Okay plink, I'm going to respond to this comment and the other one you made. First off -

> Yeah? I thought he was just being inflammatory and arrogant.

> When you are ignorant you don't need courage. I can bring in all kinds of "uncommon views" (hey George Bush was the real planner of 9/11!! Really! Because I say so!) if I don't have to substantiate them. I find his claim that India has declined since Independence from the British ignorant, and yes, idiotic.

> No he wasn't. He was making bigoted and inflammatory claims.

Look, this sort of thing is unnecessary. I don't mean any disrespect to you and your ancestors, I'm a student of history, and many brilliant scientists, artisans, traders, and statesmen have come out of India. I'm not sure how you feel about Shah Jahan since he was of mixed Mughal descent, but I'm a huge admirer of his, his military campaigns, his statesmanship, his warriorship, his relationship with Mumtaz Mahal, his childrearing, his artistry, and of course the building of the Taj Mahal. One of the people I look up to. I like to think through things and analyze governance and history, but you ought to know I have a deep respect and admiration for a number of great thinkers and doers in Indian history. Perhaps I'm inflammatory (not intentionally), but I'm certainly not being bigoted. Onwards -

> You have no idea what you are speaking about. "serious decline in properity"? yeah right. If you can prove that you'll get the Nobel prize for economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India

"India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow growth.[12][13][14][15] Since 1991, continuing economic liberalisation has moved the economy towards a market-based system."

I didn't know what year it ended until I saw that piece (1991), but I did know some of Indian economic history from the withdrawl of the British to the late 1970's, because I studied it in contrast to the Japanese. India had a larger population, more capital, more natural resources, and Japan became a world power from ruins while India languished. Why is that? It was because of modern mercantalism and protectionism. Modern machinery and industrial techniques were actually banned to protect traditional industry - thus the Japanese output-per-worker was 30 times higher in some industries. Yes, 30 times higher. The Indian government also severely restricted foreign investment.

This started changing in the 1990's. What India's done over the last 20 years is amazing, and a great thing. I've got Indian friends who live in Goa and Khajuraho, and I worked with a fellow from Mumbai. I also had a lovely girlfriend from Northern India a couple years ago. I've talked a lot with them. India's on the rise and incredibly prosperous these days. But the economy, infrastructure, and management of India from 1950-1990 was pretty poor.

> Decline in prosperity? You have no idea, you arrogant idiot.

Mate, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm talking governance and economics. Seriously, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, but can you not flame when you disagree? You did this last time you disagreed with me when I wrote about my thoughts on beauty standards in response to the Okcupid message response rates by photo. You seem like a smart, technically inclined, good person - I'm not your enemy. Or hell, maybe I am, but you're not my enemy. I respect you. We can have a civil discussion without insults.

> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

Yes, that's true. The Japanese absolutely savaged the British Army in Singapore, Burma, and parts of India. And there was a drought. The British severely mismanaged it, but they were previously importing 15% of Bengal's food from Burma. And a drought hit. Bad timing. People were on starvation rations in England itself, and Bengal got hit hard. It was a terrible tragedy. I'm not sure I'd chock it up to England's fault, except to say that their commanders weren't competent enough to defeat the superiorly armed, superiorly supplied, greatly outnumbering Imperial Japanese Army.

> one, that all former British colonies has inevitably declined when the British ruled it is laughable when applied to India

Well, I didn't say all British colonies declined, but yes, India did decline in economy, safety, sanitation, and infrastructure after British withdrawal, only starting to turn it around in the 1980's. Nowdays there's been rapid growth and India's coming onto the world stage as a potential imperial power under good governance, with a rapidly getting educated large labor force. India is in good and improving shape these days yes.

> "resurgence of the caste system" my ass. The caste system while still present and still harmful is way less powerful than in the period under British rule. You have no idea what you are speaking about.

> No one In India today yearns for life under British rule. I can see how someone in say, Sierra Leone, might.

Now? Yes. In 1950? Maybe, maybe not. Life improved for the elite of India, life got a hell of a lot worse for the lower castes. One million died in religious fighting in the two years after the British pulled out, millions more were turned into refugees. Before that, people of any caste were eligible to join Indian regimes of the British Armed Forces and join the civil service. Economic mobility was much higher under British rule than post-British rule for the next 50 years.

> An independence movement (like the Indian Independence movement) by definition consists of people who lived during british rule and didn't want to. But by your logic all of them would have wanted to live under British rule forever.

Some people in India didn't want to live under British rule. Some did. The home rule side won, and Indian independence happened. Nowdays, people will be taught that everyone hated the British except some bastard corrupt loyalists, just like we're taught in America. I've read a little bit of primary source 1940's and 1950's Indian history, including quotes from people friendly to the British and the various debates, but I've read a lot more early American history. American was by no means all pro-revolution. Maybe it was 50-50. Maybe. Or more like 20% revolution, 20% loyalist, 60% neutral/confused. The revolutionaries won, so history books now record everyone as pro-revolution anti-Britain. It certainly wasn't the case in the United States, and it wasn't the case in India. Not everyone wanted the British to leave. Many did. That side won.

Nowdays India is doing great, so you could say it worked out, but there were some downsides. There was a decline when the skilled British personnel went home, law enforcement was understaffed, there was rioting and violence, sanitation declined, city planning declined, infrastructure declined, the government adopted some really awful command-based economic policies that were really shoddy, and quality of life did decline for many people. It's water under the bridge as India is now greatly on the rise. And none the less, this is not a critique of Indian people - the Indian people I know are by and large superb people with excellent ethics, a hard work ethic, who place a strong premium on family ties, loyalty, and industry. I'm an admirer. Actually, by coincidence I had dinner tonight in Hong Kong with an Indian acquaintence. I had chicken tikka masala on rice. It was delicious. But I digress, when I critique the policy of India from 1950-1990, it's a critique of a shoddy government of bureaucrats, not a critique of the Indian people, nor you personally or any of your friends or family, all of whom I have the best wishes towards.