4 ms·

A simple statistic: Before the British showed up, Indian GDP was 15 to 20% of world GDP. When they left its was 1.5 to 3% of world GDP. Something tells me the c

by a11r 8y ago

A simple statistic: Before the British showed up, Indian GDP was 15 to 20% of world GDP. When they left its was 1.5 to 3% of world GDP. Something tells me the colonial experience might have something to do with it.

iguy 8y ago
No this is nonsense. That relative decline was because the pie grew... and grew spectacularly, for the first time in history, for reasons that had next to nothing to do with some colonial adventure.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  The pie grew and india was intentionally prevented from partaking in the pie by the british. Ignoring the mass famines and the humanitarian destruction caused by the british empire in india, the greatest damage inflicted on india was its lack of industrialization. Britain simply prevented india from industrializing until they were kicked out in 1947. Britain and the US really industrialized in the mid 1800s ( although britain loves to pretend it did in the 1700s ). Parts of europe followed soon after. Japan industrialized in the late 1800s. India ( and china ) industrialized after ww2 - india much more slowly than china due to its democratic and bureaucratic baggage. For more than 100 years, india was prevented from industrializing by britain. You can't ignore that significant opportunity cost. Also, you are wrong when you say colonial "adventure" had nothing to do with industrialization. Excess capital and excess resources are the prerequisites for national industrialization. British industrialization was funded by opium money from china and resources from india. The need for resources is why japan and germany sought to create empires for themselves. It was a necessity to industrialize. Having said that, I don't think you can honestly calculate the costs of colonization because there are so many factors involved. Would india have been able to follow meiji japan's or even mao's china's example and industrialize? We can say that india lost a lot due to british imperialism, but I doubt we'll ever know exactly how much. At best, it's just a guess.
  - graeme 8y ago
    How does this argument apply to European countries that had no colonies, such as Switzerland? Japan is a bit of an aberration. It was the only non-western country to industrialize early. Now, India might have done so also, had it somehow avoided industrialization yet maintained contact with industrializing countries. But, a counterpoint to this is that India basically didn't industrialize after independence either. Only when the "License Raj" was done away with several decades later did India start to grow quickly. (In other words, mere absensce of colonization was not sufficient for growth)
    - shripadk 8y ago
      Don't forget to also take into account population difference between India and Japan and the difference in land area. Also, don't forget that one of the gravest sins committed by British was to Partition India into two halves on the basis of Religion which caused millions to be displaced and millions more to die in communal clashes. By partitioning India on the basis of Religion resources were distributed unevenly. Even to this day, both halves of the once Undivided India are fighting over water resources. Many in India believe it was a deliberate ploy to keep always keep disharmony in India even after Independence. India never achieved true Independence for a really long time.
  - iguy 8y ago
    Obviously this is a huge subject. I'm not sure it's so clear that British rule slowed Indian industrialisation... I guess answering that requires a counterfactual, and as you say post-1850s Japan is the best-case one. But do note that this was not a kind and gentle democracy... even if its rulers spoke the same language. (And, of course, the fact that there was a same-language to speak indicates that it was long a united country, in a way that India was not.) But something like pre-1850s hermit kingdom Japan is another possibility. And the hermit kingdon's share of the world's pie would have declined greatly, too, with nobody to blame. Certainly lots of cotton mills got built in the late 19th C, in both Japan and India, and all using the same off-the-shelf technology, and often the same capital. There's lots of interesting detailed work comparing them, and tracking things over the decades. And while I'm not an expert, I don't think it supports any very simple ideas of good guys / bad guys. For example, here's a link: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/

by a11r 8y ago

iguy 8y ago

No this is nonsense. That relative decline was because the pie grew... and grew spectacularly, for the first time in history, for reasons that had next to nothing to do with some colonial adventure.

porpoisely 8y ago
The pie grew and india was intentionally prevented from partaking in the pie by the british. Ignoring the mass famines and the humanitarian destruction caused by the british empire in india, the greatest damage inflicted on india was its lack of industrialization. Britain simply prevented india from industrializing until they were kicked out in 1947. Britain and the US really industrialized in the mid 1800s ( although britain loves to pretend it did in the 1700s ). Parts of europe followed soon after. Japan industrialized in the late 1800s. India ( and china ) industrialized after ww2 - india much more slowly than china due to its democratic and bureaucratic baggage. For more than 100 years, india was prevented from industrializing by britain. You can't ignore that significant opportunity cost. Also, you are wrong when you say colonial "adventure" had nothing to do with industrialization. Excess capital and excess resources are the prerequisites for national industrialization. British industrialization was funded by opium money from china and resources from india. The need for resources is why japan and germany sought to create empires for themselves. It was a necessity to industrialize. Having said that, I don't think you can honestly calculate the costs of colonization because there are so many factors involved. Would india have been able to follow meiji japan's or even mao's china's example and industrialize? We can say that india lost a lot due to british imperialism, but I doubt we'll ever know exactly how much. At best, it's just a guess.
- graeme 8y ago
  How does this argument apply to European countries that had no colonies, such as Switzerland? Japan is a bit of an aberration. It was the only non-western country to industrialize early. Now, India might have done so also, had it somehow avoided industrialization yet maintained contact with industrializing countries. But, a counterpoint to this is that India basically didn't industrialize after independence either. Only when the "License Raj" was done away with several decades later did India start to grow quickly. (In other words, mere absensce of colonization was not sufficient for growth)
  - shripadk 8y ago
    Don't forget to also take into account population difference between India and Japan and the difference in land area. Also, don't forget that one of the gravest sins committed by British was to Partition India into two halves on the basis of Religion which caused millions to be displaced and millions more to die in communal clashes. By partitioning India on the basis of Religion resources were distributed unevenly. Even to this day, both halves of the once Undivided India are fighting over water resources. Many in India believe it was a deliberate ploy to keep always keep disharmony in India even after Independence. India never achieved true Independence for a really long time.
- iguy 8y ago
  Obviously this is a huge subject. I'm not sure it's so clear that British rule slowed Indian industrialisation... I guess answering that requires a counterfactual, and as you say post-1850s Japan is the best-case one. But do note that this was not a kind and gentle democracy... even if its rulers spoke the same language. (And, of course, the fact that there was a same-language to speak indicates that it was long a united country, in a way that India was not.) But something like pre-1850s hermit kingdom Japan is another possibility. And the hermit kingdon's share of the world's pie would have declined greatly, too, with nobody to blame. Certainly lots of cotton mills got built in the late 19th C, in both Japan and India, and all using the same off-the-shelf technology, and often the same capital. There's lots of interesting detailed work comparing them, and tracking things over the decades. And while I'm not an expert, I don't think it supports any very simple ideas of good guys / bad guys. For example, here's a link: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/