Britons rush to India for the boom

capt_mahajan

Conor, though I agree with the European powers shaping the modern world, and though we will never know where any ex colony would be without having being colonised, two quick points.

One, Afghanistan is where it is today because two huge powers made it their playground.

Two,

.

India was one of the wealthiest countries in the world before the British Raj, and had an ancient culture, education, advances and knowledge in a host of disciplines, to start the list. Everybody from the British and French to Christopher Colombus was headed here.

Countries like Britain were comparitively poor.

The Colonials were scared of being left behind, not countries like India.

Shiver me Timbers

India may have been wealthy, I don't know much about that aspect of things - but it was also a seriously divided and weak land, so much so that the British found it relatively easy to move in.

I tend to look at colonialism as the result of the colonised country's weakness (relative to the imperial powers), not the cause of it. Of course, once that weakness is exploited, than the plunder can begin, after all, there's not much point in colonising a poor country (as the French found out in central Africa).

The same applies in Ireland - it was a complete mess in the 16th century, various tribes at each others throat, although it didn't have the wealth and history of India, and was used as an experiment by the British before they moved on to bigger and better things.

Again, though , I'm really not 100% sure on all this stuff....

__________________
Europe to India Overland

Andaman's Tips

Pakistan Tips

Flickr Photos

capt_mahajan

True. And I guess a rich fragmented country is asking for it even today.

Dilliwala

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

Yes, what a good thing there was no TV or radio back then, and far less media scrutiny than today. Water-boarding wud look like child's play when compared to the kind of beatings our political prisoners had to endure, for the unspeakable crime of demanding freedom. The Cellular Jail at Port Blair in the Andamans, known to Indians as Kala Pani (Black Water - when u crossed that water your future looked black ) doesn't figure as a stop in the itinerary of most British tourists, perhaps with reason (do a search if u want to know more).
The most violent means were used to suppress political demonstrations. It's a great pity that most of u can't read Hindi or any other Indian language, u therefore have the luxury of reading only the glossed-over British versions - I'm not at all surprised that most Brits have the attitude they do.

This is pure BS and an insult to our collective intelligence. Capt has already talked of the pillage and plunder that took place (Doctrine of Lapse, Permanent Settlement, read up on 'em). And do u know what happened with Indian raw cotton even as late as the 30's? It was shipped to the mills of Lancashire, low or no duty, shipped back as textiles, low or no duty, and still sold cheaper than textiles produced in India. Who suffered? Indians. Who gained? Brits.
The fact is that u know very little about the nitty-gritty of every-day economic policy of the colonial era and how it was implemented, otherwise u wud not have the gall to suggest that India gained from colonial occupation. And as crvlvr said, even today history is not taught as it shud be in our schools, but still it's clear that we know a hell of a lot more than the average Brit. And for long it shall remain so, since many of u still suffer from that strange, woolly-headed idea that your ancestors were here to DO GOOD! THEY WERE NOT!!! They were here to profit, get rich quick, and generally have a whale of a time.
Do u know why the railways were left behind? THAT'S BECOS THE BRITS CUDN'T TAKE THEM BACK WITH THEM!! They wud definitely have, if they cud have - hint: Kohinoor. Do u know why the sun never set on the British Empire? That's becos Brits cudn't be trusted in the dark.

And what wud u say about the quaint British custom of press-ganging, practically, hill-folks in what is now Uttaranchal, for half-a-century or more? Briefly, it was the LAW that for transporting goods, live-stock, whatever, required for official purposes into the mountains, the Brits cud practically kidnap any Indian for the purpose, FOR NO PAY!!! All for the greater good and the Glory of Empire, I shud hastily point out. And in return what the labourers got was inadequate rations and abhorrent living conditions en-route. And frequent beatings, if they shud dare to have the temerity to ask for better conditions (I shud not-so-hastily point out that any Brits accompanying such expeditions had much better conditions).
I suppose u wud point out that it was the Brits who finally outlawed this practice. As late as the 1920's. After a long campaign by locals, for whom it was an important part of the national freedom struggle. Oh, I forgot - u can't point this out, becos U NEVER KNEW IT!!! Pity u had to learn it from an Indian. Serves u right for relying only on glossed-over British versions of history.
Then again, u might just include it in your description of the odd atrocity. I find that so downright offensive that I will not engage with u on the subject of the era of colonial occupation any further, also since it's very clear that u prefer to believe the sanitised version your generation has been fed for long.

(For anyone who doubts the press-ganging bit, I first read of it in official govt records/gazetteers of the time, obviously written by British officials. Sanitised, of course. One has to rely on later Indian writings to learn the uncomfortable parts, i.e about the struggle against the practice. crvlvr is right - a real pity they don't teach this sort of history in our schools).

There, I've said my bit, and now I'm going to bow out, also becos this thread seems to have veered completely off-course.

Mickey S

You're putting words in my mouth, Dilliwala. Of course the British were in India to turn a quick profit. And yes, of course you know more about the British Raj than the average Brit because it is your country - to us, India is just one country amongst very many. I doubt that your knowledge of my own home country amounts to very much.

Is that supposed to contribute to the discussion?

There is no way of knowing what the shape of the modern world would be if Britain had not occupied India. Many things would be different, not only in the sub-continent but worldwide. I don't think I'd take the risk of changing the history of the world in case it turned out to be even worse than it is so my answer is YES - I'd leave history just the way it is. What other answer could anyone give?

Nick-H

That was more than enough to merit the response.

__________________
.


Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

Mickey S

Following independence, Zimbabwe was one of the wealthiest nations in Africa. The country produced enough to feed itself and earned significant foreign exchange from its minerals. In the first ten years following independence the growth in Zimbabwe's GDP averaged almost 5% per year. The country is now a basket case, of course, with inflation at 66,000% and life expectancy of 35 years. But you can't blame the British for that.

crvlvr

Conor and Mickey, I assume you really believe in the statements you make, so I will reposnd with facts.

what exactly do you mean by "colonized properly". If you read up on world history you will learn that 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. The discovery of oil benefitted some of these country. Afghanisthan was colonized by the British when they realized there was not much to be had there, the drew a arbitary border between undivided Indian and Afghanistan and pulled back. This border, The Durand line has been a source of problems ever since it came into existence as it divided the Pasthu an then never accepted the borde. Hence there is not real border between Pakistan and Afganisthan. Wonder why no one can find Osama? Thanks to the Durand line.

Other have already responded to this. But, I will leave with some facts.

The timeline of economic decline coincides with the British presence in India. India typically has had 25% of the world population. So having almost 25% of the world wealth seems reasonable.After the the british left, it was left with 4%. That's a decline of 80%. 80% of India's wealth simply vanished.

CliveG

Dilliawala – I agree with a lot of what you have said and I appreciate your in depth knowledge of the India’s history but please do not tar all British citizens with the same brush. Some are keenly aware of the atrocities that occurred in the name of the Empire not just in India but in all the countries we colonised and many of us are not proud of these acts for which there is no defence. Even people who are not keen historians but saw the film Gandhi will have been made aware of the horrors that were carried out by the government of the day and an army that acted with such callousness. We are not proud of the slave trade in which we were heavily involved. Many people are not proud of the missionaries who would only help those who converted to Christianity. We can look back at the Crusades and the slaughter of people in the name of Christianity and question its validity. Many Brits do stand up and voice their concerns when it comes to invasions for example the mass demonstrations in London against our involvement in the Iraq war. Many of us are aware that we stole the riches from the countries that we colonised and treated the inhabitants atrociously. I suspect many countries if they are honest can recall acts against other countries which they now regret and events within countries which cause pain and regret.
We are powerless to change the past but we can all work together for a more positive future where we recognise the errors of the past and ensure that such events never occur again but that demands cooperation from all sides and a mutual willingness to move on.

Dilliwala

It's a good deal more than yours is of mine.

Nick-H

Clive, I don't think DW is at all lumping us all together. It is not only the Indian citizens here who are horrified at some of the denial, ignorance, glossing over and misrepresentation that has occurred in this thread, whatever the nationality of its origin.

It is just too much to bear without response.

Appreciate the spirit of your post, though.

shashank.aggarwal

I have been trying to avoid a direct participation in this thread, I am leaving for Goa in next few hours, and might not be able to carry on, however things have gone too far for me to keep quite...

One Straight question,

Has anyone ever calculated what Britain would have been today if they would not have plundered the Indian and other colonial resources, would they have been in the position to be called a 'Developed country'...

I am sure that the world map and history would have been a lot different from what it has been today..

You mean to say that the countries that were not colonised by britain after the industrial revolution are still in the stone age..?

Odd Atrocity ???????? what a fancy word for an uneducated person like me... but would you mind doing simple maths...just combine the total number of people who have died unnatural death in 2 centuries of British oppression in India, do you feel that even a tenth the number of lives lost would have equaled the 'development' the British carried out in India..?

__________________
Travelogue - Around India
Random Reviews

Dilliwala

Clive, I have used words like 'many' (signifying numbers, not percentages) and 'most', but have been careful not to use 'all'. Where I have used 'on the whole' a few times, it is to signify 'as a nation', i.e. the majority, a.k.a. most. There are always exceptions, even many, when describing any nation 'as a whole' on any aspect. Certainly I do not believe now, nor have in the past believed, that all Brits are bad (only most of em - ok, that's from a movie, said by a British character. This thread is getting too serious and can do with a light touch).
As in any country, there are plenty of decent folks in Britain as well. I myself have known Brits, living both in India and Britain, virtually all my life and in general have not had a problem getting along well with them.
I only give attitude when I get attitude; what gets to me sometimes is when some Britons try to gloss over the extent of the injustices committed and make 'recompensatory' statements in return, then I tend to come out all guns firing and ready to go down (sorry, bad analogy, but cudn't think of another right now). Altho I think that again this (the glossing over) is more out of ignorance than any malicious intent - history is not taught properly anywhere around the world, including here I hasten to add (just ask our 'lower' castes) - but it still doesn't make it any less unpalatable.

Hey, u shud see what we (ok, not all of us) do to our own! And I'm not too proud of our govt's record, to give just 1 example, on letting the large majority of Myanmarese suffer in silence by appeasing the generals. Ok, that's a glossing-over on my part - frankly, I'm disgusted, to put it in one word, by my govt's foreign policy on this front.

Two thumbs up to that . Mutual understanding is the key to the future.

AwayFromHome

Many Indians (dead and alive) would have a problem with this perspective. I know you mean no ill-will to anyone, but it would be nice if you read some on the subject before making sweeping statements that basicaly amount to saying "We Brits did you a favor".

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.