Is the surge a success?

[Ben Kenobi]

Britain also gutted the national industries when they took over (and a product of colonization.. can't have the colony make finished goods). Who knows how India would have come without that?

What national industries were there in 1850?

You have a collection of principalities.

[Patroklos]

Where did I say 11/05-4/06?

Too easy...

Again, it's clear that the pattern of violence in recent months most resembles a period in late 2005 and early 2006, not the much lower levels in early 2005, or 2004, or 2003 (as the graph he posted shows).

Not to mention this was when you were still defending Oerdin, so again it only makes sense to include a greater portion of 2006 than 2005 if we are talking about 2006 (2005 shouldn't have been included at all, I did to placate you).

And again, this is an independent statement. Once more, you characterized the current levels of violence as "2005 levels." That is 40% off, on a month to month basis.

No, as has been abundantly proven, YOU did. The fact that I did your math for you to show that no matter whose method we used Oeridn was wrong doesn't make the portion including 2005 of it your baby.

Implicitly, it's here:

Ah, implicitly. Or in other words, only if I quote the answer but not the question. Bravo Ramo, bravo

So, Ramo's mistakes in this thread:

1.) Even thinking defending Oerdin was a good idea.
2.) Too prideful to cut Oerdin loose when he realized the mistake.
3.) Inability to do basic math
4.) Hacking quotes
5.) Inability to follow a basic narrative.
6.) Repeating hacked quotes as if it makes them less hacked.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It wouldn't surprise me. After all, the US is still in Germany and that was 65 years ago that the war ended.

I can't believe anyone would try to make such a ridiculous comparison. The US is "in Germany" insofar as they've decided that they like having bases located closer to the action. Ditto Japan and Korea. The US stopped being actively involved in day-to-day German security pretty quickly after the war ended, save for lining up against the Soviet bloc. If the US faced an even remotely similar situation in Iraq right now, it would be almost a complete non-issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

That still doesn't really compare to Iraq. We could probably have a whole thread on that. Suffice it to say we disagree on this - I don't see Germany as a useful reference point here.

I'm sure we could. I don't see significant differences between Germans and the Japanese and from the people of Iraq.

That's a preposterous statement. For one thing, I dunno if "prosperous" is accurate wrt India.

Not compared to western standards, but they are getting up there.

For another, how the hell do you know that it wouldn't be more prosperous if it hadn't been ruled by Britain?

There wasn't even an 'India' to speak of prior to the British. Without the British I sincerely doubt they would have unified. Perhaps the French would have taken them over, and given the French record in Vietnam, I would question that India would have been as prosperous under the French as they would under the British.

Colonialism was all about benifitting the mother country. I know Britain ultimately came to see India as a drain, but that was only at the end.

India derived considerable benefits from colonialism, as did Canada for that matter. India was the Jewel in the Crown, and the British did not want to give it up ever. It wasn't so much that it was a drain, but that after WWII the British were bankrupt.

Leaving out that whole "partition" thing, you mean.

Partition can be laid at the feet of Gandhi. The British were opposed to Partition.

What are you talking about? I'm saying that the great majority of the time, people in Africa were not ruled by Europeans. Then, for a rather brief period, Europeans ruled them. Then, they attained independence (with nations with borders drawn by Europeans, with governments modelled at least partly on Euro designs). You look at this and call independence an "experiment."

Yes, it was. The postcolonial 'ideal' has brought about nothing but military juntas and suffering all along west africa. How can anyone who favours post colonialism point to west africa and say that their policy has wrought good?

[Ramo]

Not to mention this was when you were still defending Oerdin

My very first post on this matter specified that the period ended with the Samarra bombing (i.e. end of February). Glue

No, as has been abundantly proven, YOU did.

I didn't write this statement:

It was supposed to reduce violence from pre surge levels (early 2007), that it went much further than that and has reached (and continues to decline) 2005 levels is not a critisism.

You did.

You stated that violence is down to 2005 levels. Pretending I made that comparison (WTF) ain't gonna get you out of this hole.

Ah, implicitly

Implicitly means using your metric for measurement (comparing month to month).

[Ramo]

What national industries were there in 1850?

You have a collection of principalities.

1. The British presence started in the 18th century with the conquest of Bengal. That was one of the more developed areas of South Asia.
2. Primarily, textiles. As in what England was mostly doing in the 18th century.

[Ramo]

Partition can be laid at the feet of Gandhi. The British were opposed to Partition.

You seem to know even less about Indian history than American. Which is pretty remarkable...

[Ben Kenobi]

1. The British presence started in the 18th century with the conquest of Bengal. That was one of the more developed areas of South Asia.

2. Primarily, textiles. As in what England was mostly doing in the 18th century.

Bengal!=National.

Bengal didn't prosper until AFTER the Raj, and the subsequent integration of all the individual nabobs.

I don't see an independent Bengal becoming the capital for all of India, as she was under the Raj.

As for the Gandhi connection, you should read up on it. I did a paper on the topic. Gandhi was reluctant to approve of Partition, but he did so anyways, because he would rather have an Indian state without the muslims, then one with them. For all his avowed tolerance, he signed the Partition.

The British on the other hand did not approve of Partition, but after Gandhi signed it off, they had no choice.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

... because he would rather have an Indian state without the muslims, then one with them. ...

You probably know this area better than I, but would it be fair to say that he'd rather have an Indian state without Muslims who were demanding their own nation than one which included them?

Stated another way, he didn't want a Hindustan, but still, that was a better idea than creating a Greater India which included rebellious regions.

[Ramo]

Bengal!=National.

There wasn't a uniform system of government, so of course industries were relatively local. There was also a large ship building industry in Kerala, for instance.

By "national industries," it's likely that Imran didn't mean industries that spanned the entire sub-Continent. That, of course, would be ridiculous...

Bengal didn't prosper until AFTER the Raj, and the subsequent integration of all the individual nabobs.

Are you kidding? Bengal (the Indian state of West Bengal + Bangladesh) is now one of the poorest regions in the world. Before the Brits came, it was one of the wealthiest.

As for the Gandhi connection, you should read up on it.

What you are saying is ridiculous.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you kidding? Bengal (the Indian state of West Bengal + Bangladesh) is now one of the poorest regions in the world. Before the Brits came, it was one of the wealthiest.

Well of course. They were more prosperous under the Raj, as the centre of British administration then they would be as East Pakistan, and an exclave of Pakistan. The partition really destroyed two areas, Bengal and the Punjab, which were shredded apart.

Can you imagine how much more prosperous Bangladesh would be with Calcutta inside rather then outside?

[Ben Kenobi]

You probably know this area better than I, but would it be fair to say that he'd rather have an Indian state without Muslims who were demanding their own nation than one which included them?

Stated another way, he didn't want a Hindustan, but still, that was a better idea than creating a Greater India which included rebellious regions.

For the most part, I would say yes. His views were mixed. The partition was devastating to the Punjab in particular, and in all his deliberations, I didn't see much concern for the religious minorities.

He did perceive the dangers of the partition in forcing a mass exodus of Hindus and Muslims on either side of the line, and the resultant violence. He felt either choice would lead to massive violence, and felt resigned that he couldn't stop the oncoming train.

There are plenty of laws in India that are restrictive of religious minorities, neither of which were opposed or rescinded by Gandhi. Sikhs in the Punjab still cannot purchase land beyond the limits set aside for them, which is why so many have emigrated to the West. I'm reluctant to say that he opposed a Hindustan, I think oppose is too strong a word. He found it distasteful, but preferable to the other options. He feared full religious tolerance would lead to them having too many accommodations to the Muslim majority, and that religious toleration in India would not be reciprocated.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
would it be fair to say that he'd rather have an Indian state without Muslims who were demanding their own nation than one which included them?

Stated another way, he didn't want a Hindustan, but still, that was a better idea than creating a Greater India which included rebellious regions.

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

The partition plan was approved by the Congress leadership as the only way to prevent a wide-scale Hindu-Muslim civil war. Congress leaders knew that Gandhi would viscerally oppose partition, and it was impossible for the Congress to go ahead without his agreement, for Gandhi's support in the party and throughout India was strong. Gandhi's closest colleagues had accepted partition as the best way out, and Sardar Patel endeavoured to convince Gandhi that it was the only way to avoid civil war. A devastated Gandhi gave his assent.

Of the partition of India to create Pakistan, he wrote in Harijan on 6 October 1946:

[The demand for Pakistan] as put forth by the Moslem League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful. Islam stands for unity and the brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. Therefore, those who want to divide India into possibly warring groups are enemies alike of India and Islam. They may cut me into pieces but they cannot make me subscribe to something which I consider to be wrong [...] we must not cease to aspire, in spite of [the] wild talk, to befriend all Moslems and hold them fast as prisoners of our love.

[Alexander I]

Wow... from the surge to Gandhi. That's a bit of a tangent.

[Ramo]

Well of course. They were more prosperous under the Raj, as the centre of British administration then they would be as East Pakistan, and an exclave of Pakistan. The partition really destroyed two areas, Bengal and the Punjab, which were shredded apart.

Can you imagine how much more prosperous Bangladesh would be with Calcutta inside rather then outside?

Again, it was one of major industrial centers in the world before the British invasion. It was utterly devastated afterwards. You talk about the relative prosperity of Calcutta, but Dhaka used to much richer.

The economic literature pretty comprehensively documents a great deal of de-industrialization throughout South Asia in the late 18th and the 19th century. If you have Google Scholar access, this article is a pretty decent survey:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFJ-4R68NK2-1&_user=963248&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000049490&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=963248&md5=3891b80771bacdf5ea8ca10c824c3094#sec2

For example, it points out that the percentage of the work force engaged in industrial activities declined from 15-18% in 1800 to 10% in 1900. While not all of this is attributable to the Brits, the idea that South Asia prospered due to British rule is nonsense.