Briefly, if we can get to Canada:US :: Pakistan:India in a variety of dimensions in the immediate future, much more is possible later. Not to leave out Bangladesh, an analogy to Mexico within North America automatically suggests itself.

the point about caste and subcaste is irrelevant if you actually took the time to understand the origins and purpose of the system.  There are many upwardly mobile brits today, but people retain consciousness of their “origins” too. Moreover, The Brain was using this as means of excusing the british legacy on the subcontinent. One which actively propagated racial theories and put forth the insidious AIT–the effects of which India feels to this day.

Perhaps these organizers should organize a concert for next ramzan addressing this sadness.

Within the caste system among Indians, there’s not just a subcaste system but also a class system. But “the brain” brought up the caste system which existed and survived until today among Indians in India and diaspora just to show that Indians are intolerant/racist/want to feel superior over others.

“Please all those things you mentioned (corruption, looting, etc.) had been experienced by India in far worse situations either from other foreign conquerors or even by local rulers”

Local rulers? You have to be kidding me. The voluntary starvation of 3 million in bengal, the most rapacious tax collectors the world has seen and you’re trying to put an icing on that cake? Please read that Atlantic article and then get back to us.

“Yes the British were arrogant and felt superior in all respects during colonialism. However South Asians engage in the same type of behavior today based upon caste, religion, ethnicity, etc. so what is your point exactly? Most Westerners are far better in treating minorities and other racial groups more humanely”

Tell that to soldiers of the Rebellion made to lick blood circa 1857 and the mau mau in the ’50s…

“The British did the same to an extent but did bring in modern notions of political legitimacy through democracy.”

You do realize that parliamentary democracy is a relatively new innovation. In fact, it was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that laid the true seeds for it with property and class based suffrage going out the door only in the middle of the 20th century in britain itself. The notion that colonization was a good thing because it introduced “modern political ideals” is ridiculous considering Meiji Japan and Ataturk’s turkey both introduced reforms without being colonized. Should India have conquered the “known” world when it had the strength to circulate the zero and other advances in hindu mathematics which made possible the information age? Really, dude…

The fact that you’re bringing up caste in complete disregard to the historical operation of class in british society just shows how Brain-dead this mindset that India’s so-called intelligentsia espouses.

“Does that not also conveniently ignore the fact that Europe was going through the Industrial Revolution at the time? The question is not whether India’s % of gdp was higher or lower then others but whether the real gdp increased or decreased during colonialism.”

This canard has been dealt with definitively. Punitive duties and tariffs were slapped on Indian textiles to destroy the industry before england was anywhere near competitive. In fact, active deindustrialization was the policy based on the treatment meted out to karkhanas–state-owned workshops which were proto-factories. You forget that Mughal era India, Ottoman Turkey, and Qing China all had advanced economies likely on the cusp of industrialization.

Yes, the industrial revolution led to the West pulling ahead–but before it had that technology, it actively worked to destroy local industries to so that it wouldn’t have the drainage of gold to India and China that it did. The Opium war is emblematic of it since opium was the only thing other than gold/silver that the Chinese were interested in. When the Qing dynasty put the kaibosh on it, the british imposed opium at the point of the bayonet. Or would you argue here that the industrial revolution was the reason why the Chinese decided to continue using opium as well?…

The View summed up the unfortunate mindset that you seem to espouse very well–so I’ll just leave it at that.

Indians would be better of NOT seeking independence. English would have ruled Indians very well. Instead of lamenting over partition, shouldn’t you lament over getting independence from British now that you are being ruled by imbeciles you called as leaders?

Look at the USA for example. That was a British colony. Do they go around telling everyone how wonderful the British are/ were? No, they go so far as to try and do everything differently to to their colonizers and take the mickey out of them at every opportunity. They created their own systems, they even play different versions of sports (baseball, American Football -not much soccer!), they drive on the different side of the road, they even have a different date format. They also happen to be the most successful country in the world on many measures. The USA is also extremely patriotic and the idea that being colonized by another nation was good for them is laughable to them, as it should be. On the other hand, the UK and the US still have very good relations with each other, which is great and as it should be.

Take China also – they object to India’s entry as a permanent member to the UNSC due to the fact that India has linked up with Japan, among others. Why? because of old colonial hurts. China is also extremely patriotic and has a strong sense of pride and national identity.

Who does the world respect more – the USA and China, or India? I’m not saying I agree with the China model as it does seem to come across somewhat antagonistically, although they are singlehandedly propping up the US and European government bond markets right now, it seems! So even China, when it comes to it is an ally of the “world” in a sense.

It is almost not even really about whether colonialism was good or not, it’s about having a subservient mindset, which is what seems to prevail in India alot of the time. India can still have good relations with the rest of the world, and in fact it should, but that doesn’t mean you have to walk around thinking everything in the USA or the UK is better than anything India could ever do. Make your own systems, ideals, traditions – or rather reinstate the old culture that was such a shining light for so long.

India needs to find some balls, basically. That is the only way to be respected globally. As I say, that does not mean having friction with the rest of the world ( it certainly does not mean aggression or violence or war as someone mentioned above!), it just means respecting yourself enough to stand on your own, not as a second fiddle to any other country that does have the balls.

Simples, innit?

I’ve heard this statistic quite a few times. It’s very true, indeed. Moreover, China was also responsible for ~25% of global GDP. Both countries performed at these levels for millenias, and they’ve stagnated since ~1500 CE. So their recent economic expansion is nothing more than a reversion to the mean.

Now, when people say “India’s share….” do they mean “Modern day India along with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal”? Using this as a guideline, the GDP of India will slowly become $22.67T in PPP terms or factoring in China’s reversion to 50% of global GDP, then both nations will have $29T in PPP terms.