Britain Owes Reparations for Colonising India: Indian MP

[Denny Crane!]

You owe me a cut for showing me that.

Although i probably owe them some back for seeing that caterpillar matrix rip off man thing. that was awesome.

[gaunty14]

Why since 1945?

I suppose there is the whole partition of India/Pakistan thing...although that is arguably their own fault for committing retributive genocide, murdering around 500,000 people and the whole displacing 14 million people.

[sumskilz]

You owe me a cut for showing me that.

I'll let you know as soon as I get the check.

Although i probably owe them some back for seeing that caterpillar matrix rip off man thing. that was awesome.

Oh yeah, I fixed the link, and it was worth it.

[YuriVII]

Reparations have been made over lesser things, but a key ingredient is missing. The British weren't kicked out by the Indians, they were left. No impetus to enforce the reperations so they will never happen. What happens to India in the future depends on Indians and have for almost 70 years.

[Roma_Victrix]

Through an unfortunate turn of events, I unsuspectingly came upon this:



I now feel like India owes me reparations.

I am genuinely scared of the people in the bird masks. If one of those things came up to me on the street and was like "ooh, wa, ooh wa-wa! ooh, wa, ooh wa-wa!" I think I would then proceed to have a heart attack, or pee my pants, either one really. Seriously, I got the same vibe from that as I got from that scene in Kubrick's The Shining with the ghost guy in the bunny costume.

Is it too late to claim a part of your reparations check, now that Denny Crane has done so? I'm American, not even British, so it probably doesn't apply to me anyhow. Darn it!

[Chromium]

Am I the only one who actually watched that video?

1- The MP was asking for an apology and symbolic reparations:- 1 Euro for 100 years or something similar. That guy is a diplomat; they're not dumb. There's no way Britain can even start paying reparations for what they looted in their Colonial era and everyone knows it.

2- The PM guy endorsed the MP's call for reparations. From what I understand, he didn't actually demand anything from London except an apology. In this context, the PM's part of a Hindu Nationalist Party that wants the UK to return the cultural stuff they looted. The diamond's one thing- but the British also have a lot of Hindu gods & other paraphernalia that is understandably not impressing anyone who's not a dyed-in-indigo Englishman.

3- On another note, this is one of the most hate-filled, misinformed, petty posts I've ever read on twcenter- and I wouldn't like to meet most of the posters here face-to-face in my life.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Am I the only one who actually watched that video?

1- The MP was asking for an apology and symbolic reparations:- 1 Euro for 100 years or something similar. That guy is a diplomat; they're not dumb. There's no way Britain can even start paying reparations for what they looted in their Colonial era and everyone knows it.

2- The PM guy endorsed the MP's call for reparations. From what I understand, he didn't actually demand anything from London except an apology. In this context, the PM's part of a Hindu Nationalist Party that wants the UK to return the cultural stuff they looted. The diamond's one thing- but the British also have a lot of Hindu gods & other paraphernalia that is understandably not impressing anyone who's not a dyed-in-indigo Englishman.

3- On another note, this is one of the most hate-filled, misinformed, petty posts I've ever read on twcenter- and I wouldn't like to meet most of the posters here face-to-face in my life.

The Video in the OP was an Oxford debate- no actual calls were made- Its what happens there- a motion is proposed, sides are drawn and prepare and then have the debate- regardless of their own private views (For instance a participant may be homophobic but be told to put forward why equality is necessary for a modern society).

The PM in India is playing on this card for electoral purposes- his ascension was on the back of a nationalist platform. His demands are as far as i understand it not specific- he agrees with the concept- saw that the academic debate video used in the OP (Academic as in it doesn't actually intend or make pretenses to be actual policy for anyone- its merely a 'hobby' debate if you will) that went viral and thus put forward his claim to drum up some political support for his pm-ship.

[Chromium]

The Video in the OP was an Oxford debate- no actual calls were made- Its what happens there- a motion is proposed, sides are drawn and prepare and then have the debate- regardless of their own private views (For instance a participant may be homophobic but be told to put forward why equality is necessary for a modern society).

The PM in India is playing on this card for electoral purposes- his ascension was on the back of a nationalist platform. His demands are as far as i understand it not specific- he agrees with the concept- saw that the academic debate video used in the OP (Academic as in it doesn't actually intend or make pretenses to be actual policy for anyone- its merely a 'hobby' debate if you will) that went viral and thus put forward his claim.

You're right. This is a complete non-entity being used by some posters for what is, for all practical purposes, hate-speech & Orientalist .

For a site called twcenter, many here seem to have absolutely no clue about history.

[athanaric]

3- On another note, this is one of the most hate-filled, misinformed, petty posts I've ever read on twcenter-

Are you new to the Discussion&Debate section? That'd explain your sentiment.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Can Britain send India a bill for the infrastructure that Britain built in India prior to leaving?

How much was it worth to India to have electricity, paved roads, water treatment facilities?

[Roma_Victrix]

Can Britain send India a bill for the infrastructure that Britain built in India prior to leaving?

How much was it worth to India to have electricity, paved roads, water treatment facilities?

Well, since the native people of India were basically legally discriminated against in many ways while said infrastructure was built under the British Raj, let's just call it even and move on with life.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Well, since the native people of India were basically legally discriminated against in many ways while said infrastructure was built under the British Raj, let's just call it even and move on with life.

Or we could have an endless game of divisive and confrontational, "you owe us reparations for XYZ..."


Germans owe Italians for the sack of Rome...

Italians of Roman descent owe French of Celtic/Gallic descent for the conquest of Gaul...


Persians owe Greeks for the wars against the Greek city-states...


See how endless and fun this could be?

[Hazzard]

It seems odd to me that it hasn't been addressed that India did not exist before the arrival of Britain. Britain arrived to a variety of small states, bound them together and turned them loose in the 20th century. They asked for independence, we gave it to them and a decent chunk of people abandoned India to live in Britain.

[Hanny]

Or we could have an endless game of divisive and confrontational, "you owe us reparations for XYZ..."


Germans owe Italians for the sack of Rome...

Italians of Roman descent owe French of Celtic/Gallic descent for the conquest of Gaul...


Persians owe Greeks for the wars against the Greek city-states...


See how endless and fun this could be?

Sigh, you dont really appear to have understood how the law works. The National Government of the UK still exists, it can be tried under international law, Genocide for instance has no statute of limitations, as are some crimes of war, so the current UK Governemnt can/could be tried in court for its actions, if they are legaly defined as war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. Your other examples are simply examples of not knowing what your posting about as none of them exist as legaly entities that can be brought to court to argue their case.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Sigh, you dont really appear to have understood how the law works. The National Government of the UK still exists, it can be tried under international law, Genocide for instance has no statute of limitations, as are some crimes of war, so the current UK Governemnt can/could be tried in court for its actions, if they are legaly defined as war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. Your other examples are simply examples of not knowing what your posting about as none of them exist as legaly entities that can be brought to court to argue their case.

Ex post facto law is meaningless to me.

International law, such as it is today, did not exist when Britain committed those offenses.


If the speed limit on main street is 35 mph today but tomorrow it is changed to 28 mph, should you be held liable for having driven faster than 28 mph, at times prior to the new law taking effect?

[Hanny]

Ex post facto law is meaningless to me.

International law, such as it is today, did not exist when Britain committed those offenses.

It does mean something to you if your a UK citizen, its you who will be paying for any compensation. The law as it exists today makes the Uk liable to punative action in court for actions taking in the past.

The laws i posted are retroroactivly applied, thats not an international ex post facto law, buy a law book as you dont know what your posting about.

Germans owe Italians for the sack of Rome...

Which Germans and when?. Or is that something else meaningless to you?

If the speed limit on main street is 35 mph today but tomorrow it is changed to 28 mph, should you be held liable for having driven faster than 28 mph, at times prior to the new law taking effect?

If the law is legislated as retro active then yes. You dont need an anology, you just need to know that some crimes of the past, when thney were not crimes, can be punished in the courts today as crimes today.

A nice read for those wanting to learn something.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...porate-raiders

[ByzantinePowerGame]

The laws i posted are retroroactivly applied, thats not an international ex post facto law, buy a law book as you dont know what your posting about.

Forgive me, I must have missed the part where you talked about how many cases you have litigated... So, let me ask, how many cases have you litigated?

A law retroactively criminalizing conduct that was not recognized as criminal when it occurred is fundamentally unjust.

Furthermore, most of the colonization of what is today India, was conducted by private companies with royal charters. It is fundamentally unjust to require the average British citizens to pay costs for reparations over the misdeeds and atrocities of private corporate entities.


"General Motors and ExxonMobil engaged in pollution in Brazil and Peru? Fine the American taxpayers, not the companies..." How logical is that?

[Hanny]

Forgive me, I must have missed the part where you talked about how many cases you have litigated... So, let me ask, how many cases have you litigated?

You can read about what i posted here
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/e...pter44_rule160
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/i...ute/part-a.htm
http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

A law retroactively criminalizing conduct that was not recognized as criminal when it occurred is fundamentally unjust.

Sorry, but your simply uniformed as to how the law works and has worked for decades.

Unjust is not holding to acount nations who commit unjust actions in the name of profit. By your faulty argument, the Nazi genocide was just becuase the German legal system said it was lawfull to do it.

In 1877 and 1878, at height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”(2). The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited “at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices.” The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within the labour camps, the workers were given less food than the inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.
As millions died, the imperial government launched “a militarized campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought.” The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places which had produced a crop surplus, the government’s export policies, like Stalin’s in the Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the North-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceding three years, at least 1.25m died.http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/ho...ts-holocausts/

Germans owe Italians for the sack of Rome...

Which Germans and when?. Or is that something else meaningless to you? is your grasp of history as strong as your grasp of law?

Furthermore, most of the colonization of what is today India, was conducted by private companies with royal charters. It is fundamentally unjust to require the average British citizens to pay costs for reparations over the misdeeds and atrocities of private corporate entities.

Wrong, again. Secondly the UK bought out the EEC and took over the running of India, from then on its citizens would be the ones who pay for any compensation.

Under the English Common Law the maxim was "The King can do no wrong" and therefore, the King was not liable for the wrongs of its servants. But, in England the position of old Common law maxim has been changed by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. Earlier, the King could not be sued in tort either for wrong actually authorised by it or committed by its servants, in the course of their employment. With the increasing functions of State, the Crown Proceedings Act had been passed, now the Crown is liable for a tort committed by its servants just like a private individual. Similarly, in America, the Federal Torts Claims Act, 1946 provides the principles, which substantially decides the question of liability of State.


The question of tortuous liability of State has raised many interesting debates in juridical arena. In India, there is no legislation, which governs the liability of the State for the torts committed by its servants. It is article 300 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which enumerates the liability of the Union or State in tortious act of the Government.


The Article 300 of the Constitution originated from Section 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This could be traced back from the Section 32 of the Government of India Act, 1915, the genesis of which can be found in section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858. Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858 provided "All persons and bodies politic shall and may have and take the same suits, for India as they could have done against the said Company."
It will thus be seen that by the chain of enactment beginning with the Act of 1858, the Government of India and Government of each State are in line of succession of the East India Company. In other words, the liability of the Government is the same as that of the East India Company before, 1858.

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/dct.htm

"General Motors and ExxonMobil engaged in pollution in Brazil and Peru? Fine the American taxpayers, not the companies..." How logical is that?

Another atempt at anology, and another epic fail

How much was it worth to India to have electricity, paved roads, water treatment facilities?

History is just not your thing
http://www.irfca.org/docs/history/ir-uklaw-gipr.html

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...and-irrigation

[Chromium]

Are you new to the Discussion&Debate section? That'd explain your sentiment.

To be honest, I'm not a regular poster on twcenter and this is the first time I'm posting anything on this page.

1- India did not exist before the arrival of Britain. Britain arrived to a variety of small states, bound them together and turned them loose in the 20th century.

Problem is, we don't actually refer to Nation-states in this manner. I support Kurdistan even though there has never been a Kurdistan throughout history. I don't support Kosovo even though it's been a fait accompli & NATO ally for over a decade. Vietnam was a country even when it was divided into two. So, in this regard, it doesn't really matter whether the culturally Hindu state in the Indian subcontinent had any physical existence before Colonization- 'India' was still a de facto, if not De jure, truth.

And the very premise of this argument itself is wrong. Look at this map of India in 1795:-



That orange blob you see there is the Maratha Empire in the 1750s- kind of a Hindu Superstate being created to oppose Mughal rule- and the reason they fell was because the British paid off local rulers to revolt & tied up with the Afghans & other Muslims to sabotage the entire thing- and rewarded the rebels with territory. So turns out the British didn't actually 'unite' India. They were the ones who created all those tiny states in the first place! Look at this Indian map in 1947. You'll see clearly that this isn't really the sort of map you'll get in a 'clean' conquest like in Africa. London was actively sabotaging unification, not helping it.



2- you owe us reparations for XYZ

If Dante Von Hepsburg is right, the current Indian PM is a Nationalist who just said this for votes.

But even if we do accept that he was being serious- what he did call for are symbolic reparations- apology, return of their gods, & 1 euro per year for 100 years. Nowhere in the video posted was there any talk of the total amount- 3 trillion pounds or whatever it is (must be more now, considering inflation) being returned. That's just not possible in any scenario.

Secondly- take a look at this:-



These guys look at themselves as the spiritual successors of the Hindu Marathas- the guys the British screwed over in the 1800s. So, he was never going to be a big fan of the UK anyway. You can complain about his religious stance, but as long as they're not flying planes into buildings or shooting up schools in the West, I can't give a damn about them.

3- Germans owe Italians for the sack of Rome...Italians of Roman descent owe French of Celtic/Gallic descent for the conquest of Gaul...Persians owe Greeks for the wars against the Greek city-states...

The point Byzantinedude is forgetting here is that the Age of Colonization wasn't actually very distant. Mozambique got independence in 1975. Namibia in 1990. Kenya in 1963. And the problem is this:- there's something we who study economics call Capital Expenditure and Current expenditure. You want Capex in your place- not Currex. Unlike Empire building, Colonization doesn't actually involve much Capex spending anywhere- or even Capex recovery. This isn't seen in wars either- unless they're huge ones like WW2.

So, comparing a one-shot event like the Sack of Rome with centuries of systematic resource drainage is pretty juvenile.

4- They asked for independence, we gave it to them

Actually, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Indian_Navy_mutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian...endence_League

What you do find is that Gandhi, despite all that's said about him, was pretty useless when it came to delivering results. Indians had been agitating since the 1800s itself- but it wasn't until they started allying with the Nazis & Japanese to chuck out the British (not very smart), that any serious change started. And their navy revolted within an year of the war ending.

In the end, Britain didn't 'leave' India. They were forced out thanks to all these military attacks and MURICA!! FDR wanted Colonization to end and he got what he wanted.

5- most of the colonization of what is today India, was conducted by private companies with royal charters. It is fundamentally unjust to require the average British citizens to pay costs for reparations over the misdeeds and atrocities of private corporate entities.

WTF? Then who's this?



6- Can Britain send India a bill for the infrastructure that Britain built in India prior to leaving?How much was it worth to India to have electricity, paved roads, water treatment facilities?

Now, this is honestly as retarded as saying that the Greeks & Italians & French- and of course, the English- should just sign over fiscal control of their economies to the Germans because that will fix the EU's woes. I don't exactly see what electricity or water treatment plants (did those things even exist back then?) have to do with man-made famines or civilian massacres or strafing revolting villages from planes (Churchill ordered this in North India) or burning villages & raping women & children. We call the Mongols barbarians for the same things they did to half the World- introduce modern banking techniques, codified law, & Chinese technology. The Japanese were never colonized and they ended up with better technology than the British by the 1930s.

Besides, there's nothing special about paved roads. The World has had them since the Roman times. What's wrong with this place?

By these standards, I call for the British to pay the US back for Franklin discovering electricity and the light bulb.

What we do have statistics. I'll be taking the some of the MDG stats. No hardcore economics stuff.

Literacy:-



Relative inequality in income:-



Life expectancy:-

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Share in World GDP:-



I just don't see ANY possible way for ANYONE to justify British Colonization in India. And whatever was done in Africa was way way worse. You can discuss whether European nations ought to make reparations to Asian & African nations (maybe in case of African nations; even Germany will go bankrupt if they have to pay India & China) but most posters haven't been doing that at all.

[Hanny]

Clives loot, an Indian word, was 250,000 in 1759, that made him the richest self made man in Europe, today that would be worth http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcomp...ar_result=2015