[justanotherhn]

First of all, this is not a belief that is widely held in Britan since I've not heard anyone seriously suggest that Britains occupation of India " was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself.". This assumption is incorrect, therefore this article is not honest.

Another quote that is incorrect and tantamount to a lie: > - "David Cameron asserted that British rule was a net help to India."

The link this journalist added mentioned Camron saying: > "I would say that it’s a help because of the shared history, culture, the things that we share and also the contributions the Indians talk about that we’ve made. Obviously, where there are bad events, we have to remember them, be clear about them and learn from them."

He said nothing about Britain being a net help for India...

[chickenmonkey]

The problem is that there still linger rose-tinted visions of the British Raj in the minds of the British public and ruling class, which blinds many from the abject cruelty that was exacted on millions of Indians.

You say the assumption that Britains occupation of India " was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself." is incorrect. Yet, I hear many post-facto justifications of colonialism or minimisations of the cruelty and harms of colonialism.

This revisionist history or blindness towards the actual harms of the British Raj could cause Britons to yearn for the glory of yesteryear, and could lend to support for neocolonialist programs.

[richardwhiuk]

It's not rose tinted - as a country, Britain was better of during the Raj. People are yearning for a time when we stole huge amounts from the rest of the world.

[mytailorisrich]

Britain was better off in the sense that it was much more powerful than it is now.

But on an individual level Britons are much better off now than they were then.

[NoRagrets]

https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide

[..] The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits." -Winston Churchill

The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of British rule, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain. Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxation the famines brought about.[..]