What's new

41% of Indians think India will lead world economy

I found it funny how all these Asian "tigers" cried when US fed announced they will cancel QE.

Why should the Indian Markets worry about the US QE tapering hype??? Now the very same Asian tigers are very much prepared for the same. A large part of the recent rally in the Indian markets, which saw the Sensex breaking all records, was driven by foreign investors. A tapering of QE means reversal in the trend. RBI has taken proactive measures, like by hiking the repo rate, to create a cushion. In fact, elections seem to topping analysts' charts as far as market sentiment is concerned - Amidst chances of QE tapering next year, big domestic event to unfold would be general election results, which may give big sentimental boost to the markets on a favourable outcome.

#Another reason for the markets to not worry about QE tapering is that the recent data from the US was largely due to inventory build-up, and the consumer story is yet to come in the picture. There's been a significant inventory build-up, which has led to this kind of numbers that surprised the market on the upside, coming in at 2.8% of the GDP. Many believe that this will probably get softer as we progress. So, at this point of time, although the market is worried that this kind of a strong data print might lead to QE tapering coming earlier than expected, I do not think so...

You were never one country before the British came, how can you expect to have the entire subcontinent to yourself as one country? Civil war would have erupted if there was no partition. And the partition merely created a separate country, it has no ground for comparison with a country's social-economic policy. To draw a parallel between the partition and Mao's policy is as good as comparing apple with orange. Using the British partition as an excuse for India's slow development is as valid as crediting the British for Singapore's rapid economic growth.

I am fed up repeatedly hearing the totally illogical, stupid argument some people put forward saying ‘It was the british who created a united India, and before the british came, there was no concept of India at all!”

Forget uniting, the British actually divided India into three pieces before they left in 1947!

Let’s start with the very basics of History:-

In 1492 Columbus set out to discover a sea route to which place? India, right? And when was this? more than 100 years before British even entered India. It was not any particular kingdom of India that Columbus was targeting. It was INDIA ITSELF! That is the reason, when he mistook America to be India, he called the natives of America as ‘Red Indians’.

Entire Europe was trading for silk, gold, spices, diamonds and what not with India via the land route of Constantinople till 1453. In 1453 Muslims captured Constantinople and blocked the trade route to India. Europeans were so dependent on India for the trade that they set out to discover an alternate sea route to India. That was how all the sailors like Columbus, Bartholomew Diaz, Vasco da gama all started their voyages in search of a sea route to India.

The Europeans then were so backward in science that they refused funding to Columbus because entire Europe at that time was of the view that Earth was flat!! So they thought columbus would fall down the earth if he took the reverse sea route to find India! More than a 1000 years before Columbus, Aryabhatta in India had already proved what thousands of years old vedas had said, that Earth is Round not flat.

Note that it was the not the Indians who became desperate to discover a sea route to Europe. It was the other way round....

The political picture in pre-British India was that parts of India were ruled by different Kings called the Maharaja, and would report to the strongest of all who would be the ruler of entire Indian subcontinent and was called the Chakravarti. Chakravarti means the turner of the wheel, implying history repeats itself!

Any Maharaja (who ruled a part of India) can become a Chakravarti (ruler of entire India) if all other Maharajas bow down to his power. Maharajas who ruled under a Chakravarti were called Samanta Rajas. Samanta Rajas would pay annual tax to the Chakravarti.

Some of the Chakravartis who ruled entire India (which included present India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) were Ashoka, Ikshvaku, Shibi, Bindusara, Adinath, Shanthinath, Bharatha (After whom India was named as Bharat), etc
So it was not the british who united India for the first time.

The ancient Mauryan Empire of India spread even beyond Baluchistan in present Pakistan and Kandhahar in present Afghanistan !

#British did not create India, India existed long before they arrived. Nor did they unite India for the first time, many chakravartis ruled united India much before them. British only divided India into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh before they left India. Of course some greedy Indian politicians from Congress like Nehru were also responsible for India’s partition. If Nehru had agreed to make Jinna the prime minister of India, there would have been no partition. Just two months before partition of India, Gandhi had said that ‘India will be partitioned only over my dead body’!

Source(s):- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1497degama.html
dagamma.HTM
Vedic period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After two centuries of colonialism in India, the British Labour government agreed to a speedy independence of India after 1945. But conflict between Hindu and Muslim nationalists led to murderous clashes between the two communities in 1946. When it became clear that the Muslim League would accept nothing less than an independent Pakistan, India’s last viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, proposed partition. Both sides accepted, and at the “stroke of midnight” on August 14, 1947, one fifth of humanity gained political independence.

Yet independence through partition brought tragedy. In the weeks afterwards, communal strife exploded into an orgy of massacres and mass expulsions. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Muslims were slaughtered, and an estimated five million made refugees. Indian Congress Party leaders were completely powerless to stop the violence. “What is there to celebrate?” exclaimed Gandhi in reference to the much-sought independence; “I see nothing but rivers of blood.” In January 1948, Gandhi himself was gunned down by a Hindu fanatic who believed that he was too lenient on Muslims.

After the ordeal of independence, relations between India and Pakistan remain tense to this day. Fighting over the disputed area of Kashmir continued until 1949, and broke out again in 1965-1966, 1971, and 1999. What makes the Indo-Pakistani conflict even more dangerous is that both sides contain nuclear weapons. With the possibility that Pakistan might become a failed state, there is a good chance of a major genocide erupting in the twenty-first century.

The Economy of India under the British Raj describes the economy of India during the years of the British Raj from 1750s to 1947. During this period, the Indian economy essentially remained stagnant, growing at the same rate (1%) as the population.
#The fall of the Rupee - After its victory in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), Germany extracted a huge indemnity from France of £200,000,000, and then moved to join Britain on a gold standard for currency. France, the US and other industrialising countries followed Germany in adopting a gold standard throughout the 1870s. At the same time, countries, such as Japan, which did not have the necessary access to gold or those, such as India, which were subject to imperial policies that determined that they did not move to a gold standard, remained mostly on a silver standard. A huge divide between silver-based and gold-based economies resulted. The worst affected were economies with a silver standard that traded mainly with economies with a gold standard. With discovery of more and more silver reserves, those currencies based on gold continued to rise in value and those based on silver were declining due to demonetisation of silver. For India which carried out most of its trade with gold based countries, especially Britain, the impact of this shift was profound. As the price of silver continued to fall, so too did the exchange value of the rupee, when measured against sterling.

Source:- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#The absence of industrialisation during the colonial period - Historians have questioned why India did not undergo industrialisation in the nineteenth century in the way that Britain did. In the seventeenth century, India was a relatively urbanised and commercialised nation with a buoyant export trade, devoted largely to cotton textiles, but also including silk, spices, and rice. By the end of the century, India was the world’s main producer of cotton textiles and had a substantial export trade to Britain, as well as many other European countries, via the East India Company. Yet as British cotton industry underwent a technological revolution in the late eighteenth century, the Indian industry stagnated, and industrialisation in India was delayed until the twentieth century. Historians have suggested that this was because India was still a largely agricultural nation with low wages levels. In Britain, wages were high, so cotton producers had the incentive to invent and purchase expensive new labour-saving technologies. In India, by contrast, wages levels were low, so producers preferred to increase output by hiring more workers rather than investing in technology.

#The Depression - The worldwide Great Depression of 1929 had a small direct impact on traditional India, with relatively little impact on the modern secondary sector. The government did little to alleviate distress, and was focused mostly on shipping gold to Britain. The worst consequences involved deflation, which increased the burden of the debt on villagers while lowering the cost of living. In terms of volume of total economic output, there was no decline between 1929 and 1934. Falling prices for jute (and also wheat) hurt larger growers. The worst hit sector was jute, based in Bengal, which was an important element in overseas trade; it had prospered in the 1920s but was hard hit in the 1930s. In terms of employment, there was some decline, while agriculture and small-scale industry also exhibited gains. The most successful new industry was sugar, which had meteoric growth in the 1930s.

#The pathetic situation of the Indian Railways - only designed for military purposes after the Mutiny of 1857

#The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year from 1880 to 1920, and the population also grew at 1%. The result was, on average. no long-term change in income levels. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level.

Hyndman: Report on India of the “Social Democratic Federation” (Great Britain), Stuttgart (1907)

This is what Henry Mayers Hyndman an English writer and politician, and the founder of the Social Democratic Federation and the National Socialist Party said on the same...

Hyndman: Report on India of the “Social Democratic Federation” (Great Britain), Stuttgart (1907)

Ruin of India by British Rule
Source: “Reports of the Social Democratic Federation, Ruin of India by British Rule ,” in Histoire de la IIe Internationale, vol. 16 (Geneva: Minkoff Reprint, 1978, 1907), 513-33;
Transcribed: by Thomas Schmidt.

The British Empire in India is the most striking example in the history of the world of the domination of a vast territory and population by a small minority of an alien race. Both the conquest and the administration of the country have been exceptional, and although the work has been carried on, save in a few directions, wholly in the interest of the conquerors, we English have persistently contended that we have been acting really in the interests of the subdued peoples. As a matter of fact, India is, and will probably remain, the classic instance of the ruinous effect of unrestrained capitalism in Colonial affairs. It is very important, therefore, that the International Social-Democratic Party should thoroughly understand what has been done, and how baneful the temporary success of a foreign despotism enforced by a set of islanders, whose little starting-point and head-quarters lay thousands of miles from their conquered possessions, has been to a population at least 300,000,000 human beings.

To begin with, India was conquered for the Empire not by the English themselves but by Indians under English leadership, and by taking advantage of Indian disputes. When the English, following upon the Portuguese, first landed in India for the purpose of commerce, they were almost overwhelmed by the wealth and magnificence of the potentates whose friendship they asked for and whose protection they craved. At the time their connection with this part of Asia began, India was a great and rich country whose trade had been sought after for centuries by the peoples of the West. If civilisation is to be gauged by the standard attained in science[1], art, architecture, agriculture, industry, medicine, laws, philosophy and religion, then the great States of India at that period were well worthy of comparison with the most enlightened and cultured parts of Europe and no European monarch could be reckoned as in any way superior to Akber, Aurungzib, Shah Jehan, or Sivaji; while it would be hard to name any European Minister of Finance equal to the Hindoo Rajahs Toder Mull and Nana Furvana. We still scarcely know how far we ourselves have been influenced in many departments by the science and thought which spread westward from the great Indian Peninsula. Even when full account also is taken of that “anarchy” of which nowadays we hear so much from Anglo-Indian bureaucrats, as having everywhere prevailed prior to English rule, we discover that there is little basis for all this pessimism of the past beyond the eagerness to exalt, however dishonestly, the superiority of European methods.

It is safe to say that never was the condition of India more anarchical than that of France, Germany, the Low Countries and Italy during a great portion of the Middle Ages. Thugs and dacoits were at no time more dangerous or more cruel than the bands of robbers and freebooters who roamed at will in those days through some of the finest regions of Europe. The exactions of the feudal nobles and chieftains were in many cases worse than the heaviest demands made by Rajahs or Nawabs; the dues to the Church were certainly not less onerous than the tithes to the Brahmins. Nadir Shah’s sack of Delhi was horrible; but not worse than the Constable de Bourbon’s sack of Rome. Yet he would be a bold man who should urge that the Pax Romana with its blight of the great slave-worked estates and constant drain of wealth to the Metropolis was better for the mass of the people than even the turbulence and oppression of the period of the Crusades. Progress was going on all the time, and we can now see that what has often been called anarchy was but the commencement of a new and more vigorous life. It may be that European interference checked a similar development in India following upon the gradual break-up of the Mogul Empire of Delhi. At any rate, Europeans have no right to claim that they have benefited the country, until evidence has been given that the mass of the people are really better off than they were, or than they are, under native rule. That is the test of the merit of all governments, home or foreign. Do they or do they not secure increased welfare for the body of the people governed?

Englishmen of all Western peoples are perhaps the least qualified to enter into and fully comprehend the national life and development of a number of Asiatic nations, bound together for a comparatively short time under our alien rule; but whose growth for thousands of years has gone on in conditions so entirely dissimilar that it requires an effort of the mind to reach back to the period when the two civilisations had a common starting-point.

Writing fifty years ago when the relations between Europeans and Indians were closer than they are to-day Mountstuart Elphinstone expressed himself as follows:

“Englishmen in India have less opportunity than might be expected of forming opinions of the native character. Even in England few know much of the people beyond their own class, and what they do know they learn from newspapers and publications of a description which does not exist in India. In that country, also, religion and manners put bars to our intimacy with the natives and limit the number of transactions as well as the free communication of opinions. We know nothing of the interior of families but by report, and have no share in those numerous occurrences of life in which the amiable parts of character are most exhibited. Missionaries of a different religion, judges, police magistrates, officers of revenue or customs, and even diplomatists, do not see the most virtuous portion of a native, nor any portion unless when influenced by passion or occupied by some personal interest. What we do see we judge by our standard. It might be argued in opposition to many unfavourable testimonies that those who have known the Indians longest have always the best opinion of them; but this is rather a compliment to human nature than to them, since it is true of every other people. It is more to the point that all persons who have retired from India, think better of the people they have left, after comparing them with others even of the most justly-admired nations.”

Few would venture to dispute Mountstuart Elphinstone’s knowledge of his subject or the justice of this statement. What was true then is still more true now. The pernicious nonsense supplied by Anglo-Indian pensioners and others to the press in India and in England concerning Indian cowardice, ignorance, slavishness and incapacity is written wholly and solely with the object of upholding a nefarious despotism; which, though less openly brutal, is more insidiously harmful even than that of Russia. The numerous races and peoples of India are still capable of great work in every field of human endeavour. Wherever they are allowed a free outlet they display the highest faculties; and it is absurd to contend that great States which managed their own business capably for thousands of years, which outlived and recovered from invasions and disasters that might have crushed less vigorous countries, would be unable to control their own affairs successfully if a handful of unsympathetic foreigners were withdrawn, or driven out, from their midst.

Previous invaders and conquerors of Hindostan mostly settled in the conquered territory and invariably employed the natives in the highest posts civil and military. Native ability was made use of in every department of the administration. Men of capacity, however humble their birth, might and did rise to be the highest functionaries of a Mohammedan monarch or became the heads of considerable Hindoo Empires themselves. The people were thus not crushed down by successive waves of interlopers who never make their homes in the country and drain away its produce steadily to a foreign land. But under English rule the old system has been completely changed. The result of the great battles of Plassey, Assaye, Wandiwash, Seringapatam and Gugerat has been to deprive 225,000,000 of Indians of all control over the policy and administration of their own country and to put even the great Native States, which still retain a nominal independence, increasingly at the mercy of the same despotic power. Up to the time of the mutiny, even to half-a-century ago, this system of complete domination was not so fully worked out as it has been since; and the rule of the famous East India Company which lasted till 1858 was far lighter and more considerate of the interests of the population than has been the Government of the Crown. Not a single one of the solemn pledges given by the late Queen of England and Empress of India, in favour of justice to Indians, has ever been fulfilled and the Indians find themselves to-day, after 150 years of British domination, in a far worse position, in regard to having any control over their own affairs, than they have ever yet been. Here and there an Indian is allowed to creep into the Civil Service on sufferance, or specially servile persons are rewarded by the Government with seats on the Legislative Councils, where they have no authority whatsoever; these, however, are but exceptions which prove the rule.

According to an official return to the House of Commons, obtained many years ago, with great difficulty, by the late Mr. John Bright, the conditions not having materially changed in the meantime, out of 39,000 officials who drew a salary of more than 1,000 rupees a year 28,000 were Englishmen and only 11,000 natives, or in the ratio of more than five to two. The Englishmen, however, received on the average in salaries more than five to one what the natives are paid. Of 960 civil offices which really control the civil administration of India, 900 are occupied by Englishmen and only 60 by natives. The Indians have no control whatsoever over their own taxation, nor any voice at all in the expenditure of their own revenues. The entire civil government is now carried on by men who live lives quite remote from the people they govern, who have no permanent interest in their well-being and who return home, which they have frequently visited in the meantime, at forty-five or fifty-five years of age with large pensions. India is, in fact, now administered by successive relays of English carpet-baggers, men who go out with carpet-bags and return with chests, having ordinarily as little real sympathy with the natives as they have any deep knowledge of their habits and customs.

These District Officers, as they are called, are the real rulers of India. They have the well-being of millions upon millions of people at their disposal. They land in India, nowadays, already full-grown young men, brought up and educated in a totally different society, by no means well-versed in the native languages, convinced of their own great superiority, and prejudiced on many points to a degree which even the best of them cannot materially overcome for years.

And these are the duties which the District Officer has to perform in a tropical country among a strange people: He is:

Collector of the Land Revenue.
Registrar of the landed property in the District.
Judge between landlord and tenant.
Ministerial officer of the Courts of Justice.
Treasurer and Accountant of the District.
Administrator of the District Excise.
Ex officio President of the Local Rates Committee.
Referee for all questions of compensation for lands taken up for public purposes.
Agent for the Government in all local suits to which it is a party.
Referee in local public works.
Manager of estates of minors.
Magistrate, Police Magistrate and Criminal Judge.
Head of Police.
Ex officio President of Municipalities.

Now what does this all mean? No human being, had he the versatility of an admirable Crichton and the endurance of a Hadrian, could possibly do this work efficiently himself. Consequently, the business falls into the hands of that worst class of natives, who are eager to play the part of jackals to the governing white minority. There have here and there been administrators of exceptional genius who, having landed early in India, became habituated to the ways of the people and were able to exercise reasonable supervision over their subordinates. But these cases were exceptional even under the Raj of the old East India Company: to-day they are almost unknown. According to practically universal testimony, European officials are becoming less and less capable of thoroughly understanding the people they are sent out to govern. The most important work also is perforce, done in a hurry and such work is necessarily bad work.

Such is the alien civil administration. The military is like unto it. In the last resort we English hold India by the sword. A well known Anglo-Indian official of high rank, walking with a great Afghan chieftain, many years ago, on the ramparts of Peshawur, held forth to him on the importance of the British power in India and the overwhelming forces it could bring to bear. “Your power in India” replied the Khan coolly “is 70.000 men well armed.” The European forces in India are now somewhat in excess of this and the native army, officered in all the higher grades by Europeans amounts, including reserves, to 180,000 men, without artillery since the mutiny. The cost of this army is entirely thrown upon the revenues of India and amounts to upwards of £19,000,000 a year – a terribly heavy tax in itself on a very poor population, and the heavier that so large a proportion is paid away in salaries to foreigners.

It is claimed by the supporters of European domination that this army, though admittedly entailing heavy charges, is cheaply purchased; seeing that, by its presence, peace is ensured from one end of Hindostan to the other. But the horrors of peace, even in the Western World, are often worse than the horrors of war, and in India this is unfortunately still more apparent. The vigour and intelligence of one-fifth of the human race is being kept down by this despotic peace. Beautiful arts are falling into decay. Native culture is being crushed out. Agriculture is steadily deteriorating. Anything in the shape of patriotism or national feeling is discouraged, and its advocates are persecuted and imprisoned. Denunciation of the wrongs of British rule is treason and legitimate combination to resist tyranny is a pernicious plot. Peace is not worth having at such a price, even if accompanied by increasing wealth. But when such peace goes hand in hand with growing impoverishment for the mass of the people, then clearly we are face to face with an utterly ruinous and hateful system.

It is true that India is inhabited by many races and peoples; true that there exist between them many racial and religious causes of quarrel; true, also, that the Mohammedan minority of 60,000,000 or so scattered throughout British and Native territory conceives at times that it has grave wrongs to adjust against the vast Hindoo majority of some 240,000,000 or 250,000,000. Internecine war is, therefore, quite possible, should we withdraw. But, even so, there are more terrible fates in the world than to die fighting, and the slow starvation of tens of millions of human beings is far worse than any slaughter on the battlefield yet heard of. The marvel is that India, overborne as she is by excessive, costly and unsympathetic administration in every direction, is able to hold her own at all, and that Indians under existing conditions ever show that high distinction in so many branches of human thought and learning that they unquestionably display.

But it may be urged: Look at the results of European management as applied to India. The great cities of Anglo-India, Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Agra, Delhi give an impression of wealth and magnificence worthy to be ranked with anything that can be seen in the West. Fine railways admirably built and handsomely equipped conduct the traveller from one end of the Empire to the other; affording not only the best convenience for passengers but enabling transport of goods to be conducted with ease, cheapness, and rapidity thus, also, putting it in the power of districts which have a surplus of food to provide for the shortcomings of those where drought and short harvests prevail. Irrigation works on a large scale, though not equalling the complete systems of water provision which existed under the best of the old native rulers, are being pushed forward as rapidly as possibly, and rendering famine from drought practically impossible in those parts of the country where their influence is directly felt. Afforestation is being carried on under careful and systematic control, so that the harmful denudation of large districts observable in countries supposed to be much more advanced, such as the United States, is permanently averted. Elaborate arrangements have been made whereby in periods of famine relief works are at once started and the afflicted people are employed on useful enterprises close to their own homes. Disease, epidemic and endemic alike, is treated with a thoroughness and knowledge previously unheard of; while the best known principles of sanitation in tropical climates are applied wherever possible.

Not only so but many drawbacks of the ancient native society have been swept away. Thugs have been suppressed for three generations. Suttee was put down as long ago. Dacoity and highway robbery are rarely heard of. Justice is administered without corruption, and torture is now almost unknown. Indians, if not admitted to prominent posts in the government, have opportunities in the way of acquiring the higher European education never at their disposal before. The press is in the main fairly free and rights of speech and combination are allowed which no foreign prince certainly has ever consented to before.

Much of this if, not the whole of it, is correct. The English have introduced into India continuous peace and many of the advantages of Western civilisation. Had their influence then been confined to such work as was done by a few of the old East India Company’s servants, who knew, were known and were loved by the people; had they restricted their efforts to remedying admitted evils in Indian administration, as was done to some extent very successfully in more than one of the great independent States; had they recognised that what was needed for improvement was not complete Europeanisation but sympathetic cooperation of really capable white men, thoroughly versed in Indian habits and customs and divorced from constant life among Europeans, with the Indian themselves; had they in short regarded India always from the Indian standpoint: it is undeniable that great benefit might have resulted to the country. But, all this notwithstanding, had the economic relations remained the same, India would still have been as desperately impoverished as she is to-day.

The total gross value of all the produce of British India for 225,000,000 of human beings cannot be put at the outside at more than £1 per head. The late Mr. William Digby put it at not more than 12/6 per head. No such dire poverty over so large an area was ever before known on the planet. And the impoverishment is increasing. Mr. Digby, himself an official of one of the great Famine Agencies, and with special opportunities for obtaining information, calculated that the ryots in the Districts outside the permanent settlement get only one half as much to eat in the year as their grandfathers did, and only one-third as much as their great-grandfathers did, Yet, in spite of such facts, the land tax is exacted with the greatest stringency and must be paid to the Government in coin before the crops are garnered! Thus, apart from other drawbacks, our system forces almost the entire agricultural population into the hands of the native money-lenders, from whom alone money to meet the tax can be obtained; and then we hypocritically lament the usurious disposition of the men who lend on the crops! When it is remembered that every improvement which a ryot makes in his holding he is taxed for; that fallow land in British territory is taxed as high as cultivated land; and that little allowance is made for famine periods, it is easy to comprehend the crushing effect of our ruinous system upon the miserable agriculturists, who constitute four-fifths of the Indian population. But for the money-lenders – if, that is to say, the native usurers refused to lend on growing crops – the Government of India would at once be bankrupt.

It is argued, however, that, as population is increasing, the idea of impoverishment on any large scale is absurd and a German Social-Democrat, Mr. Edward Bernstein, who has been acting as advocate-in-chief on the continent for the British India Office, in place of M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu retired from the field, contends on this and other grounds that English government in India has been beneficial. The same argument was used in relation to Ireland prior to 1847. Population was rapidly increasing in that island; therefore the people of Ireland must begetting richer in spite of all the absentee proprietors and of all the talk about the drain of wealth to Great Britain. In that year, however, came the cataclysm, in the course of which millions of people perished or were expatriated; and it was then discovered that Adam Smith himself had said that “poverty seems favourable to generation.” Not only seems but is; as Russia can testify as well as Ireland and India. There are more people in British India than ever there were, but they are living on an ever-falling standard of subsistence. How long we shall have to wait until the cataclysm comes in this case it is difficult to say; but is certainly not far off.

The evidence as to increasing poverty is absolutely conclusive. According to official report after official report it is clearly established that an increasing proportion of the population is yearly getting less and less to eat, and Mr. Digby’s contention is in the main verified. Taking only the period of direct British rule since the Mutiny in 1857, we have conclusive evidence from Viceroy Lord Lawrence down to Mr. C. J. O’Donnell, Mr. Smeaton and Mr Thorburn that, economically at any rate, our rule is a complete failure. None indeed has put the matter more clearly as to the impoverishment than Sir William Hunter, who for many years prior to his death had filled the post of literary advocate-general of British domination, and who admitted that even in 1880 no fewer than forty millions of our Indian population lived in permanent starvation. Matters have become very much worse since.

The reason for this continuous depletion of wealth and destruction of well-being is not far to seek. And this reason applies to the entire population under British control. Here, at any rate, race, colour, religion make no difference. All are subject to the same terrible disadvantage of the drain of produce away from India on English account without any commercial return. This drain, or economic tribute, from which most conquered dependencies suffer, is specially severe in the case of India. Making every possible allowance, it is clearly established that, comparing the Indian Exports and the Indian Imports, the overplus of Exports for which there is no commercial return now amounts to more than £35,000,000 a year, or considerably in excess of fifty per cent more than the total Land Revenue obtained from all British India[2] This drain has been going on in an increasing ratio, and necessarily with deepening effect, ever since the British occupation. It means that India, naturally a country with the greatest possibilities for wealth-production in every department, is being steadily bled to death, in order to pay pensions, interest, home charges, dividends and remittances in Great Britain to the capitalist and landlord classes with their hangers-on Wherever it is possible to throw a charge upon the Indian revenues this is at once done and, as the Indians are wholly unrepresented either in India or in Great Britain, they are unable to complain effectively in any way whatever. It is very doubtful whether the Spaniards ever exacted anything approaching to this tremendous tribute from their American possessions, even in the heyday of their ruthless extortions. When to this drain of £35,000,000 annually is added the amount paid for the services of Europeans in India, including the 75,000 white soldiers, which runs up to many millions Sterling, it is clear we need look no farther for the real cause of India’s frightful impoverishment and the continuous famine and plague which now steadily prevail in some part or other of our territory.

Yet when famine on a larger scale comes, as the inevitable result of this terrible drain of wealth to England, the possessing classes in Great Britain itself, who receive this huge tribute and fill the appointments in India with their relatives, consider they are performing a deed of wondrous beneficence if they return to India £500,000 in one-year out of the £1,000,000,000 or more they have taken out of the country in unpaid-for produce during the past fifty years. No wonder that under such circumstances the agricultural population is drifting into the hopeless position already referred to. The poor ryots overtaxed and heavily indebted “except in the richer irrigated lands eat or sell every saleable article the land produces, use the manure of the cattle for fuel, and return nothing to the soil in proportion to what is taken away. Every increase of population increases the danger. Crop follows crop without intermission, so that Indian agriculture is becoming simply a process of exhaustion. Even in some tracts of canal-irrigated land, where water is lavishly used without manure, crops have ceased to grow. An exhausting agriculture and an increasing population must come to a dead-lock. No reduction of the assessment can be more than a postponement of the inevitable catastrophe.”

This was written by the celebrated agriculturist Sir James Caird in his report as Special Famine Commissioner nearly thirty years ago. Mispredictions are being fulfilled under our eyes. The “catastrophe” he foresaw is close at hand.

To borrow money at interest from England in these conditions, in order to build more railways, is only to intensify the drain and multiply the number of syphons to suck out wealth for foreigners. Even to create more irrigation works, likewise with borrowed money, can have no permanently good effect, so long as the drain of produce without return goes on upon a greater scale. That drain and the excessive employment of Europeans in India at heavy rates of pay render ruin certain whatever else may be done. There are two Indias: Anglo-India with fine European quarters and luxurious arrangements battening upon the wholesale impoverishment of the country; and India proper, undergoing misery such as has never been seen on a like scale elsewhere, even under twentieth century capitalism.

But now matters are becoming so unendurable that the industrious, thrifty, patient Indians themselves are beginning to feel that some change must be made in their lot. The educated classes are beginning to understand what European tyranny, economic and social, means to all who are brought under it, and to know that their impoverishment is occasioned by British rule and not by the forces of nature. Famines occurred in India before our conquest; but continuous famine such as now afflicts some part of India every year was wholly unknown under Hindoo or Mohammedan rule. Black plague has been known as an epidemic in India for centuries; but black plague as an endemic pestilence working death all through the year had never been heard of till we brought to Hindostan, within the past generation, the full blessings of European civilisation.

This horrible disease with its ravages bids fair to do more to break up native society and to turn the mass of Indians against us than anything else. At the time of writing the mortality in India by plague alone is at the rate of 90,000 a week. Now plague is above all other dangerous sicknesses the disease of poverty. Where in hot countries there is great poverty, there the plague finds its most congenial habitat. No other proof of the increasing poverty of India is needed than the increasing fatality and persistence of this scourge. The natives are panic-stricken, and the very measures of scientific precaution taken by European doctors and their subordinates to prevent its spread, involving as they do constant interference with the most cherished and even sacred native customs, render the foreign despot more hateful than he was before. Such is the irony of events, when once an Empire has entered upon the downgrade. All the efforts of the unscrupulous Anglo-Indian press in India and at home to stir up the old ill-feeling between Mohammedans and Hindoos will have little influence as against the discontent and hatred engendered by the manufactured plague and the methods used for its suppression.

Meanwhile, too, a new spirit is being displayed in the towns. Meetings and protests against British mistakes are becoming rather the rule than the exception, when discontent is felt, even in patient Bengal. There is movement and stir in Bengal on political grounds; in Punjab and the Mahratta country on economic grounds; while all over India a propaganda in favour of boycotting European, meaning of course English, goods in favour of Indian and Asiatic goods is going steadily forward. Slowly but surely the economic situation of India is being appreciated and the cry of “India for the Indians” is being systematically raised. Even at the “Indian National Congress,” which meets every year, and which strongly protests its loyalty to the British Government, an advanced party has been formed, which undoubtedly looks to complete independence for India as the only hope of the future. This party is gaining strength daily and the more determined of its members have taken a vow never in any circumstances to serve under or to aid the foreign Raj. Indians visiting England are even more outspoken as to the future. They take courage from the example of Japan and argue that if it has been possible for little Japan to place herself in the front rank of the nations within a space of forty years, with very little assistance from Europeans, it is surely quite possible for India with her 300,000,000 of people, and her fighting races, whose numbers alone are fully treble the entire population of Japan, to take courage by her example and, even unarmed, to sweep out of Hindostan by one great and simultaneous effort the 200,000 of Europeans and Eurasians who at present despotically control her fortunes and are ruining her future.

There is no longer any hope of improvement by peaceful or constitutional means. Thirty years, perhaps even twenty years, ago it was still possible to have so reorganised British administration, by reestablishing native rule under British leadership and by stanching the drain, as to give India full outlet towards a new and prosperous period. But, lately, both capitalist factions in England have shown a firm determination to continue in the course of wrong-doing and tyranny. Mr John Morley, the sham Radical placeman acts as Secretary of State with even less of real sympathy or statesmanship towards Indians than the late Viceroy, the Tory Lord Curzon, who, by common consent of Europeans and natives of all grades in India, was the worst Governor-General Hindostan ever had. Attempts are even being made at the present time, in view of the growing discontent and threatening demonstrations against our system, to maintain our domination, as it was originally established, by stirring up internecine animosities. Even official organs are not ashamed openly to appeal to the fanaticism of Mohammedans against Hindus for the special purpose of weakening the rising agitation against unendurable economic, social and race oppression. But this shameful policy will be unsuccessful and neither Moslem bigotry nor European rifles and artillery can permanently maintain a foreign despotism which has proved a failure in every direction. White capitalist rule, now doomed to an early overthrow, will seem but a short and hideous nightmare in the long and glorious life of India. Upon the withdrawal of the English the Indians will begin afresh their old career of internal development, side by side with the other progressive peoples of the world.

But India is only the most conspicuous instance of the ruinous effect of European capitalism upon subject races. Other nations, so far as their opportunities permitted, have been as injurious in their dealing with the less-developed peoples as the British. France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and now the United States and Germany have carried on the same system on a smaller scale. It is for the International Social-Democratic Party of the World, representing the classes that gain nothing whatever from the tyranny which, hitherto, while suffering under, they have helped to uphold, to organise and assist any efforts that may be made to destroy for ever the pernicious domination of capitalism in all its forms, and to bring about the emancipation of all mankind regardless of race, colour or creed.

May 1st, 1907.
H.M. Hyndman.

P.S. – Since the above paper was in type, affairs in India have assumed a more critical aspect. Not only is the black plague extending its ravages, but even by official accounts, which, of course, minimise matters as far as possible, the mortality has now mounted up to just 500,000 every month! This, so far, is chiefly in the Punjab. The arrest and deportation of Mr. Lala Lajpat Rai, without even the form of a trial, or any justification whatever for such a proceeding, has aroused a bitter feeling of indignation among the educated classes of India from one end of the Peninsula to the other. Mr. Lajpat Rai is a man who has devoted his life and his fortune to the service of his poorer countrymen when suffering from the disasters of famine and earthquake. He was engaged at the time of his arrest, as Mr. O. Donnell, M P., a late member of the Anglo-Indian Civil Service in this very district, has clearly shown, upon a perfectly legitimate, sober and reasoning protest against the action of the Government in raising the Land Tax to famine point, and in exacting payment for lands, reclaimed by the Punjabi peasants, which had been specially exempted from assessment at the time of their reclamation. All this has been proved to demonstration. But Mr. John Morley, the philosophic Radical, speaking as Secretary of State for India on behalf the Liberal Government, has justified his infamous Muscovite methods in the House of Commons, and Mr Lajpat Rai is being slowly done to death in gaol. Thus, in England as in other countries, the Liberals and Radicals are again showing what cowardly tyrants at bottom they are. No attempt has been made by the government of India to defend itself against the overwhelming charges of the deliberate bleeding to death of India, formulated against it by myself and others who thoroughly know the facts. It has been distinctly shown by members of the Anglo-Indian Government themselves that the terrible drain of produce from India for nothing; the excessive demands for the Land Tax as well as the manner in which it is collected in cash before the crop is grown; and the Salt Tax which, though reduced, still acts as the direct promoter of disease for men and cattle due to insufficient consumption of this necessary of life: it is being proved, I say, not by the adversaries of British rule but by its supporters, that these shameful extortions are the direct cause of the frightful impoverishment and plague mortality of the Indian people. The so-called “unrest” is meanwhile extending throughout the country, and men in high place, who have had 40 years experience among the Indians themselves, have warned the Government that, unless a complete change of system is made, the end of our rule in India is close at hand. What the economic effect of that collapse would be on the middle classes of this island, it is not necessary for me to describe at length here. Enough to say that it would mean an immediate deduction from the incomes of the non-producers of Great Britain of not less than £ 35,000,000 a year.

Hyndman Archive

#And I think you are smart enough to distinguish in between Geography Demography and Modern History of India and Singapore - the type of approach British had for the same #I was really surprised you didn't dragged the United States in the arena!

Source(s) and Reference(s) :- Henry Hyndman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ruin of India by British Rule by Henry Mayer Hyndman, 1907
Economy of India under the British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



 
Last edited:
Why should the Indian Markets worry about the US QE tapering hype??? Now the very same Asian tigers are very much prepared for the same. A large part of the recent rally in the Indian markets, which saw the Sensex breaking all records, was driven by foreign investors. A tapering of QE means reversal in the trend. RBI has taken proactive measures, like by hiking the repo rate, to create a cushion. In fact, elections seem to topping analysts' charts as far as market sentiment is concerned - Amidst chances of QE tapering next year, big domestic event to unfold would be general election results, which may give big sentimental boost to the markets on a favourable outcome.

#Another reason for the markets to not worry about QE tapering is that the recent data from the US was largely due to inventory build-up, and the consumer story is yet to come in the picture. There's been a significant inventory build-up, which has led to this kind of numbers that surprised the market on the upside, coming in at 2.8% of the GDP. Many believe that this will probably get softer as we progress. So, at this point of time, although the market is worried that this kind of a strong data print might lead to QE tapering coming earlier than expected, I do not think so...

Lol, right....​

The QE taper effect on Indian equities | Business Standard​
 

Yea, lol right, when US talked about stopping QE, rupee took a nosedive. Anyhow, i'm talking about facts that already happened, you're talking about predictions or expectations.
And in India, if i'm to believe Indian's themselves, they never fully materialize, or are very late and much more expensive.
So, we'll see....
 
Yea, lol right, when US talked about stopping QE, rupee took a nosedive. Anyhow, i'm talking about facts that already happened, you're talking about predictions or expectations.
And in India, if i'm to believe Indian's themselves, they never fully materialize, or are very late and much more expensive.
So, we'll see....

Predictions - Expectations???? lol - Currency-swap deal with Japan cap raised to $50 bn - CAD number inevitably achievable - Reserves Increasing - Trade Deficit on a 2 year low - Recorded increase in Market Inflows - Record Exports - Declining Imports...But still facts and figures are not presented to please the Chinese afterall!!!! and yes we'll see too....BTW the report you quoted also comes from an Indian daily and some say they don't believe "Indian's themselves" right???
 
Last edited:
You had economic reforms in 1979 and we had 12 years later
So there will be a lag between China and India unless we surpass your growth rate (its common sense dude :hitwall:)


Until there is a consistent higher growth rate in India vs China, it will always be too early to predict when India can surpass China. 
Oh please do you think China is the only example in the modern history to have faced all of the troubles - The colonial period literally led to the freeze of Industrial processing in India - until 1951 not even a single finished good was exported except of the raw materials. The partition was the major setback to us much more what you expect from the disastrous policies of Mao - we had been divided into 3 parts what you see today's Pakistan and Bangladesh was once a part of India - Guess what had been your state if Guangdong and Tibet had been separated as Independent states from China - the same literally happened to India. And if you want to enhance your outlook on a democracy you can surely look at your so called Iron Brother for having such a so called vibrant democracy.....

British colonialism created India, not prevented it from industrialization. I'm certain kingdoms inside Indian subcontinent would be less industrialized without Britain unified them.
 
Until there is a consistent higher growth rate in India vs China, it will always be too early to predict when India can surpass China. 


British colonialism created India, not prevented it from industrialization. I'm certain kingdoms inside Indian subcontinent would be less industrialized without Britain unified them.
Wont reply the same everytime - #31
 
Wont reply the same everytime - #31
What I find so funny is that on this forum you will find Indians from all over India, from all sorts of religions and they are patriotic as hell! Yet when Chinese say that India is not united, what makes them think they know India better then Indians? These people are just pathetic.
 
Predictions - Expectations???? lol - Currency-swap deal with Japan cap raised to $50 bn - CAD number inevitably achievable - Reserves Increasing - Trade Deficit on a 2 year low - Recorded increase in Market Inflows - Record Exports - Declining Imports...But still facts and figures are not presented to please the Chinese afterall!!!! and yes we'll see too....


Yeah, predictions and expectations, in case you're wondering what that is look it up. And they will stay predictions and expectations until the Fed stops the money presses and the effect is seen in emerging markets.
 
Until there is a consistent higher growth rate in India vs China, it will always be too early to predict when India can surpass China. 


British colonialism created India, not prevented it from industrialization. I'm certain kingdoms inside Indian subcontinent would be less industrialized without Britain unified them.

hey liberator Worshiper, what industries are you talking about. :cheesy: 
You were never one country before the British came, how can you expect to have the entire subcontinent to yourself as one country? Civil war would have erupted if there was no partition. And the partition merely created a separate country, it has no ground for comparison with a country's social-economic policy. To draw a parallel between the partition and Mao's policy is as good as comparing apple with orange. Using the British partition as an excuse for India's slow development is as valid as crediting the British for Singapore's rapid economic growth.


A united china under central government control didn't exist before 1950. It seems your skyrocketing high IQ don't know anything about the partition of India and the ethnic background of the founder of Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Why should the Indian Markets worry about the US QE tapering hype??? Now the very same Asian tigers are very much prepared for the same. A large part of the recent rally in the Indian markets, which saw the Sensex breaking all records, was driven by foreign investors. A tapering of QE means reversal in the trend. RBI has taken proactive measures, like by hiking the repo rate, to create a cushion. In fact, elections seem to topping analysts' charts as far as market sentiment is concerned - Amidst chances of QE tapering next year, big domestic event to unfold would be general election results, which may give big sentimental boost to the markets on a favourable outcome.

#Another reason for the markets to not worry about QE tapering is that the recent data from the US was largely due to inventory build-up, and the consumer story is yet to come in the picture. There's been a significant inventory build-up, which has led to this kind of numbers that surprised the market on the upside, coming in at 2.8% of the GDP. Many believe that this will probably get softer as we progress. So, at this point of time, although the market is worried that this kind of a strong data print might lead to QE tapering coming earlier than expected, I do not think so...



I am fed up repeatedly hearing the totally illogical, stupid argument some people put forward saying ‘It was the british who created a united India, and before the british came, there was no concept of India at all!”

Forget uniting, the British actually divided India into three pieces before they left in 1947!

Let’s start with the very basics of History:-

In 1492 Columbus set out to discover a sea route to which place? India, right? And when was this? more than 100 years before British even entered India. It was not any particular kingdom of India that Columbus was targeting. It was INDIA ITSELF! That is the reason, when he mistook America to be India, he called the natives of America as ‘Red Indians’.

Entire Europe was trading for silk, gold, spices, diamonds and what not with India via the land route of Constantinople till 1453. In 1453 Muslims captured Constantinople and blocked the trade route to India. Europeans were so dependent on India for the trade that they set out to discover an alternate sea route to India. That was how all the sailors like Columbus, Bartholomew Diaz, Vasco da gama all started their voyages in search of a sea route to India.

The Europeans then were so backward in science that they refused funding to Columbus because entire Europe at that time was of the view that Earth was flat!! So they thought columbus would fall down the earth if he took the reverse sea route to find India! More than a 1000 years before Columbus, Aryabhatta in India had already proved what thousands of years old vedas had said, that Earth is Round not flat.

Note that it was the not the Indians who became desperate to discover a sea route to Europe. It was the other way round....

The political picture in pre-British India was that parts of India were ruled by different Kings called the Maharaja, and would report to the strongest of all who would be the ruler of entire Indian subcontinent and was called the Chakravarti. Chakravarti means the turner of the wheel, implying history repeats itself!

Any Maharaja (who ruled a part of India) can become a Chakravarti (ruler of entire India) if all other Maharajas bow down to his power. Maharajas who ruled under a Chakravarti were called Samanta Rajas. Samanta Rajas would pay annual tax to the Chakravarti.

Some of the Chakravartis who ruled entire India (which included present India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) were Ashoka, Ikshvaku, Shibi, Bindusara, Adinath, Shanthinath, Bharatha (After whom India was named as Bharat), etc
So it was not the british who united India for the first time.

The ancient Mauryan Empire of India spread even beyond Baluchistan in present Pakistan and Kandhahar in present Afghanistan !

#British did not create India, India existed long before they arrived. Nor did they unite India for the first time, many chakravartis ruled united India much before them. British only divided India into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh before they left India. Of course some greedy Indian politicians from Congress like Nehru were also responsible for India’s partition. If Nehru had agreed to make Jinna the prime minister of India, there would have been no partition. Just two months before partition of India, Gandhi had said that ‘India will be partitioned only over my dead body’!

Source(s):- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1497degama.html
dagamma.HTM
Vedic period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After two centuries of colonialism in India, the British Labour government agreed to a speedy independence of India after 1945. But conflict between Hindu and Muslim nationalists led to murderous clashes between the two communities in 1946. When it became clear that the Muslim League would accept nothing less than an independent Pakistan, India’s last viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, proposed partition. Both sides accepted, and at the “stroke of midnight” on August 14, 1947, one fifth of humanity gained political independence.

Yet independence through partition brought tragedy. In the weeks afterwards, communal strife exploded into an orgy of massacres and mass expulsions. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Muslims were slaughtered, and an estimated five million made refugees. Indian Congress Party leaders were completely powerless to stop the violence. “What is there to celebrate?” exclaimed Gandhi in reference to the much-sought independence; “I see nothing but rivers of blood.” In January 1948, Gandhi himself was gunned down by a Hindu fanatic who believed that he was too lenient on Muslims.

After the ordeal of independence, relations between India and Pakistan remain tense to this day. Fighting over the disputed area of Kashmir continued until 1949, and broke out again in 1965-1966, 1971, and 1999. What makes the Indo-Pakistani conflict even more dangerous is that both sides contain nuclear weapons. With the possibility that Pakistan might become a failed state, there is a good chance of a major genocide erupting in the twenty-first century.

The Economy of India under the British Raj describes the economy of India during the years of the British Raj from 1750s to 1947. During this period, the Indian economy essentially remained stagnant, growing at the same rate (1%) as the population.
#The fall of the Rupee - After its victory in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), Germany extracted a huge indemnity from France of £200,000,000, and then moved to join Britain on a gold standard for currency. France, the US and other industrialising countries followed Germany in adopting a gold standard throughout the 1870s. At the same time, countries, such as Japan, which did not have the necessary access to gold or those, such as India, which were subject to imperial policies that determined that they did not move to a gold standard, remained mostly on a silver standard. A huge divide between silver-based and gold-based economies resulted. The worst affected were economies with a silver standard that traded mainly with economies with a gold standard. With discovery of more and more silver reserves, those currencies based on gold continued to rise in value and those based on silver were declining due to demonetisation of silver. For India which carried out most of its trade with gold based countries, especially Britain, the impact of this shift was profound. As the price of silver continued to fall, so too did the exchange value of the rupee, when measured against sterling.

Source:- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#The absence of industrialisation during the colonial period - Historians have questioned why India did not undergo industrialisation in the nineteenth century in the way that Britain did. In the seventeenth century, India was a relatively urbanised and commercialised nation with a buoyant export trade, devoted largely to cotton textiles, but also including silk, spices, and rice. By the end of the century, India was the world’s main producer of cotton textiles and had a substantial export trade to Britain, as well as many other European countries, via the East India Company. Yet as British cotton industry underwent a technological revolution in the late eighteenth century, the Indian industry stagnated, and industrialisation in India was delayed until the twentieth century. Historians have suggested that this was because India was still a largely agricultural nation with low wages levels. In Britain, wages were high, so cotton producers had the incentive to invent and purchase expensive new labour-saving technologies. In India, by contrast, wages levels were low, so producers preferred to increase output by hiring more workers rather than investing in technology.

#The Depression - The worldwide Great Depression of 1929 had a small direct impact on traditional India, with relatively little impact on the modern secondary sector. The government did little to alleviate distress, and was focused mostly on shipping gold to Britain. The worst consequences involved deflation, which increased the burden of the debt on villagers while lowering the cost of living. In terms of volume of total economic output, there was no decline between 1929 and 1934. Falling prices for jute (and also wheat) hurt larger growers. The worst hit sector was jute, based in Bengal, which was an important element in overseas trade; it had prospered in the 1920s but was hard hit in the 1930s. In terms of employment, there was some decline, while agriculture and small-scale industry also exhibited gains. The most successful new industry was sugar, which had meteoric growth in the 1930s.

#The pathetic situation of the Indian Railways - only designed for military purposes after the Mutiny of 1857

#The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year from 1880 to 1920, and the population also grew at 1%. The result was, on average. no long-term change in income levels. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level.

Hyndman: Report on India of the “Social Democratic Federation” (Great Britain), Stuttgart (1907)

This is what Henry Mayers Hyndman an English writer and politician, and the founder of the Social Democratic Federation and the National Socialist Party said on the same...



#And I think you are smart enough to distinguish in between Geography Demography and Modern History of India and Singapore - the type of approach British had for the same #I was really surprised you didn't dragged the United States in the arena!

Source(s) and Reference(s) :- Henry Hyndman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ruin of India by British Rule by Henry Mayer Hyndman, 1907
Economy of India under the British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Essay is not graded with a ruler, you can write as much as you want but you can't argue against historical facts. Ancient India refers to the Indian subcontinent, not country. It is a geographical expression. Indian subcontinent was never one country; Maurya was 2000 years ago and it lasted only 130 years, but that's not even 5% of your historical period. The rest of your history, you were a myriad of different kingdoms.

Before British came, you have Mughals, Maratha empire, Nizam of Hyderabad, Tipu sultan.... How is that called one country?? A country/empire is defined by sovereignty, not religion or culture. Middle East shares the same civilization but they have different caliphates. Ditto East Asia. Roman empire was a mix mash of different people, but there was only one empire.

The partition was not imposed by the British, the people who demanded it, specifically the muslims. Is that not proof that you were never one country?? After 1947, you even had to invade and coerce other princely states to join India. I'm flabbergasted that anyone with an college education would argue otherwise. You don't even need a degree, just read a college history book.

Blaming British for India's slow development? The rise of the west was due to industrialization. Are you seriously arguing India was going to industrialize if the British didn't colonize??? Industrialization was a British/western invention, not Asians. None of the great powers of Asia managed it, even China did not. Only Japan did, that's mainly due to Matthew Perry.
On what basis are you going to argue Mughals era India would suddenly industrialized on its own??The foundation of industrialization was built upon the Age of Enlightenment. Was there one in Mughals' India?

Great depression was a factor? Even Brenton Wood Gold Standard? How lame can you get really? Their impact is worldwide, not specific to British India ONLY.

And what happened post 1947? Whatever damage that was done, British left you with a modern infrastructure and governance model with English common laws and parliamentary democracy. You were shield from WW2. You had a better platform to rebuild your new country than all other Asian countries which had to suffer the destruction of WW2. Why didn't you industrialize? What were you doing? Nothing except finding lame excuse blaming British colonization that happened 200 years ago.

(Have some credibility. Henry Hyndman was an opposition politician. And he is no academic, not an authority on the subject of history.

Unlike you, I don't make bias comparison. US gained independence in 1776. I mentioned Singapore because it was founded in the 1960's. Malaysia would be apt too. Both got their independences later than India)
 
Last edited:
British colonialism created India, not prevented it from industrialization. I'm certain kingdoms inside Indian subcontinent would be less industrialized without Britain unified them.

Forced fed opium and Q hairstyle created the leaking gallbladders and the century of humiliation?

Or did that start much earlier?
 
Essay is not graded with a ruler, you can write as much as you want but you can't argue against historical facts. Ancient India refers to the Indian subcontinent, not country. It is a geographical expression. Indian subcontinent was never one country; Maurya was 2000 years ago and it lasted only 130 years, but that's not even 5% of your historical period. The rest of your history, you were a myriad of different kingdoms.

Before British came, you have Mughals, Maratha empire, Nizam of Hyderabad, Tipu sultan.... How is that called one country?? A country/empire is defined by sovereignty, not religion or culture. Middle East shares the same civilization but they have different caliphates. Ditto East Asia. Roman empire was a mix mash of different people, but there was only one empire.

The partition was not imposed by the British, the people who demanded it, specifically the muslims. Is that not proof that you were never one country?? After 1947, you even had to invade and coerce other princely states to join India. I'm flabbergasted that anyone with an college education would argue otherwise. You don't even need a degree, just read a college history book.

Blaming British for India's slow development? The rise of the west was due to industrialization. Are you seriously arguing India was going to industrialize if the British didn't colonize??? Industrialization was a British/western invention, not Asians. None of the great powers of Asia managed it, even China did not. Only Japan did, that's mainly due to Matthew Perry.
On what basis are you going to argue Mughals era India would suddenly industrialized on its own??The foundation of industrialization was built upon the Age of Enlightenment. Was there one in Mughals' India?

Great depression was a factor? Even Brenton Wood Gold Standard? How lame can you get really? Their impact is worldwide, not specific to British India ONLY.

And what happened post 1947? Whatever damage that was done, British left you with a modern infrastructure and governance model with English common laws and parliamentary democracy. You were shield from WW2. You had a better platform to rebuild your new country than all other Asian countries which had to suffer the destruction of WW2. Why didn't you industrialize? What were you doing? Nothing except finding lame excuse blaming British colonization that happened 200 years ago.

(Have some credibility. Henry Hyndman was an opposition politician. And he is no academic, not an authority on the subject of history.

Unlike you, I don't make bias comparison. US gained independence in 1776. I mentioned Singapore because it was founded in the 1960's. Malaysia would be apt too. Both got their independences later than India)

Very well written. Lets see how many Indian would appreciate what you shared with them.
 
You see the same zombi like inability to think. We understand it is not encouraged in their culture anc can be quite deadly in fact.

So they just keep repeating what has been force fed to them. Without realizing the basic fact that India was a nation since thousands of years. It was called Bharat Varsha since time immemorial.

The foreign invaders are an insignificantly small part of our great history and don't even count. Just because some opium addicts don't know history and over obsess with us, it doesn't change anything.

They should crawl back to their holes as we don't give a damn to their pathetic stupidity.
 
Back
Top Bottom