QA問(wèn)答：大英帝國(guó)幾乎一半的領(lǐng)土都像加拿大和澳大利亞那樣空空如也，為什么還被認(rèn)為是偉大的？

Allen Lobo
, Corporate finance, former physician & research physicist
Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy (governor at large) of India at the turn of the 20th century, once remarked in 1901 -
“As long as we rule India we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it, we shall drop straightaway to a third-rate power.”
He wasn’t exaggerating at all.
The British Empire for all of its impressive extent when viewed on a map, in economical terms was pretty much the Indian subcontinent and then a riff raff of other frankly negligible pieces. We’re talking here in terms of economical heft of course not size of land, otherwise Denmark would have been one of the greatest empires in Europe with her dominion of gargantuan Greenland!
British India (present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) accounted in terms of GDP for five times as much as all of the other empire’s territories put together in 1870 at the height of British power during the Victorian Era. And four times as much as all of the others put together at the height of the British Empire on the eve of WW1 in 1913.
Yeah that’s right 4–5 times as all of the rest… Canada, Australia, Malaya and all. Put together.
The Indian subcontinent contributed no less than 40–50% of the empire’s productivity, with the British Isles themselves (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) contributing another 40–45%, leaving the rest of the colonies together putting in 10% or less.
While the above is a Wikipedia article, the original source is the 2017 book “Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory: Post-Cold War By Goedele De Keersmaeker” a detailed work which looks at military and economic strengths of various nations and empires in modern history.
I have said before that if the Brits were given a choice between keeping India on the one hand versus all of the rest of their colonies on the other hand, they would choose the former. In a heartbeat, it would be a no-brainer.
As far as Britain’s empire was concerned, India wasn’t merely the jewel in the imperial crown, it was nearly the whole damn crown!
The only part of the British Empire to ever compare to the GDP contribution from India was well….. Great Britain herself (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales). No surprise there, Britain was after all in terms of quality of human capital, the most advanced place on the planet from the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries.
For all of the talk about resources in places like Canada and Australia, most of the oil, iron or uranium was not exploited until well after those nations were de facto independent. Well past the time when their erstwhile imperial mistress could just suck out their resources relentlessly and ship it back to the mothership.
But in the era of rapacious imperialism? Their contributions were minimal as compared to India. It’s like how the Brits say that losing the American colonies wasn’t a really big deal to them at the time. But losing India? There was a reason they fought tooth and nail for nearly an effing whole century from 1857 to 1947 to stubbornly keep it.
GDP is a good reflection not of territory or even of population but of economic output. And that includes resources, labor and everything.
It’s also why people mistakenly think that America became the richest nation on earth only after The Second World War. No, America was on the cusp of that top rank on the eve of the First World War. That one nation birthed in such relatively humble origins from the thirteen little colonies in North America was already as rich as the entire British Empire combined in 1913 and pulling ahead fast. And now you might appreciate why. Because for all of the pieces of British imperial land that look so massively impressive on a map, in terms of economic output it was essentially a question of the USA as compared to the (British Isles + India).

20世紀(jì)初，英國(guó)的印度總督柯松勛爵在1901年曾經(jīng)說(shuō)過(guò)：
"只要我們統(tǒng)治印度，我們就是世界上最偉大的國(guó)家。如果我們失去了它，我們將直接淪為三流國(guó)家。"
他一點(diǎn)也沒(méi)有夸大其詞。
當(dāng)我們看地圖的時(shí)候，大英帝國(guó)的令人印象深刻的版圖里，在經(jīng)濟(jì)方面幾乎就一個(gè)印度次大陸，然后是其他一些可以忽略不計(jì)的部分。我們?cè)谶@里談?wù)摰氖墙?jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力，當(dāng)然不是土地面積，否則丹麥將成為歐洲最偉大的帝國(guó)之一，她擁有巨大的格陵蘭島！
英屬印度（今天的印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉國(guó)）的國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值是1870年維多利亞時(shí)代英國(guó)權(quán)力鼎盛時(shí)期帝國(guó)其他所有領(lǐng)土總和的五倍。而在1913年一戰(zhàn)前夕大英帝國(guó)的鼎盛時(shí)期，則是所有其他領(lǐng)地加起來(lái)的四倍之多。
是的，沒(méi)錯(cuò)，是其他所有領(lǐng)地的4-5倍......加拿大、澳大利亞、馬來(lái)亞等等，加在一起。
印度次大陸貢獻(xiàn)了不少于40-50%的帝國(guó)生產(chǎn)力，不列顛群島本身（英格蘭、蘇格蘭、威爾士和愛(ài)爾蘭）貢獻(xiàn)了另外40-45%，剩下的殖民地加起來(lái)只有10%或更少。
大英帝國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)——維基百科
雖然以上是維基百科的文章，但原始來(lái)源是基爾斯邁克爾于2017 年出版的《極性、力量平衡和國(guó)際關(guān)系理論：后冷戰(zhàn)》一書(shū)，該書(shū)著眼于在現(xiàn)代歷史中各個(gè)國(guó)家和帝國(guó)的軍事和經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力。
我曾經(jīng)說(shuō)過(guò)，如果讓英國(guó)人在保留印度和保留其所有其他殖民地之間做出選擇，他們會(huì)選擇前者。在心底里，這將是一個(gè)不需要思考就能作出的選擇。
就英國(guó)的帝國(guó)而言，印度不僅僅是帝國(guó)王冠上的寶石，它幾乎是整個(gè)該死的王冠!
大英帝國(guó)唯一能與印度的GDP貢獻(xiàn)相比的地方是.....大不列顛本身（即英格蘭、蘇格蘭和威爾士）。這并不奇怪，畢竟在人力資本質(zhì)量方面，英國(guó)是19世紀(jì)中期到20世紀(jì)初地球上最先進(jìn)的地方。
對(duì)于所有關(guān)于加拿大和澳大利亞等地的資源的討論，大多數(shù)石油、鐵或鈾都是在這些國(guó)家事實(shí)上獨(dú)立之后才被開(kāi)采的。已經(jīng)過(guò)了他們昔日的帝國(guó)女主人可以無(wú)情地吸走他們的資源并將其運(yùn)回母艦的時(shí)間了。
但在貪婪的帝國(guó)主義時(shí)代呢？與印度相比，他們的貢獻(xiàn)是最小的。這就像英國(guó)人說(shuō)，失去美國(guó)殖民地對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)在當(dāng)時(shí)并不是什么大事。但失去印度？從1857年到1947年，他們咬牙堅(jiān)持，頑強(qiáng)地保住了它，這是有原因的。
GDP是一個(gè)很好的反映，不是領(lǐng)土，甚至不是人口，而是經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)出。因?yàn)檫@包括資源、勞動(dòng)力和一切。
這也是為什么人們錯(cuò)誤地認(rèn)為美國(guó)在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后才成為地球上最富有的國(guó)家。不，美國(guó)在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)前夕就處于這個(gè)最高等級(jí)的邊緣。這個(gè)從北美的13個(gè)小殖民地中誕生的國(guó)家，在1913年已經(jīng)和整個(gè)大英帝國(guó)的財(cái)富總和一樣富裕，而且還在快速發(fā)展?，F(xiàn)在你可能會(huì)明白為什么。因?yàn)閷?duì)于所有在地圖上看起來(lái)如此巨大的大英帝國(guó)土地來(lái)說(shuō)，就經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)出而言，這基本上是一個(gè)美國(guó)與（不列顛群島+印度）相比的問(wèn)題。

Emmanuel-Francis Nwaolisa Ogomegbunam
LOL!
When I saw this question, I said ‘because of India’. If that had not been your answer, I intended to post mine saying ‘because of India’.
I will add that in a time when European governments struggled to raise money and thus carry out military campaigns, it was India Army and the Royal Navy that gave Britain the impression of global heft. Together they could strike anywhere outside of mainland Europe.
To contemporaries it must have seemed about as magical as the US’s ability to print unlimited dollars.

哈哈!
當(dāng)我看到這個(gè)問(wèn)題時(shí)，我就想說(shuō)'因?yàn)橛《?。如果不是你已經(jīng)這么回答了，我打算發(fā)表我的'因?yàn)橛《?的答案的。
我想補(bǔ)充的是，在歐洲政府努力籌集資金從而開(kāi)展軍事行動(dòng)的時(shí)候，是印度陸軍和皇家海軍給英國(guó)留下了全球影響力的印象。它們一起可以打擊歐洲大陸以外的任何地方。
對(duì)同時(shí)代的人來(lái)說(shuō)，這似乎就像美國(guó)有能力印刷無(wú)限的美元一樣神奇。

Sumanth Murthy
Lord Curzon was absolutely right.
The biggest mistake made by the British was entering the Great War in 1914 for a bunch of pointless reasons (Belgium’s neutrality?? Luxembourg? Tiny Luxembourg?? Come on!!) where it squandered the power of its youth and the independence movements took off in the “Crown jewel”.
The second war pretty much sealed its fate by making way for the US to emerge as the pre-eminent power on the planet.

柯松勛爵說(shuō)得很對(duì)。
英國(guó)所犯的最大錯(cuò)誤是在1914年以一堆毫無(wú)意義的理由（維持比利時(shí)的中立性？為了盧森堡？"小盧森堡"？拜托！）加入了大戰(zhàn)，在那里它揮霍了年輕的人力，"皇冠上的寶石"的獨(dú)立運(yùn)動(dòng)開(kāi)始起飛。
第二次大戰(zhàn)幾乎注定了它的命運(yùn)，為美國(guó)成為地球上的卓越大國(guó)讓路。

Derek Fancett
I think the reason the British chose to join the fight then was the realisation that, if they didn’t, in another 10 to 20 years they’d have to fight Germany alone. A Germany that would have control, or access to, all the resources of the European continental countries and founded on its own, considerable, manufacturing ability.

我認(rèn)為英國(guó)人當(dāng)時(shí)選擇加入戰(zhàn)斗的原因是意識(shí)到，如果他們不這樣做，再過(guò)10到20年他們將不得不單獨(dú)與德國(guó)作戰(zhàn)。一個(gè)控制或獲得歐洲大陸國(guó)家所有資源的德國(guó)，并且自身?yè)碛姓呦喈?dāng)強(qiáng)大的制造能力。

William Morrison
Quite: if you look at British foreign policy from the Middle Ages right to the present day, the one absolutely constant pillar has been the prevention of the emergence of a hegemonic power on the European mainland. From that perspective, our commitments to Belgium, far from being pointless, were actually the eternal point, and the entanglements in India were a came-then-went distraction of a few short generations.

沒(méi)錯(cuò)：如果你看一下英國(guó)從中世紀(jì)至今的外交政策，一個(gè)絕對(duì)不變的主題就是防止在歐洲大陸出現(xiàn)一個(gè)霸權(quán)主義國(guó)家。從這個(gè)角度來(lái)看，我們對(duì)比利時(shí)的承諾遠(yuǎn)非毫無(wú)意義，實(shí)際上這才是永恒的重點(diǎn)，而在印度的糾葛只是短短幾代人的事。

Stuart Clark
If the Earth decides to move, even a Giant like the British Empire must move as well.
Britain could not very well “sit out” the 1st WW as she had a pact with France and Russia (the Entente Cordiale) where they were bound to protect each other.
Any attack on the Low countries by any European Power always provoked a British reaction, from the time of the Spanish Empire, indeed since Britain was formed itself in 1707 it has been the centerpiece of all her Foreign policy. “No power shall dominate Europe and control the Channel ports, Low countries for a potential assault on Britain “
Britain could not have sat out and watched Belgian overrun, it was in her DNA to respond.

如果地球決定移動(dòng)，即使像大英帝國(guó)這樣的巨人也必須跟著移動(dòng)。
英國(guó)不可能在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)中"袖手旁觀"，因?yàn)樗c法國(guó)和俄國(guó)簽訂了條約（《友好條約》），它們必須相互保護(hù)。
任何歐洲大國(guó)對(duì)低地國(guó)家的攻擊都會(huì)引起英國(guó)的反應(yīng)，從西班牙帝國(guó)時(shí)期開(kāi)始，事實(shí)上，自從英國(guó)在1707年成立以來(lái)，這一直是她所有外交政策的核心。"任何大國(guó)都不能主宰歐洲并控制海峽港口和低地國(guó)家，以便對(duì)英國(guó)進(jìn)行潛在的攻擊"
英國(guó)不可能坐視比利時(shí)被侵占，她的基因里就刻有對(duì)此的回應(yīng)。

John McCluskey
Of course you speak from hindsight as no one fully understood the implications of what was going to occur when all the major powers went to war with modern technological industrial might. They all thought it would be quickly over like Prussia's wars with France and Austria. Also Britain had signed treaties committing itself to defending Belgium if attacked as had France and Prussia. So when Germany invaded Belgium the British Empire went to war. I'm sure Belgium appreciated it.

你說(shuō)的都是事后諸葛亮，因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)沒(méi)有人完全理解當(dāng)所有大國(guó)以現(xiàn)代技術(shù)工業(yè)力量開(kāi)戰(zhàn)時(shí)將會(huì)發(fā)生什么影響。他們都認(rèn)為戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)會(huì)像普魯士與法國(guó)和奧地利的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)一樣迅速結(jié)束。此外，英國(guó)還簽署了條約，承諾在比利時(shí)受到法國(guó)或者普魯士的攻擊時(shí)，為其提供保護(hù)。因此，當(dāng)?shù)聡?guó)入侵比利時(shí)時(shí)，大英帝國(guó)就開(kāi)戰(zhàn)了。我相信比利時(shí)一定很感激。

Khengchat Ng
Your third paragraph about British India. Shouldn’t it include present day Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar in addition to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

你的第三段關(guān)于英屬印度。除了印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉國(guó)之外，不還應(yīng)該包括今天的斯里蘭卡、尼泊爾、不丹、緬甸嗎？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Roshan
British Burma was partitioned off of British India in the 1930s, but yes, it should count for anything prior to the 1930s. Sri Lanka was also partitioned off as Ceylon, and Bhutan and Nepal were subsidiary states that were essentially puppets to the British Empire, but technically weren’t in the same level of influence that other princely states in British India proper were.

英屬緬甸是在20世紀(jì)30年代從英屬印度分割出來(lái)的，但是是的，它應(yīng)該算作20世紀(jì)30年代之前的東西。斯里蘭卡也被分割為錫蘭，不丹和尼泊爾是附屬國(guó)，基本上是大英帝國(guó)的傀儡，但從技術(shù)上講，它們的影響力與英屬印度的其他王子國(guó)不同。

Parliamentarian
A few questions Mr. Lobo, if you don't mind,
1 What do you think of British rule in India? By that I mean to say, do you think that, everything considered, it was beneficial or was it as parasitic as the Belgian one
2 Do you maintain, as historians Niall Ferguson and David Starkey do, that Britain's Empire essentially created modernity and that we, the rest of the world, should be grateful to them or do you see it as jingoism?
3 Is there a lesson to be learnt from the dismantlement of the British empire for the United States?
4 Where do you see Britain post Brexit? Do you think they'll regain some of the old glory (scientific and technological, not imperial obviously) as a result of the deregulating or “unshackling" of their finance, tech manufacturing etc. industries or are they destined to remain a diminished power with their relevance and might on the world stage decreasing as time goes on?
Also, thank you for writing on Quora, I'm quite grateful to read your opinions. They have helped shape my views on geopolitics, politics among other things significantly. Could you please write more about empires and superpowers. I'm particularly fond of reading about the United States and the British Empire. I'm currently reading about England's history, Ron Paul's manifesto for America, Macaulay's reforms in India, Admiral Horatio Nelson, East India Company, 7 Years War, Domestic Effects of the British Empire and Daniel Hannan's book about how the British invented freedom and their colonists took it to new heights (have you read his book? What do you think?)

如果不介意的話，我想問(wèn)你幾個(gè)問(wèn)題，洛博先生：
1 你對(duì)英國(guó)在印度的統(tǒng)治有何看法？我的意思是說(shuō)，你是否認(rèn)為，從所有方面考慮，它是有益的，還是像比利時(shí)在非洲的統(tǒng)治一樣是寄生性的？
2 你是否像歷史學(xué)家尼爾-弗格森和大衛(wèi)-斯塔基那樣認(rèn)為，大英帝國(guó)本質(zhì)上創(chuàng)造了現(xiàn)代性，而我們，世界其他地方，應(yīng)該感謝他們，還是你認(rèn)為這是一種沙文主義？
3 從大英帝國(guó)的解體中，美國(guó)是否可以吸取教訓(xùn)？
4 你認(rèn)為英國(guó)在脫歐后的處境如何？你認(rèn)為他們是否會(huì)因?yàn)榻鹑?、科技制造業(yè)等行業(yè)的放松管制或"解除束縛"而恢復(fù)一些昔日的榮耀（說(shuō)的科學(xué)和技術(shù)，顯然不是在說(shuō)帝國(guó)），還是他們注定要繼續(xù)成為一個(gè)被削弱的大國(guó)，隨著時(shí)間的推移，他們?cè)谑澜缥枧_(tái)上的相關(guān)性和力量會(huì)越來(lái)越?。?br /> 另外，感謝你在Quora上的寫作，我非常感謝能閱讀你的看法。它們幫助我形成了對(duì)地緣政治、政治和其他事物的看法，這一點(diǎn)很重要。你能不能多寫一些關(guān)于帝國(guó)和超級(jí)大國(guó)的文章。我特別喜歡閱讀關(guān)于美國(guó)和大英帝國(guó)的文章。我目前正在閱讀英國(guó)的歷史、羅恩-保羅的美國(guó)宣言、麥考利在印度的改革、霍雷肖-納爾遜上將、東印度公司、7年戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)、大英帝國(guó)的國(guó)內(nèi)影響以及丹尼爾-漢南關(guān)于英國(guó)人如何發(fā)明自由和他們的殖民者如何將其推向新的高度的書(shū)（你讀過(guò)他的書(shū)嗎？ 你怎么看呢？）

Allen Lobo
On Q1 - It’s very hard to opine on that to be honest. The problem with condemning Great Britain for all of her exploitation of India (which was considerable, no question about it), is that you have to weigh that up not against some advanced democratic Indian state. But rather against a counterfactual of how India would have done under the Marathas, Mysore, Nizam and others among which India was divided when the East India Company gained and then consolidated its rule in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
In fact there was no such political entity as “India”, it was a vast number of empires, some large and others small, and then hundreds of tiny princely states. These empires were extremely wealthy but not technologically advanced in say even the late 18th century, in comparison to West Europe, and that includes not just civilian technology but military as well. In fact one of the largest empires, the Mughals, were sacked by Iran with absolute impunity.
So the question is “Would rule by these emperors have been better or worse than the British? And how would the fate of the Indian subcontinent have proceeded had the British never set foot?””
Well they (the former rulers) certainly wouldn’t have exploited India as mercilessly as the East India Company first (until 1857/8) and then Imperial Britain did. Nor have turned a blind eye to famine after famine.
But on the other hand, they wouldn’t have set up such things as administrative services, railways and communications, infrastructure and educational institutions including the English language, armed services with the level of efficiency that the British did. All of which India has and continues to benefit immensely from.
British rule in India was in no way anywhere as parasitic as that of Belgium in the Congo. The Congo was hardly left with any institutions or infrastructure of worth by virtue of Belgian rule. That was a straight-up loot and rape of the Congo, no excuses offered. You won’t find anyone weighing up whether Belgian rule was good or bad on balance.
Back to the Brits in India, I’ll leave the weighing up of such counterfactuals to the scholars, I’m honestly not qualified enough to pronounce judgment. But I say all of the above to at least demonstrate that several factors need to be taken into account before pronouncing any kind of historical judgment about the British.

關(guān)于第一個(gè)問(wèn)題--說(shuō)實(shí)話，很難對(duì)此發(fā)表意見(jiàn)。譴責(zé)英國(guó)對(duì)印度的所有剝削（毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，這是相當(dāng)大的剝削）的問(wèn)題在于，你不能將其與一些現(xiàn)在先進(jìn)的印度民主邦進(jìn)行權(quán)衡。而是與印度在馬拉塔人、邁索爾人、尼扎姆人和其他國(guó)家下的表現(xiàn)相對(duì)比，當(dāng)東印度公司在18世紀(jì)末和19世紀(jì)初獲得并鞏固其統(tǒng)治時(shí)，印度是由這些國(guó)家分別統(tǒng)治的。
事實(shí)上，并不存在"印度"這樣的政治實(shí)體，它里面有幾個(gè)帝國(guó)，有的大，有的小，然后是數(shù)百個(gè)小王子國(guó)。這些帝國(guó)非常富有，但與西歐相比，即使在18世紀(jì)末，技術(shù)也不先進(jìn)，這不僅包括民用技術(shù)，還包括軍事技術(shù)。事實(shí)上，最大的帝國(guó)之一莫臥兒帝國(guó)，被伊朗洗劫一空，卻沒(méi)有受到任何懲罰。
所以問(wèn)題是"這些皇帝的統(tǒng)治會(huì)比英國(guó)人更好還是更差？如果英國(guó)人從未涉足，印度次大陸的命運(yùn)又會(huì)如何發(fā)展？"
他們（前統(tǒng)治者）肯定不會(huì)像東印度公司（直到1857/8年）和英國(guó)帝國(guó)那樣無(wú)情地剝削印度。也不會(huì)對(duì)一場(chǎng)又一場(chǎng)的饑荒視而不見(jiàn)。
但另一方面，他們也不會(huì)像英國(guó)人那樣高效地建立起行政服務(wù)、鐵路和通信、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和教育機(jī)構(gòu)（包括英語(yǔ)）、武裝力量等。所有這些，印度都已經(jīng)繼承并繼續(xù)從中受益匪淺。
英國(guó)在印度的統(tǒng)治絕不像比利時(shí)在剛果的統(tǒng)治那樣具有寄生性。由于比利時(shí)的統(tǒng)治，剛果幾乎沒(méi)有留下任何有價(jià)值的機(jī)構(gòu)或基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。那是對(duì)剛果的直接掠奪和強(qiáng)奸，沒(méi)有任何借口可言。你不會(huì)看到有人會(huì)去權(quán)衡比利時(shí)的統(tǒng)治是好是壞。
回到英國(guó)人在印度的問(wèn)題上，我會(huì)把這種反事實(shí)的權(quán)衡留給學(xué)者們，說(shuō)實(shí)話，我沒(méi)有足夠的資格來(lái)宣布判斷。但我說(shuō)以上這些，至少說(shuō)明在對(duì)英國(guó)人作出任何形式的歷史判斷之前，需要考慮到幾個(gè)因素。

Prince Yadav
Mughal Empire was parasitic. They never build Navy and Sea dominance like Bappal Rawal, Shivaji Maharaj and Rajendra Chola.
Not just that, heavy taxation meant that no non aristocrats Indians would able to go anything beyond other than 3 times meals.
Regarding your statement, India isn't a small country to rule. Distance between London and moscow is much less than distance between Delhi and Thiruvanathpuram, Kerala. Also when british start to exploit chance, it was because Mughal empire broke down which covered all parts of India even some boundaries going to Afghanistan. Sure politically we weren't always under one dominion but Bhārat country Consciousness did exist.

莫臥兒帝國(guó)是寄生性的。他們從來(lái)沒(méi)有像Bappal Rawal、Shivaji Maharaj和Rajendra Chola那樣建立海軍和海上優(yōu)勢(shì)。
不僅如此，沉重的稅收意味著非貴族的印度人除了三餐之外，留不下任何東西。
關(guān)于你的說(shuō)法，印度并不是一個(gè)可以隨便統(tǒng)治的小國(guó)家。倫敦和莫斯科之間的距離比德里和喀拉拉邦的蒂魯瓦納特普蘭之間的距離要小得多。另外，英國(guó)人能夠開(kāi)始利用機(jī)會(huì)蠶食印度，是因?yàn)楦采w了印度的所有地區(qū)，甚至一些邊界延申到了阿富汗的莫臥兒帝國(guó)崩潰了。當(dāng)然，在政治上我們并不總是處在一個(gè)統(tǒng)治下，但巴拉特（大印度）國(guó)家意識(shí)確實(shí)存在。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Sirn Nedanri
I like your very well thought out and researched answers. I have but one comment on your assessment that had India not being taken over by the British empire the rulers would not have set up things like administrative services,, infrastructure, educational institutions etc. I'm not sure why you would claim that. Surely in the past, long before Western Europe was even much of a presence, empires such as that of Ashoka (3rd C BC), The Gupta empire (4–5th C), and And of course the mogul ruler Akbar (16th C) set up extensive and well maintained administrative systems. The Gupta rulers even employed d an extensive network of spies to ensure that people followed the rules! Similarly with regard to educational institutions, I don't think that India was lagging behind any of the other major nations in that regard. In fact the world's first secular university was in India. So
I think the best comparison would be with China, Which was mostly not ruled by the British, and developed all of these systems subsequently. About the only advantage that you mentioned in this regard would be the English language. However India paid a high price for this, not only losing its status as the world's second biggest economy when the the British empire began to ending up as a poor nation when they left. Not to mention the damage it did to the Indian psyche of not knowing their own history, and thinking that anything good had to come from abroad.

我喜歡你經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮和研究的答案。我對(duì)你的評(píng)價(jià)只有一點(diǎn)意見(jiàn)，即如果印度沒(méi)有被大英帝國(guó)占領(lǐng)，統(tǒng)治者就不會(huì)建立諸如行政服務(wù)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、教育機(jī)構(gòu)等東西。我不知道你為什么會(huì)這么說(shuō)。當(dāng)然，在過(guò)去，早在西歐還沒(méi)有什么存在感的時(shí)候，諸如阿育王（公元前3年）、古普塔帝國(guó)（公元前4-5年），當(dāng)然還有大亨阿克巴（公元16年）等帝國(guó)都建立了廣泛而完善的行政系統(tǒng)。古普塔帝國(guó)的統(tǒng)治者甚至雇傭了一個(gè)廣泛的間諜網(wǎng)絡(luò)，以確保人們遵守規(guī)則。同樣，在教育機(jī)構(gòu)方面，我不認(rèn)為印度在這方面落后于任何其他主要國(guó)家。事實(shí)上，世界上第一所世俗大學(xué)就在印度。所以
我認(rèn)為最好的比較是與中國(guó)的比較，中國(guó)大部分時(shí)間沒(méi)有被英國(guó)統(tǒng)治，后來(lái)也發(fā)展出了所有這些制度。在這方面，你提到的唯一獨(dú)特的優(yōu)勢(shì)是英語(yǔ)。然而，印度為此付出了高昂的代價(jià)，不僅在大英帝國(guó)開(kāi)始時(shí)失去了世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體的地位，而且在大英帝國(guó)離開(kāi)時(shí)成為了一個(gè)貧窮國(guó)家。更不用說(shuō)它對(duì)印度人的心理造成的傷害，使得他們不了解自己的歷史，認(rèn)為任何好事都肯定來(lái)自國(guó)外。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Dana Carson
Not anywhere near an expert but I remember a chart of GDP per capita for India. During the time of British control it went up a lot less per year than before or after. It still went up but the curve was a lot flatter. And it jumped back to a sharper climb quickly after independence.

我不是什么專家，但我記得有一張印度人均GDP的圖表。在英國(guó)控制時(shí)期，每年的增長(zhǎng)幅度比之前或之后要小得多。它仍然在上升，但曲線要平緩得多。獨(dú)立后，它又迅速跳回了一個(gè)更高速率的攀升。

Prashant Deshmukh
As my way of thanking you for your very excellent answers, please allow me to add a dimension to the discussion: Princely states like Travancore, Baroda, Gwalior and even Hyderabad had a higher HDI and a higher development as compared to British India. And that disparity has continued till date.
So compared to even local princely states, British India lagged in terms of modernity and development.
It's an interesting what-if situation to ponder.

為了感謝你非常出色的回答，請(qǐng)?jiān)试S我在討論中補(bǔ)充一個(gè)方面。與英屬印度相比，特拉萬(wàn)科、巴羅達(dá)、瓜廖爾甚至海德拉巴等王子國(guó)的人類發(fā)展指數(shù)更高，發(fā)展水平更高。而且這種差距一直持續(xù)到現(xiàn)在。
因此，與當(dāng)?shù)氐耐踝訃?guó)相比，英屬印度在現(xiàn)代性和發(fā)展方面都很落后。
這是一個(gè)有趣的假設(shè)情況，值得深思。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Greg Kemnitz
Don’t forget that Burma and Sri Lanka/Ceylan were also part of British India, which went from Thailand in the East to Persia/Iran in the West.
One wonders how the world goes if British India ends up becoming a single state and the “partitions” don’t happen…

別忘了，緬甸和斯里蘭卡/錫蘭也是英屬印度的一部分，英屬印度從東部的泰國(guó)到西部的波斯/伊朗。
人們不禁要問(wèn)，如果英屬印度最終成為一個(gè)單一的國(guó)家，而"分治"沒(méi)有發(fā)生，那么這個(gè)世界將如何發(fā)展...

Roméo Rousseau
So many deaths…. So many civil wars……

那會(huì)有無(wú)數(shù)的死亡......無(wú)盡的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)......

Prince Yadav
British were twice defeated by Mysore kingdom which has first rocket missile and one by Marathas. They were only capable of ruling India because of betrayal and internal feud among Marathas, if they went unlucky in any case, they would no longer hold the Influence.
Not to forget the army, resources, market and capital british get to industrialise itself. While colonial apologist point out to railways, truth was when Indians start designing their own locomotives much cheaper and at par with british, they bring laws and banned Indian workers to build locomotives, they made huge profits on Railways while all burden were on Indians taxpayers. Railways was a colonial scam.
Horace Walpole, Politician and writer went on tour and showed building after building in London built by money of India. He called England “Sinkholes of India's weath”.

英國(guó)人曾兩次被擁有世界第一枚火箭導(dǎo)彈的邁索爾王國(guó)打敗，一次被馬拉塔人打敗。他們之所以能夠統(tǒng)治印度，只是因?yàn)轳R拉塔人的背叛和內(nèi)部爭(zhēng)斗，如果他們運(yùn)氣不是那么好，英國(guó)就統(tǒng)治不了印度。
更不用說(shuō)英國(guó)在工業(yè)化方面得到的軍隊(duì)、資源、市場(chǎng)和資本。當(dāng)殖民主義者的辯護(hù)者提出英國(guó)對(duì)印度鐵路的貢獻(xiàn)時(shí)，事實(shí)是當(dāng)印度人開(kāi)始設(shè)計(jì)自己的機(jī)車時(shí)，價(jià)格要比英國(guó)人便宜得多，但是英國(guó)人制定了法律，禁止印度工人制造機(jī)車，以使他們?cè)阼F路上獲得了巨大的利潤(rùn)，而所有的負(fù)擔(dān)都?jí)涸谟《鹊募{稅人身上。鐵路就是一個(gè)殖民時(shí)期的騙局。
政治家和作家霍勒斯-沃波爾去參觀了倫敦的一個(gè)又一個(gè)建筑，這些建筑是用印度的錢建造的。他稱英國(guó)為"印度財(cái)富的黑洞"。