1947 - independence movement

stpmds

Newbie
[OP]
Regulars
Jun 29, 2005
67
0
many times I used to wonder what would have happened if stepping down ofbritish and India becomeing a free country were postponed to 1977 instead of 1947. :unsure: at the time of independence lot of rioting was going on, thousands of people killed, one side efforts were made to consolidate all the independent kingdoms and other provinces into a single country, on the other side huge clamour were made for separate independent nations, like Kashmir, Pakistan, Khalistan etc.the country was facing sever problems in the areas of education, health care, communications, transport etc.,the british had tough time to make out suitable administrative machinery,capable of taking over the administration of such a huge cotinent.any thinkers pl. :rolleyes:
 

stpmds

Newbie
[OP]
Regulars
Jun 29, 2005
67
0
Originally posted by avinds@Nov 6 2005, 07:55 AM
we wud be having emergency by now... :p
[snapback]30807[/snapback]
[/quote]

i would appreciate help in thinking as follows:
1. what would have happended in the area of education.
2. what would have happended in the area of transportation, like more
road and rail links.
3. whether telecommunications network would have developed much
earlier or would have been the same level.
4. whether our educated youngsters would have migrated to
US and other countries like this or not.
5. whether our government offices would have developed more
corruption or lesser levels.
6. whether developments in our Banking, Exports, etc., would
have made still more progress or would have been worst
than the present level.

thanks for the participation in this thread
 


max

Regulars
Regulars
Oct 6, 2005
2,766
6
at times i think it would've been better. I mean the bristish should've stayed on not as rulers but as "guiders" to guide stupid indian politicians. Not saying that our politicians were stupid but yeah they made blunders - BIG ones ;)
 

boygr8

Regulars
Regulars
Apr 3, 2005
1,924
15
Yeah we would have been better......why?1)Under British We all would be same....Indians....not as Hindus,Muslims,Sikhs etc.......so no riot sponsering by the Govt against each other.....more brotherhood...2) as said above british would have bcom more like guides than rulers3) we could have been singapore like4) may be british were hard upon indians, but thier rules were strinctly enforced, no one was above the law.....and this thing would have got better with timeThere would be hundreds of points for and against.....this is a long topic
 

stpmds

Newbie
[OP]
Regulars
Jun 29, 2005
67
0
Originally posted by boygr8@Nov 6 2005, 12:05 PM
Yeah we would have been better......why?

1)Under British We all would be same....Indians....not as Hindus,Muslims,Sikhs etc.......so no riot sponsering by the Govt against each other.....more brotherhood...

2) as said above british would have bcom more like guides than rulers

3) we could have been singapore like

4) may be british were hard upon indians, but thier rules were strinctly enforced, no one was above the law.....and this thing would have got better with time

There would be hundreds of points for and against.....this is a long topic
[snapback]30832[/snapback]
[/quote]

dear thinkers,

I am happy about these responses.

I intend to write an essay on this topic and if I am successful I may make it as a book. here is my line of thinking. this will further be fine tuned based on the discussions generated in this forum.

1. they would have divided the country into 4 major zones established a solid civil administrative set up.

2. would have collected data on the existing level infrastructure regarding
road and rail net work.

3. would have collected data on the existing level of infrastructure regarding telephone, radio, electricity.

4. would have collected data on the existing level of literacy level, number of colleges, schools, etc.,

kindly participate and guide me.
 


max

Regulars
Regulars
Oct 6, 2005
2,766
6
haha. Suraj dont worry. BSNL broadband equates to BT in the UK ;)
 

yogi

no fate but what we make
Regulars
Aug 26, 2005
267
0
Maybe the sexual hypocrisy and fake morality would also go? leading to more respect for the fairer sex ? more maturity perhaps? The hypocrisy started with all the invasions (particularly muslim ones) in the centuries before the british arrived; this is how the prudery (for example ghunghat) started.I was told by someone who researches into all this, that because the invaders would committ mass rapes over and over, and this also instilled the sense of fear and lead to the above things to develop and stay for good.Look at the situation today, the segregation is everywhere. On the face of it, the next generation tries to ape the west in clothing, food, etc. But beneath it all, the segregation stays. No wonder, the papers are full of so many "dating" tips these days, and on the other hand arranged marriages are still the norm anyway. Makes me laugh when I see the so-called tips which cant be applied to such a society. Do we have an identity? we are neither here nor there or anywhere. Its a shame that ancient indian culture is just folklore nowadays. 3 cheers to india overtaking africa as the #1 country with AIDS! :p
 

blr_p

Regulars
Regulars
May 26, 2005
3,935
12
What's with the benevolent coloniser attitude ?

Don't forget this country as any other colony served as source for cheap raw materials, you may say plundered and as a market for finished goods. All the administration & railways were to get goods out of and into the country quicker. The Brits would not give 2 shits about whether this country advanced as a whole at all. Hey, if you were ruling another country why would you ? They got in by divide and rule and that's been the model to a certain extent to how the country is governed currently.

The brits left when they did cos they could not hold on to their colonies after WWII. They nearly lost to the Nazis, had Churchill not convinced the Amercans to join in. They were tired, finished, their own country was bombed to shit (London and the south east anyways). Lots of rebuilding to do.

Now if WWII did not happen, would the Brits still be here..hmm maybe. It's hard to say, since the world changed completely. The good & bad guys changed, the cold war began.

Look at China, if they want anything done they just tell whoever lives there to get out (sure the residents get compensated but for a pittance). Not so in a democracy. Say what you want about our leaders since then, but our leaders did not kill more ppl here than when the Brits were here. Unlike China, whose leaders have to constantly point the finger at Japan to manage ppl's anger.

Bottom line : if we were still under the British i doubt things would be better than they are now. Such things only happen when a country itself decides to improve. It has to come from its own ppl not from outside.

You can't draw comparisions between India and the tiny dot that is singapore or was hong kong. I doubt the way they are ruled would scale up to as large and heterogeneous a country as India.