Thank you Dr Shashi Tharoor. PLEASE do more speeches about the colonial history in Indian Universities so that our next generations understand the history!
Which of these videos tells the truth about the India Bengal famine? DONKEY DESI AMERICAN PROFESSOR th-cam.com/video/1dGI-uS2wVY/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aLHTBw7Ccu8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/WVu66nDlp-Q/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/l-KzDDc2M98/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/GG6MBTFTR4c/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/users/shortsnCxTWDyuft0?feature=share th-cam.com/video/KVSTv2tuGRU/w-d-xo.html KEERTHIHISTORY th-cam.com/video/RwYTaDszflI/w-d-xo.html
Dr. Shahi Tharoor indeed shook the British Empire. But they will neither do recognize nor apologize to their ex-colonies for they don't possess such moral integrity and conscience. It is out of question for the British Crown and its subjects.
I am sure the anchor didn't mean the "it was very good talking to you" 😂😂😂 A society which doesn't know the past, can't move forward. If past immorality is buried as justified, then today's thrashing of UK economy/its ill informed citizens at the hands of its past colonies through any immoral means would be justified as well few decades later.. Morality must be held up. Past. Present. And future.
Hats off for Shashi. This is a dark side of history not in India but also many other countries colonized by British and many other western countries. However, not many talk about. So truly hats off for shedding light for this dark side.
Dr Tharoor is wonderfully eloquent and his arguments are entirely compelling. I wholly agree that we Brits should own up, acknowledge immense wrongs done during our colonial period and teach our youngsters about what we did.
India didn't exist except as a loose tribal sub continent until the British unified it all with the help of thousands of Indians themselves. Without Britain there simply would not have been an 'India' as it is recognised today. YOU exist because WE made it so, you're welcome.
the fuck you yapping about? India was one of the 3 oldest civilisation (search Indus Valley Civilisation) along with Egypt and Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. Britiain as we know it can be traced back at max to 1000-1500 years ago in the aftermath of Roman antiquity. When Caesar reached Britiain, he didn't find any civilisation there but only tribal people like Gauls, Goths and Visigoths but even more backward. India today as a nation state is only like 77 years old but so are so many of the nations today like China, Greece, Germany, France, Egypt, Iran etc and that is because nation state as a phenomenon is only 200-300 years old. Does it mean there was no historical China, Greece, Egypt or Persia? Obviously, there were and so was India. This number system of 1234567890 originated in India which today is used world wide. An Indian scholar from 5th century CE discovered that Earth revolved around the sun while it took you all 1000 years more to come at that scientific conclusion. You all believed that stars, planets and all the heavens revolved around the earth. And when you did come at that conclusion, your scientific figures were persecuted by Church. Copernicus was so afraid that his book 'Revolutions' only came to light after he died. You might have enjoyed superiority in last 300 years of at least 5000 years long of human civilisation but that is going down now. Just see China. And India (though more slowly as it is diverse and not homogenous and not under a totalitarian rule like China) is also shifting the power away from Europe and the West. USA will stay as a Great Power and maybe Europe too in form of European Union. But oops, you guys did Brexit
reviews for this book found on Amazon: Tharoor convincingly demolishes some of the more persistent myths about Britain's supposedly civilising mission in India ... [he] charts the destruction of pre-colonial systems of government by the British and their ubiquitous ledgers and rule books ... The statistics are worth repeating. -- Victor Mallet ― Financial Times Inglorious Empire is a timely reminder of the need to start teaching unromanticised colonial history in British schools. A welcome antidote to the nauseating righteousness and condescension pedalled by Niall Ferguson in his 2003 book Empire ― Irish Times His writing is a delight and he seldom misses his target ... Tharoor should be applauded for tackling an impossibly contentious subject ... he deserves to be read. Indians are not the only ones who need reminding that empire has a lot to answer for. ― Literary Review Remarkable ... The book is savagely critical of 200 years of the British in India. It makes very uncomfortable reading for Brits -- Matt Ridley ― The Times Tharoor's impassioned polemic slices straight to the heart of the darkness that drives all empires. Forceful, persuasive and blunt, he demolishes Raj nostalgia, laying bare the grim, and high, cost of the British Empire for its former subjects. An essential read -- Niljana Roy ― Financial Times Ferocious and astonishing. Essential for a Britain lost in sepia fantasies about its past, Inglorious Empire is history at its clearest and cutting best -- Ben Judah Those Brits who speak confidently about how Britain's "historical and cultural ties" to India will make it easy to strike a great new trade deal should read Mr Tharoor's book. It would help them to see the world through the eyes of the ... countries once colonised or defeated by Britain -- Gideon Rachman ― Financial Times Rare indeed is it to come across history that is so readable and so persuasive -- Amitav Ghosh Eloquent ... a well-written riposte to those texts that celebrate empire as a supposed "force for good" ― BBC World Histories Tharoor's book - arising from a contentious Oxford Union debate in 2015 where he proposed the motion "Britain owes reparations to her former colonies" - should keep the home fires burning, so to speak, both in India and in Britain. ... He makes a persuasive case, with telling examples ― History Today Brilliant ... A searing indictment of the Raj and its impact on India. ... Required reading for all Anglophiles in former British colonies, and needs to be a textbook in Britain -- Salil Tripathi, Chair of the Writers in Prison Committee, PEN International, and author of The Colonel Who Would Not Repent Persuasive and well-founded ... the book convincingly demolishes the nostalgic, self-serving arguments voiced by imperial apologists ― Time Literary Supplement. The Author SHASHI THAROOR is the bestselling author of twenty books, both fiction and non-fiction, besides being a noted critic and columnist. His books include the pathbreaking satire The Great Indian Novel (1989), the classic India: From Midnight to the Millennium (1997), the bestselling An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India, for which he won the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism, 2016, for Books (Non-Fiction), and The Paradoxical Prime Minister: Narendra Modi and His India. He has been Under Secretary-General of the United Nations and Minister of State for Human Resource Development and Minister of State for External Affairs in the Government of India. He is a three-time member of the Lok Sabha from Thiruvananthapuram and chairs the Parliament Information Technology committee. He has won numerous literary awards, including a national Sahitya Akademi award, a Commonwealth Writers' Prize and the Crossword Lifetime Achievement Award. He was awarded the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman, India's highest honour for overseas Indians, in 2004, and honoured as New Age Politician of the Year (2010) by NDTV.
Good knowledge and response But in fairness, you must mention the Indian practice of burial of girls alive, to avoid paying "dawry", wifes incinerating themselves with the bodies of their dead husbands, bond slaveary, for repaying debt ......just few to mention
there was no practice buring girls alive, you're confusing it with something else I think. There was Sati which was the burning of widow and there were social reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy (1772-1833) who worked against it and his gigantic efforts made the British the outlaw Sati in 1829. Bonded slavery (or more accurately 'indentured labour/slavery' was itself an intended result of colonial system and policies. That's why you could see Indian populations in Fiji or the Carribeans. It was because the Brits forced people to go there to work as the replacement of traditional black slaves
Mr Shashi! u did the best...but India only was not the one suffering from Britain...i think u should use Subcontinent instead of India bcz it include all other countries like Pakistan, Bengladesh. Our clashes with these countries are on one hand but still we all suffered from Bloody Britishers.
All we hear is about how many people Mao or Stalin etc killed. but never hear about How many did the " Good Guys " killed. tens of millions or even more.
Gauzy rose tinted spectacles and romanticized television soap operas! A bootha breaker; too bad it wasn't literally one. George Orwell wrote in one of his essays that British men in India would send an illiterate Indian servant to the local jail with a note for the British warden saying, "Please give the bearer forty lashes."
Wrong, It was indeed your less-than-distinguished great-grandfather and his cohorts who embarked upon a fateful expedition to the Indian subcontinent, a journey marked by the regrettable endeavor to pillage and despoil all that lay in their path, reducing a rich tapestry of culture and heritage to destitution. In their relentless quest for plunder, they even looted the very term 'loot,' a stark testament to the audacity of their endeavors.
It’s the charter of un the the mis spell of u n which the turning back of the whole concept the new evolution in the year 1948 which made thrroll of un charter which made the Roll of democratic system to inspire the world the book “the new glorious advevent “ which is calling a new chapter in it he history to recharge all batteries to open their eyes right command
The partition was necessary because both the Pakistani's and Indians wanted Britain out immediately in 1947 but couldn't agree amongst themselves what part of the country should be Muslim and what part Indu, this is where the Kashmir trouble today stems from and the easy solution this man takes is to blame it all on Britain instead of post war Indian and Pakistani politicians manning up and admitting they're mainly responsible. India is landing billion pound rockets on the moon as I write whilst millions of her people are poor and hungry and people like this are demanding reparations from people in Britain for something which happened 200 years before they were born. Britain hasn't ruled India in almost 80 years now, it's high time they took responsibility for the problems they have created themselves instead of blaming the usual scapegoat, Britain.
I would have to RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE with Dr. Shashi Tharoor here. When I say "respectfully," I do mean it, as a brown coloured Muslim Indian, living in India myself. His arguments are powerful from a diplomatic - foreign relations angle, but not for the sake of knowledge and truth. He talks here, more like a politician, a learned politician at that, I have to say, and not like a scholar, that I would like and expect him to be. His facts and figures about the British treatment of the Indian Subcontinent are quite correct, the British did commit horrible crimes here, but the conclusions that he draws from that data, are either misleading or incorrect, and the demands he makes after that from the British, are a bit inappropriate. I do HATE what the British did in India, but the way he presents it, is not appropriate or correct. He acts colour-blind himself while presenting these facts and figures. The “White” side of the picture is what he presents; the “Brown” side is totally absent in his arguments, when talking about the CAUSES of the said atrocities. As an Indian, I should first and foremost, try to look into my own people, before playing the blame game, for where the causes where (and they are quite well documented), for the British to do what they did here. The mistake that Mr. Tharoor makes here, is that, of looking at the past with the lens of the present. This mistake is committed in different ways, by many people who romanticize the past... The British looted India in different ways, firstly by making deals with the ruling class here in India. They came here as traders. The way they behaved here shows that they did not want to take the head-ache of administering and controlling this region directly themselves. They neither knew the languages nor the peoples, and they wanted the wealth and goodies, with as less of a hassle as possible, which is what any trader would want. Even at the moments when they were preparing to leave India, there was a huge group of semi-autonomous regions in the subcontinent, called princely states, (Kashmir and Hyderabad being among the largest), that the British controlled INDIRECTLY. So whatever they did here, as Dr. Tharoor so eloquently presents, happened with full support and cooperation of the elite class of our own society. We know how local rulers aligned with the British against other local rulers, Marathas against Marathas, Muslims against Muslims and all of them against each other. India was, at the time the British arrived here, and even today, a wealthy land, true, BUT, inhabited by aged, weak, or dying nations, and wealth is not power, the morals of the people who own it makes it powerful or a double edged sword. The nations that inhabited this land were more morally bankrupt, irrespective of religion, than the British. That was the prime factor the British could gain a foothold here and do what they did. The technology and science the British had, was a tool and an attraction for the local rulers, to do what both of them wanted. If morally upright, we could have benefited from the knowledge that the British brought with them, but instead, we tried to abuse it against each other, and eventually were overpowered and abused by it ourselves. So, NO, the situation is not so clear and straightforward that the British take the blame and make an apology for it. That is how almost all human beings behaved in the past at that time; the way the British behaved, they inflicted more damage because they had the power and the skill to do so and other peoples didn’t. It’s the truth plain and simple. In that world, it was seen as a right to rule for a people if they conquered a place and subjugated the other people. This mentality started changing after a blood bath of the two World Wars. That is why today people have to return the conquered regions to the ones they captured them from. Of course, the nations of the Security Council of the UN behave as if they are a bit above that rule because they are the ones who created the world order that we have and live in today...
@@DanteHanma-l6q NO. They came here with other things in mind initially. Conquerors come with armies from the start, like the Muslims did in North India. We know that the british didn't do that initially. It was "Company rule" till 1857. Then their military mutinied and they were forced to put India under the direct rule of the British Crown from 1858 to 1947. It was very different from what other Conquerors did.
Im sure Dr Tharoor is correct about what he says about the British in India. But you cannot say that Indian surpression resulted in Britain's Industrial Revolution. There were many British inventions and patents that resulted in Britain Industrial Revolution including factories for the mass production in the textile industry.
In the academia of history there is a debate called the Great Divergence Debate which is basically asks the question why Industrial Revolution happened in England and not in China (Yangtze Delta) or India (Bengal or Mysore) when all the three countries had similar economic situation for Industrial Revolution to happen. There are many views on it especially in regards to China but it is more or less understood that in India it didn't happen because of the colonial exploitations killed the industries and sucked the resources out. If India had been left undisturbed, India might/probably had experienced its own version of Industrial Revolution
I DON'T AGREE WITH Dr.Tharoor. There was no one India before the British We used to Indentify as Madrasi , Bengali, Maharastrian and etrc. Not as Indians. It was British which inroduced one rule for one India. THAROOR SHOULD STUDY THE POSITIVE THINGS BRITISH DID.
Yes people in India called themselves after their states rather than indians but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that India as a whole was conquered and colonized. From thalessary of the south to Lahore of Pakistan. The country was always divided religiously however the country's wealth and economy remained within the country and so did it's knowledge. The Mughals for example did infact conquer but did not colonize in the sense where indians were exploited, degraded and referred to as savages. Religious wars were present however what was used in India was given back, the marble used to make the Taj mahal, stood on the soil of India that has brought revenue to the country that had a hand in raising the economy from what the British left it in the the 5th greatest that it is today. The kohinoor for example however belonging to a temple was on a dead old woman's head who has all her estates because of the tax payers of her own country and was it returned back to India, NO it is in the UK. DID WE GET REPARTITIONS ? - NO, DID WE GET EVEN AN APOLOGY- NO, just some proud pompus white arse who have a huge ego that even though stole our tea can't even do that right. to say that the British did good is basically undermining every aspect of culture from our ancestors, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh . Did we have an education system like the British? NO. Did we dress like them in fancy clothes made of silk and other stuff- NO. did we have an orderly system - NO, but at the end of the day we survived for years we thrived we had our own culture and wealth that was different, that wasn't like today's norms, that wasn't fancy but it was ours, that has shaped our parents , grandparents and everyone before that, a few fancy cars, roads and clothes don't define us but our knowledge ( that the British tried to destroy) our oneness ( that they divided into three parts- that has lead to so much blood shed) and our culture . SO IN SHORT THE BRITISH DID NOTHING GOOD IF YOU SAY THAT YEARS OF FAMINE, RACISM, POVERTY, BLOODSHED, DIVISION AMONGST NATIVES ( EVEN TO THIS DAY IS GOOD) THEN HONESTLY IM SORRY BUT IDK WHICH BRITISH SCHOOL YOU STUDIED IN BUT GO BACK TO AN INFIAN CURRICULUM SCHOOL AND LEARN THE HISTORY PROPERLY
You are wrong it wasn't Britain,under leader ship of sardhsardar vallabhbhai patel an army formed to integrate India, there was around 565 princely state and some of need war to integrate with Indian union.With British rule India was degrading, looting, trampled and threshed by brutality.I completely agree with sashi tharoor.
![[안방1열 풀캠4K] 베이비몬스터 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER FullCam)│@SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AQ4RIghEvUs/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Dr Shashi Tharoor. PLEASE do more speeches about the colonial history in Indian Universities so that our next generations understand the history!
Which of these videos tells the truth about the India Bengal famine?
DONKEY DESI AMERICAN PROFESSOR
th-cam.com/video/1dGI-uS2wVY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aLHTBw7Ccu8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/WVu66nDlp-Q/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/l-KzDDc2M98/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/GG6MBTFTR4c/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/users/shortsnCxTWDyuft0?feature=share
th-cam.com/video/KVSTv2tuGRU/w-d-xo.html
KEERTHIHISTORY
th-cam.com/video/RwYTaDszflI/w-d-xo.html
Dr. Shahi Tharoor indeed shook the British Empire. But they will neither do recognize nor apologize to their ex-colonies for they don't possess such moral integrity and conscience. It is out of question for the British Crown and its subjects.
I am sure the anchor didn't mean the "it was very good talking to you" 😂😂😂
A society which doesn't know the past, can't move forward. If past immorality is buried as justified, then today's thrashing of UK economy/its ill informed citizens at the hands of its past colonies through any immoral means would be justified as well few decades later..
Morality must be held up. Past. Present. And future.
that last monologue summarized everything
Hats off for Shashi. This is a dark side of history not in India but also many other countries colonized by British and many other western countries. However, not many talk about. So truly hats off for shedding light for this dark side.
Dr Tharoor, it is about time people learn history, it may help our future. Thank you for your words.
Shashi... You beauty...🙇
Dr Tharoor is wonderfully eloquent and his arguments are entirely compelling. I wholly agree that we Brits should own up, acknowledge immense wrongs done during our colonial period and teach our youngsters about what we did.
One good british after long time
Thank you, Dr. Shashi Tharoor.
Well done, you tell the truth, the British don’t want to hear it. Shame on them.
Very well said
Your accent is amazing
My Man!!!
Subcontinent need people like Mr. Tharoor to uncover reality of British brutality is subcont.
Excellent.
The great sashi tharoor
Ripping the the anchor in his own style
There were 200+ Indian made warships in the Royal Navy, till the ship builders begged their Queen to stop the Indians.
It was a blast from 3.57 to 4.00,
Very good representation of Indian position
I need that kohinoor diamond at any cost.
India didn't exist except as a loose tribal sub continent until the British unified it all with the help of thousands of Indians themselves. Without Britain there simply would not have been an 'India' as it is recognised today. YOU exist because WE made it so, you're welcome.
the fuck you yapping about? India was one of the 3 oldest civilisation (search Indus Valley Civilisation) along with Egypt and Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. Britiain as we know it can be traced back at max to 1000-1500 years ago in the aftermath of Roman antiquity. When Caesar reached Britiain, he didn't find any civilisation there but only tribal people like Gauls, Goths and Visigoths but even more backward.
India today as a nation state is only like 77 years old but so are so many of the nations today like China, Greece, Germany, France, Egypt, Iran etc and that is because nation state as a phenomenon is only 200-300 years old. Does it mean there was no historical China, Greece, Egypt or Persia? Obviously, there were and so was India. This number system of 1234567890 originated in India which today is used world wide. An Indian scholar from 5th century CE discovered that Earth revolved around the sun while it took you all 1000 years more to come at that scientific conclusion. You all believed that stars, planets and all the heavens revolved around the earth. And when you did come at that conclusion, your scientific figures were persecuted by Church. Copernicus was so afraid that his book 'Revolutions' only came to light after he died. You might have enjoyed superiority in last 300 years of at least 5000 years long of human civilisation but that is going down now. Just see China. And India (though more slowly as it is diverse and not homogenous and not under a totalitarian rule like China) is also shifting the power away from Europe and the West. USA will stay as a Great Power and maybe Europe too in form of European Union. But oops, you guys did Brexit
Oh really..
Huge respect frome pakistan for Mr sachi theror
Well said Dr. Shashi Tharoor !😊👍👏👏👏
The Evilness of Britain exposed !😛
Straight shooter.
Completely biased
Super Mr.Taroor
The only one that can explain the trouble the British caused in India well done shashi tharoor
reviews for this book found on Amazon: Tharoor convincingly demolishes some of the more persistent myths about Britain's supposedly civilising mission in India ... [he] charts the destruction of pre-colonial systems of government by the British and their ubiquitous ledgers and rule books ... The statistics are worth repeating. -- Victor Mallet ― Financial Times
Inglorious Empire is a timely reminder of the need to start teaching unromanticised colonial history in British schools. A welcome antidote to the nauseating righteousness and condescension pedalled by Niall Ferguson in his 2003 book Empire ― Irish Times
His writing is a delight and he seldom misses his target ... Tharoor should be applauded for tackling an impossibly contentious subject ... he deserves to be read. Indians are not the only ones who need reminding that empire has a lot to answer for. ― Literary Review
Remarkable ... The book is savagely critical of 200 years of the British in India. It makes very uncomfortable reading for Brits -- Matt Ridley ― The Times
Tharoor's impassioned polemic slices straight to the heart of the darkness that drives all empires. Forceful, persuasive and blunt, he demolishes Raj nostalgia, laying bare the grim, and high, cost of the British Empire for its former subjects. An essential read -- Niljana Roy ― Financial Times
Ferocious and astonishing. Essential for a Britain lost in sepia fantasies about its past, Inglorious Empire is history at its clearest and cutting best -- Ben Judah
Those Brits who speak confidently about how Britain's "historical and cultural ties" to India will make it easy to strike a great new trade deal should read Mr Tharoor's book. It would help them to see the world through the eyes of the ... countries once colonised or defeated by Britain -- Gideon Rachman ― Financial Times
Rare indeed is it to come across history that is so readable and so persuasive -- Amitav Ghosh
Eloquent ... a well-written riposte to those texts that celebrate empire as a supposed "force for good" ― BBC World Histories
Tharoor's book - arising from a contentious Oxford Union debate in 2015 where he proposed the motion "Britain owes reparations to her former colonies" - should keep the home fires burning, so to speak, both in India and in Britain. ... He makes a persuasive case, with telling examples ― History Today
Brilliant ... A searing indictment of the Raj and its impact on India. ... Required reading for all Anglophiles in former British colonies, and needs to be a textbook in Britain -- Salil Tripathi, Chair of the Writers in Prison Committee, PEN International, and author of The Colonel Who Would Not Repent
Persuasive and well-founded ... the book convincingly demolishes the nostalgic, self-serving arguments voiced by imperial apologists ― Time Literary Supplement. The Author SHASHI THAROOR is the bestselling author of twenty books, both fiction and non-fiction, besides being a noted critic and columnist. His books include the pathbreaking satire The Great Indian Novel (1989), the classic India: From Midnight to the Millennium (1997), the bestselling An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India, for which he won the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism, 2016, for Books (Non-Fiction), and The Paradoxical Prime Minister: Narendra Modi and His India. He has been Under Secretary-General of the United Nations and Minister of State for Human Resource Development and Minister of State for External Affairs in the Government of India. He is a three-time member of the Lok Sabha from Thiruvananthapuram and chairs the Parliament Information
Technology committee. He has won numerous literary awards, including a national Sahitya Akademi award, a Commonwealth Writers' Prize and the Crossword Lifetime Achievement Award. He was awarded the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman, India's highest honour for overseas Indians, in 2004, and honoured as New Age Politician of the Year (2010) by NDTV.
The reporter is trying so hard to make a case of for Britain....unfortunately there is no case....
Amazing response… The news reporter was speechless…
British owes 50 trillion pounds to India for colonizing them.
No they don't 😂😂😂
Good knowledge and response
But in fairness, you must mention the Indian practice of burial of girls alive, to avoid paying "dawry", wifes incinerating themselves with the bodies of their dead husbands, bond slaveary, for repaying debt ......just few to mention
there was no practice buring girls alive, you're confusing it with something else I think. There was Sati which was the burning of widow and there were social reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy (1772-1833) who worked against it and his gigantic efforts made the British the outlaw Sati in 1829. Bonded slavery (or more accurately 'indentured labour/slavery' was itself an intended result of colonial system and policies. That's why you could see Indian populations in Fiji or the Carribeans. It was because the Brits forced people to go there to work as the replacement of traditional black slaves
Don't mess with Sashi Tharoor, you people are zero befor him.
We are ashamed of Modi around the world but we are proud for Mr. Tharoor.
Please say that only you are are...that is entirely your opinion.. don't thrust your opinion down our throats.
7:13 Do you want us to be ashamed?
Wanna cry? 😂
Mr Shashi! u did the best...but India only was not the one suffering from Britain...i think u should use Subcontinent instead of India bcz it include all other countries like Pakistan, Bengladesh. Our clashes with these countries are on one hand but still we all suffered from Bloody Britishers.
He literally could not say anything back that loud mouth bass lol dr sashi well done sir
All we hear is about how many people Mao or Stalin etc killed. but never hear about How many did the " Good Guys " killed. tens of millions or even more.
Gauzy rose tinted spectacles and romanticized television soap operas! A bootha breaker; too bad it wasn't literally one. George Orwell wrote in one of his essays that British men in India would send an illiterate Indian servant to the local jail with a note for the British warden saying, "Please give the bearer forty lashes."
India has the power now. What if India colonize UK 😂. West should learn from india what kindness is
It is men like Shashi Tharoor that have caused all the poverty in India today.
Wrong, It was indeed your less-than-distinguished great-grandfather and his cohorts who embarked upon a fateful expedition to the Indian subcontinent, a journey marked by the regrettable endeavor to pillage and despoil all that lay in their path, reducing a rich tapestry of culture and heritage to destitution. In their relentless quest for plunder, they even looted the very term 'loot,' a stark testament to the audacity of their endeavors.
India had higher wages than South Korea in 1947. 70 million India people have died of starvation in India since 1947. @@bloody_me_put-in
@@jacobfield4848utter garbage
It’s the charter of un the the mis spell of u n which the turning back of the whole concept the new evolution in the year 1948 which made thrroll of un charter which made the
Roll of democratic system to inspire the world the book “the new glorious advevent “ which is calling a new chapter in it he history to recharge all batteries to open their eyes right command
i think he said india was the richest country in the world, mmm, i think i need proof.
Read his book buddy, it's there.
We were and we don't need to prove why were called golden bird of world and simply why british hogs even invaded bharat so did the mughals
@@rohitghildiyal8643 which one???
@@anshbali5623doesn't answer the question.
BRITAIN also invaded Ireland
Why Tharoor is not speaking about oporession before British rule.
Yes, the untouchables who were oppressed and the women who were burnt. very Tragic.
he was asked about British rule. whataboutism really!! do better
The partition was necessary because both the Pakistani's and Indians wanted Britain out immediately in 1947 but couldn't agree amongst themselves what part of the country should be Muslim and what part Indu, this is where the Kashmir trouble today stems from and the easy solution this man takes is to blame it all on Britain instead of post war Indian and Pakistani politicians manning up and admitting they're mainly responsible. India is landing billion pound rockets on the moon as I write whilst millions of her people are poor and hungry and people like this are demanding reparations from people in Britain for something which happened 200 years before they were born. Britain hasn't ruled India in almost 80 years now, it's high time they took responsibility for the problems they have created themselves instead of blaming the usual scapegoat, Britain.
You are as dump as a typical british person is expected to be...hehehehe....Listen to what he is saying carefully
It was British who drew the boundary. Also it was seen as a good tactic to divide India in the new cold war era that was emerging
I would have to RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE with Dr. Shashi Tharoor here. When I say "respectfully," I do mean it, as a brown coloured Muslim Indian, living in India myself. His arguments are powerful from a diplomatic - foreign relations angle, but not for the sake of knowledge and truth. He talks here, more like a politician, a learned politician at that, I have to say, and not like a scholar, that I would like and expect him to be.
His facts and figures about the British treatment of the Indian Subcontinent are quite correct, the British did commit horrible crimes here, but the conclusions that he draws from that data, are either misleading or incorrect, and the demands he makes after that from the British, are a bit inappropriate. I do HATE what the British did in India, but the way he presents it, is not appropriate or correct. He acts colour-blind himself while presenting these facts and figures. The “White” side of the picture is what he presents; the “Brown” side is totally absent in his arguments, when talking about the CAUSES of the said atrocities.
As an Indian, I should first and foremost, try to look into my own people, before playing the blame game, for where the causes where (and they are quite well documented), for the British to do what they did here. The mistake that Mr. Tharoor makes here, is that, of looking at the past with the lens of the present. This mistake is committed in different ways, by many people who romanticize the past...
The British looted India in different ways, firstly by making deals with the ruling class here in India. They came here as traders. The way they behaved here shows that they did not want to take the head-ache of administering and controlling this region directly themselves. They neither knew the languages nor the peoples, and they wanted the wealth and goodies, with as less of a hassle as possible, which is what any trader would want. Even at the moments when they were preparing to leave India, there was a huge group of semi-autonomous regions in the subcontinent, called princely states, (Kashmir and Hyderabad being among the largest), that the British controlled INDIRECTLY.
So whatever they did here, as Dr. Tharoor so eloquently presents, happened with full support and cooperation of the elite class of our own society. We know how local rulers aligned with the British against other local rulers, Marathas against Marathas, Muslims against Muslims and all of them against each other. India was, at the time the British arrived here, and even today, a wealthy land, true, BUT, inhabited by aged, weak, or dying nations, and wealth is not power, the morals of the people who own it makes it powerful or a double edged sword. The nations that inhabited this land were more morally bankrupt, irrespective of religion, than the British. That was the prime factor the British could gain a foothold here and do what they did. The technology and science the British had, was a tool and an attraction for the local rulers, to do what both of them wanted. If morally upright, we could have benefited from the knowledge that the British brought with them, but instead, we tried to abuse it against each other, and eventually were overpowered and abused by it ourselves.
So, NO, the situation is not so clear and straightforward that the British take the blame and make an apology for it. That is how almost all human beings behaved in the past at that time; the way the British behaved, they inflicted more damage because they had the power and the skill to do so and other peoples didn’t. It’s the truth plain and simple. In that world, it was seen as a right to rule for a people if they conquered a place and subjugated the other people. This mentality started changing after a blood bath of the two World Wars. That is why today people have to return the conquered regions to the ones they captured them from. Of course, the nations of the Security Council of the UN behave as if they are a bit above that rule because they are the ones who created the world order that we have and live in today...
Well said 👌
U really are jobless
so you telling me britishers came to india by conquering india? by battling our kings and rajas?
@@DanteHanma-l6q
NO. They came here with other things in mind initially. Conquerors come with armies from the start, like the Muslims did in North India. We know that the british didn't do that initially. It was "Company rule" till 1857. Then their military mutinied and they were forced to put India under the direct rule of the British Crown from 1858 to 1947. It was very different from what other Conquerors did.
@@DwindlingLamp and they looted till obesity right?
Im sure Dr Tharoor is correct about what he says about the British in India. But you cannot say that Indian surpression resulted in Britain's Industrial Revolution. There were many British inventions and patents that resulted in Britain Industrial Revolution including factories for the mass production in the textile industry.
In the academia of history there is a debate called the Great Divergence Debate which is basically asks the question why Industrial Revolution happened in England and not in China (Yangtze Delta) or India (Bengal or Mysore) when all the three countries had similar economic situation for Industrial Revolution to happen. There are many views on it especially in regards to China but it is more or less understood that in India it didn't happen because of the colonial exploitations killed the industries and sucked the resources out. If India had been left undisturbed, India might/probably had experienced its own version of Industrial Revolution
Why do you give air time to trouble makers
I DON'T AGREE WITH Dr.Tharoor. There was no one India before the British We used to Indentify as Madrasi , Bengali, Maharastrian and etrc. Not as Indians. It was British which inroduced one rule for one India. THAROOR SHOULD STUDY THE POSITIVE THINGS BRITISH DID.
Yes people in India called themselves after their states rather than indians but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that India as a whole was conquered and colonized. From thalessary of the south to Lahore of Pakistan. The country was always divided religiously however the country's wealth and economy remained within the country and so did it's knowledge. The Mughals for example did infact conquer but did not colonize in the sense where indians were exploited, degraded and referred to as savages. Religious wars were present however what was used in India was given back, the marble used to make the Taj mahal, stood on the soil of India that has brought revenue to the country that had a hand in raising the economy from what the British left it in the the 5th greatest that it is today. The kohinoor for example however belonging to a temple was on a dead old woman's head who has all her estates because of the tax payers of her own country and was it returned back to India, NO it is in the UK. DID WE GET REPARTITIONS ? - NO, DID WE GET EVEN AN APOLOGY- NO, just some proud pompus white arse who have a huge ego that even though stole our tea can't even do that right. to say that the British did good is basically undermining every aspect of culture from our ancestors, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh . Did we have an education system like the British? NO. Did we dress like them in fancy clothes made of silk and other stuff- NO. did we have an orderly system - NO, but at the end of the day we survived for years we thrived we had our own culture and wealth that was different, that wasn't like today's norms, that wasn't fancy but it was ours, that has shaped our parents , grandparents and everyone before that, a few fancy cars, roads and clothes don't define us but our knowledge ( that the British tried to destroy) our oneness ( that they divided into three parts- that has lead to so much blood shed) and our culture . SO IN SHORT THE BRITISH DID NOTHING GOOD IF YOU SAY THAT YEARS OF FAMINE, RACISM, POVERTY, BLOODSHED, DIVISION AMONGST NATIVES ( EVEN TO THIS DAY IS GOOD) THEN HONESTLY IM SORRY BUT IDK WHICH BRITISH SCHOOL YOU STUDIED IN BUT GO BACK TO AN INFIAN CURRICULUM SCHOOL AND LEARN THE HISTORY PROPERLY
You are wrong it wasn't Britain,under leader ship of sardhsardar vallabhbhai patel an army formed to integrate India, there was around 565 princely state and some of need war to integrate with Indian union.With British rule India was degrading, looting, trampled and threshed by brutality.I completely agree with sashi tharoor.
Than what was columbus searching for?
And where did Vasco de Gama came?
lol, positive, the negatives far outweigh your nonexistent positive. The genocide, the atrocities, the loot.
what positive? can u explain