Extra info for M. D'Souza

Submitted by Sadhasiv (United States), May 14, 2008 at 06:12

A little portion that you left out: Indians came out progressive AFTER they started diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992--from 1947 until then, little progress.

Also, this question was asked to me by a London-based Sahiwal-born pastor: "When you compare what the British actually left in India after a 200-year occupation (which did include looting of the country) in comparison to what the Muslims left after nearly 800, what do you see?"

Bingo: In the 200 years of British occupation, India got:
(1) an excellent infrastructure to build on (admittedly, India didn't do so for 45 years after)
(2) democratic form of government (though questionable whether "Whitehall-style" government is workable, compared to American form)
(3) A good education system--basis of which was laid by awful Viceroy Curzon!
(4) A disciplined army as a regular occupation

FYI, these advantages were also available to Pakistan--which by 1971 squandered them ALL (its army's indiscipline in Bangladesh, and also during Zia's misrule are open secrets).

Compared to what was left by Muslims: several monuments which are now tourist attractions--but what good would that be if the tourists can't get to them?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".