Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Back to homepage

British and Infrastructure

British and India’s Infrastructure

How Iran build its Railway

Iran was extremely poor in 19th century. Before advent of oil, Iran was as poor as Afghanistan. The Maharaja of Mysore had more revenue than the king of Iran. Still, without getting ruled by any colonial power, Iran managed to build Railways in 1887. It is laughable to think that India would need a colonial master to build railways. India did not need any colonial masters to build internet network in 20th/21st century.

Britain and Nigeria

British ruled Nigeria too. Can British colonialist fanboys show anything as big as Victoria Terminus that was built by British in Nigeria? Anything close to it? No, all they could manage to build in Nigeria was sheds. These dunderheads do not understand that a colonial power is only as strong as the economy of the people it rules. The economy of Bombay was strong enough to generate surplus to build Victoria Terminus. The economy of Nigeria wasn’t. Why are colonialists shamelessly usurping the credit of economies of the base country?

Economy in British-controlled vs British-free India

Stats don’t lie. Here is a bombshell. Baroda was a princely state ruled by native Indian king. Patna was the most prosperous region of Bihar ruled by British. In 1890, Baroda had a revenue of 159 lakhs with a population of 19 lakhs. The revenue of Patna was 110 Lakhs. Patna district had a population of 1.6 crores. It means Baroda (ruled by native king) was 11 times richer than Patna (ruled by British). This was in colonial times.

In 1947, Bihar was already the poorest mega-region in the entire world.

This was before the advent of brown babus and thugs like Lalu. This is the real legacy of British rule.

Education in British-controlled vs British-free India

Stats do not lie. And stats expose propaganda. This is official data from 1941.

  • Travancore was a Princely state ruled by a Hindu king. It had a literacy of 47.7%.
  • United provinces (Uttar Pradesh) was directly ruled by British. It had a literacy of 8%.


If British really gave education, why did British ruled Uttar Pradesh have poor literacy? Why did British ruled provinces fare so badly in education in comparison to native states ruled by Hindu kings?

The fact is that the entire Budget of education in British India was less than half the high school budget of New York. The Rajas of Travancore and Mysore spent a lot on education. Hence the much better results.


The highest literacy regions Travancore, Cochin and Baroda have one thing in common. Yes, they were Princely States all ruled by native Hindu kings who invested in the education of the people. Unlike the British Colonisers who created illiteracy in the land they ruled. Even today, the regions directly ruled by British have relatively low literacy and are relatively poorer. This is the real legacy of British rule in India. The communist thugs boast ‘we made Kerala literate’. Know that they are merely stealing credit. Kerala was already the most literate region in the entire India even before Independence and communist takeover. All credit goes to the Hindu kings of Travancore and Kochi for the educational setup. The next governments merely continued the implementation already in place.

Post-British India

When the British left, India was poorer than Congo, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Kenya, Niger, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Sudan etc. In fact, It was very hard to find any African country poorer than India (except Uganda) then. This is the real legacy of British in India. In 2021, despite 75 years of Brown babu misrule, India is marginally better than most sub-Saharan Nations.