----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
In response to Prabhu Guptara's claim: 
"It is fairly evident to any economist who analyses the respective 
historical situations, that the reign of the British masters from the 1830s 
to the 1900s was much more benign than the reign of the Indian business and 
political ruling class has been in the fifty-five years since 
Independence." 
 
No doubt colonisation was a complex process, and I would add, not solely an 
economic one. But, 'Fairly evident' does not an argument make! In what 
senses was it much more 'benign'? And why is the comparison a legitimate 
one to make -- in terms of its benignity? 
 
Nitasha Kaul 
 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]