7 ms·

It is hard to imagine because the industrial revolution required a huge number of pre-requisites most of which don't seem to be present in the India of the 18th

It is hard to imagine because the industrial revolution required a huge number of pre-requisites most of which don't seem to be present in the India of the 18th century, but which were present in Britain. In fact it is the very absence of these pre-requisites that meant Britain was in a position where it was even able to colonise India. To blithely state that if Britain hadn't colonised India that India would have inevitably maintained its share of world GDP and trade, in the face of the huge revolutions in industry, commerce and thought taking place in Europe, stretches all credibility. In fact if Britain hadn't colonised India, some other European nation would have instead. If India had industrialised first, then I'm quite sure the Mughal empire would have stretched to continental Europe in time.

Riod 11y ago
Britain first used their military power to seize India. They then blocked the Indians from manufacturing a vast variety of manufactured goods and forced farmers to produce certain cash crops (like cotton), to be sold only to the British at fixed prices. They then imported those raw materials to their home country and then exported finished goods to India. They basically captured themselves a monopoly which kickstarted the industrial revolution. It's telling that it was Britain and not Germany where the revolution happened. A bit of reading would tell you this..
- JetSetWilly 11y ago
  I didn't deny any of those things. You're looking for some imaginary person who said "British colonialism had no negative effects on India at all" - no such assertion was in my comment.
  - Riod 11y ago
    You need to re-read what you said. You will never have a counterfactual proving that India was not able to embark on an industrial revolution, because the British seized the country and stymied all growth that was not beneficial to them. By then going on to say if not the British then someone else would have done it give the reader the impression that you believe it was justified because of that. If that's not what you meant to say (and it is not just me who has pointed that out), then you need to be more precise in your use of language. And FYI the industrial revolution in textiles kicked into high gear in England in 1822, a good 50 years or so after India was under effective company rule. And textiles was an industry where India had a comparative advantage before company rule. Wonder where Britain got all that raw material to make textiles from? From wikipedia: During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[20] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[21] Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.
    - JetSetWilly 11y ago
      My use of language was perfectly precise. I never said any of the things attributed to me, you don't get to blame me because of your lack of reading comprehension. The first industrial revolution in the UK began in the mid 18th century. The 1820s is towards the end of the first industrial revolution - you are thinking of the second industrial revolution. Do you think that Britain managed to dominate india in the 18th century despite having - supposedly - no advantages whatsoever? In fact the very reason Britain was able to do this was because it had already leapt ahead. Now, once again, nobody denies that Britain did many bad things to India. I merely take issue with (probable hindu nationalist's) bizarre a-historical notions that India was a giant of the world in the 18th century and that if only Evil Britain hadn't somehow cheated its way into colonising it then it would naturally have kept pace with developments in Europe, and that therefore the entire developmental disparity between them can be 100% blamed on Britain. That's total nonsense. My comment was intended to point out that while yes of course Britain's colonisation of India wasn't necessarily "a good thing" it isn't to say that if it hadn't happened India would have been filled with steam engines and trains in 1850. You can't have a counterfactual to say that India would have been a shangri la without Britain's colonisation. It may have been worse or better than now, we will never know, but it would certainly not have "kept up" with the revolutions sweeping Europe and it is deeply disingenuous to claim that.
      - Riod 11y ago
        I think reddit is more the space for you; hacker news tends to be for people who like data; not arguments plucked from your brain. From wikipedia: Number of Looms in UK Year 1803 1820 1829 1833 1857 Looms 2400 14650 55500 100000 250000 Tell me how increasing your manufacturing base 104x in 50 years is possible without above average returns on capital in textiles? Were the British industrialists stupid? Did they just want to compete each other out of existence? Or perhaps they had a captive subjugated market where people were not even allowed to produce salt, let alone textiles. Your argument that India would not have "kept up" is based on pure conjecture. Also, every respected economic historian writes that India would have been better off without colonialism. Transfer of technology doesn't have to coincide with being invaded. Eg. Japan.
mikeash 11y ago
> In fact if Britain hadn't colonised India, some other European nation would have instead. Are you really saying that two centuries of brutal and destructive rule by the British is totally fine because somebody would have done it regardless? I hope I'm just misunderstanding this....
- Riod 11y ago
  No no you're absolutely right. Great justification isn't it?
- JetSetWilly 11y ago
  I don't believe I said anything is "totally fine", you're imagining things.
intended 11y ago
I think it would not played out like that at all. Firstly, the victory of the Brits has more to do with effective political strategy than much else - Indian kingdoms and empires were aware of military tech and made efforts to upgrade themselves (dependent on level of wealth and vision) Indian industry and industrialists weren't incompetent either - they would pick up new tech and use it. You don't need to be the source of the revolution - you just need to keep up and compete. Can you can suggest a reason why A significant portion of the subcontinent wouldn't willingly choose to industrialize?

Riod 11y ago

Britain first used their military power to seize India. They then blocked the Indians from manufacturing a vast variety of manufactured goods and forced farmers to produce certain cash crops (like cotton), to be sold only to the British at fixed prices. They then imported those raw materials to their home country and then exported finished goods to India. They basically captured themselves a monopoly which kickstarted the industrial revolution. It's telling that it was Britain and not Germany where the revolution happened. A bit of reading would tell you this..

JetSetWilly 11y ago
I didn't deny any of those things. You're looking for some imaginary person who said "British colonialism had no negative effects on India at all" - no such assertion was in my comment.
- Riod 11y ago
  You need to re-read what you said. You will never have a counterfactual proving that India was not able to embark on an industrial revolution, because the British seized the country and stymied all growth that was not beneficial to them. By then going on to say if not the British then someone else would have done it give the reader the impression that you believe it was justified because of that. If that's not what you meant to say (and it is not just me who has pointed that out), then you need to be more precise in your use of language. And FYI the industrial revolution in textiles kicked into high gear in England in 1822, a good 50 years or so after India was under effective company rule. And textiles was an industry where India had a comparative advantage before company rule. Wonder where Britain got all that raw material to make textiles from? From wikipedia: During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[20] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[21] Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.
  - JetSetWilly 11y ago
    My use of language was perfectly precise. I never said any of the things attributed to me, you don't get to blame me because of your lack of reading comprehension. The first industrial revolution in the UK began in the mid 18th century. The 1820s is towards the end of the first industrial revolution - you are thinking of the second industrial revolution. Do you think that Britain managed to dominate india in the 18th century despite having - supposedly - no advantages whatsoever? In fact the very reason Britain was able to do this was because it had already leapt ahead. Now, once again, nobody denies that Britain did many bad things to India. I merely take issue with (probable hindu nationalist's) bizarre a-historical notions that India was a giant of the world in the 18th century and that if only Evil Britain hadn't somehow cheated its way into colonising it then it would naturally have kept pace with developments in Europe, and that therefore the entire developmental disparity between them can be 100% blamed on Britain. That's total nonsense. My comment was intended to point out that while yes of course Britain's colonisation of India wasn't necessarily "a good thing" it isn't to say that if it hadn't happened India would have been filled with steam engines and trains in 1850. You can't have a counterfactual to say that India would have been a shangri la without Britain's colonisation. It may have been worse or better than now, we will never know, but it would certainly not have "kept up" with the revolutions sweeping Europe and it is deeply disingenuous to claim that.
    - Riod 11y ago
      I think reddit is more the space for you; hacker news tends to be for people who like data; not arguments plucked from your brain. From wikipedia: Number of Looms in UK Year 1803 1820 1829 1833 1857 Looms 2400 14650 55500 100000 250000 Tell me how increasing your manufacturing base 104x in 50 years is possible without above average returns on capital in textiles? Were the British industrialists stupid? Did they just want to compete each other out of existence? Or perhaps they had a captive subjugated market where people were not even allowed to produce salt, let alone textiles. Your argument that India would not have "kept up" is based on pure conjecture. Also, every respected economic historian writes that India would have been better off without colonialism. Transfer of technology doesn't have to coincide with being invaded. Eg. Japan.

mikeash 11y ago

> In fact if Britain hadn't colonised India, some other European nation would have instead. Are you really saying that two centuries of brutal and destructive rule by the British is totally fine because somebody would have done it regardless? I hope I'm just misunderstanding this....

Riod 11y ago
No no you're absolutely right. Great justification isn't it?
JetSetWilly 11y ago
I don't believe I said anything is "totally fine", you're imagining things.

intended 11y ago

I think it would not played out like that at all. Firstly, the victory of the Brits has more to do with effective political strategy than much else - Indian kingdoms and empires were aware of military tech and made efforts to upgrade themselves (dependent on level of wealth and vision) Indian industry and industrialists weren't incompetent either - they would pick up new tech and use it. You don't need to be the source of the revolution - you just need to keep up and compete. Can you can suggest a reason why A significant portion of the subcontinent wouldn't willingly choose to industrialize?