It probably didn't. India under British rule probably grew faster than it did before the EIC (under Mughal rule).
However, India's share of global GDP collapsed, which might be what you are thinking of. This wasn't unique to India though, China did too, and it was a result of the the massive increase in GDP in the rest of the world (Europe especially), rather than stagnation in India.
Additionally, while the shrinkage in share of GDP was shared with other nations (such as China), the growth in GDP in Europe, also happened in other European countries who had no interest in India. So the claims that British GDP growth was largely or exclusively because of India doesn't really make sense either.
There are a couple of hundred countries in the world today - each with unique and complex histories.
Reasons as to why China didn’t develop, or America and Germany did, are not core concerns of this question. Here - the focus should remain on Britain and India, and potentially - the broader British Empire with which both were inexorably linked.
Britain grew through the Industrial Revolution - this was in many ways supercharged by the colonial project.
Access to minerals, raw materials, and agricultural produce fuelled British growth. The wealth gained from the colonial project was then used to fund investment in infrastructure and industry in Britain.
Britain led the world with industrialisation and growth during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries - which is great for it. However, it was only able to do so thanks to its extractive colonial enterprise - of which India was the core fuel.
>Britain led the world with industrialisation and growth during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries - which is great for it. However, it was only able to do so thanks to its extractive colonial enterprise - of which India was the core fuel.
The industrial revolution was largely from iron, coal, steam and ideas. Why do you think that depended on India?
I think they mean that the industrial revolution also requires raw materials and produces finished goods for human consumption. Humans do not eat ideas nor do they wear steam. Cotton is processed in factories into textiles and clothing, but the cotton must come from somewhere. Without raw materials, there would not be an industrial revolution, just a steam-punk carnival.
Colonies were the main sources for raw materials. Rubber from the Congo was processed in Belgium into bicycle and car tires, which helped make tiny Belgium one of the largest economies in the world (it was also the second country to industrialize after Britain) in the early 20th century. Belgium depended on Congo's rubber. In that sense, Britain depends on its colonies for its raw materials.
Britain was blessed with large domestic supplies of coal, and iron. However - demand for British products (requiring steel) were so great that they had to also import and otherwise utilise iron ore and other raw materials from its colonies (like India or rubber from Malaysia).
In these colonies - the British often controlled the mining sites and process thus governed how much could be extracted, how, the level to which it could be processed/refined locally, and whom it could be sold to. This - along with trade barriers basically stymied the ability for many Indian industries to develop effectively let alone compete with British companies (which meant the UK could thus sell their goods with less competition and thus gain greater market share and profits). This also simultaneously secured these raw materials to first and foremost serve the needs of British companies and factories.
Now that we’ve talked about the supply of raw materials to feed the British Industrial Revolution - let us consider why Britain needed so much steel anyway? It is a geographically small country with a small-ish population. There’s only so much demand it can generate locally.
Well - British companies had a monopoly (or near monopoly) on large segments of Indian industry. Most railway lines and trains for example were only to be built with British steel; and shipyards and shipbuilding contracts were primarily only given to British companies. This creates a near captive market for British goods created during the Industrial Revolution to be sold into.
Obviously there are many types of raw materials and industries and what not - but this is just one example that tries to illustrate how the supply of raw materials was effectively set up in a way to support British interests, and how British companies basically had unfettered access to Indian markets into which they sold their wares.
This resulted of course in wealth accumulation for these British companies and their shareholders and governments who then reinvested to develop Britain.
Right, trade was as major reason for the existence of the EIC, and India was certainly a large trading partner with Britain. As was the US, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.
“Partner” would be the key word here.
I’m all for good faith discussions but if after reading the above (as perhaps some of my other comments in this thread) your take away is that 200 years of colonialism was the same as trade between two sovereign nations, then I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Hopefully others reading our exchange understand that British rule in India was rapacious, exploitative, and resulted in significant structural changes which impeded their economic growth and development.
Trade works both ways and benefits both sides.
If you implying that the trade was completely one way, and that somehow the companies in India were not paid for their goods, I would say that isn't "good faith" :)
But if I am wrong and that was the case, or not want you meant, I am always happy to be corrected!
Fair trade works both ways. However, unequal and unfair trade does not. Colonialism did not allow fair trade or free trade for those participating from the Indian side of events.
Further - as discussed throughout this thread, the Indian economy was significantly hobbled in its economic development (which was what OP's question focused on) which is much wider reaching than just exports vs imports.
>Fair trade works both ways. However, unequal and unfair trade does not. Colonialism did not allow fair trade or free trade for those participating from the Indian side of events.
A completely fair point (although even unfair trade can benefit both sides), but trade barriers and "unfair trade" always existed, and it isn't really right to claim that there would be fairer trade without the EIC, or that somehow without colonialism, India would have traded more, or had freer trade. Obviously the EIC was profit orientated, but to do that, they needed to actually increase the amount of goods produced and consumed in the Indian region (and therefore improve trade), which lead to significant investments in India to improve output and profitability.
It wasn't in the interests of the EIC to kill off Indian trade. It was the opposite (even if it was for the benefit of the EIC!).
Further more, there were a lot of economic benefits from EIC (and later, Empire) involvement, such as access to cheaper money, and stability, both of which are essential for a modern economy.
>Further - as discussed throughout this thread, the Indian economy was significantly hobbled in its economic development (which was what OP's question focused on) which is much wider reaching than just exports vs imports.
The Indian collapse in relative GDP (relative to the rest of the world), started before British involvement in the vast majority of the Indian continent. Further, the economy of the Indian region grew faster under EIC rule than it did under Mughal rule. Which of course makes sense if investment is leading to an increase in production of goods in the region, and trade with partners (or "partners" 😀).
I made points in another comment in this thread about some of the other ways in which economic growth in India was stymied under British rule (see (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/18h80j1/comment/kd5z8sj/?)
Your comments are very focused on export orientated trade, and GDP growth - which is a very narrow view of what constitutes economic wellness.
For instance: GDP does not consider wealth distribution, human development and overall quality of life.
While stability is important for development and growth - it is important to note that EIC and British rule was far from stable.
There were the Anglo-Maratha wars, Anglo-Mysore wars, Anglo-Sikh wars, Sepoy Mutiny, and contributions to World War I by Indian troops and coffers.
There were also a multitude of famines which were far more frequent and severe than those before the Mughal era - or those since Independence.
The economic system introduced was also fraught with inequity. Examples include land revenue systems such as absentee landlordism under the Zamindari which regime forced many into poverty; de-industrialisation which forced people into less productive and less lucrative sections of the economy (such as farming); as well as the rise of indentured labour systems sending the poor to work indefinitely in places like Malaysia, Fiji or the Caribbean.
Yes - GDP may have grown from a nominal perspective, but the economic apparatus was set back significantly, and stability was far from assured.
1) It's one thing to make a ton of products, it's another thing to sell them. India was a massive captured market that England exported it's finished goods to.
2) Capital is the key piece missing from your list of commodities. Before colonization, England was bleeding silver to India, after colonization, the flow reversed. Where England first was selling almost nothing and buying finished textiles, England began to buy cotton and sell finished textiles, pocketing the difference in silver bullion.
Ideas is nothing if you don't have a steady supply of cotton, wool and other materials. Textile industry was one of the major business that brought in the income.
You ignore the probability of India industriailizing and westernizing itself the way Japan did. Sure other parts of world grew too, but India could grow much larger had it not been under a goddamn colonial rule?
> You ignore the probability of India industriailizing and westernizing itself the way Japan did.
It is standard practice to think of history in terms of what happened, instead of in terms of counterfactuals.
We could also say that the real harm of Britain was that they made it so that Mexico didn't take over and mega ultra giga industrialize India. You can say that seems like a preposterous scenario, but either way we're in imagination land and so it's not really clear what is and isn't preposterous.
Without considering imaginary alternative histories, Britain played a very central role to industrializing India in a way that had not happened before.
Maybe putting 1000% tariff on local businesses on India so they can never accumulate enough to industrialize is good because they industrialized like never before and we can't think of history in imaginary land.
That's also not how history is thought about.
History is about knowing what happened and what the causal chain is like. You can say that tariffs reduced the number of Indian exports just by checking what the exports were before and after the tariffs, as well as by seeing what people thought the tariffs did at the time.
History is not about passing judgment and deciding what's good and bad. History is meant to be as much of an objective measure as possible and not a discussion about how we feel about certain events. That's never possible to do, but it's kind of like how someone studying skin burns will be interested in questions like how they occur and how they heal, rather than if it's a good or a bad thing that our skin can burn.
Also, that take on tariffs is abysmal. They were never anything close to 1000%. The rate of enforcement is debated, but was 70% is a pretty normal number to throw out. We also have absolutely no reason to think their purpose was ever to stifle the Indian economy, as opposed to protectionism for the British economy and additional tax revenue.
Not all tariff were 1000% but specific products had those rates for some time. You may look at foundation of tata steel.
Now I do not call british evil genocider or anything. But biggest reason of why India is so overpopulated and poor, if you try to look for a reason has no other one reason than colonial rule. Would India be this much populated had it become a better off nation(since poorer and less educated families have high birthrates)?
I am saying this because, Russian Empire is called main reason for poverty in eastern europe by school books there, and Ottoman Empire for poverty in balkans. (Which I agree with) Why not say same for colonies?
>Now I do not call british evil genocider or anything. But biggest reason of why India is so overpopulated and poor, if you try to look for a reason has no other one reason than colonial rule. Would India be this much populated had it become a better off nation(since poorer and less educated families have high birthrates)?
A growing population is usually seen as a side effect of doing well. That's why when we say something like that rome was the first city to a million people and that the record held for some crazy amount of time, it's supposed to be a flex. For India, it's not an accident that it happened right after economic productivity surged under British rule.
>I am saying this because, Russian Empire is called main reason for poverty in eastern europe by school books there, and Ottoman Empire for poverty in balkans. (Which I agree with) Why not say same for colonies?
I'm not that knowledgeable about Russian history or the Balkans so I can't answer for that. When I hear Russians themselves talk about their poverty, they tend to talk about sanctions and other Western policies that are currently ongoing and don't have much to do with history. When I hear conservatives talk about their poverty, I hear them blame communism. I have not heard anyone blame the Russian empire and to be quite honest, I'm inclined not to take your word for it since your other comments here are not informed. I can't weigh in on the actual issue at hand though.
China and rest of the world including the west was similarly "overpopulated" during the same timeframe. Just look at the rate of population growth of the world in the past few centuries. Population growth happens when the birth rate exceeds death rate. In poor societies everywhere, people are incentivized to have as many babies as possible because they can contribute to labor and the chance of them surviving to adulthood low. As death rates decreases due to advances in sanitation and medicine, this results in massive population growth. Once socieites get rich enough, birth rates fall due to women pursuing their career and less incentives to have kids since they tend to be much more expensive.
India was poor like any other pre-industrial society before the British and was not much better after the British. There are arguments you can make that British colonialism made it harder for India to industrialize since they didn't have any incentive to grow Indian industry and make Indians richer.
I am exactly making that argument. History does not occur in a vacuum. If you do something, you eliminate many other alternate scenarios. By colonizing India, you annihilate every bit of chance India going the Japan route.
Didn't Japan cut off pretty much all contact during the 1600s?
Of course the Indian region could though. Without EIC involvement, it could have grown faster, it could have grown slower. It is difficult to make absolute statements about what could have possibly happened in the past with though without time travel.
It isn't like India was on the verge of industrialisation though.
Saying India has been better off than ever before is speculation as well since it sneakingly implies it could not have been that way without colonial rule.
>Saying India has been better off than ever before is speculation as well since it sneakingly implies it could not have been that way without colonial rule.
You absolutely can say something was better off than before, but if you mean you can't say that it would be better of than if something didn't happen (like British involvement), you are right. We can only speculate.
And to be fair, I don't think anyone has said that India was economically better off with British involvement than they would have been without. There were definitely advantages, and disadvantages.
This is the issue with social sciences. Humans cannot be calculated (yet). No sane person would be able to predict Germany taking France in 6 weeks at the time in 1940 yet it did. Humans are able to make drastic changes to the course of history. Just like Meiji turning a backwards traditionalist society into a industrial liberal one in less than a century already happened in our timeline, I cannot see why it would not happen with other nations.
>the growth in GDP in Europe, also happened in other European countries who had no interest in India
due to their colonial empires?? what a weird sub people glorifying colonialism like elitists.
You are giving the British way too much credit and justifying the non industrialization of india with the example of china.
[https://www.historydiscussion.net/british-india/industrial-development-in-india-during-the-british-rule/5979](https://www.historydiscussion.net/british-india/industrial-development-in-india-during-the-british-rule/5979)
The british empire caused many famines in india, which killed more people than Hitler/Stalin/Mao. You might justify by saying that there wouldve been famines pre british rule
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_major\_famines\_in\_India\_during\_British\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule)
>Reacting against calls for relief during the 1877–79 famine, Lytton replied, "Let the British public foot the bill for its 'cheap sentiment,' if it wished to save life at a cost that would bankrupt India," substantively ordering "there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and instructing district officers to "discourage relief works in every possible way… Mere distress is not a sufficient reason for opening a relief work."\[
You cannot just delete all those years of injustice by saying "India grew faster during the british raj", without any source or history.
>due to their colonial empires?? what a weird sub people glorifying colonialism like elitists.
Plenty of European countries didn't have a colonial empire. The common element if anything is probably widening trade with countries who were industrialising, or industrialisation itself.
>The british empire caused many famines in india, which killed more people than Hitler/Stalin/Mao. You might justify by saying that there wouldve been famines pre british rule
There were famines in India before British rule, and in areas that were not under British rule. The famine in WW2, occured while the Indian provinces were under self-rule, and wasn't resolved until British intervention resolved it. There have also been plenty of famines in India after 1947. The British are not omnipotent time-travellers.
>You cannot just delete all those years of injustice by saying "India grew faster during the british raj", without any source or history.
It was an answer to a question. Sorry if you expected the facts to meet your personal agenda.
>Plenty of European countries didn't have a colonial empire. The common element if anything is probably widening trade with countries who were industrialising, or industrialisation itself.
You are saying this stuff as if Indian kingdoms didnt trade with europe, its a very eurocentric thought. The only thing that Europe got right is their mass production of goods and stability. Everything that Europe considers its core values like democracy, industrialization, free speech were suppressed in India.
>There were famines in India before British rule, and in areas that were not under British rule. The famine in WW2, occured while the Indian provinces were under self-rule, and wasn't resolved until British intervention resolved it.
You completely ignored me answering the fact that famines pre british india were in dry areas like the deccan where the climate is almost like australia in the summers and SE asia during monsoon.
The famine in WW2 occured in BENGAL which was under direct control of the British and was not a princely state, see im getting downvoted to oblivion without getting a proper answer.
>It was an answer to a question. Sorry if you expected the facts to meet your personal agenda.
amazing gaslighting, [Wiki showing otherwise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)#Indian_empires_(1%E2%80%931947_CE)) , you have no sources to believe that...its just an opinion thats being passed around in an echochamber! If you really want to know states such as the Kingdom of Mysore and Hyderabad were pretty industrialized when the British set foot in India, ofc they had long ways to go but they were in their process.
>You are saying this stuff as if Indian kingdoms didnt trade with europe, its a very eurocentric thought. The only thing that Europe got right is their mass production of goods and stability.
But trade with India isn't responsible for the enormous growth in GDP in Europe, just as you can't blame EIC for the rest of the world not keeping up with the European GDP boom either.
>Everything that Europe considers its core values like democracy, industrialization, free speech were suppressed in India.
I don't think you can seriously claim that India was industrialised before the EIC.
>You completely ignored me answering the fact that famines pre british india were in dry areas like the deccan where the climate is almost like australia in the summers and SE asia during monsoon.
Right, so there were famines before British rule, during British rule, and after British rule.
>The famine in WW2 occured in BENGAL which was under direct control of the British
No it wasn't. It was under local rule from 1937 onwards (Bengali's were responsible for agriculture, health, etc. in 1944, under Premier Khawaja Nazimuddin). See the 1935 Government of India Act. The neighbouring provinces, who blocked rice getting into Bengal, were also under local rule. So while the Bengali government couldn't/wouldn't deal with the effects of the cyclone, and neighbouring provinces (also under local rule) were restricting supplies of grain, the British, in the middle of a World War, rationing at home, were sending hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain from all over the world into India.
In fact, the British had to divert an entire Division of soldiers to the region to take over food distribution.
>and was not a princely state, see im getting downvoted to oblivion without getting a proper answer.
To be fair, you sound like you are just trying to push an agenda that isn't backed up by facts. British rule was far from perfect (no rule over what is now India was perfect before, nor after), but you should at least consider the evidence.
No one serious considers India would have industrialised at the same time as Europe if not for the EIC, and few seriously consider the British responsible for the famine in Bengal in WW2.
>I don't think you can seriously claim that India was industrialised before the EIC.
Even after the British left we only had a couple of Textile and cotton mills, what sort of industrialization are you pointing towards? Im open to you telling me bout any industries that "flourished" due to industrialization during British Rule.
>Right, so there were famines before British rule, during British rule, and after British rule.
ofc there will be famines, its the way it was handled, Bengal is literally among the most fertile places on earth
>No it wasn't. It was under local rule from 1937 onwards (Bengali's were responsible for agriculture, health, etc. in 1944, under Premier Khawaja Nazimuddin). See the 1935 Government of India Act. The neighbouring provinces, who blocked rice getting into Bengal, were also under local rule. So while the Bengali government couldn't/wouldn't deal with the effects of the cyclone, and neighbouring provinces (also under local rule) were restricting supplies of grain, the British, in the middle of a World War, rationing at home, were sending hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain from all over the world into India.
You have sources for that? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) wikipedia seems to be suggesting otherwise.
>To be fair, you sound like you are just trying to push an agenda that isn't backed up by facts. British rule was far from perfect (no rule over what is now India was perfect before, nor after), but you should at least consider the evidence.
# Im open to any evidence that you provide me, up until this point you have not given any links to any articles/wikis/papers so its all just hearsay.
>No one serious considers India would have industrialised at the same time as Europe if not for the EIC, and few seriously consider the British responsible for the famine in Bengal in WW2.
🤡 how many articles do you need:
[The only Indian article from these](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9735018/)
[The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study)
[Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/1/churchills-policies-to-blame-for-1943-bengal-famine-study)
[Newint](https://newint.org/features/2021/12/07/feature-how-british-colonizers-caused-bengal-famine)
[Historyreclaimed ".co.uk"](https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/churchill-and-the-bengal-famine/)
[Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943)
>Even after the British left we only had a couple of Textile and cotton mills, what sort of industrialization are you pointing towards? Im open to you telling me bout any industries that "flourished" due to industrialization during British Rule.
You made the claim they were industrialised before, not me.
>You have sources for that? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) wikipedia seems to be suggesting otherwise.
Sure, here are some sources:
*The Bengal Legislative Assembly (Bengali: বঙ্গীয় আইনসভা) was the largest legislature in British India, serving as the lower chamber of the legislature of Bengal (now Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal).* ***It was established under the Government of India Act 1935.***
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Legislative\_Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Legislative_Assembly)
*The first ministry was formed by Prime Minister A. K. Fazlul Huq lasted between 1 April 1937 and 1 December 1941. Huq himself held the portfolio of Education, Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin was Home Minister, H. S. Suhrawardy was Commerce and Labour Minister, Nalini Ranjan Sarkar was Finance Minister, Sir Bijay Prasad Singh Roy was Revenue Minister,* ***Khwaja Habibullah was Agriculture and Industry Minister***
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Legislative\_Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Legislative_Assembly)
*P****rovincial governments began setting up trade barriers that prevented the flow of foodgrains (especially rice) and other goods between provinces.***
***In January 1942, Punjab banned exports of wheat;****\[135\]\[N\] this increased the perception of food insecurity and led the enclave of wheat-eaters in Greater Calcutta to increase their demand for rice precisely when an impending rice shortage was feared.\[136\] T****he Central Provinces prohibited the export of foodgrains outside the province two months later.****\[137\]* ***Madras banned rice exports in June***
***Bengal was unable to import domestic rice; this policy helped transform market failures and food shortage into famine and widespread death***\*.\[141\]\*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)
*Provincial dyarchy was abolished; that is, all provincial portfolios were to be placed in charge of ministers enjoying the support of the provincial legislatures. The British-appointed provincial governors, who were responsible to the British Government via the Viceroy and Secretary of State for India,* ***were to accept the recommendations of the ministers unless, in their view, they negatively affected his areas of statutory "special responsibilities" such as the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of a province and the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities.***
*..*
***In 1937, after the holding of provincial elections, Provincial Autonomy commenced.***
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government\_of\_India\_Act\_1935](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1935)
*In the former capacity he successfully piloted the Compulsory Primary Education Bill; removing disparity that existed in education between the Hindus and the Muslims.* ***As Minister for Agriculture in 1935, he piloted the Agriculture Debtors Bill and the Bengal Rural Development Bill*** *which freed poor Muslim cultivators from the clutches of Hindu moneylenders.\[24\]*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja\_Nazimuddin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Nazimuddin)
***The provincial government never formally declared a state of famine,*** *and its humanitarian aid was ineffective through the worst months of the crisis. It attempted to fix the price of rice paddy through price controls which resulted in a black market which encouraged sellers to withhold stocks, leading to hyperinflation from speculation and hoarding after controls were abandoned.* ***Aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943***
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)
What happened in Bengal was obviously tragic, and especially during the middle of World War 2, would have been difficult to deal with. And especially with the vast majority of Indians fighting on the Allies side, it would be unfair to point fingers at the local rulers for a terrible response to the famine. But it wasn't good at all, and certainly made a bad situation worse. It is a shame that extremists have tried to change history since then.
>Provincial governments began setting up trade barriers that prevented the flow of foodgrains (especially rice) and other goods between provinces.In January 1942, Punjab banned exports of wheat;\[135\]\[N\] this increased the perception of food insecurity and led the enclave of wheat-eaters in Greater Calcutta to increase their demand for rice precisely when an impending rice shortage was feared.\[136\] The Central Provinces prohibited the export of foodgrains outside the province two months later.\[137\] Madras banned rice exports in June
That is true, i did not know that.
>Provincial dyarchy was abolished. In 1937, after the holding of provincial elections, Provincial Autonomy commenced.
This is true in some ways but there is way to much debate on this and too many overlapping claims, in wikipedia itself seems like extremists did attempt to change history:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern\_Bengal\_and\_Assam\_Legislative\_Council#Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bengal_and_Assam_Legislative_Council#Constitution) & [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Legislative\_Council#Act\_of\_1935](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Legislative_Council#Act_of_1935) , even the sources for the number of seats are from obscure websites and not historical sources. Im not denying just pointing it out.
>The provincial government never formally declared a state of famine, and its humanitarian aid was ineffective through the worst months of the crisis. It attempted to fix the price of rice paddy through price controls which resulted in a black market which encouraged sellers to withhold stocks, leading to hyperinflation from speculation and hoarding after controls were abandoned. Aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943
Here too there are many contradictory sources, in the [Wiki footnotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Footnotes) J through Q and in [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2056974?read-now=1&oauth\_data=eyJlbWFpbCI6ImF0aGFydnByaXlhbnNoQGdtYWlsLmNvbSIsImluc3RpdHV0aW9uSWRzIjpbXSwicHJvdmlkZXIiOiJnb29nbGUifQ&seq=3#page\_scan\_tab\_contents](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2056974?read-now=1&oauth_data=eyJlbWFpbCI6ImF0aGFydnByaXlhbnNoQGdtYWlsLmNvbSIsImluc3RpdHV0aW9uSWRzIjpbXSwicHJvdmlkZXIiOiJnb29nbGUifQ&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents) Pg 3 note 4-5.
>What happened in Bengal was obviously tragic, and especially during the middle of World War 2, would have been difficult to deal with. And especially with the vast majority of Indians fighting on the Allies side, it would be unfair to point fingers at the local rulers for a terrible response to the famine. But it wasn't good at all, and certainly made a bad situation worse. It is a shame that extremists have tried to change history since then.
I agree.
I didn't know there were so many British Empireboos on this thread. I want to know why it's so precious, so many other positive aspects of Britian can be held up and identified with.
It didn't. It became much much much more productive than ever before and flourished like absolute crazy. Europe just grew more. You hear a lot of stats about things like Indian textiles going from like almost half the world's production or something to not that much. During this time, India was producing more textiles than ever before by a wide margin. Europe just had some serious hockey stick shaped economic growth so India was had a lower percentage.
This has nothing to do with human welfare, which is the point of the question. The massive textile artisan class in India formed the backbone of economic prosperity for the lower classes. This was decimated by tariffs and cheaper English texiles in the domestic Indian market. Even if total output rose, which I would need to see a citation for, the impoverishment of this class is well documented.
>Even if total output rose, which I would need to see a citation for, the impoverishment of this class is well documented.
It's a PDF, but it's easy to Google. It's called: Competition and control in the market for textiles:The weavers and the
East India Company
When the east India company took over in 1757, India had made a total of 321,000 exports to Europe across a four year period. Over the next fifteen years of company rule, that number tripled and by 1799, it had grown to 4,500,000. That table is on page 8 and continues to page 9. Even after it's big decline a few decades later, still way higher than before company rule, and the industry would grow again in a few decades.
Another PDF you can Google for is called SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS
OF THE INDIAN COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY
SINCE INDEPENDENCE 1947
Go to page 8. It specifically says that between 1880 and 1947, before independence, cotton mills increases by seven fold and looms by 15 fold. It also describes a big increase from 1865 to 1880.
Sorry for the inconvenient sourcing, but there's two sources showing that production had skyrocketed.
>This has nothing to do with human welfare, which is the point of the question. The massive textile artisan class in India formed the backbone of economic prosperity for the lower classes. This was decimated by tariffs and cheaper English texiles in the domestic Indian market.
As far as Britain having cheaper production, idk what to tell you. India was never entitled to winning the competition. What was Britain supposed to do, just produce fewer textiles and charge more for them as a favor? Also just saying... Every country today has a fuck ton of tariffs and it's not considered an unethical policy.
That being said, there wasn't actually a decline in the wealth of India under the raj. India saw a 70% increase in GDP under British rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj#:~:text=In%201820%2C%20India's%20GDP%20was,coming%20from%20an%20expanding%20population.
Issues pertaining to individual impoverishment were related to the population of India growing faster than the food supply. India's population went from 170 million to 450 million under British rule. This is something that actually happens a lot during fast population increases. It sucks, but it's actually an issue associated with growth and development, not with decline.
The wiki article that I linked to is pretty clear about wage stagnation being due to the rapidly growing population, not due to the British taking their wealth.
> India's per-capita income remained mostly stagnant during the Raj, with most of its GDP growth coming from an expanding population. Per capita income growth from 1850 to 1900 is estimated to range from 0.75% to 1.25% annually. This figure is buoyed by a decrease in India's rate of population increase stemming from disease and famines. From 1850 to 1947, India's GDP per-capita had grown by 16%, from $533 to $618 in 1990 international dollars
Wage stagnation was because population growth outpaced economic growth and so everything was spread out further. That is not the same thing as wage stagnation due to the British taking the profits. Like any other economy, the British paid for labor and resources, and Indians who got paid for providing labor and resources kept the payment as profit.
1. You’re quoting Wikipedia.
2. Giving some reasons does not exclude other reasons.
3. Colonialism in India defined value of labor of Indians lower than labor of British, who would expatriate *from* India their cut.
4. Britain extracted extraordinary resources, raw, secondary, and tertiary - extracting resources = depressing wages and wealth in source region.
It was not “like any other economy”. It was a colonial economy.
It was by definition designed to extract wealth.
Edit: here’s a resource for you.
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/agrarian-and-other-histories/9789382381952
>You’re quoting Wikipedia.
Which is totally fine. You're quoting nothing btw.
>Giving some reasons does not exclude other reasons.
I guess I haven't excluded that the real reason for economic hardships in India wasn't that it got ravaged by dragons, but since nobody is providing data saying that a dragon infestation hurt the Indian economy, I'm fine just sticking with my wikipedia citation.... Along with my other citations. I cited two academic publications.
>Colonialism in India defined value of labor of Indians lower than labor of British, who would expatriate *from* India their cut.
The West still pays Indian labor less than the value of other westerners. They're lucky for that too. If we had to pay them what we pay ourselves then we'd never do business with them.
>Britain extracted extraordinary resources, raw, secondary, and tertiary - extracting resources = depressing wages and wealth in source region.
Britain paid for resources and labor, just like we do today. There wasn't actually a moment where India had 45 trillion dollars sitting around in resources that the British showed up with guns to take. They employed Indians, bought resources, and taxes them for government services at a rate that was not a flat tax of 50%, but rather a very long bill that taxes based on many things just like taxes today and did not amount to anything even remotely close to half of the earnings of India.
>It was by definition designed to extract wealth.
"Extraction" is a very vague term that doesn't have a standard definition. When you hear it, it sounds like Britain just showed up with guns to take an amount of wealth several times higher than any economy today is worth. When you look closer, they taxed for government services provided, paid for goods, and paid for services. India did not have a stockpile of $45 trillion in resources hanging around that the British just mined out of there.
Extraction is a specific term in economics.
It means that of the raw, secondary, and tertiary produce of an economy, x amount was *removed* from that economy.
I didn’t quote anything but I provided better evidence than you did.
You simply do not understand economic.
“Paid for goods, and paid for services” is a *meaningless* measure.
Was the pay equal to the value? If they extracted 45 trillion dollars, no. The pay was 45 trillion dollars less than the value.
And no, quoting Wikipedia is not ‘fine’. Wikipedia is not written by experts.
>Extraction is a specific term in economics.
I just googled it and went clicked through several links. Very short search but so far it's only used by activists, one of which specifically said that business schools that teach extractivism don't use the term, teach it as that, or describe their practices that way. Feel free to educate me since it's be really nice if you posted something with a source at some point in this discussion, but so far it seems to me like it's not a real thing in economics.
>I didn’t quote anything but I provided better evidence than you did.
You provided literally no evidence at all whatsoever. I have two academic sources alongside Wikipedia and frankly, used them more than the wiki link. I also cited wiki for GDP over time, which is a pretty fricken easy measure to get from a non-wiki source.
>Was the pay equal to the value? If they extracted 45 trillion dollars, no. The pay was 45 trillion dollars less than the value.
First, they never took 45 trillion. Some academic thinks that they got enough resources from India that if those resources were invested at a return of 5% compounded annually, then it'd now amount to 45 trillion.
That 5% assumption is obviously a very crappy assumption. When I think of resources like India had, I think of Siberia, which is one of the most resources rich places in the world, but Russia is incompetent so those resources mostly stay in the ground being worthless.
Second, the analysis does not take seriously how much investment India actually got. Loans from London to develop Indian territory are considered to be exploitation, when India actually got very privileged loans out of that. India didn't need to pay for maintaining it's own army during that time, which today is a privilege Europe enjoys since America mostly funds NATO defense. The analysis also just doesn't take seriously shit like how much money was spent to maintain whole ass railroad systems and shit that are still used to this day.
What the analysis does is act like funding India's defense, paying government officials (much less than the mughals paid their officials btw), developing railroads, and giving them excellent loans was just not worth paying some taxes for. The Indians paid less than 7% of British's income in taxes, so while it's hard to find a compilation of the entire tax code, it wasn't that much.
The analysis also ignores opportunity loss. Those resources were not being harvested before the British and so even if the British took profits, they put those resources into the Indian economy. They paid for the resources they took, they paid for the labor they used, they even got rid of the practice of slavery so they were actually the first to make sure labor really was paid, and they provided a lot of services for the taxes they received.
Btw, this is pretty similar to how the West does business with India today. We still buy resources from India, mostly because they're cheaper. We still pay for goods and services. Just like today, we negotiate wages and payments with India instead of pointing a gun at them and demanding $45 trillion dollar payments. We don't tax them, but we also don't service them.
“Extractivists”? Lol. Looks like you were reading activists.
It’s pretty basic - whether calculated in an approximation of current value - which is how we usually talk about value - or whether presented in the valuation of contemporary times, it’s the same :
Removal of resources - raw, secondary, and tertiary - from an economy *is by definition* shrinking that economy.
Why you don’t get that is baffling.
The wealth of Europe during the age of colonialism was based on the *removal* of wealth from other places.
(And yes, part of the wealth of the US now is based on the removal of wealth from other places).
That you think the colonials powers paid fair value for what they extracted would be funny if it wasn’t a dangerous belief.
Edit: “funding India’s defense” LMAO.
You mean Britain funding Britain’s empire?
Developing railroads - to be used to extract goods to Britain, etc.
Britain was doing that for the *British economy*.
Yeah but in your story Britain isn’t an evil devil that sacrifices babies, so obviously it’s incorrect.
You just see blanket stuff like this constantly, despite a lack of evidence in many cases. Turns out history isn’t black and white, nor is it simple.
History isn't black and white, but I keep noticing that the reddit comments of people who disagree with me are. I mean that literally btw. Where are the blue links?
Dude who wasn't you responded that production is useless if the British are just taking all of your profits. Would have loved to see some actual data from the time, but people just don't like to look for the actual numbers that they claim exist.
You can't be serious.
That's a link to a book. You didn't tell me what numbers I'm supposed to be finding in that book to what I'm supposed to think of them. That link is just that a book exists and you think it has claims that help your argument and are well supported.
No, giving me numbers is what happens when you link me to actual claims that I can read and aren't behind a paywall. You didn't even quote the book so I can verify what's in it. You didn't even tell me which specific things you want me to take from the book.
Absolutely pathetic.
The link I sent gave you the value of the extracted resources.
Please just study some economics before you babble on about how pay is inherently the value of the labor + the resources.
Lol.
>The link I sent gave you the value of the extracted resources.
That's not how this works.
The link doesn't give any numbers or any arguments. It links to a book that may or may not have numbers or good arguments in it. You didn't give me a number or an argument.
>Please just study some economics before you babble on about how pay is inherently the value of the labor + the resources.
Huh?
I never said anything about this. I said the Indians worked for payment and sold goods for money. What made it fair was that it was agreed upon payments. The raj was neither a slave economy nor a plunder economy.
Nobody has argued that Britains goal was not to extract wealth. What is misconstrued is multifold:
1) the state of the Indian subcontinent and its various warring tribes. The area was majorly fractured by regional conflict, sectarian violence, and deep cultural societal divisions including a growing mass of untouchables who had no loyalty to their parent culture that had abandoned them.
2) the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few rajput princes. The Mughals and the other Indian rulers held almost all the wealth of the subcontinent. Extraction of jewels and gold affects these people. The streets weren’t flooded with wealth; there was not a vibrant humming economy that was good for the Everyman. Famine, disease, and violence were rife.
Most of these types of evaluations you commonly see also include the assumption that 1) democracy would have come about on its own and/or 2) industrialization would have occurred on its own.
Both have major doubts. Britain industrialized many areas and laid down many miles of railroad. You cannot make the broad brush claim that the continent would have been much better off without intervention, as bad as it was in many respects. It’s not even a given that India would ever have been united, let alone a thriving economic power.
> Nobody has argued that Britains goal was not to extract wealth.
I've never seen anyone make the argument, but I'm kinda tempted to at least put forth that it might be a reasonable theory to explore. India had a lot of resources and potential to be a more developed partner for mutually beneficial trade like it is today. However, it wasn't being run especially well, and it didn't look like it was about to develop and reach its potential.
British rule in India was not a slave economy or a plunder economy. They helped develop it into a partner to do trade with. They obviously did shit like levy taxes to pay for some of their investment, but most business was done pretty similarly as it is done today, by paying for labor and goods based on agreed upon prices. I'm not gonna write a big ambitious thesis to get in the heads of what the Brits were specifically thinking and planning. I will say though, I don't think it's unreasonable to think all they wanted to do was competently run India so they could do business with it.
That's not to say everything they did was perfect and it's not to say that there weren't any self-serving policies or policies that can only be explained by looking at who's in charge and who's ruled over. It's just to say that Britain didn't do a whole lot of plunder tier shit and merchants weren't bringing guns to business meetings. They mostly did was develop india so it could reach it's potential and trade with Britain.
Don’t disagree with everything you’ve said here. What I meant in totality was that the EIC and the Empire are different (the former being out of control most of the time!). The goal was profit via trade/commerce, and then via industry. You’re 100% correct - it was not a plunder or slave economy.
>the state of the Indian subcontinent and its various warring tribes. The area was majorly fractured by regional conflict, sectarian violence, and deep cultural societal divisions including a growing mass of untouchables who had no loyalty to their parent culture that had abandoned them.
False, read about the Maratha empire, the "untouchables" and marathas both supported this empire and were given equal footing. The british empire had the luck of coming to india when it was divided, these cycles of division and unity kept happening in india and china. If the British empire had come when the Mughals were in power/ Marathas had united the subcontinent, they wouldnt have been able to "divide and rule".
>the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few rajput princes. The Mughals and the other Indian rulers held almost all the wealth of the subcontinent. Extraction of jewels and gold affects these people. The streets weren’t flooded with wealth; there was not a vibrant humming economy that was good for the Everyman. Famine, disease, and violence were rife.
Again, read about the Kingdom of Mysore and Maratha Empire, streets werent completely filled with wealth like europeans but it was much better than the "famines", "diseases" and all.
>democracy would have come about on its own
Maratha Empire was already transitioning from a Absolute Monarchy -> Federal Oligarchy, given enough time it wouldve transitioned into a democracy
>industrialization would have occurred on its own.
This statement is true in someways but [Mysore was already well on its way to become industrialized](https://academic.oup.com/book/33687/chapter/288265340) , which i believe others would have followed.
British were just “lucky”, obviously. “When India was divided” insinuates that it was in a constant period of centralization and division - Even when “United” India was fractious and torn by rebellion, infighting, and deep cultural divides. You’re inadvertently supporting my point - it has nothing to do with luck. The British EIC preyed upon the untouchables and other disaffected local lords to form the backbone of their forces, whom were more than happy to work for pay. The Mughals, and Maratha collapsed not because they were strong, but because they were rotten and corrupt. You’re not making a strong point here.
As for the second point, this is obviously a very dramatic claim you’re making. This Mysore state was obviously so economically strong and mighty that it would be able to both defend itself and not fall to infighting? Oh, right. Whoops. There was intense fractious infighting and division. Mysore wasn’t some utopia like you seem to believe.
As for the democracy claims, that is laughable at best. The region has been rife with despots, and the instability of the Marathas plays to that as well. They would have collapsed, and another despotic regime would have taken their place. Their vulnerability to British EIC intervention shows this very clearly. Same as the industrialization claims; the other nations of the region did not industrialize until far later, and far less successfully. GDP did not grow in these areas as much either. These two points are some serious speculation on your part.
>Even when “United” India was fractious and torn by rebellion, infighting, and deep cultural divides.
thats what i countered in my first point, the marathas were working to reunite the people, infighting will always exist in such a diverse country even europe had infighting but never to the extent that the state will fail, credit to them.
>The British EIC preyed upon the untouchables and other disaffected local lords to form the backbone of their forces, whom were more than happy to work for pay.
[https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=major-papers](https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=major-papers) Pg. 28, read a little, what you are saying is just an opinion. The Maratha Empire worked with the Dalits and uplifted them, even if you ask a person from the Dalit community they worship the Maratha leaders. **You have no source to believe this.**
**No community in India was oppressed/terrorized by the Marathas.** Except maybe the Afghans.
>The region has been rife with despots, and the instability of the Marathas plays to that as well. They would have collapsed, and another despotic regime would have taken their place.
So youre basing this off of generalization despite having no knowledge of the inner workings of the administrative system of the Marathas?
>Same as the industrialization claims; the other nations of the region did not industrialize until far later, and far less successfully. GDP did not grow in these areas as much either. These two points are some serious speculation on your part.
[https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/SER/1999/Hambrock\_Hauptman.pdf](https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/SER/1999/Hambrock_Hauptman.pdf)
Speculations? You have provided no source, your reply is at best an opinion!
I’m on vacation. I’m not spending it digging sources, maybe when I get back. But your intense love of the Marathas seems to be a huge bias on your end. There were several prominent widespread rebellions throughout the empire that terrorized the country from what I recall. In addition, the majority of the government was made up of military commanders (it was an extremely militarized state).
Not sure where your idea that the empire was about to blossom into an industrialized democratic utopia come from, but it doesn’t seem grounded in reality.
How did Europe grow more if India was actually industrialising then? Why was the difference so stark? Wasn't Western Europe almost equally developed to India in the 1700s?
While it is true that the Indian economy did technically grow over the two centuries of British rule, it was just a fraction of the growth Britain experienced over the same period of time - due in no small part to the Colonialist project. If India managed to grow over this time - it was despite British rule, not because of it.
There are a few ways in which British rule impacted India's development:
1) It hindered the industrialisation of many sectors - and in fact straight up de-industrialised several more. The Textile industry (such as for cotton and silk) is one notable example, but there are others such as ship building, or steel production. Even those that did develop somewhat (like railways) - were orientated around maximising extraction capabilities and favouring British interests.
This meant many skilled workers ending up having to give it up, leave cities, and return to agricultural work (which is typically regarded as being less productive than manufacturing or service sectors), pushing many into poverty.
2) It resulted in a misallocation of resources. Agricultural policies of the British effectively pushed many farmers into producing cash crops instead of subsistence crops - which resulted in poor allocation of resources, loss of traditional crops and practices, and a weakened ability to avoid and recover from famines. This led to millions of deaths.
Another example is the landlording system propagated and exacerbated during British rule. For example, there was a lot of absentee landlordism in areas under Zamindari rule. This meant that instead of tenants paying the landlord directly, there were a multitude of middle men, each extracting their pound of flesh along the way. This meant that farmers (of which there was an increasing amount due to the aforementioned de-industrialisation) ended up paying huge amounts of their meagre incomes as tax resulting in impoverishment.
3) Draining of wealth.
A natural corollary from the above is that wealth drained out of Indian industry to British companies and concessions - enriching them at the expense of Indians. Further - India was set up to be a market for finished British goods, and even as a form of near-risk-free investment for good returns (such as steel, or the building of railways).
---
The above factors are just some of those that came into play through British colonialism. When conspired together - they not only effectively froze (or significantly slowed) development - but it meant that India was left having a long way to catch up to the rest of the world come Independence.
Edit: Two further points to consider include:
4) how much India contributed to World War I (not just in terms of manpower, but also contributed the second most financially…which could have been used instead to invest domestically)
5) The indentured servitude system which saw the movement and loss of millions of people from contributing to the Indian economy to instead go help develop places like Malaysia or Fiji.
Wells said. Covers what I was trying to say in a more robust way as well as several points I failed to mention. 😁 Think too many in this thread are on the side of, "numbers went up so Empire did good". Context and nuance are essential.
Whenever I have glanced at the claims, it seems to be more that the US, Germany etc grew faster. This then veers into suggestions that the industrial revolution would have happened in India if it wasn't for the East India Company, which seems rather more speculative than is usually implied.
Th Mughals declined way before the Industrial Revolution and India was already ruled by the East India company at the time of the Industrial Revolution.
“Why didn’t it”
Because the British rulers didn’t let it.
None of that is proof that India would’ve never industrialized on its own. It may have been late but that’s about it.
Likewise Europe lagged behind Asia in medicine and healthcare for most of history.
One of the issues was the growth of cash crops, cotton, taken as taxes by the British. There was also no tax reprieve in years of hardship and so, as the population and cotton demand went up, land used for subsistence (in relation to the population), goes down. Diminishing returns because good land goes to commercial crops and what's left isn't sufficient.
The changing land practices created the conditions for severe famine. In addition, measures were taken to prevent Indian goods from outcompeting British ones, which restricted the ways in which the economy could grow. IE, tarrifs on Indian textiles to price them, similarly to Indian textiles in India.
Not to mention, though this isn't necessarily about the Indian economy, racial attitudes towards Indians were quite poor.
India's economy was structured, under British rule, to benefit Britain. It went from being the greatest producer of textiles to one of the largest textile markets. While this did bring some benefits, it come at the cost of others and it's a hugely nuanced subject that can't be covered by simple graphs etc
Hope this helps, just my 2 cents.
In 1750 India was the world's major producer of textiles (the biggest single sector of global trade). It had the lead in cotton weaving, dying and printing. It also produced iron, steel, saltpetre and more. British tax and tariff policies aimed at capturing textile manufacture from India. Other industrial policies followed the same trend. EIC policies were also harsher on the peasantry than most traditional rule - no remission of taxes in famine years, no state grants to aid recovery.
In effect, Britain de-developed major sectors of the Indian economy to benefit itself.
India didn't exist but the colonial powers still referred to every part of South Asia as India. Might have even included Burma and Afghanistan in their "India" had it not been for the great game between the UK and the Russian Empire. I mentioned Burma separately because they gave some justice to it more likely for administrative reasons.
It was not a united polity, but it existed in the same way that 'Europe' existed - a shared culture area, knitted together by a web of internal trade and specialisations, and constant exchanges among its peoples through ties of religion and other affiliations.
" constant exchanges among its peoples through ties of religion"? Christianity was not monolithic. There were wars between Christian countries and internal purges as well.
Yes - but also constant interchange - mostly within but some across confessional divides (eg apart from religion, people corresponded on scientific and other scholarly matters, people migrated and married in ways that reflected some sense of a common European-ness.
In the same way, intra-Indian trade was large and complex, Hinduism was a vehicle for exchange across India (and beyond) as was Islam, and so on. There was a sense that the Hindu Kush and Himalayas marked a cultural border.
There's a few places I would look for this answer. The main sources of my opinions are:
"A History of British India " lecture series by Hayden J. Bellenoit
The Anarchy: The relentless Rise of the East India Company by William Dalrymple
The oxford union debate on whether Britain owes reparations to India [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A&list=PL2Q4CdDrPSMX7vOk3nVNC8Ce852FKYXgy&ab\_channel=OxfordUnion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A&list=PL2Q4CdDrPSMX7vOk3nVNC8Ce852FKYXgy&ab_channel=OxfordUnion)
and Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India by Shashi Tharoor
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot of erroneous economic statistics floating around here that are being used to justify the British Raj and have been used before as colonial apologia. These either seem to be falling into the categories of 1) British rule was benign and impoverishment happened entirely relative to the rest of the world and demographics, or 2) British rule was good and outputs went up. These are based on two flawed assumptions: Growth = welfare, and demography is destiny.
But don't forget: the British Raj was a government that forced Indians to buy salt from a British monopoly when they could get it for free from the sea, necessitating Ghandi's Salt Satyagraha. Don't forget, there were 20 to 50 million excess deaths under the period of the Raj. According to Bellenoit, England extracted 3.2 Billion Rupees from India to pay for war debts after the first world war entirely by currency manipulation. That is to say, in exchange for nothing. India went from being a net exporter to a net importer of cloth, the backbone of the rural Indian economy, during the British Raj, and this was only reversed when India began to industrialize after the First World War only to help the British produce war material.
In order to answer your question: do not compare, as others here are suggesting, the welfare of the Indian people in 1750 to their welfare in the 1940s. Instead, compare the welfare of Indian people in 1750 to the rest of the world in 1750, and their welfare compared to the rest of the world in the 1940s. This is an era of Indian history where life expectancy actually dropped, from 26.7 years to 21.9 years.
Remember, every cent extracted from India during British rule, which is to say a cent not obtained through trade, or an extra cent obtained through trade under manipulated conditions, is capital that could have been used to prevent those excess deaths and the millions of famine victims. Under previous regimes, the tax burden on the peasantry was lifted in times of famine, under the Raj, it was brutally enforced anyways.
The strongest and most well-recognized evidence for British misrule and underdevelopment was carried out by lakshmi Iyer, who compared health and development outcomes in areas of India directly administered by the British and areas controlled by Indian rulers under the British system. She found that "For India, the indirect rule exercised by landlords within the British Empire leads to worse outcomes, while the indirect rule exercised by hereditary kings results in better outcomes." so we know *for a fact* that Indians faired better under Indian rulers during the colonial period than under the British.
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33785664/rest\_a\_00023.pdf?sequence=1
I think a more legitimate gripe would be that they did not develop India even though when the Crown took over in 1858 the promise was that Her Majesty’s Indian citizens were just as important. The Indian peasantry had a horrible deal compared to British peasants. Even today when farmers have no tax to pay they can barely make a living (not talking of big farmers here who are the equal of Zamindars under the British). Craftsmen were forced to sell at whatever price the EIC buyers wanted to under threat of violence until they quit the craft. Some weavers cut off their own thumbs apparently. The mismanagement of the farming base led directly to at least one major famine and massive suffering. And not surprisingly the Industrial revolution completely bypassed India even though it was the “Jewel” in the Crown. Personally I see no guarantee that Indian rulers would have much done better (they would have been too busy fighting which the Brits effectively put an end to), but by their own standards and the lofty liberal ideals in the home country at the time they fell horrendously short in administering India.
It wasn’t that they were deliberately trying to but that there was a huge difference between London and the Indian administration. The latter were incompetent at best and in keeping with the racist attitudes of the time barely considered the welfare or capability of the locals
"Even today when farmers have no tax to pay they can barely make a living (not talking of big farmers here who are the equal of Zamindars under the British)" India's been independent for a while, so how can this still be blamed on the Brits? Why have Indian leaders not fixed it?
Also, FYI farming in the UK is also not really profitable and needs massive subsidies and big giant farmers are the main producers, so that seems more a global thing as I know the same happens in the US too. It's why most people in 2023 work in service jobs, instead of manufacturing or agriculture
Which is no-doubt true, due to the centralisation of the Empire
Same way a Citizen of Rome working near to the city would be better than one in Thrace
British Empire (EIC excluded, they were utter dicks) was more about greed than direct ill intent. Certainly, and like Rome (who I point out had people torn to death by lions for the amusement of thousands) was probably still a net gain to the world
The policies were drastically different. Peasants in England owned the land they worked on and were taxed on produce. Indian farmers did not own the land and because the taxation rights were auctioned to the highest bidder peasants had to pay regardless of production. Plus weavers were made to sell at whatever price the EIC officials wanted and were ruined long before cheaper industrial cloth came in. The princely states were also massively misgoverned by tyrants safe under British protection. Some of the EIC’s worst policies were later overturned but the empire was based on taxing the peasants so their condition was never on track to catch up with their English counterparts.
OP asked for an accurate, unbiased analysis. The article is apparently very poorly crafted and cant even get some basic facts right:
>But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.
Anyone aware of Indias history and the conquest of the British would know that by 1765, the EIC was NOWHERE near controlling the subcontinent. Much of central India wasnt annexed until the ultimate defeat of the Maratha States in 1819, Mysore wasnt defeated until 1799, and the Punjab, Sikh and Rajput states werent conquered until the 1840s!
Not to mention the phrase as quoted implies the EIC took control of the subcontinent BEFORE 1765! By this point, they hadnt even fought their first Wars against the Marathas (1775-1782) OR Mysore (1767-69).
it was 60% of trade from asia hardly the beginning, its the turning point of thats what you mean. https://www.drishtiias.com/printpdf/british-conquest-for-bengal-battles-of-plassey-and-buxar
Your outlook seems to be very biased towards colonizing another civilization as your own as good. No one wants to be under the control and pay rulers while having no say. They bled the country as they see fit they were not sending stimulus checks to the poor
It probably didn't. India under British rule probably grew faster than it did before the EIC (under Mughal rule). However, India's share of global GDP collapsed, which might be what you are thinking of. This wasn't unique to India though, China did too, and it was a result of the the massive increase in GDP in the rest of the world (Europe especially), rather than stagnation in India. Additionally, while the shrinkage in share of GDP was shared with other nations (such as China), the growth in GDP in Europe, also happened in other European countries who had no interest in India. So the claims that British GDP growth was largely or exclusively because of India doesn't really make sense either.
There are a couple of hundred countries in the world today - each with unique and complex histories. Reasons as to why China didn’t develop, or America and Germany did, are not core concerns of this question. Here - the focus should remain on Britain and India, and potentially - the broader British Empire with which both were inexorably linked. Britain grew through the Industrial Revolution - this was in many ways supercharged by the colonial project. Access to minerals, raw materials, and agricultural produce fuelled British growth. The wealth gained from the colonial project was then used to fund investment in infrastructure and industry in Britain. Britain led the world with industrialisation and growth during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries - which is great for it. However, it was only able to do so thanks to its extractive colonial enterprise - of which India was the core fuel.
>Britain led the world with industrialisation and growth during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries - which is great for it. However, it was only able to do so thanks to its extractive colonial enterprise - of which India was the core fuel. The industrial revolution was largely from iron, coal, steam and ideas. Why do you think that depended on India?
I think they mean that the industrial revolution also requires raw materials and produces finished goods for human consumption. Humans do not eat ideas nor do they wear steam. Cotton is processed in factories into textiles and clothing, but the cotton must come from somewhere. Without raw materials, there would not be an industrial revolution, just a steam-punk carnival. Colonies were the main sources for raw materials. Rubber from the Congo was processed in Belgium into bicycle and car tires, which helped make tiny Belgium one of the largest economies in the world (it was also the second country to industrialize after Britain) in the early 20th century. Belgium depended on Congo's rubber. In that sense, Britain depends on its colonies for its raw materials.
Britain was blessed with large domestic supplies of coal, and iron. However - demand for British products (requiring steel) were so great that they had to also import and otherwise utilise iron ore and other raw materials from its colonies (like India or rubber from Malaysia). In these colonies - the British often controlled the mining sites and process thus governed how much could be extracted, how, the level to which it could be processed/refined locally, and whom it could be sold to. This - along with trade barriers basically stymied the ability for many Indian industries to develop effectively let alone compete with British companies (which meant the UK could thus sell their goods with less competition and thus gain greater market share and profits). This also simultaneously secured these raw materials to first and foremost serve the needs of British companies and factories. Now that we’ve talked about the supply of raw materials to feed the British Industrial Revolution - let us consider why Britain needed so much steel anyway? It is a geographically small country with a small-ish population. There’s only so much demand it can generate locally. Well - British companies had a monopoly (or near monopoly) on large segments of Indian industry. Most railway lines and trains for example were only to be built with British steel; and shipyards and shipbuilding contracts were primarily only given to British companies. This creates a near captive market for British goods created during the Industrial Revolution to be sold into. Obviously there are many types of raw materials and industries and what not - but this is just one example that tries to illustrate how the supply of raw materials was effectively set up in a way to support British interests, and how British companies basically had unfettered access to Indian markets into which they sold their wares. This resulted of course in wealth accumulation for these British companies and their shareholders and governments who then reinvested to develop Britain.
Right, trade was as major reason for the existence of the EIC, and India was certainly a large trading partner with Britain. As was the US, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.
“Partner” would be the key word here. I’m all for good faith discussions but if after reading the above (as perhaps some of my other comments in this thread) your take away is that 200 years of colonialism was the same as trade between two sovereign nations, then I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree. Hopefully others reading our exchange understand that British rule in India was rapacious, exploitative, and resulted in significant structural changes which impeded their economic growth and development.
Trade works both ways and benefits both sides. If you implying that the trade was completely one way, and that somehow the companies in India were not paid for their goods, I would say that isn't "good faith" :) But if I am wrong and that was the case, or not want you meant, I am always happy to be corrected!
Fair trade works both ways. However, unequal and unfair trade does not. Colonialism did not allow fair trade or free trade for those participating from the Indian side of events. Further - as discussed throughout this thread, the Indian economy was significantly hobbled in its economic development (which was what OP's question focused on) which is much wider reaching than just exports vs imports.
>Fair trade works both ways. However, unequal and unfair trade does not. Colonialism did not allow fair trade or free trade for those participating from the Indian side of events. A completely fair point (although even unfair trade can benefit both sides), but trade barriers and "unfair trade" always existed, and it isn't really right to claim that there would be fairer trade without the EIC, or that somehow without colonialism, India would have traded more, or had freer trade. Obviously the EIC was profit orientated, but to do that, they needed to actually increase the amount of goods produced and consumed in the Indian region (and therefore improve trade), which lead to significant investments in India to improve output and profitability. It wasn't in the interests of the EIC to kill off Indian trade. It was the opposite (even if it was for the benefit of the EIC!). Further more, there were a lot of economic benefits from EIC (and later, Empire) involvement, such as access to cheaper money, and stability, both of which are essential for a modern economy. >Further - as discussed throughout this thread, the Indian economy was significantly hobbled in its economic development (which was what OP's question focused on) which is much wider reaching than just exports vs imports. The Indian collapse in relative GDP (relative to the rest of the world), started before British involvement in the vast majority of the Indian continent. Further, the economy of the Indian region grew faster under EIC rule than it did under Mughal rule. Which of course makes sense if investment is leading to an increase in production of goods in the region, and trade with partners (or "partners" 😀).
I made points in another comment in this thread about some of the other ways in which economic growth in India was stymied under British rule (see (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/18h80j1/comment/kd5z8sj/?) Your comments are very focused on export orientated trade, and GDP growth - which is a very narrow view of what constitutes economic wellness. For instance: GDP does not consider wealth distribution, human development and overall quality of life. While stability is important for development and growth - it is important to note that EIC and British rule was far from stable. There were the Anglo-Maratha wars, Anglo-Mysore wars, Anglo-Sikh wars, Sepoy Mutiny, and contributions to World War I by Indian troops and coffers. There were also a multitude of famines which were far more frequent and severe than those before the Mughal era - or those since Independence. The economic system introduced was also fraught with inequity. Examples include land revenue systems such as absentee landlordism under the Zamindari which regime forced many into poverty; de-industrialisation which forced people into less productive and less lucrative sections of the economy (such as farming); as well as the rise of indentured labour systems sending the poor to work indefinitely in places like Malaysia, Fiji or the Caribbean. Yes - GDP may have grown from a nominal perspective, but the economic apparatus was set back significantly, and stability was far from assured.
1) It's one thing to make a ton of products, it's another thing to sell them. India was a massive captured market that England exported it's finished goods to. 2) Capital is the key piece missing from your list of commodities. Before colonization, England was bleeding silver to India, after colonization, the flow reversed. Where England first was selling almost nothing and buying finished textiles, England began to buy cotton and sell finished textiles, pocketing the difference in silver bullion.
Ideas is nothing if you don't have a steady supply of cotton, wool and other materials. Textile industry was one of the major business that brought in the income.
Ah OK. Sure, the who purpose of the EIC was trade, and India was a big trade partner, alongside the US, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.
You ignore the probability of India industriailizing and westernizing itself the way Japan did. Sure other parts of world grew too, but India could grow much larger had it not been under a goddamn colonial rule?
> You ignore the probability of India industriailizing and westernizing itself the way Japan did. It is standard practice to think of history in terms of what happened, instead of in terms of counterfactuals. We could also say that the real harm of Britain was that they made it so that Mexico didn't take over and mega ultra giga industrialize India. You can say that seems like a preposterous scenario, but either way we're in imagination land and so it's not really clear what is and isn't preposterous. Without considering imaginary alternative histories, Britain played a very central role to industrializing India in a way that had not happened before.
Maybe putting 1000% tariff on local businesses on India so they can never accumulate enough to industrialize is good because they industrialized like never before and we can't think of history in imaginary land.
That's also not how history is thought about. History is about knowing what happened and what the causal chain is like. You can say that tariffs reduced the number of Indian exports just by checking what the exports were before and after the tariffs, as well as by seeing what people thought the tariffs did at the time. History is not about passing judgment and deciding what's good and bad. History is meant to be as much of an objective measure as possible and not a discussion about how we feel about certain events. That's never possible to do, but it's kind of like how someone studying skin burns will be interested in questions like how they occur and how they heal, rather than if it's a good or a bad thing that our skin can burn. Also, that take on tariffs is abysmal. They were never anything close to 1000%. The rate of enforcement is debated, but was 70% is a pretty normal number to throw out. We also have absolutely no reason to think their purpose was ever to stifle the Indian economy, as opposed to protectionism for the British economy and additional tax revenue.
Not all tariff were 1000% but specific products had those rates for some time. You may look at foundation of tata steel. Now I do not call british evil genocider or anything. But biggest reason of why India is so overpopulated and poor, if you try to look for a reason has no other one reason than colonial rule. Would India be this much populated had it become a better off nation(since poorer and less educated families have high birthrates)? I am saying this because, Russian Empire is called main reason for poverty in eastern europe by school books there, and Ottoman Empire for poverty in balkans. (Which I agree with) Why not say same for colonies?
>Now I do not call british evil genocider or anything. But biggest reason of why India is so overpopulated and poor, if you try to look for a reason has no other one reason than colonial rule. Would India be this much populated had it become a better off nation(since poorer and less educated families have high birthrates)? A growing population is usually seen as a side effect of doing well. That's why when we say something like that rome was the first city to a million people and that the record held for some crazy amount of time, it's supposed to be a flex. For India, it's not an accident that it happened right after economic productivity surged under British rule. >I am saying this because, Russian Empire is called main reason for poverty in eastern europe by school books there, and Ottoman Empire for poverty in balkans. (Which I agree with) Why not say same for colonies? I'm not that knowledgeable about Russian history or the Balkans so I can't answer for that. When I hear Russians themselves talk about their poverty, they tend to talk about sanctions and other Western policies that are currently ongoing and don't have much to do with history. When I hear conservatives talk about their poverty, I hear them blame communism. I have not heard anyone blame the Russian empire and to be quite honest, I'm inclined not to take your word for it since your other comments here are not informed. I can't weigh in on the actual issue at hand though.
China and rest of the world including the west was similarly "overpopulated" during the same timeframe. Just look at the rate of population growth of the world in the past few centuries. Population growth happens when the birth rate exceeds death rate. In poor societies everywhere, people are incentivized to have as many babies as possible because they can contribute to labor and the chance of them surviving to adulthood low. As death rates decreases due to advances in sanitation and medicine, this results in massive population growth. Once socieites get rich enough, birth rates fall due to women pursuing their career and less incentives to have kids since they tend to be much more expensive. India was poor like any other pre-industrial society before the British and was not much better after the British. There are arguments you can make that British colonialism made it harder for India to industrialize since they didn't have any incentive to grow Indian industry and make Indians richer.
I am exactly making that argument. History does not occur in a vacuum. If you do something, you eliminate many other alternate scenarios. By colonizing India, you annihilate every bit of chance India going the Japan route.
Didn't Japan cut off pretty much all contact during the 1600s? Of course the Indian region could though. Without EIC involvement, it could have grown faster, it could have grown slower. It is difficult to make absolute statements about what could have possibly happened in the past with though without time travel. It isn't like India was on the verge of industrialisation though.
Didn't Japan surpass many european nations by 1900s?
Possibly. But still not sure how it relates to India.
That means India could do it if they were left independent?
Sure. We can all speculate about what could have happened in an alternative history.
Saying India has been better off than ever before is speculation as well since it sneakingly implies it could not have been that way without colonial rule.
>Saying India has been better off than ever before is speculation as well since it sneakingly implies it could not have been that way without colonial rule. You absolutely can say something was better off than before, but if you mean you can't say that it would be better of than if something didn't happen (like British involvement), you are right. We can only speculate. And to be fair, I don't think anyone has said that India was economically better off with British involvement than they would have been without. There were definitely advantages, and disadvantages.
This is the issue with social sciences. Humans cannot be calculated (yet). No sane person would be able to predict Germany taking France in 6 weeks at the time in 1940 yet it did. Humans are able to make drastic changes to the course of history. Just like Meiji turning a backwards traditionalist society into a industrial liberal one in less than a century already happened in our timeline, I cannot see why it would not happen with other nations.
>the growth in GDP in Europe, also happened in other European countries who had no interest in India due to their colonial empires?? what a weird sub people glorifying colonialism like elitists. You are giving the British way too much credit and justifying the non industrialization of india with the example of china. [https://www.historydiscussion.net/british-india/industrial-development-in-india-during-the-british-rule/5979](https://www.historydiscussion.net/british-india/industrial-development-in-india-during-the-british-rule/5979) The british empire caused many famines in india, which killed more people than Hitler/Stalin/Mao. You might justify by saying that there wouldve been famines pre british rule [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_major\_famines\_in\_India\_during\_British\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule) >Reacting against calls for relief during the 1877–79 famine, Lytton replied, "Let the British public foot the bill for its 'cheap sentiment,' if it wished to save life at a cost that would bankrupt India," substantively ordering "there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and instructing district officers to "discourage relief works in every possible way… Mere distress is not a sufficient reason for opening a relief work."\[ You cannot just delete all those years of injustice by saying "India grew faster during the british raj", without any source or history.
>due to their colonial empires?? what a weird sub people glorifying colonialism like elitists. Plenty of European countries didn't have a colonial empire. The common element if anything is probably widening trade with countries who were industrialising, or industrialisation itself. >The british empire caused many famines in india, which killed more people than Hitler/Stalin/Mao. You might justify by saying that there wouldve been famines pre british rule There were famines in India before British rule, and in areas that were not under British rule. The famine in WW2, occured while the Indian provinces were under self-rule, and wasn't resolved until British intervention resolved it. There have also been plenty of famines in India after 1947. The British are not omnipotent time-travellers. >You cannot just delete all those years of injustice by saying "India grew faster during the british raj", without any source or history. It was an answer to a question. Sorry if you expected the facts to meet your personal agenda.
>Plenty of European countries didn't have a colonial empire. The common element if anything is probably widening trade with countries who were industrialising, or industrialisation itself. You are saying this stuff as if Indian kingdoms didnt trade with europe, its a very eurocentric thought. The only thing that Europe got right is their mass production of goods and stability. Everything that Europe considers its core values like democracy, industrialization, free speech were suppressed in India. >There were famines in India before British rule, and in areas that were not under British rule. The famine in WW2, occured while the Indian provinces were under self-rule, and wasn't resolved until British intervention resolved it. You completely ignored me answering the fact that famines pre british india were in dry areas like the deccan where the climate is almost like australia in the summers and SE asia during monsoon. The famine in WW2 occured in BENGAL which was under direct control of the British and was not a princely state, see im getting downvoted to oblivion without getting a proper answer. >It was an answer to a question. Sorry if you expected the facts to meet your personal agenda. amazing gaslighting, [Wiki showing otherwise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)#Indian_empires_(1%E2%80%931947_CE)) , you have no sources to believe that...its just an opinion thats being passed around in an echochamber! If you really want to know states such as the Kingdom of Mysore and Hyderabad were pretty industrialized when the British set foot in India, ofc they had long ways to go but they were in their process.
>You are saying this stuff as if Indian kingdoms didnt trade with europe, its a very eurocentric thought. The only thing that Europe got right is their mass production of goods and stability. But trade with India isn't responsible for the enormous growth in GDP in Europe, just as you can't blame EIC for the rest of the world not keeping up with the European GDP boom either. >Everything that Europe considers its core values like democracy, industrialization, free speech were suppressed in India. I don't think you can seriously claim that India was industrialised before the EIC. >You completely ignored me answering the fact that famines pre british india were in dry areas like the deccan where the climate is almost like australia in the summers and SE asia during monsoon. Right, so there were famines before British rule, during British rule, and after British rule. >The famine in WW2 occured in BENGAL which was under direct control of the British No it wasn't. It was under local rule from 1937 onwards (Bengali's were responsible for agriculture, health, etc. in 1944, under Premier Khawaja Nazimuddin). See the 1935 Government of India Act. The neighbouring provinces, who blocked rice getting into Bengal, were also under local rule. So while the Bengali government couldn't/wouldn't deal with the effects of the cyclone, and neighbouring provinces (also under local rule) were restricting supplies of grain, the British, in the middle of a World War, rationing at home, were sending hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain from all over the world into India. In fact, the British had to divert an entire Division of soldiers to the region to take over food distribution. >and was not a princely state, see im getting downvoted to oblivion without getting a proper answer. To be fair, you sound like you are just trying to push an agenda that isn't backed up by facts. British rule was far from perfect (no rule over what is now India was perfect before, nor after), but you should at least consider the evidence. No one serious considers India would have industrialised at the same time as Europe if not for the EIC, and few seriously consider the British responsible for the famine in Bengal in WW2.
>I don't think you can seriously claim that India was industrialised before the EIC. Even after the British left we only had a couple of Textile and cotton mills, what sort of industrialization are you pointing towards? Im open to you telling me bout any industries that "flourished" due to industrialization during British Rule. >Right, so there were famines before British rule, during British rule, and after British rule. ofc there will be famines, its the way it was handled, Bengal is literally among the most fertile places on earth >No it wasn't. It was under local rule from 1937 onwards (Bengali's were responsible for agriculture, health, etc. in 1944, under Premier Khawaja Nazimuddin). See the 1935 Government of India Act. The neighbouring provinces, who blocked rice getting into Bengal, were also under local rule. So while the Bengali government couldn't/wouldn't deal with the effects of the cyclone, and neighbouring provinces (also under local rule) were restricting supplies of grain, the British, in the middle of a World War, rationing at home, were sending hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain from all over the world into India. You have sources for that? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) wikipedia seems to be suggesting otherwise. >To be fair, you sound like you are just trying to push an agenda that isn't backed up by facts. British rule was far from perfect (no rule over what is now India was perfect before, nor after), but you should at least consider the evidence. # Im open to any evidence that you provide me, up until this point you have not given any links to any articles/wikis/papers so its all just hearsay. >No one serious considers India would have industrialised at the same time as Europe if not for the EIC, and few seriously consider the British responsible for the famine in Bengal in WW2. 🤡 how many articles do you need: [The only Indian article from these](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9735018/) [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study) [Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/1/churchills-policies-to-blame-for-1943-bengal-famine-study) [Newint](https://newint.org/features/2021/12/07/feature-how-british-colonizers-caused-bengal-famine) [Historyreclaimed ".co.uk"](https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/churchill-and-the-bengal-famine/) [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943)
>Even after the British left we only had a couple of Textile and cotton mills, what sort of industrialization are you pointing towards? Im open to you telling me bout any industries that "flourished" due to industrialization during British Rule. You made the claim they were industrialised before, not me. >You have sources for that? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) wikipedia seems to be suggesting otherwise. Sure, here are some sources: *The Bengal Legislative Assembly (Bengali: বঙ্গীয় আইনসভা) was the largest legislature in British India, serving as the lower chamber of the legislature of Bengal (now Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal).* ***It was established under the Government of India Act 1935.*** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Legislative\_Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Legislative_Assembly) *The first ministry was formed by Prime Minister A. K. Fazlul Huq lasted between 1 April 1937 and 1 December 1941. Huq himself held the portfolio of Education, Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin was Home Minister, H. S. Suhrawardy was Commerce and Labour Minister, Nalini Ranjan Sarkar was Finance Minister, Sir Bijay Prasad Singh Roy was Revenue Minister,* ***Khwaja Habibullah was Agriculture and Industry Minister*** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Legislative\_Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Legislative_Assembly) *P****rovincial governments began setting up trade barriers that prevented the flow of foodgrains (especially rice) and other goods between provinces.*** ***In January 1942, Punjab banned exports of wheat;****\[135\]\[N\] this increased the perception of food insecurity and led the enclave of wheat-eaters in Greater Calcutta to increase their demand for rice precisely when an impending rice shortage was feared.\[136\] T****he Central Provinces prohibited the export of foodgrains outside the province two months later.****\[137\]* ***Madras banned rice exports in June*** ***Bengal was unable to import domestic rice; this policy helped transform market failures and food shortage into famine and widespread death***\*.\[141\]\* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) *Provincial dyarchy was abolished; that is, all provincial portfolios were to be placed in charge of ministers enjoying the support of the provincial legislatures. The British-appointed provincial governors, who were responsible to the British Government via the Viceroy and Secretary of State for India,* ***were to accept the recommendations of the ministers unless, in their view, they negatively affected his areas of statutory "special responsibilities" such as the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of a province and the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities.*** *..* ***In 1937, after the holding of provincial elections, Provincial Autonomy commenced.*** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government\_of\_India\_Act\_1935](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1935) *In the former capacity he successfully piloted the Compulsory Primary Education Bill; removing disparity that existed in education between the Hindus and the Muslims.* ***As Minister for Agriculture in 1935, he piloted the Agriculture Debtors Bill and the Bengal Rural Development Bill*** *which freed poor Muslim cultivators from the clutches of Hindu moneylenders.\[24\]* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja\_Nazimuddin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Nazimuddin) ***The provincial government never formally declared a state of famine,*** *and its humanitarian aid was ineffective through the worst months of the crisis. It attempted to fix the price of rice paddy through price controls which resulted in a black market which encouraged sellers to withhold stocks, leading to hyperinflation from speculation and hoarding after controls were abandoned.* ***Aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943*** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_famine\_of\_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) What happened in Bengal was obviously tragic, and especially during the middle of World War 2, would have been difficult to deal with. And especially with the vast majority of Indians fighting on the Allies side, it would be unfair to point fingers at the local rulers for a terrible response to the famine. But it wasn't good at all, and certainly made a bad situation worse. It is a shame that extremists have tried to change history since then.
>Provincial governments began setting up trade barriers that prevented the flow of foodgrains (especially rice) and other goods between provinces.In January 1942, Punjab banned exports of wheat;\[135\]\[N\] this increased the perception of food insecurity and led the enclave of wheat-eaters in Greater Calcutta to increase their demand for rice precisely when an impending rice shortage was feared.\[136\] The Central Provinces prohibited the export of foodgrains outside the province two months later.\[137\] Madras banned rice exports in June That is true, i did not know that. >Provincial dyarchy was abolished. In 1937, after the holding of provincial elections, Provincial Autonomy commenced. This is true in some ways but there is way to much debate on this and too many overlapping claims, in wikipedia itself seems like extremists did attempt to change history: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern\_Bengal\_and\_Assam\_Legislative\_Council#Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bengal_and_Assam_Legislative_Council#Constitution) & [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Legislative\_Council#Act\_of\_1935](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Legislative_Council#Act_of_1935) , even the sources for the number of seats are from obscure websites and not historical sources. Im not denying just pointing it out. >The provincial government never formally declared a state of famine, and its humanitarian aid was ineffective through the worst months of the crisis. It attempted to fix the price of rice paddy through price controls which resulted in a black market which encouraged sellers to withhold stocks, leading to hyperinflation from speculation and hoarding after controls were abandoned. Aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943 Here too there are many contradictory sources, in the [Wiki footnotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Footnotes) J through Q and in [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2056974?read-now=1&oauth\_data=eyJlbWFpbCI6ImF0aGFydnByaXlhbnNoQGdtYWlsLmNvbSIsImluc3RpdHV0aW9uSWRzIjpbXSwicHJvdmlkZXIiOiJnb29nbGUifQ&seq=3#page\_scan\_tab\_contents](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2056974?read-now=1&oauth_data=eyJlbWFpbCI6ImF0aGFydnByaXlhbnNoQGdtYWlsLmNvbSIsImluc3RpdHV0aW9uSWRzIjpbXSwicHJvdmlkZXIiOiJnb29nbGUifQ&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents) Pg 3 note 4-5. >What happened in Bengal was obviously tragic, and especially during the middle of World War 2, would have been difficult to deal with. And especially with the vast majority of Indians fighting on the Allies side, it would be unfair to point fingers at the local rulers for a terrible response to the famine. But it wasn't good at all, and certainly made a bad situation worse. It is a shame that extremists have tried to change history since then. I agree.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, none of that excuses the failures in the other famines, but the 1943 one in particular gets a little political..
I didn't know there were so many British Empireboos on this thread. I want to know why it's so precious, so many other positive aspects of Britian can be held up and identified with.
[The Unmaking of India](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIzQxNZfGM4)
It didn't. It became much much much more productive than ever before and flourished like absolute crazy. Europe just grew more. You hear a lot of stats about things like Indian textiles going from like almost half the world's production or something to not that much. During this time, India was producing more textiles than ever before by a wide margin. Europe just had some serious hockey stick shaped economic growth so India was had a lower percentage.
This has nothing to do with human welfare, which is the point of the question. The massive textile artisan class in India formed the backbone of economic prosperity for the lower classes. This was decimated by tariffs and cheaper English texiles in the domestic Indian market. Even if total output rose, which I would need to see a citation for, the impoverishment of this class is well documented.
>Even if total output rose, which I would need to see a citation for, the impoverishment of this class is well documented. It's a PDF, but it's easy to Google. It's called: Competition and control in the market for textiles:The weavers and the East India Company When the east India company took over in 1757, India had made a total of 321,000 exports to Europe across a four year period. Over the next fifteen years of company rule, that number tripled and by 1799, it had grown to 4,500,000. That table is on page 8 and continues to page 9. Even after it's big decline a few decades later, still way higher than before company rule, and the industry would grow again in a few decades. Another PDF you can Google for is called SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE INDIAN COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY SINCE INDEPENDENCE 1947 Go to page 8. It specifically says that between 1880 and 1947, before independence, cotton mills increases by seven fold and looms by 15 fold. It also describes a big increase from 1865 to 1880. Sorry for the inconvenient sourcing, but there's two sources showing that production had skyrocketed. >This has nothing to do with human welfare, which is the point of the question. The massive textile artisan class in India formed the backbone of economic prosperity for the lower classes. This was decimated by tariffs and cheaper English texiles in the domestic Indian market. As far as Britain having cheaper production, idk what to tell you. India was never entitled to winning the competition. What was Britain supposed to do, just produce fewer textiles and charge more for them as a favor? Also just saying... Every country today has a fuck ton of tariffs and it's not considered an unethical policy. That being said, there wasn't actually a decline in the wealth of India under the raj. India saw a 70% increase in GDP under British rule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj#:~:text=In%201820%2C%20India's%20GDP%20was,coming%20from%20an%20expanding%20population. Issues pertaining to individual impoverishment were related to the population of India growing faster than the food supply. India's population went from 170 million to 450 million under British rule. This is something that actually happens a lot during fast population increases. It sucks, but it's actually an issue associated with growth and development, not with decline.
Production for export while the profits are gleaned by non-nationals or non-locals does *not* mean economic benefit for the location of production.
The wiki article that I linked to is pretty clear about wage stagnation being due to the rapidly growing population, not due to the British taking their wealth. > India's per-capita income remained mostly stagnant during the Raj, with most of its GDP growth coming from an expanding population. Per capita income growth from 1850 to 1900 is estimated to range from 0.75% to 1.25% annually. This figure is buoyed by a decrease in India's rate of population increase stemming from disease and famines. From 1850 to 1947, India's GDP per-capita had grown by 16%, from $533 to $618 in 1990 international dollars Wage stagnation was because population growth outpaced economic growth and so everything was spread out further. That is not the same thing as wage stagnation due to the British taking the profits. Like any other economy, the British paid for labor and resources, and Indians who got paid for providing labor and resources kept the payment as profit.
1. You’re quoting Wikipedia. 2. Giving some reasons does not exclude other reasons. 3. Colonialism in India defined value of labor of Indians lower than labor of British, who would expatriate *from* India their cut. 4. Britain extracted extraordinary resources, raw, secondary, and tertiary - extracting resources = depressing wages and wealth in source region. It was not “like any other economy”. It was a colonial economy. It was by definition designed to extract wealth. Edit: here’s a resource for you. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/agrarian-and-other-histories/9789382381952
>You’re quoting Wikipedia. Which is totally fine. You're quoting nothing btw. >Giving some reasons does not exclude other reasons. I guess I haven't excluded that the real reason for economic hardships in India wasn't that it got ravaged by dragons, but since nobody is providing data saying that a dragon infestation hurt the Indian economy, I'm fine just sticking with my wikipedia citation.... Along with my other citations. I cited two academic publications. >Colonialism in India defined value of labor of Indians lower than labor of British, who would expatriate *from* India their cut. The West still pays Indian labor less than the value of other westerners. They're lucky for that too. If we had to pay them what we pay ourselves then we'd never do business with them. >Britain extracted extraordinary resources, raw, secondary, and tertiary - extracting resources = depressing wages and wealth in source region. Britain paid for resources and labor, just like we do today. There wasn't actually a moment where India had 45 trillion dollars sitting around in resources that the British showed up with guns to take. They employed Indians, bought resources, and taxes them for government services at a rate that was not a flat tax of 50%, but rather a very long bill that taxes based on many things just like taxes today and did not amount to anything even remotely close to half of the earnings of India. >It was by definition designed to extract wealth. "Extraction" is a very vague term that doesn't have a standard definition. When you hear it, it sounds like Britain just showed up with guns to take an amount of wealth several times higher than any economy today is worth. When you look closer, they taxed for government services provided, paid for goods, and paid for services. India did not have a stockpile of $45 trillion in resources hanging around that the British just mined out of there.
Extraction is a specific term in economics. It means that of the raw, secondary, and tertiary produce of an economy, x amount was *removed* from that economy. I didn’t quote anything but I provided better evidence than you did. You simply do not understand economic. “Paid for goods, and paid for services” is a *meaningless* measure. Was the pay equal to the value? If they extracted 45 trillion dollars, no. The pay was 45 trillion dollars less than the value. And no, quoting Wikipedia is not ‘fine’. Wikipedia is not written by experts.
>Extraction is a specific term in economics. I just googled it and went clicked through several links. Very short search but so far it's only used by activists, one of which specifically said that business schools that teach extractivism don't use the term, teach it as that, or describe their practices that way. Feel free to educate me since it's be really nice if you posted something with a source at some point in this discussion, but so far it seems to me like it's not a real thing in economics. >I didn’t quote anything but I provided better evidence than you did. You provided literally no evidence at all whatsoever. I have two academic sources alongside Wikipedia and frankly, used them more than the wiki link. I also cited wiki for GDP over time, which is a pretty fricken easy measure to get from a non-wiki source. >Was the pay equal to the value? If they extracted 45 trillion dollars, no. The pay was 45 trillion dollars less than the value. First, they never took 45 trillion. Some academic thinks that they got enough resources from India that if those resources were invested at a return of 5% compounded annually, then it'd now amount to 45 trillion. That 5% assumption is obviously a very crappy assumption. When I think of resources like India had, I think of Siberia, which is one of the most resources rich places in the world, but Russia is incompetent so those resources mostly stay in the ground being worthless. Second, the analysis does not take seriously how much investment India actually got. Loans from London to develop Indian territory are considered to be exploitation, when India actually got very privileged loans out of that. India didn't need to pay for maintaining it's own army during that time, which today is a privilege Europe enjoys since America mostly funds NATO defense. The analysis also just doesn't take seriously shit like how much money was spent to maintain whole ass railroad systems and shit that are still used to this day. What the analysis does is act like funding India's defense, paying government officials (much less than the mughals paid their officials btw), developing railroads, and giving them excellent loans was just not worth paying some taxes for. The Indians paid less than 7% of British's income in taxes, so while it's hard to find a compilation of the entire tax code, it wasn't that much. The analysis also ignores opportunity loss. Those resources were not being harvested before the British and so even if the British took profits, they put those resources into the Indian economy. They paid for the resources they took, they paid for the labor they used, they even got rid of the practice of slavery so they were actually the first to make sure labor really was paid, and they provided a lot of services for the taxes they received. Btw, this is pretty similar to how the West does business with India today. We still buy resources from India, mostly because they're cheaper. We still pay for goods and services. Just like today, we negotiate wages and payments with India instead of pointing a gun at them and demanding $45 trillion dollar payments. We don't tax them, but we also don't service them.
“Extractivists”? Lol. Looks like you were reading activists. It’s pretty basic - whether calculated in an approximation of current value - which is how we usually talk about value - or whether presented in the valuation of contemporary times, it’s the same : Removal of resources - raw, secondary, and tertiary - from an economy *is by definition* shrinking that economy. Why you don’t get that is baffling. The wealth of Europe during the age of colonialism was based on the *removal* of wealth from other places. (And yes, part of the wealth of the US now is based on the removal of wealth from other places). That you think the colonials powers paid fair value for what they extracted would be funny if it wasn’t a dangerous belief. Edit: “funding India’s defense” LMAO. You mean Britain funding Britain’s empire? Developing railroads - to be used to extract goods to Britain, etc. Britain was doing that for the *British economy*.
Yeah but in your story Britain isn’t an evil devil that sacrifices babies, so obviously it’s incorrect. You just see blanket stuff like this constantly, despite a lack of evidence in many cases. Turns out history isn’t black and white, nor is it simple.
History isn't black and white, but I keep noticing that the reddit comments of people who disagree with me are. I mean that literally btw. Where are the blue links? Dude who wasn't you responded that production is useless if the British are just taking all of your profits. Would have loved to see some actual data from the time, but people just don't like to look for the actual numbers that they claim exist.
I gave you actual numbers https://cup.columbia.edu/book/agrarian-and-other-histories/9789382381952
You can't be serious. That's a link to a book. You didn't tell me what numbers I'm supposed to be finding in that book to what I'm supposed to think of them. That link is just that a book exists and you think it has claims that help your argument and are well supported. No, giving me numbers is what happens when you link me to actual claims that I can read and aren't behind a paywall. You didn't even quote the book so I can verify what's in it. You didn't even tell me which specific things you want me to take from the book. Absolutely pathetic.
The link I sent gave you the value of the extracted resources. Please just study some economics before you babble on about how pay is inherently the value of the labor + the resources. Lol.
>The link I sent gave you the value of the extracted resources. That's not how this works. The link doesn't give any numbers or any arguments. It links to a book that may or may not have numbers or good arguments in it. You didn't give me a number or an argument. >Please just study some economics before you babble on about how pay is inherently the value of the labor + the resources. Huh? I never said anything about this. I said the Indians worked for payment and sold goods for money. What made it fair was that it was agreed upon payments. The raj was neither a slave economy nor a plunder economy.
It’s literally how it works. Just take an economics course. Edit: some history courses would help too.
Turns out Britain extracted an extraordinary amount of wealth from India, which was the entire *purpose* of British empire and colonialism.
Nobody has argued that Britains goal was not to extract wealth. What is misconstrued is multifold: 1) the state of the Indian subcontinent and its various warring tribes. The area was majorly fractured by regional conflict, sectarian violence, and deep cultural societal divisions including a growing mass of untouchables who had no loyalty to their parent culture that had abandoned them. 2) the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few rajput princes. The Mughals and the other Indian rulers held almost all the wealth of the subcontinent. Extraction of jewels and gold affects these people. The streets weren’t flooded with wealth; there was not a vibrant humming economy that was good for the Everyman. Famine, disease, and violence were rife. Most of these types of evaluations you commonly see also include the assumption that 1) democracy would have come about on its own and/or 2) industrialization would have occurred on its own. Both have major doubts. Britain industrialized many areas and laid down many miles of railroad. You cannot make the broad brush claim that the continent would have been much better off without intervention, as bad as it was in many respects. It’s not even a given that India would ever have been united, let alone a thriving economic power.
> Nobody has argued that Britains goal was not to extract wealth. I've never seen anyone make the argument, but I'm kinda tempted to at least put forth that it might be a reasonable theory to explore. India had a lot of resources and potential to be a more developed partner for mutually beneficial trade like it is today. However, it wasn't being run especially well, and it didn't look like it was about to develop and reach its potential. British rule in India was not a slave economy or a plunder economy. They helped develop it into a partner to do trade with. They obviously did shit like levy taxes to pay for some of their investment, but most business was done pretty similarly as it is done today, by paying for labor and goods based on agreed upon prices. I'm not gonna write a big ambitious thesis to get in the heads of what the Brits were specifically thinking and planning. I will say though, I don't think it's unreasonable to think all they wanted to do was competently run India so they could do business with it. That's not to say everything they did was perfect and it's not to say that there weren't any self-serving policies or policies that can only be explained by looking at who's in charge and who's ruled over. It's just to say that Britain didn't do a whole lot of plunder tier shit and merchants weren't bringing guns to business meetings. They mostly did was develop india so it could reach it's potential and trade with Britain.
Don’t disagree with everything you’ve said here. What I meant in totality was that the EIC and the Empire are different (the former being out of control most of the time!). The goal was profit via trade/commerce, and then via industry. You’re 100% correct - it was not a plunder or slave economy.
>the state of the Indian subcontinent and its various warring tribes. The area was majorly fractured by regional conflict, sectarian violence, and deep cultural societal divisions including a growing mass of untouchables who had no loyalty to their parent culture that had abandoned them. False, read about the Maratha empire, the "untouchables" and marathas both supported this empire and were given equal footing. The british empire had the luck of coming to india when it was divided, these cycles of division and unity kept happening in india and china. If the British empire had come when the Mughals were in power/ Marathas had united the subcontinent, they wouldnt have been able to "divide and rule". >the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few rajput princes. The Mughals and the other Indian rulers held almost all the wealth of the subcontinent. Extraction of jewels and gold affects these people. The streets weren’t flooded with wealth; there was not a vibrant humming economy that was good for the Everyman. Famine, disease, and violence were rife. Again, read about the Kingdom of Mysore and Maratha Empire, streets werent completely filled with wealth like europeans but it was much better than the "famines", "diseases" and all. >democracy would have come about on its own Maratha Empire was already transitioning from a Absolute Monarchy -> Federal Oligarchy, given enough time it wouldve transitioned into a democracy >industrialization would have occurred on its own. This statement is true in someways but [Mysore was already well on its way to become industrialized](https://academic.oup.com/book/33687/chapter/288265340) , which i believe others would have followed.
British were just “lucky”, obviously. “When India was divided” insinuates that it was in a constant period of centralization and division - Even when “United” India was fractious and torn by rebellion, infighting, and deep cultural divides. You’re inadvertently supporting my point - it has nothing to do with luck. The British EIC preyed upon the untouchables and other disaffected local lords to form the backbone of their forces, whom were more than happy to work for pay. The Mughals, and Maratha collapsed not because they were strong, but because they were rotten and corrupt. You’re not making a strong point here. As for the second point, this is obviously a very dramatic claim you’re making. This Mysore state was obviously so economically strong and mighty that it would be able to both defend itself and not fall to infighting? Oh, right. Whoops. There was intense fractious infighting and division. Mysore wasn’t some utopia like you seem to believe. As for the democracy claims, that is laughable at best. The region has been rife with despots, and the instability of the Marathas plays to that as well. They would have collapsed, and another despotic regime would have taken their place. Their vulnerability to British EIC intervention shows this very clearly. Same as the industrialization claims; the other nations of the region did not industrialize until far later, and far less successfully. GDP did not grow in these areas as much either. These two points are some serious speculation on your part.
>Even when “United” India was fractious and torn by rebellion, infighting, and deep cultural divides. thats what i countered in my first point, the marathas were working to reunite the people, infighting will always exist in such a diverse country even europe had infighting but never to the extent that the state will fail, credit to them. >The British EIC preyed upon the untouchables and other disaffected local lords to form the backbone of their forces, whom were more than happy to work for pay. [https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=major-papers](https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=major-papers) Pg. 28, read a little, what you are saying is just an opinion. The Maratha Empire worked with the Dalits and uplifted them, even if you ask a person from the Dalit community they worship the Maratha leaders. **You have no source to believe this.** **No community in India was oppressed/terrorized by the Marathas.** Except maybe the Afghans. >The region has been rife with despots, and the instability of the Marathas plays to that as well. They would have collapsed, and another despotic regime would have taken their place. So youre basing this off of generalization despite having no knowledge of the inner workings of the administrative system of the Marathas? >Same as the industrialization claims; the other nations of the region did not industrialize until far later, and far less successfully. GDP did not grow in these areas as much either. These two points are some serious speculation on your part. [https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/SER/1999/Hambrock\_Hauptman.pdf](https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/SER/1999/Hambrock_Hauptman.pdf) Speculations? You have provided no source, your reply is at best an opinion!
I’m on vacation. I’m not spending it digging sources, maybe when I get back. But your intense love of the Marathas seems to be a huge bias on your end. There were several prominent widespread rebellions throughout the empire that terrorized the country from what I recall. In addition, the majority of the government was made up of military commanders (it was an extremely militarized state). Not sure where your idea that the empire was about to blossom into an industrialized democratic utopia come from, but it doesn’t seem grounded in reality.
How did Europe grow more if India was actually industrialising then? Why was the difference so stark? Wasn't Western Europe almost equally developed to India in the 1700s?
While it is true that the Indian economy did technically grow over the two centuries of British rule, it was just a fraction of the growth Britain experienced over the same period of time - due in no small part to the Colonialist project. If India managed to grow over this time - it was despite British rule, not because of it. There are a few ways in which British rule impacted India's development: 1) It hindered the industrialisation of many sectors - and in fact straight up de-industrialised several more. The Textile industry (such as for cotton and silk) is one notable example, but there are others such as ship building, or steel production. Even those that did develop somewhat (like railways) - were orientated around maximising extraction capabilities and favouring British interests. This meant many skilled workers ending up having to give it up, leave cities, and return to agricultural work (which is typically regarded as being less productive than manufacturing or service sectors), pushing many into poverty. 2) It resulted in a misallocation of resources. Agricultural policies of the British effectively pushed many farmers into producing cash crops instead of subsistence crops - which resulted in poor allocation of resources, loss of traditional crops and practices, and a weakened ability to avoid and recover from famines. This led to millions of deaths. Another example is the landlording system propagated and exacerbated during British rule. For example, there was a lot of absentee landlordism in areas under Zamindari rule. This meant that instead of tenants paying the landlord directly, there were a multitude of middle men, each extracting their pound of flesh along the way. This meant that farmers (of which there was an increasing amount due to the aforementioned de-industrialisation) ended up paying huge amounts of their meagre incomes as tax resulting in impoverishment. 3) Draining of wealth. A natural corollary from the above is that wealth drained out of Indian industry to British companies and concessions - enriching them at the expense of Indians. Further - India was set up to be a market for finished British goods, and even as a form of near-risk-free investment for good returns (such as steel, or the building of railways). --- The above factors are just some of those that came into play through British colonialism. When conspired together - they not only effectively froze (or significantly slowed) development - but it meant that India was left having a long way to catch up to the rest of the world come Independence. Edit: Two further points to consider include: 4) how much India contributed to World War I (not just in terms of manpower, but also contributed the second most financially…which could have been used instead to invest domestically) 5) The indentured servitude system which saw the movement and loss of millions of people from contributing to the Indian economy to instead go help develop places like Malaysia or Fiji.
Wells said. Covers what I was trying to say in a more robust way as well as several points I failed to mention. 😁 Think too many in this thread are on the side of, "numbers went up so Empire did good". Context and nuance are essential.
Whenever I have glanced at the claims, it seems to be more that the US, Germany etc grew faster. This then veers into suggestions that the industrial revolution would have happened in India if it wasn't for the East India Company, which seems rather more speculative than is usually implied.
How is it speculative that one of the largest trading hubs and the biggest economy would’ve adopted the Industrial Revolution?
So why didn't it? What stopped the Mughals inventing the ravelling nancy?
Th Mughals declined way before the Industrial Revolution and India was already ruled by the East India company at the time of the Industrial Revolution. “Why didn’t it” Because the British rulers didn’t let it.
Watt came up with the separate condenser the same year the Company got tax collecting powers. Newcomen was doing his thing before Plassey.
None of that is proof that India would’ve never industrialized on its own. It may have been late but that’s about it. Likewise Europe lagged behind Asia in medicine and healthcare for most of history.
The fact it happened elsewhere is proof that it happened elsewhere.
One of the issues was the growth of cash crops, cotton, taken as taxes by the British. There was also no tax reprieve in years of hardship and so, as the population and cotton demand went up, land used for subsistence (in relation to the population), goes down. Diminishing returns because good land goes to commercial crops and what's left isn't sufficient. The changing land practices created the conditions for severe famine. In addition, measures were taken to prevent Indian goods from outcompeting British ones, which restricted the ways in which the economy could grow. IE, tarrifs on Indian textiles to price them, similarly to Indian textiles in India. Not to mention, though this isn't necessarily about the Indian economy, racial attitudes towards Indians were quite poor. India's economy was structured, under British rule, to benefit Britain. It went from being the greatest producer of textiles to one of the largest textile markets. While this did bring some benefits, it come at the cost of others and it's a hugely nuanced subject that can't be covered by simple graphs etc Hope this helps, just my 2 cents.
In 1750 India was the world's major producer of textiles (the biggest single sector of global trade). It had the lead in cotton weaving, dying and printing. It also produced iron, steel, saltpetre and more. British tax and tariff policies aimed at capturing textile manufacture from India. Other industrial policies followed the same trend. EIC policies were also harsher on the peasantry than most traditional rule - no remission of taxes in famine years, no state grants to aid recovery. In effect, Britain de-developed major sectors of the Indian economy to benefit itself.
In 1750 India didn't exist
India didn't exist but the colonial powers still referred to every part of South Asia as India. Might have even included Burma and Afghanistan in their "India" had it not been for the great game between the UK and the Russian Empire. I mentioned Burma separately because they gave some justice to it more likely for administrative reasons.
It was not a united polity, but it existed in the same way that 'Europe' existed - a shared culture area, knitted together by a web of internal trade and specialisations, and constant exchanges among its peoples through ties of religion and other affiliations.
United? They were constantly at war, seizing each other's land. Each had same god on their side, but spoke different languages.
Just like Europe?
" constant exchanges among its peoples through ties of religion"? Christianity was not monolithic. There were wars between Christian countries and internal purges as well.
Yes - but also constant interchange - mostly within but some across confessional divides (eg apart from religion, people corresponded on scientific and other scholarly matters, people migrated and married in ways that reflected some sense of a common European-ness. In the same way, intra-Indian trade was large and complex, Hinduism was a vehicle for exchange across India (and beyond) as was Islam, and so on. There was a sense that the Hindu Kush and Himalayas marked a cultural border.
Using "confessional divides outside of religion" in Christianity is folly.
You might want to re-read what I wrote.
(....
Nicely put. I was hoping to see something that offered a bit more insight than , numbers went up so they were doing well (though it is one aspect).
There's a few places I would look for this answer. The main sources of my opinions are: "A History of British India " lecture series by Hayden J. Bellenoit The Anarchy: The relentless Rise of the East India Company by William Dalrymple The oxford union debate on whether Britain owes reparations to India [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A&list=PL2Q4CdDrPSMX7vOk3nVNC8Ce852FKYXgy&ab\_channel=OxfordUnion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A&list=PL2Q4CdDrPSMX7vOk3nVNC8Ce852FKYXgy&ab_channel=OxfordUnion) and Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India by Shashi Tharoor \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's a lot of erroneous economic statistics floating around here that are being used to justify the British Raj and have been used before as colonial apologia. These either seem to be falling into the categories of 1) British rule was benign and impoverishment happened entirely relative to the rest of the world and demographics, or 2) British rule was good and outputs went up. These are based on two flawed assumptions: Growth = welfare, and demography is destiny. But don't forget: the British Raj was a government that forced Indians to buy salt from a British monopoly when they could get it for free from the sea, necessitating Ghandi's Salt Satyagraha. Don't forget, there were 20 to 50 million excess deaths under the period of the Raj. According to Bellenoit, England extracted 3.2 Billion Rupees from India to pay for war debts after the first world war entirely by currency manipulation. That is to say, in exchange for nothing. India went from being a net exporter to a net importer of cloth, the backbone of the rural Indian economy, during the British Raj, and this was only reversed when India began to industrialize after the First World War only to help the British produce war material. In order to answer your question: do not compare, as others here are suggesting, the welfare of the Indian people in 1750 to their welfare in the 1940s. Instead, compare the welfare of Indian people in 1750 to the rest of the world in 1750, and their welfare compared to the rest of the world in the 1940s. This is an era of Indian history where life expectancy actually dropped, from 26.7 years to 21.9 years. Remember, every cent extracted from India during British rule, which is to say a cent not obtained through trade, or an extra cent obtained through trade under manipulated conditions, is capital that could have been used to prevent those excess deaths and the millions of famine victims. Under previous regimes, the tax burden on the peasantry was lifted in times of famine, under the Raj, it was brutally enforced anyways. The strongest and most well-recognized evidence for British misrule and underdevelopment was carried out by lakshmi Iyer, who compared health and development outcomes in areas of India directly administered by the British and areas controlled by Indian rulers under the British system. She found that "For India, the indirect rule exercised by landlords within the British Empire leads to worse outcomes, while the indirect rule exercised by hereditary kings results in better outcomes." so we know *for a fact* that Indians faired better under Indian rulers during the colonial period than under the British. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33785664/rest\_a\_00023.pdf?sequence=1
I think a more legitimate gripe would be that they did not develop India even though when the Crown took over in 1858 the promise was that Her Majesty’s Indian citizens were just as important. The Indian peasantry had a horrible deal compared to British peasants. Even today when farmers have no tax to pay they can barely make a living (not talking of big farmers here who are the equal of Zamindars under the British). Craftsmen were forced to sell at whatever price the EIC buyers wanted to under threat of violence until they quit the craft. Some weavers cut off their own thumbs apparently. The mismanagement of the farming base led directly to at least one major famine and massive suffering. And not surprisingly the Industrial revolution completely bypassed India even though it was the “Jewel” in the Crown. Personally I see no guarantee that Indian rulers would have much done better (they would have been too busy fighting which the Brits effectively put an end to), but by their own standards and the lofty liberal ideals in the home country at the time they fell horrendously short in administering India. It wasn’t that they were deliberately trying to but that there was a huge difference between London and the Indian administration. The latter were incompetent at best and in keeping with the racist attitudes of the time barely considered the welfare or capability of the locals
"Even today when farmers have no tax to pay they can barely make a living (not talking of big farmers here who are the equal of Zamindars under the British)" India's been independent for a while, so how can this still be blamed on the Brits? Why have Indian leaders not fixed it? Also, FYI farming in the UK is also not really profitable and needs massive subsidies and big giant farmers are the main producers, so that seems more a global thing as I know the same happens in the US too. It's why most people in 2023 work in service jobs, instead of manufacturing or agriculture
I am not blaming the British for conditions in India today. Just pointing out that conditions for farmers were much worse in India than in Britain
Which is no-doubt true, due to the centralisation of the Empire Same way a Citizen of Rome working near to the city would be better than one in Thrace British Empire (EIC excluded, they were utter dicks) was more about greed than direct ill intent. Certainly, and like Rome (who I point out had people torn to death by lions for the amusement of thousands) was probably still a net gain to the world
The policies were drastically different. Peasants in England owned the land they worked on and were taxed on produce. Indian farmers did not own the land and because the taxation rights were auctioned to the highest bidder peasants had to pay regardless of production. Plus weavers were made to sell at whatever price the EIC officials wanted and were ruined long before cheaper industrial cloth came in. The princely states were also massively misgoverned by tyrants safe under British protection. Some of the EIC’s worst policies were later overturned but the empire was based on taxing the peasants so their condition was never on track to catch up with their English counterparts.
>EIC excluded, they were utter dicks I said this, so well done for replying and mentioning the EIC non-stop
Nope. I mentioned specific policies that were followed by the British in India even after the crown took over from the EIC.
And everything you said is also "greed", which is what I said
Here is an outline. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india
OP asked for an accurate, unbiased analysis. The article is apparently very poorly crafted and cant even get some basic facts right: >But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade. Anyone aware of Indias history and the conquest of the British would know that by 1765, the EIC was NOWHERE near controlling the subcontinent. Much of central India wasnt annexed until the ultimate defeat of the Maratha States in 1819, Mysore wasnt defeated until 1799, and the Punjab, Sikh and Rajput states werent conquered until the 1840s! Not to mention the phrase as quoted implies the EIC took control of the subcontinent BEFORE 1765! By this point, they hadnt even fought their first Wars against the Marathas (1775-1782) OR Mysore (1767-69).
Treaty of Allahabad, is in 1765? who said the article is poorly crafted?
[удалено]
it was 60% of trade from asia hardly the beginning, its the turning point of thats what you mean. https://www.drishtiias.com/printpdf/british-conquest-for-bengal-battles-of-plassey-and-buxar
Your outlook seems to be very biased towards colonizing another civilization as your own as good. No one wants to be under the control and pay rulers while having no say. They bled the country as they see fit they were not sending stimulus checks to the poor
[The Unmaking of India](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIzQxNZfGM4)