Britons rush to India for the boom

crvlvr · Feb 16th, 2008, 03:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders

Right now england is pretty much at the same level as the rest of Europe. it was not colonialism that made the west surge ahead, it was capitalism.

You are benchmarking against other countries that had their own colonies -- France, Portugal, Dutch etc., How does that prove anything?

Towards the end of colonization, it was Industrialization what was driving the europen economies. But they relied on the colonies to provide the raw materials that they needed. In many cases they demanded that cash crops (e.g. cotton)be planted, instead of sustinence crops, becauase these were needed to feed their industries. These resulted in food shortages in the colonies and many deaths. Furthermore, very little investment was made in developing industry in the colonies. So after independece, many of the these colonies were left backward economically.

Shiver me Timbers · Feb 16th, 2008, 04:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by crvlvr

If you read up on world history you will learn

Please don't patronize me - despite our disagreements, it's not something I've ever done with you, and I don't think there was anything unreasonable about what I said. I'm well aware of my history, and in those aspects where I'm unsure, I take care not to make grand statements.

Quote:

what exactly do you mean by "colonized properly".

Afghanistan to my knowledge was not 'colonized' by the British - yes they wielded influence there, and made or broke local rulers as they saw fit, but they never implemented their own style administrations, set up major institutions in the country, or settled there, because

(a) as you rightly point out, there was'nt much of worth to them there and

(b) fighting the local tribes was more trouble than it was worth.

As for the Durand Line, well, I've actually stood looking out across it, so yes, I'm well aware of it. And I've never denied here or anywhere that such policies haven't contributed to problems today. After all, I live less than 2 hours from another one of those borders.

Quote:

after thee europeans discovered sear routes to the east, the economies of the countries that benefitted from the over land trade due to the location declined. In other words, a number of countries from Afghanisthan, Iran and other middle east countries benefitted mainly by being traders between europe and India

I'm not sure what your point is here - however, this confirms my earlier point about colonialism being a result of a country's weakness, rather than the cause of it - in this case, the Middle East, that weakness was partly caused by the decline in overland trade (although I would argue other factors contributed as well). Are you blaming Europeans for discovering a cheaper, more efficient way to trade?

crvlvr · Feb 16th, 2008, 05:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor M

P(a) as you rightly point out, there was'nt much of worth to them there and

(b) fighting the local tribes was more trouble than it was worth.

On one hand you say that Afghanistan is backwards becuase it was no "properly colonized" -- ininiuating that it would have been better off being colonized. On the other hand you say that it was not "worth it" for the British to colonize them. You make it seem like the Colonialism benefitted the colonies more than it did colonial powers.

you seem to suggest these "glorious powers" are not longer because they were not "colonized properly". I was just pointing out that they lost their prominence becuase of the change in trade routes to INDIA -- it had nothing to do with not being colonized properly. . These countries were making a lot of money acting trading between India and the West. As a matter of fact they kept their routes secret and Europeans could not make it to India. The Europeans wanted to cut them out, hence the discover of sea route to India (and the discover of America etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor M

I'm not sure what your point is here - however, this confirms my earlier point about colonialism being a result of a country's weakness, rather than the cause of it

There is a difference between military weakness and economic weakness. Is a country morally justified if they can use their military might to steal from another country and in doing that, process destroy it economically?

Shiver me Timbers · Feb 16th, 2008, 06:06

Quote:

On one hand you say that Afghanistan is backwards becuase it was no "properly colonized"

No I didn't - there are many, many reasons for the state Afghanistan finds itself in today. Some are to do with European involvement, some are internal problems.

My point is that in a world where, for better or for worse, European powers were shaping the form of goverment, the rules of trade, etc. around the world, there are no guarantees that India's wealth would have been enough to take it into the mid-20 century in a better state than it is in today.

Of course, we're speaking in counterfactuals here, and the fact that most of todays states were European colonies at some stage makes it near to impossible to make certain statements, one way or another, which is why I mentioned the only two countries I could think of which were not colonised - Afghanistan and Ethiopia.

Quote:

Is a country morally justified if they can use their military might to steal from another country and in doing that, process destroy it economically?

Well, nowhere have I argued that it's morally justified, but I suppose this highlights the main difference between us - you see imperialism and inherently bad and evil. The idealist in me agrees. However, I tend to see it just as inevitable - it's been a part of human history from day 1, it still goes on today, and it will continue in the future, in one form or another.

Again, the main point I tend to stress in debates like this is that evils such as colonialism, imperialism, even slavery, are not concepts unique to the West. Maybe I overstress this point - it's just the result of attending a Western University where it is drummed into you that the West is responsible for all the evils of the world.

crvlvr · Feb 16th, 2008, 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor M

.. there are no guarantees that India's wealth would have been enough to take it into the mid-20 century in a better state than it is in today.

Obviously, there are no guarantees for anything. But, lets be reasonable here.. Historically,India has been an economically rich country for thousands of years. There is ample historical evidence that shows that almost continuiously the presence of advanced civilizations on Indian soil.

Ofcourse, anything is possible. But, to suggest that India's wealth could decrease from 22% (of the world's total) to 4% in 200 years on its own, without the "help" of colonization is, IMHO, ludicrous. Colonization may have helped more backward countries (like those in the Caribbean or Africa) move a more organized agricultural state. But, I don't think India can be cast in the same light. Let me provide some excerpts from the Wikipedia link I provided above.

Quote:

525 - 1550

During this period, India was the second largest economy in the world. The gross domestic product of India in 1550 was estimated at about 40 per cent that of China.

1550 - 1575

During this period, India was the second largest economy in the world. The gross domestic product of India in 1575 was estimated at about 50 per cent that of China.

1575 - 1600

An estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts the revenue of Akbar's Mughal empire in 1600 at £17.5 million, in contrast to the entire treasury of Great Britain in 1800, which totalled £16 million. The gross domestic product of India in 1600 was estimated at about 60 per cent that of China.

1600 - 1625

During this period, India was the second largest economy in the world. The gross domestic product of India in 1625 was estimated at about 70 per cent that of China.

1625 - 1650

During this period, India was the second largest economy in the world. The gross domestic product of India in 1650 was estimated at about 80 per cent that of China.

1650 - 1675

During this period, India was the second largest economy in the world. The gross domestic product of India in 1675 was estimated at about 90 per cent that of China.

1675 - 1700

During this period, the Mughal empire expanded to almost 1,000 million acres (or 90% of south Asia) and a uniform customs and tax administration system was enforced. Annual revenue reported by the exchequer exceeded £100 million in 1700 (twice that of Europe then). Thus, India emerged as the world's largest economy followed by China and France.

1700 - 1725

China was the world's largest economy followed by India and France. Collapse of the central authority of the Mughal Empire and the resultant chaos triggered India's long but slow decline on the world stage. The gross domestic product of India in 1725 was estimated at about 90 per cent that of China.

Maratha Dynasty

1725 - 1750

During this period, Maratha rule replaced Mughal rule in central India. However, the Mughal tax administration system was left largely intact. China was the world's largest economy followed by India and France. The gross domestic product of India in 1750 was estimated at about 80 per cent that of China.

1750 - 1775

During this period, about two-thirds of the civil service in India was still dominated by Muslim officers. During this period, the Maratha empire expanded to almost 250 million acres (or 35 per cent of Indian domain). China was the world's largest economy followed by India and France. The gross domestic product of India in 1775 was estimated at about 70 per cent that of China.

So for 1,200 years, India was either the largest or second largest exconomy in the world

Quote:

British East India Company

Quote:

Rule

Quote:

The British colonial rule created an institutional environment that did stabilize the law and order situation to a large extent. The British foreign policies however stifled the trade with rest of the world. They concentrated on exploiting the resources of India to their advantage. They created a well developed system of railways, telegraphs and a modern legal system. The infrastructure the British created was mainly geared towards the exploitation of resources of India. The British focus on their own interests created a situation in which India could not benefit from major changes in the world economy - industrialisation, growth in trade and production, and new thinking on economic policies followed by states. By the end of the colonial rule India inherited an economy that was one of the poorest in the world and totally stagnant, with industrial development stalled, agriculture unable to feed a rapidly accelerating population. They were subject to frequent famines, had one of the world's lowest life expectancies, suffered from pervasive malnutrition and were largely illiterate. The British rule ruined India economically.
GDP estimates An estimate by Angus Maddison, formerly of Groningen University, reveals that India's share of the world income went from 24.4% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952...

Do you want me to go on? Or do you have any facts to support your argument?

PS: Before some of you skeptics start questioning the validity of the source, please take a minute to refer to the references provided in the Wiki. These include publicationns such as The Cambridge Economic History of India etc. For people who want to continue this debate (about the economic ruin or benefit colonization brought about in India), please provide your sources, any sources, that explain the how colonialism brought about net economic benefits to India. I am getting tired of hearing peoples spout their opinion..

capt_mahajan · Feb 16th, 2008, 07:55

Quote:

Yes, a stone wud be nice. Specifically, the Kohinoor. Hand it back. And all the others, while u're at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor

Again, the main point I tend to stress in debates like this is that evils such as colonialism, imperialism, even slavery, are not concepts unique to the West. Maybe I overstress this point - it's just the result of attending a Western University where it is drummed into you that the West is responsible for all the evils of the world.

Agree. At least I am not claiming that the period before the British occupied, or after they left, has been free of some of the same evils. I am not denying those evils either.

The problem in the thread has been the continuing denial of some brutal facets of colonialisation in India, and trivialisation and glorification of some others. Plus, of course, remarkable ignorance by some of us.

It's like the US administration pointing to a McDonalds in downtown Baghdad after 50 years and saying, see what good we did?
Poor analogy, because then the US would have to say that after a few hundred years of occupation.

On another note, just another random thought: As long as we use a varnished, selective selection of the past- a selection which just feeds our prejudices, whoever we may be, and does nothing else-as long as we do that, the academicians who study the deterioration of race relations will never be out of a job.

Quote:

There, I've said my bit, and now I'm going to bow out

Good idea. I threatened to, earlier, but its time now for sure.

Nick-H · Feb 16th, 2008, 09:40

Actually, this is a fascinating thread.

I've seen nothing to change my point of view, but I've learnt a heap in support and refinement of it.

Given the potential temperature of such a topic, it has been a remarkably civilized conversation, too.

kristinm · Feb 16th, 2008, 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey S

But the difference is, Kristin, that unless you are of aboriginal descent then you - and almost every other white Australian - are a descendent of those colonists. To say that "we were under colonial rule" is therefore nonsense - you are the colonist, not the colonised.

Precisely the point I made above... hence the apology.. by 'we' I meant Australia - not all the whites in Australia were rulers remember

My ancestors were in fact convicts - victims of the British class system and 'born to rule' mentality in quite a different way to the aboriginal Australians but also ripped from their families and culture, brutalised and sent to a strange and alien place. (I'm sure though that once they gained their freedom - as whites they perpetrated their fair share of grief as well.)

Similarly, in the 1950s thousands of working class British children - some orphans and some who were taken from single parents or from widows or widowers who were told they were being 'looked after' or who had temporarily placed them in care until while they were ill or until they got work.. were shipped to Australia to be brought up in church run orphanages so brutal that these people comprise yet another group of 'stolen children' who still suffer daily because of the view of the ruling classes in Britain that blacks, natives, the working classes, the poor and the underprivileged were nothing more than animals. The parents were never told where the children went, and the children were told their parents had died. The Christian Brothers have recently apologised to these survivers (after years of denying the abuse even happened) and the British Government is apparently talking about some kind of 'enquiry' and there have been class actions launched for compensation. There was a fantastic dramatisation of this called 'The leaving of Liverpool' if you ever see it anywhere.

The point regarding Amritsar was that while that was happening in India - the British were simultaneously massacring indigenous Australians and probably many others from other colonies as well. There quite a few mass killings of Australian aboriginals perpetrated by the police/troopers under the King's auspices. So although it was not MY massacre, the histories are in many ways parallel - although we haven't had the balls yet to get that damn Union Jack off our flag!

Actually it seems the British Government has carried out an enquiry - and damn interesting reading it is too http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../755/75507.htm

Underlining the point I was making (I think) that it is the attitudes driving colonialism - that one group of people is inherently superior to other groups of people - that made it so brutal wherever it operated, and these attitudes could also be seen in operation back home. Of course, if we are discussing the brutality of colonialism in general then we should acknowledge that other colonial powers were just as or more brutal than the British... Belgian Congo anyone?

Shiver me Timbers · Feb 16th, 2008, 19:12

Quote:

Do you want me to go on? Or do you have any facts to support your argument?

Only the fact that despite all that wealth, the British found it relatively easy to take over.

What good or value is economic wealth in this world if you can't defend it?

By the way, when those Wikipedia stats state for example that 'India was the 2nd largest economy in 1770', what exactly does that mean? Relative to who? And what does 'India' mean in this context? Just interested to know, because if we're talking about India here as the area from Afghanistan to Assam, and Kashmir to Kanyakumari, than its perfectly natural for such a large land to have a huge economy relative to, say, Britain. Note that I'm not denying that India was a prosperous land. But how was the wealth distributed? I'm genuinely interested to know this.

edwardseco · Mar 14th, 2008, 00:14

Quote:

So for 1,200 years, India was either the largest or second largest exconomy in the world

CRVLVR

Interesting path, but it raises issues such as percapita standards and likelihood of growth as well. One recent economic historian called this the great divergance when European nations had the institutions to make a jump upward and many other areas of the world didn't. What was good in the past may not carry over..

Stephen Jones · Mar 27th, 2008, 06:08

Quote:

An Indian company is now one of the biggest steel producers in the world.

Nope. I presume you're thinking of Arelcor Mittal, which is a Luxembourg-based company whose largest shareholder is a long-time Central London resident.

On another tack I went to the same school as Clive (but unlike him didn't get expelled but stayed the course). I suppose it might not be a good idea to mention it on the visa application!

Munivar · Mar 27th, 2008, 09:23

^ It's TATA steel, after their acquiring of Corus. If not the biggest, they should be up there among the top.

Nick-H · Mar 27th, 2008, 12:39

Yes, I thought it was Tata, after acquiring Corus.

But, frankly, I'm more interested in which is the best silk shop in Chennai, so I'm not much of an authority on this!

shashank.aggarwal · Mar 27th, 2008, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick-H

Yes, I thought it was Tata, after acquiring Corus.

Last time I read it was the 6th Largest..!!

puchoo · Mar 27th, 2008, 12:49

Tata is 5th largest i think...Arelcor Mittal would be the largest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munivar

^ It's TATA steel, after their acquiring of Corus. If not the biggest, they should be up there among the top.

Feb 16th, 2008, 09:40	#142
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 26,923	Actually, this is a fascinating thread. I've seen nothing to change my point of view, but I've learnt a heap in support and refinement of it. Given the potential temperature of such a topic, it has been a remarkably civilized conversation, too. __________________ . Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

Mar 27th, 2008, 09:23	#147
Munivar Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 238	^ It's TATA steel, after their acquiring of Corus. If not the biggest, they should be up there among the top. __________________ Yaadhum Oore Yaavarum Kaelir !!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Boom Festival 2006 - Free for India Residents	mbrissos	Books, Music, and Movies	4	Jul 18th, 2006 20:45
Boom Boom India.. ?	butterball	Chai and Chat	26	Apr 6th, 2006 15:21
India extends IT outsourcing boom	passingby	India Travel News and Commentary	142	Jun 8th, 2005 07:55
Britons encourage pedaling through the heart of Goa	fredericknoronha	Goa	2	Nov 24th, 2004 23:45
Britain plans emergency evacuation of Britons from India, Pak	indiamike	India Travel News and Commentary	0	May 25th, 2002 05:11

Mar 27th, 2008, 12:39	#148
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 26,923	Yes, I thought it was Tata, after acquiring Corus. But, frankly, I'm more interested in which is the best silk shop in Chennai, so I'm not much of an authority on this!

User Name		Remember Me?
Password