When India successfully landed Chandrayaan-3 on the Moon in 2023, it sparked celebrations across the world. The achievement wasn’t just another space mission — it was a historic milestone. India became the first nation to softly land near the Moon’s south pole, a region long considered too risky and unexplored. For millions of Indians, the moment represented scientific progress, national confidence, and decades of hard work by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
But amid global admiration, a comment from British journalist Patrick Christie stirred controversy and ignited a debate that quickly caught fire on social media.
The Comment That Sparked a Storm
Shortly after the Chandrayaan-3 landing, Patrick Christie posted a remark that drew attention for all the wrong reasons. He wrote something along the lines of:
“Congratulations to India for landing on the dark side of the Moon. But maybe India should repay the £2.3 billion in aid the UK sent between 2016 and 2021. If you’re sending rockets to the Moon, you shouldn’t be asking for money.”
His comment implied two things:
- India’s space achievements were somehow funded by British aid.
- A country capable of sophisticated space exploration shouldn’t be receiving financial assistance.
On the surface, some might argue that Christie’s viewpoint reflects a taxpayer concern. But to millions of Indians, the statement felt patronizing, historically tone-deaf, and factually incorrect. It ignored India’s status as a rapidly growing global economy and dismissed centuries of colonial extraction that had drained India’s wealth.
This is where things took a dramatic turn.
Palki Sharma Steps In
Indian journalist Palki Sharma, known for her sharp analytical commentary, delivered a response that resonated across continents. With elegance and precision, she reframed the conversation and redirected it toward a topic Britain often avoids facing head-on.
She replied:
“If we’re going to talk about money, let’s begin with reparations. Britain should return the £45 trillion it extracted from India between 1765 and 1938. That amount is roughly 15 times Britain’s current GDP. So once you’ve settled that bill, we can discuss aid.”
It was a moment of clarity and confidence — a reminder that history cannot be forgotten simply because it’s inconvenient.
Where Did the £45 Trillion Figure Come From?
The number referenced by Palki Sharma is rooted in economic research. Several historians and economists, including Dr. Utsa Patnaik, have calculated the scale of wealth transferred out of India during colonial rule. Over nearly two centuries, Britain taxed India, controlled its trade, monopolized its industries, and redirected vast sums to fuel its own industrial growth.
To put it in perspective:
- India was one of the world’s richest economies before British colonization.
- By the time Britain left in 1947, India was among the poorest.
- The colonial system didn’t merely govern India — it systematically extracted wealth from it.
So when modern UK politicians or journalists talk about “aid to India,” Indians often point out that the aid is tiny compared to what was taken historically.
The Misconception About British Aid Funding India’s Space Program
A large part of Christie’s comment came from a misunderstanding. British aid to India was not funding Chandrayaan-3 or any of India’s space missions. In fact:
- The UK itself reclassified India as a “non-aid country” due to India’s economic rise.
- Most of the funds were investments or development partnerships, not handouts.
- India’s space missions are funded domestically, through ISRO’s budget, which is known for cost-efficiency.
For example, Chandrayaan-3 cost less than many Hollywood sci-fi movies. India has proven repeatedly that innovation does not always require massive budgets.
A Bigger Conversation: Development vs. Progress
Christie’s remark plays into a common stereotype: that countries working on development issues cannot simultaneously pursue scientific progress. But this thinking is fundamentally flawed.
If developing nations waited to become perfect before investing in science, technology, or innovation, they would remain stuck in a cycle of dependency forever.
Space exploration brings benefits that go far beyond national pride:
- Advances in satellite technology
- Weather forecasting improvements
- Disaster management systems
- Telecommunication enhancements
- Medical and scientific research
- Global collaborations
For a country as large and diverse as India, progress in these areas is essential.
Why Palki’s Reply Hit a Nerve
The power of Palki Sharma’s response came from its historical grounding. It shifted focus from a few billion pounds of aid to a much larger and uncomfortable truth: the consequences of centuries of colonization.
Her reply wasn’t merely a clapback — it was a statement that resonated with millions who felt that India’s achievements deserved respect, not condescension. It also highlighted something deeper: former colonies are no longer helpless nations relying on Western support. They are emerging as strong, capable global players.
Modern India: From Recipient to Rising Power
This debate also reflects India’s evolving global position. Today:
- India is one of the fastest-growing major economies.
- It is a key player in global technology, pharmaceuticals, space research, and geopolitics.
- Its diaspora is influential in global businesses, academia, and leadership.
- India helps other nations with humanitarian aid, medical support, and disaster relief.
The story is no longer about dependency — it’s about partnership.
The Changing Dynamics of “Aid”
Many Indians argue that modern "aid" from the UK is often misunderstood. A large portion of it:
- Goes through private organizations, not directly to the Indian government.
- Follows strategic interests, not charity.
- Creates business opportunities for British companies.
- Helps maintain diplomatic and economic ties.
Simply put, foreign aid is rarely one-way generosity — it is part of a larger global strategy.
Why the World Reacted So Strongly
The Christie–Sharma exchange became viral because it symbolized more than a disagreement. It represented:
- Frustration with lingering colonial attitudes.
- Pride in India’s scientific achievements.
- A demand for factual accuracy in global commentary.
- An assertion that historical injustices cannot be erased with selective memory.
For many Indians, the Chandrayaan-3 success was emotional. It was proof that a country once exploited and impoverished has now risen through its own talent and determination.
A Moment of Global Realignment
The world is changing — and fast. Countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are asserting themselves with newfound confidence. India’s lunar landing became a symbol of this shift.
Christie’s comment felt like a relic from the past, while Palki’s reply reflected a new, more assertive India that demands respect and historical clarity.
A Final Thought
The exchange ultimately teaches us something important: national achievements deserve celebration, not criticism rooted in arrogance or misinformation. When India reached the Moon’s south pole, it wasn’t just a scientific achievement — it was a moment that symbolized resilience, progress, and the ability to rise beyond history.
Patrick Christie may have intended to spark a debate, but what he received was a reminder of a painful legacy. Palki Sharma’s answer wasn’t just a comeback; it was a well-researched, powerful reality check.
And in the end, one thing became clear:
India doesn’t owe anyone an apology for dreaming big — especially not for landing on the Moon.
Thank you for visiting our website! Please share your thoughts or questions below. We value your feedback and aim to respond within 24 hours.