A Debt Written in Blood and Gold: The Case for Reparations. You cannot build a palace without first tearing down someone else’s home.
Britain’s empire was not benevolence. It was brutal, strategic theft. From the day the East India Company landed in Bengal in 1757 to the Union Jack’s retreat in 1947, India was looted, de-developed, and dismembered. And reparations aren’t just justified—they’re overdue.
In 1700, India made up 24% of the world’s GDP. By 1947, it was less than 3%. This wasn’t a decline: it was economic asphyxiation.
According to renowned economist Utsa Patnaik (2018), Britain drained nearly $45 trillion from India. That’s more than the GDP of the US and UK combined today. This isn't charity. This is corporate robbery dressed up as empire.
Between 1770 and 1943, over 30 million Indians died in famines engineered by British policy. The Bengal Famine of 1943 killed 3 million people in a few months—while Churchill exported 70,000 tons of grain from India to Europe and refused aid.
When told about the starvation, he reportedly said:
“It’s their fault for breeding like rabbits.”
Let that sink in.
The railways were not gifts—they were pipelines of exploitation:
Designed to export raw materials and import British goods. Funded by Indian taxes. Built at inflated prices, through British companies, for British profit.
Even schools and colleges? Built to create clerks, not critical thinkers. As Macaulay said in 1835:
“A class of persons Indian in blood and color, but English in taste…”
The British left behind: Borders that led to wars. Communal division that led to bloodshed. A colonial inferiority complex that still affects policy and perception. What a legacy!
Shashi Tharoor said it best:
“The British left a legacy of division and dysfunction, not development.”
Foreign aid from Britain to India today?
Less than 0.4% of India’s budget.
“Giving aid after stealing a fortune is like throwing coins at the beggar you mugged.” – Historian William Dalrymple
We’re not asking for charity. We’re demanding: acknowledgement of guilt, symbolic reparations, formal apology, as Australia and Canada have done to indigenous populations
Because reparations aren’t about the past. They’re about justice in the present.
If the sun never set on the British Empire, it's only because it was always shining on someone else’s suffering.
But why reparations, you ask? Why now?
Because reparations are not about money. They are about morality. About rectifying a historic wrong so immense, so deliberate, that it still echoes in our economy, our psyche, our global standing.
It is not enough to simply say “the past is past.” Because India was never allowed to write its own present. Its present was written in English ink on blood-stained parchment.
We don’t accept theft just because it happened long ago. Why should empire be the only crime exempt from justice?
Other countries have paid reparations. Why not Britain?
Germany paid billions to Holocaust survivors and continues to support Jewish institutions. The U.S. paid reparations to Japanese-American families who were interned during World War II. Even New Zealand has paid reparations to the Māori for colonial-era land theft.
So why should Britain, country whose economy flourished while ours bled, be immune?
Because Britain’s colonialism wasn’t just about occupation. It was about extraction. India’s industries were crushed: our shipbuilding, textile, steel, all dismantled to serve British factories. Our agriculture was warped to feed British bellies, not Indian mouths. Our people were pushed to servitude in their own land.
And to this day, we’re living in the ruins of that stolen empire.
To those who say “move on”—we ask: Would you move on if someone burned your house, killed your family, and handed you a coin?
No amount will ever replace what was lost. But a symbolic act of reparations is a gesture of truth, of dignity, of reckoning. It tells the world that exploitation cannot hide behind empire. That power must answer to conscience.
Empires fall. But justice rises. And until justice is done, history remains unfinished. We are not asking for retribution. We are asking for recognition. For dignity. For reparations—not as a price of the past, but as a promise to the future.
Thank you.
I'm not sure what India would look like today if Britain had never exploited it as they did.
Possibly some other nation would have exploited it, but assuming that no nation exploited it.
I don't 'think India was 'too unified. Various factions, Princes, Warlords, different cultures?
Course, people don't always 'like being unified.
The Industrial Revolution, took place roughly between 1750 - 1900, I assume wouldn't have been good for India, but I'd think British exploitation and control of economics and crops, made the situation worse.
The Bengal Famine of 1943, wasn't 'completely Churchills fault.
But there's still argument for the mismanagement, failings, and lack of feeling by the British main government.
Pro has a point about a number of the 'improvements, being made for avaricious purposes, such as the rail system, and education.
Indian Civil Service has to be taken in London, I think.
One could argue it is 'possible many changes in Indian society might not have taken place, without Britain's role in India, but alternate timelines can be hard to prove likely.
And even assuming that some cultural changes brought about by forced law or exposure to British culture.
Such as Changes to India Caste System or The practice of Sati.
Even 'possible benefits such as railroads and a more unified India.
Hard to argue Britain did not do so 'accidentally in the search for profit, or as phony 'excuse for their exploitation.
. . . Also possible some people like/d some aspects of the culture that has changed.
. . . Probably some good changes, some bad. . . Subjectively.
I don't think I've ever heard of a token/symbolic/heartfelt attempt at reparations by Britain towards India.
Might be some artifacts in the British 'Museum that would be useful as in being given in part of ceremonial apology.
. . . I'm not sure what form of useful 'function reparations ought take, in 'any case of reparations.
. . .
All this said, I'm not well read on India, Britain, their histories or interactions.
Hmm okieee, I felt you were fake account but nvm.
Does it really matter? I simply left sources and legibility tied, which for some reason awards them to both sides on this site. I'm not quite sure why, but I think it's obvious that no one will cast a vote in favor of your opponent. Even if they did, the mods would remove it. Trust me, you are in no danger of losing this one.
I had participated in 2 rounds while my opponent did in none. He forfeited all the three rounds. In this case, how can you give him a single point for anything? He hasn't even said a word and you are giving him 2 points for sources and all that stuff. That's not the right way to vote.
Jonrohith,
I exposed how you were using AI to draft your arguments. I have blocked you on DART. I had rejected your friend request. Anyone with even an inch of self respect would have stopped from commenting on one's debate but what can I even say.
I already said no one will accept this debate,
Those would make good lines of reasoning in your case.
Sure, there are other schemes, but none as historically grounded, morally urgent, or globally recognized as reparations.
Reparations aren't just a "scheme." They're an acknowledgement of a systematic and violent injustice: debt written in blood and gold. You don’t get to loot a country for two centuries, cause famines, deindustrialize its economy, extract $45+ trillion (Patnaik, 2018), and then throw in some charity programs or symbolic development aid 70 years later and call it even.
Other schemes like aid, trade agreements, or cultural exchanges are forward-looking tools—they don't rectify the foundational crimes of colonialism. Reparations do. That’s why Germany paid Holocaust survivors. That’s why the US apologized and compensated Japanese-Americans interned during WWII. That’s why countries like Australia and Canada are offering.
So no, it's not about “other schemes”. It’s about accountability.
You can’t rob someone blind, burn down their home, and then hand them a band-aid and say, “Let’s look ahead.”
You fix the past before you move forward.
very new player like me would obviously accept
Fairly likely someone will. It's not even a hard topic for con to win, especially since there are other schemes available besides reparations.
no one will accept this debate