Asylum seekers put up in luxury hotel at cost of £400,000 to the taxpayer

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10499829/Asylum-seekers-put-up-in-luxury-hotel-at-cost-of-400000.html

Asylum seekers put up in luxury hotel at cost of £400,000

More than 100 asylum seekers will stay at the Amblehurst Hotel, favoured by Manchester United stars, for nine weeks


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02757/Amblehurst-Hotel_2757448b.jpg
Officials acting for the Home Office sent the migrants to book in at the suburban 50 bedroom Amblehurst Hotel


More than 100 asylum seekers have been ordered to live for nine weeks in a luxury hotel favoured by Manchester United stars - at a cost to the taxpayer of up to £400,000.

Officials acting for the Home Office sent the migrants to book in at the suburban 50 bedroom Amblehurst Hotel while their claims to stay in the UK are dealt with.

The Conservative-run Trafford council in Greater Manchester was given just 48 hours notice of the arrival of the 104 asylum seekers, comprising 31 families of various nationalities.

The hotel in Sale where rooms cost up to £125 pounds a night has in the past hosted parties for Manchester United players and various corporate firms. It is thought the hotel will close to regular paying guests whilst the asylum seekers are in residence.

This week the Conservative Group held an emergency meeting about the move organised by private company SERCO, which was appointed by the Government to deal with accommodation for asylum seekers.

The families had previously been staying in Liverpool but had been moved to out due to large numbers of migrants applying to stay in the UK. The total bill with food could run to as much as £393,750.

Councillor Matthew Colledge, leader of Trafford Council, said: "To be given less than 48 hours notice of the imposition of a large contingent of asylum seekers is frankly ludicrous.

"I have asked, along with partners from the NHS, for the decision to be deferred but this is not to be. It is intensely irritating that as council leader I have had no opportunity to influence the decision at all."

Cllr Colledge said he was sympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers but expressed concern over the strain that could be put on Trafford's services.

He said: "I recognise that some asylum seekers are escaping from appalling situations and that may include the children arriving in Trafford. However with schools and GP surgeries full in the Sale area I question the logic of choosing this location."

A spokesman for SERCO said: "'We are currently using the Amblehurst Hotel to temporarily accommodate a number of asylum seekers who were previously being looked after in Liverpool.

"In due course these people will be found further housing throughout the North West of England pending the outcome of the Home office review into their eligibility to claim asylum.

"At all times we work closely with the local authorities, the Home Office and local services including the police, health and education bodies to carefully manage the safe and appropriate accommodation of asylum seekers in our care."

How wonderful and 'diverse' - and if you don't like it then you're a nasty waycist.

The point is that this country shouldn't be accepting ANY asylum seekers what so ever - under international law (if you believe in such a concept - I don't) asylum seekers are compelled to seek asylum in the first country of safety that they cross. The last time I checked, the United Kingdom comprised two island off the coast of continental Europe.

Send them back and kick out the MORONS letting them in.

Thoughts?

[Kardan]

How can you tell asylum seekers to follow international law when you say you don't believe that such a concept should exist?

It does seem rather surprising that this is the cheapest option though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How can you tell asylum seekers to follow international law when you say you don't believe that such a concept should exist?

Because whether I like it or not, we are under certain pieces of international law. Therefore i'm dealing with what options we have whilst we're under these pieces of international law - and we don't have to let them in.

If international law said we had to let them in, then i'd simply say that we ought to repeal those pieces of law.

Simple.

[Kardan]

Because whether I like it or not, we are under certain pieces of international law. Therefore i'm dealing with what options we have whilst we're under these pieces of international law - and we don't have to let them in.

If international law said we had to let them in, then i'd simply say that we ought to repeal those pieces of law.

Simple.

Ahh, so you don't like international laws, but if they are laws you agree with, then it's okay. That makes sense... :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ahh, so you don't like international laws, but if they are laws you agree with, then it's okay. That makes sense... :P

No? I reject the concept of international law completely as there is no such thing as an international demos therefore it lacks demcratic legitimacy as opposed to a real nation state which does have a demos and thus has legitmacy when it creates legislation. That's why i'm also against supranational bodies like the European Union as they take decisions and the law away from the people.

My point is this - that I wouldn't accept asylum seekers anyway for a number of reasons even if international law didn't exist. As it does exist, my question is - why aren't we following it in regards to this issue?

That's why i've said time and time again that i'd be against the EU even if it made great and fantastic laws that I agreed with 100% - why? for the principle of sovereignty and national independence I talked about earlier.

Does that clear it up?

[Kardan]

No? I reject the concept of international law completely as there is no such thing as an international demos therefore it lacks demcratic legitimacy as opposed to a real nation state which does have a demos and thus has legitmacy when it creates legislation. That's why i'm also against supranational bodies like the European Union as they take decisions and the law away from the people.

My point is this - that I wouldn't accept asylum seekers anyway for a number of reasons even if international law didn't exist. As it does exist, my question is - why aren't we following it in regards to this issue?

That's why i've said time and time again that i'd be against the EU even if it made great and fantastic laws that I agreed with 100% - why? for the principle of sovereignty and national independence I talked about earlier.

Does that clear it up?

I suppose, just from my point of view it looks like:

You dislike international law, and wouldn't want any implemented.

An international law saying AS must go to the nearest safest country, you like this law and wonder why it's not being implemented.

You say if there was an international law saying AS could go anywhere (i.e: the UK), you would dislike this law and try to get it abolished :P

It's the fact you're happy to say 'Why isn't it being followed?' whereas you wouldn't say that if the law was that AS are free to enter the UK :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

I suppose, just from my point of view it looks like:

You dislike international law, and wouldn't want any implemented.

An international law saying AS must go to the nearest safest country, you like this law and wonder why it's not being implemented.

You say if there was an international law saying AS could go anywhere (i.e: the UK), you would dislike this law and try to get it abolished :P

It's the fact you're happy to say 'Why isn't it being followed?' whereas you wouldn't say that if the law was that AS are free to enter the UK :P

Well indeed, as I don't like international law - my question is rhetorical in that if the United Kingdom is a follower of international law and seemingly implements international, EU and ECHR law all the time - then why isn't international law being followed in this instance?

That's a question for the politicians to answer as usually the UK has a habit of gold plating law from bodies such as the EU (it's a feature of anglo-saxon statehood) but strangely not with this.

If the EU tommorow wanted to bring back the death penalty, corporal punishment in schools among other things - I wouldn't accept it as it's ruling is illegitimate in my eyes even if I agree with those pieces of legislation. The same for international law which i'm not arguing for - but rather i'm pointing out the inconsistentcy/hypocrisy of HM Government.

[Daltron]

Doing better than our government who send them here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2013/dec/06/nauru-gallery#/?picture=424290798&index=0). I can't wait for a switch in parties and new government in a few years so they can clean up our mess of policies surrounding asylum seekers. They are humans, not aliens and I think people often forget that.

But that does seem a little expensive on your end though putting them in a place like that.

I am very interested though in what International convention is there an article stating that an AS must seek asylum in the first country in which it is safe to do so? Here in Australia we (used to) grant asylum to people from all over the place even after travelling right through the Asia-Pacific so I am not sure if this is something that the UK is signed up to and not Australia.

Looking forward to your thoughts :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Doing better than our government who send them here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2013/dec/06/nauru-gallery#/?picture=424290798&index=0). I can't wait for a switch in parties and new government in a few years so they can clean up our mess of policies surrounding asylum seekers. They are humans, not aliens and I think people often forget that.

That's because you are young, idealistic and have a utopian view of the world and forget basic facts such as the crime they bring, the diseases they bring in, the burden they bring upon a country's welfare state, the social tension they cause and the simple fact that the more you allow in - the more it will encourage to come over.

The Labor Party, as dreadful as it is, won't dare overturn the asylum rules that Abbott has brought in for the simple reason that the Australian people overwhelmingly back not letting anymre of them in - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/online-poll-shows-australians-oppose-asylum-seekers-despite-christmas-island-tragedy/story-fn3dxity-1225972196894


More than 10,000 people responded to a nationwide poll asking “Should Australia open the door to asylum seekers to prevent further tragedies?”

More than 85 per cent said they should not.

The fact is that you say they are humans yet it's policies like letting them and in and granting them asylum that is causing them to come over to Australia which is resulting in many of them dying in overturned boats. The fault is with the people wanting to let them in, not with those wanting to stop them entering.


I am very interested though in what International convention is there an article stating that an AS must seek asylum in the first country in which it is safe to do so? Here in Australia we (used to) grant asylum to people from all over the place even after travelling right through the Asia-Pacific so I am not sure if this is something that the UK is signed up to and not Australia.

Looking forward to your thoughts :)

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=xxxLUumlFITVtAaj1YDQBA#q=international+asylum+f irst+country+of+safety&spell=1

[Daltron]

That's because you are young, idealistic and have a utopian view of the world and forget basic facts such as the crime they bring, the diseases they bring in, the burden they bring upon a country's welfare state, the social tension they cause and the simple fact that the more you allow in - the more it will encourage to come over.

The Labor Party, as dreadful as it is, won't dare overturn the asylum rules that Abbott has brought in for the simple reason that the Australian people overwhelmingly back not letting anymre of them in - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/online-poll-shows-australians-oppose-asylum-seekers-despite-christmas-island-tragedy/story-fn3dxity-1225972196894

A fan of Murdoch I see. Those newspapers will blab anything to get readers. Nielsen polling shows that a majority of Australians are happy to increase the amount of AS we allow in. Can view the polling details (http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/au/en/press/2012/Nielsen%20Poll%20Asylum%20Seekers%2023-25%20Aug%202012.pdf) there.

What does Murdoch and his friends use over at The Australian for accurate polling? Internet polls which anyone can access and manipulate given the right technology. I think your view of how Australians perceive AS is a little off.


https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=xxxLUumlFITVtAaj1YDQBA#q=international+asylum+f irst+country+of+safety&spell=1

Thanks


edit: not a majority, but extremely close to 50%; I would say that is not an overwhelming push to not let them in or indicative of a view that Australians do not want AS granted asylum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A fan of Murdoch I see.

Partly, he helped keep this country out of the disasterous Euro at a time when only a minority in the Conservative Party along with Ukip were opposed to joining it. For that, at least, i'm grateful.


Those newspapers will blab anything to get readers. Nielsen polling shows that a majority of Australians are happy to increase the amount of AS we allow in. Can view the polling details (http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/au/en/press/2012/Nielsen%20Poll%20Asylum%20Seekers%2023-25%20Aug%202012.pdf) there.

Er what? That poll shows an overwhelming majority - even among Labor voters - in favour of overseas processing and a slim majority of 1% against allowing more in than you already do.


What does Murdoch and his friends use over at The Australian for accurate polling? Internet polls which anyone can access and manipulate given the right technology. I think your view of how Australians perceive AS is a little off.

If allowing asylum seekers into Australia is so popular then why did the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tighten asylum laws just prior to the federal elections?

[Daltron]

Partly, he helped keep this country out of the disasterous Euro at a time when only a minority in the Conservative Party along with Ukip were opposed to joining it. For that, at least, i'm grateful.

Fair enough. You would do well as a journalist for Murdoch or Fairfax / UK counterparts.



If allowing asylum seekers into Australia is so popular then why did the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tighten asylum laws just prior to the federal elections?

I don't have any source I am just going off what I remember (so you can choose to accept or deny this) and that was that Labor was in for a record breaking loss in the last election and Abbot's single campaign policy for months was that he would stop the boats. When Rudd offered a solution to the issue which Murdoch and Fairfax had been slaughtering the papers with it forced Abbott and the coalition to change their publicity campaigns (and finally tell us what else they were going to do) because all of a sudden their slogan 'we will stop the boats' was no longer relevant as Rudd had done something to 'stop' the boats.

Polling for Labor increased slightly after this but no where near enough to what was needed. Rudd was looking for something, anything, to give him another few years.

--

It's an endless debate regardless as we are both obviously on different political spectrums and sides of the debate.

[ihatehash]

I've heard so much about asylum seekers in terms of Australia or the UK but I don't think we have ever had an issue with it in New Zealand.

However I think the treatment of Asylum seekers should not be compared between aus and UK. Australia is bigger, has a lot more space and also is very economically sound. The fact a McDonalds employee can earn up to $25 an hour in Australia is absurd.
So I personally think UK needs to be tight on their AS laws however a place like Australia could probably do with a little bit more of multiculturalism maybe it would decrease the amount of racists there.

As you said above this **** has been debated for years on end and people will constantly disagree.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So I personally think UK needs to be tight on their AS laws however a place like Australia could probably do with a little bit more of multiculturalism maybe it would decrease the amount of racists there.

Let the most racist nations on earth take in asylum seekers then - so that'd be China, Japan, most of south-east Asia and virtually all of Africa then. Why should the most tolerant and welcoming of nations on this planet (the Anglo-sphere nations) continue to shoulder the burden? And why is it that only generally white nations are labelled as being racist when they are the most tolerant of all? Isn't it time we started calling out the rest of the world on their racism?

Besides, i've had enough of multiculturalism (which isn't multiracialism) myself: I think generally as a country we've had our fair share of third world and backwards cultures being allowed into this country.

I'll enjoy my own culture thank you very much.


The fact a McDonalds employee can earn up to $25 an hour in Australia is absurd.

See this always frustrates me - not with you but as a general point. :P I always argue with the same group of people against the minimum wage, yet they reply to me that it helps the poor. Then when it comes to mass immigration they support opening the borders to drive the wages of the poor down.

I've never understood it and don't think they do either.

[Kardan]

Partly, he helped keep this country out of the disasterous Euro at a time when only a minority in the Conservative Party along with Ukip were opposed to joining it. For that, at least, i'm grateful.



Er what? That poll shows an overwhelming majority - even among Labor voters - in favour of overseas processing and a slim majority of 1% against allowing more in than you already do.



If allowing asylum seekers into Australia is so popular then why did the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tighten asylum laws just prior to the federal elections?

Maybe that's one of the reasons he got voted out? :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Maybe that's one of the reasons he got voted out? :P

Well one of the reasons was that he wasn't doing anything about it and that Tony Abbott was driving the agenda with a pledged popular clampdwn on asylum seekers - Rudd thought if he matched that policy then he'd outclass Abbott but it failed and he was thankfully voted out.

I know some of you don't like to hear it, but across the western world immigration/asylum is a huge issue. In some polls in Great Britain it's nearing/has overtaken the economy as the number one voter concern. The issue isn't going to disappear anymore just because a few out of touch politicians shout anyone down who wants control over our borders as a 'bigot' or a wayyycist.

[Chippiewill]

Lots of spin going on here. This article has assumed that the government booked the most expensive room for all of those asylum seekers for the entire duration and paid the weekend price for all of those days which is lets be honest false since the hotel does not have 50 of their most expensive room.

It's also assumed that the government paid the full price for the rooms, which if we examine the facts is unlikely, if you book 50 rooms for 9 weeks you're going to get a good deal even if you weren't looking for one.

I'd be surprised if the government paid any more than £100,000 and I'd estimate somewhere around £50,000

[karter]

I think generally as a country we've had our fair share of third world and backwards cultures being allowed into this country



Well uh this is fab. Colonize and invade these countries, destroy cultures and traditions, destroy everything so that people would want to migrate where there are opportunities. Call them backward when they do so.

I love how you referred most of Asia and Africa as racist but you are putting a rigid identity on people you don't even know. So tell me nothing more about your heritage and culture when it literally survived on violence and oppression. Your people relied on destroying their cultures for their own good but you still can't see that colonization shaped these countries for worse from which they NEVER recovered. Your opinions on these countries were never desired from the very beginning so shut up

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lots of spin going on here. This article has assumed that the government booked the most expensive room for all of those asylum seekers for the entire duration and paid the weekend price for all of those days which is lets be honest false since the hotel does not have 50 of their most expensive room.

It's also assumed that the government paid the full price for the rooms, which if we examine the facts is unlikely, if you book 50 rooms for 9 weeks you're going to get a good deal even if you weren't looking for one.

I'd be surprised if the government paid any more than £100,000 and I'd estimate somewhere around £50,000

Nice try at speculation, but even the councillors are complaining about this decision - therefore that makes the Daily Telegraph + the councillors right and you wrong.

But even if you were right - it's still £50k too much.


Well uh this is fab. Colonize and invade these countries, destroy cultures and traditions..

I love how you referred most of Asia and Africa as racist but you are putting a rigid identity on people you don't even know. So tell me nothing more about your heritage and culture when it literally survived on violence and oppression. Your people relied on destroying their cultures for their own good but you still can't see that colonization shaped these countries for worse from which they NEVER recovered. Your opinions on these countries were never desired from the very beginning so shut up

Ah get of your high horse, i'm so sick of this garbage being repeated on the reputation Britain. You in India are the last people who can complain about colonisation - what country was it, in the post-colonial age, that invaded the independent state of Hydrabad and annexed it via military means? India. Which country was it that invaded Goa and Daman and annexed them in the 1960's? India. Which country is a country steeped in racism and still is with the caste system? India. Which country is it that treated the Sikh's like total dirt - denies them self-determination - and flirted with the Soviet Union? India.

I will take NO lectures from India on any of it, so shove it.


destroy everything so that people would want to migrate where there are opportunities. Call them backward when they do so.

AHAHAHA WHAT!? Most former British colonies are a thousand times worse off than they were under British rule, included India which until the 1990s was poorer than it was under British rule.

All of these countries have been independent since 1940 to 1960s and yet still feel the need to blame British along with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. If you want to blame somebody for the mess in the Third World then maybe it's time to start looking closer to home instead of engaging in the type of rhetoric that Mugabe does where he says EVERYTHING is the fault of Britain.

India and the other countries are poor because they followed the wrong economic model after decolonisation and couldn't grapple with home-grown corruption - that's why the post-imperial age has been a disaster for you rather than blaming the people who built the world schools, hospitals, government buildings, roads, brought you electric, built ports, gave you common law, gave you liberty, gave you democracy.... the list is endless.

And even if everything you said was true (which being cheap rhetoric, it's not) why does that mean Britain today should be flooded with people from the Third World who we, the public, do not want? Answer that one for me.

[Kardan]

I will take NO lectures from India on any of it, so shove it.


Now who am I going to give these tickets for the 'History of India' lecture at Manchester University too :(

[Demi]

I only have this to say, nor will I reply to such actions from some regarding this.
I'm foreign, once was an asylum seeker because my family was being beaten, killed, in front of me. NOW, go through that and have someone tell you, that you cannot go seek refuge somewhere else.
As a human being, not a damn alien - you absolutely have no idea, self constrained and racist individual.

On par with the actual news:

He said: "I recognise that some asylum seekers are escaping from appalling situations and that may include the children arriving in Trafford. However with schools and GP surgeries full in the Sale area I question the logic of choosing this location."

I agree it is very expensive and also that location isn't perfect.
However, they are humans. Get over it.

EDIT: It is also not permanent.

[karter]

I never said a word about India though but since you really wanted to discuss then sure

About Hyderabad : Nizam of Hyderabad desired to join with Pakistan but Hyderabad being in South India could not for strategic reasons. The Princely state of Hyderabad was actually a stolen land historically a part of Telangana. The Razakars of Hyderabad were torturing and killing thousands of Hindus of Hyderabad which in fact formed an overwhelming majority of Hyderabad and were not in support of an Islamic state. Hyderabad was a landlocked country right in centre of the Indian peninsula. It's existence as a seperate state made 0 sense.

About Goa and Daman : There was a reason India had fought for over 200 hundred years for independence. The fact that they even waited more than a decade to annexe Goa surprises me.


About Sikhs - Sikhs are not treated as 'trash'. If you're referring to the riots of 1984, that was a mob retaliation for the assassination of Indira Gandhi. That was the time where Sikhs were demanding more autonomy in Punjab later giving rise to Khalistan movement.
Sikhs are one of the most prosperous communities of India today. Khalistan movement is dead (for a reason?). Current prime minister of India is Sikh. Punjab is one of the most developed state of India. You could've picked a better example because this one isn't really working and I bet men from Sikh regiments in World War I and a thousand Sikhs killed in the Amritsar massacre beg to differ. Don't force your sympathy on people who are a million times better off without your presence.


blaming the people who built the world schools, hospitals, government buildings, roads, brought you electric, built ports

Laughable. That was done for themselves

Literacy rate in India at the time of Independence was around 10%. Now it is around 75%. The disastrous and corrupt education system of India still managed to educated a billion people in India after the independence.
Healthcare in British India was a joke with millions dying in famines and diseases in Bengal, the very region where East India Company set its foot. The same region where Britishers enforced Indigo farming and the cruel Zamindari system costing the lives of millions of people.

Now of course that's not the only example

1. Bihar Famine of 1873-4
2. Bengal Famine of 1770
3. Madras Famine of 1876

Millions killed in all of them and yet no major famines after 1947. :rolleyes:

In regards to economy

1. Zamindari system and other oppressive revenue laws which resulted in starvation, malnutrition and millions of deaths across various regions of India.

2. Collapse of the Indian handicraft industry

3. Forced indigo, tobacco and opium farming

4. Free trade system

5. Prevention of industrialization to prevent competition

6. Forced Slavery


All this and not to forget the massacres in the name of expanding the kingdom and oppressive laws where Indians had no say in (where's your democracy here?) And just so you know, Indian constitution was modelled from USA, Canada, and Germany so give it a rest and don't give yourself too much credit. So thank you for like 5 schools you created and the 10 kilometres of road you built and oh how could anyone forget the railway system you built.......for yourself.

Don't fool yourself. India is not standing on what Britishers did and is a trillion times better than what it was before. British Raj was not a golden period for India, probably the images of Delhi Darbar and lovely colonial buildings of Simla please you but that's not the reality of the Raj, wake up.

India is a diverse multiethnic and multilingual state, so conflicts are naturally bound to happen. Yet it is better off and much tolerant than most of Asian countries. Most of the 'third world' citizens coming to your country are coming in hope of better economic opportunities and are mostly doctors and engineers, not those thieves and scoundrels which came to India in the 15th century

[Daltron]

I think generally as a country we've had our fair share of third world and backwards cultures being allowed into this country.

I'll enjoy my own culture thank you very much.

I think that is just plain disrespectful. I tried seeing it from your view but I would say that is borderline offensive and definitely racist. Lost respect dude.

[Kardan]

I think that is just plain disrespectful. I tried seeing it from your view but I would say that is borderline offensive and definitely racist. Lost respect dude.

I bet you a +rep Undertaker's response contains:

'Multiculturism isn't multiracism'

[karter]

and flirted with the Soviet Union?

Oh I don't know. Ever heard of Non Aligned Movement? India founded it even when it was at war with Pakistan who was sitting in America's lap begging for arms to attack India

[-:Undertaker:-]

I only have this to say, nor will I reply to such actions from some regarding this.
I'm foreign, once was an asylum seeker because my family was being beaten, killed, in front of me. NOW, go through that and have someone tell you, that you cannot go seek refuge somewhere else.
As a human being, not a damn alien - you absolutely have no idea, self constrained and racist individual.

On par with the actual news:

He said: "I recognise that some asylum seekers are escaping from appalling situations and that may include the children arriving in Trafford. However with schools and GP surgeries full in the Sale area I question the logic of choosing this location."

I agree it is very expensive and also that location isn't perfect.
However, they are humans. Get over it.

EDIT: It is also not permanent.

That's the argument of a child, to respond to genuine concerns over asylum seekers with 'every1 is a human get over it' - that's maybe something that would wash with a primary school class, but the world doesn't work like that.

I could make an argument for increasing foreign aid to 50% of our entire budget and people would surely reply with 'but what about our hospitals, this, that, x and y' and to that I could simply say 'well ur rich and every1 is a human xx get over it'.

Would that stand up in a rational debate? No, so get over it.


I never said a word about India though but since you really wanted to discuss then sure

About Hyderabad : Nizam of Hyderabad desired to join with Pakistan but Hyderabad being in South India could not for strategic reasons. The Princely state of Hyderabad was actually a stolen land historically a part of Telangana. The Razakars of Hyderabad were torturing and killing thousands of Hindus of Hyderabad which in fact formed an overwhelming majority of Hyderabad and were not in support of an Islamic state. Hyderabad was a landlocked country right in centre of the Indian peninsula. It's existence as a seperate state made 0 sense.

It is not upto you in the post-colonial world to decide who should and who shouldn't be independent. Hydrabad was an entirely legitimate state that India invaded and annexed in an act of colonialism. As for being land locked, er hello? Does that mean India should now go marching into Nepal and Bhutan and annex them both? Should Germany annex Switzerland?

How ironic that the one shooting his mouth off about imperialism is the one now making arguments for it. I've always found it funny the way that China (less so) and India can't stop whinging about colonialism yet they are some of the worst culprits in modern history for it - China with Tibet and other regions, India with Goa, Hydrabad and the dispute over Kashmir.


About Goa and Daman : There was a reason India had fought for over 200 hundred years for independence. The fact that they even waited more than a decade to annexe Goa surprises me.

Those were legitimate Portugese holdings, India had no right to take them by force anymore than Britain has the right to take Brittany (off the coast of France) on the basis that it held them several hundred years ago.

That's how international law and treaties work, see?


About Sikhs - Sikhs are not treated as 'trash'. If you're referring to the riots of 1984, that was a mob retaliation for the assassination of Indira Gandhi. That was the time where Sikhs were demanding more autonomy in Punjab later giving rise to Khalistan movement.
Sikhs are one of the most prosperous communities of India today. Khalistan movement is dead (for a reason?). Current prime minister of India is Sikh. Punjab is one of the most developed state of India. You could've picked a better example because this one isn't really working and I bet men from Sikh regiments in World War I and a thousand Sikhs killed in the Amritsar massacre beg to differ. Don't force your sympathy on people who are a million times better off without your presence.

My Sikh friend certainly thinks differently about the treatment of Sikhs in India. But i'm puzzled by the last part - you compare men who signed up to defend the Empire in WWI with those in a massacre? Have you completely lost it or what?


Laughable. That was done for themselves

Well we weren't over there for the good of our health, no. But anyone who studied colonialism knows that a big part in the imperialist movement was the concept of civilising other cultures (mostly Africa). So whilst it was done for Britain, it was also done for India.


Literacy rate in India at the time of Independence was around 10%. Now it is around 75%. The disastrous and corrupt education system of India still managed to educated a billion people in India after the independence.
Healthcare in British India was a joke with millions dying in famines and diseases in Bengal, the very region where East India Company set its foot. The same region where Britishers enforced Indigo farming and the cruel Zamindari system costing the lives of millions of people.

Hang on, since when were we arguing about education? In terms of economics, the people of India are much worse off - at least until the 1990s - than they were under British rule. Even today India still struggles to compete with China and other growing economies because of it's badly run government, corruption and the poor economic model it follows - that's not the fault of Britain, that's your own fault.


Now of course that's not the only example

1. Bihar Famine of 1873-4
2. Bengal Famine of 1770
3. Madras Famine of 1876

Millions killed in all of them and yet no major famines after 1947. :rolleyes:

In regards to economy

1. Zamindari system and other oppressive revenue laws which resulted in starvation, malnutrition and millions of deaths across various regions of India.

2. Collapse of the Indian handicraft industry

3. Forced indigo, tobacco and opium farming

Quote me where I said the Raj was infallible. I seem to have hit a nerve when all I said was that the people of India were better off per capita under the Raj than they were in the post-imperial era upto the 1990s.

I know that's hard to stomach, but just try drop the dogma and see through it.


4. Free trade system

Uh it's exactly because you haven't got a free trade system which is why you are in such a bad state today compared with regional competitors such as China. Below you complain about the block that that British put on you industrialising which is exactly the opposite of free trade.

One or the other.


5. Prevention of industrialization to prevent competition

Indeed, and that was wrong. I don't pretend the Raj was all honey and jam.


6. Forced Slavery

That's always been within India, see the Caste System.


All this and not to forget the massacres in the name of expanding the kingdom and oppressive laws where Indians had no say in (where's your democracy here?) And just so you know, Indian constitution was modelled from USA, Canada, and Germany so give it a rest and don't give yourself too much credit. So thank you for like 5 schools you created and the 10 kilometres of road you built and oh how could anyone forget the railway system you built.......for yourself.

The miracle of the British Empire was that it brought liberty and (upon leaving) democracy to all the colonies. Nobody pretends it was all fair. Nobody pretends it was all perfect. But in comparison with other Empires, it did a hell of a lot so that many places around the world now have the gift of common law, the concept of liberty, the concept of a parliamentary system, the rule of law, innocence until proven guilty and so on.

But as for the infrastructure we left behind - hey, no problem. It was bloody good infrastructure you have to admit considering that you are still using the same buildings, trains, railways, bridges, roads and tunnels today in 2013 that we left behind all those years ago. For a country so better off and advanced without the British, you sure do still rely very heavily on those creaking and old Victorian things we left you with over 70 years ago.

We've all seen the images of Indian trains - which, prior to the 1990s hadn't changed since they were first built back prior to the 1940s. So much for progress, eh?


Don't fool yourself. India is not standing on what Britishers did and is a trillion times better than what it was before. British Raj was not a golden period for India, probably the images of Delhi Darbar and lovely colonial buildings of Simla please you but that's not the reality of the Raj, wake up.

I don't fool myself, i've examined the economic data and come to a conclusion. Give it a go.


India is a diverse multiethnic and multilingual state, so conflicts are naturally bound to happen. Yet it is better off and much tolerant than most of Asian countries. Most of the 'third world' citizens coming to your country are coming in hope of better economic opportunities and are mostly doctors and engineers, not those thieves and scoundrels which came to India in the 15th century

In other words India is far more racist and backward when it comes to people's backgrounds than Britain. But you know, I asked a question towards the end and you HAVEN'T replied to it.

So let's try again and this time give me an answer - considering how the British people feel that immigration is out of control and want it limited, do they or do they not have the democratic right (like you Indians did) to limit the numbers coming here and protect their own culture?

It's a yes or no question. Look forward to a reply.


I think that is just plain disrespectful. I tried seeing it from your view but I would say that is borderline offensive and definitely racist. Lost respect dude.

What race was I offensive and racist to in what I said?

Name the racial group I slurred and i'll apologise endlessly.


I bet you a +rep Undertaker's response contains:

'Multiculturism isn't multiracism'

That's true, something Daltron needs to learn.


Oh I don't know. Ever heard of Non Aligned Movement? India founded it even when it was at war with Pakistan who was sitting in America's lap begging for arms to attack India

Well it's nice to know that India stood by the rest of the free world for the things it says it prizes so much - democracy, independence and liberty. Not.

[Daltron]

What race was I offensive and racist to in what I said?

Name the racial group I slurred and i'll apologise endlessly.


Every race which is not that of the one you identify with. You are essentially saying how dare I have to put up with people different to my race and beliefs trying to come into this country.

This will be my last post in this thread, lol. You're clearly delusional to your own BS.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Every race which is not that of the one you identify with. You are essentially saying how dare I have to put up with people different to my race and beliefs trying to come into this country.

This will be my last post in this thread, lol. You're clearly delusional to your own BS.

So I didn't mention any race.

Thought so, and yet you're the one to call me delusional. :rolleyes:

Yes, there's me the evil white racist - the one who for the past few months has been mainly warning of mass, uncontrolled immigration from white European nations and have barely touched on immigration from Africa, Arabia and Asia. You're off your rocker mate. Time to stop smoking that pot.

[ihatehash]

Regarding multiculturalism
I live in possibly one of the most multicultural cities in the world and personally I love the fact that I there are so many people from different walks of life in my society. Learning from the large number of fijian indians and pacific islanders I work with as well as people of asian descent who I go to uni with I think has personally made me better as a person. Economically I don't think my city would be better off without migrants, as there are probably more native Maori living off welfare than other cultures and also migrants come here with the desire to work.
I love multiculturalism, It's one of the greatest things about my city.

[karter]

Name the racial group I slurred and i'll apologise endlessly.


You're writing off millions of people who vary incredibly in appearance, origin and personalities by calling them 'backward' and the last time I remember, this was called being racist so start apologizing endlessly


why does that mean Britain today should be flooded with people from the Third World who we, the public, do not want?


All I read is "I'm a white supremacist and have no tolerance for any non white people who I collectively label as third world citizens and backward". You have no problem with Poles and Irish people in your country right? Why's that??




It is not upto you in the post-colonial world to decide who should and who shouldn't be independent. Hydrabad was an entirely legitimate state that India invaded and annexed in an act of colonialism. As for being land locked, er hello? Does that mean India should now go marching into Nepal and Bhutan and annex them both? Should Germany annex Switzerland?

How ironic that the one shooting his mouth off about imperialism is the one now making arguments for it. I've always found it funny the way that China (less so) and India can't stop whinging about colonialism yet they are some of the worst culprits in modern history for it - China with Tibet and other regions, India with Goa, Hydrabad and the dispute over Kashmir.

Gorkha and Bhutia people wanted independence so India never annexed Nepal and Bhutan. Same with Sikkim, until the 1960s when the monarch decided to join with India. Same with Kashmir, Tripura, Manipur. All these princely states had their distinct cultures but Hyderabad was ruled by Razakars and was in fact a land stolen from Telangana. The Razakars were not even Indians - they were of Arab and Afghani Pashtun origin so why should India treat them any different than the British?

I'm of Kashmiri origin and I believe Kashmir is an integral part of India and has been for centuries and I could really go on about Kashmir. However almost all countries either support India on the Kashmir issue or refuse to take a stand even when Pakistan begs for support. Indian Kashmir is a developed and progressing state while Pakistani side of Kashmir is a playground of Al-Qaeda


Those were legitimate Portugese holdings, India had no right to take them by force anymore than Britain has the right to take Brittany (off the coast of France) on the basis that it held them several hundred years ago.

No. Goa traditionally represents Konkan culture, not Portugese culture. I believe Portugal complained about the annexations at The Hague but the final judgement said that India had a right to deny Portugal the access to the enclaves. Not only that, Goan people voted for Goa to be a part of India.


But as for the infrastructure we left behind - hey, no problem. It was bloody good infrastructure you have to admit considering that you are still using the same buildings, trains, railways, bridges, roads and tunnels today in 2013 that we left behind all those years ago. For a country so better off and advanced without the British, you sure do still rely very heavily on those creaking and old Victorian things we left you with over 70 years ago.

We've all seen the images of Indian trains - which, prior to the 1990s hadn't changed since they were first built back prior to the 1940s. So much for progress, eh?

About half of the network of railways in India was in Pakistan, you know that right? The zoning, expansion and integration was only done in the 1950s. Colonial railways were only used to connect a few cities with ports- Bombay, Delhi, Karachi, Calcutta. Almost all units were built indigenously.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Send-off-delhi1947.jpg
This is a train from Colonial times

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/India_Train.jpg

http://im.rediff.com/getahead/2012/jul/03stations2.jpg

This is what the passenger trains look like now.

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00017/DELHI_METRO_LAKSHMI__17310f.jpg

http://www.railnews.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/chennai-metro-rail1.gif

This is what metro rail system looks like


So....if you're talking about the Victoria Terminus or the few stretches of Mountain Railways of India (the entire tracks for which have been changed) then the whole nation thanks you for it, really.


That's always been within India, see the Caste System.


And it has been nearly eliminated but of course in a poor country, people will rely on bonded labour and domestic servitude. But hey, let's ignore stuffing people up and then sending them to Pacific and Carribean colonies and using a system of hierarchy a country's fighting so hard to eliminate as an excuse for the horrible deeds that were done to the people in the past. :)


I don't fool myself, i've examined the economic data and come to a conclusion. Give it a go.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/India_GDP_without_labels.PNG/800px-India_GDP_without_labels.PNG



Hang on, since when were we arguing about education?


Oh yes because that's the least important thing right? You mentioned great schools the britishers built but didn't even look at the massive illiteracy figure of pre independence India


My Sikh friend certainly thinks differently about the treatment of Sikhs in India.

If your friend gives me one more example except that of 1984 then I'll happily agree

[-:Undertaker:-]

Regarding multiculturalism
I live in possibly one of the most multicultural cities in the world and personally I love the fact that I there are so many people from different walks of life in my society. Learning from the large number of fijian indians and pacific islanders I work with as well as people of asian descent who I go to uni with I think has personally made me better as a person. Economically I don't think my city would be better off without migrants, as there are probably more native Maori living off welfare than other cultures and also migrants come here with the desire to work.
I love multiculturalism, It's one of the greatest things about my city.

Are you aware of what multiculturalism actually is?


You're writing off millions of people who vary incredibly in appearance, origin and personalities by calling them 'backward' and the last time I remember, this was called being racist so start apologizing endlessly

So what race have I singled out or said is backward? The cultures are what are backwards darling, not the skin colour of the people - try letting that sink into your head for a while.

It makes me laugh because one of the issues I have been posting about constantly for the past few months has been WHITE European immigration - Romania and Bulgaria - indeed i've hardly talked about Arabian/African or Asian immigration.

So being white myself and complaining about uncontrolled white immigration, am I still a racist or what? Or are you now so confused by these facts that you'll ignore this part?


All I read is "I'm a white supremacist and have no tolerance for any non white people who I collectively label as third world citizens and backward". You have no problem with Poles and Irish people in your country right? Why's that??

Actually I do have a problem with hundreds of thousands of Poles in this country yes, that's why - if you paid attention - you'd notice that over the past few months i've been posting almost exclusively about EU immigration which is mainly white and have barely touched on non-EU immigration.

Indeed i've said in the past that one of my annoyances with the immigration system in the UK at the moment is that any uneducated European migrant is allowed into this country instantly whereas an educated Asian or African is not - if anything it should be the other way around. But you wouldn't know that because again, you don't pay attention and instead think you can slur me by shouting waycist.


http://treatygate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/racist-if-youre-losing-the-argument-shout.jpg


Gorkha and Bhutia people wanted independence so India never annexed Nepal and Bhutan. Same with Sikkim, until the 1960s when the monarch decided to join with India. Same with Kashmir, Tripura, Manipur. All these princely states had their distinct cultures but Hyderabad was ruled by Razakars and was in fact a land stolen from Telangana. The Razakars were not even Indians - they were of Arab and Afghani Pashtun origin so why should India treat them any different than the British?

Because they have the right of self-determination dear. And isn't that a bit of a racist statement by yourself? You're essentially saying here that because a group of people in an independent state aren't Indian ethnically, therefore they do not deserve statehood on the Indian subcontinent.

India is sickening in it's hypocrisy and you demonstrate it perfectly. Yet you have the nerve to call me a racist. Ha ha.


I'm of Kashmiri origin and I believe Kashmir is an integral part of India and has been for centuries and I could really go on about Kashmir. However almost all countries either support India on the Kashmir issue or refuse to take a stand even when Pakistan begs for support. Indian Kashmir is a developed and progressing state while Pakistani side of Kashmir is a playground of Al-Qaeda

Just because a patch of land has been an integral part of 'India' (a British concept after all) does not mean it should be today. By that extent, Brittany in northern France should be a part of the United Kingdom as should southern Ireland. Or if you want to go back even more, Britain should belong to Italy as should most of Europe.

Kashmir should be decided on the basis of self-determination: something you clearly reject as above you strongly support the annexation of different states in the Indian subcontinent into India itself. Hypocrite.


No. Goa traditionally represents Konkan culture, not Portugese culture. I believe Portugal complained about the annexations at The Hague but the final judgement said that India had a right to deny Portugal the access to the enclaves. Not only that, Goan people voted for Goa to be a part of India.

Then they should have had a vote rather than India forcibly going in and seizing what were genuine and rightful Portugese possessions. India acted like the colonial power - which is what makes me glad it is getting a taste of it's own medicine over Kashmir.

If India refuses to respect international law when it comes to borders and sovereignty, then why should Pakistan or even China be expected to when it comes to Indian territory?

I have little sympathy for a country that whinges about colonalism but acts, as soon as it gets the chance, as a colonial bully against smaller states on the continent it shares with them.


About half of the network of railways in India was in Pakistan, you know that right? The zoning, expansion and integration was only done in the 1950s. Colonial railways were only used to connect a few cities with ports- Bombay, Delhi, Karachi, Calcutta. Almost all units were built indigenously.

Still using the same infrastructure as you were when we British left, progress in India (apart from the past 20 years) was incredibly slow thanks to your poor economic model. Thankfully things are changing now, but don't pretend to me that it was all wine and bread when the British left.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Send-off-delhi1947.jpg
This is a train from Colonial times

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/India_Train.jpg

http://im.rediff.com/getahead/2012/jul/03stations2.jpg

This is what the passenger trains look like now.

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00017/DELHI_METRO_LAKSHMI__17310f.jpg

http://www.railnews.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/chennai-metro-rail1.gif

This is what metro rail system looks like


So....if you're talking about the Victoria Terminus or the few stretches of Mountain Railways of India (the entire tracks for which have been changed) then the whole nation thanks you for it, really.

I'm not arguing about India concerning the past 20 years, it's made great - but comparatively to China slow - progress. And that's good. I am saying that in the post-colonial period, India was a mess and was in many ways much worse off than it was under British rule.


And it has been nearly eliminated but of course in a poor country, people will rely on bonded labour and domestic servitude. But hey, let's ignore stuffing people up and then sending them to Pacific and Carribean colonies and using a system of hierarchy a country's fighting so hard to eliminate as an excuse for the horrible deeds that were done to the people in the past. :)

We abolished slavery hundreds of years ago, you are still practicing informal slavery.


GDP image

GDP is often the wrong figure to work with, GDP after all rises with population growth making the country 'richer' but not really in terms of per capita. After independence, the Indian economy per capita has become poorer than it was under British rule meaning Indians have been less well off than prior to 1947. That's an economic reality and an uncomfortable one for you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Per_capita_GDP_of_South_Asian_economies_%26_SKorea _%281950-1995%29.png

Even economist Milton Friedman refers in his work to the disaster India has been economically since independence - and he's not even a supporter of the imperial age.


Oh yes because that's the least important thing right? You mentioned great schools the britishers built but didn't even look at the massive illiteracy figure of pre independence India

The same can be said for Britain itself, literacy levels across all countries have risen massively over the past 50 or so years. That doesn't mean the country as a whole is doing well - ie, look at the Soviet Union. Or Cuba. Or North Korea.


If your friend gives me one more example except that of 1984 then I'll happily agree

He tells me that many Sihks want independence yet India will not grant it to them. Whereas today in 2013 we are allowing Scotland a referendum on independence. Maybe India should move out of the colonial era and join Great Britain in allowing self-determination, don't you agree?

[karter]

You DO NOT need to single out ONE race in order to be racist. You are implying that whitness = superior itself says that you are racist, LIKE I said earlier, you put a rigid identity of backwardness on Asians and Africans regardless of their appearance, culture and personalities. You said that Anglo-sphere nations are the most tolerant. You do all the social stratification keeping the whites at the top and the third world "backward people" below. So screw your 'whiteness is superior and y'all Asians and Africans have nothing me on us, the enlightened ones but hey I'm not racist' attitude. Just open the dictionary and look at the meaning of racism and you'll know. You think you are superior just for being BORN in a country, a country which prospered by genocides and violence AROUND THE WORLD. Tell me more about your legal system and your superficial democracy you introduced around the world, no really...tell me how you destroyed cultures in the name of civilizing people and reducing barbarism and how you continue to criticize and call people backward just because they don't match with your standards. I found the photo you used really cute by the way.

http://oi41.tinypic.com/207pydt.jpg



He tells me that many Sihks want independence yet India will not grant it to them. Whereas today in 2013 we are allowing Scotland a referendum on independence. Maybe India should move out of the colonial era and join Great Britain in allowing self-determination, don't you agree?

Khalistan movement is DEAD with the last activity in the early 90s, it's been long forgotten and the last time some men carried out terror activities in support of Khalistan were rejected by the community and they fled to Pakistan. That literally sums up everything. Now if your friend and like 5 other people want the government of India to consider then I don't know really because if India starts doing that then it'll seperate into 100 countries, literally. The last time I remember there WERE polls in Sikkim and Kashmir for opting independence or union with India and they did choose India so .. Don't compare the situation of Britain and Scotland with India because it's absurd



but comparatively to China slow

Was China colonized? No. Did China need to start over? No. Is China a whole different country with different economic system and different type of government? Yes.


After independence, the Indian economy per capita has become poorer than it was under British rule meaning Indians have been less well off than prior to 1947.

I couldn't find the source. Care to provide?


Because they have the right of self-determination dear. And isn't that a bit of a racist statement by yourself? You're essentially saying here that because a group of people in an independent state aren't Indian ethnically, therefore they do not deserve statehood on the Indian subcontinent.

Aah Yes. Self determination to Pakistan's arm supply which was at war with India at that time. Yet when Hyderabad was occupied, Razakars were allowed to return to Yemen, Pakistan, Arabia whatever they chose. However most chose to stay and Hyderabad still has a distinct Muslim culture with 40%+ population (15% at the time of occupation). And no demands of seperating from India.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You DO NOT need to single out ONE race in order to be racist. You are implying that whitness = superior itself says that you are racist, LIKE I said earlier, you put a rigid identity of backwardness on Asians and Africans regardless of their appearance, culture and personalities. You said that Anglo-sphere nations are the most tolerant. You do all the social stratification keeping the whites at the top and the third world "backward people" below. So screw your 'whiteness is superior and y'all Asians and Africans have nothing me on us, the enlightened ones but hey I'm not racist' attitude. Just open the dictionary and look at the meaning of racism and you'll know. You think you are superior just for being BORN in a country, a country which prospered by genocides and violence AROUND THE WORLD. Tell me more about your legal system and your superficial democracy you introduced around the world, no really...tell me how you destroyed cultures in the name of civilizing people and reducing barbarism and how you continue to criticize and call people backward just because they don't match with your standards. I found the photo you used really cute by the way.

It's clear that YOU are the racist because you can't seem to seperate culture (anglo-saxon culture that was spread by the British Empire of liberty, sovereignty, democracy, common law, the seperation of powers, the Westminster system of parliament, the modern-day education system and so on...) from race. I didn't say race, only YOU have said or mentioned race.

When I say the anglo-saxon culture of common law, liberty, democracy, trial by jury, family model, Westminster style of government and sovereignty is better than the likes of modern-day Zimbabwe, France, Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil and Vietnam - i'm saying the CULTURE is superior. Just because the people who spread these ideals happen to be white hasn't a jot to do with it - unless you are claiming so.

So yeah, i'm absolutely sure and correct when I say that i'm proud of the things Britain spread around the world and I think those ideals - when put in place properly - produce the most civilised societies in world history; Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America. Would I rather live in one of those nasty white countries or an economic backwater like Zimbabwe? Would I rather live in a country that still practices racism like India in 2013? No and no.

Britain has it's fair share of terrible crimes, thats true. But so do you in India.


Khalistan movement is DEAD with the last activity in the early 90s, it's been long forgotten and the last time some men carried out terror activities in support of Khalistan were rejected by the community and they fled to Pakistan. That literally sums up everything. Now if your friend and like 5 other people want the government of India to consider then I don't know really because if India starts doing that then it'll seperate into 100 countries, literally. The last time I remember there WERE polls in Sikkim and Kashmir for opting independence or union with India and they did choose India so .. Don't compare the situation of Britain and Scotland with India because it's absurd

None of this tackles the fact that India is very intolerant of the notion that seperate parts of the country and seperate cultures may want to be independent - rather, India has the nerve in the post-colonial era to send tanks in to put down any unrest that may threaten the territory Indian state.

The annexation of Hydrabad and other independent territories is a modern-day disgrace and you can't escape it. In simple terms (as we'll discuss below) - Britain colonised the likes of India and on the whole made them more prosperous whereas India has colonised parts of the subcontinent and has made them economically worse off than they were before .... including India herself.

If anything, I should be demanding India apologise for it's piss-poor economic management of millions of people.


Was China colonized? No. Did China need to start over? No. Is China a whole different country with different economic system and different type of government? Yes.

Wow you really don't know your history. China wasn't colonised officially, but unoffically was. Indeed, China is one of the few examples I can think of where the imperial era probably did more damage than good to the colonised country. The Qing dynasty fell and China faced years of the warlord era before the Communists reunified the country in the 1950s.

India had the infrastructure and made a mess of it (until the 1990s) whereas China had virtually nothing and made a mess of it (until the 1980s). Today, India is still making a mess of it (due to it's state socialist model) whereas China is making amazing headway.

That's the economic reality. The failure of India since independence has nothing to do with Britain. If you really think it does, then you're your on the same wavelength as Robert Mugabe.


I couldn't find the source. Care to provide?

It's on Wikipedia, bring up the url and click on the go to page. Or alternatively watch this educated response to the kind of rubbish you are putting forth concerning the concept that all the Third World are poor because of colonialism - it's completely wrong.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY


From 5:00 onwards for the part on the colonies (and he mentions India too).

"...the people of India have been worse off under non-colonial rule than they had been before."


Aah Yes. Self determination to Pakistan's arm supply which was at war with India at that time. Yet when Hyderabad was occupied, Razakars were allowed to return to Yemen, Pakistan, Arabia whatever they chose. However most chose to stay and Hyderabad still has a distinct Muslim culture with 40%+ population (15% at the time of occupation). And no demands of seperating from India.

So what? Why should they have had to return home just because India wasn't happy with an independent state in the middle of the subcontinent. The subcontinent does not belong exclusively to India and if India wishes to be taken like a progressive state in the modern world, it should cease acting like a third-rate colonial power.