Jump to content

Talk:India–United Kingdom relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economic relations

[edit]

There needs to be some reference on the claim that India is the "second largest foreign investor" in the UK. According to the ONS (below) India does not even figure in the top ten in terms of UK FDI, much less than the US, Japan and various European countries. This is significantly misleading - I cannot even find an internet reference to this claim?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fdi/foreign-direct-investment/2011-ma4/stb-ma4-2011.html#tab-Net-FDI-international-investment-positions-in-the-UK--inward--by-component--geography-and-industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.162.89 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV Editing

[edit]

To the person who keeps adding

Unlike what happened after second world war to Germany which paid compensation to the victim countries, India did not pursue or seek retribution for British oppression of its people. Essentially India forgave the British for the crimes committed in India during the British rule over India including Bengal Famine, Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. This was a major step forward and allowed the Indians to develop their country without the bitterness of victimisation or hate against the British people.

This is mainly a point of view based around a couple of events. The fact that there was a famine in Bengal or a massacre at Jallianwala Bagh does not mean that your viewpoint that India did not seek compensation which meant they forgave crimes, took a major step forwards and developed without victimisation or hate against the British people. It utterly ignores those Indian politicians / pressure groups who have been very anti British, the large aid budget from Britain to India, or the harm to a number of Indians who did not consider themselves oppressed caused by the end of British rule.

I can see what you're trying to achieve, and even tried to help, but it is your point of view and this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Right, I've rewritten what you're attempting to say into a more neutral tone. I've highlighted the opinion parts that need citations to stop them being your opinion, and if you can find those then we're in a good place. FMMonty (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you added doesn't actually cover the sentence that you added it to, and can't really be considered an unbiased source even were it relevant. As such I'm going to remove the reference, and leave the disputed tag. If you are unable to supply references for those statements we will need to remove them as point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC) I've actually moved this piece into it's own section and marked it as disputed. This edit war has gone on far too long, and it seems sensible to clearly mark the problematic piece and enable it to be improved. What we need are good references for the two statements needing citation that clearly agree with those statements. FMMonty (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link showing the Prince of Wales visiting India shows that there are good relations. It doesn't show that:
  1. Everyone in India viewed the colonial period as repressive and full of crimes against the people
  2. India chose to forgive those crimes without demanding recompense
  3. This forgiveness was a major step forward
  4. India was able to develop without bitterness or recrimination against the British

There were numerous pro and anti British elements in India at the end of the Raj, and this section doesn't reflect that reality at all.FMMonty (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further more, none of these points seems to be incorrect. No evidence that hate against british is prescribed in India or any racism/descrimination. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-30/news/40895561_1_uk-india-business-council-ukibc-uk-companies. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India–United Kingdom relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India–United Kingdom relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lie

[edit]

" It had a 25 percent share of the world's GDP, by the time the British left the country its GDP was near 4%."

It was 16 percent at the beginning, Indias gdp increased as well but much smaller than in the UK due to Industrialization and the growth rate during the british raj was higher than in the past.

"From 1850 to 1947 India's GDP in 1990 international dollars grew from $125.7 billion to $213.7 billion, a 70% increase or an average annual growth rate of 0.55%. This was a higher rate of growth than during the Mughal era from 1600 to 1700 where it had grown by 22%, an annual growth rate of 0.20%. Or the longer period of mostly British East Indian company rule from 1700 to 1850 where it grown 39% or 0.22% annually."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

Your portrayal of the british impact is misleading. Indias economy still nearly doubled, there was no plundering going on and you cant plunder a country with such a tiny amount of british foreigners living there.

62.226.75.248 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced line on History > Republic of India (since 1950)

[edit]

The following line on History > Republic of India (since 1950)

Political and diplomatic relations between the two countries have generally been cordial but lacking in depth. Now with the UK leaving the EU relations can be cordial but having greater depth and trust.

has no depth and the citation to it, which simply says

professional opinion of a oxford scholar

is beyond inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:6586:58B9:2811:6177:B729:9513 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India–United_Kingdom_relations&oldid=1207709771"