5 ms·

I mean, India was "poor" because it had 90 years of having everything of value stolen by the British Empire.

• Victerius 5y ago
  That's one point of view, yes. Like I said, there are a lot of reasons why poor countries became poor, or failed to industrialize. Personally I don't think India would be America 2.0 (or China 2.0) had the Brits never colonized it. The partition of India happened 75 years ago, however. The British Empire is no longer a valid excuse.
  • yunohn 5y ago
    > The partition of India happened 75 years ago, however. The British Empire is no longer a valid excuse. This particular argument is usually made without understanding history. India, the country, did not exist before British enslavement & colonisation. India’s diversity and size are comparable to the entire EU, with double the population. I don’t see why 75 years is /too long/. It's quite tiring to hear such naïve takes. I would really recommend reading some books…
  • ngc248 5y ago
    Its not about the partition of India, its about the colonization of India. This is like telling a person whose legs were cut off to grow a pair and start running. How many years would it take for a colonized country to develop. Does anyone have an answer? You can't show countries like singapore (too small and practically a one party country). South Korea (was a military dictatorship, homogeneous population).