5 ms·

There was no explicit deindustrialization of India, the term is non sensical and subject to debate even amongst the postcolonial academics who tried to impose i

There was no explicit deindustrialization of India, the term is non sensical and subject to debate even amongst the postcolonial academics who tried to impose it. There was no to little industrialisation of India. That’s very different. It didn’t escape you that the main reason India share of global GDP fell is the industrial revolution in the West leading to drastic production increase and not India producing less. The textile industry died because it failed to mechanise (and yes Britain had no interest in doing it). The situation was similar in Singapore - a country with no natural resources- and China. Yet they somehow managed to become economic power in the 20th century. I don’t doubt India is going to manage to succeed at some point. It currently is but systematically looking for excuses doesn’t help.

lenkite 1y ago
Colonial Britain carried out a well-documented and deliberate de-industrialization of India through trade policy, laws and overwhelming harsh taxes. This is very well-known history - you can reference sources online in Wikipedia and other books to educate yourself. Nobody is looking for excuses. I merely state basic facts - China and India had very different starting points. It is also well-known that China has far better mineral wealth than India due to both natural abundance and no colonial over-exploitation. If you wish sources and references, I can provide them, but I believe you can do this research yourself - this is arguing basic historical facts which are easily found. https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/gdcebookspublic.2005616343 https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/gdcebookspublic.2005616343 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-industrialisation_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-industrialisation_of_India