Nita > Status Update

It is also pertinent to nail the canard that whatever the deficiencies of the Company, its rule was no worse than the supposedly rapacious princes whom the British supplanted. This is simply false.

It is also pertinent to nail the canard that whatever the deficiencies of the Company, its rule was no worse than the supposedly rapacious princes whom the British supplanted. This is simply false.

if India's GDP went down because it 'missed the bus' of industrialization, it was because the British threw Indians under the wheels.

Every British soldier posted to India had to be paid, equipped and fed and eventually pensioned by the Government of india , not of Britain.

And the objective remained the same -the greater good of Britain. The drain of resources from India remained explicitly part of British policy.

When I think of the marvelous riches of that country, and the comparatively small part which I took away, I am astonished at my own moderation ' And the british had the gall to call him 'Clive of India,' as if he belonged to the country, when all he really did was to ensure that a good portion of the country belonged to him.

But honour was an irrelevant concern for his emperor's 'faithful servants and well wishers.' The company ran India, and like all companies, it had one principal concern, shared by its capitalist overlords in London; the bottom line.

The India that the British East India Company conquered was no primitive or barren land, but the glittering jewel of the medieval world.

and beginning that career of illegal and 'legal' plunder which has now [1930] gone on ruthlessly for one hundred and seventy-three years.

As Durant wrote:
The British conquest of India was the invasion and destruction of a high civilization by a trading company [the British East India Company] utterly without scruple or principle, careless of art and greedy of gain, over-running with fire and sword a country temporarily disordered and helpless, bribing and murdering, annexing and stealing,