5 ms·

I was in India last month after being away for over 2 decades. Visited Calcutta for the very first time. Our Driver and Tour Guide at the Taj took us around the

I was in India last month after being away for over 2 decades. Visited Calcutta for the very first time. Our Driver and Tour Guide at the Taj took us around the city and told us about a lot of history about the City. At one point he said that over 1 million people live on the sidewalks (called footpaths) in Calcutta. I have seen abject poverty in India while growing up there, but not to this level. There are generations of Indians living on the sidewalks next to each other, from Grandpa to Grandson. They eat, cook, shower and sleep all in a 4 or 5 Sq Foot area. Towards the end of our trip, we visited Queen Victoria’s Memorial Hall. There was a small Museum in 1 corner of that Palace, which had photos and newspaper stories about Calcutta from the time the East India Company arrived to the time they left. There, I learned that Calcutta was the Capital of the British Raj in India for a very long time. One of the plaques in that museum gave the reasoning for the British Raj for choosing Calcutta as the Capital. Apparently Calcutta was the richest city in India when the East India company arrived. It was flush with natural resources, grains and wealth accumulated by the Rajas and Indian Kings who ruled before. By the time moved their Capital from Calcutta to Delhi and then left India few years later, they’d plunders everything from that City. Ask any Indian about Calcutta and the first thing they’ll say is how dirty and piss-broke it is. But most don’t know why it is so. I attribute the state of this once great city directly to the British Raj robbing it blind over a century or two.

pm90 8y ago
Calcutta was a tiny village when the British arrived.
- alienreborn 8y ago
  > In 1750, Calcutta had a population of 120,000 From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata
  - iguy 8y ago
    That's a century years after they arrived -- read the link!
    - newyankee 8y ago
      They became a strong force only after a few battles in 1757 and 1764 (plassey, buxar etc.) Earlier they came in the garb of traders.
iguy 8y ago
This is not correct, Calcutta was some villages where it happened to be convenient for the east india company to set up shop: "The area where the city is now located was originally inhabited by the people of three villages: Kalikata, Sutanuti and Gobindapur." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata Delhi on the other hand was a great city, many times over (and sacked, and re-built, by rules of many tongues). But it's also important to know that when we say an ancient place was rich, we mean that the kings were rich & built big palaces etc. Peasants were poor everywhere in the pre-industrial world, with variations but not enormous ones, like the difference between 500 and 1000 USD/year. When we say that a modern place is rich, we mean the average guy instead. And, sometimes, that their city is well-run and finds money to spend on public services etc. Which, in my understanding, Calcutta has not been in the last 50 years, compared to other Indian cities. However I would still bet that the median income has increased monotonically.
- justboxing 8y ago
  I guess it was the province of Bengal, not Calcutta. Bengal was India's wealthiest province at that time. See my follow up response to this thread.
- ganeshkrishnan 8y ago
  Nope, op is correct. One rule of the thumb in India is that closer the area is to British rule, the more poor and plundered it is. Auroville in South was plundered and the colonists burnt the forests around it leaving it completely barren. It was recently rebuilt and is still work in progress to return it back to the original state
justboxing 8y ago
HN is not letting me edit, so here's the source: [ From the Museum Plaque / Card]. This is a photo I took when I was there. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theShiva/public-domain/master/hackernews/bengal-riches-province-1793.JPG https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theShiva/public-domain/mas... The only thing incorrect in my original statement was, it was the province of Bengal (now the state?), not Calcutta. Please read this entire thing. I've typed out the text in the photo verbatin. Last line says it all. The Colonial Impact Why did the British make Bengal their chief focus, and Calcutta their Capital? Bengal was India's wealthiest province, for her granary, rich in muslin, silk yarn, and salt petre, products which European trading companies were particularly interested in. Profits were high, and the East India Company saw it as a promising area to invest in. They were proved right. By the mid-18th century, Bengal is playing a lead role in commerce., It provides the finances to sustain an expanding colonial state, especially after the Permanent Settlement of Bengal, revenue in 1793. By 1856-7 Bengal alone is contributing 44% of the total revenue from British India. This is 260% more than Bombay. These figures tell us that Bengal is colonial India's most exploited region. Calcutta flourishes as a typical colonial city, linking the hinterland of primary production with plantations and mining resources, and exporting everything for the benefit of an imperial economy witch enriches Britain at Bengal's cost.
- iguy 8y ago
  Thanks. But again, beware of the two meanings of rich/poor. > "India's wealthiest province, ... rich in muslin, silk yarn" i.e. rich in luxury goods, crafts serving the 1%. That's what the company was after, because their entire shipping capacity was like a few modern trucks per year, so only super-valuable goods made sense. (And I think you'll find that the top 1% of Bengalis still live pretty well.) > "abject poverty ... generations of Indians living on the sidewalks" i.e. the poorest people. That they were poor in 1650 too wasn't really worth writing down: they were peasants, peasants were poor. That other provinces contributed so little tax in 1850s is really an indication of how little ruling was going on. Sure they got to paint the whole map pink & keep the french out, but (at that time) the company was only a few thousand people. They weren't exactly overseeing the 5-year plan in every village. I think I've been to the same museum, BTW. They had a surprisingly honest section about literature, pointing out that Bengali was the first indian language in which serious writing in the vernacular took off. And this was a blending, I'm told you see poems borrowing from oral & scriptural traditions but written in rhyming schemes taken from english poetry of the time.
drieddust 8y ago
In some sense British actually never left. British ensured the succession to a loyal dynasty which kept making the country poorer by faux socialism and lack of governance skills until Mr. PV Narasimha Rao appeared on the scene and actually did something to gently nudge India onto global stage. Ironically credit still went to the family and he was sidelined as soon as new prince was ready to take over the reign.

pm90 8y ago

Calcutta was a tiny village when the British arrived.

alienreborn 8y ago
> In 1750, Calcutta had a population of 120,000 From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata
- iguy 8y ago
  That's a century years after they arrived -- read the link!
  - newyankee 8y ago
    They became a strong force only after a few battles in 1757 and 1764 (plassey, buxar etc.) Earlier they came in the garb of traders.

iguy 8y ago

This is not correct, Calcutta was some villages where it happened to be convenient for the east india company to set up shop: "The area where the city is now located was originally inhabited by the people of three villages: Kalikata, Sutanuti and Gobindapur." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kolkata Delhi on the other hand was a great city, many times over (and sacked, and re-built, by rules of many tongues). But it's also important to know that when we say an ancient place was rich, we mean that the kings were rich & built big palaces etc. Peasants were poor everywhere in the pre-industrial world, with variations but not enormous ones, like the difference between 500 and 1000 USD/year. When we say that a modern place is rich, we mean the average guy instead. And, sometimes, that their city is well-run and finds money to spend on public services etc. Which, in my understanding, Calcutta has not been in the last 50 years, compared to other Indian cities. However I would still bet that the median income has increased monotonically.

justboxing 8y ago
I guess it was the province of Bengal, not Calcutta. Bengal was India's wealthiest province at that time. See my follow up response to this thread.
ganeshkrishnan 8y ago
Nope, op is correct. One rule of the thumb in India is that closer the area is to British rule, the more poor and plundered it is. Auroville in South was plundered and the colonists burnt the forests around it leaving it completely barren. It was recently rebuilt and is still work in progress to return it back to the original state

justboxing 8y ago

HN is not letting me edit, so here's the source: [ From the Museum Plaque / Card]. This is a photo I took when I was there. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theShiva/public-domain/master/hackernews/bengal-riches-province-1793.JPG https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theShiva/public-domain/mas... The only thing incorrect in my original statement was, it was the province of Bengal (now the state?), not Calcutta. Please read this entire thing. I've typed out the text in the photo verbatin. Last line says it all. The Colonial Impact Why did the British make Bengal their chief focus, and Calcutta their Capital? Bengal was India's wealthiest province, for her granary, rich in muslin, silk yarn, and salt petre, products which European trading companies were particularly interested in. Profits were high, and the East India Company saw it as a promising area to invest in. They were proved right. By the mid-18th century, Bengal is playing a lead role in commerce., It provides the finances to sustain an expanding colonial state, especially after the Permanent Settlement of Bengal, revenue in 1793. By 1856-7 Bengal alone is contributing 44% of the total revenue from British India. This is 260% more than Bombay. These figures tell us that Bengal is colonial India's most exploited region. Calcutta flourishes as a typical colonial city, linking the hinterland of primary production with plantations and mining resources, and exporting everything for the benefit of an imperial economy witch enriches Britain at Bengal's cost.

iguy 8y ago
Thanks. But again, beware of the two meanings of rich/poor. > "India's wealthiest province, ... rich in muslin, silk yarn" i.e. rich in luxury goods, crafts serving the 1%. That's what the company was after, because their entire shipping capacity was like a few modern trucks per year, so only super-valuable goods made sense. (And I think you'll find that the top 1% of Bengalis still live pretty well.) > "abject poverty ... generations of Indians living on the sidewalks" i.e. the poorest people. That they were poor in 1650 too wasn't really worth writing down: they were peasants, peasants were poor. That other provinces contributed so little tax in 1850s is really an indication of how little ruling was going on. Sure they got to paint the whole map pink & keep the french out, but (at that time) the company was only a few thousand people. They weren't exactly overseeing the 5-year plan in every village. I think I've been to the same museum, BTW. They had a surprisingly honest section about literature, pointing out that Bengali was the first indian language in which serious writing in the vernacular took off. And this was a blending, I'm told you see poems borrowing from oral & scriptural traditions but written in rhyming schemes taken from english poetry of the time.

drieddust 8y ago

In some sense British actually never left. British ensured the succession to a loyal dynasty which kept making the country poorer by faux socialism and lack of governance skills until Mr. PV Narasimha Rao appeared on the scene and actually did something to gently nudge India onto global stage. Ironically credit still went to the family and he was sidelined as soon as new prince was ready to take over the reign.