Colonial times

According to a YouGov poll in 2016, 43 percent of British citizens thought the existence of the British Empire was a "good thing," while only 19 percent disagreed. 
Let's discuss some commonly asked questions about colonial rule.

Questions:

Did crown rule benefit India ?

Is there a moral need for Britain to commemorate Indian soldiers of World Wars?

The final conclusion

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

There is now a mountain of scientific evidence that proves that the Aryan Invasion Theory or its migration version is a myth. It is fiction. It belongs in the big league of unscientific theories (which some still believe in), alongside creationism, anti-evolutionism, the myth of Noah’s ark, and flat earth theory.

The evidence shows that India is much more than a nation. It is the world’s oldest civilization.

India wasn’t born in 1947. Our great civilization was born at least nine and a half millennia ago according to archaeological evidence, and fifteen and a half millennia ago according to genetic evidence. The records of our great ancestors’ deeds are lost, destroyed in the fires and the depredations of the past millennium. The least we can do to honor our ancestors is to strive to rediscover the truth about them.

The truth is out there. Its clues lie buried under our footsteps, scattered in our languages and our literature, and hidden deep in our DNA. Science is the key. We now possess the know-how and the technology to investigate and unravel the mystery. It is time to utilize it.

India’s rediscovery of its past has only begun. Exciting times are ahead.

Previous article: What needs to be done?

Those who are still not satisfied can read the interview of renowned archaeologist and former Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Brij Basi Lal, popularly known as B. B. Lal:
(Interview)

More Articles:

Home

Why is India a subcontinent and Europe a continent?

Homepage    About me      Contact me    Privacy policy

Disclaimer: **I love Europe but some questions need to be answered and by India I mean South Asia because most of the present day countries of South Asia were parts of India earlier.**

You might have wondered sometime 'Why India is a subcontinent and not a continent?' If you try to convince yourself by saying that India is connected to Asia then you really need to read this article.

Of the seven most globally recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are completely separated from other continents by ocean. Asia and Africa are joined by the Isthmus of Suez, and North and South America by the Isthmus of Panama. In both cases, there is no complete separation of these landmasses by water (disregarding the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, which are both narrow and shallow, as well as artificial). What separates Europe from Asia? Ural hillocks.. And what separates Subcontinent from Asia? The mother of all mountain ranges, the legendary, the impenetrable, the gigantic, HIMALAYAS! Which separation is stronger?


Across the world, different types of models are taught:

• The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia^[22] and the United Kingdom.
• The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.
• The six-continent combined-America model is often used in France and its former possessions, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Latin America and Greece.
• A five-continent model is obtained from this model by excluding Antarctica as uninhabited. This is used, for example in the United Nations and in the Olympic Charter.

Also before 60 to 70 million years ago this Indian Landmass was not a part of Eurasian landmass. This Indian Subcontinent drifted from southern hemisphere and collided with Eurasian plate to lift these tallest mountain ranges. So, don't you think we qualify to be called as a continent? 

Calling Indian subcontinent a "Subcontinent" and Europe a full continent is a pure euro-centric mindset and has nothing to do with logic. We are much more diverse when compared to the rest of Asia. 

There are only two types of religions in world: Abrahamic(Islam, Christianity, Jew) and Dharmic (Hindu, Jain, Buddhism). We have an entirely separate SET of religions, not just a separate religion. Both Kashmiri and Keralian cuisines are spicy. But differently spicy. Is English food differently bland than Hungarian food?

So if India is more drastically different from Asia culturally, geographically, racially, spiritually, linguistically, culinarily, sartorially and on every other imaginable fronts; Why is it not a continent and Europe is?

Answer : Because Europeans wrote the geography books and not Indians.

Read more articles:

Home

Did crown rule benefit India ?

Homepage      About me       Contact me        Privacy policy

I have heard people say that Britishers were the one who made India. How true is this claim?


*I have nothing against the present Britain or British people because most of the horrors happened when none of the present Brits were born. 3 generations have come since the time of Indian independence. I know that most of the present day Britishers are sympathetic to India's struggle.*

Everyone today knows about **Charles Dickens**, the greatest Victorian era English novelist. His works include ‘Oliver Twist’, ‘A Christmas Carol’, ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, ‘David Copperfield’, ‘Great Expectations’ etc. However ignored in the celebrations will be the reality that Charles Dickens, like many of his British contemporaries, was a genocidal racist. 
“I, The Inimitable, holding this office of mine, and firmly believing that I hold it by the permission of Heaven and not by the appointment of Satan, have the honor to inform you Hindoo gentry that it is my intention, with all possible avoidance of unnecessary cruelty and with all merciful swiftness of execution, to exterminate the Race from the face of the earth.”

Celebrated Britishers like this guy openly gave such statements. So, how could you expect any help from them ? All the advantages of the colonial rule like civil services exam, railways, etc. that some people state were started just for administrative convenience of the colony so that they could solidify their administration and drain India’s wealth from the mainland to the ports. The country which once contributed 26% of wold GDP contributed a mere 2% after their departure.

The countrymen who once used to be proud of their culture and heritage were made to accept the racial supremacy of their western counterparts. Even today this inferiority complex exists among many Indians.

Britain pulled India's men into wars that had nothing to do with India. Over 1.3 million men served in the World War I and over 2 million served in World War II (with over 87000 men died in it).
(Read India in world wars )

Finally people who say that India would never come into picture if there was no British rule must know that when British left India, India still had 500+ states and the present day India came into picture because of the ‘**Iron man of India**’.

Read more at:
Home

Is there a moral need for Britain to commemorate Indian soldiers of World Wars?

Homepage           About me             Contact me               Privacy policy

Brits commemorated the animals who lost their lives in world wars by building a memorial ' Animals in War Memorial ' in London. But it seems that they have forgotten the contribution of Indian soldiers who were made to fight for their colonisers. This post seeks to generate awareness among people about the Indian contribution in the allied victory.

In fact, every sixth soldier fighting for the Brits was from the Indian subcontinent. India contributed with more soldiers than Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa combined. 

 53,486 Indian soldiers lost their lives, 64,350 were wounded and 3,762 went missing or were imprisoned. Nearly 9,000 died due to severe winters in France. Apart from men and material, India also contributed with 100 million pounds of wealth. Not just combatants, there were 43,737 men who worked in the Indian Labour Corps. Within weeks of the war being declared, India also supplied 70,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, 600,000 rifles, motors and machine guns.  The total value of India’s war contribution amounted to £ 80,000,000. That's about ₹ 7,420,800,000 in today's money. British continued to drain Indian money and manpower which resulted in death of 3 million Indians due to famines. This fact was never highlighted. The army was forgotten.

The Britain along with some other major powers who overlook India as a third world country have forgotten the Indian contribution in their prosperity. The India which once contributed 26% of world GDP before the arrival of British was exploited so much that after their departure India could contribute just 4% of world GDP. 

So, I think it's a moral responsibility of Britain to commemorate the Indian soldiers who fought for them in world wars. 

Read more articles:

Home