I think initially EIC didn't think of conquering India. They just wanted very good trade but the situation here locally had given them the idea or opertunity to capture it. Besides trade they wanted to convert Indians to Christianity. 500 of more states they just shared the power with local kings. They could keep of doing with Mughals if 1857 would not have started. I am sorry but contrary to the honourable speakers, in most of the places British Raj was more people friendly than the local kings. If they haven't taken most of wealth away from India and invested more in India, they were undoubtedly better choice. Still besides economy, they social justice system and justice over all is far better than ours. A Canada or Australia etc type hand over was a better way. Local banking guys Sahocars, have accummolated money by cruel interest system and by black money. That sort of economy was not helping the common people rather looting them as well their Kings.
William Durant also published a book on loot and atrocities committed by mughals on hindus, Sasbi Tharoor should take up that and write a book on it too. But he has to get permission from queen bee before offending her vote bank
Indians were divided at the time of british east India company's conquest of India. Hindus were happy that their much hated muslim rulers were dislodged from power by east India company but they didn't imagine that east company would rule them for the next 300 years. That's why it is wise not involve external powers in the internal matters.
Not true. It was actually mughal kings (within some parts of India) who let East India company in to set up their fake "factories:" NOT the public or hindus. Your flawed logic is like saying " There was no new universities built during mughal period because of hindu public". There is enough documentary evidence to show agreements between East India company and Mughal kings. 1613-14 AD: British East India Company sets up factory in Masulipatnam and trading post at Surat under William Hawkins. Sir Thomas Roe presents his credentials as ambassador of King James I to the Mughal Emperor Jehangir. 1615-18 AD: Mughals grant Britain the right to trade and establish factories.
“Dont worry about the financiers. Worry about the guys with the guns”. I would have let it slipped if he was a stupid man. But in this case is disinformation. - 30:40
I also dont get what the women is saying. What is the connection to India? Also, what kind of excuse, or whatever her intervention was, is that, at the time, it was violence in multiple places? Should we burn the whole planet if two neighbors fight? And economically those other plunders dont even come close to what EIC did? And I think in casualties also if you take into consideration the british colonial tactics to saw distrust, between hindu and muslims for example, and what happened in the partition.
Hindu civilization then or India was always the largest economy and richest civilization (until 1820) regardless of "mughals" invaders who were in India to loot initially and then stayed due to prosperity of India unlike middle east and Europe which were shitholes.
"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." : Ford
Fascinating. What an excellent group of speakers. Thank you for posting.
John Keay should have been involved more. He is brilliant.
postscript: I think the EIC is more a story of the potential ill's of capitalism than anything else....
I think, the co., should be: "Re-created; for: India's Benefit (this time!!)!!"??
-M.K.S. India can!!
-M.K.S.
I think initially EIC didn't think of conquering India. They just wanted very good trade but the situation here locally had given them the idea or opertunity to capture it. Besides trade they wanted to convert Indians to Christianity. 500 of more states they just shared the power with local kings. They could keep of doing with Mughals if 1857 would not have started. I am sorry but contrary to the honourable speakers, in most of the places British Raj was more people friendly than the local kings. If they haven't taken most of wealth away from India and invested more in India, they were undoubtedly better choice. Still besides economy, they social justice system and justice over all is far better than ours. A Canada or Australia etc type hand over was a better way.
Local banking guys Sahocars, have accummolated money by cruel interest system and by black money. That sort of economy was not helping the common people rather looting them as well their Kings.
William Durant also published a book on loot and atrocities committed by mughals on hindus, Sasbi Tharoor should take up that and write a book on it too. But he has to get permission from queen bee before offending her vote bank
Indians were divided at the time of british east India company's conquest of India. Hindus were happy that their much hated muslim rulers were dislodged from power by east India company but they didn't imagine that east company would rule them for the next 300 years. That's why it is wise not involve external powers in the internal matters.
Not true. It was actually mughal kings (within some parts of India) who let East India company in to set up their fake "factories:" NOT the public or hindus. Your flawed logic is like saying " There was no new universities built during mughal period because of hindu public". There is enough documentary evidence to show agreements between East India company and Mughal kings.
1613-14 AD: British East India Company sets up factory in Masulipatnam and trading post at Surat under William Hawkins. Sir Thomas Roe presents his credentials as ambassador of King James I to the Mughal Emperor Jehangir.
1615-18 AD: Mughals grant Britain the right to trade and establish factories.
“Dont worry about the financiers. Worry about the guys with the guns”. I would have let it slipped if he was a stupid man. But in this case is disinformation. - 30:40
I think the whole panel is "incorporated".
The lady did no service to the female voice.
I also dont get what the women is saying. What is the connection to India? Also, what kind of excuse, or whatever her intervention was, is that, at the time, it was violence in multiple places? Should we burn the whole planet if two neighbors fight? And economically those other plunders dont even come close to what EIC did? And I think in casualties also if you take into consideration the british colonial tactics to saw distrust, between hindu and muslims for example, and what happened in the partition.
The lady is Globalist
Hindu civilization then or India was always the largest economy and richest civilization (until 1820) regardless of "mughals" invaders who were in India to loot initially and then stayed due to prosperity of India unlike middle east and Europe which were shitholes.
Sashi talks crap.
Chori
With no east India company a modern unified India wouldn’t exist
Glad to see that the "cut off the thumbs of the weavers" story from Tharoor is being contested
right to his face. World's worst historian.
"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." : Ford
"Fools who didn't respect the past are likely to repeat it.": Nico Robin😉
The clinical American woman is frightening. The epitome of neo imperialist superficial so-called scholarship.