ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- Hello! I'm an American on a quest to learn more about history, geography and the universe in general. In this video I listen to the argument of distinguished speaker Dr. Shashi Tharoor, an Indian parliament member, as to why Britain owes reparations. Here he's the seventh speaker in a line of speakers on this subject, both for and against reparations, at the Oxford Union debates. If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe!
00:00 - Intro
03:33 - Reaction
21:38 - Outro
Follow me for a behind-the-scenes look of my learning journey:
Instagram: / sogal.yt
Twitter: / sogal_yt
Facebook Page: / sogal-104043461744742
Facebook Group: / 238616921241608
Link to original video: • Dr Shashi Tharoor MP -...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
We Always Thought the Future Would Be Kind of Fun by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: chriszabriskie.com/darkglow/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/
#india #britain #shashitharoor #reaction
I don't think that colonialism was ever intended to help local people.
Do learn about the concepts propagated by the Empire about "Civilising the World" and the best of the lot, it's called "White Man's Burden". I'm not even kidding.
It was a commercial decision and every empire in the world was at it. They played, they lost and now it's sour grapes.
Help😂😂 1st class compartments in British India had boards saying “Indians and dogs not allowed”
@@TheOnkarj
Even restaurants and in early 20th century, Cinema halls as well, those kind of boards are documented.
@@TheOnkarj Indians in first class believe that of other Indians today. Gandhi was overt racist toward other people and never hid this. Yet he stated the British governed Indians least of all and with light touch compared to every other system. History is full of surprises. One comment about a particular issue (which today would be condemned) does not a story tell. Worth remembering that today wokeism is every bit as bad as your comment content, and that is alive and well today, reviving racism, sexism, totalitarianism that was long since vanishing from these islands.
So the past was no worse than today. The largest slavery areas of the world today - Africa and Middle East.
It is very difficult to face the truth when you are taught from a young age that British rule was very great and later you find out that the british empire stable with other people's money.
lol...who taught you that ? ...Should have gone to a better school.
Winston Churchill is another Hitler for us.If Hitler wasn't there, then Winston Churchill is called villian of humanity. Mother, brother, father, geometry,algebra and many more english word came from "Sanskrit"(Ancient Indian language/ called Mother of all languages/ most suitable language for computer).
England took out 45 Trillion out of India from 1745 - 1945, that is 5 times what America is today, and that too at that time. And at 5% growth today INDIA's GDP would be 600 Trillion dollors.
A lot of older Indians have British accents due to learning English from communities that learned English from the British. The accent is fading with the newer generations as they're exposed to other accents in media; primarily American.
English has absorbed words from everywhere - bungalow is from India too.
@@sebastianbolzan9826 Well the thug where a major impediment in India, so that is not surprising.
Quite a lot related to tea as well. 🍵
sebastian is right - thug from the thuggee tribe
other stuff via and corrupted through the colonisation include
Doollally - as in doollally tap - suffering from mental illness today - then more 'bats in the belfry'. "He's gone a but doolally"
Spike Milligan (the goons etc ) details this in his great biographic books.
As far as the Brits were concerned, I think the Indian regiments WERE the british army. Taught and commanded by them - no difference. Certainly no indian army as the continent was commandeered when it was ruled by regional mughals (moguls ibid), etc
Thanks to you for teaching me my history
Avatar too
Well not just word even the concept is from India which travelled to first world countries. You can still have a look at many surviving examples in West Bengal, India.
A shocking word is 'Cash' from Indian Lang, Tamil.
Shashi's Accent is very Indian. Many of my Indian friends have similar accents. You should do a video on the Indian words which are now in common usage in English.
It's more like the accent of the older generation, maybe because of the recent Brit influence for them. My grandfather had a similar accent but it's different with the today's generation.
More like anglo indian
Keep in mind videos like this are typically anti-White jewish propaganda.
bungalow, jopdphurs, dungarees, khaki, lacquer, gymkhana, dinghy, shampoo, veranda and a whole more are all English words of Indian origin.
And plateau, tableau, aileron, fuselage, camembert, rogue, attaché, chargé d'affaires, envoy, embassy, chancery, diplomacy, communiqué, détente, entente, rapprochement, accord, treaty, alliance, passport, protocol, nacelle, canard, piston, sedan, limousine, and mustard are all English words of French origin. The whole bloody language is borrowed.
@@penultimateh766 it wasn’t really borrowed, it was generally inflicted! We didn’t borrow french, we were invaded by the normans, and french has Latin origins for the very same reason
@Gavin Lisle the origins are all Indian, they all mean the same in either language. I have no idea what the etymology of each word in Indian is though
@@ProfessorBernardFuck I know! Why can't we just speak the pure, original language of great Britain as spoken by the Saxons! Or was it the Romans. Or the Picts perhaps....
English is a frankinstine language. It a mixture of many languages
Normally Indians don't use imperial units they always use the metric system. I think he became accustomed to both systems as he did spend a lot of time at UN. Fun Fact - USA is also a metric country!!! at least officially. I mean all your units are defined on metric system but they are not used directly. I think some administration had tried to make US a completely metric country but that just failed as they had made it a recommendation (and we all know Americans like to follow recommendations --_--). There is a video by Real Engineering channel explaining the American Metric stuff.
Also I think most of the times in general the British troops and Indian troops are mixed in as British was ruling India at that time. Brits wanted a lot of soldiers in those wars so best way to find them - get them from your colonies. I think there was also some things that if India fights for brits it will gain independence. In the WW2 most of the Indians fought with Allies but there were also a large chunk of ppl fighting with Axis(Japan) as they were just fed up with British then so they fought against them. Subhas Chandra Bose was a freedom fighter who fought against Brits then. Things are complicated and also Independence struggle was not at all non-violent. There were many ways on how to attain independence and I think almost all of them were followed by someone or another.
Also Brits and Indians do have some friction but that is mostly wrt the independence past nothing much more then that. I just know it that those things will become 10x if it was a Pakistan India video. The thing is that everyone thinks that they are right and their country always win and all that. Also understand that the India Pak situation is really complex. The emotional scars still have not healed in ppl so that does not help either.
(Also don't do any video on Indo-Pak before you have done some research cause the issue is so emotional that that just can't hear if some fact is presented wrong, THINGS FLAIR UP A LOT)
Honestly I like it when people tell the history how it is I really wish my teachers in high taught like this. I might offend some people but unfortunately the facts are the facts don’t sugarcoat it give it to them straight make them know what their ancestors did
But when you only give facts which support your argument and don't contextualise them- they cease to be facts. It's like saying the Mexicans owe reparations to the rest of Central America for the atrocities and slavery of the Mayan Empire. Context is key to so called "facts"
@@simontomlinson6484
The Mayan Empire was a long time ago.
The Colonisation of India ended fairly recently.
@@simontomlinson6484 Aztec empire. Not Mayan.
The Indian army would have been made up of native born Indians but under the command of British officers, and as India at the time was a British colony her armed forces, were technically but of the British army under the direct command of the monarchy
That’s a common misnomer of the Army in India. After 1857 when Britain took direct control of India it formed its own army alongside three armies of the Presidencies. These were later amalgamated into the British Indian Army. All the officers were British and trained at Sandhurst. The British Indian’s Army’s motto was Heaven’s Light Our Guide. In 1947-48 when the British Indian Army was being disbanded or being split into two British Indian Army officers were recruited to train the new Pakistani Army. The Indian army was already split into Muslim and Hindu regiments and also regions. You would have Sikh regiments. The British Indian officers would have had to train up to get into the same position in the U.K. Army or take a demotion. If joining the Pakistani Army they would carry over in there original rank.
By WWII 19 of the 31 Officers in an Indian Army Battalion were Indian.
@@Swindondruid2 One of the first units to be “Indianized” was the 5th Battalion of the 8th Punjab Regiment. It was just after they had been badly mauled in Waziristan (North West Frontier). They had had 5 officers killed in crossfire in a pass. Afterwards officers would not use the solar topee but wear a turban while on frontier service.
yes britian should thank the indians who fought for them because of which they are alive today. Otherwise indians had no interest in the war. In india, we respect and consider those people as real indian army who fought against the british instead of those who fought for british. They are called as sepoy's in india.
@@adibhau7178 That’s odd because my Godfather who was originally a British Indian Army officer when he transferred to the new Pakistani Army was told to watch out for one of the Senior Officers in his Regiment as he had been a member of the Free Indian Army formed by the Japanese. It was his fellow Pakistani officers who did not trust him. Many of the British Indian Army captured by the Japanese although offered places in the Free Indian Army refused. It is worth noting that the majority of troops who fought at Kohima were Indian.
It was called the British Indian Army.With Indian Soldiers and British officers
By WWII most of the officers in an infantry battalion were Indian. Please see my answer, above, about Viceroy Commissioned Officers.
@@Swindondruid2 Yes,by the second world war that was true.But,for the majority of time it was as I said!
@@davidknowles3459 yes and those soilders are in the first row and it's not all about India, Canada and Australia also fought in wars and I m sure other colonial public is also forced to or negotiate to contribute something in war
I have a simple question for British people's if colonization is really help the local people then where is native Australian now ? And why UK need to addicted Chinese population with opium and if colonization is bad and people's suffered from slavery then why UK never apologize to ex colonial public and why the hell Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Africans antiques are in UK museum ??
I want to know the common people perspective on those issues we are not demanding money but you should respect others civilizations and cultural heritage it will reduce the tentions between racial communities
Sorry for bad English bro
Stay safe ❤️ from 🇮🇳
There are also batallions that created by British that present in today's Indian army. They do count medals that they achieved during British raj( when they fought for British).
@@peacefollower5026 we went there to clean India’s mess up as they had conflict with Pakistan which was affecting our economic trade, if not the worlds tbh, we provided civil laws while respecting certain traditions of the Indian people by negotiating with them what could and couldn’t be done and it was an agreement (that is why we don’t owe anything) we even had Indian elders control their people who would then report back to a superior Governor of Britain out of respect for the Indian people, the issue I have is why does India and many other past colonies blame the U.K.for their conflicts after we’ve left, when they were already fighting way before we arrived? The only time they weren’t was when we were there as Pakistan knew we were to big for them to handle, in essence we provided much needed security for India which is why we they were fine with us staying. At the end of the day we our allies and trade partners now people need to not forget but to move on from any wrong doings that was done in the past or we won’t progress as a society simple as that.
There were a substantial number of Regiments from across the Empire in the British Imperial forces. Units would usually be organised on a national/regional basis from Regiments up to Corps sizes, particularly from India which was by far the largest component, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Kenya etc. Indian units in particular were involved in almost every theatre of the world wars as well as others and not celebrated as much as they probably deserved, but they weren't written out of history either, as study of almost any conflict will reveal.
The 4th Indian Infantry Division for example, also known as the Red Eagle Division, fought primarily in Africa in WW2. Field Marshal Lord Wavell wrote: "The fame of this Division will surely go down as one of the greatest fighting formations in military history, to be spoken of with such as The Legio X Equestris (Tenth Legion), The Light Division of the Peninsular War and Napoleon's Old Guard"
th-cam.com/video/xupZqriS3Kw/w-d-xo.html dude we know how badass our soilders were
Hi Brit here. Having read Shashi Tharoor's book Inglorious Empire and respectfully taken into consideration his viewpoints I would still argue that I today should not be held accountable for the actions of people some 80 or more years ago. Not because I believe there weren't any crimes committed by the British against India but because I don't believe guilt should be assigned to people based on their racial heritage. If we are to go down this route then I will be claiming my reparations from the Italians because of the Roman invasion of Britain and from the French, owing to the Norman invasion of Britain. Oh and I will also claim against the Scandinavian countries because of the Viking invasions. The list goes on and on and this game could never end. Should we hold modern-day Germans accountable for the sins of the Nazis? I think not. In any case, he is applying modern-day ethical standards to a time when the ethical standard of the day was imperialism, an egregious error. I must ask, if we do pay India reparations do we get all of the good stuff that the British gave to India back? Surely we should take a principled approach if we are to go down this path?
Edit: (Shameless plug) I didn't think I'd get this many likes. I have a small TH-cam channel about history and philosophy. Check it out if you want to hear more of my thoughts on things. I've just started a series on the French Revolution. Cheers.
As an Indian, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I am a big fan of Mr. Tharoor due to his Nehru like behaviour and his believe in the 'Idea of India' as a Nation of Nations but he is entirely wrong about the "issue".
@@tsar_zo8007 I appreciate your sentiment. It is good to hear your view. Thank you very much sir.
And also the Arab Slavers who raided the southern coast of England for 2 centuries - sometimes taking whole villages. Reparations for this would be nice if we're going down that road.
Yeah, we gave them a big train set, and bikes.
I had typed up my own response, but reading yours, I think you have articulated my thoughts on this subject much better than I ever could!
Indian soldiers fought very hard indeed during WW2 in places as far flung as Burma, North Africa and Europe. Battles such as Kohima, Tobruk and Monte Cassino come to mind.
In the Indian Military Academy some of the training companies are named after the WW2 battles we fought in.
Cassino Company, Keren Company, Alamain Company etc.
In India we do not respect them , They were helping the British we do not call them soldiers we call them sepoys
They were mainly Pakistanis i.e, Muslim soldiers against the Indian National Army supported by the Japanese.
What a barnstorming display of wit, satire and rhetoric! I enjoyed Dr Tharoor's argument on those grounds alone, regardless of my opinions on the question itself.
This is filmed at Oxford University Debating Society - they bring in different speakers to argue for or against a particular subject that is up for debating
11:11 , to answer your question about the Indian troops, many did fight during ww1 and 2, they acted as integrated troops in the BRITISH army but in their own, all Indian units. They generallu were treated the same as British troops and even the King even allowed them to turn one of his palaces into a hospital specifically for Indians :)
Thank you!
Joke of the sanctuary, They are not treated like what they with British personals. If you don't know reality than please don't do some foolish comment.
The hospital you refer to was possibly the Brighton Pavilion. Which is a Regncy mockup of a Mughal Palace. Certanly the Paviklion was used for that purpose.
apparently someone thought it would make wounded sepoys feel at home .
@@amiyavatsa It (the Pavillion) is in neither lucknow nor Delhi . I Brighhton at the time all Indians would be regasrded as brown and weird, muslim, or hindu, Sikh or Jain. Monumental ignorance I'm afrsid
all the best
Millions of Indians fought for the Pommys in both world wars and yet there isn’t a single statue in the “great” city of London to commemorate the Indian soldies who sacrificed their lives fighting for a country that wasn’t theirs to begin with. I mean there are statues of dogs in London but none for the Indian troops.
Avatar
Bandana (Band; as in hairband or elastic band)
Bangle
Blighty
Bungalow
Cash
Catamaran
Cheetah
Chit
Chutney
Cot
Cummerbund
Dacoit
Doolally
Dungaree
Guru
Indigo
Jodhpur
Jungle
Karma
Loot
Mantra
Masala
Punch
Pyjamas
Shampoo
Thug
Typhoon
Veranda
These are some common Hindi words that are in the English dictionary now.
Dude cash, catamaran for an example are from Tamil.
@@gandalf1423 yes ik
😂😂they looted India at the stage that 'loot' word lotted from hindi
@@sumansingh-wf7ew HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
XD
Pyjama is Farsi, Typhoon is Greek and Punch is Latin.
What he is saying is facts so not really sure why anyone would take it personally he is talking facts in history why be angry by what he is saying he is just the messenger not the cause of this history or just insulting Britain making up stuff.
There's no tension between India and the UK, today. They are partners in trade and security. Even more so after Brexit
No they r not , it's only brexit which brought them closer.
They have no other choice, because india is the largest market and soon india will overtake the uk economy to become the 4th largest economy globally, and also the growing influence of india on a global scale.
@@adityathakur4118 indian economy is already bigger than UK.
@@saibalbh31 No it isn't. India is still rated below the UK in world superpowers. With 1,400,000,000 people Vs 66,000,000. Pretty embarassing.
@@mcgetrekt2388 population has little to do with a countries economy beyond how it develops technology to earn that money, and a large population can actually handicap them early in their technological advancement. In that way a small population and small land area aided us as it was necessary to invent things. In India's case a large population and land area meant they never had to advance. Therefore what you've said is incredibly stupid and shows that you are unable to realise that he said that their economy was doing fine until we decided to be dicks. I feel bad for the people your around because they must have a very annoying life.
Indian soldiers, part of a separate regiment, commanded by British Officers fought alongside British forces right from Singapore, Burma and across Europe. My distant uncle Darwan Singh Negi was a Victoria Cross awardee while fighting in France WW1. Even today the UK maintains a Gorkha Regiment in England.
Wow a VC! That is very impressive sir 👏
th-cam.com/video/bYUXGVvG3LQ/w-d-xo.html
Indians were forced to fight for British !
We use the kilometres but if he used kilometres it would be in points of measure
They were never forced to fight
@@lesdodoclips3915 any proof because for my statement I can say that we were fighting a war which wasn’t even ours so why would we even fight it
@@rockygandhi2914 containing 2.5 million menthe Indian army of ww2 was the largest volunteer force in history.
Under imperial legislation, Indians were forbidden from ever being conscripted to fight. Every single Indian soldier fighting for Britain was a volunteer.
@@lesdodoclips3915 sorry to say mate but your fact doesn’t match the ground reality as my own great grandfather was forced to fight against the nazi and use your own logic why would anyone even be interested in fighting a war which was not even theirs
@@rockygandhi2914 what circumstances was he forced to fight? I hope your not lying here...
No it became there war after Japan invaded Burma
From the UK. I mean he's just not wrong. I don't know how much it would take to make up for it. But an acknowledgement and an apology while not even close to adequate. Would be a step on the direction of repetitions. Perhaps they come in the form of money, perhaps help in other areas. The point isn't how much. We pride ourselves on our moral fibre and yet we seem to be unable to admit when we have done wrong. Even if it wasn't our generation, we have grown up as we have, whether that be rich or poor, off of their suffering. So we should be admitting guilt and show that we hold ourselves to the same standards as everyone else.
The metric system (meter/kilogram/celcius) was internationally adopted in 1940. Before that, everyone used the imperial system (foot/pound/Fahrenheit)!
Lots of love from UP India ♥️ may you live long n prosper 🙏😍 keep going on and exploring India ♥️😊
😂
There's actually a video on TH-cam where General dyer's grand daughter sits for a conversation with an indian guy whose greatgrandfather was a survivor of the massacre
The conversation starts with her asking him if his great grandfather was a looter and that blew my mind.
I am English, and I think Dr. Tharoor is totally correct.
Factually he is not.
@@richardwills-woodward5340 Enlighten us
@@Davey-Boyd Read and research the Empire, not suck up what a renowned anti-British gas-lighter says.
@@richardwills-woodward5340 I have. It was disgraceful. Dr. Tharoor is correct. You sir are an apologist for despicable crimes against humanity, you should be ashamed of yourself.
@@Davey-Boyd I'm Indian and I agree, Tharoor is mostly wrong.
I am Indian living in my country we don't hold responsible for todays British we have good relationship with Britain, we just want the acknowledgement of wrongs that had been done and recognize our sacrifices during British Occupation.
Hell with it brits sre still proud of their atrocities what you are you smoking, brits are finished we will reclaim back our property
As part of the British Empire, Indian soldiers were part of the British Military as auxiliaries. To win the war, the British called troops from all her colonies and dominions, such as Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and Indians. WWI helped to shape each nation's national identity.
They didnt *call* troops,it was forced
Please read!
Oh boy hope people are respectful in the comments.
Your first day on the internet? :)
As a Brit, I would say his points are entirely valid, however there are mitigating circumstances. This is the case for the prosecution - the defence has not been heard.
Don’t you guys give billions in aid to ex empire countries especially India already I remember seeing some debate about well India economy is now so big they don’t need the aid so much frankly is that aid already not giving back to the people
@@wolf99000 Pretty much, but Indian nationalists like to ignore that for convenience, alot of the money tends to get misspent aswell due to the corrupt governments who receive the aid money, it's seen in former British African colonies too
@@stinkypete368 thanks for the reply I was wondering when I saw this as I was sure that I knew Britain already gives billions in aid to these countries
As Shashi mentioned, it's not about how much money should be paid, but the principle of accepting wrongs of the past.
@@MrPeaceGuy54 There are wrongs today and who's speaking for those? No-one. Millennials seem to think today has the right standards.
1 mile is 1.6 Km... We use both.
Indian's never fought to the other country from the past 7000 years or even more. It's because of British people we had to fight because Indian's we working for British army. Now, you can clearly see that everything Indian's has done on our own. Secondly, you see India even the number one country in the world in the next 30 years ❤🙏😊
a general rule for the use of imperial and metric in the uk is if you can sell it it is measured in metric for trade with the EU but we still measure people and roads in imperial as no one has ever forced us to change it
Henry VIII.
One of the most well known and popular pieces of English History. He famously had six wives. The first one, Catherine of Aragon ( an area of Spain) lasted about 25 years. When she failed to produce a son and heir, he divorced her and got through his next five wives in about 15 years. Which is quite a rate. His divorce of Catherine brought about the schism with the Roman Catholic church and changed the course of the nation's history. Second wife Anne Bolyn produced the future queen Elizabeth, and third wife Jane Seymour produced a son. Later Edward VI. None of his legitimate children reproduced, so the Tudor dynasty died out not long after his death. A colourful period of history.
Don't mind the dislikes, Indians love dramatic reactions, or perhaps they've become accustomed to it. But from a lay person on this topic (you), this seemed like a very genuine reaction. Way to go. :)
Of Henry VIII's many wives, Anne of Kleves deserves recognition for skillfully surviving the ordeal and coming out on top.
Technically she wasn't a wife. Both were absent from the marriage ceremony which was Annulled.
@@slackmack Big plus, she historically declined consummation.
You can find her actual letter to Henry online where she beautifully backs his claim of non-consummation and pledges her undying friendship, loyalty and sisterly love. If I recall correctly he gave her a palace, position and financial security. An intelligent and wise woman.
All the commonwealth nations including India fought as integrated allied units more often than not. Example, ww2 North African campaign. The second battle of El Alamein, Ruweisat ridge, The Indian division & New Zealand division as part of the Eighth army fought side by side in their sector holding up the advance of the mechanised panzer unit and driving the Germans back. This allowed the dominoe effect of losses to afflict the German attack across the entire battle. (simplified story of course). Since then India and its brother country Pakistan have had many sporting interactions through the majesty of Cricket. "where's the ball?" - "India!" (in the air)
Sporting interactions with New Zealand. (my bad🧐🤫).
Technically the Indian Army and the British Army were seperate but in practice they operated as one. The big difference is that the British Army only had King's Commissioned Officers (KCO) whilst the Indian Army had King's Commissioned Officers and Viceroy's Commisioned Officers (VCO). In WWII there were usually 12 KCO per battalion and 19 VCO. VCO were Indians who started as enlisted men and were promoted. The three VCO ranks were Jemadar (2Lt), Subadar (Lt) and Subadar-Major (Maj). VCO were always the same caste and tribe as his battalion. After the Great Mutiny in 1857 every Indian Brigade consisted of two Indian battalions and one British Battalion. Also, as a result of the mutiny, only the British Army were allowed artillery, although the Indian Army were allowed mountain pack artillery. In North Africa in WWII there were two Indian Divisions (4th and 5th) plus a New Zealand Division, an Australian Division and a South African Division. And British Divisions of course. But it was in Burma that the Indian Army made their biggest contribution (this theatre also contained a West African Division, an East African Division and Chinese Divisions).
you should read more american history, everything that happened there was a result something happened/broke in india
Seriously
11:06, so Britain basically owned every soul in india back then. So our army served the Queen. Watch the movie bridge on the reiver quai, there you can see how they tortured the British and the Indian soldiers who served under the queen's name by the Japanese
Brother you just had one job....it's River not Reiver
This is a debate, you only watch one speaker. The others will be on here: th-cam.com/users/OxfordUnion
As a British person the answer to the question "Does Britain Owe Reparations to anyone?" is a resounded NO! Britain was just one of every country, every society and every civilisation which had done things. The difference is we did something about it! The UK ended slavery around the world, the UK gave the world the concepts of "rule of law", limited government, parliamentary democracy, balanced justice, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. To single out the UK's negative history and ignore anything we did well is ridiculous and political BS!
For example if it wasn't for Britain, then India would still be a large group of waring states with tyrannical monarchies, they would still have slavery, they would still have Wife Burning! We gave India more than we took!
please stop living in your fantasy. Granted British gave more modernized ideals to the Indians but India eventually would've gotten them anyway. And UK had a major hand in diving India and Pakistan. We don't even want your money we just want people like you to acknowledge what you did was wrong. Just because other countries like France and even US pillaged other countries in Asia and Africa doesn't mean it justifies your country doing it too.
Not at all we don't hate UK anymore. Today uk is one of closest partner of India and many Indian companies employ uk citizens like Indian companies such as tata are biggest private employers of UK
Britain cononlized alot of countries so the fact that many places share the same stuff as Britain from measurement to accents and speaking English is not really a suprise.
Keep in mind videos like this are typically anti-White jewish propaganda.
@@africanlipplateandbonenose3223 what are you talking about
React to Maratha empire by the channel Epimetheus please
Let me tell you I am from Bengal where the famine happened and from your expressions and many other reactors one can make out the western white folks does not really care how many Indians died, because it is a statistics for them. In Bengal there were literature and films and paintings were made a painter name is zainul ,a Bengali dedicated his whole life and career to portray what happened in the famine that was how big it was, it was as big as a holocaust but the white people of USA and Brittain feel only for the African slaves and the Holocaust Indian suffered much more than jews , as opposed to Nazi rule . India oppressed for hundreds of years under the British rule but the thing is India is no decorated cat either we did not only produce Gandhi and for your information the person who is giving the speeches is a gandhian there are many other is isms in India such as Subhash Chandra Bose who raised an entire army (and for your kind information the army was not with British government but they were compelled to work under that situation because their lives and their families were threatened) Subhash Chandra Bose organised an army called the Indian national army he took help from imperial Japan later from Russia and other places and he made the Indians who were inside the British army rebel against the British so the army started to throw the British out , when the army started to rebel against the British they we're losing their stronghold ,there was someone like bagha Jatin who defeated the tiger with his bare hands and after that killed many British officers left right and centre in Calcutta everyday a bomb was thrown at the British with or without reason, revolutionaries were produced in millions I mean it ,millions !!aurobindo Ghosh who is also considered a very big sage was a revolutionary in his early days master da surjo Sen with his students led the Chittagong rebellion against the British killed more than many British officers and even almost defeated the troops that were sent but of course they did not have much supplies when master Da was caught his nails were blocked his eyes were hammered his teeth were broken but still he was screaming vande mataram i. E hail the motherland India , So if we fought for the British in the world war one or two is none of our concern what our concerns are is this is one country who could rebel against the British in such vociferous manner we bombed them we should take them we got killed we got massacred we got burnt we got starved to death but we never stopped fighting that is India the spirit which cannot be broken we were looted inside out but still now most of the Indians belong to the middle class and not to the section below poverty line. When the British left India we were as good as Somalia now India has a businessman who has the costliest house in the entire world now India has one of the biggest army India has their own nuclear power , we hit back no matter how dark it is that is what matters not that we fought in world war one or two that is a British fancy that is an American fancy and European fancy at large or in other words a white fancy at large there nothing to do with that even if we fought with it that is not because of great pride for us , a Hitler was not a bad man, do you know why? because they did not kill us the people who was celebrated as liberal leaders like Churchill were the Hitler for us what is Hitler for the Jews, Churchill is for us so we have more problem with them than with Hitler, of course we were not anti-semitic there is a Jewish community in India which was living here for many centuries and nobody persecuted them and we are sorry for what happened to them but we will never say Hitler is a much more crude monster than Churchill for Indians, because me being an Indian I have to be faithful to my country and our people it does not matter if you fought against Hitler that is one of our concern, our concern is we freed our country anyhow , the British we're forced out , they could defeat Hitler but they couldn't retain power in India that is our victory !that is our pride!, vande mataram !!
Nice response, I appreciate your humility to acknowledge you don't know the full story before leaping to judgement. I would recommend Dr Zareer Masani's speech at the Union on a similar topic or even his conversation with Shashi Tharoor on this speech and his book. Both are available on youtube.
$45 trillion looted
Let that number sink in.
But Britain looks down on us as poor
No we don't, we love India.
I don't see India as poor - I do see a very big wealth divide btw I think the wealth divide is getting worse here in the UK
We use kilometres in India
Yes Indians participated in the world wars.But they were forced to do so.They fought under the British Indian Army. Movies like Rangaroot are made about indians fighting a war and losing lives which isn't there's to fight.
This is an interesting discussion. Speaking as a German, the issue of not paying reparations came up here recently as well. Greece claims that Germany owes them at least 289 Billion Euros as reparations for war crimes, massacres, etc. during WW2. Some people argue that they are "just greedy", but I don't think that this is true. Whole villages (on Crete for example) were wiped out by the Wehrmacht. After 1945, West Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany) postponed paying reparations to Greece until "a final peace treaty would be signed". In 1990, when the 2+4 Treaty was signed "instead of a peace treaty", Greece was left out of the negotiations and now the federal government claims that "it's too late". I think it is a real shame. The FRG paid money to Israel and Poland, but I think it was just a cheap way of buying ourselves out of being an international outcast. Communist East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) paid nothing at all and didn't feel itself to be responsible for the Nazi atrocities, because the party government claimed that it was anti-fascist and that all former Nazis were in West Germany. (In reality, many former members of the Nazi party lived in the East and many of them were even members of the ruling communist party). This denial is still troublesome, even 30 years after reunification, because Neo-Nazis and similar groups are quite strong in the former eastern part of Germany. The majority of people - so to speak - never had to reflect on the crimes of the past, the crimes which were commited by and in the name of the german people. Since Britain is plagued by similar problems ("Brexit" and whatnot), it should consider facing it's own past.
i worked with the gurkhas while serving in the british army great and brave soldiers.
Yeah and they are Nepalese
Yeah and they are Nepalese
you already watched 'sargon of akkad The British Crusade Against Slavery' we finally payed off that vast expense in full in 2015 btw, be proud Dr. Shashi Tharoor your free.
It was the slavers who were paid off _not_ the victims of slavery.
Paid wtf u r talking about u could not pay back India whole England has to be sold 2.5 times to pay complete debt of India ,by India here I mean Pakistan India Bangladesh
@@kavitasachan5037 unlike 'the woke' real history C.O Just Nobody
First off, this was largely pre-industry. There was little in the way of industrialised mass-usage of limited resources such as came later. The main items of trade were entirely renewable such as cotton, silk, grain, and tea, or taken in quantities which did not deplete regional stockpiles in the cases of raw materials like coal and iron. Even during the industrial revolution, resource stripping was uncommon.
In terms of taxes and financial remunerations, the UK taxpayer was generally charged a higher tax rate regardless of relative incomes than what was paid by colonial citizens.
Secondly. You're assuming Britain even controlled these parts of its own empire, when for the most part they were either company owned (the East India Company being the most well known, having ruled India for a century) or under grant of "responsible government" which made them mostly self-governing. When people joke that Britain accidentally itself into an empire it's because the majority of the Empire was fought and won by vast trading consortium, with the formal armies and navy acting in a role defensive of the nations mercantile expansion rather than as aggressive forces.
The standard path to becoming a British territory for a long time involved doing trade with one of the mega corporations until they owned nearly all of the nation, then either trying to force them out (at which point a line of First Rate's loaded with marines would show up and proclaim themselves to be protectors of the companies property as they kicked your teeth down your throat for not standing up to your end of the - usually unfair - contracts you signed - SEE: The Anglo-Zanzibar War where Zanzibar attempted to elect Sultan Khalid bin Barghash over the British preferred Sultan Hamad bin Thuwaini, against the contractual obligations the nation had agreed with under the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty - ironically a treaty forced upon Zanzibar as part of Britain's war on slavery - leading to the shortest war in history) or being formally ousted by a betrayal of externally lobbied internal political entities, such as the Battle of Plassey wherein Robert Clive of the East India Company helped assist Mir Jafar in defeating the government forces of Siraj-ud-Daulah and established a CompanyRaj under the leadership of Mir Jafar, or failing that legal decree written into the contracts you signed with the megacorp which gave them governmental powers until you finished paying your debts (SPOILER: you never finished paying off your debts).
The only thing that really got the British Army or Royal Navy moving in those days was France or Spain allying with a regional power, a nation backing out of or interfering with trade contracts for British companies, or worse still a nation refusing to allow external trade (SEE: The Opium Wars).
The number of crown colonies established directly under crown governance is insignificant, outside of America which was a land rush with France, Portugal, and Spain. In those colonies under company controls, with India and Kenya being the best examples, it was the British government who stepped in and assumed control when the private companies were seen as ruling in a manner too harsh for contemporary standards, or if it seemed they were at risk of losing control in a way which endangered British interests/populations.
@@paulmaydaynight9925 Seems like you people reading the same book.
Yes he is absolutely correct, unfortunately people do not like to discuss them in public. Our parents and grand parents lived through those times. You should read An Era of Darkness - The British Empire in India by Shashi Tharoor. It gives a detailed account of the British presence in India.
Yeah .. when they say the British army, it included troops from all over the now commonwealth, anzacs from Australia-newzealand and South Africa and offcourse indian subcontinent which includes pakistan, Bangladesh srilanka etc etc and not to forget Canada too.
AND they volunteered.
@@richardwills-woodward5340
Volunteered on fake promises of independence, the Anglo Dominions were treated in one way and all others like the Carribean nations, Indian Subcontinent nations were treated differently.
@@matchbox1275 You don't volunteer to fight for another country unless there is something worth fighting for. No point in fighting for something you will never get as the chances of dying are enormous. Regardless, your point is mute because India had independence immediately after the War. Caribbean nations are interesting when Caribbean had slaves too and good lives from trade so depends on what and whom you mean regards treatment.
@@richardwills-woodward5340 .
Slaves and good lives in one sentence, it explains your mindset. It's like if the Nasees had won the war and they telling that the Jews were having good lives under them.
@@matchbox1275 so you know the motivation of every volunteer? People from the carribean sign up and serve in the British armed forces today do you know why they do it?
SoGal please read this one.
I believe that India is doing what Argentina like to do, distract it's population from their problems by pointing out that all of their nations problems come from foreigners. That India was some garden of eden and would still be if not for the British. Essentially Hindu (extreme right) nationalists are re writing history for political purposes which is not great.
In regards to reparations- the people alive today committed no crime so no.
The history has been manipulated yes India went from 25% to 5% so did China which wasn't a colony, this is due to the industrial revolution happening and machines replacing the importance of mass labour for producing the cheapest goods. The UK is guilty of forcing free trade on India when its merchants were losing to British factories (the first in the world) to be sure.
The real question is why frame it as India vs Britain? 1% of the British the elite upper class benefitted and 1% of the Indians were the royalty who were stripped of power. 99% of Brits were working in factories, as soldiers, sailors or in the field just to survive. 99% of Indians were no worse off being used by foreign elites as by their own.
One thing to do is read history with the morales of the day, e.g. The British didn't repress indian culture (although they forbid throwing a woman on her husbands funeral pyre) unlike the French who forced Catholacism, the Mughals who forced Islam on India or the Belgiums who took a childs hand if you didn't pay your taxes. In this company the British were relatively the lesser of several evils.
Furthermore the British did have some benefits (simply by extracting resources for their own use) they built canals, railways, schools (to teach a middle class of administrators who would help rule), hospitals for the same, roads, courts, and in time it was handed over peacefully. In fact many of the ethnic minorities benefited by co-ruling alongside the British such as Sikhs whose independance movement is currently outlawed.
Lastly, this man Dr Shashi Tharoor (who wrote books that the nationalists wanted to hear for money) has also been removed from office as a Minister due to corruption and bribery charges. He later fell in love with a Pakistani ISI agent. When his wife threatened to go public with the information- she posted hinting he had cheated online- the day after she turned up dead. She was buried but later the coroner publicly stated he was pressured to say she died of natural causes when in fact she had been poisoned and strangled.
Good post, interesting to read the context. Also, didn't know that about Shashi Tharoor. Sounds like he has some skeletons in the closet!
I read all the comments : ) Thank you for your background info. It's a complex subject that I've got to learn a lot about. I plan to watch one of the opposing speeches as well. I also don't know anything about Tharoor other than what I briefly read about him. The reason I did this video is because I keep getting requests for it, and I thought it would be an interesting look at how some people perceive the UK's relationship with India. As an American, I don't feel like it's my place to judge anything, but I do generally agree that the idea of reparations is flawed.
You contradict in your pitiful propaganda that it is the so called Hindu(extreme right) nationalists that are rewriting the history.
The speaker in the video brands himself as Hard Leftist(domestically) and these are his thoughts. And if you think that these so called nationalists support Mr. Tharoor in any way you are quite delusional in stating that.
Anyway, it was nice to hear the perspective of a White Christian(Far right Colonialist) Nationalist who wants to whitewash the events. While talking about Sikhs, talk about Irish, Scots and Welsh(language issues). For such small diverse groups you sure have messed up a lot in treating them.
Changing history? You mean the history that was written and propagated by the victor? Cool.
I don't think we'll ever see financial reparations, who would they be paid to, how would they be calculated etc. But there should be some degree of cultural reparations where countries like Britain give greater acknowledgement to the contributions of subjugated peoples to the former British empire. Acceptance than places like India was a) subjugated by force and b) made a huge contribution to modern Britain would be healthy and given everyone involved is long dead you'd think no one would be offended by such a thing.
Indians were empire builders too. They did all the same things. They played the game and they lost. India was not a country but an empire not called India at the time. Unlike all other empires however, Britain's was built on trade and entrepreneurialism and was largely an accident. There was no grand plan nor land invading armies. India was never invaded by the British, a point often forgotten (conveniently). Britain increased crop yields by 850% and increased the Indian's life expectancy by decades, brought modern technology, institutional development and democracy India still has today, not to mention a hell of a lot more. India was never a) Subjugated by force b) contributed to technological change here, but more balance of payments.
@@richardwills-woodward5340 is your argument that the East India Company and the Raj was a benign benevolent Empire that didn't subjugate the indigenous population with force?
@@thebemusedone1901 The British Empire was (as empires go) benign in and deferential in government. They were under no illusions that foreign people could be turned into British people, hence the title 'subjects', that the British also are. There was no differentiation between a British subject born here and those born abroad (and still isn't to be technical about it). This is why there was such an influx after the War - subjects were subjects, there was no legal differentiation between a British born subject and an Indian born subject. The British governed mostly by local rulers, whom also benefited handsomely from the arrangement (as was the case in all of history; corruption abound, however, it worked from an organisational and administrative point of view) and was better than the alternative. Subjugation happens today, it is condition of human structures. Yes, subjugation happened. So too it happened under the Moguls. The question is which 'subjugation' do you prefer? One that brings increased health, wealth and prosperity, with democracy, trading norms, technology, sports and education etc, or one that beheads, throws widows on fires, and keeps people in tribal war and with medieval infrastructure? We are talking about a world of empires, NOT nation states. England then the UK was the only nation state hundreds of years ago. The British never invaded India. 'The British' is a term few know what they are talking about. The East India Company was a private entity that *paid the mogul Indians* to trade for well over a century before their own empire collapsed. So we are simply talking about lawless territory that had people and ancient cultures, with their own communities, but certainly not free from invasion over thousands of years. The East India Company was (by pure chance) the largest administrator in India when the Mogul Empire collapsed. What would you do? Withdraw? Or would you increase your trading opportunity? Of course you know the answer, which makes you no better than them. It is human nature. It was a very, very long time until the British Crown seized control of the East India Company's territory and India became a Crown possession. This changed the relationship fundamentally. This is also where most anti-British Indians take their historic inaccuracies from and ignore the previous hundreds of years (which is telling in of itself). From this point atrocities did happen, yes. There were atrocities for which the British should be ashamed (and are). There were equally, many good British people out there and whom married Indian women and families, and Indians whom gained a living previously unavailable to them, whom had more food, more technology, more opportunity than ever before. Sadly, like today, there were just too many Indians to make India wealthy like Australia, Canada, Hing Kong, Singapore etc. So benign force? Yes, in historical terms but not by today's standards. When Britain held the reins of power, she also abolished the slave trade (silence over this strangely enough), and created the modern world itself. Does that outweigh the atrocities from corrupt officials (many of whom were greatly criticised at home with many outraged at their behaviour but yes, many not also)? Only if you decide that today atrocities in India make India a horrible place. Only if you believe today the world is disgusting due to the atrocities carried out the moment I write this. Throughout the atrocities carried out today and last week and last decade, is the world moving forward and is it a better place than at any point in human history? I leave you to think about it.
@@richardwills-woodward5340 yea but what have the romans ever done for us.
@@micky6j Well quite! That is a point you may have seen me make. We were invaded by the Romans and the Danish Kings in France that gave us so much. We embrace genius here it seems and even celebrate progress. We do not get so angry at the Italians as they are now or Danish. We embraced it and improved upon it and even invented so much off the back of civilisational progress. Indeed, even the British country house is modelled on the doric columns of ancient Greece. Britishness is an amalgamation of so much, absorbed and then added to with our own invention and institutional creations which then defined the world we live in today. The British don't seem to have a chip on their shoulder about having been colonised several times from 1066 and before!
I know many of British people of this generation don't know how many Indians fought in WW2 around the world it's not their fault coz they have never been teached or told about it unless they self explore, and about Colonialism and it's atrocity, we know recent generation isn't responsible for it for sure no individual is but the Monarch is the chair comes with burden and responsibilities, India never receive any apologies our freedom fighters and still mention terrorists (for example founding fathers still being mention terrorists)
Most countries converted from imperial weights and measurements to metric. So back in the day yes they used miles but not anymore.
India gethu 💪 and Shashi Tharoor
I recommend you watch Tony Shwartz, the ghost writer of ‘ the Art of the Deal’ about Donald Trump before he became US President. He addresses the Oxford Union, not a debate.
English language has many words from indian language sanskrit mostly in modified form in addition to greek, latin and french. I do not even consider english language the language of brits.
There were so many comments I decided to look back. I was lucky to have stayed with a family in Texas for a month but never heard the phrase he used. I did however help out and was caught outside when a storm hit like you had recently. The dog ran in the house, I was covered in sand then I was soaked in an instant as the bucket full of water I had took off and flee over the house. I ran in after the dog fearing we were going to Kansas via Oz like Dorathy and Toto. Back in the present I recommend two films for the sake of balance. The Chess Players and The Man Who Would be King. By the way the dog brought in a turtle next morning, which was strange out in the desert. Not like Yorkshire at all.
Weird story in this video's context
True. It was my aim to stand out. How would you sell The Chess Players to an American.
Sales pitch.
Talk about something current an familiar to client. Introduce the product and include something familiar. Return to familiar topic.
I used to have to see a pitch coming when I bought for a living.
@@alansmithee8831 good for you
Once again, another great reaction video. I admire you for wanting to learn more about this, more than most of my fellow countrymen would like to hear.
Good on you, beautiful lady.
The lecture was a waste of time, every country at one point in history was invaded or the invader nobody today is serious about demanding reparations from the Mongol empire, the Ottoman empire, and the many islamic caliphates (those countries are smart and are proud of their history) even though their empires were extremely violent and damaging to the conquered peoples who lived under them. The only countries that are dumb enough to be guilt tripped into paying reparations are European countries (specifically western european countries).
@@TheUstasha101
So you wish modern European nations were more like the Ottomans et al?
@@AndrewD8Red That's not what I meant. My point was - it would better for western european people to have more of a backbone and national pride like modern day Turkey, Russia, Japan, China, Israel, Poland, Hungary ect. My people ( southern slavs) have been oppressed and plundered for nearly 500 years by the Ottoman empire, until we liberated ourselves in 1912. Despite this we want no compensation from modern day Turks and have nothing against them celebrating their history and culture (unless they are openly insulting us of course).
@@TheUstasha101 True plus also the children that were kidnapped into slavery or for the lucky ones armed services like The Janniserries. I forgot what the tax was called where a child had to be given to the Ottoman Empire lol
@@MarkVrem danak u krvi or blood tribute in english.
I love the reaction to this 😂
Everybody chill!
We're all friends here 🇬🇧🤝🇮🇳😁
@@sebastianbolzan9826 no 100 years plus
@@jordanleigh6481 I'm pretty sure that Britain was there in India in 1921 🙄
@@alpha_4050 most of the fighting went on when the east India company was a thing. Once the company was shut down because it was no longer needed brittish and Indians were fairly civil to each other
@@alpha_4050 and the India company was shut down mid early 1800s
@@jordanleigh6481 But still Britain was there in India till 1947
In the UK, we use imperial and metric systems, but probably slightly favour (favor) imperial in daily life.
You ask several questions:
1. a: The counter argument: th-cam.com/video/SjTSgP6Lm0A/w-d-xo.html
b: tbe whole debate
th-cam.com/play/PL2Q4CdDrPSMX7vOk3nVNC8Ce852FKYXgy.html
2. Were Indian troops integrated into the British Armed forces? Ans Yes but in their own formations rwguiments etc. Examples Gurkha Rifles,
from wikipedia
This field force was divided into two armies: the Northern Army, which stretched from the North-West Frontier to Bengal with five divisions and three brigades under command, and the Southern Army which ranged from Baluchistan to southern India and it in turn had four divisions under command and two formations outside the subcontinent.[10] The two armies contained 39 cavalry regiments, 138 infantry battalions (including 20 Gurkha),[7] a joint cavalry-infantry unit, the Corps of Guides, three sapper regiments and 12 mountain artillery batteries.[4]
Were paid less but got similar medals, all volunter force no conscription. Active Mesopotamia (Iraq) and middle eAst until 1919 ( Ottman empire came to terms) also some on Western Front
3. Mile: the unit would be from the official report of the time which would have used the British unit of measure
4. What do I think: ~Reparations are due if a harm has been done contrary or outside of an agreement and if such a harm has led directly to a beneffit.to the party causing the harm
Was harm done : Yes but not at all simply. Some good was done too as defined by indians then and now.
Was an agreement breached :no iNdians (unwisely) volnteered for the sake of the wealth the British brought (of course there were inidents, and a mutiny, but ovrall th realtioinship while no way mutually respectful andf in every way exploiitative was voluntary)
Was there a benefit directly flowing fron that harm : no. All hram swaa a misrtake, profited Britain not one whit.
excellent choice
i think the UK isnt the empire, also different administration so what arguments are directed at an empire are not directed at a country. But people are not their countries
The Indian Army in WW2 consisted of a mixture of 'native' and British troops. For example, my grandfather served in the 1st Bn the Royal Sussex Regiment. They formed a part of the 7th Indian Infantry Brigade, along with 4th Bn 16th Punjab Regiment and 1st Bn 2nd Ghurka Rifles. The 7th Indian Infantry Brigade was a component of the 7th indian Infantry Division (for scale, a battallion
would have an on-paper strength of up to about 1000; a brigade is 3 battallions plus HQ element - so typically 3500-4000; a division 3 brigades plus HQ and divisonal troops - attached artillery and engineer units - typically amounting to 10,000-12,000).
It may be worth pointing out that the 16th Punjab Regiment became part of Pakistan's army after the partition of India.
Avatar which is the highest grossing movie of all time. Surprisingly the name of this movie is also borrowed from hindi which means the manifestation of a released soul in bodily form on earth.
As a Brit I have to confess his points are fundamentally true. The whole European colonisation of the world never benefited those being colonised, just ask the native Americans. The argument is very simplified as it is an eight minute statement to the Oxford Union, designed to start a debate.
British people should read more books and archived documents. It seems like they intentionally try to be ignorant about these things.
Ur welcome for the medical equipment
Mrs curry
@@jameseuwen3253 your welcome for the loot of 200+ years.
@@jameseuwen3253 and it's Miss not Mrs but I can let this go cause assumption is an inbuilt trait for you guys.
@@ShwetaSingh-mx7ll your country is a pure joke right now... covid gonna get you all, and for some reason we are saving you all. 🤣😂🤣😂
Get bk to ur slum
@@jameseuwen3253 this is what nationalism does. It makes you laugh at the misery of others. Worse, at the misery of dying people who you've never met.
The best Part is that even Britain doesn't know where the hell did they spent $45 Trillion although this figure is by adding Inflation but still it worthed that much in the colonial times so where did they spent probably world war 1 and 2
British India was a separate nation than the UK with its own army. Obviously it was not a sovereign nation.
If you want to grow your Indian audience, then learn about Cricket. They make good Patreons
@@neonblade4659 lol
@Abubakar Mohuddin Did allah tell u that, bcz last I checked India had more muslims than pakistan..
@@Sahil-ie3ie burn
I don't know enough about India and British rule to really comment about it, but as for Indians fighting for the British during the World Wars there were all Indian units. Also not necessarily that these are strictly Indians as they are from Nepal, but the Gurkhas have fought for the British Army since the 1815. If you have time maybe have a look at them, their motto is 'It is better to die, then live a coward' and their war cry is 'Ayo Gurkhali' which translates into 'The Gurkhas are here'. One of the British generals said "If anyone says they aren't scared of dying, they are either mad or they are a Gurkha". One true example of their heroism was during the second world war when a Gurkha protecting his comrades from enemy soldiers had his hand blown off with a grenade. He stuck his Kukri (their famous knife they wear with pride) into the ground in front of him and shouted "No-one will past my knife!". He then single-handedly held off every advance from the enemy until he was relieved the following morning. As I say not strictly about India but well worth researching about.
th-cam.com/video/Nes7BdtB0g0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/O8pIJglsYUE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/1NGo6uiW05A/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/u_Ml2jpxezM/w-d-xo.html
Gurkha's are not all Nepali. Indian states of Uttarakhand, West Bengal and UP also got fair numbers of Gurkha citizens...
@@kp-kq7ux Thank you for that correction, I have always heard that they come from Nepal. But I did hear on one video I watched that there are several regions where they draw their recruitment from. Also that if I am correct (you will correct me if I am wrong :P) some of them are recruited into the Indian army, is that right? But if some are, as you say, from Indian states then maybe if SoGal wants to react and learn about them, it will give her a reason ;).
@@paulmaxey6377 yes they are also not in Indian army but not forget a out battle of Saragarhi u should check it out it is said to be one of the greatest battle 21 Indian soldier protected a castle from 10000 Afghan soldiers but they all died one by one because Britain not send reinforcements
US didn't apologize for nuking civilians in japan. Even after 75 yrs, Japan expressed concerns but it received.... "Ah! Let's move past history"
To start with the British never conquered India. That was done by the East India Company, with a private army. They had the rights to transport goods from India, given to them by Queen Elezibeth 1st in 1600, which got revoked in the 1850's as the Crown realised how much money the company were making from India, and the crown took over the companies interests in India.
Yes what happened in India was really bad, done by both the crown and the company, but I can not see reparations happening, as it was the birth of mordern day capitalism, so to admit they were wrong for what they did, is in a way of saying capitalism is wrong. Also I believe there are still people in the UK that would still do it all again today, we still use the divide and rule tactics, we still exploit countries for resources to the detriment of the people. So reparations are a way of saying sorry, but if we are still doing it, how can we be sorry.
East India company didn't have a private army, It had British troops. Come to India you'll see names of many British army regiments (Regiment of foot, king's own, queen's own, etc.) on stones laid down by East India Company during its rule.
Well said. 👏👏👏 You are a smart guy. You nailed it.
Simple answer no - Does Norway/Denmark owe us reparations for the vikings?
I meannnn we did a lot worse to India then the vikings did to us if we are being honest
@@antigov7839 i didnt, you didnt, your parents never. You cant blame current generations for the past
@@antigov7839 the vikings did a lot of messed up things
@@antigov7839 are you joking? The vikings literally pillaged. They came to kill and rob, they didn't build railways and schools.
@@antigov7839 But I certainly don't think Danes should feel bad in any way because its just history.
10:30
I Doubt any Indian history is taught in America
No India does not uses imperial system like miles ,pound and Fahrenheit so it is not used in general life but majority of Indians learned that in school or aware due to American TV series.
Imperial metric measurements. Still betwixt and between. Schools teach centimetres and metres now, and grammes have replaced ounces.but certain popular measures are still in imperial. So we drive miles, but put litres in the fuel tank, we drink pints of beer, but cola and milk is sold in litres. In aviation all altitudes are still in feet. I think the nautical mile is still used at sea, certainly a ship's speed is still given in knots. Often when you buy things the size is given in both systems on the wrapper, but not always, so I take both measurement options along if I need to get something.
There are 900+ Indian words in the Oxford dictionary. cash is also Indian words, colonizer countries always hide the truth otherwise the atrocities they have done will come out.
Bruh the colonialism was obviously bad but that's how languages evolve. Every language has hundreds and thousands of loan words.
@@nitishsaxena1372, if they are loan words, I wonder when they would be returned.
Like what Dr Shashi stated, even the word “loot” was looted from Indians.
Speaking as a working class person from the North of England, the idea of reparations infuriates me because I should not be expected to pay for the crimes of imperialist politicians and businessmen. In fact most of my relatives were exploited by the Empire during the industrial revolution. So many working class people had to work in terrible conditions for very little pay. Most of my great-great grandparents died young due to working in mines or factories breathing in toxic chemicals all day while getting paid just enough to buy food for the family.
Still to this day, London and specifically the South East of England is twice as wealthy as the rest of the UK.
It is ironic though that the people clapping in the room about reparations are privately educated people from extremely wealthy families that almost certainly benefited from the Empire. By all means, take their money but don't take ours when we've also been fucked over by the London Elite for centuries.
We feel your pain Indians but not all of us are greedy rich scumbag politicians!
The British working class bought into the idea of Empire though, fed to them by the British Elite.
Same elite types that still run Britain and are voted in by enough British or predominantly English people.
He never asked for money. At the end he asked for a single pound as an apology for the next 200 year years. I know Britain does pay some money to india but tbh if you just stop paying we wont go on war with you.
then; help track down the wealthy old money families that did benefit from the british empire; and seize what they have to pay reperations. also your tax money goes to worse things then that; for example compensating slave owners for the end of slavery; which british tax money went to as recently as 2015!
No army was amassed by the UK on Indians shores and took it by force, unlike Romans, Vikings, Normans, heard of them? ALL invaded the UK by force, do we bleat about it? and demand anything? no. We just take it and accept it as part of our history that actually added to the country along with any violence (proportionally way more than happened in India) that happened in back then.
Again, UK's Empire grew out of mutual trade, it's why it was so successful.
Roman invasion of Britain happened over 1000 years before Britain's colonization of India. Compared to India's independence in something like1950. The 2 events are not the same lol. What was the British Isles 50-100 years after the Romans lost control of it? A big mess is probably about right. But I suppose all the roads the Romans built, helped the next group of invaders or arrivals spread out and take over faster.
@@MarkVrem Indian independence was 1947.
Trying to pick out your garbled English (though I see it's probably your second language) You think a violent invasion that a happened 1000 is irrelevant, moreover, the Roman invasion was good becasue it provided roads so others could violently invade better and quicker; so the invasion of Britain was a good thing then?
If there was any doubt Anglophobia was behind the attacks on the UK there you have the evidence.
But I agree they were not the same, the invasions of the UK were purely violent affairs, UK colonization weren't.
@@zaftra You made absolutely no additional point to your argument except to double down on the idea that Bretton, Celts, and Picts were violently invaded but the Bengalis and the remnants of the Southern Indian Confederation and the Mughals remnants of Delphi and other Kingdoms in the north were not. .... If that is such a fact as you believe it is. Then why do you guys over in England insist on studying so much on whether the Anglo-Saxon was a migration or an invasion? and secondly. How does a trading post comparable to a fortress end up turning into ruling and controlling a whole sub-continent without any invading. Cause for one, it definitely wasn't a migration lol. It doesn't without some serious revisionist history. lol
@@MarkVrem Who mentioned migration? I know I didn't. There is no revisionist here, the British empire grew from trade, in fact, other videos that SoGal has reacted to have also stated this quite clearly. Of course defensive positions were created, this was to protect the trade routes from others.
I think it's pretty commonly accepted that the Romans, Normans and Vikings invaded Britain, this isn't up for debate.
As as been pointed out, there was, even at it's peak, around 10,000 British people in a country of 450,000,000, this is not an invasion, even today, nearly 50% of the indigenous population of London has been displaced by none British born individuals, virtually 4 million in one city alone and even this isn't considered an invasion, so 10,000 certainly isn't
My point about the Britain it has been violently invaded by the Romans, Vikings and Normans over a span of probably a thousand years, ever heard of serfs? pretty much slaves, serfdom only came to an end in the 15/16 centuries in the west, the East India company was founded in 1600, so serfdom really wasn't has far back as you claim in the west, and certainly not centuries before British interest in India.
Britain WAS invaded, there was violence and deaths with those invasions, not only do we not whine about it, we acknowledge it happens, it happens in the past and those invasions actually bought positives in the long run, many more positives, as the the Empire did in the world.
There's only one person being selective with their historical facts here, and it isn't me.
@@zaftra Your story makes as much sense as the Russian story of inviting Viking overlords to help form their nation LOL. I don't need to tell you cause you know already; blood was shed. People were overthrown and an empire was established. Basically, all wars are either because of 2 things. 1) Security or 2) Economic Reasons. By your logic, the Spanish conquistadors did not invade Latin America. Why? Because they used native allies to help them overthrow the Aztecs and Civil war to aid in the conquest of the Incas.
Hello SoGal and Roger. I was told as a child I might be of Anglo Indian descent. My grandma used to call me her little Cliff Richard, a famous Anglo Indian who was seen ad s substitute in UK for Elvis from your neck of the woods. My first and middle schools had mostly pupils whose parents were from the former British India. This was in the shadow of dark satanic mills. The friend I toured Europe with was from a Kashmiri family. The first person I met at university was Alok Sharma MP. He spoke much posher than I do having been to what I thought was a posh school but he said he started learning from BBC World Service as a child in India.
In defense of my northern English ancestors I would point to the films of Gandhi being cheered by UK mill workers. Also the seats bought with loot were not voted for by any more than an elite, like ancient Athens. When the franchise was extended talks on Indian independence followed very soon after.
Things might have been worse if another country without the tradition of fighting for justice had conquered India.
I used to sit in a traffic queue by the supposed site of Robin Hood's Grave and he had films made in LA about that. Patrick Stuart was from near there and so let us hope both countries live long and prosper, not get hung up on the past.
The speech was a good one and again a good pick.
Well easy for u to say let history stay in the past. For the losing side with the remaining effects they still strugle to this day, its hard
I understand this but honestly am unsure how we could make up for it as like he said no amount of money would fix the problem. Honestly once explained to them I think most Brits would agree with me that we should be helping as best we can. But sadly because of the nature of the media of our country it's difficult to tell people. I can't say that my country will start to do anything about this. But I can say that for what little It's worth I apologize for the damage my country has done.
@@alexpaul9407 but debt is debt and its has interest on it just like credit cards. U have the sum, the guy had said the sum. Hard to pay in today's money? Well, thats how hard our lives are
@@mutesafezone I'm aware and I'd like to pay it but frankly I don't know if the rest of my country will agree or if we could find the money in the first place. Because as much as paying a debt is important I would not simply pay it at the sacraficing of letting my own people fall to starvation themselves. As much as I'd like to pay a dept I'd rather be in debt and have my country survive even if morally bankrupt. Perhaps not a place or a people most would be able to fight for but I have an attachment to my country as horrible we can be that I cannot explain.
Namaste and love from India! You should react to the video on Indian English by Shashi Tharoor. It's very interesting!🙏🇮🇳 I hope that peace and love prevail in the world!
Not only loot but also dacoit, jungle, shackle, Avater, lantern, palanquin, band, karma, darma, the saint ( came from hindi word Santa... Sadu santa), three or 3 ( came from trii example.. tri dev), behaviour came from bebahar, pajama, trigonometry came from trikonmiti etc.... There are so many.... 🤷🏻
Most of the world uses metric America is almost the only country that doesn't.
It's funny, but in the Second World War, the Indian Army fought and won more battles than the US did and had a generally larger effect on the outcome of the war.
The US education system is *VERY* America centric.
Can you please go more in-depth how you think india has contributed more to the fall of the axis powers than the U.S ?
As a german myself who is quite interested in ww2 i like to think that I have a good understanding of ww2 but I have never seen such a assertion.
yes please do tell about your assertion that India has done more than the US to defeat Germany and Japan.
@Ally Wakka And don't even get started on The Red Army.
Here is was complaining about the America centric nature of US education and I made the same mistake myself; focusing on Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
If you neglect the Pacific theatre, India had a larger input in the war.
Taking Japan and the Far East into account, then yes; the US did have a larger input than many other nations.
I would ultimately argue that the primary effect that the US had on World War 2 wasn't its combat but its industrial capacity. US made guns, bullets, tanks, aircraft, ships, foodstuffs, clothing was where the US had its primary effect. When it comes to boots on the ground, outside of the Pacific Island hopping campaign every other theatre of the war was either exclusively or heavily reliant on other countries doing the fighting. The continental fronts in the Far East were largely fought by the people of China, India and Burma. The Eastern front in Europe fought almost exclusively by the USSR. North Africa was largely fought by the British and the Commonwealth. The Western Front in Europe, even though it had millions of US soldiers, would not have been possible without the similar number of British and Commonwealth subjects participating on that front, not to mention the immeasurably assistance by the Free French resistance forces.
Was US involvement integral to winning World War 2? I would argue yes but not because of US military prowess but from US industrial production. It was US supplies that allowed for other nations (most prominently China, USSR, and Britain with its Commonwealth, including India) to resist and overcome Germany, Italy and Japan. The failure in the US education system is the implication that it was the US military coming in that saved the world when the reality is closer to "we made more stuff" was the major contributor. (As well as not emphasizing that the US alone couldn't have won the war either, it required a team effort.)
Edit: I don't mean this as an attack, just additional points in the larger discussion.
Should the British working class pay for something they had no control, plus there are many different people from all over the world should they forced to pay for something that ancestors may have suffered from?
Should the descendants of blsck african royalty who first enslaved black people before selling them on pay reparatons to black arfro Carribeans and afro Americans?
you see? the whole idea is ridioculous.
Just return the valuable things belonging to India from the London museum... at least u ppl can do that... n don't forget "the Kohinoor" remove it from ur queen's crown n hand it over to the Indian government... at least these things u can do...
@@chandrukulkarni5866 and how would any of that help? you really want to bear the security and custodfianship costs of what are really world assets?
think you could protect kohinoor from theft? in Delhi? or maybe Mumbai? we have all the tech in the world, and an effing castle (Tower of London) plus the Met (ropolitan Police) plus Army pluds a few Ravens and Beefeaters and still as far as I know the risk is uninsurable.
sounds good, but the practicalities say otherwise. your choice.
Why not your working class ancestors were fine when colonies financed there economic and social rise. I mean it is not like British crown controlled every bit of profit earned. Your ancestors got there fair share. But the fact is that even the countries Britain colonized are way past monetary reparations. I mean Countries like USA, Australia,India got way bigger economies than that of UK. The point here is acknowledging the wrongs. Nobody is asking you for money but we definitely ask you not to be ignorant toward your past deeds. That attitude of yours motivates hate.
@@brucebartup6161
Re giving back stolen loot.
It's your choice you stole it, you still have it.
There is no excuse for British colonialism - its a historical fact, and needs to be assessed on its consequences rather than the motives of the colonisers. India was certainly impoverished by some British actions, and to a lesser extent enriched by unification and some development. The real losers were the working people in India and in Lancashire.
British Ruled India during the world wars. So the Indians did not fight independently, but they fought for the British.
all the facts are right , you cant lie on camera 😂
Please do react more to the Indian History, from ancient India to British India, much love from India ❤️🙏.
nah, there is no tension between the UK and India today. the UK is one of the closest allies of India. we are bitter about the history, but there no bad blood today
We use kilometre in India instead of miles