What should be done about Zimbabwee president/dictator Robert Mugabe

Perhaps not, but your argument is based on your position that free trade is not always a good thing. For those who consider free trade to be a good thing then Britain's spreading of it is a good thing. I think we can end the "free trade" debate here.

It was established with the good will and help of the Viceroy. I.e. it was an establishment built (or at least helped) by the British Empire. And it was the first body on a way to Indian democracy. So it is seemingly proven that the British helped spread democracy to India.

And even if you were to argue that it was an act of individuals and not the government (which is wrong but anyway)

then you would still have to accept that those Westerners who helped set it up were only there and only driven because of the Empire

and that the Indians involved in it were all educated in England or by Englishmen along English lines thus could only have done what they did thanks to the Empire.

Free trade was the default before Britain started dabbling in protectionism so returning to old ways is hardly 'spreading' free trade.

Officially recognising the freedom movement does not constitute creating it. That in itself seems foolish, but anyway...

So you think the government ordered a rabble to become 'freedom fighters'? that resistance didn't actually exist until the British thought it should?
Well yes, they weren't exactly holidaymakers who suddenly decided to make a political statement. I presume most British in India were officers of the empire or on official business. And not all of them agreed with the way Indians were treated.

Again, allowing the education of freedom fighting leaders was hardly wise, was it? I'm sure Nehru and co. were eternally grateful for the opportunity to share their wisdom and spread the message of self determination to other colonies.
Anyway, those who were educated there were wealthy - not on scholarships - so it was certainly not an act of charity as you would portray it. I sincerely doubt Britain had an educational monopoly in the world and I can only think that the money that Oxbridge had accumulated during empire years was the attraction. Not to mention a chance to see what all this 'being a gentleman' fuss was all about.

Britain did spread free trade by ensuring that all those under the Empire operated without tariffs and by effectively forcing those in its economic sphere to keep to free trade as well.

The INC was not established as a "freedom fighting" body. You seem to have limited knowledge of the history of the Empire (as do I but it appears slightly more than you). The INC was established to provide Indians with a means to express their opinions to the rulers - a precursor of democracy.

The point is only that the Western and English education was only available to Indians because of the Empire

and had the Empire not existed the Indians would not have received that education

and would not have been able to establish the INC and lead the fight for democracy in India.

Yes, forcing the terms of trade into Britain's favour. don't be under the false impression that colonies had any say in what they 'traded' or the terms of trade. As tsrrocks pointed out earlier, a 0% tariff on imports was logical given that the empire was sending vast amounts of goods to Britain from the colonies.

Rubbish.

"The history of the Indian National Congress falls into two distinct eras:

The pre-independence era, when the party was at the forefront of the struggle for independence;
The post-independence era, when the party has enjoyed a prominent place in Indian politics, ruling the country for 48 of the 60 years since independence in 1947. " Wikipedia

The INC itself declares it was part of a movement "primarily for freedom from alien domination" http://www.aicc.org.in/the_congress_and_the_freedom_movement.php

Wrong. There were plenty of educational institutions in Europe at the time, and I doubt you needed the permission of the empire to go there.

Plainly wrong given what I've pointed out above.

The INC fought for freedom, not for democracy per se.

This policy occured more or less consistently across the empire but particularly in Africa. There were a few exceptions where countries did benefit from British rule (malawai springs to mind) but when you consider the ugandan model was similarly applied to rwanda, zimbabwe, Sudan etc it's hard to see how the British Empire did good for the colonies overall, especially Africa

I'm not arguing with that. As I said before you plainly do not consider free trade to be a positive thing therefore you consider its spread to not have been a positive element of the Empire. To others who do consider free trade a positive its spread is a positive. Since this debate is not about the benefits of free trade I suggest we stop discussing this point.

"Though [the INC was] initially intended by its British founder to channel and thereby defuse Indian disaffection, Congress would quickly become the crucible of modern Indian nationalism." Niall Ferguson (Professor of International History at Harvard), Empire, pg 205.

The existance of educational institutions does not mean that Indians would or could have gone to study there. Had the Empire not existed these people would not have been in a position to study abroad...

Firstly, the quote wrongly attributes the founding to the British alone, which is wrong. And secondly, it simply says it went on to become the centre for nationalism, which does not indicate that the British were happy with this. In fact, iirc they tried to make the congress illegal in the 30s because it was starting to get too many ideas of freedom etc. So I argue that despite the offical rubber stamping of the INC by the British, its direction and role in the freedom movement was independent.

Again, if you follow the link provided to the INC's own site, it clearly states that general uprising was inevitable and the formation of congress merely gave this freedom movement direction.

Why not? Those who went abroad had immense wealth or else they couldn't have afforded it. Your statement is simply an assumption.

Whatever it went on to become you cannot argue that it was established by the British (or at least with their help and approval) as a means to express Indian opinion to the government. That is a precursor to democracy and it was an institution that did not exist before and was created by the Empire (both immediately and in the longer term i.e. it would not have been created had the Empire not existed).

Immense wealth? If that is true where did they get said wealth from? Where did they get the idea of receiving an English education? Why did they want it? How were they able to get there and receive it? To claim that the Empire was not responsible for their education is clearly innaccurate and wrong.

Precisely, lol. There would be no need for a freedom struggle had the empire not existed. But formalising a movement does not mean it would not have taken on another form, as many others did. If you refuse to read sources, I can't help you.
And as for the matter of whether democracy would eventually have evolved in India without invasion, how can you tell? You can't fill in a block of 200 years of history by extrapolating what happened before. Like technological progress, social organisation is not dictated by a strict formula - its often spontaneous.

Funnily enough, wealth existed before the British. Don't assume that Britain was the wealthiest nation at all points of history. Wealthy merchants and traders existed before the empire as well. Your portrayal of their education as charity is clearly wrong.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

It clearly shows that the INC was not founded as a "freedom fighting" institution at all. It was founded as an institution that was a precursor for democracy.

Again I never said that their education was charity. I merely said that it would not have been possible without the Empire.

Yes, it was your assertions more than anything else.

It showed no such thing. And the direction that the INC took in defiance of the British shows that it was in fact a primary movement in the freedom struggle. Nehru himself stated in a speech that the British had no desire to free India at any point in time. Hardly the sign of a government willing to give democracy a chance. More of a polite retreat.

And I said you had no evidence for this.
(and yes, your tone did portray their education as a boon from the British, when it was nothing more than another trade. Pay money, get education.)

Again you are focusing on what the INC became not what it was established as. Thus you are not arguing with my point merely making another different and irrelevant point.

I said that it was an advantage that was brought about by the Empire.

You have a loose definition of democracy if you think channeling the freedom movement through a partially government aided institution constitutes establishing democracy. Why then were there attempts to ban the INC when it began to voice its opinion? Unless you mean that democracy entails suppressing those voices that are not to the liking of the government in power.


No, to be precise, you said 'it [education] would not have been possible without the empire'. And I argued that there were parallel institutions in Europe and elsewhere. As for why Britian was chosen as the destination, knowing how the other side thinks can only be an advantage.

For the last time please stop viewing the INC as only a "freedom fighting" institution. It wasn't always such as I have shown.

My original assertion stands. The existance of other educational institutions in Europe would not have enabled Indians and Africans to study there had the Empire not existed.

For the last time please: Where have you shown this?

Stands on what grounds? Evidence? none. Your only defence is the implication that all wealth was created after the British arrived and so without it no one could have gone anywhere. Rubbish.

I showed this with the quote I provided above. And personally I think a professor at Harvard trumps a quote from wikipedia.

My only defence was based on wealth? No. My point was that the circumstances leading to an elite forming in the Empire that were educated in Britain which was beneficial only arose due to said Empire.

I'm not going to write a treatise to prove this as that is what it would entail. You can agree to disagree but that is my view based on my knowledge. Please do not dismiss my opinion as rubbish especially without presenting any evidence yourself.

All these countries had relatively successful economies until they were destroyed by their respective dictators