3 ms·

I really hate this argument, the change in GDP share is because the West industrialised and the East didn't, before that it was mostly a matter of population, p

by MLR 11y ago

I really hate this argument, the change in GDP share is because the West industrialised and the East didn't, before that it was mostly a matter of population, per capita GDP didn't matter so much. Not to say I have any idea what would have happened without colonialism, but thinking that India would have retained their share of world GDP is naive.

nileshtrivedi 11y ago
Is it a coincidence that industrial revolution happened in a country which was taking raw material from its colonies at zero cost? Owning India is what allowed Britain to fund its own development (as well as all its international wars). The british destroyed india's local textile sector (which was world-famous), shipped all the cotton to Britain, and sold clothes BACK to Indians. That's how this industrial revolution happened. This is what Mahatma Gandhi opposed and encouraged Indians to make their own yarn. That's where his association with the "charkha" and swadeshi movement comes from.
- Brakenshire 11y ago
  I would agree it's almost certainly true that colonialism and extracted wealth did a great deal to fuel the industrial revolution, but saying that the British pace of industrialization was dependent on India is a different thing from saying that India would have industrialized at the same pace as the West in the absence of colonialism. Leaders and elites frittering away wealth, rather than investing it in economic development, has been the rule rather than the exception for the majority of human civilization, in the West and the East. What makes you think that the Mughals would have suddenly shifted the basis of their social order, to start investing in steam engines rather than palaces, in the absence of the British? The Newcomen engine was invented in 1712, at a time when the East India Company were an irrelevance. Where is the parallel in India? Just to be clear, I'm not saying pace of development wasn't seriously set back through colonialism, I'm questioning specifically this percentage of GDP argument.
  - intended 11y ago
    To be fair, the % of GDP argument is really hard to quantify along the axes being used here. If India wasn't a colony, wealth would not have concentrated in GB, likely slowing Down their development and Maybe even making them more open to local conflicts. Provided the French or Dutch didn't conquer more of India, and, it's hard to argue that wealth remaining in India would have not have resulted in more trade and local development. We can definitely say that having someone come to your country, and clearly stop you from building the best product you can build, sell or pruchase, impoverishes your country.
shripadk 11y ago
I really hate your argument too. India actually had trade routes all the way upto Britain until and after it was colonized. In fact there is no doubt that India would have taken part in Western industrialization looking at the attitude India had in allowing foreigners to settle in its land. Don't forget that the British never waged a War against India unlike other countries which Britain colonized. They came into India as the "British East India Company" to do trade and business. Wouldn't this trade and business easily influence India to industrialize? So what changed? Why did this company, that had been setup to do trade and business, end up getting it's own private armies, exercise military power and assume administrative functions? Was it part of a bigger plan to actually colonize a country without waging War by infiltrating the country in the guise of a Company and ruling via the Divide and Rule policy? Ask yourself these questions and you'll get your answer. India was always open to new cultures, traditions and advancements before British colonization. You should read about Indian history to know that we even had metal working way before Britain even knew about metallurgy. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_metallurgy_in_South_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_metallurgy_in_South...
Riod 11y ago
There is a reason why Britain industrialised first. A lot of it had to do with barring Indians from making manufactured goods in their own country and importing raw materials at artificially low prices. Also Indians were not allowed to own valuable assets like tea plantations etc. Educate yourself before making statements that make no sense

by MLR 11y ago

nileshtrivedi 11y ago

Is it a coincidence that industrial revolution happened in a country which was taking raw material from its colonies at zero cost? Owning India is what allowed Britain to fund its own development (as well as all its international wars). The british destroyed india's local textile sector (which was world-famous), shipped all the cotton to Britain, and sold clothes BACK to Indians. That's how this industrial revolution happened. This is what Mahatma Gandhi opposed and encouraged Indians to make their own yarn. That's where his association with the "charkha" and swadeshi movement comes from.

Brakenshire 11y ago
I would agree it's almost certainly true that colonialism and extracted wealth did a great deal to fuel the industrial revolution, but saying that the British pace of industrialization was dependent on India is a different thing from saying that India would have industrialized at the same pace as the West in the absence of colonialism. Leaders and elites frittering away wealth, rather than investing it in economic development, has been the rule rather than the exception for the majority of human civilization, in the West and the East. What makes you think that the Mughals would have suddenly shifted the basis of their social order, to start investing in steam engines rather than palaces, in the absence of the British? The Newcomen engine was invented in 1712, at a time when the East India Company were an irrelevance. Where is the parallel in India? Just to be clear, I'm not saying pace of development wasn't seriously set back through colonialism, I'm questioning specifically this percentage of GDP argument.
- intended 11y ago
  To be fair, the % of GDP argument is really hard to quantify along the axes being used here. If India wasn't a colony, wealth would not have concentrated in GB, likely slowing Down their development and Maybe even making them more open to local conflicts. Provided the French or Dutch didn't conquer more of India, and, it's hard to argue that wealth remaining in India would have not have resulted in more trade and local development. We can definitely say that having someone come to your country, and clearly stop you from building the best product you can build, sell or pruchase, impoverishes your country.

shripadk 11y ago

I really hate your argument too. India actually had trade routes all the way upto Britain until and after it was colonized. In fact there is no doubt that India would have taken part in Western industrialization looking at the attitude India had in allowing foreigners to settle in its land. Don't forget that the British never waged a War against India unlike other countries which Britain colonized. They came into India as the "British East India Company" to do trade and business. Wouldn't this trade and business easily influence India to industrialize? So what changed? Why did this company, that had been setup to do trade and business, end up getting it's own private armies, exercise military power and assume administrative functions? Was it part of a bigger plan to actually colonize a country without waging War by infiltrating the country in the guise of a Company and ruling via the Divide and Rule policy? Ask yourself these questions and you'll get your answer. India was always open to new cultures, traditions and advancements before British colonization. You should read about Indian history to know that we even had metal working way before Britain even knew about metallurgy. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_metallurgy_in_South_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_metallurgy_in_South...

Riod 11y ago

There is a reason why Britain industrialised first. A lot of it had to do with barring Indians from making manufactured goods in their own country and importing raw materials at artificially low prices. Also Indians were not allowed to own valuable assets like tea plantations etc. Educate yourself before making statements that make no sense