5 ms·

India was one of the richest countries in the world, if not the richest before the East India company and Islamic, Dutch and British invasions. It used clay pot

India was one of the richest countries in the world, if not the richest before the East India company and Islamic, Dutch and British invasions. It used clay pots, not plastics and its population of 200 milloin plus had plenty of fertile land to develop agriculture and cotton - the oil of the time. It was the land that gave the world yoga, Ayurveda and the numerical system. Not to mention Indian food. Britain called it the jewel in the crown for this reason, no other country gave it more wealth than India. You could argue that the British are incredibly innefficient in one regard that they survived it's meagre population of 10 million people off the back of this and made them wealthy whilst making a larger country impoverished. India didn't need the industrial revolution, Britain did. India had natural leaf plates, Britain's and west gave it an industry that it now has to rely on which is driven by coal production and climate change driving industries. What a mess

nextos 7y ago
No idea why this is getting downvoted, as it presents a historically correct fact. India's GDP % before the British invasion was huge: https://www.quora.com/How-much-was-Indias-GDP-before-the-British-rule https://www.quora.com/How-much-was-Indias-GDP-before-the-Bri...
- dahdum 7y ago
  Probably because it’s a bit misleading as your link shows. GDP per capita was low everywhere, barely above subsistence. Their % dropped when others started growing rapidly.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jolotriage 7y ago
    Nope, India/China's GDP dropped upon invasion and decimation of trade routes by the Western countries with the GDP gain. People underestimate how key the US was to the opium trade in China. The US was a bigger trader than the UK/Germany/France combined at one point.
    - dahdum 7y ago
      The data linked doesn’t indicate that was the primary reason, there is a small dip in GDP per capita (-10%?) for India/China but it was basically flat. Looks like before industrialization the richest countries were only moderately better off. Once it began to take off that gap became enormous.
      - jolotriage 7y ago
        Yes the data linked is limited in scope.
- thbr99 7y ago
  Downvoted because the descendants of those colonialists are abundant in HN and they do not want to owe any reparations ? https://www.englishspeecheschannel.com/english-speeches/shashi-tharoor-speech/ https://www.englishspeecheschannel.com/english-speeches/shas...
  - pm90 7y ago
    I’ve certainly noticed an abundance of vitriol against anyone who mentions the misdeeds of the British Empire, of which there are many. There are also a bunch of Empire apologists that will pop up every now and then.
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    Are there many people like that ? PS : direct link to the talk in the (spam filled) website https://youtu.be/_S955fkSZd8 https://youtu.be/_S955fkSZd8
- screye 7y ago
  While the parent comment is heated and not factually incorrect, the reason for the down-votes has to do with the willful ignorance of the west towards some of the worst atrocities committed by places from where it derives its value systems from. The Nazis were the bad guys and they are gone. The Soviets and USSR were the baddies after, and they are gone. The west and esp. US+UK pride themselves in never having been that evil. In the mean time, the EIC committed atrocities on a scale rivaling those exact boogeymen of the West. Accepting the crimes of the EIC, would have them facing some of the worst Hypocrisy of their society, and that isn't the most fun thing.
saagarjha 7y ago
> It used clay pots, not plastics and its population of 200 milloin plus had plenty of fertile land to develop agriculture and cotton - the oil of the time. It's not like Europe was using it either: the development of what we'd call plastic happened largely during the late 19th century leading into the 20th century.
- pm90 7y ago
  The point being made is that systems existed for the manufacture of consumer goods required by millions of people without the need for modern fossil fuel based technologies that are wrecking the planet. On a first glance, it seems like a valid point to me.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    They exist now; kulhars were mandated by a previous railways minister but I'm not sure about their present uptake
jolotriage 7y ago
He's right about India being the richest, it's estimated that all together the British stole $45 trillion in wealth from India. I imagine the amount stolen from China is of similar magnitude. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/agrarian-and-other-histories/9789382381952 https://cup.columbia.edu/book/agrarian-and-other-histories/9...
- rramadass 7y ago
  Summary Articles on this rapacious thievery; https://www.livemint.com/Companies/HNZA71LNVNNVXQ1eaIKu6M/British-Raj-siphoned-out-45-trillion-from-India-Utsa-Patna.html https://www.livemint.com/Companies/HNZA71LNVNNVXQ1eaIKu6M/Br... https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-t...
tayleeganj 7y ago
mentioning yoga ayurveda and "Islamic invasion" clearly gives you away as a Hindu nationalist. including Islamic "invasion" makes no sense here. The first muslim armies entered the subcontinent in like 800, no comparison to Europeans. And India only gained status after its Muslim rule.
- Ar-Curunir 7y ago
  Indian civilization is dates back to over 3000 years before Muslim rule... It had "status" long before Mahmud of Ghazni or the Delhi Sultanate.
- rramadass 7y ago
  You are trying to buildup contentious straw-men. As pointed out, India's history and glory predates Muslims and Islam by thousands of years. The difference between "Islamic Invasion" and the "British Invasion" was that the former (for all its negatives) ultimately became part of Indian society and contributed to it while the British systematically siphoned off all resources from India to their land to the detriment of the local populace. Millions died, Millions more were reduced to poverty with no way to build themselves up and the direct result can still be seen in today's India. PS: Read the books and articles that i have linked to in this thread for some more info.
- sbmthakur 7y ago
  Yoga and Ayurveda are still relevant in many parts of the world and are not just specific to Hindu Nationalists. While the term "Islamic invasion" is not exactly correct, there is a dedicated Wiki page for Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian... Since we are talking semantics seriously, even the British didn't "invade" India, they colonized it.
- shripadk 7y ago
  > And India only gained status after its Muslim rule I call big bullshit on this one. India had status on its own right. It was called Bharat, and before that Aryavarta and before that Jambudweepa. One of the many names of Ancient India. Islam did not even exist during this time. Islamic invasion happened purely because of India's status. The objective was three fold: Destroy idols, monuments and temples, rape the women and plunder the wealth. Many were converted by force and many sacrificed their lives fighting. Read the haunting stories of Hindu Kush and why it is called that and you will get your answers. Visit the temples that lie in ruin in various parts of India, the most famous site being Hampi of erstwhile Vijayanagara Empire that was completely destroyed due to invasions. Do not even dare try to whitewash this genocide of Hindus and Hindu culture by giving it a "status". There is no status that can be given to massacres carried out to destroy a civilization. What happened to Hindus during the Islamic rule was worse than what happened to Jews during the Nazi regime. All Abrahamic religions are modern compared to Sanathan Dharma which is one of the last surviving Ancient civilization. Most of the other civilizations either perished on their own or were destroyed systematically by Abrahamic religions. These are recorded facts. Not recorded by Hindus but by those who committed the atrocities. From Genghis Khan, to Aurangzeb all the way to the British (Bengal Famine) and Portuguese (Goa Inquisition). Everyone committed grave atrocities on Hindus for which there hasn't even been recognition let alone an apology. Yet Hindus did not retaliate in kind. So I call bullshit on everything you just uttered. This is not "Hindu Nationalism". This is facts. And facts hurt.

nextos 7y ago

No idea why this is getting downvoted, as it presents a historically correct fact. India's GDP % before the British invasion was huge: https://www.quora.com/How-much-was-Indias-GDP-before-the-British-rule https://www.quora.com/How-much-was-Indias-GDP-before-the-Bri...

dahdum 7y ago
Probably because it’s a bit misleading as your link shows. GDP per capita was low everywhere, barely above subsistence. Their % dropped when others started growing rapidly.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jolotriage 7y ago
  Nope, India/China's GDP dropped upon invasion and decimation of trade routes by the Western countries with the GDP gain. People underestimate how key the US was to the opium trade in China. The US was a bigger trader than the UK/Germany/France combined at one point.
  - dahdum 7y ago
    The data linked doesn’t indicate that was the primary reason, there is a small dip in GDP per capita (-10%?) for India/China but it was basically flat. Looks like before industrialization the richest countries were only moderately better off. Once it began to take off that gap became enormous.
    - jolotriage 7y ago
      Yes the data linked is limited in scope.
thbr99 7y ago
Downvoted because the descendants of those colonialists are abundant in HN and they do not want to owe any reparations ? https://www.englishspeecheschannel.com/english-speeches/shashi-tharoor-speech/ https://www.englishspeecheschannel.com/english-speeches/shas...
- pm90 7y ago
  I’ve certainly noticed an abundance of vitriol against anyone who mentions the misdeeds of the British Empire, of which there are many. There are also a bunch of Empire apologists that will pop up every now and then.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  Are there many people like that ? PS : direct link to the talk in the (spam filled) website https://youtu.be/_S955fkSZd8 https://youtu.be/_S955fkSZd8
screye 7y ago
While the parent comment is heated and not factually incorrect, the reason for the down-votes has to do with the willful ignorance of the west towards some of the worst atrocities committed by places from where it derives its value systems from. The Nazis were the bad guys and they are gone. The Soviets and USSR were the baddies after, and they are gone. The west and esp. US+UK pride themselves in never having been that evil. In the mean time, the EIC committed atrocities on a scale rivaling those exact boogeymen of the West. Accepting the crimes of the EIC, would have them facing some of the worst Hypocrisy of their society, and that isn't the most fun thing.

saagarjha 7y ago

> It used clay pots, not plastics and its population of 200 milloin plus had plenty of fertile land to develop agriculture and cotton - the oil of the time. It's not like Europe was using it either: the development of what we'd call plastic happened largely during the late 19th century leading into the 20th century.

pm90 7y ago
The point being made is that systems existed for the manufacture of consumer goods required by millions of people without the need for modern fossil fuel based technologies that are wrecking the planet. On a first glance, it seems like a valid point to me.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  They exist now; kulhars were mandated by a previous railways minister but I'm not sure about their present uptake

jolotriage 7y ago

He's right about India being the richest, it's estimated that all together the British stole $45 trillion in wealth from India. I imagine the amount stolen from China is of similar magnitude. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/agrarian-and-other-histories/9789382381952 https://cup.columbia.edu/book/agrarian-and-other-histories/9...

rramadass 7y ago
Summary Articles on this rapacious thievery; https://www.livemint.com/Companies/HNZA71LNVNNVXQ1eaIKu6M/British-Raj-siphoned-out-45-trillion-from-India-Utsa-Patna.html https://www.livemint.com/Companies/HNZA71LNVNNVXQ1eaIKu6M/Br... https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-t...

tayleeganj 7y ago

mentioning yoga ayurveda and "Islamic invasion" clearly gives you away as a Hindu nationalist. including Islamic "invasion" makes no sense here. The first muslim armies entered the subcontinent in like 800, no comparison to Europeans. And India only gained status after its Muslim rule.

Ar-Curunir 7y ago
Indian civilization is dates back to over 3000 years before Muslim rule... It had "status" long before Mahmud of Ghazni or the Delhi Sultanate.
rramadass 7y ago
You are trying to buildup contentious straw-men. As pointed out, India's history and glory predates Muslims and Islam by thousands of years. The difference between "Islamic Invasion" and the "British Invasion" was that the former (for all its negatives) ultimately became part of Indian society and contributed to it while the British systematically siphoned off all resources from India to their land to the detriment of the local populace. Millions died, Millions more were reduced to poverty with no way to build themselves up and the direct result can still be seen in today's India. PS: Read the books and articles that i have linked to in this thread for some more info.
sbmthakur 7y ago
Yoga and Ayurveda are still relevant in many parts of the world and are not just specific to Hindu Nationalists. While the term "Islamic invasion" is not exactly correct, there is a dedicated Wiki page for Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian... Since we are talking semantics seriously, even the British didn't "invade" India, they colonized it.
shripadk 7y ago
> And India only gained status after its Muslim rule I call big bullshit on this one. India had status on its own right. It was called Bharat, and before that Aryavarta and before that Jambudweepa. One of the many names of Ancient India. Islam did not even exist during this time. Islamic invasion happened purely because of India's status. The objective was three fold: Destroy idols, monuments and temples, rape the women and plunder the wealth. Many were converted by force and many sacrificed their lives fighting. Read the haunting stories of Hindu Kush and why it is called that and you will get your answers. Visit the temples that lie in ruin in various parts of India, the most famous site being Hampi of erstwhile Vijayanagara Empire that was completely destroyed due to invasions. Do not even dare try to whitewash this genocide of Hindus and Hindu culture by giving it a "status". There is no status that can be given to massacres carried out to destroy a civilization. What happened to Hindus during the Islamic rule was worse than what happened to Jews during the Nazi regime. All Abrahamic religions are modern compared to Sanathan Dharma which is one of the last surviving Ancient civilization. Most of the other civilizations either perished on their own or were destroyed systematically by Abrahamic religions. These are recorded facts. Not recorded by Hindus but by those who committed the atrocities. From Genghis Khan, to Aurangzeb all the way to the British (Bengal Famine) and Portuguese (Goa Inquisition). Everyone committed grave atrocities on Hindus for which there hasn't even been recognition let alone an apology. Yet Hindus did not retaliate in kind. So I call bullshit on everything you just uttered. This is not "Hindu Nationalism". This is facts. And facts hurt.