11-18-2006, 11:28 AM
British didn't <b>give</b> railways to India. If you be so inclined, do some research to find out, who paid for all the people involved in building the railways, its labourers and its pampered british overlords.
All that was <b>INDIAN MONEY</b>. And who benefited the most from it? THE BRITISH. They could move their army from Assam to NWFP with the help of the railways, and transport the cheap raw goods to ports for export to england, where value addition was done, and manufactured goods were dumped on the Indians' heads again using the same railways. British very gainfully maintained their empire through the railways. <b> And all that at India's expense. Britain in the net never paid a penny to India, and took away a lot</b>.
India and Indians have absolutely nothing to thank the British for the railways. For all the cost to India and Indians caused by the railways by helping maintain the exploitative british empire, we could have bought 1000 times better railways system in the open market.
"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called <b>"Hindu Renaissance</b> of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
A colonialist or eurocentric would consider the modern age of India to coincide with the advent of colonialism, as in his eyes, India then left behind its morass of old systems and was introduced to the "civilizing" touch of Europe.
If you ask Muslims, they may think Muhammad Ghori brought "modernity" to India. In Pakistan at least pre Ghori period in India is called "Jahiliya" or period of ignorance or darkness.
What is the point of buying into other's definition of ourselves? Wouldn't it be best if we ourselves figure out who we are?
All that was <b>INDIAN MONEY</b>. And who benefited the most from it? THE BRITISH. They could move their army from Assam to NWFP with the help of the railways, and transport the cheap raw goods to ports for export to england, where value addition was done, and manufactured goods were dumped on the Indians' heads again using the same railways. British very gainfully maintained their empire through the railways. <b> And all that at India's expense. Britain in the net never paid a penny to India, and took away a lot</b>.
India and Indians have absolutely nothing to thank the British for the railways. For all the cost to India and Indians caused by the railways by helping maintain the exploitative british empire, we could have bought 1000 times better railways system in the open market.
"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called <b>"Hindu Renaissance</b> of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
A colonialist or eurocentric would consider the modern age of India to coincide with the advent of colonialism, as in his eyes, India then left behind its morass of old systems and was introduced to the "civilizing" touch of Europe.
If you ask Muslims, they may think Muhammad Ghori brought "modernity" to India. In Pakistan at least pre Ghori period in India is called "Jahiliya" or period of ignorance or darkness.
What is the point of buying into other's definition of ourselves? Wouldn't it be best if we ourselves figure out who we are?