Aamir Khan's - MANGAL PANDEY & British rule

[Surprise]

http://specials.rediff.com/movies/2005/aug/08aamir1.htm

I always wonder how the Britishers have got such a brilliance and proactive thinking. This will flash in my mind whenever I sit in the Railway ground along with my friends for a chat. Have you guys heard about Railway quarters?

A railway quarter is meant for accommodating the railway employees. It has got SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, PLAYGROUND, MARRIAGE HALL, and RECREATION CLUB etc. If you see the way it was organized, just in one word-EXCELLENT.

The way the streets laid, backyard for every houses, trees around every houses is a real treat to eyes. If you get into the officers quarters, WOW, even the current trend of houses needs to beg for the design.

For me they have done a lot for INDIA.

GETTING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC - Will Mangal Pandey get into any controversy

[gkrishn]

This "british gave railways to india" thing is a compelete BS, in my opinion. They didnt do that for charity. It was very important for their *trade* and hence they built it.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by gkrishn

This "british gave railways to india" thing is a compelete BS, in my opinion. They didnt do that for charity. It was very important for their *trade* and hence they built it.

Exactly, they built the railways in order to systematically rob India from end to end. They were not colonising India or many other countries to raise the quality of life of the colonies, they were trying to raise the quality of life for British only.

[adya33]

For me they have done a lot for INDIA

couldn't agree more

what people don't understand is without British there would not have been India

as for the movie, surely some party or someone might come & make some rediculous protests

[gkrishn]

what people don't understand is without British there would not have been India

What can i say?? ...Silly sentiments.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by adya33

what people don't understand is without British there would not have been India

You are saying that based on current version/shape of India. Who knows, if British hadn't come, may be some local strongman who have united it in a different shape. Wasn't Italy originally a bunch of city states? They did become a single country.

Some of the major shifts in the world political geography often happened due to single incidences or individual. We can't assume India would have remained the same way with 100s of kings even now if British hadn't come here.

[adya33]

Originally Posted by Samurai

You are saying that based on current version/shape of India. Who knows, if British hadn't come, may be some local strongman who have united it in a different shape. Wasn't Italy originally a bunch of city states? They did become a single country.

Some of the major shifts in the world political geography often happened due to single incidences or individual. We can't assume India would have remained the same way with 100s of kings even now if British hadn't come here.

when you say "may be" don't forget at that time you are also saying there is a chance of 50% being "maybe not"

I am not saying India would have remain just the same as it was at the start of 19th century but "maybe" (remember those other 50% ?) would not have been like it is now.

I don't know what would have happened, may be the king system would have still existed, may be there would have been 25 different countries rather than India I don't know but it would have been something

for sure British people took advantage of indians, built all services for themselfs but they also allowed Indians to use those services

[Surprise]

Originally Posted by Surprise

[url]
For me they have done a lot for INDIA.

Wish to miss this line from the post, which took my entire intention of the post in a different direction. I don't have knowledge in politics or History or Econmics.

I appreciate the way they thought and designed. I am basically from Admin background and love their design that's it.

[BuRnT RuBbEr]

Originally Posted by adya33

couldn't agree more

what people don't understand is without British there would not have been India
as for the movie, surely some party or someone might come & make some rediculous protests

u mean to say that a sub-continent would not have survived without an island

[gkrishn]

for sure British people took advantage of indians, built all services for themselfs but they also allowed Indians to use those services

Well... what a generosity!!!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by adya33

when you say "may be" don't forget at that time you are also saying there is a chance of 50% being "maybe not"

What 50%? At any point of history if you change something with a IF, there is no saying how many different ways it could have gone. French could have taken their place, Nepolean was so powerful in the early part of 19th century, he was defeated only because of overwhelming British Naval Power, which was constantly financed by the richness of East India Company. Later Japan could have done the same, like they took Korea or China... Without financing from India, you think British could have fought any one of the world wars? Heck, Hitler would have ruled Europe, but then wait, if British had lost 1st world war, Hitler would have never come to light. I mean there is no way to predict what would have happened.

If british hadn't come to India, there is no way anybody could predict what would have been the current state of the sub continent. Your 25 kings scenerio would be one of the 1000+ possibilities. Annexation of India by British was one of most important events in World History, it made British so rich, they literally re-wrote the world political map by the power they drew from it.

Originally Posted by adya33

for sure British people took advantage of indians, built all services for themselfs but they also allowed Indians to use those services

Basically they robbed a million rupees and then threw back a rupee. You want to thank the British for that, fine.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Surprise

Wish to miss this line from the post, which took my entire intention of the post in a different direction.

I guess you are right. I am a major history buff, therefore I get really amused when somebody starts thanking the British for small mercies.

[adya33]

Originally Posted by BuRnT RuBbEr

u mean to say that a sub-continent would not have survived without an island

sub continent would have servived, no doubt about it
I ment India as in country might not have been there i.e. there might have been several small countries instead of a one big country

[adya33]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I guess you are right. I am a major history buff, therefore I get really amused when somebody starts thanking the British for small mercies.

when you are looking at the bad points of someone make sure you know their positive points too.

railway, postal service, all "India" as we know it small mercies

I am not justifying the wrongs things British did but just throwing light on what good they did.

And for your earlier post you said

Originally Posted by Samurai

Annexation of India by British was one of most important events in World History, it made British so rich, they literally re-wrote the world political map by the power they drew from it.

if that made British so rich then why wasn't India that rich before?

but I think we are moving wayy off topic.
So lets get back to the topic

[gkrishn]

if that made British so rich then why wasn't India that rich before?

Dude i am not that strong in history... but even by my standard this is a ridiculous stmt.