4 ms·

FYI: India went from 27% of world income to 3% under colonial rule

by newyork 10y ago

thaumasiotes 10y ago
This would be a much more compelling point if I thought world income had stayed constant while India was under British colonial rule.
weeksie 10y ago
Source/context? There was no such thing as "India" before colonial rule. The idea of India as a cohesive entity is a colonial and post-colonial innovation. Hinduism was never even a cohesive entity before British rule, it was the orientalist scholars that classified it based on many similar belief systems. http://www.e-ir.info/2012/11/26/the-impact-of-european-colonialism-on-the-indian-caste-system/ http://www.e-ir.info/2012/11/26/the-impact-of-european-colon...
- weeksie 10y ago
  I seem to have ticked some people off with that statement, but it's factual. The idea of "India" as a nation just didn't exist. To say that the "income" (whatever that means) of India changed under colonization is incoherent without context. That's not the same as saying that the people in what is now India didn't exist or share many of the same traditions and cultures, but it was not a cohesive unit, let alone a nation with a national identity.
  - eklavya 10y ago
    I don't know why some people are so hell bent on denying India an identity. India as a nation has existed for a loonng time. Vedas are ancient (everybody would agree) and they refer to India (Bharat) as the nation which extends from Himalayas to the sea (just like it is today). What arguments do you have against that? "The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_(emperor) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_(emperor)
    - weeksie 10y ago
      Read the link in my first post above. Your claim would be the same as saying that "Christendom" was a nation during the middle ages and that the EU has always existed as an identity. It's a region with many shared traditions and at some times has had large swaths governed by warlords, kings, conquerors, but the concept of India as a nation just did not exist pre-colonialism. I don't see how that's denying anybody identity.
      - eklavya 10y ago
        So you are arguing against Vedas based on a student submission for a university degree?
        weeksie 10y ago
        Where am I arguing against "the Vedas" and what does that even mean? The (well cited and researched) paper I linked above mentions how old the Vedas are. However, they are holy books and mythology, not historical documents. A description of a region in a holy book is not as a identity or cohesiveness as a cultural or political entity.
        eklavya 10y ago
        King Bharata is as much mythology as king Arthur. The "well researched" paper is a student submission. Have you read any other research that argues for the opposite? I am on mobile, will search and link a few later.
        weeksie 10y ago
        There's a pretty long list of citations at the bottom of that paper and the sample of them that I could be bothered to check for an internet article were legit. If you have any arguments against the thesis of that paper other than ad hominem I'd love to hear them. I'm hardly a scholar of Indian history, I just did a bunch of reading during the two months I recently spent traveling the country from south to north. That was one of the articles that popped up when I was trying to find any decent information on the caste system and it's very well written and argued (and, like I said, the citations check out). It seems to me though that the area was wildly diverse and hardly a unified entity before the Brits came along. I mean, what about Pakistan? That's not part of India. But that's only as of 75 or so years ago? Is that counted in these "national income" totals that the original parent poster was talking about? That was my original quibble with what the hell the guy meant by his statement and the historical existence of India as a nation. (A nation being a modern concept anyway, which was also at the heart of my quibble.) Anyway, as to the analogy with Arthurian mythology, that's a good one. The area that King Arthur purportedly ruled was Britain, Ireland, Norway, and Gaul. Is that all Britain or . . . ? See the problem with that line of reasoning?

FYI: India went from 27% of world income to 3% under colonial rule

by newyork 10y ago

FYI: India went from 27% of world income to 3% under colonial rule

This would be a much more compelling point if I thought world income had stayed constant while India was under British colonial rule.

weeksie 10y ago

Source/context? There was no such thing as "India" before colonial rule. The idea of India as a cohesive entity is a colonial and post-colonial innovation. Hinduism was never even a cohesive entity before British rule, it was the orientalist scholars that classified it based on many similar belief systems. http://www.e-ir.info/2012/11/26/the-impact-of-european-colonialism-on-the-indian-caste-system/ http://www.e-ir.info/2012/11/26/the-impact-of-european-colon...

weeksie 10y ago
I seem to have ticked some people off with that statement, but it's factual. The idea of "India" as a nation just didn't exist. To say that the "income" (whatever that means) of India changed under colonization is incoherent without context. That's not the same as saying that the people in what is now India didn't exist or share many of the same traditions and cultures, but it was not a cohesive unit, let alone a nation with a national identity.
- eklavya 10y ago
  I don't know why some people are so hell bent on denying India an identity. India as a nation has existed for a loonng time. Vedas are ancient (everybody would agree) and they refer to India (Bharat) as the nation which extends from Himalayas to the sea (just like it is today). What arguments do you have against that? "The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_(emperor) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_(emperor)
  - weeksie 10y ago
    Read the link in my first post above. Your claim would be the same as saying that "Christendom" was a nation during the middle ages and that the EU has always existed as an identity. It's a region with many shared traditions and at some times has had large swaths governed by warlords, kings, conquerors, but the concept of India as a nation just did not exist pre-colonialism. I don't see how that's denying anybody identity.
    - eklavya 10y ago
      So you are arguing against Vedas based on a student submission for a university degree?
      - weeksie 10y ago
        Where am I arguing against "the Vedas" and what does that even mean? The (well cited and researched) paper I linked above mentions how old the Vedas are. However, they are holy books and mythology, not historical documents. A description of a region in a holy book is not as a identity or cohesiveness as a cultural or political entity.
        eklavya 10y ago
        King Bharata is as much mythology as king Arthur. The "well researched" paper is a student submission. Have you read any other research that argues for the opposite? I am on mobile, will search and link a few later.
        weeksie 10y ago
        There's a pretty long list of citations at the bottom of that paper and the sample of them that I could be bothered to check for an internet article were legit. If you have any arguments against the thesis of that paper other than ad hominem I'd love to hear them. I'm hardly a scholar of Indian history, I just did a bunch of reading during the two months I recently spent traveling the country from south to north. That was one of the articles that popped up when I was trying to find any decent information on the caste system and it's very well written and argued (and, like I said, the citations check out). It seems to me though that the area was wildly diverse and hardly a unified entity before the Brits came along. I mean, what about Pakistan? That's not part of India. But that's only as of 75 or so years ago? Is that counted in these "national income" totals that the original parent poster was talking about? That was my original quibble with what the hell the guy meant by his statement and the historical existence of India as a nation. (A nation being a modern concept anyway, which was also at the heart of my quibble.) Anyway, as to the analogy with Arthurian mythology, that's a good one. The area that King Arthur purportedly ruled was Britain, Ireland, Norway, and Gaul. Is that all Britain or . . . ? See the problem with that line of reasoning?