But even assuming this is true, Why Did Indian Economy grow at the same time as others ? It is because British made sure India was deindustrialized and economically weak and dependent on UK. Literally it is same arguement as British wanted to make sure India never grows
What if India was never colonized?
- Thread starter Apple3169
- Start date
prani
Banned
Off the bat i want you to realise that I don't:
1. Believe that India industrialized before the British, industrialization is the process of adding chemical energy to industrial processes, what India had before the British rule was a lot of cottage industries that produced goods on a large scale.
2. Believe the infamous 45 trillion dollar loot, i got no idea how they got that figure from, like zero idea.
3. Believe British industrialization was because of India, British industry was already well established before the crown took over the administration of India, did India help the already established British industry to achieve lots of profits? Yeah absolutely but industrialization already was well underway.
Which is a great segway to my thesis, British incompetence.
Now why did India and the British economy decline in importance? As time went by. My reasoning are as follows:
1. The British didn't really industrialize, they did so partly. They never went up the value chain because of the poor human capital. This allowed the German and US manufacturers to outcompete the British one.
2. The British invested a lot of the money earned from the industry in ventures in other countries during pax britania, this lead to a decline in investment in domestic market as capital went out into the colonies and other places. This caused stagnation.
3. India never expanded its agricultural production because of poor land laws which dis- incentivized investment in land and capital necessary for the expansion of agricultural production and this is primarily the fault of the British cause it was they who introduced the system of land tenure to secure political power in India.
Indian agriculture could have modernized and could have drowned out competition in Latin America, and could have made the British and Indians filthy rich but the investment went to south america and africa where a lot of the venture failed
4. Britain costs of being a global policeman during Pax britania: no need to elaborate.
5. British throttled the infant indian industries, even the British East India company was interested in industrializing India to finance the conquest or to reduce the burden but London had other ideas that were stupid in retrospect. This lead to India's economy being primitive, agro based with no significant industries.
British administration in India was corrupt and often took bribes from Indians and foreigners which lead to a horrible system of patronage that countinue to this day.
It is because of these factors, combined with the fact that both Indian and British economy was linked that both countries did not see any significant industrialization during the second industrial revolution. In the end Britain got what it deserved for destroying indian industries, it's relegation to a status of a second rate power which it is now, a fate which they could have avoided if they would have let India industrialized
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
And something noone mention that indian were open to trade with other power unlike China so a independent India will have more chance of industrialisation then Ottoman Empire.
Always remember outside Europe First time the scientific book were translated in eastern language in india . By the start of 18 century elucid John Napier work were translated.
By the start of 19 century indian started to process of https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-...f-indian-renaissance/article23595411.ece/amp/
It happens naturally .
Always remember outside Europe First time the scientific book were translated in eastern language in india . By the start of 18 century elucid John Napier work were translated.
By the start of 19 century indian started to process of https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-...f-indian-renaissance/article23595411.ece/amp/
It happens naturally .
prani
Banned
Would have interesting consequences though, British forced indian Markets to open up in the 19th century because all countries were racking up deficit with the British so by trading with India they could make up the deficit. With Indian markets walled off then where would the German and American industry sell their goods to?
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
Indian market was opened but British couldn't compete with indian cloth industry due to high cost of labour and double shipping cost (no cotton production in Britian). So they make it difficult for indian cloth industry to buy cloth and colour ( blue due).
And profited by forcing indian farmer to sell in cheap to British company .
Search for Firingi sword ( made in Germany ) use by maratha empire .
AIUI ‘stopped entirely’ is an overstatement but gene flows were certainly minimal. And a lot of jatis (sic) show mutations that are rare or non-existent outside them.
Luckily someone else in the thread had already done my homework on this:
We've been over this already.
This very conveniently leaves out the massive effects of Industrialization that made gigantic strides in economic conditions, something India would have achieved if not for British colonization, as growth during and after Industrialization would be enormous to anything before it
I don't think you can make that assumption. China was never colonized (bullied and pushed around and had small pieces taken but not colonized to the extent of India) and it didn't industrialize until much later. The Industrial Revolution was a weird thing that took a lot going right in order to happen. Lots of places are or have been "proto-industrial"; very few industrialized.
This thing could be agreed upon, however, one major difference was that India and various Indian stated were doing pretty well compared to China, such as Punjab, Mysore, Marathas etc. Mughals had a very high degree of Urbanization at almost 20-25 percent and it did not seem that the subsequent wars really but a dent to it before the British. Proto Industrialization was already occurring on Bengal before British crushed it after their Conquest.
An argument could be made India could suffer like China, but India was not as closed off as China was during this time. At worse, it would be like Ottoman empire or even Russia. Clearly somewhat inferior in Industrialization but great military and power regardless
Industrialisation on (ETA premature post) the Western model is something an Indian state (or states) might have achieved but a lot would depend on internal and external influences. Any such development depends on how well it (they) can copy the soft factors of free(ish) markets, rule of law and contract enforcement, education and a pool of labour to flood into industrial cities. These aren’t easy to simply map across to a long and complex civilisation even when its political leadership is united on the goal. Which may not be guaranteed in the Indian case. Anymore than in those of the Ottomans, Persia or Qing China.
And of course external trade has its own snags for industrial reform.
Last edited:
I'll have to point out here that this is not really the case. The problem Britain had was simply that later innovations were more advantageous to their competitors than to themselves. The German steel industry overtook that of the UK because the Thomas-Gilchrist process, invented by a Brit, made it possible to work with iron that had a high-phosphorus content, and it just so happened to be that the Germans were sitting on top of the single largest then known deposit of such iron in the world (in Lorraine). According to what was known at the time there was more iron in Lorraine than in the entirety of Britain. It's only then that the German industry really took off.
After WW1 the Germans fell behind the British again because they lost that region and in the 1920s the French, now in control of those same iron deposits, overtook them until they were hit by the Great Depression.
After WW1 the Germans fell behind the British again because they lost that region and in the 1920s the French, now in control of those same iron deposits, overtook them until they were hit by the Great Depression.
Thanks for the explanation where you stand in the discussion. Such clarity is appreciated. So i should probably do the same.
1) I'm dubious about many of the claims about the direct detrimental effect of colonialism on the economy. There are strong counterarguments here. Open to any new information about this, but i still hold my final judgement back. It is very complex.
2) Colonialism was very detrimental in it's view that the local populations weren't capable of self-governance or handling their (economic) affairs. The European arrogance to assume that they had to take this over, even if it was for a while (which was the view of the most progressive) was for the most part based on biased theories that were 'confirmed' by self-fulfilling prophesies and became more racist over time*.
But the worst part IMO is that that superiority view was incredibly hypocritical. It violated the basic assumptions of the enlightened world view and ideals that had just developed in Europe. So if the Europeans considered themselves 'parents' who were in the colonies to teach the 'children' those ideals, they gave themselves the worst example in their arrogant racial treatment. Those ideals, also the good ones, became hollow and worthless that way.
I totally agree with you that the lack of a local new gentry, with political influence was a missed opportunity for the development of Agriculture and a potential Industrial take off in India. And that the politics of the Raj were promoting more the status quo, then making change possible in this area. Like i said in point 2) the Raj and the English should have taken the Indian people and it's potential much more serious.
Not sure though if this is enough to explain England being overshadowed in the 2nd industrial revolution. I tend to think that in general if you have a head start it becomes more difficult to start up something new. To say it a bit simplistic, investing in new machinery while the existing machinery hasn't been written off is often harder than setting up something from scratch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_handicap_of_a_head_start. Another factor is i think that in every production branch, there comes a point that significant improvements in the production process through technological innovation become nigh impossible. The textile branch may have reached that point in the late 19th century.
*Which had also detrimental effects in Europe itself.
There is no guarantee India would industrialize whatsoever. China was way more United, linguistically, culturally and educationally and yet it failed continuously to industrialize. Industrialization is a painful process that needs a confluence of factors to coincide in order to be successful. First off there needs to be a local pressure. China failed to industrialize because it had everything it wanted for millennia and no real threats and powers it constantly needed to compete with. India was just as comfortable. The caste system ensured social stability and immobility that greatly benefited the ruling classes which in turn had no incentive whatsoever to modernize. Money and income is money and income. What does ruler of Mysore care if his wealth comes from export of cloth or spice or food? What incentive does he actually have to pursue industrialization? Do you think Chinese reactionaries consciously fought to keep China weak? Or that India would not have its own wave of reactionary activities rising up as the various Indian states tried to industrialize even if they found a reason to do so.
Unlike China India has no unifying culture and language. Han language and culture alongside examinations and beaurocracy was omnipresent. Which India did not have. The religious divide in the continent was a problem as well to the point populations often exterminated each other in religious riots. Brigandry and highway robbery was on the level of China during its worst periods. Honestly a lot of writing here just feels super jingoistic nationalist mythology about superiority of one’s nation.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
India was not united means there was power struggle between many States which give rise to research for better arms .
China was all powerful and does not have any need to compete with other nation . the beurocracy was it's undoing .
Industrialisation happen due to war in Europe .
India caste was major problem to start industrialisation and could be main energy of industrialisation. And in caste system mobility was possible but with help of whole caste group ( example Rajput , Maratha , Koli ,)
Mysore king have a need to make his army more powerful then neighbouring state , ( search history of arms production of india)
There is no unity means there is competition as happen in Europe .
Beurocracy was imported from China to implant in india after that it went to British island and whole Europe adopted it .
Better religious dogma also help in the increase competition between state .( Same thing British done in Scotland and Ireland )
Highway robbery was high for British because they found a country with hundreds time more population.
A problem stoping from industrialisation , mughal rule had destroyed the any chance of developing a middle class , they suck out the blood from any other group of people who not happen to in the rulling class, the heavy tax of government was crippling for many farmers, and unequal tax system based on religion.
That's why when British defeated Mughal at Buxor whole Kolkata celebrates it .
India was not United but it was not in the constant state of threat and struggle. The war erupted occasionally as did rivalry such as Mughals and Marathas. But overall the relations between the rulers were rather cordial by the point of Indian colonization. And when the colonization happened the rulers offered almost no resistance with few exceptions and instead aligned with Britain and swore fealty.
There is no way Caste can help industrialization of anyone and anything. Even now centuries later with India independent it is having massive problems stopping its people from murdering someone over a lower caste interaction.
lordapocalipsis
Banned
I think it would´t be a single state, but a complete group of differrent nations
prani
Banned
Well....that would explain the iron and steel industry but what about chemicals? AFAIK British coal is pretty good quality vis a vis German coal which was during the 19 th century basis of chemical engineering not oil or gas as is the case now a days. Even in the electric engineering wave of the second industrial revolution Britain lagged behind the US and Germany. Steel and iron and other metallurgy stuff are 1st industrial revolution products.
My point stands, Britain never had the second industrial revolution at the pace and tempo of the US and Germany. FYI USA did have a indepth 1st wave industrialization as much as they like to deny, they had a well established manufacturing industry which was ahead that of Britain.
I think we are both right, certain innovations did help their competitors and the poor quality of human resources prevented Britain from taking part in the second wave of industrial revolution combined with trade and tariff policy caused Britain to stagnante.
So in your view colonialism in India really had marginal effects on India's economy? I would strongly disagree, seeing as the colonial state rather directly was set up to enrich Britain, or rather British bankers, businessmen, gentry, etc. at the expense of India.
It may be an extreme example, but I like to go back to it in these discussions: would the Meiji era have happened under a British Viceroy? Or would the Chinese rather had a Manchurian Emperor in Beijing or a British King in London?
This is simply untrue. The caste system as we know did not exist until British rule. And those same principles you use for Indian states not caring about where their money comes from also apply to China, with its agriculture, silks, etc. China had a hugely powerful Confucian gentry which acted as feudal overlords and hampered development. Of course there is no guarantee, but there would also be a greater possibility than being under a colonial power, with no choice whatsoever. And considering what Indian states did IOTL, especially Kingdoms like Mysore and Punjab, it is more likely than you would think.
This is so incredibly simplistic. Han language and culture and the bureaucracy didn't give China an advantage, in fact there is a strong argument it hampered modernization. And China is by no means a monolithic nation. Even today Southern Chinese languages diverge significantly from Northern ones.
Frankly it seems you are looking for and singling out reasons that India or Indian states shouldn't modernize, when IOTL there were several factors going in a positive direction before colonization. That doesn't mean India or Indian states will be like Japan, far from it, but the possibility is there.
???
That ignores states like Maratha, Punjab, Mysore and even Bengal, all of which that Industrialization and modernisation to different degrees. And no, caste would not be such a issue, this is again taking modern view and suppplanting them on ancient times. It would no more be harming than any Class system in Europe or any caste in Japan, which also has its own version of caste. Even if India was not united, it would still be stronger
That's nonsense, India does have a unifying culture and heritage, it's one of the reasons why all empires try to unifying India, even Delhi Sultanate and Mughals did it, it might not be as united as China, but would be much more united