Quantcast
Other Stories

India was never a poor country until the Europeans landed on this side of the world. A speck of its late richness was recently unveiled when a treasure trove was discovered in Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple, in India&rs..

07 Jul 2011

By Truemon T A
KOCHI(Commodity Online): India was never a poor country until the Europeans landed on this side of the world. A speck of its late richness was recently unveiled when a treasure trove was discovered in Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple, in India’s southern state of Kerala following a Supreme Court order.

The so called treasure which could be termed as the world’s biggest treasure comes from the savings of a small kingdom at the southern tip of India. And if such was the richness of a small kingdom then what wealth would have been the great ancient India possessed?

Europeans plundered India and its people for more than 5 centuries. And finally, when the English left the place, there formed a united greatest democracy of the world which was only a poor country by then.

The face value of the treasure even before opening all the cellars has now crossed Rs 1,50,000 crore ($ 33 billion). And as per expert accounts, this could be the largest treasure of Gold found anywhere in India and possibly in the world. The antique value would make this literally priceless.

One just can’t talk about this inherited treasure without mentioning the Travancore princely state and its Kings as they saved the treasure and hid it from the Europeans for the sake of people so that it can be retrieved at the time of a recession, by what the modern world call it when a financial crises arise.

When the wealth weighs

The state government has literally got no idea what to do with this immense wealth. Many groups and communal parties in the meantime have come forward with their selfish ideas. Actually the treasure can’t be sold or converted into money as the possession can’t be exactly estimated in terms of money because it has got more reverence than mere money.

What has to be done with the treasure?

Whatsoever, the government will have to spend a lot of money on the treasure for its security means and no revenue could be generated if it is again going back to the cellars.

Let’s talk about the treasure’s prospects keeping it the way it is. Let the State build the largest museum in this world and exhibit the world’s biggest treasure for people on a nominal fee, every Indian at least deserve to see it and then check out who all and from what all places people flow in to Kerala, enriching the State’s all kind of prosperity.

This can fetch huge revenue for the state by which its security can be maintained and a share of the revenue going to temple and government for the welfare of common people may be just like the way Royals would have wished to do this wealth- for the welfare of their people.


YOUR RESPONSE
Click on the image to reload it
Click to reload image
COMMENTS (17)
Name
18 Jul 2011
@Gary Obviously it was for Britian's own convenience that they taught the Engligh language to India. Obviously their intent was selfish. Patrick does not claim it was not selfish. Because your name is Gary, I will assume English is your native language. However, I am perplexed by your lack of common sense and ability to understand the simplicity of Patrick's comment. If English is not your native language, then I apologize for my criticism of your common sense, but then suggest you have more patience when arguing in an unfamiliar language. Patrick's comment does not claim Britian's intent was good or bad. It is a simple argument that Britian's footprint on India was not a net negative, but rather net neutral or perhaps even net positive without regard to intentions. Further, English phrases such as "it has turned out" when used in the context that Patrick uses in his comment leads the reader to understand that Patrick does not mean that Britian had foresight of 21st century competitive advantages when teaching English to India, but "it has turned out" to India's advantage (good coincidence). It is simply an evaluation of the facts, without regard to intent. Many English influences setback India, but "as it turned out" many advantaged India.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Maria
17 Jul 2011
I not belive india was not a poor country,since the the poor people were in india in earlier days and todays..Same time the wealth also that time and present time. But the differece is that, the wealth is confined in few people's hand only. they are handling and keeping county's most wealth. Kingdom change and democracy came, but the wealth is same as old style handling some hands only...Poor poeple always poor people..
Name Email
Post
Reply
Shravan Tanjore
13 Jul 2011
Now I also want to read an article written on how the Muslim Maurauders Looted, Plundered and Raped in India.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Indian
11 Jul 2011
It is true that Indian kigdoms were fighting against each other for power. True that the Brits united India and gave it the railways, but they did not do it out of magnanimity. For mere administrative and trade purposes. What ever you english might say, India was rich and was plundered by the Brits. Evidence of the plundering lies in you very own British museums. Please go and have a look at the Indian gems, jewels and even the peacock throne that was plundered from India. Not only was wealth plundered, but Indian trademen too were harassed and their ships burned so that the Brits had the sole right and authority over trading. No other invader had ever been that cruel. For those of you who don't know the truth, please read the history and documentation from the time of the Brit rule. The others who know the truth but havn't the courage to face it, rest in peace and stop embarrassing yourself by broadcasting your cowardice. We all know 4 letter english curse words we dont need their lists here.
Name Email
Post
Reply
BHARATIYA
10 Jul 2011
THANKS TO ALL COMMENTING HISTORIANS HEREUNDER AND ABOVE YOU HAVE MADE SOME EXCITING STORIES TO SUIT YOURSELF AND MOST CONVENIENT TO YOU YOU LOOTED BHARAT/INDIA AND NOW MAKE COVER UP STORIES .UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE INTELLIGENT FOOLS . EVEN THE KOHINOOR GEM YOU LOOTED IS STILL LYING AT YOUR MUSEUM . THATS CALLED THEFT IN LAW.
Name Email
Post
Reply
SUN
10 Jul 2011
ddd
Name Email
Post
Reply
Jack
10 Jul 2011
India didn't become a poor country until it adopted a socialist model after independence. It was not a poor country under British rule (not that the British ever ruled more than half of India anyway). Before the British took control interest rates were ~50%pa - because no lender expected to get their money back, under British rule interest rates fell to an average of 4% pa, thereby releasing Indian wealth to fund Indian enterprise. The British stopped the various Indian states from fighting each other - a huge boon to the peasants who were devastated whenever an army marched across their land. The British introduced the railways, which made a single state possible, and brought huge economic rewards. Yes, there were still famines in India, as there were before the British arrived, and in the 19th and early 20th centuries Indians starved, just as the British poor starved in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Britain as ruler had no interest in destroying Indian wealth, a good parasite does not kill its host, a good parasite lets its host prosper and gets fat on that prosperity. India was described as "the jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, that description would not have been applied if India had been poor. How did tiny Britain manage to rule the teeming masses of the Indian subcontinent? They did it because the majority of Indians recognised that British rule was either irrelevant to their daily lives, or that it was in their own interests to belong to the British economic system. India became independent in 1948 when Britain was bankrupt. Coincidence? I think not. Who wants to belong to an economic system whose principal is bankrupt? The cost-benefit equation had changed, so peoples opinions changed.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Tom
09 Jul 2011
you guys crack me up: 'India was never a poor country until the Europeans landed on this side of the world.' yeh i am sure it was. have you ever been to india, its pretty obvious when you go there why its poor and probably always was. i am sure the country is full of very intelligent people, but the lack of common sense in that country is incredible. you know, the english did screw up and some guys made some very bad decisions, but india is a long way from being able to blame its problems on the english. i have also heard a saying that india was doing alright until gandhi screwed it up.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Lince Joseph
08 Jul 2011
well written Truemon T.A. It obviously throws light into a past and its glories..
Name Email
Post
Reply
Gary
08 Jul 2011
lol @ patrick's comments... The only thing positive the english did was to unite the subcontinent under as 1 colony.. which was divided into hundreds of kingdoms in the 17th century... other than that your contributions to today's India are a BIG FAT ZERO ! And as far as english, it was an accidental advantage britain gave India because they wanted to create a class of english-knowing indians who would help the brits rule such a vast country which was 20 times the size of england.. without an english knowing class of Indians, ruling India would be impossible.. so it was for their own convenience (and not due to some magnanimous nature) that brits introduced English to India.. or are u trying to say, the british knew about 21st century advantages of English beforehand and hence decided to teach English in India in the 19th century ?? hhahahaha you gotta be kidding me..
Name Email
Post
Reply
Jean-Francois Morf
08 Jul 2011
Sree padmanabha swamy temple is now the fort knox of India central bank! Rupia will be a hard money! Every indian will profit from a hard money: oil will cost less, metals will cost less, imports will cost less!
Name Email
Post
Reply
NAME
07 Jul 2011
Patrick, actually u can't understand The INDIA and INDIANS. Infact It's not ur cup of tea, We never wanted to have fluency in ur language(English) which derived mostly from our language Sanskrit. British looted our 90% treasure, but though we are the richest in whole world, U people not only left a poisonous legacy in the form of Fabian Socialism but also left corruption. but dnt worry We'll be ahead always from any one, any country in the world.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Name
07 Jul 2011
>Patrick, Go to hell< u will be pissed not only by INDIANS but also by Whole world> Ur language english derived from Sanskrit, but no need to tell u all these things> u and ur country is such a A..HOLE> GET OFF FROM HERE U MOTHER F...ER, F..K YOU...
Name Email
Post
Reply
Name
07 Jul 2011
>of fluency in English - the single most important reason for Indian and particularly NRI affluence today what rubish. China is rich without the English. NRi affluence is because of entrepreneurial nature, being strong in mathematics, sciences and due to having strong culture and family values. >India prospered hugely under the Raj, the most efficient and least corrupt supplier of law and order the country has ever known Again non sense. There was many kings before like Ashoka, and Gupta dynasty to name a few who ruled with the progressive laws and systems and that dwarfed primitive european cultures at that time . Go read some history man. It was because of europeans the natural evolution of country into industrialization was halted and led to the decline of India. India was looted by British of many raw materials one among them was gold in tons from KOALr gold field. It is now the deepest mine and it is thanks to British for looting all the gold from it. When will suckers Brits (and your supporters) and have balls to acknowledge your nature of greed, exploitation and the divide and rule methodology that affected a huge population of the world for your betterment.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Patrick Cleburne
07 Jul 2011
Rubbish. India prospered hugely under the Raj, the most efficient and least corrupt supplier of law and order the country has ever known The Indian masses invested this prosperity in having more children. Hence the low per capita income. How could the British have stopped that? I admit they left a poisonous legacy in the form of Fabian Socialism, but it has turned out the other legacy of fluency in English - the single most important reason for Indian and pairticularly NRI affluence today - has offest this. And of course the Raj did not allow Temples to be plundered. Without this restraint this treasure would be long gone.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Riju
07 Jul 2011
A very well written article sir. Your idea is most suitable.
Name Email
Post
Reply
Dimondmaxi
07 Jul 2011
nice Truemon T A
Name Email
Post
Reply

@2013 COMMODITYONLINE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED