自从英国统治75年以来，印度仍然很贫穷，英国人说印度人不能管理自己的国家是对的吗?也许他们需要英国人在那里?
正文翻译
Just because the British officials and Maharajas lived lives of luxury doesn’t mean that the majority of Indians did. These were a small minority (less than 1%).
仅仅因为英国官员和王公贵族过着奢侈的生活，并不意味着大多数印度人也是如此。这些人只是少数(不到1%)。
The other side of the story that the advocates of colonialism never seemed to show.
殖民主义的鼓吹者似乎从未展示过故事的另一面。
The people who believe that the British provided better governance will never show these sort of images. This was the fate of millions in Bengal.
The people who believe that the British governance of the Indian Subcontinent was somehow superior are either very misinformed, delusional or just racist. These theories that the Indians (and almost every other colonized group) was “unable” to govern themselves was based on racism and promoted by the advocates of colonialism. We still see such people do this by sextively choosing images for comparison to confirm their own bias.
那些相信英国提供了更好治理的人从不会展示这些照片。这是孟加拉数百万人的命运。
那些认为英国对印度次大陆的统治在某种程度上优越的人要么是被误导、幻想，要么就是种族主义者。这种认为印度人（以及几乎所有其他殖民群体）“无法”自我治理的理论是建立在种族主义基础上的，并由殖民主义的拥护者所推动。我们仍然看到一些人通过选择性地选择比较照片来证实自己的偏见。
We can also sextively choose images that only focus on the development or well-off regions of the Indian Subcontinent today. But it doesn’t represent the situation of the majority of the people. No more than the minority that did well in the colonial era did.
我们也可以选择性地选择只关注今天印度次大陆的发展或富裕地区的图像。但这并不能代表大多数人的情况。不比在殖民时代做得好的少数人多。
Ahmad Abubakr (احمد ابوبکر)
Statements like these always make me laugh. They seem to rely on a very sextive and biased view of the British India during the colonial era. As well as dependent on racist statements made by proponents of colonialist, who did not consider the locals as their equals.
这样的话总是让我发笑。他们似乎依赖于对殖民时期英属印度非常有选择性和偏见的看法。也依赖于殖民主义者支持者的种族主义言论，他们不认为当地人是平等的。
Statements like these always make me laugh. They seem to rely on a very sextive and biased view of the British India during the colonial era. As well as dependent on racist statements made by proponents of colonialist, who did not consider the locals as their equals.
这样的话总是让我发笑。他们似乎依赖于对殖民时期英属印度非常有选择性和偏见的看法。也依赖于殖民主义者支持者的种族主义言论，他们不认为当地人是平等的。
What makes you think that India was not poverty stricken during the colonial era? What makes you think that Indians weren’t living in absolute poverty when the British were in charge of the country?
是什么让你认为印度在殖民时代不贫穷?你凭什么认为英国人统治印度的时候印度人不是生活在绝对贫困中?
是什么让你认为印度在殖民时代不贫穷?你凭什么认为英国人统治印度的时候印度人不是生活在绝对贫困中?
Just because the British officials and Maharajas lived lives of luxury doesn’t mean that the majority of Indians did. These were a small minority (less than 1%).
仅仅因为英国官员和王公贵族过着奢侈的生活，并不意味着大多数印度人也是如此。这些人只是少数(不到1%)。
The other side of the story that the advocates of colonialism never seemed to show.
殖民主义的鼓吹者似乎从未展示过故事的另一面。
The idea that Indians were living good lives under the British government is laughable. The vast majority of the Indian population lived in absolute poverty during the colonial era. The situation was far worse than it is today. To make matters even worse, these local Indians were usually second class citizens within their own homes. They didn’t get to choose the policies that would be in their own best interest. Rather the country was run with the best interest of the British Empire as the primary concern.
认为印度人在英国政府统治下过着幸福生活的想法是可笑的。在殖民时期，绝大多数印度人生活在绝对贫困中，情况比现在还糟糕。更糟糕的是，这些当地的印度人通常在自己的家园中都是二等公民。他们没有权力选择符合自身利益的政策。相反，这个国家的治理是以大英帝国的最大利益为首要考虑的。
认为印度人在英国政府统治下过着幸福生活的想法是可笑的。在殖民时期，绝大多数印度人生活在绝对贫困中，情况比现在还糟糕。更糟糕的是，这些当地的印度人通常在自己的家园中都是二等公民。他们没有权力选择符合自身利益的政策。相反，这个国家的治理是以大英帝国的最大利益为首要考虑的。
Ever heard of the Bengal famine that took place under the colonial government. This was not something that took place centuries ago. It occurred in the 1940s. Just prior to the independence of the Subcontinent. About 2–3 million Bengali people died as a result of this famine. When those among the British government who wanted to help the people requested assistance and import of food, their pleas were usually ignored. Because the dying people in Bengal were simply a lesser concern than ensuring that the British army had its supplies. This gross mismanagement of the situation resulted in millions dying.
你听说过殖民政府下发生的孟加拉饥荒吗？这不是发生在几个世纪前的事情，而是发生在20世纪40年代。就在印度次大陆独立之前。大约有2-3百万孟加拉人死于这场饥荒。当那些想要帮助人民的英国政府官员请求援助和食物进口时，他们的请求通常被忽视。因为孟加拉的垂死人民只是次要的关注点，而确保英国军队有足够的补给才是最重要的。这种极度失策的管理导致了数百万人的死亡。
你听说过殖民政府下发生的孟加拉饥荒吗？这不是发生在几个世纪前的事情，而是发生在20世纪40年代。就在印度次大陆独立之前。大约有2-3百万孟加拉人死于这场饥荒。当那些想要帮助人民的英国政府官员请求援助和食物进口时，他们的请求通常被忽视。因为孟加拉的垂死人民只是次要的关注点，而确保英国军队有足够的补给才是最重要的。这种极度失策的管理导致了数百万人的死亡。
So much for the “superior British governance”. This famine is only a single example. There are countless others during this century of colonial rule. Interesting that there have not been any famines of this scale in India since colonialism ended. It is almost as if the change in system of governance to place Indians as the primary concern actually ended up helping the Indians. Who could have seen that coming?
所谓“优越的英国统治”就是这样。这场饥荒只是其中的一个案例。在这个世纪的殖民统治期间，还有无数其他的案例。有趣的是，自殖民统治结束以来，在印度没有发生过任何这样规模的饥荒。这几乎就像改变了以印度人为重心的治理体制实际上帮助了印度人一样。谁能想到呢？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
所谓“优越的英国统治”就是这样。这场饥荒只是其中的一个案例。在这个世纪的殖民统治期间，还有无数其他的案例。有趣的是，自殖民统治结束以来，在印度没有发生过任何这样规模的饥荒。这几乎就像改变了以印度人为重心的治理体制实际上帮助了印度人一样。谁能想到呢？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The people who believe that the British provided better governance will never show these sort of images. This was the fate of millions in Bengal.
The people who believe that the British governance of the Indian Subcontinent was somehow superior are either very misinformed, delusional or just racist. These theories that the Indians (and almost every other colonized group) was “unable” to govern themselves was based on racism and promoted by the advocates of colonialism. We still see such people do this by sextively choosing images for comparison to confirm their own bias.
那些相信英国提供了更好治理的人从不会展示这些照片。这是孟加拉数百万人的命运。
那些认为英国对印度次大陆的统治在某种程度上优越的人要么是被误导、幻想，要么就是种族主义者。这种认为印度人（以及几乎所有其他殖民群体）“无法”自我治理的理论是建立在种族主义基础上的，并由殖民主义的拥护者所推动。我们仍然看到一些人通过选择性地选择比较照片来证实自己的偏见。
They would talk (some still do) about the development provided by the colonial government and how much the lives of the people had improved. Changes that effected only a very small percentage of the population. Often mostly the British themselves. All the while, the majority of the Indians continued to live in absolute poverty. But these proponents of colonialism never saw these poor Indians. Either because they lived in their own little bubbles or simply because they did not care about them. The lives of the Indians (and other colonized people) was simply a secondary concern.
他们会谈论（一些人至今还在谈论）殖民政府所提供的发展，以及人们生活的改善程度。而这些变化只影响了极小部分人口，往往主要是英国人自己。与此同时，大多数印度人继续生活在绝对贫困中。但这些殖民主义的支持者从未看到过这些贫困的印度人。要么是因为他们生活在自己的小圈子里，要么就是因为他们对他们毫不在乎。印度人（和其他殖民地人民）的生活只是次要的关注点。
他们会谈论（一些人至今还在谈论）殖民政府所提供的发展，以及人们生活的改善程度。而这些变化只影响了极小部分人口，往往主要是英国人自己。与此同时，大多数印度人继续生活在绝对贫困中。但这些殖民主义的支持者从未看到过这些贫困的印度人。要么是因为他们生活在自己的小圈子里，要么就是因为他们对他们毫不在乎。印度人（和其他殖民地人民）的生活只是次要的关注点。
We can also sextively choose images that only focus on the development or well-off regions of the Indian Subcontinent today. But it doesn’t represent the situation of the majority of the people. No more than the minority that did well in the colonial era did.
我们也可以选择性地选择只关注今天印度次大陆的发展或富裕地区的图像。但这并不能代表大多数人的情况。不比在殖民时代做得好的少数人多。
评论翻译
This graph shows that the pre-colonial administration wasn't all that good, economically speaking (we can't blame them though. Other regions of the world faired similarly in terms of economic growth). India didn't grow poorer during the colonial era. But Britain got quite rich (comparatively speaking) during the same period. The British are far more guilty of not making India richer than of making India poorer.
这张图表显示，从经济上讲，殖民前的政府并不是那么好(但我们不能责怪他们)。在经济增长方面，世界其他地区的情况也类似。印度在殖民时期并没有变得更穷。但英国在同一时期却相当富裕(相对而言)。比起让印度变穷，英国人更应该为没有让印度变富而感到内疚。
Arani Das
You may want to add the liat of famines India faced in recorded history before colonial rule, against during it. That would make it much more clearer as to who was responsible for them.
Secondly, India was the richest (or in close competition with China) nation on Earth. Brits systematically dismantled the local industries (mostly in proto-industrial stage, i.e. large scale cottage industries), especially in Bengal. Britain got fat on Indian flesh.
您可能还想添加印度在殖民统治之前和殖民统治期间有记录的历史中所面临的饥荒。这将使谁对这些事件负责更加清楚。
其次，印度是地球上最富有（或与中国竞争激烈）的国家。英国人系统地拆除了当地工业（大多处于原始工业阶段，即大规模家庭手工业），特别是在孟加拉。英国因吃印度人的肉而发胖。
You may want to add the liat of famines India faced in recorded history before colonial rule, against during it. That would make it much more clearer as to who was responsible for them.
Secondly, India was the richest (or in close competition with China) nation on Earth. Brits systematically dismantled the local industries (mostly in proto-industrial stage, i.e. large scale cottage industries), especially in Bengal. Britain got fat on Indian flesh.
您可能还想添加印度在殖民统治之前和殖民统治期间有记录的历史中所面临的饥荒。这将使谁对这些事件负责更加清楚。
其次，印度是地球上最富有（或与中国竞争激烈）的国家。英国人系统地拆除了当地工业（大多处于原始工业阶段，即大规模家庭手工业），特别是在孟加拉。英国因吃印度人的肉而发胖。
Lastly, we had to sacrifice hundreds of thousands in wars which didn't even concern us.
And these are not including atrocities like Jalianwalabag, the racist discriminations in every field, the partition (especially the 1905 one which planted the seed of communal disharmony), etc.
最后，我们不得不在与我们无关的战争中牺牲了成千上万的人。这还不包括雅利安瓦拉巴格大屠杀、各个领域的种族歧视、分割（尤其是1905年种下了宗派不和的种子）等暴行。
And these are not including atrocities like Jalianwalabag, the racist discriminations in every field, the partition (especially the 1905 one which planted the seed of communal disharmony), etc.
最后，我们不得不在与我们无关的战争中牺牲了成千上万的人。这还不包括雅利安瓦拉巴格大屠杀、各个领域的种族歧视、分割（尤其是1905年种下了宗派不和的种子）等暴行。
Krishna Sengupta
The ancient fabric that no one knows how to make
Bengal Muslin was most valued fabrics from ancient Greek and Roman Empire till Eighteenth Century. Thanks to British Empire , now nobody knows how to make them. Only you can find them in Museum and in high end auctions in Christie
没有人知道如何制作的古老织物
从古希腊和罗马帝国一直到18世纪，孟加拉细纱是最受重视的织物。多亏了大英帝国，现在没人知道如何制造它们。只有在博物馆和佳士得的高端拍卖会上才能找到它们
The ancient fabric that no one knows how to make
Bengal Muslin was most valued fabrics from ancient Greek and Roman Empire till Eighteenth Century. Thanks to British Empire , now nobody knows how to make them. Only you can find them in Museum and in high end auctions in Christie
没有人知道如何制作的古老织物
从古希腊和罗马帝国一直到18世纪，孟加拉细纱是最受重视的织物。多亏了大英帝国，现在没人知道如何制造它们。只有在博物馆和佳士得的高端拍卖会上才能找到它们
A colonial shambles "The trade was built up and destroyed by the British East India Company," says Ashmore.Long before Dhaka muslin was draped over aristocratic women in Europe, it was sold across the globe. It was popular with the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and muslin from "India" is mentioned in the book The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, authored by an anonymous Egyptian merchant around 2,000 years ago. Dhaka muslin was a hit – with those who could afford it. It was the most expensive fabric of the era, with a retinue of dedicated fans that included the French queen Marie Antoinette, the French empress Joséphine Bonaparte and Jane Austen. But as quickly as this wonder-cloth struck Enlightenment Europe, it vanished.
阿什莫尔说“贸易是由英国东印度公司建立和破坏的，”。早在达卡薄纱被欧洲贵族妇女披在身上之前，它就在全球销售。它很受古希腊人和罗马人的欢迎，大约2000年前，一位不知名的埃及商人所著的《厄立特里亚航海记》一书中提到了来自“印度”的细布。达卡细布很受那些买得起它的人的欢迎。这是那个时代最昂贵的布料，有一群忠实的粉丝，包括法国女王玛丽·安托瓦内特、法国皇后约瑟芬·波拿巴和简·奥斯汀。但这种神奇的布料在启蒙运动时期的欧洲迅速消失。
阿什莫尔说“贸易是由英国东印度公司建立和破坏的，”。早在达卡薄纱被欧洲贵族妇女披在身上之前，它就在全球销售。它很受古希腊人和罗马人的欢迎，大约2000年前，一位不知名的埃及商人所著的《厄立特里亚航海记》一书中提到了来自“印度”的细布。达卡细布很受那些买得起它的人的欢迎。这是那个时代最昂贵的布料，有一群忠实的粉丝，包括法国女王玛丽·安托瓦内特、法国皇后约瑟芬·波拿巴和简·奥斯汀。但这种神奇的布料在启蒙运动时期的欧洲迅速消失。
Shivam Pattanayak
India being the “richest" country before colonialism doesn't really amount to much. In the pre-industrial revolution world, the common man was mostly poor everywhere, some perhaps poorer than others, but most of them poor by any metric, not “rich". The Indian ruling class was probably richer than the ruling class in many other parts of the world though. All thanks to greater manpower and greater overall production. Even currently, the Indian economy is one of the largest in the world. But is India a rich country? No, right?
在殖民主义之前，印度是“最富有”的国家，这并没有多大意义。在工业革命前的世界里，普通人到处都很穷，有些人可能比其他人更穷，但从任何标准来看，他们中的大多数都很穷，而不是“富有”。然而，印度的统治阶级可能比世界上许多其他地方的统治阶级更富有。这一切都要归功于更大的人力和更大的整体生产。即使是现在，印度也是世界上最大的经济体之一。但印度是一个富裕的国家吗?没有,对吧?
India being the “richest" country before colonialism doesn't really amount to much. In the pre-industrial revolution world, the common man was mostly poor everywhere, some perhaps poorer than others, but most of them poor by any metric, not “rich". The Indian ruling class was probably richer than the ruling class in many other parts of the world though. All thanks to greater manpower and greater overall production. Even currently, the Indian economy is one of the largest in the world. But is India a rich country? No, right?
在殖民主义之前，印度是“最富有”的国家，这并没有多大意义。在工业革命前的世界里，普通人到处都很穷，有些人可能比其他人更穷，但从任何标准来看，他们中的大多数都很穷，而不是“富有”。然而，印度的统治阶级可能比世界上许多其他地方的统治阶级更富有。这一切都要归功于更大的人力和更大的整体生产。即使是现在，印度也是世界上最大的经济体之一。但印度是一个富裕的国家吗?没有,对吧?
This graph shows that the pre-colonial administration wasn't all that good, economically speaking (we can't blame them though. Other regions of the world faired similarly in terms of economic growth). India didn't grow poorer during the colonial era. But Britain got quite rich (comparatively speaking) during the same period. The British are far more guilty of not making India richer than of making India poorer.
这张图表显示，从经济上讲，殖民前的政府并不是那么好(但我们不能责怪他们)。在经济增长方面，世界其他地区的情况也类似。印度在殖民时期并没有变得更穷。但英国在同一时期却相当富裕(相对而言)。比起让印度变穷，英国人更应该为没有让印度变富而感到内疚。
Arani Das
That's true. I was coming from the normalised view of total wealth. Indian contribution to world wide wealth (www ;p) decreased in the colonial period.
这是真的。我是从对总财富的正常看法出发的。印度对世界财富的贡献在殖民时期下降了。
That's true. I was coming from the normalised view of total wealth. Indian contribution to world wide wealth (www ;p) decreased in the colonial period.
这是真的。我是从对总财富的正常看法出发的。印度对世界财富的贡献在殖民时期下降了。
Shivam Pattanayak
That can probably be attributed more to other regions (i.e. Europe, North America, Japan, etc.) surpassing India rather than to India's decline. From what I understand, India suffered from stagnation in the 19th century and a significant portion of the 20th century when many of the now developed nations experienced considerable growth. There seems to have been negligible growth in India rather than de-growth.
这可能更多地归因于其他地区（即欧洲、北美、日本等）超越印度，而不是印度的衰落。从我的了解来看，印度在19世纪和20世纪的大部分时间里都遭受停滞，而许多现在发达国家则经历了相当大的增长。印度似乎几乎没有增长，而不是负增长。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That can probably be attributed more to other regions (i.e. Europe, North America, Japan, etc.) surpassing India rather than to India's decline. From what I understand, India suffered from stagnation in the 19th century and a significant portion of the 20th century when many of the now developed nations experienced considerable growth. There seems to have been negligible growth in India rather than de-growth.
这可能更多地归因于其他地区（即欧洲、北美、日本等）超越印度，而不是印度的衰落。从我的了解来看，印度在19世纪和20世纪的大部分时间里都遭受停滞，而许多现在发达国家则经历了相当大的增长。印度似乎几乎没有增长，而不是负增长。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
James Thomas
U r correct…. But indians didn't have that much trade as the British since British colonized lot of countries. Their rise was due to the global trade they did not from looting India alone… commoners in india were not living high standard like Europeans or some asians.. only the royals had a high standard of living… we cannot take gdp of india before and after colonization. …
你是正确的……但印度人没有像英国人那样进行那么多贸易，因为英国殖民了很多国家。他们的崛起是由于全球贸易，而不是仅仅掠夺印度……印度的普通人不像欧洲人或一些亚洲人过着高标准的生活……只有皇室才有高标准的生活……我们不能拿印度在殖民化前后的GDP来比较。
U r correct…. But indians didn't have that much trade as the British since British colonized lot of countries. Their rise was due to the global trade they did not from looting India alone… commoners in india were not living high standard like Europeans or some asians.. only the royals had a high standard of living… we cannot take gdp of india before and after colonization. …
你是正确的……但印度人没有像英国人那样进行那么多贸易，因为英国殖民了很多国家。他们的崛起是由于全球贸易，而不是仅仅掠夺印度……印度的普通人不像欧洲人或一些亚洲人过着高标准的生活……只有皇室才有高标准的生活……我们不能拿印度在殖民化前后的GDP来比较。
Kaushik Saha
I agree with most of this comment except the one on destruction of the local small industries. Those industries were going to wither away in any case, because handloom produced cloth, woven with thread spun by hand, could never have competed with powerloom produced cloth, woven with machine spun thread, in terms of rate and cost of production, and therefore in terms of market price. Human hands just can beat machines in mass production.
The greatest atrocity perpetrated on Bengal in the 19th century was the destruction of foodgrain cultivation in favour of indigo and opium.
我同意这个评论的大部分观点，除了对当地小工业毁灭的观点。那些工业无论如何都会消亡，因为手织布生产的衣物，使用手纺的线编织，永远无法与机器纺出的线编织的动力织机生产的衣服竞争，无论是在生产速度、成本还是市场价格上。人的手只能在量产方面战胜机器。
19世纪的孟加拉最大的暴行是为了靛蓝和鸦片的利益破坏了粮食种植。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I agree with most of this comment except the one on destruction of the local small industries. Those industries were going to wither away in any case, because handloom produced cloth, woven with thread spun by hand, could never have competed with powerloom produced cloth, woven with machine spun thread, in terms of rate and cost of production, and therefore in terms of market price. Human hands just can beat machines in mass production.
The greatest atrocity perpetrated on Bengal in the 19th century was the destruction of foodgrain cultivation in favour of indigo and opium.
我同意这个评论的大部分观点，除了对当地小工业毁灭的观点。那些工业无论如何都会消亡，因为手织布生产的衣物，使用手纺的线编织，永远无法与机器纺出的线编织的动力织机生产的衣服竞争，无论是在生产速度、成本还是市场价格上。人的手只能在量产方面战胜机器。
19世纪的孟加拉最大的暴行是为了靛蓝和鸦片的利益破坏了粮食种植。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Arani Das
While I agree that they couldn't compete in price, but they could in quality. And if left alone, who can guarantee that they wouldn't see modernization before dying out? Trade alone would have been sufficient to nudge them that way.
虽然我同意他们在价格上无法竞争，但他们可以在质量上竞争。如果让它们自生自灭，谁能保证它们不会在消失之前看到现代化呢？仅靠贸易就足以推动他们实现这一目标。
While I agree that they couldn't compete in price, but they could in quality. And if left alone, who can guarantee that they wouldn't see modernization before dying out? Trade alone would have been sufficient to nudge them that way.
虽然我同意他们在价格上无法竞争，但他们可以在质量上竞争。如果让它们自生自灭，谁能保证它们不会在消失之前看到现代化呢？仅靠贸易就足以推动他们实现这一目标。
Arani Das
England didn't need a government change to do so. They did it in their already established setup. With enough trade, and thus competition, the indigenous industries would have to scale up, or wither away. It would not be the instantaneous poverty which struck the land. There was no need for colonisation to achieve that.
And in any case, the Brits didn't bring their industries over at once. They made us a market dependent on them, without indigenous supply. That was the goal, from the start.
英国不需要政府变革来实现这一点。他们在他们已经建立的体系中做到了这一点。有足够的贸易，因此有竞争，本土产业必须扩大规模或逐渐消失。这不会是即时贫困所带来的。没有殖民化也可以实现这一点。 无论如何，英国人并没有一次性把他们的工业带过来。他们让我们成为了一个依赖于他们的市场，没有本地供应的市场。这是他们的目标，从一开始就是如此。
England didn't need a government change to do so. They did it in their already established setup. With enough trade, and thus competition, the indigenous industries would have to scale up, or wither away. It would not be the instantaneous poverty which struck the land. There was no need for colonisation to achieve that.
And in any case, the Brits didn't bring their industries over at once. They made us a market dependent on them, without indigenous supply. That was the goal, from the start.
英国不需要政府变革来实现这一点。他们在他们已经建立的体系中做到了这一点。有足够的贸易，因此有竞争，本土产业必须扩大规模或逐渐消失。这不会是即时贫困所带来的。没有殖民化也可以实现这一点。 无论如何，英国人并没有一次性把他们的工业带过来。他们让我们成为了一个依赖于他们的市场，没有本地供应的市场。这是他们的目标，从一开始就是如此。
The agrarian economy was also hit hard by the forced Indigo and poppy cultivation. We saw the worst famine ever in Bengal (1770) because of those, along with irresponsible taxation. That wouldn't have been if not for colonisation.
强制种植靛蓝和鸦片对农业经济也造成了严重打击。由于这些问题以及不负责任的税收政策，孟加拉曾经经历过史上最严重的饥荒（1770年）。如果不是殖民化，这种情况将不会发生。
强制种植靛蓝和鸦片对农业经济也造成了严重打击。由于这些问题以及不负责任的税收政策，孟加拉曾经经历过史上最严重的饥荒（1770年）。如果不是殖民化，这种情况将不会发生。
Tejas Badwe
Nice to read some pro-Indian or pro- Indian subcontinent (rephrasing as this might incense a hardcore Pakistani like you) write-up! Usually you write and eulogise more about Islamic invaders and conquerors who are not looked as heroes by non-moslems and are rather looked down upon and have caused revulsion, repulsion, disgust by their acts, atrocities and invasions.
Moslems and non-moslems alike of Indian subcontinent had always been on common plank (generation before 1947) when it comes to their aversion to British colonialism.
很高兴看到一些支持印度或印度次大陆的文章！通常你写的，更多地是赞扬伊斯兰侵略者和征服者，而这些人在非穆斯林中不被视为英雄，相反，他们的行为、暴行和侵略引起了反感、厌恶和愤慨。 在印度次大陆，无论是穆斯林还是非穆斯林，在1947年以前的几代人都对英国殖民主义感到厌恶。
Nice to read some pro-Indian or pro- Indian subcontinent (rephrasing as this might incense a hardcore Pakistani like you) write-up! Usually you write and eulogise more about Islamic invaders and conquerors who are not looked as heroes by non-moslems and are rather looked down upon and have caused revulsion, repulsion, disgust by their acts, atrocities and invasions.
Moslems and non-moslems alike of Indian subcontinent had always been on common plank (generation before 1947) when it comes to their aversion to British colonialism.
很高兴看到一些支持印度或印度次大陆的文章！通常你写的，更多地是赞扬伊斯兰侵略者和征服者，而这些人在非穆斯林中不被视为英雄，相反，他们的行为、暴行和侵略引起了反感、厌恶和愤慨。 在印度次大陆，无论是穆斯林还是非穆斯林，在1947年以前的几代人都对英国殖民主义感到厌恶。
Mayur Kanth
But it is also true that india failed as a nation. 80% of indians live on less than $5 a day. So we can't really say lives of indians improved. Nothing changed much. Indians were poor in 1947 we still r poor in 2022.India's contribution to global economy was 5% in 1947. Even after 75 years it is still 8% while we have 19% of world population. So we can't say that independence changed lives of indians.
但也有事实证明印度作为一个国家失败了。80%的印度人每天生活费用不到5美元。所以我们不能说印度人的生活改善了。没有什么变化。印度人在1947年很贫穷，到2022年我们仍然很贫穷。1947年，印度对全球经济的贡献占到5%。即使在75年后，这个比例仍然是8%，而我们却有全世界19%的人口。所以我们不能说独立改变了印度人的生活。
But it is also true that india failed as a nation. 80% of indians live on less than $5 a day. So we can't really say lives of indians improved. Nothing changed much. Indians were poor in 1947 we still r poor in 2022.India's contribution to global economy was 5% in 1947. Even after 75 years it is still 8% while we have 19% of world population. So we can't say that independence changed lives of indians.
但也有事实证明印度作为一个国家失败了。80%的印度人每天生活费用不到5美元。所以我们不能说印度人的生活改善了。没有什么变化。印度人在1947年很贫穷，到2022年我们仍然很贫穷。1947年，印度对全球经济的贡献占到5%。即使在75年后，这个比例仍然是8%，而我们却有全世界19%的人口。所以我们不能说独立改变了印度人的生活。
Malkiat Gill
2 third world countries, India seems to have fared better because the government survives until an election. Not overthrown by a military highly influenced by a bunch of mad mullahs who hate all non believers.
两个第三世界国家中，印度似乎表现得更好，因为政府在选举之前能够继续存在，而没有被一群疯狂的哈里发高度影响的军方推翻，哈里发们仇恨所有不信仰者。
2 third world countries, India seems to have fared better because the government survives until an election. Not overthrown by a military highly influenced by a bunch of mad mullahs who hate all non believers.
两个第三世界国家中，印度似乎表现得更好，因为政府在选举之前能够继续存在，而没有被一群疯狂的哈里发高度影响的军方推翻，哈里发们仇恨所有不信仰者。
PrakAsh Donde
Yes, you are correct. India is poor. However, no country would or should remain under an outside rule just to be more prosperous. Please note that the British were not trying to make India prosperous. They did everything that they could to make Britain more prosperous at the expense of India, therefore, your presumption that India would have been more prosperous today under the British rule is totally false. India is relatively more prosperous today under its own rule than it would have been under the British rule; not to mention the freedom the people of India have enjoyed for the last 74 years. My comments apply to Pakistan too, since Pakistani territory was part of the British India.
是的，你说得对。印度很穷。然而，没有哪个国家会或应该为了更富裕而处于外来统治之下。请注意，英国人并不试图让印度变得更富裕。他们竭尽所能，以牺牲印度为代价，让英国变得更富裕，因此你假设印度在英国统治下今天会更富裕是完全错误的。相对于英国统治下的印度，印度在自己的统治下相对更富裕；更不用说过去74年来印度人民享受的自由了。我的评论也适用于巴基斯坦，因为巴基斯坦领土曾是英属印度的一部分。
Yes, you are correct. India is poor. However, no country would or should remain under an outside rule just to be more prosperous. Please note that the British were not trying to make India prosperous. They did everything that they could to make Britain more prosperous at the expense of India, therefore, your presumption that India would have been more prosperous today under the British rule is totally false. India is relatively more prosperous today under its own rule than it would have been under the British rule; not to mention the freedom the people of India have enjoyed for the last 74 years. My comments apply to Pakistan too, since Pakistani territory was part of the British India.
是的，你说得对。印度很穷。然而，没有哪个国家会或应该为了更富裕而处于外来统治之下。请注意，英国人并不试图让印度变得更富裕。他们竭尽所能，以牺牲印度为代价，让英国变得更富裕，因此你假设印度在英国统治下今天会更富裕是完全错误的。相对于英国统治下的印度，印度在自己的统治下相对更富裕；更不用说过去74年来印度人民享受的自由了。我的评论也适用于巴基斯坦，因为巴基斯坦领土曾是英属印度的一部分。
James Thomas
Lol posting photos of Bengal famine and advocating failures of British rule is laughable…… I am thinking u want sentiments for your post…. Bengal famine took place in ww2 and Churchill is to be blamed for the atrocity….. although he proposed this idea as a measure to cut off Japanese resources but later it was exposed as a failure of Churchill and the British government… this I agree but indians during other times weren't living under such harsh conditions….. only during the famine and in general during ww2… all countries were facing famines
哈哈，张贴孟加拉饥荒的照片，宣扬英国统治的失败，真是可笑...我觉得你是想引起情感共鸣...孟加拉饥荒发生在二战期间，那时应该怪责丘吉尔……虽然他提出这个想法是为了削减日本的资源，但后来这被揭示为丘吉尔和英国政府的失败...我同意这一点，但在其他时候印度人并没有生活在如此恶劣的条件下...只有在饥荒期间和二战期间...所有国家都面临饥荒。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Lol posting photos of Bengal famine and advocating failures of British rule is laughable…… I am thinking u want sentiments for your post…. Bengal famine took place in ww2 and Churchill is to be blamed for the atrocity….. although he proposed this idea as a measure to cut off Japanese resources but later it was exposed as a failure of Churchill and the British government… this I agree but indians during other times weren't living under such harsh conditions….. only during the famine and in general during ww2… all countries were facing famines
哈哈，张贴孟加拉饥荒的照片，宣扬英国统治的失败，真是可笑...我觉得你是想引起情感共鸣...孟加拉饥荒发生在二战期间，那时应该怪责丘吉尔……虽然他提出这个想法是为了削减日本的资源，但后来这被揭示为丘吉尔和英国政府的失败...我同意这一点，但在其他时候印度人并没有生活在如此恶劣的条件下...只有在饥荒期间和二战期间...所有国家都面临饥荒。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Rick
After british raj took over in 1857 there were large famines in almost few years before 1900, were japanese in burma that time also?? British are more expert than japanese in hiding colonial atrocities.
1857年英国统治接管后，在1900年之前几乎每年都发生大规模饥荒，那时候缅甸有日本人吗？英国在隐藏殖民暴行方面比日本更擅长。
After british raj took over in 1857 there were large famines in almost few years before 1900, were japanese in burma that time also?? British are more expert than japanese in hiding colonial atrocities.
1857年英国统治接管后，在1900年之前几乎每年都发生大规模饥荒，那时候缅甸有日本人吗？英国在隐藏殖民暴行方面比日本更擅长。
David Wilson
I’m curious Ahmad, who are these advocates of colonialism you mention?
In my youth (b 1957) there were still a few people who had ‘colonial nostalgia,’ but that sort of nonsense died out decades ago. The strongest public views in support, at least here in the UK, would go no further than claiming a mix of good and bad bits, but indefensible morally.
我很好奇，Ahmad，你所提到的殖民主义的支持者是谁？ 在我年轻的时候（1957年出生），仍然有一些人怀有“殖民怀旧情绪”，但这种无稽之谈几十年前就消失了。至少在英国，最强烈的公众支持意见也不会超过认为殖民主义有好有坏，但从道德上不可原谅。
I’m curious Ahmad, who are these advocates of colonialism you mention?
In my youth (b 1957) there were still a few people who had ‘colonial nostalgia,’ but that sort of nonsense died out decades ago. The strongest public views in support, at least here in the UK, would go no further than claiming a mix of good and bad bits, but indefensible morally.
我很好奇，Ahmad，你所提到的殖民主义的支持者是谁？ 在我年轻的时候（1957年出生），仍然有一些人怀有“殖民怀旧情绪”，但这种无稽之谈几十年前就消失了。至少在英国，最强烈的公众支持意见也不会超过认为殖民主义有好有坏，但从道德上不可原谅。
很赞 5
收藏