The Arab world had declined. But standards of living in Western Europe at that time had already gone far ahead. Italy topped the table, with a per capita income of $1,100, the Netherlands following with a per capita income of $761. This was the Italy of the Renaissance, the Italy of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, of Raphael and Titian. The UK was not far behind, with a per capita income of $714. By 1600, the centre of Europe had
shifted northwards and the golden age of Holland had begun. Dutch per capita income was $1,381 in 1600, while Britain in Shakespeare’s time had a per capita income of $974. Recall that 1600 was the year the East India Company was founded. In contrast, India’s per capita income continued to be $550, while China’s was $600. Note that even Ireland,
one of the poorest of Western Europe’s countries, had a per capita income of $615, higher than India’s and China’s. In short, the per capita GDP numbers mirror the changes in power, prosperity and cultural and scientific achievement. It wasn’t till 1981 that India had a per capita income of $977, beating that of Britain in 1600. And it wasn’t until 1993 that India’s per capita income of $1,399 surpassed what the Dutch had achieved in 1600. Maddison’s calculations show that in 2008, India’s per capita GDP ( in 1990 dollars, PPP terms) was $2,975,
slightly more than one-third of the world average of $7,614.
2:24 As an Indian I loved the way he referred India as “she/her” 🇮🇳
Why? Feminine pronouns are standard for referring to countries.
@@SohanDsouzabecause we treat our country as mother
@@swarnithhegde4679yeah mother india
@@swarnithhegde4679 what about UK THE ANTHEM GOD SAVE THE QUEEN the statue of liberty 🗽 is considered as she her
SOME PEOPLE REFER TO INDIA AS " MOTHER INDIA ".
This is excellent. Any chance you can add transcript and links to research? I can't believe I never knew much of this.
Read The Origins of the Third World by Mike Davis.
@@apollocreed5391 Your crimes cannot be unseen. I myself know what I have lost due to your Bastard British ancestors.
I never knew about India being so successful back in history 😮
Look up Indus Valley Civilization. It was a unique, very advanced culture in north western India between 4000 and 2000 BC. Also look up Indian inventions. Some examples: cotton clothing was invented in India and brought to Europe by the Greeks. The first martial art is Kalaripayattu and was brought to east Asia by Indian Buddhist monks, Shaolin Kung Fu is one example. The whole concept of Zen come from Indian Dhyana (meditation). "Arabic numbers" (the ones we use) are actually Indian numbers brought to Europe by Arabs. In math the famous Fibonacci sequence is based on the work of Indian mathematician Pingala. The first cosmetic surgery was described in an ancient Indian book written by a surgeon of the time. Many more examples exist...
It's just absurd how
western schools are spreading propaganda and false information among their generations.
As someone who’s country is also a subjected to Dutch and British colonialism, I can completely relate to our Indian brothers plight.
South Africa?
@@alareiks742 Every other African nation kicked they’re colonizers out but SA still slunking on the matter and putting up with foolishness!
England has been raping Canada of resources since Freemason J. A. MacDonald was our first PM. Our parliament has a throne, a governor general who represents the now King of England who gets *crown land* revenue, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and an upper and lower house of representatives. Canadians were conscripted to fight in 2 world wars that were English wars.
Why? India wasnt plundered at all. This video is a load nonsense.
@@somethingelse9535 You must be one of the *dumbed down generation*.
I hope that India continues to flourish over the next few decades and finds its place as a preeminent economy and power once again; India is a natural ally for the United States. I was ignorant to the 35 million deaths caused by colonial rule -- this fact shocked me. I will continue to read about India to understand its history.
I recommend the podcast “Empire”
Lies
It's actually 100 million, by our estimates. He was being nice, saying 35 million
@@nicolkatanji1980my boy coping hard
India's population exploded under the Raj, going from about 100 million in 1700, to almost 500 million, by 1947. If you are going to blame them for 35 million deaths, then you must also give them credit for 350 million births.
People in the UK today celebrate their aristocrats like Winston Churchill, by building statues of them without educating themselves of the real history and at the same time say that the common people had nothing to do with the colonial empire goes to show their ignorance.
There are also some people that try to defend the empire by saying they brought with them the gift of civilisation and saved these colonies from becoming lands of savages, if it is so, why cry now over immigration if colonialism had such a positive effect? These “savages” are coming to you now, bless them with the gift of civilisation.