well I do actually agree that it was wrong for them to have the veto. or at least that it wasnt removed earlier. My point was that since England and Australia were also financial dominant at the time, the veto had little real relevance making it pathetic to portray it as some kind of grave injustice that should affect people´s thinking today.They may or may not have had influence due to money. That is a world of difference from having an official legal veto - meaning, everyone else got together and decided to do something on any issue, if they somehow found their backbone and stood up, they'd still be LEGALLY prevented from doing something if the original members did not like it. It's shocking that you can't see the injustice in that.
Had eng/aus not had the veto they would have run things the way India do today. In actual matters there would be no difference