32 ms·

This simply isn't true. They did not stagnate for no reason, they were purposefully exploited by the British (and French), first by the East India Company and t

This simply isn't true. They did not stagnate for no reason, they were purposefully exploited by the British (and French), first by the East India Company and then by the government itself.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. The very obvious example is China that was basically "punched" into modernising (including by Japan that had modernised earlier). But the same goes for India which might not even exist as a country today without the reaction to British invasion. Japan is actually a good example of that modernisation. Do you think this would have happened endemically in the Indian subcontinent? Japan is quite unique in that respect as it happened very early and profoundly to the point it became an "equal" to Western powers in the early 20th century (which also demonstrates that it was possible to achieve)
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  > I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. This is where I disagree. Because it very much was a loss of wealth [0]. As for growth, would the East India Company or the British empire after it allow India to grow to a degree they could challenge them or gain independence? We know that they didn't, and we know they fought to suppress rebellions, pit local factions against each other, and hold on to power over the region for as long as possible. > They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know the counterfactual. But what we do know is that they were not "modernized" by Britain out of the goodness of their heart. And it was not done in a way that had the well being of Indians as the primary concern, but that of Britain. [0]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-st...
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    You're avoiding the question because it destroys your victimhood narrative... For a small island off continental Europe to control the whole of the Indian subcontinent it means a huge gap in strength and development. A bit like when the Romans conquered the Mediterranean and Europe. This needs not hurt feelings or make one look for a narrative to blame others. Instead, it should trigger change. It happened in Japan, China, and India which is now developing fast and will soon be a top global power.

This simply isn't true. They did not stagnate for no reason, they were purposefully exploited by the British (and French), first by the East India Company and then by the government itself.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. The very obvious example is China that was basically "punched" into modernising (including by Japan that had modernised earlier). But the same goes for India which might not even exist as a country today without the reaction to British invasion. Japan is actually a good example of that modernisation. Do you think this would have happened endemically in the Indian subcontinent? Japan is quite unique in that respect as it happened very early and profoundly to the point it became an "equal" to Western powers in the early 20th century (which also demonstrates that it was possible to achieve)

_aavaa_ 2y ago
> I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. This is where I disagree. Because it very much was a loss of wealth [0]. As for growth, would the East India Company or the British empire after it allow India to grow to a degree they could challenge them or gain independence? We know that they didn't, and we know they fought to suppress rebellions, pit local factions against each other, and hold on to power over the region for as long as possible. > They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know the counterfactual. But what we do know is that they were not "modernized" by Britain out of the goodness of their heart. And it was not done in a way that had the well being of Indians as the primary concern, but that of Britain. [0]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-st...
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  You're avoiding the question because it destroys your victimhood narrative... For a small island off continental Europe to control the whole of the Indian subcontinent it means a huge gap in strength and development. A bit like when the Romans conquered the Mediterranean and Europe. This needs not hurt feelings or make one look for a narrative to blame others. Instead, it should trigger change. It happened in Japan, China, and India which is now developing fast and will soon be a top global power.