Varnam posted this great entry on “The Benevolent Empire“ earlier this week which mentions how British rule ended up with an impoverished India (emphasis mine):
When Clive of India came to Bengal, he described it — in a way all visitors of the time did — as “extensive, populous and as rich as the city of London.” It was a place of such “richness and abundance” that “neither war, pestilence nor oppression could destroy” it.
But within a century of British occupation, the population of its largest city, Calcutta, fell from 150,000 to 30,000 as its industries were wrecked in the interests of the mother country. By the time the British left, Calcutta was one of the poorest places in the world.
Reminded me of Loot and another post I had written many months ago on Economic Exploitation and the Drain of Wealth during British “Raj”
Related Posts:
India in the 1820s…
Loot - in search of East India Co. (excerpts)
November 24th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
British Rule in India, Indian Economy, Modern Indian History |
9 comments
Reacting to the serial blasts in UP today, Comrades A B Bardhan and Shamim Faizi said:
“it was obviously the handiwork of the forces who were hell bent upon creating communal tension in the country”
…but then go on to say that
“the investigation in all these three incidents should not be ”one-track”.
This is not all.
While the Home Minister believes “…these blasts are a result of a deep conspiracy” and “…the motive could be to disturb communal harmony”…”According to the police, the blasts may be in retaliation to the arrested terrorists being beaten up by lawyers and not being assigned even a counsel to defend them in the court” (believe it or not, these two sentences are from the same report)
I am really confused.
If the attacks were so obviously the work of “forces hell bent upon creating communal tension”, working on a “deep conspiracy to disturb communal harmony”, why not keep the investigation focused on these “forces” and make it “one-track”?
Or might it be that the attacks were actually not by any “forces hell bent upon creating communal tension” but by “forces that were angry about the refusal of UP’s lawyers to argue cases on their behalf“?
If so, this is strange way of making friends, I would think.
It also reminds me of “mafia-style” politics (Do read the box item “The judge and the mafioso at the end of this report).
If you or any of your friends and/or acquaintances know any UP lawyers, do ask them to read this news-story - it is particularly relevant.
On a more serious note, read:
Blasts? What Blasts?…Yeh to hota hi rahta hai…
Another day, another blast - “Kuch nayee baat batao yaar”
Anger, tears and despair… and finally
Four Years, Two Attacks, One Story
.
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my feed (here or by Email)
November 24th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
LeT, SIMI etc., Politics and Governance in India, Terrorism in India |
4 comments
