AHC: Bengal Renaissance Leads to Industrialization

[Ganesha]

The Bengal Renaissance was a period of immense social change, literary flouring, and cultural shift in Bengal from about 1800 to 1940. Its secular leaders were men like Ram Mohan Roy and Rabindranath Tagore, as well as prominent religious figures like Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. There was also a scientific boom, enabled mostly by Western educational institutions, which produced scientists like Sadyendra Nath Bose and Jagadish Chandro Bose.

Your challenge is to create an economic counterpart to the Bengal Renaissance. Bring industrialization and modernization to Bengal, so that by the 1930s, Bengal's economic development is comparable to most countries in Europe.

You can achieve this while keeping Bengal under British rule (more likely), or go for an earlier POD and avoid the British altogether.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Faeelin]

I actually think British rule has to be aborted to do this; it was a disaster for Bengal.

[B_Munro]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I actually think British rule has to be aborted to do this; it was a disaster for Bengal.

Yep, Bengal was perhaps the wealthiest area in India when the British took over: they pretty much wiped out all the local "cottage" industries, some of which had existed on quite a large scale. Indian wealth per capita failed to grow at all during the 19th century (the joys of Comprador Capitalism: and people wonder why the Indian National Congress was lefty), but I'm pretty sure that Bengal saw actual contraction compared to other parts of the country.

Bruce

[B_Munro]

Now, if we have a "Napoleon wins, Britain survives" scenario in which developing the manpower and industrial capacity of the Empire becomes the difference between independence and a big-ass statue of Napoleon built on the ruins of Parliament, there might be some possibilities...

Bruce

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I actually think British rule has to be aborted to do this; it was a disaster for Bengal.

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Yep, Bengal was perhaps the wealthiest area in India when the British took over: they pretty much wiped out all the local "cottage" industries, some of which had existed on quite a large scale. Indian wealth per capita failed to grow at all during the 19th century (the joys of Comprador Capitalism: and people wonder why the Indian National Congress was lefty), but I'm pretty sure that Bengal saw actual contraction compared to other parts of the country.

Bruce

In that case, we'll need an earlier POD. The Battle of Plassey is an obvious choice, but by that point, it was too late to turn back the European tide. If the British didn't get their way at Plassey, they'd come back sooner or later, and if not the British, than another European party. You only need to look at Europe and China to understand that.

No, a better POD would be in the 1720s, following the death of the second Nawab of Bengal. Murshaid Khan was the first Nawab, and he was a fairly good ruler, designing an efficient, independent tax structure and supporting some degree of pluralism. However, he failed to adequately set up a successor, and after some infighting the next Nawab was Shuja-ud-Din Khan, who was also just fine (in fact, better than fine).

However, following his death, his son, Sarfaraz Khan, took over, and began Bengal's true decline. He was indolent and let his advisors take the actual power from the throne, leading to much higher levels of corruption and instability. If Sarfaraz Khan dies, the throne falls to his younger brother. I don't know much about him, but it's a point to play around with.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

In that case, we'll need an earlier POD. The Battle of Plassey is an obvious choice, but by that point, it was too late to turn back the European tide. If the British didn't get their way at Plassey, they'd come back sooner or later, and if not the British, than another European party. You only need to look at Europe and China to understand that

I'm not as familiar with Bengal as with South India but the South Indian states seem to me to have been on the verge of a breakthrough in military doctrine that would have allowed them to hold their own against Company armies. Given another 20 years or so of an Anglo-French balance of power in the subcontinent, Indian monarchs might have been able to make the organisational adjustments to present a more credible opposition. This wouldn't totally negate European dominance of India but it might raise the possibility of avoiding outright colonisation. Thus you might have Bengal as a British client with Hyderabad as a French client, Travancore as a Dutch client and so on. This would be a scenario where local organisations and infrastructure would be better preserved instead of being converted to a full on plantation/subsistence agriculture economy.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I actually think British rule has to be aborted to do this; it was a disaster for Bengal.

Yep, or at least the East India Company's rule specifically. They were bastards.

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

I'm not as familiar with Bengal as with South India but the South Indian states seem to me to have been on the verge of a breakthrough in military doctrine that would have allowed them to hold their own against Company armies. Given another 20 years or so of an Anglo-French balance of power in the subcontinent, Indian monarchs might have been able to make the organisational adjustments to present a more credible opposition. This wouldn't totally negate European dominance of India but it might raise the possibility of avoiding outright colonisation. Thus you might have Bengal as a British client with Hyderabad as a French client, Travancore as a Dutch client and so on. This would be a scenario where local organisations and infrastructure would be better preserved instead of being converted to a full on plantation/subsistence agriculture economy.

Well, Bengali armies were not nearly as well organized as even South Indian ones at the time. In addition, their military technology was lackluster and mostly based off of imported Dutch arms and occasional imports from Persia or Britain.

On the other hand, Bengal did have some advantages that many South Indian states didn't. Bengal had a much larger population base to call upon and a history of widespread military conscription - it wasn't uncommon for most adult males to be trained soliders as well. Additionally, Bengal was still nominally a part of the Mughal Empire and could call for financial support and troops from Delhi. Finally, from my understanding, Bengal initially had an extremely efficient tax structure - zamindars had less power in Bengal than practically anywhere else in the Empire. Apart from the nobility closely related to the Nawab himself, Bengal didn't have a strong aristocratic class. The middle class was far more important, consisting of lots of traders, small-business owners, and mid-size farmers who would employ 20-30 workers.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

Additionally, Bengal was still nominally a part of the Mughal Empire and could call for financial support and troops from Delhi.

How much support could be offered by the Mughal Empire though? By 1800, wasn't Delhi pretty much the only territory securely controlled by the Mughals? I remember there's the claim that the Emperor's power didn't extend beyond the Red Fort, though I'm sure that's an exaggeration.

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

How much support could be offered by the Mughal Empire though? By 1800, wasn't Delhi pretty much the only territory securely controlled by the Mughals? I remember there's the claim that the Emperor's power didn't extend beyond the Red Fort, though I'm sure that's an exaggeration.

Yes, the Mughal state was very weak, but the Empire's financial wealth was still quite considerable. Additionally, Mughal support effectively safeguarded Bengal against outright war with its neighbors - they weren't often willing to fight each other explicitly, which gives Bengal some more flexibility in dealing with the British.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

Yes, the Mughal state was very weak, but the Empire's financial wealth was still quite considerable. Additionally, Mughal support effectively safeguarded Bengal against outright war with its neighbors - they weren't often willing to fight each other explicitly, which gives Bengal some more flexibility in dealing with the British.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Hmm, so in event of a conflict between Bengal and a European power, perhaps Bengal would be supported financially directly by the Mughals, but the forces on the grounds might be a combination of locals and allied Mughal vassals?

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Hmm, so in event of a conflict between Bengal and a European power, perhaps Bengal would be supported financially directly by the Mughals, but the forces on the grounds might be a combination of locals and allied Mughal vassals?

Almost certainly the vast majority of the troops would be local Bengali, Tripuran, and Assamese troops. A few allied Mughal vassals would contribute troops, but not many. You might also see a few troops from an allied European power.

In any case, we're getting away from the original topic here. What conditions need to be met to have an economic renaissance in Bengal?

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Now, if we have a "Napoleon wins, Britain survives" scenario in which developing the manpower and industrial capacity of the Empire becomes the difference between independence and a big-ass statue of Napoleon built on the ruins of Parliament, there might be some possibilities...

Bruce

You think Britain would create industry in India because they were scared of the French? I don't think they'd get that scared till the French were sitting in Buckingham Palace drinking fine wine.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

In that case, we'll need an earlier POD. The Battle of Plassey is an obvious choice, but by that point, it was too late to turn back the European tide. If the British didn't get their way at Plassey, they'd come back sooner or later, and if not the British, than another European party. You only need to look at Europe and China to understand that.

No, a better POD would be in the 1720s, following the death of the second Nawab of Bengal. Murshaid Khan was the first Nawab, and he was a fairly good ruler, designing an efficient, independent tax structure and supporting some degree of pluralism. However, he failed to adequately set up a successor, and after some infighting the next Nawab was Shuja-ud-Din Khan, who was also just fine (in fact, better than fine).

However, following his death, his son, Sarfaraz Khan, took over, and began Bengal's true decline. He was indolent and let his advisors take the actual power from the throne, leading to much higher levels of corruption and instability. If Sarfaraz Khan dies, the throne falls to his younger brother. I don't know much about him, but it's a point to play around with.

Cheers,
Ganesha

It's still possible that the Bengalis manage to hold off any other moves on their territory....they could prevent Indians from joining the EICs, for instance.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by trollhole

It's still possible that the Bengalis manage to hold off any other moves on their territory....they could prevent Indians from joining the EICs, for instance.

The problem with that is that its unrealistic, much like with the Byzantine empire surviving to the modern day you need to find a way to fundamentally change the situation or else there will be a point where they are caught at a moment of weakness and beaten.

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

The problem with that is that its unrealistic, much like with the Byzantine empire surviving to the modern day you need to find a way to fundamentally change the situation or else there will be a point where they are caught at a moment of weakness and beaten.

Not necessarily, because the East India Company's rely on Indian troops just as much as the Bengalis. Plus a costlier win in the Battle of Plassey might motivate them into being more proactive....perhaps an extension of the alliance with the French.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by trollhole

Not necessarily, because the East India Company's rely on Indian troops just as much as the Bengalis. Plus a costlier win in the Battle of Plassey might motivate them into being more proactive....perhaps an extension of the alliance with the French.

But the HEIC had better Indian troops than Bengal did... and more consistent leadership, too. The big problem for any Indian state was that even the most competent rulers couldn't guarantee competent heirs, and it only needed one generation to slip up for the imposition of HEIC control...

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

But the HEIC had better Indian troops than Bengal did... and more consistent leadership, too. The big problem for any Indian state was that even the most competent rulers couldn't guarantee competent heirs, and it only needed one generation to slip up for the imposition of HEIC control...

Yep. The importation of some sort of parliamentary system would be best for Bengal, but that seems highly unlikely under any ruler, either Bengali, Mughal, or British.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

But the HEIC had better Indian troops than Bengal did... and more consistent leadership, too. The big problem for any Indian state was that even the most competent rulers couldn't guarantee competent heirs, and it only needed one generation to slip up for the imposition of HEIC control...

Yea, this is why I think a surviving Sikh state is so hard to do. Hrm.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

But the HEIC had better Indian troops than Bengal did... and more consistent leadership, too. The big problem for any Indian state was that even the most competent rulers couldn't guarantee competent heirs, and it only needed one generation to slip up for the imposition of HEIC control...

This is why a situation where multiple Western powers have interests in India works in favour of the Indians. If there's a balance of power, no one European power can move as freely.

If, say, Maharaja Ravi Varma I of Travancore was a good ruler but his son Ravi Varma II is a moron the HEIC might want to move in but if Travancore is in the French sphere of influence, they might not be able to do so as effectively. Same thing goes for the French against British clients.