Instead of questioning how a sovereign state spends their money, maybe we should be asking how they achieved this for $75m when we spent £1.6bn on a dirty old barge! Maybe they can include some productivity lessons in the new trade deal.
They didn't achieve it for $75 m, despite what a press release would lead some to believe.
This thread will be closed soon. Some members lack the discipline or mental aptitude to keep a thread on topic.
Appreciate I have touched on the politics of it, but was trying to explain how aid money from the UK goes direct to projects that they have assessed need help, rather than direct to the Indian Government
As above, I think people are only forming an opinion on how India spend their money, because it has historically included our donations. If it had not, I suspect most people would not give a flying…
In other words, it’s more a grumble about our historical and current aid policy.
I would hazard a guess that £0 of our money goes to the India Space Project. Hope that helps.
Right, but I think the point people are trying to make is that perhaps India would require less aid if they focused more on eradicating poverty, rather than sending people to the moon. But I think you already knew that.
Except that they didn't send any people to the moon, the project cost $75m and will generate 100s of times that in inward investment, income from space alunches and good PR which will help eradicate poverty much quicker and to a much greater extent than spending $75m directly on it.
Surely if this is true than our funds are being used well? Teach a man to teach and all of that.
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
Why have you highlighted and a laughing emoji? The advantages were great for India, but being objective, there were disadvantages too
Because it fits the self hating, self flagellating myopic narrative that certain parts of society and certain posters on here wish to propagate about Great Britain and our history. Everything is through a certain lens.
I might call it woke, but then I'll be told that I'm in favour of racism...
Try reading the Indian perspective than the rose-tinted UK view. (he's also born in the UK so can't really claim he's 'biased')
Imperial nostalgia is a real thing and there is a large section of society that genuinely thinks we 'helped' those countries while ruling and pillaging them. It is a false narrative designed to help us feel better about our past.
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
Why have you highlighted and a laughing emoji? The advantages were great for India, but being objective, there were disadvantages too
Because it fits the self hating, self flagellating myopic narrative that certain parts of society and certain posters on here wish to propagate about Great Britain and our history. Everything is through a certain lens.
I might call it woke, but then I'll be told that I'm in favour of racism...
But why not be fair and objective and see all sides? People who have an agenda and only see/comment on one side just don't come across as credible, thereby lessening their opinion/argument. (Like seeing racism where there is none, or at least no evidence of any, just demeans, even undermines the actual important anti-racism message and cause)
Of course there were advantages for India, but it would not be objective not to mention the disadvantages too
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
Why have you highlighted and a laughing emoji? The advantages were great for India, but being objective, there were disadvantages too
Because it fits the self hating, self flagellating myopic narrative that certain parts of society and certain posters on here wish to propagate about Great Britain and our history. Everything is through a certain lens.
I might call it woke, but then I'll be told that I'm in favour of racism...
But why not be fair and objective and see all sides? People who have an agenda and only see/comment on one side just don't come across as credible, thereby lessening their opinion/argument. (Like seeing racism where there is none, or at least no evidence of any, just demeans, even undermines the actual important anti-racism message and cause)
Of course there were advantages for India, but it would not be objective not to mention the disadvantages too
I'm laughing because the negatives far outweigh the 'positives', but you're trying to equate them into some weird 50/50 give and take.
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
Why have you highlighted and a laughing emoji? The advantages were great for India, but being objective, there were disadvantages too
Because it fits the self hating, self flagellating myopic narrative that certain parts of society and certain posters on here wish to propagate about Great Britain and our history. Everything is through a certain lens.
I might call it woke, but then I'll be told that I'm in favour of racism...
But why not be fair and objective and see all sides? People who have an agenda and only see/comment on one side just don't come across as credible, thereby lessening their opinion/argument. (Like seeing racism where there is none, or at least no evidence of any, just demeans, even undermines the actual important anti-racism message and cause)
Of course there were advantages for India, but it would not be objective not to mention the disadvantages too
I'm laughing because the negatives far outweigh the 'positives', but you're trying to equate them into some weird 50/50 give and take.
Where did I mention any proportion between the 2? You seem to be assuming or making it up
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
Why have you highlighted and a laughing emoji? The advantages were great for India, but being objective, there were disadvantages too
Because it fits the self hating, self flagellating myopic narrative that certain parts of society and certain posters on here wish to propagate about Great Britain and our history. Everything is through a certain lens.
I might call it woke, but then I'll be told that I'm in favour of racism...
But why not be fair and objective and see all sides? People who have an agenda and only see/comment on one side just don't come across as credible, thereby lessening their opinion/argument. (Like seeing racism where there is none, or at least no evidence of any, just demeans, even undermines the actual important anti-racism message and cause)
Of course there were advantages for India, but it would not be objective not to mention the disadvantages too
I'm laughing because the negatives far outweigh the 'positives', but you're trying to equate them into some weird 50/50 give and take.
Where did I mention any proportion between the 2? You seem to be assuming or making it up
Then why don't you say on the whole as a balance of proportion. The British Empire was a negative experience for Indians and other nations + cultures worldwide?
I asssumed because above you were defending colonial Britain above.
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
Why have you highlighted and a laughing emoji? The advantages were great for India, but being objective, there were disadvantages too
Because it fits the self hating, self flagellating myopic narrative that certain parts of society and certain posters on here wish to propagate about Great Britain and our history. Everything is through a certain lens.
I might call it woke, but then I'll be told that I'm in favour of racism...
But why not be fair and objective and see all sides? People who have an agenda and only see/comment on one side just don't come across as credible, thereby lessening their opinion/argument. (Like seeing racism where there is none, or at least no evidence of any, just demeans, even undermines the actual important anti-racism message and cause)
Of course there were advantages for India, but it would not be objective not to mention the disadvantages too
I'm laughing because the negatives far outweigh the 'positives', but you're trying to equate them into some weird 50/50 give and take.
Where did I mention any proportion between the 2? You seem to be assuming or making it up
Then why don't you say on the whole as a balance of proportion. The British Empire was a negative experience for Indians and other nations + cultures worldwide?
Because it is not a thread about a deep dive into the colonisation of India
Why should I apportion what percentage was an advantage and what a disadvantage? Why should you make a completely incorrect assumption on what I wrote? Just demonstrates your bias
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
It did bring advantages. The railways, cars, buildngs etc etc , and in my experience out there the average person loves us. To be honest bit too much as i found it embarrassing women getting up for me to offer me their seat in 2nd class on a train.
But i must admit even though its wrong it did make me laugh when i asked the guide what all the holes were inside the Taj Mahal and he said "that's where all the rubys and emeralds were before your soldiers stole them".
If you want to see some real live Empire visit Kodi Canal or Shimla or another hill station - theyre like Devon in India. Cottages Gymkhana and cream teas to this day.
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
It did bring advantages. The railways, cars, buildngs etc etc , and in my experience out there the average person loves us. To be honest bit too much as i found it embarrassing women getting up for me to offer me their seat in 2nd class on a train.
But i must admit even though its wrong it did make me laugh when i asked the guide what all the holes were inside the Taj Mahal and he said "that's where all the rubys and emeralds were before your soldiers stole them".
If you want to see some real live Empire visit Kodi Canal or Shimla or another hill station - theyre like Devon in India. Cottages Gymkhana and cream teas to this day.
2 Points:
1. The advantages that it may have provided (I didn't claim there weren't) were heavily outweighed by the negatives of British rule.
2. Other countries have been able to build railways, cars and other buildings without needing to be ruled by a western nation. It isn't the case that India couldn't have done it without our help. In actual fact India was a lot richer and had a higher GDP before British rule, than afterwards.
But it's off topic so I'm just responding to your post.
I sort of thought aid to India was some kind of compensation for squeezing the juice out of the place during colonial times.
Have you read a Passage to India? It looks at the country from all sides, including criticism of the Empire but also the advantages it brought
It did bring advantages. The railways, cars, buildngs etc etc , and in my experience out there the average person loves us. To be honest bit too much as i found it embarrassing women getting up for me to offer me their seat in 2nd class on a train.
But i must admit even though its wrong it did make me laugh when i asked the guide what all the holes were inside the Taj Mahal and he said "that's where all the rubys and emeralds were before your soldiers stole them".
If you want to see some real live Empire visit Kodi Canal or Shimla or another hill station - theyre like Devon in India. Cottages Gymkhana and cream teas to this day.
2 Points:
1. The advantages that it may have provided (I didn't claim there weren't) were heavily outweighed by the negatives of British rule.
2. Other countries have been able to build railways, cars and other buildings without needing to be ruled by a western nation. It isn't the case that India couldn't have done it without our help. In actual fact India was a lot richer and had a higher GDP before British rule, than afterwards.
But it's off topic so I'm just responding to your post.
Having looked into it a little (I am not an expert in Indian history, notably the period of and the impact of the BE but I have read and studied A Passage to India which is a very interesting read), there are many debates (by expert historians) about the balance between the advantages and the disadvantages. And unsurprisingly, they are not in agreement and certainly many not saying one 'heavily outweighed the other. But I haven't see any of them misrepresent what another has said or concluded by merely pointed out there were 2 sides to the argument!
Comments
m, despite what a press release would lead some to believe.
Prefer baked beans
It's how his brain us programmed
I might call it woke, but then I'll be told that I'm in favour of racism...
Try reading the Indian perspective than the rose-tinted UK view. (he's also born in the UK so can't really claim he's 'biased')
Imperial nostalgia is a real thing and there is a large section of society that genuinely thinks we 'helped' those countries while ruling and pillaging them. It is a false narrative designed to help us feel better about our past.
Of course there were advantages for India, but it would not be objective not to mention the disadvantages too
I'm laughing because the negatives far outweigh the 'positives', but you're trying to equate them into some weird 50/50 give and take.
I asssumed because above you were defending colonial Britain above.
Why should I apportion what percentage was an advantage and what a disadvantage? Why should you make a completely incorrect assumption on what I wrote? Just demonstrates your bias
Anyway, good on India for making to make it to the moon.
But i must admit even though its wrong it did make me laugh when i asked the guide what all the holes were inside the Taj Mahal and he said "that's where all the rubys and emeralds were before your soldiers stole them".
If you want to see some real live Empire visit Kodi Canal or Shimla or another hill station - theyre like Devon in India. Cottages Gymkhana and cream teas to this day.
1. The advantages that it may have provided (I didn't claim there weren't) were heavily outweighed by the negatives of British rule.
2. Other countries have been able to build railways, cars and other buildings without needing to be ruled by a western nation.
It isn't the case that India couldn't have done it without our help. In actual fact India was a lot richer and had a higher GDP before British rule, than afterwards.
But it's off topic so I'm just responding to your post.
(This post was carefully vetted, so as to ensure it cannot be hijacked by resident CL blow hards)
If you want to have another dig at me couldn’t you be a bit more creative?