----------------- 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]