8 ms·
Britain stole $45T from India (2018)
- cbracketdash 6y agoThis title is misleading. This dates way back to 1765 during the Imperialism Period. Of course, such a huge sum of money will be taken from India given that Britain essentially took over India at the time. It did not happen in 2018.
- neilpanchal 6y agoUsually, the date in the title indicates the publication date of the article which is indeed – 2018.
- aurizon 6y agoThey got away with that exploitive BS with the 'colonies' - after a while, they got booted = USA revolution. India should have booted them ages before they did in 1948...
- thunkshift1 6y agoThey almost did in 1857.. a bunch of ragtag soldiers and commoners taking on the might of the British empire... it wouldve been glorious had it not failed.
- aurizon 6y agoYes, a fully free India would been far more highly developed? - perhaps. I know as a pre-WW2 kid in London, were were delighted by military comics - King of the Khyber Rifles, among many others. Based on a book, it spawned a genre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Khyber_Rifles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Khyber_Rifles
- jgowdy 6y agoI want to know how much the Romans stole from Germania. If we're going to track down every historical wrong (as long as it's a European/British/American historical wrong), and see it made right, we need to know how much the Romans stole and what it's worth in current money. Then I expect Italy to make reparations to Germany. I'm not unsympathetic or unaware of what India went through when it was occupied. Obviously imperialism is wholly unacceptable. But we seem to be revisiting historical wrongs with a particular selectiveness.
- glial 6y agoTo quote the article: > Reparations? Perhaps – although there is not enough money in all of Britain to cover the sums that Patnaik identifies. In the meantime, we can start by setting the story straight. In your world, do you see a place for this sort of historical investigation of the consequences of past actions, to learn from history?
- loceng 6y agoIt depends on if the purpose of bringing these stories to light is wielded as a weapon or as a text book.
- Imnimo 6y agoWould you rather the history be kept secret than be "wielded as a weapon"?
- damagednoob 6y agoYou do realise those aren't the only two options? What loceng is talking about is sins of the father being transferred to the children.
- Imnimo 6y agoYes, but when asked, "do you see a place for this sort of historical investigation of the consequences of past actions?" they said that the answer depends on whether it is "wielded as a weapon", which seems to imply that the answer in that case would be "no" - that if given a choice between only the options of being kept secret or being wielded as a weapon, they would prefer it be kept secret.
- thunkshift1 6y agoThats a staggering sum of money. More research is needed into quantifying how the colonialists benefitted from their colonies; its not something you read in history books.
- neilpanchal 6y agoThere is already a wealth of information out there. I am reading through "Inglorious Empire" by Shashi Tharoor [1] after a friend recommended it. It's extremely detailed, down to the exact numbers and what's more convincing is that this data cited from British sources and historical accounts, not Indian. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire
- justanotherhn 6y agoFirst of all, this is not a belief that is widely held in Britan since I've not heard anyone seriously suggest that Britains occupation of India " was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself.". This assumption is incorrect, therefore this article is not honest. Another quote that is incorrect and tantamount to a lie: > - "David Cameron asserted that British rule was a net help to India." The link this journalist added mentioned Camron saying: > "I would say that it’s a help because of the shared history, culture, the things that we share and also the contributions the Indians talk about that we’ve made. Obviously, where there are bad events, we have to remember them, be clear about them and learn from them." He said nothing about Britain being a net help for India...
- chickenmonkey 6y agoThe problem is that there still linger rose-tinted visions of the British Raj in the minds of the British public and ruling class, which blinds many from the abject cruelty that was exacted on millions of Indians. You say the assumption that Britains occupation of India " was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself." is incorrect. Yet, I hear many post-facto justifications of colonialism or minimisations of the cruelty and harms of colonialism. This revisionist history or blindness towards the actual harms of the British Raj could cause Britons to yearn for the glory of yesteryear, and could lend to support for neocolonialist programs.
- richardwhiuk 6y agoIt's not rose tinted - as a country, Britain was better of during the Raj. People are yearning for a time when we stole huge amounts from the rest of the world.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoBritain was better off in the sense that it was much more powerful than it is now. But on an individual level Britons are much better off now than they were then.
- 6y ago
- Blackstone4 6y agoI am no expert but the title appears to be incorrect. Should it not include Pakistan and Bangladesh since they were part of British India...? Pakistan is not even mentioned in the article....for me this undermines the quality of the work.
- ncmncm 6y agoPakistan and Bangladesh were part of the India that was then exploited. It would be impossible to apportion the debt between the three, which is in any case academic because none of the three get to collect on any of it. How to assess the debt for the millions very deliberately starved, as recently as by direct choice of Winston Churchill, would be hard to imagine.
- Blackstone4 6y agoYes the calculation is hard but they ought to still be recognised
- kaczordon 6y agoCurious what the benefit of all the courts, universities, and administrative agencies that the British built is in the long term(also in the 1880s 20% of Britain’s exports were to India). Or the benefit of the vehicle of its independence, the Congress Party. Perhaps the greatest gift Britain gave was uniting India against a common enemy.
- ncmncm 6y agoCourts, universities, agencies, railroads were all built using mainly local labor, as is almost always the case with occupying powers. The Romans did not build the roads, either.
- kaczordon 6y agoRight but the ideas and institutions that came from the enlightenment I think are unique, i.e. Common law is an English contribution that most democracies and former colonies benefit from.
- jelliclesfarm 6y agoIndians had education and educational institutions before the colonizers arrived. And an older history of learning and texts and arts and industry and science and technology that dates centuries before Europe had any kind of ‘enlightenment’.
- waitw00t5 6y agoThe $45T number includes a compounding 5% interest over several centuries... is that normal to do? > Patnaik identifies four distinct economic periods in colonial India from 1765 to 1938, calculates the extraction for each, and then compounds at a modest rate of interest (about 5 percent, which is lower than the market rate) from the middle of each period to the present. Certainly interest on stolen funds is also “stolen”. Usually I just see people account for inflation though. I wonder what the original number is before the interest*.
- naruvimama 6y agoThe opportunity costs would be a even bigger number.
- spinny 6y agoAl Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government. it publishes nothing besides propaganda favorable to it's masters
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- blackoil 6y agoI am not supporting repatriation but in this thread people are for absolving person /community of forefather's sins, but are OK with keeping ill-gotten gains from them.
- Veen 6y agoDo you mean "repatriation" or "reparations"? They're very different?
- dang 6y agoDiscussed at the time: New research on the cost of colonization to India - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682678 - Dec 2018 (107 comments)
- simonblack 6y agoThat's why it was called "The Jewel in the Crown". That's also why Churchill didn't care about the Japanese capturing Australia during WW2, but he couldn't allow the Japanese to take India.
- robin21 6y agoI think there is a lack of consideration of the alternative timeline without colonialism. Yes, it was brutal and many inhumane events occurred, but the assumption is that they would have arrived where we are now with a peaceful democracy and unified nation. There are many other scenarios that could have played out. The transference of knowledge and institutions is undervalued.