Since my replies to this insipid person was blocked continuously that I couldn't reply coherent, I am posting my last reply here. I spend only the typing time to write a reply, but had to spent much time just to post it on rt. I do not know if I can make rt pay for my wasted time.

My full reply is here:

You are speaking indoctrinated textbook history. Nothing was 'scammed off from Indian for 200 years'.  It was mere trade, in which the local people improved. As to the poverty in Bengal, it is not English rulers who are blame, but the native Bengali native society which was mutually exploitative to each other.

There are much that you to know. I do not think I have the time to educate you, or if I really need to spend my time to educate people like you.  It is basically a useless endeavour.

However, there might be some others who might read your insipid lie.

It is not easy to speak against millions of textbook and media information in India.

The truth is that only around half of the subcontinent was under the English rule. There the administration was pretty good and great.

The rest were under native Indian rulers. There the people suffered.

There is no means to insert more information into you, who goes around asking people ‘Do you have OCD?’, when you are at a loss of words.  I wonder if you would go to your mother and ask: ‘Do you have cancer? ‘ Just because the Englishmen were foolish enough to allow you to learn English, do not imagine that you should misuse this language to attack anyone who do not agree with the silly ideas in your head.

You are simply jumping from one accusation to another, when the theme is simply about outsiders swarming into England.

If you do not know, think, not read, about: Sati, Thuggees, setting up public education, allowing the ordinary person to learn English, right to wear decent dress, right to sit in a chair, peace and prosperity in the landscape, destruction of caste system, allowing lower castes to government jobs, Medical, Engineering colleges, great administration, policing that gave security to the millions of poor from the feudal looters of the placed, about 3 million native soldiers standing by the English side, about only 2000 native soldiers jumping to the side of the Subashchandran to escape Japanese prison torture, there are thousands of things you do not know about the English rule. Your textbook writers are liars.

What scamming are you talking about, when the whole national wealth of India are well known to be scooted off by the Indian officialdom?

During the English rule, there was no looting. The forests in the subcontinent were still there. See what amount of the forests is left in India. It is seen mentioned that only around 10 % of the forest cover of 1947 is remaining in India.

It was the advent of the English rule that improved the lower classes in the subcontinent.

Ask the female folks in your house how much they would like an experience in Sati.

And what ‘your much vaunted Jaguar and Land Rover’?

It was not Jagauar and Land Rover and James Bond that improved the Indian subcontinent’s lower classes.

As for people from the subcontinent owning much of England, well they were owning much in the subcontinent including the lower class people. When the English rule came, they were crushed and the lower classes escaped from their hands.

The conversation in question is on this link