GeraltofRivia
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
- Messages
- 692
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
I have read the book fairly recently. It was a good read.
My initial thought is that both the pre-colony 23% and later 3% India as % world GDP, which serves as the key evidence, are somewhat inaccurate with former being too high and latter being too low. I am sure British has exploited and benefited tremendously during the colonial period but these figures are too extreme IMO.
Having 23% GDP would mean India should be absolutely dominating back then. No doubt that India (in a loose term) was a rich and large economy but don’t think it could be that high. As a comparison, US at its highest point in the history was only between 30-40% of world GDP.
Equally there was no way India could have only 3% of GDP when the British left given how much industry and infrastructure particularly railway they have built. India has the longest railway line in Asia at that point. While Infrastructure doesn’t go into GDP directly but it is a good reflection of the economical activities they were supporting.
However, the most important thing is that in the end the most of industry and infrastructure that British India created was owned by British, they may decide to moved the wealth back to Britain or reinvest locally, for the benefit of British as opposed to local population. The assets were not gifted and were forced to leave behind. The fact that British was the first country that industrialized was due to its vast colonial holdings, in which India contributed tremendously.
My initial thought is that both the pre-colony 23% and later 3% India as % world GDP, which serves as the key evidence, are somewhat inaccurate with former being too high and latter being too low. I am sure British has exploited and benefited tremendously during the colonial period but these figures are too extreme IMO.
Having 23% GDP would mean India should be absolutely dominating back then. No doubt that India (in a loose term) was a rich and large economy but don’t think it could be that high. As a comparison, US at its highest point in the history was only between 30-40% of world GDP.
Equally there was no way India could have only 3% of GDP when the British left given how much industry and infrastructure particularly railway they have built. India has the longest railway line in Asia at that point. While Infrastructure doesn’t go into GDP directly but it is a good reflection of the economical activities they were supporting.
However, the most important thing is that in the end the most of industry and infrastructure that British India created was owned by British, they may decide to moved the wealth back to Britain or reinvest locally, for the benefit of British as opposed to local population. The assets were not gifted and were forced to leave behind. The fact that British was the first country that industrialized was due to its vast colonial holdings, in which India contributed tremendously.
Last edited:
