I see a lot of people making the the British left only because of World War 2. To me it seems that either you don't know or choose to ignore the independence struggle leading upto the war. The nationalists had already achieved limited self rule before the war started. The Government of India Act 1935 had devolved a lot of power and introduced direct election though again with limited franchise. But the stage was set for further devolution.

The real game changer was the First World War. It was then that the independence struggle gathered steam. The lack of resources during wartime forced the British to allow Indians to set up industries and once the Indian elites gained economic power they started funding struggles for political power. If the Second World War hadn't happened, India, may be, wouldn't have gained independence in 1947 but to say India wouldn't have gained independence at all is simply stupid. Maybe it would have happened in 50s or maybe 60s but independence itself was inevitable.

Ambedkar (https://youtu.be/4BTYSpwW9u8?t=9m2s) gives two reasons:

Puru was literally one kingdom. A small kingdom in the north-west. The only Indian kingdom Alexander defeated. Past puru's kingdom was Magadha which was THE Indian kingdom at the time. In fact, Alexander's victory over Puru was so phyrric that the prospect of facing a foe monumentally larger than the one they just defeated, was enough to get his soldiers to mutiny. Alexander died on his way back to Greece. But he would have died anyway had he taken on Magadha at that point. Chandragupta Maurya who conquered this same Magadha empire, then proceeded to defeat Alexander's general Seleucus and gain territory from him.

Also, north-west Indian kingdoms had successfully repealed repeated Arab attacks for hundreds of years before they finally lost. You're framing your "historic track record" based solely on losses, without looking at the entire picture.

Without a doubt, we were valuable to them. And this is exactly how it went down. The lesson to learn here is probably if they had treated India and Indians better then the empire may have lasted longer. Today they are a third rate power and they have themselves to blame.

No empire became great without the approval and participation of its peoples. Indians demanded full freedom in return for helping the british while they only agreed for dominion status. Even then, UK understood it would be impossible to hold on to India after the war, when 2 million Indian soldiers returned home while the civil disobedience movement had already clipped their wings. That was just the reality, just like how when the british entered India the mughals weren't at full force but in fact declining and the marathas weren't a full force either, but had just gained control over most of India. This feud left a huge vacuum in large swathes of the region, but it didn't happen just like that but after intense warring for decades. In fact, the whole islamic occupation was a centuries-long war so I don't see your point about war being alien to India or the local populations not having fought back. The british gained control because they exploited this ideological feud but it was not possible without local support. In fact, most of the soldiers that did the conquering across India were other Indians. Apart from that, I don't think it was possible for britain to win the war without Indian contribution and support and the price to pay for their own freedom, was to give us ours. It was a fair trade IMO, and it united us as Indians. Otherwise, we may have been a set of warring kingdoms again after the british left. Instead, we chose democracy and a social revolution. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

True, but they were incredibly susceptible to criticism as they masqueraded as "civilized", while we were demonized. Gandhi was the perfect nemesis against that propaganda. The empire knew how to deal with someone who wielded a gun, just throw enough Indians under the bus and they would eventually win. What they did not know, is how to deal with someone without a gun. They hated gandhi and his guts. The man who stood up against the entire might of the empire and exposed their hypocrisy once and for all. He did it and asked to be arrested, and millions stood behind him. How do they kill the ideology without being equated to the nazis? They didn't have an answer to that.

I think you are purposely misrepresenting OP. He's clearly mentioned that though he's right leaning for free trade but he doesn't support Trump and his supporters.

Calm down with your rhetoric.

Bada gazab ka chutiyapa he ye.

Usually collectivist economic policies lead to authoritarianism.

It may well be. But do we know for sure? That's all I am saying.

No capitalism is a relatively new phenomenon with the birth of the Protestantism. Primitive societies were socialistic .

Nobody is saying you need to be a Christian, just capitalism has its origins in Christianity, specifically Protestant denomination. Most of academia do agree that Christianity is the origin of capitalism. It could be wrong as you say. But the theory is widely accepted.

Gabbard's tweets address this issue. One might chose to disagree however.

Are you kidding me? The average westerner knows jack shit about Hinduism.

They don't even have the right frame of reference to understand Hinduism, since their experience of religion mainly comes from exposure to monotheistic, Abrahamic religions.

No, it's not. Most Westerners know nothing about Hinduism.

I mean, it's not that showing Aghoris is bad, but he neglected like 99% of mainstream Hindu practice...the festivals, daily pujas, etc.

It's like my showing you a video about the People's Temple (of Jonestown fame) and calling it an informational on Christianity.

I am not making excuses I actually agree with you that both parties hate Hindus.