Why britishers should have definitely left the country ?

Post date: Oct 13, 2009 7:58:0 AM

The Debate :

        Sometimes people say that the britishers should have stayed on in India. To support their point they give examples of how things were better ( efficient, beautiful, civilized, time bound) when the white people ruled.

An example which i have heard is related to the the old Delhi yamuna bridge. Britishers built it in 1868 and it was built to last a 100 years. It did much better than that and is still being used in 2010. clearly the discipline and standards  during british rule was superior to the standards that we have today and therefore once britishers left this coutry went to down the toilet. Just look at the wrestling complex built for common wealth games....

                                 (image courtesy : outlookindia)

My Argument ( small):

        They might have made certain things better, but they have taken  so much more.

Example and clarification:

        I Grew up watching a lot of discovery channel. Most importantly Discovery channel's Lonely Planet with Ian wright. ( i still love that show and any show like it)

In each episode Ian wright would travel to a different country , meet local people and other travellers and in general enjoy himself. I was hooked to that show because I wanted that life. So anyway i watched that show for years and noticed that all the other backpackers that he met were either Europeans, Russians, Americans or Japanese and never an Indian. The fact that only white people were living this kind of adventurous and exciting lifestyle of a backpacker made me revere them in my mind. Clearly they were more outgoing and funloving and courageous and adventurous than my own people. I mean they have the same problems as us, have to keep a steady job, support a family, but they take out time to travel to all these places. If we wanted to then we can do the same , right?   WRONNNNNG

        In the past twelve months I have made three trips where i got the chance to interact with a lot of different people who were backpacking their way through the world, twice in china and once in India. On talking with them i understood how is it that these people are so much more adventurous than us and living like rockstars (people who arent tied down to living in one place and travel the world are rockstars by my standards).

It was just plain Economics and favourable exchange rates.

    For example a guy who had come to hongkong to finish his PHD from spain was being Paid 24000 hkd per month by the spanish government as stipend. He was not on a special Scholarship. With that kind of money he could afford to party every night in Hong kong.

     I met a guy in Dharamshala who was a cook in japan and he had taken a break and come to india for a 9 month long holiday. Nobody i know in india  has enough economic security to simply not work for 9 months.

    I met another student who was a US citizen studying in Georgia Tech. For him staying in US would have been as costly as traveling for three months through China. Sure is nice to have that kind of economic cushion.

Clearly these people who i met are relatively privileged, living with good economic means and able to afford a long vacation in a third world country  with their monthly salary. So the big light bulb that flashed in my mind after going over all this is that it's not fair that the pocket money of a kid in a first world country is worth more than my DU Professor father's Monthly Salary. It's simply not fair. How did this happen ?????????????

        And the answer is that during hundreds of years of being ruled as a colony. Britishers sucked more money from my ancestors than they put back as investment for me. They invested less in India and took more out of it to fund their future generations. so the whole truth is that the longer the britishers would have ruled the poorer we would have become.