6 ms·

"On the Salt March: The Historiography of Mahatma Gandhi's March to Dandi" by Thomas Weber is very well written, detailed account on both the salt tax and the l

"On the Salt March: The Historiography of Mahatma Gandhi's March to Dandi" by Thomas Weber is very well written, detailed account on both the salt tax and the logistics of the march itself. I read it 4 years ago at a library in Lakshadweep. I still find it hard to imagine, that we lived under these extremely stupid laws made just to maximize British profit and create monopolies by destroying free markets. And, I find it so sad that the first independent government chose to double down on the control on the economy rather than just open it all up.

pm90 9y ago
> And, I find it so sad that the first independent government chose to double down on the control on the economy rather than just open it all up. This is not accurate. The Indian economy was pretty open; the overwhelming bureucratic red-tape started after Indira Gandhi's nationalization program (and other such policies). India under Nehru wasn't laissez faire by any means, but neither was it Communist. You also have to see the context under which the politicians operated then. Unbridled capitalism had lead to colonialism and the World Wars and led to much oppression for workers worldwide; the Indian leaders were trying to avoid that kind of wealth aggregation and income equality.
- fellellor 9y ago
  I agree that the red tape hell started with Indira. But I can't agree with the bit about context. It's plain to see that inequality is considerably worse now. Only a small Elite were in any position to benefit from the liberalization and the rest have never been able to catch up. Overall, left leaning economic policies and communist influence have done enormous harm to this country.
  - pm90 9y ago
    The context is a historical fact. I think you mean the motivation. And that is a historical fact as well, actually. The unfortunate fact is that the policies which India's leaders thought at the time would lead to better wealth distribution and economic growth didn't work as expected and economic growth was significantly impeded. India wasn't alone in this failure, China also suffered under the same problem, due to similar problems with a top-down command economy dominated by public sector. > It's plain to see that inequality is considerably worse now. Again, that's not an issue with the context, but with execution. And the inequality you see now is more because after the liberalization of 1990, while certain sectors and people working in them grew tremendously, others were left behind. And the tax system in India was broken, so wealth redistribution through taxation also did not happen as expected.
    - fellellor 9y ago
      The whole point I was trying to make was, rather than learn from our own history and experience, the leaders chose to keep doing the same things the British did. I look at Pre Independence India as a bunch of decentralised organizations/kingdoms/markets which were producing goods and maybe services that were sought after all over the globe. This is what made mercantilism and later colonialism attractive in the first place. Then the British established controls which promptly destroyed Indian advantages in favor of their own. These are the lessons which the post Independence governments should have carried forward. Gandhi understood these at a very deep level, and hence the satyagrahas. And the village economy model, which though unworkable, emphasized the central principle of decentralization. This understanding makes him stand out. Whereas though Nehru has to be applauded for his efforts as prime minister, time has shown that he and his family never had the deep understanding about economics and history that Gandhi did.
- Alfredo123 9y ago
  Nehru was mostly an egomaniac nincompoop but his daughter Indira was the one turned India into socialist hellhole it is now. She took over banks, closed down several industries, suspended democracy, nearly rewrote Indian constitution and more importantly imbibed on people's mind that their true purpose is to serve government. > Indian leaders were trying to avoid that kind of wealth aggregation and income equality. Nah. Most Indians that time were ignorant of the world.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  You also have to see the context under which the politicians operated then. Unbridled capitalism had lead to colonialism and the World Wars ... Well you might call that "context", but it looks more like socialist make-believe. I'll grant though that it does provide the narrative context (whether true or false) in which politicans were working at the time. And this can't be blamed on Indira.
  - pm90 9y ago
    > Well you might call that "context", but it looks more like socialist make-believe You can call any narrative as make-believe... what's your point? > I'll grant though that it does provide the narrative context (whether true or false) in which politicans were working at the time. Again, not sure what you're disputing here. That World Wars weren't caused by unbridled capitalism? > And this can't be blamed on Indira. What can't be blamed on Indira? She nationalized most banks, airlines etc. basically snuffing out the nascent private sector and heavily regulating the scraps that were left.
  - wsxcde 9y ago
    What's "make-believe" is the idea that a nation which was brutalized by 300 years of unfettered crony capitalism would choose to align itself after Independence with the very forces that destroyed it and set 1/5th of humanity back by 200 years.
    - adrianratnapala 9y ago
      It tries to put the square peg of imperialism into the round-hole of 20th century left-right debates. The East India company and the later British rulers did bad things because they were conquerors, and that's what conquerors do. You are right that the East India company was crony captilast* But it is no small thing that you changed the goalposts to go from the parent's "Unbridled capitalism" to "unfettered crony captialism". It was precisely the fetters that made it cronyist, since it was a state granted, privately owned monopoly. After independence, India's did not break from those forces, embraced them (in less bad form) by granting new monopolies. They were only (partially) rolled back when the '90s reforms came (partially) embraced free market principles.
- mr_toad 9y ago
  > Unbridled capitalism had lead to colonialism Most sources state that colonialism and the associated economic policy of mercantilism pre-date the widespread adoption of capitalism, which didn't occur until after the industrial revolution. I'd argue that the rise of nationalism was more directly the cause of both colonialism and the World Wars. Only if you ascribe to the notion that any system that isn't socialism is capitalist could you argue that capitalism led somehow to colonialism.
  - fragmede 9y ago
    On a two-dimensional scale from socialism to capitalism, any move away from one is a move to another. We've yet to see what "pure" capitalism even really looks like; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations argues that competition is required for his "invisible hand" and that monopolies are bad because they reduce efficiency and choice, and impede progress, but our current strategy to prevent or break up a monopoly looks a whole lot like government regulation which is supposed to stifle innovation, not promote it!
    - mr_toad 9y ago
      A two dimensional scale is a false dichotomy. There were many economic systems in the past. Subsistence, Barter, Feudalism, Mercintalism. None of these were capitalist or socialist.
  - executesorder66 9y ago
    Eh, colonialism is because of imperialism. And imperialism is a result of unbridled capitalism.[0] Some people might not have called it capitalism back then, but that's what it was. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage_of_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage...
    - mr_toad 9y ago
      Colonialism predates the Marxist notion of imperialism by 400 years. When the colonial powers started to conquer the world there was next to no capital. Not only did no one call it capitalism back then (the word had yet to be coined), but no serious scholar of economics, politics or history would call any pre-industrial economic system predominantly capitalist. And by arguing that “people didn’t call it capitalism back then”, you’re just proving my point. You’re just redefining capitalism to be the antonym of socialism.
- jiraaya 9y ago
  >> the overwhelming bureucratic red-tape started after Indira Gandhi's nationalization program Source?
Simulacra 9y ago
Curiously if we were to replace British with Apple in the second half of your statement, it would still be correct.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Apple does not yet have a military wing.
  - baud147258 9y ago
    Maybe the fanboys? /s
billfruit 9y ago
There is a theory I have heard that, British cannot have held rule over India, without the implicit consent of Indian populace.British rule was not a military occupation. British military presence was miniscule compared to the vastness of the geography and population of the country. So the British were able to do rule India, because Indians implicitly allowed them to. Sections of of the Indian population, were complicit in the establishment and continuation of British rule.
- vijayr 9y ago
  India was a collection of many many smaller kingdoms when the British came to the scene. There was a whole bunch of infighting and backstabbing going on which the British happily encouraged and exploited. It is definitely amazing that they could do what they did, considering the sheer size of the country.
  - nashashmi 9y ago
    Spot on. And also to mention, in that struggle they created and brokered alliances and established themselves as the supreme power. That was their biggest contribution to the whole of India. This is not the first time it has happened. During the medieval period, and battle of fiefdoms, decentralized powers grew into one consolidated power. India was going through the same phase at the time and British, having a leg up on power consolidation, brought what they knew and profited from it.

pm90 9y ago

> And, I find it so sad that the first independent government chose to double down on the control on the economy rather than just open it all up. This is not accurate. The Indian economy was pretty open; the overwhelming bureucratic red-tape started after Indira Gandhi's nationalization program (and other such policies). India under Nehru wasn't laissez faire by any means, but neither was it Communist. You also have to see the context under which the politicians operated then. Unbridled capitalism had lead to colonialism and the World Wars and led to much oppression for workers worldwide; the Indian leaders were trying to avoid that kind of wealth aggregation and income equality.

fellellor 9y ago
I agree that the red tape hell started with Indira. But I can't agree with the bit about context. It's plain to see that inequality is considerably worse now. Only a small Elite were in any position to benefit from the liberalization and the rest have never been able to catch up. Overall, left leaning economic policies and communist influence have done enormous harm to this country.
- pm90 9y ago
  The context is a historical fact. I think you mean the motivation. And that is a historical fact as well, actually. The unfortunate fact is that the policies which India's leaders thought at the time would lead to better wealth distribution and economic growth didn't work as expected and economic growth was significantly impeded. India wasn't alone in this failure, China also suffered under the same problem, due to similar problems with a top-down command economy dominated by public sector. > It's plain to see that inequality is considerably worse now. Again, that's not an issue with the context, but with execution. And the inequality you see now is more because after the liberalization of 1990, while certain sectors and people working in them grew tremendously, others were left behind. And the tax system in India was broken, so wealth redistribution through taxation also did not happen as expected.
  - fellellor 9y ago
    The whole point I was trying to make was, rather than learn from our own history and experience, the leaders chose to keep doing the same things the British did. I look at Pre Independence India as a bunch of decentralised organizations/kingdoms/markets which were producing goods and maybe services that were sought after all over the globe. This is what made mercantilism and later colonialism attractive in the first place. Then the British established controls which promptly destroyed Indian advantages in favor of their own. These are the lessons which the post Independence governments should have carried forward. Gandhi understood these at a very deep level, and hence the satyagrahas. And the village economy model, which though unworkable, emphasized the central principle of decentralization. This understanding makes him stand out. Whereas though Nehru has to be applauded for his efforts as prime minister, time has shown that he and his family never had the deep understanding about economics and history that Gandhi did.
Alfredo123 9y ago
Nehru was mostly an egomaniac nincompoop but his daughter Indira was the one turned India into socialist hellhole it is now. She took over banks, closed down several industries, suspended democracy, nearly rewrote Indian constitution and more importantly imbibed on people's mind that their true purpose is to serve government. > Indian leaders were trying to avoid that kind of wealth aggregation and income equality. Nah. Most Indians that time were ignorant of the world.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
You also have to see the context under which the politicians operated then. Unbridled capitalism had lead to colonialism and the World Wars ... Well you might call that "context", but it looks more like socialist make-believe. I'll grant though that it does provide the narrative context (whether true or false) in which politicans were working at the time. And this can't be blamed on Indira.
- pm90 9y ago
  > Well you might call that "context", but it looks more like socialist make-believe You can call any narrative as make-believe... what's your point? > I'll grant though that it does provide the narrative context (whether true or false) in which politicans were working at the time. Again, not sure what you're disputing here. That World Wars weren't caused by unbridled capitalism? > And this can't be blamed on Indira. What can't be blamed on Indira? She nationalized most banks, airlines etc. basically snuffing out the nascent private sector and heavily regulating the scraps that were left.
- wsxcde 9y ago
  What's "make-believe" is the idea that a nation which was brutalized by 300 years of unfettered crony capitalism would choose to align itself after Independence with the very forces that destroyed it and set 1/5th of humanity back by 200 years.
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    It tries to put the square peg of imperialism into the round-hole of 20th century left-right debates. The East India company and the later British rulers did bad things because they were conquerors, and that's what conquerors do. You are right that the East India company was crony captilast* But it is no small thing that you changed the goalposts to go from the parent's "Unbridled capitalism" to "unfettered crony captialism". It was precisely the fetters that made it cronyist, since it was a state granted, privately owned monopoly. After independence, India's did not break from those forces, embraced them (in less bad form) by granting new monopolies. They were only (partially) rolled back when the '90s reforms came (partially) embraced free market principles.
mr_toad 9y ago
> Unbridled capitalism had lead to colonialism Most sources state that colonialism and the associated economic policy of mercantilism pre-date the widespread adoption of capitalism, which didn't occur until after the industrial revolution. I'd argue that the rise of nationalism was more directly the cause of both colonialism and the World Wars. Only if you ascribe to the notion that any system that isn't socialism is capitalist could you argue that capitalism led somehow to colonialism.
- fragmede 9y ago
  On a two-dimensional scale from socialism to capitalism, any move away from one is a move to another. We've yet to see what "pure" capitalism even really looks like; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations argues that competition is required for his "invisible hand" and that monopolies are bad because they reduce efficiency and choice, and impede progress, but our current strategy to prevent or break up a monopoly looks a whole lot like government regulation which is supposed to stifle innovation, not promote it!
  - mr_toad 9y ago
    A two dimensional scale is a false dichotomy. There were many economic systems in the past. Subsistence, Barter, Feudalism, Mercintalism. None of these were capitalist or socialist.
- executesorder66 9y ago
  Eh, colonialism is because of imperialism. And imperialism is a result of unbridled capitalism.[0] Some people might not have called it capitalism back then, but that's what it was. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage_of_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage...
  - mr_toad 9y ago
    Colonialism predates the Marxist notion of imperialism by 400 years. When the colonial powers started to conquer the world there was next to no capital. Not only did no one call it capitalism back then (the word had yet to be coined), but no serious scholar of economics, politics or history would call any pre-industrial economic system predominantly capitalist. And by arguing that “people didn’t call it capitalism back then”, you’re just proving my point. You’re just redefining capitalism to be the antonym of socialism.
jiraaya 9y ago
>> the overwhelming bureucratic red-tape started after Indira Gandhi's nationalization program Source?

Simulacra 9y ago

Curiously if we were to replace British with Apple in the second half of your statement, it would still be correct.

pjc50 9y ago
Apple does not yet have a military wing.
- baud147258 9y ago
  Maybe the fanboys? /s

billfruit 9y ago

There is a theory I have heard that, British cannot have held rule over India, without the implicit consent of Indian populace.British rule was not a military occupation. British military presence was miniscule compared to the vastness of the geography and population of the country. So the British were able to do rule India, because Indians implicitly allowed them to. Sections of of the Indian population, were complicit in the establishment and continuation of British rule.

vijayr 9y ago
India was a collection of many many smaller kingdoms when the British came to the scene. There was a whole bunch of infighting and backstabbing going on which the British happily encouraged and exploited. It is definitely amazing that they could do what they did, considering the sheer size of the country.
- nashashmi 9y ago
  Spot on. And also to mention, in that struggle they created and brokered alliances and established themselves as the supreme power. That was their biggest contribution to the whole of India. This is not the first time it has happened. During the medieval period, and battle of fiefdoms, decentralized powers grew into one consolidated power. India was going through the same phase at the time and British, having a leg up on power consolidation, brought what they knew and profited from it.