Do you think India would be in a financially better place under British rule?

Like would there be a better distribution of wealth amongst the richest of rich and poorest of poor, or are they better off as they are?

Yes, and cleaner

yes it would be much better for minorities like the Sikhs to. the british would have had a lot of civil service jobs and this disgusting corruption that is such a cancer in the country would not exist. seriously you can get away with murder in india even if you got caught with the knife in your hand provided you make it worth the policemans while. a country that has no system of taxation and of that size is doomed to fail. it looks like things are starting to fall into place but it will never be equal to china or anything like that. The british would have maintained order there aswell and actually have safe roads...

Reply 3

(((they)))

Original post by Pinkberry_y

Yes, and cleaner

Yes, less poo on streets and more poo in loo.

Reply 4

Kieranisda1

I'm not one of those people who are super patriotic and have orgasms over the former British Empire, but yes, India would be less of a shithole if the British were running it

Reply 5

Just a Bloke

Not really.

India has problems, sure, but you need to remember that they're still an emerging economy - a category below advanced economies such as the UK.

Read the world bank's report on their economy for instance (link below). Having developed away from agrarianism, to become the world's fourth largest economy, to have developed a rising middle-class, all in such a short space of time - they're doing things right.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/india/overview

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 6

S.G.

Before British rule, India owned 24% of the world's economy. After they left, it was less than 1%.

Reply 7

Legendstatusxoxo

Original post by neal95

I agree with the corruption issues, but why do you think it would be better for the minorities?

Reply 8

Legendstatusxoxo

Original post by SGHD26716

Before British rule, India owned 24% of the world's economy. After they left, it was less than 1%.

The British did take a lot of their wealth tbf

Reply 9

Rakas21

Original post by Legendstatusxoxo

Like would there be a better distribution of wealth amongst the richest of rich and poorest of poor, or are they better off as they are?

I can't speak for the distribution of wealth but there is little doubt that India (and most of it's people) would be wealthier than they are today.

Original post by Legendstatusxoxo

The British did take a lot of their wealth tbf

Original post by SGHD26716

Before British rule, India owned 24% of the world's economy. After they left, it was less than 1%.

That's a proportion, not a nominal figure. Before British rule India was a bunch of states like Europe, during the time they were ruled and put into one nation we saw the industrial revolution in the west and the weakening of the Silk Road (which is what had previously made Indian states wealthy).

Reply 10

Rakas21

Original post by Just a Bloke

We left 70 years ago and they are still poorer than the global average. Their success relative to nations which embraced the market is pitiful.

Reply 11

S.G.

I actually find it quite awful about some of the posts talking about sh*t in India. You don't need to be so disrespectful, especially considering India helped in Britain in WWI and WWII.

Of course India has its problems and even I admit the government is rubbish but why be so disrespectful. Try to understand the situation some people are living through every day and see how lucky you are to be living in Britain.

Reply 12

Legendstatusxoxo

Original post by SGHD26716

If this is in reference to why I started this thread, it wasn't because of disrespect just to see what people thought innit

Reply 13

Stalinator

Yeah definitely, but you also have to consider the high possibility of a war of independence or civil war erupting which would take a massive toll on the economy.