Why was India the only one in the British colonies as poor as ever?

Among the British colonies, only India was as poor as ever, because of India's serious population problem, and India's plundering was much more serious than that of other countries, coupled with cultural differences, India was simply a mud that could not support the wall. In the process of historical development, Britain has colonized many countries in the past, such as Canada, Australia, the United States, and so on, and these countries have now become developing or developed countries, but their development is better than Indian medicine, and India only knows how to boast of its own country's strength, but can not come up with something that can deter the world.

India was the poorest of the British colonies, due to India's serious population problemsAfter the Second World War, India did not implement family planning, so that their country's population growth rate is rising rapidly, it is said that it has reached more than 1 billion people, and it is still growing, such a large population size has caused a problem, that is, the problem of food, which has always been a very headache, and the lack of resources has to be supplied from other aspects, which greatly lowers their economic level.

India was not rich among the British colonies, because they were more plundered than other countries. Among the British colonies were Australia, the United States and other places, which were very low in development before. The British plundered them to a great extent, but India was different, they plundered raw materials in India, and it was very serious, and in the end only a poor and hungry India was left.

India is the poorest, and another reason is cultural differencesAfter all, the impact of foreign culture on India is also a fundamental influence, and India's backwardness is only the reason for their national culture.

India as a whole is not poor, there are two extremes in India, either it is very rich, or it is very poor, or it is particularly polarized, so India is either poor or the rich and the poor are seriously polarized.

Because India advocates a policy of closing the country to the outside world, and India's own economy has been relatively sluggish, India will be relatively poor.

Because in fact, the British did not want to vigorously develop India, because their geographical environment is not good, the geographical conditions are not good, and there are few natural resources. So much so that they are poor.

When Britain colonized India, it mostly planted agriculture and trafficked drugs to establish the East India Public Rebellion Deficit Division, and after that, the economic level was relatively strong, which was an economy with blood, and then, after India got rid of the colony, the economic level gradually decreased, because they were oppressed for a long time, resulting in backward basic facilities.

The economic structure of the former colonial countries that were impoverished after independence was generally a large resource exporter. There is a lack of industrial base and high-end industries, and much of the production itself is monopolized by foreigners (mainly former suzerains). Foreign companies control a small number of industries and do not form their own system.

In order for the Third World to become independent in the last century, it was very important to nationalize the domestic resources controlled by foreign enterprises.

Because of India's large population, it is difficult for brokers to recover, and the base of people is large, so India's development is very slow, so the economic level will stop when the colony is left.

That's because after India broke away from the colony, its population base was too large and its development was relatively backward**. It's not that they're tough, and they have a serious racial hierarchy. The gap between rich and poor is particularly wide. So India has not been able to develop.

Because in the colonial era, the colonizers brought the productivity of the first touch, and it was very difficult to find out that no one helped them after they became independent, relying on their own technology. So it will become poor.

This is because India is a country with a particularly strict caste system. And they think that the inferior are not worthy of the life of the superior. If there were colonies, the colonists would be able to enjoy equal education in their country.

It was after the colonizers were gone that he still restored the original caste system.

After India broke away from colonization, it became poor, and its economic level remained in the colonial era because there were relatively few economic industries and a large population. Labor is scarce.

1. It is difficult to get out of poverty due to the large population; 2. The climate is changeable, and the agriculture is unpredictable; 3. The work system is improper, and the number of employed workers is insufficient (caused by the caste system); 4. Li Xiang, a legacy of the colonial economy.

Why did India become poor after breaking away from colonization? The economic level is good to stop and tease Bu lead to stay in the colonial era, because India is first of all more conservative in thinking, the thinking of the feudal era, and secondly, the ability to lead the disadvantages is also related, and it will only get poorer and poorer.

Because of India's large population, it is very difficult for the broker to recover, and the population base is large, which leads to the slow development of India, so the economic level will stay in the colony.

Why did India become poor after it broke away from the colony, and the economic level stayed in the colonial era, because after it broke away from the colony, it would not be supported and supported and paid attention to by a senior management at that time, so his own independence and filial piety would become poor, and he would have become poor if he had left Min.

Because they lack a person of the same age, if a country lacks a leader, then the country will always be stagnant, and he doesn't know which direction to go, so he said that his economic level does not dare to change much, I am afraid that it is not as good as the current state.

Because India has been fighting wars all year round and does not have a good party leader, the economic level will always stay in the colonial era, which is why they need a good leader to attack the ruler.

Because of India's large population, it is difficult for brokers to restore the lead and restore prosperity, and the population base is large, so India's development is very slow, so the economic level will stay in the colonies.

Because India's population is large, it is difficult for the economy to recover, and the population is too old, so India's development is very slow, and the economic level will stay in the colony.

The caste system in India is still very influential, and the languages and customs of the various states of India are very different, so it is not easy to form a unified market. There is also the fact that India has not caught up with the industrialization of socks and worms, and the foundation of the industry is weak.

Because the gap between the rich and the poor in their country is huge, the rich are particularly rich, the poor can not afford to eat, and there is no strict management of repentance, and the security banquet is too poor to develop industry.

During the British rule, Britain had been transfusing blood to India, although the Indian people at that time were exploited, but it was also relative. More often than not, the British ruling class brought wealth to India at that time.

India does not have its own way of survival, nor does it have some ultra-high-tech development, nor does it have the ** of some important people. So the letter has been left in the colonial era. They are still very poor.

After India broke away from colonization, it became poor, and its economic level remained in the colonial era. That's because there was no factory after the separation, so there was a degeneration of managers.

They are a large agricultural country, they do not pay attention to the development of science and technology, they do not have the help of external science and technology, they lack innovation, they are broad-minded and have a large population, they are under great pressure, the level of literacy is not high, the scope of education is small, and there is inequality between men and women.

Because of India's large population, it is difficult for brokers to recover, and the population base is large, so India's development is very slow, so the economic hail level will stay in the colony. ”

Most people in India want to have children, but they have no money to raise them, and then they will have children to improve the productivity of the family.

It turned out that the colonists managed the colony, and they would drive the economic development of Chi Zhayan, but after the colonists left, the colony had no leader and its thinking was relatively backward, so it stayed at the original time.

You can check the GDP data over the years, from 37 billion to 3 trillion, which is a hundred times faster.

However, their system is relatively poor, for example, the status of women is strictly restricted, and the Yuhui Bend has led to the labor that can be put in only half of ours.

If they are depressed and liberate the women's labor force, and then introduce the likes of hard work to get rich, more work and more rewards, and success learning, or their people try to roll up a little, or speculate in real estate, borrow money, and so on. Maybe they can have more than a trillion yuan of GDP?

It's completely stress-free to reach the third place in the world (total!). Per capita is incomparable)

After the middle of the 18th century, the rivalry between Britain and France in India intensified. During the War of the Austrian Succession, the British and French East India Companies fought in India. At the beginning of the war, the French occupied many British strongholds.

After the outbreak of the Seven Years' War, the British and French fought for India more fiercely, and in 1756, Bengal Nabs Siraj Dora sent troops to recover Calcutta and other places. The East India Company sent Robert Klevu to reoccupy Calcutta in January 1757. In March, Klevu captured the French stronghold of Chandnagor in Bengal.

France allied themselves with Dora against the British. On June 23, 1757, the two sides fought at the village of Prasi, more than 30 miles north of Calcutta.

Klaev bought him off with the bait of agreeing to the Bengal Army's general, Mir Ghafa, to take the throne of Bengali Nawab. As the battle progressed, Gaffa stood still.

As a result, with only 800 British troops and more than 2,000 mercenaries, Clevau defeated about 70,000 Bengali troops and a French army that came to support. Gaffa became the Nawab of Bengal, and Klaev became the governor of the East India Company in Bengal. The Battle of Plassey marked the beginning of India's fall to a British colony.

According to the Peace of Paris in 1763, France could only retain five undefended cities in India, including Pondicherry, for trade.

India was once a British colony, why don't Indians resent the British? There are three main reasons.

Although India was indeed occupied by the British at that time, it was precisely because of the British occupation that its economy developed greatly and the people's living standards improved a lot.

India, which was once a British colony, did not hate Britain, because before Britain came, India was a scattered small country, and it was the British who unified India and the continent, so it formed the current India.

Because Britain was indeed very advanced in science and technology at that time, it drove the development of India to a certain extent, and there was no large-scale conflict between Britain and India in modern times, so the grievances between the two countries gradually became diluted.