Was British rule bad or good for India? (was: The rhetoric of liberation...)

johnhall johnhall@isomedia.com
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:12:12 -0800


The magic of Gandhi's is centered around his non-violence.  No violent
resistor could ever claim Gandhi's fame, since his fame is because of
his non-violence.

Why, exactly, is the _intent_ of Britain of any value in this
conversation?

The intent of the British is completely irrelevent to the effects it
had, short and long term, on India.

> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
Hokkun
> Pang
> 
> I suppose had India been ruled by a Stalin or Hilter, there would be a
> militant Gandhi to claim the same fame.
> 
> I think British rule was basically bad because Britain didn't go to
India
> with the *intent* to bring democracy there.
> 
> >
> > Well, he wouldn't have been remembered except for the British ...
> >
> > Gandhi is to be admired for many things.
> >
> > But Gandhi was very, very, lucky in choosing who to resist.  Had his
> > opponent been a Hitler or Stalin the outcome would have been far
> > different.