Effect of British Rule

Charter Act of 1813, says to educate one lac Indians then, though all these tend to inclined to propagate some hidden agenda but there are positives to British rule on social and economic impacts of different walks of life of Indians. 

Yes. Whatever may be the. Motives behind British rule, we are benefited Without an iota of doubt especially in the introduction of English. In the IT Industry an English knowing Indian are preferred all over the world.

Yes, not only in the IT industry but touch anything it is a  gift of the British from the legal system, the army, and saving of monuments like Khajuraho and much more benefitted Indians.

yes the british came to rule, but the benefits they left behind are far greater than anything.

An important point that cannot be denied is that during Muslim rule there was no uniform legal system for all, no seats of learning, practically just the destructions of temples. It is the English who gave all that we have today.

MG Singh wrote:

Yes, not only in the IT industry but touch anything it is a  gift of the British from the legal system, the army, and saving of monuments like Khajuraho and much more benefitted Indians.

 

True.Knowledge of English imparts an edge over others.

Even I feel India would have been a country of small kingdoms if britishers have not ruled India. 

Even British have made to create small princely state after independence, India is not united of Britishers, but because of Home Minister Patel. 

Sardar Patel the then Home minister felt the need of having United India. That's why he has  merged all the Princely states in to Indian Union including Hyderabad.

MG Singh wrote:

An important point that cannot be denied is that during Muslim rule there was no uniform legal system for all, no seats of learning, practically just the destructions of temples. It is the English who gave all that we have today.

 

Here I may mention that Hindu law manusmriti is worst.  Even Muslim law Sharia would be better. sharia applied equally to all but Manusmriti prescribed different punishments according to caste of offender and victim.  a dalit man raping an upper caste woman would get very harsh punishment whereas rape of lower caste woman by an upper caste man would be treated leniently. The British introduced very fair legal practices. all are equal before law- milkmaid to queen.  Our constitution is based on this principle of equality before law. .  

I am glad that you have hit the nail on the head. The inequalities in Hindu law are glaring and one reason is the sanctity of the Varna system. This must be eradicated, but I wonder if it will ever go away with the government itself championing it with reserved seats in civil services , colleges and jobs based on caste.

At least we must give credit to the British for a universal law applicabe to all, it is the Indian's who have corrupted it by caste based jobs and services. It was not there in British times

Reservation meant for few years but politics continues and now politicians are compelled to support for vote bank politics, though during British legacy there are unannounced reservation and all these becomes practical while we get back freedom. 

MG Singh wrote:

At least we must give credit to the British for a universal law applicabe to all, it is the Indian's who have corrupted it by caste based jobs and services. It was not there in British times

 

I agree with you. Indians are born hypocrites and corrupt minded.

Every persons everywhere is same, persons with due course to organisation behaves that way, there are some organisation which are still to face reform and those are making mockery of justice system. 

You are right Gulshanji, Manusmiriti is in my view inferior to Sharia

I do not think so Indian are born hypocrites and corrupt minded, it is the same person who thinks so and generalize, it is the land of many great persons and long history.