Should UK pay reparations to India Quora?

Britain should definitely pay for aid, reparations. There are many responses to this question that Britain can not afford it so they should not pay.

Did India benefit from the British rule?

Some recent research suggests that British rule did little for India in economic terms. Britain gained hugely from ruling India, but most of the wealth created was not invested back into the country. For example, from 1860 to about 1920, economic growth in India was very slow – much slower than in Britain or America.

Is Britain giving Kohinoor to India?

The government of India had told the Supreme Court in 2016 that Kohinoor was “neither stolen nor forcible taken” by the British, but rather was offered to the East India Company as a present by the then rulers of Punjab.

Should Britain pay reparations to India for WW2?

No. Simply because Britain cannot afford a credible amount of reparations to India (Pakistan and Bangladesh) without breaking the back of their economy and selling the family jewels.

Why was India governed for the benefit of the British?

The reason was simple: India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India.

Did Britain pay for its own oppression in India?

Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India. By the end of the 19th Century, India was Britain’s biggest cash-cow, the world’s biggest purchaser of British exports and the source of highly paid employment for British civil servants – all at India’s own expense. We literally paid for our own oppression.

How much foreign aid has India received from the UK?

To begin with, the aid received is 0.4\%, which is less than half of 1\% of India’s GDP. British aid, which is far from the amounts a reparation debate would throw up, is only a fraction of India’s fertiliser subsidy to farmers, which may be an appropriate metaphor for this argument.