Jagraj Singh On Beeb This Sunday @ 10am

[Quantavius 141]

I think what Quantavius is alluding to here is that when looting was common amongst warring parties.

Another thing I might add is that the looting here occurred between the elites. Not the common man.

I thought by looting everybody meant resources. Now I understand that they're alluding to artifacts. How did artifacts create wealth for the average Indian when it was never in their hands to begin with? Even if it was in their hands, how much would it be wroth when shared out? A couple of pennies each?

What ever they British looted it was from the ruling class. The average Indian did not have that kind of wealth to begin with. To say that what the British took from the ruling class in India created their poverty is utter nonsense. It's like saying by the British taking the Koo Hi Noor from the Sikhs, the Sikhs became poor. This is how stupid and crazy it is.

All three of those are naturally occurring. The only thing that created them was God

Yes. Red Riding Hood was one day walking in the forest and she stumbled upon a combustion engine. LOL!

[WaljinderSingh 827]

I can't believe you're quoting WIKIPEDIA and calling me ignorant. Dear Johnny, Wikipedia is not a 'source'. It is not considered a source because anybody buffoon can write anything there. You can go there and write Sikhs are from Mars. Anybody can even go there and edit those articles. Do you know I can go into the part where you quoted and edit it? Wikipedia is not accepted anywhere as a source. You can't submit a University paper and quote Wikipedia. Not as a 'primary source' anyway. 600 trillion looted? Why not go for gold and 6 Zillion or even infinity?

What is a source? A source is where someone has done genuine research and that research is usually peer reviewed. It is usually done by historians submitting a thesis paper or writing a book and it is usually peer reviewed, much like scientific journals. To understand what I mean by a source, go buy any history book and you'll see at the table of contents or bibliography where the writer quotes his source.

By the way, GDP is not a measure of wealth. It is merely the output created by a nation. India today has far higher GDP then smaller countries like Finland or Singapore. Yet, Singaporeans and Finnish people have a far higher standard of living then the average Indian so much so, they are not even comparable anymore. Your entire premise that GDP equates wealth for the individual in a nation is false. You need to educate yourself on what constitutes wealth of the individual in a nation means.

As for the rest of your nonsense, it is complete utter bollocks. There are millions of books written of the everyday life of the average Indian. They were not living in the lap of luxury. The average Indian was poor. I won't even go to how the low caste lived. Indian society was a stratified society. If you were a leader or in royalty, your life was set. The others who had it ok were the priests and merchants. The rest lived very poor lives. Every single book or history mentions Indians as being poor. I have never read a single book depicting the average Indian as being rich. They were all poor. That is how langar in the Gurdwaras first started, to cater to the massive number of poor people who didn't have food on their table. If not for poor people, Sikhism would have died at it's infancy as they were the biggest number of converts.You are seriously deluding yourself on Indians being rich.

The religious persecution from the Muslims was tied with economics. Learn how things work. It is used as a means to attack and forfeit ones land and wealth against those who fought back.

Stop being a Low IQ Pendu. Learn to think instead of regurgitating the same lies and nonsense you heard from your close circle of Low IQ Pendu friends.

Hello mr troll. Look down into references section of the Wikipedia page. I would call them 'reliable' sources for sure - peer reviewed.

[jkvlondon 5,723]

I'm talking about resources such as oil, tin, rubber....stuff the Whites created. When the Sikh empire extended up to Kabul, did they never loot anything? No? How did the Koo Hi Noor end up in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's possession? Did the Hindu Rajas and Muslim Sultans who frequently invaded each others territories not loot from each other? They were such perfect angels?

Invading and looting each other was the standard back in the day. Every power did that. If you want to judge the British, you must judge based on the standards practiced by all powers back in the day and not today's standards.

This is what I mean by crazy, delusional, one track mind set. Unable to rationalize. Unable to have a balanced view of the world.

you are a bit confused no white man made oil, or any resource , they may have exploited other's resources since they are not naturally occuring on land of the British Isles besides these three resources are NOT why the Europeans wanted access to India. they wanted spices, cotton, tea, fabrics printed in colourful ways, silks and to exploit the cheap labour whilst robbing the unwary elites.

[Quantavius 141]

Hello mr troll. Look down into references section of the Wikipedia page. I would call them 'reliable' sources for sure - peer reviewed.

Hello Low IQ Pendu, Wikipedia by itself is not a source. It is irrelevant who they quote as the information can be edited by anybody. I stand corrected.

Please stop making a fool out of yourself. You are clearly not educated beyond high school. Even that, I have my doubts.

From wiki itself

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessibletertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.^[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

From Harvard

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

< PREVIOUS | NEXT >

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

[InderjitS 1,243]

Surprisingly no one has mentioned the East India Company. They were key to plundering the wealth from India, including robbing the entire Bengal Treasury, lop sided trade treaties, raping treasuries of the Mughals in Agra, heck the word loot was one of the first Indian words to enter the English language! The English recognised India to be richer in natural resources quickly and the EIC took huge advantage of this and were backed by the Crown to an extent.

India in 1800 amounted to a 20% manufacturing output globally, this reversed during the height of the Raj.

[Quantavius 141]

you are a bit confused no white man made oil, or any resource , they may have exploited other's resources since they are not naturally occuring on land of the British Isles besides these three resources are NOT why the Europeans wanted access to India. they wanted spices, cotton, tea, fabrics printed in colourful ways, silks and to exploit the cheap labour whilst robbing the unwary elites.

I'm really tired of arguing with you. You are a broken tape recorder. No amount of information can fix you. You're a 'one trick' pony. The Americans have a good adage to describe the likes of you and here is how it goes, "You can't fix stupid". Here is another, "Stupid is as stupid does".

[WaljinderSingh 827]

Hello Low IQ Pendu, Wikipedia by itself is not a source. It is irrelevant who they quote as the information can be edited by anybody. I stand corrected.

Please stop making a fool out of yourself. You are clearly not educated beyond high school. Even that, I have my doubts.

From wiki itself

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessibletertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.^[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

From Harvard

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

< PREVIOUS | NEXT >

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Super brainy 'bigot-troll', use the references to cross-reference the figures which Johny posted - if you are really interested in learning anything.

Your learning curve on this forum is zero.

[jkvlondon 5,723]

I'm really tired of arguing with you. You are a broken tape recorder. No amount of information can fix you. You're a 'one trick' pony. The Americans have a good adage to describe the likes of you and here is how it goes, "You can't fix stupid". Here is another, "Stupid is as stupid does".

and you SIr have only one response to anyone who looks at what you say and actually exposes its weird flaws ...to personally insult...and of course everyone knows the first to sling slurs does it out of desperation because they have run out of ideas ..

you frankly, aspire to being a troll ...but seriously lack the qualifications

[Jonny101 4,384]

Hello mr troll. Look down into references section of the Wikipedia page. I would call them 'reliable' sources for sure - peer reviewed.

No use trying to explain this to a person who has convinced himself that sun shines out of the white man's arse. References and names of sources are listed if he really wants to learn but instead he chooses to put restrictions on himself so he will not think outside the box. David Duke seems to be his sole source of knowledge.

[sikhiseeker 258]

Whites never looted anything from colonies. This is a lie. There was nothing to loot as the east was largely agrarian societies. If anything they brought industry to the east.

WJKK WJKF

LOL? The whites just asked black people to jump on a boat and for them and their future generations to be slaves?

What history books do you read bro to get to your opinion?

[jkvlondon 5,723]

Whites never looted anything from colonies. This is a lie. There was nothing to loot as the east was largely agrarian societies. If anything they brought industry to the east.

WJKK WJKF

LOL? The whites just asked black people to jump on and for them and their future generations to be slaves?

What history books do you read bro to get to your opinion?

the Beano probably

[sikhiseeker 258]

the Beano probably

WJKK WJKF

LOL maybe we should suggest this veer ji starts off again and get some "horrible histories" recorded of cbeebies on his playback and at least back himself up with some realistic factual views.

[Jeevan 175]

It's a BBC ploy to make Jagraj appear as a subservient servant or an extreme radical!

The BBC have had no interest in the Sikhs why the sudden interest now?

[InderjitS 1,243]

I only caught the last 20 minutes and I heard Jagraj Singh speak once. To be a panellist on these shows, one has to more or less interrupt with a louder voice in order to get heard. Will have to watch the rest on i-player.

[simran345 2,503]

I only caught the last 20 minutes and I heard Jagraj Singh speak once. To be a panellist on these shows, one has to more or less interrupt with a louder voice in order to get heard. Will have to watch the rest on i-player.

I think he spoke more than I was expecting him to. The others on his side spoke less than him. He did ok in my opinion. And confronted the other speakers when they said that the British empire stopped sati, informing them that it was actually the Gurus that did.

The Dr Singh on the left, oh tha railways ch fasea reha. The Kohinoor topic was brought up by the Muslim guy at the end.