No Britain in WWI: Consequence on India

[Killer300]

@Killer300 yes i was thinking that a China-style communist revolution, that is an ideology of communism tailored for the agriculturalist masses might break out in the sub-continent. Or may be even a more conventional communist revolution, i.e., a revolution of the worker class, if the British continued pushing for industrialization of the sub-continent would be feasible.
On a side note i would like to believe that communism would have an appeal, with its 'caste-less society' and 'emphasis on social-justice', in pre-independence India that the current far-right enjoys with its emphasis on reforging the Indian identity on a 'Hindi-speaking Hindu' identity.
Back then, i.e., pre-World War 1, people were just too divided linguistically, culturally, etc., to allow for the concept of a 'Hindutva' (Lit. 'Hindu-ness') based identity, predominated by the culture of the Hindi-speaking belt in North India, to really catch on in the other parts.
Today Bollywood and the dominance of Hindi pop-culture has helped Hindi become much more widely spoken in the sub-continent. This was certainly not the case a century ago. Heck it wasn't the case even for my parents generation. My grandparents don't speak much Hindi, my father was born in Delhi so he is quite fluent, but my mother was born in Cuttack, Orissa so she never spoke Hindi until after she was posted in a Hindi-speaking state of Bihar 1996-97. I myself didn't know Hindi till i was like 7 years old. I learnt most of it from the policemen working under my parents and their kids with whom i used to play. I remember one time want to tell my friend to come with me and climb the Guava tree but not knowing what a guava is called in Hindi.. Lol! There I go again rambling off! Please have my sincerest apologies!
Interestingly enough some of the early 'freedom fighters', including revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, identified themselves as Communists.

No need, its all interesting! The Linguistic divide really shows India as a united state is... rather recent in the scheme of things, to say the least.

Also, that's an interesting point. Additionally, Communism could perhaps overcome the barriers traditional Nationalist movements would've faced in such a diverse India.

Additionally, it fixes the main issue you identified earlier really, the poor have no reason to back elites that, in all likelihood, would be little different than their British counterparts. Communism, on the other hand, at least in theory, offers something different to this.

Could it work out? Well... I'd think it'd hopefully work out better than Maoism, however I have no idea who would lead such a revolt, to say the least.

I know what i say here is controversial and i am in no way arguing that we would have been better off still polishing the boots of our British overlords. But i believe our past century has been a century of lost opportunities.

Very depressing.

 

[Thande]

But i believe our past century has been a century of lost opportunities.

One particular complaint along these lines I have heard is that there was a serious lack of investment in transport infrastructure between 1947 and the late 1990s--I can't remember the exact quote but somebody said something about fewer than X miles of roads were built in that time. Would you say there is truth to this?

 

[Essam]

The Muslims during the Raj, even during the early days of the Pakistan Movement (so up through the 1930's) were often the backbone of the British administration, a sort of divide and conquer and support minorities type of situation. Especially before the Rebellion of '57, the local administrators were by far mainly those who had previously administered the Mughal Empire, i.e. the literate Muslim elites of Northern India, not even the lands that would become Pakistan. After '57, there was a large movement to "raise up" the Hindu masses, as the Raj lost trust in the Muslims, but they retained a privileged and disproportionate position of power up to the end of the Raj (arguably even today.) No Britain in WW1 could have a serious impact on the Ottomans. Depending on the PoD, this effects the position of Muslim administrators in British India who were strong backers of the Caliphate in Istanbul. This is just random information on subjects I've read about in the Raj period, not sure how this helps but voilà...

 

[Killer300]

One particular complaint along these lines I have heard is that there was a serious lack of investment in transport infrastructure between 1947 and the late 1990s--I can't remember the exact quote but somebody said something about fewer than X miles of roads were built in that time. Would you say there is truth to this?

That would explain a lot. Everything I've read, among other things, suggests transportation infrastructure is essential to economic growth, to put things mildly.

 

[Kalki]

No need, its all interesting! The Linguistic divide really shows India as a united state is... rather recent in the scheme of things, to say the least.

Also, that's an interesting point. Additionally, Communism could perhaps overcome the barriers traditional Nationalist movements would've faced in such a diverse India.

Additionally, it fixes the main issue you identified earlier really, the poor have no reason to back elites that, in all likelihood, would be little different than their British counterparts. Communism, on the other hand, at least in theory, offers something different to this.

Could it work out? Well... I'd think it'd hopefully work out better than Maoism, however I have no idea who would lead such a revolt, to say the least.



Very depressing.

One particular complaint along these lines I have heard is that there was a serious lack of investment in transport infrastructure between 1947 and the late 1990s--I can't remember the exact quote but somebody said something about fewer than X miles of roads were built in that time. Would you say there is truth to this?

That would explain a lot. Everything I've read, among other things, suggests transportation infrastructure is essential to economic growth, to put things mildly.

About railways and roads in India.

First let's start with roads. The engineers of the Indus valley people were famous for introducing the world to the concept of planned cities, grid layouts, urban sewage drainage. Among other things, like introducing to the world the idea of indoor plumbing [1], they were also prolific road builders. Not as prolific as their counterparts in Rome, mind you.

Asoka, the 'peace-loving' Buddhist emperor was among the other who expanded the primitive road network over most of the Indian sub-continent around 2300 years ago.

The next major road project was undertaken by Sher Shah Suri, of the Sur dynasty of Delhi Sultanate in 1540-1545. He established a road from Sonargaon, near Dhaka, modern day Bangladesh, up to Peshawar in Pakistan.

This road, know to the British as the 'Grand Trunk' or 'GT' road was upgraded and was used, most famously by Brigadier General John Nicholson to quickly move his troops hundreds of kilometers to Delhi in the 1857 revolt. It is still in use today as a new express way.

I say 'new' because the expressway literally is. When India became independent in 1947, the road network wasn't much to write home about. Most roads were single lane, and mostly unpaved. There were only 200km of 4 lane highway and no expressways. What few roads there were ill maintained, thanks in no small measure to our corrupt bureaucrats, politicians and politically apathetic populace.

There were in fact no new major expansions of the road network from 1947 till 1988 when the National Highway Authority of India came into existence on June 15th, 1988.

Post-liberalization in 1990 it has been a different story for most of the national highways. There has been a major expansion of the road network, and we can now boast of having the second largest road network in the world [2]; albeit with the second highest number of road fatalities per year [3]. We now have 92,851 of national highways, of which 22,757 are 4-lane or 6-lane modern highways.

This did not mean the British build bad roads. The concrete roads laid down by the British more than three-quarters of a century ago in Kanpur are still in use today while roads built in my college town in relatively corruption 'free' south India 3 years ago already feature potholes (or should i say craters ) large enough to swallow up a small family car whole. Often in the flood prone plains of India, the only infrastructure left intact after a devastating flood are the roads and bridges laid down by the British. That should give you a very good idea about the 'expansion' of the road network in the past few decades. Fortunately the situation has improved quite a bit in the past decade or so; as in the fresh laid roads today should last for about 5-6 years instead of the usual 2 to 3 years before they desperately need repairs.

Arguably the British had little interest in developing the road network in the sub-continent. I believe mostly because the automobile, such an omnipresent symbol of our modern lifestyle, was yet to catch on in the sub-continent and also because it didn't necessarily have any direct bearing on the type of raw resource extraction and processing industries which dominated the early Indian industrial scene as compared to say railways.

And that brings us to railways in the sub-continent. The story of railways in India in many aspects paints quite the opposite picture of our road network. The first rail line in the subcontinent was laid down between Bombay and Thane in 1853, by the Great Indian Peninsular Railways [4]. The first train, 14 carriages long and pulled by 3 locomotives, 'Sultan', 'Sindh' and 'Sahib', ran the 21 mile [5] track in 45 minutes.

In 1875 the British invested £95 million [6] in the expansion of the railway network in the sub-continent. By 1929, there were 66,000 km (41,000 mi) of railway lines serving most of the districts in the country. At that point of time, the railways represented a capital value of some British Sterling Pounds 687 million, and carried over 620 million passengers and approximately 90 million tons of goods a year.

By 1947, India became independent, a total of 42 separate railway systems, including 32 lines owned by the former Indian princely states, the railways in India spanned a total of 55,000 km. 40% of the network laid down by the British was in the territory that comprised Pakistan [7] In 1951 these systems were nationalized and combined into the Indian Railways.

Since then the Rail network has expanded to cover over 115,000 km (71,000 mi) of track over a route of 65,436 km (40,660 mi). Around 31.9%, or 20,884 km (12,977 mi) of the total, has been electrified.

The story of railways is dramatically different from the road network of the sub-continent. I believe it is due to the same reasons, namely the importance of a rail network to a turn of the century industrial economy. With the railways the British never would have been able to obtained the raw materials for their factories in the major Indian cities and in Britain profitably enough. But a road network on the other hand was not of much use in a time when automobiles were the exception and not the rule on the roads, and few in the sub-continent could even afford them.

Its funny how answering the questions raised in this thread by people from all over the globe is helping me learn more about my own country's history. You have my sincere gratitude.

Best wishes

Kalki

[1] Well there's irony for you. The country that invented indoor plumbing has now the largest number of households without toilets. Oh history! You so silly!
[2]Second only to USA
[3]Second only to China
[4]Quite an interesting story actually. There were only two Indians on the board of the GIPR, one a Parsi and the other a Brahman. Their ancestors would have rarely shared a room, and here they were, facing down men from half a world away, steering a nation down the path of industrialization. I believe it summaries quite poignantly how the British, with their 'divide and rule' shenanigans where in the end arguably the single most important unifying factor on the subcontinent.
[6] £117 billion in 2012 GBP.... By comparison the Railway Budget, which is a separate budget from the Union budget, for the Indian Railways in the year 2012 was equivalent of around £6 billion (2012 GBP).
[7] East Pakistan and West Pakistan combined.

 

[Badshah]

The Muslims during the Raj, even during the early days of the Pakistan Movement (so up through the 1930's) were often the backbone of the British administration, a sort of divide and conquer and support minorities type of situation. Especially before the Rebellion of '57, the local administrators were by far mainly those who had previously administered the Mughal Empire, i.e. the literate Muslim elites of Northern India, not even the lands that would become Pakistan. After '57, there was a large movement to "raise up" the Hindu masses, as the Raj lost trust in the Muslims, but they retained a privileged and disproportionate position of power up to the end of the Raj (arguably even today.) No Britain in WW1 could have a serious impact on the Ottomans. Depending on the PoD, this effects the position of Muslim administrators in British India who were strong backers of the Caliphate in Istanbul. This is just random information on subjects I've read about in the Raj period, not sure how this helps but voilà...

That isn't entirely true. While Muslims played an important part within the Raj- 1857 had a very crucial role in squashing their power. Many of the Muslim elites (whom had had a privileged role within Mughal society) had refused to learn English and generally kept up with traditional Persianate practices. After the Rebellion, this became an issue, and just as Delhi became a more Hindu city, so too did the administration, simply because Hindus were quick to adapt to British rule. (Again, we're still of course, talking about the middle to upper class)

Eventually while the Muslim elites did start to adapt, (See Sir Syed Ahmed) it was a slower process. Many historians I have read attributed this to a sense of 'lost glory'. So while Muslims were still an important part of the Raj; I do not think they were any more or less a backbone than the Hindus whom also supported it.

As an aside, Kalki, you have made a very fascinating point of view, and I applaud it. It is certainly a very interesting look into British India, and absolutely comprehensive- love it.

 

[euromellows]

Would just like to add that Kalki's contribution has been superb in this thread.

Related to this Pod, would it affect whether Burma and Ceylon are considered part of a post independent India? That would have enormous ramifications as it would, I think, be the most populated country on earth. In my view it would also be entitled to a permanent security council seat equivalent in the UN or LON.

 

[Kalki]

@euromellows

Thank you for your kind words.


As for Ceylon and even Burma, they were considered part of British India. Around 1937 on wards Burma was administered as a separate colonial holding and Ceylon was a part of the Madras Presidency, a colonial administrative holding comprised of much of South India.

Even the indian independence movement was potent in these 'parts' of 'British India'.


Ever since i posted my views on this thread i have received much praise from all of you and i am very grateful for your kind words. Your words inspired me to go ahead and research a TL were the Empire does not split and neither is it subsumed into an 'Indian Empire'; the two most common assumptions about the fate of the British Empire that dominate this forum.

This is very surprisingly common. There is of course bad alternate history, just as there is bad history or bad science. But then there is also a tendency to impose our own prejudices, if i may use the word, upon any an all possibilities.

I have an out line of this TL and i would love to discuss it with you and hammer out any flaws in it so that we can maybe begin a process where this forum so often stuck in certain modes of thought can progress to accepting truly 'alternative' histories instead of just our history masquerading as an alternate.

Regards

Kalki

P.S. before i forget here is the link

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=9681363#post9681363

 

[gianni_rivera]

As someone with nearly no knowledge over India's history, this thread is surprisingly interesting...

It's also quite depressing to see a lot of your countryman keep using that river for everything. seems ur government does not really care.

 

[Badshah]

Having read the book 'India in Transition' by D. Graham Pole, published in 1932, I'm not entirely sure if I agree with you Kalki.

While there were many Indians who were given a baptism of fire during the war, the 1916 Lucknow Pact and the 1917 Declaration happened before those Indians returned from the War.

The latter was especially important because it demanded responsible government, and most agreed that that meant Dominion status. In fact, this was later confirmed as a path to Dominion status. To add to that, those in the Legislative Assembly who voted against it, were bound to vote against it, and when freed from their obligations to the ICS and other British bodies, tended to voice support for the motion. It is true that all these people were of the middle and upper classes, but the middle and upper classes were always the drivers of the independence movement. As much as Gandhi mobilized the masses towards the idea of swaraj, it was the middle and upper classes that built the idea of what independence would and should be like.

You have the class system spot on, but at the same time, this did not mean that the upper class did not want Dominion status. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and the Indian Liberals were quite good at gaining the Maharajas' support for the creation of an Indian Federation. And that's another thing I want to talk about: the Indian Liberals.

Currently, I'm working on a TL where the Indian Liberals gin more traction. OTL, they were formed in 1919 after Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and other disenchanted Congress veterans formed a party where they could pursue the goal of Dominion-status through Consitutional means. This is where I believe that no WWI would help immensely; I do believe that Dominion- Status could be won through legislation and lobbying- mediation and discourse. I fully believe that without WWI, this is the type of movement we'd be seeing within India....and it would succeed.

This is due to several factors; no war could mean a Liberal government in power, the Liberal Party generally agreeing with the equation of 'responsible government' as 'Dominion-status'. Secondly, you'd see Congress' Liberal wing likely stay within it, and Congress might pursue constitutional discourse as the path to responsible government. Furthermore, the members of the Indian Liberals were well-respected. Sapru was a great mediator, and was mediated the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Those who joined the Indian Liberals, in short, were generally great supporters of the British, but they still expected 'Dominion-hood'. Without a war, even Britain understands that they have to keep the support of their most ardent Indian supporters, lest they create the circumstances for possible rebellion (because passive resistance may not have happened, they might expect violent actions). While the Liberal Federation of All India formed in 1919, they remained a largely elite force (but then again, so was Congress and the Muslim League). And the Indian electorate is sufficiently small to keep elites in power, so much so that they were a considerable force in the electorate until 1935.

Now, returning to the point of no war. Without passive resistance, you'd still see the British educated elite fighting for equality and responsible government. You'd still see this elite fighting against Indian taxes paying for British soldiers in India, where no such expenditures are made by the dominions. This elite would still want more control over their own affairs. This elite would still want to control defence. They would still want provincial autonomy. And while the masses might not agree, I would argue that the masses were not especially concerned with the workings of government anyway. This would be a longer process for sure, but honestly, Indian nationalism was becoming a thing- the consciousness was developing. One needs to only look at the growing number of people participating in Congress before the war itself.

The longer it takes, the more you'd see those who identify as Indian Communists begin to try and mobilise the people themselves. You'd see armed groups taking the more localized approach that views themselves, as say, 'Maratha' before 'Indian'. And then, the idea of a Dominion of India looks more tantalizing to the British government than ever before.

So ultimately, I agree with you- you could keep India within the Empire- but it would have to be a dominion within it... otherwise you're looking at the continuation of authoritarian rule that will be looked upon as tyrannical, war or no. For the British electorate to b responsible for the administration of India, or the ICS being more engrossed in files and dossiers than the people they govern, is an eventual recipe for a movement. And in the end, the elite would still drive this movement, just as they always do.

 

[Badshah]

Also, Ceylon was only a part of the Madras Presidency from 1793 to 1798, and was thereafter administered as a separate Crown Colony.

 

[Kalki]

Having read the book 'India in Transition' by D. Graham Pole, published in 1932, I'm not entirely sure if I agree with you Kalki.

While there were many Indians who were given a baptism of fire during the war, the 1916 Lucknow Pact and the 1917 Declaration happened before those Indians returned from the War.

The latter was especially important because it demanded responsible government, and most agreed that that meant Dominion status. In fact, this was later confirmed as a path to Dominion status. To add to that, those in the Legislative Assembly who voted against it, were bound to vote against it, and when freed from their obligations to the ICS and other British bodies, tended to voice support for the motion. It is true that all these people were of the middle and upper classes, but the middle and upper classes were always the drivers of the independence movement. As much as Gandhi mobilized the masses towards the idea of swaraj, it was the middle and upper classes that built the idea of what independence would and should be like.

You have the class system spot on, but at the same time, this did not mean that the upper class did not want Dominion status. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and the Indian Liberals were quite good at gaining the Maharajas' support for the creation of an Indian Federation. And that's another thing I want to talk about: the Indian Liberals.

Currently, I'm working on a TL where the Indian Liberals gin more traction. OTL, they were formed in 1919 after Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and other disenchanted Congress veterans formed a party where they could pursue the goal of Dominion-status through Consitutional means. This is where I believe that no WWI would help immensely; I do believe that Dominion- Status could be won through legislation and lobbying- mediation and discourse. I fully believe that without WWI, this is the type of movement we'd be seeing within India....and it would succeed.

This is due to several factors; no war could mean a Liberal government in power, the Liberal Party generally agreeing with the equation of 'responsible government' as 'Dominion-status'. Secondly, you'd see Congress' Liberal wing likely stay within it, and Congress might pursue constitutional discourse as the path to responsible government. Furthermore, the members of the Indian Liberals were well-respected. Sapru was a great mediator, and was mediated the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Those who joined the Indian Liberals, in short, were generally great supporters of the British, but they still expected 'Dominion-hood'. Without a war, even Britain understands that they have to keep the support of their most ardent Indian supporters, lest they create the circumstances for possible rebellion (because passive resistance may not have happened, they might expect violent actions). While the Liberal Federation of All India formed in 1919, they remained a largely elite force (but then again, so was Congress and the Muslim League). And the Indian electorate is sufficiently small to keep elites in power, so much so that they were a considerable force in the electorate until 1935.

Now, returning to the point of no war. Without passive resistance, you'd still see the British educated elite fighting for equality and responsible government. You'd still see this elite fighting against Indian taxes paying for British soldiers in India, where no such expenditures are made by the dominions. This elite would still want more control over their own affairs. This elite would still want to control defence. They would still want provincial autonomy. And while the masses might not agree, I would argue that the masses were not especially concerned with the workings of government anyway. This would be a longer process for sure, but honestly, Indian nationalism was becoming a thing- the consciousness was developing. One needs to only look at the growing number of people participating in Congress before the war itself.

The longer it takes, the more you'd see those who identify as Indian Communists begin to try and mobilise the people themselves. You'd see armed groups taking the more localized approach that views themselves, as say, 'Maratha' before 'Indian'. And then, the idea of a Dominion of India looks more tantalizing to the British government than ever before.

So ultimately, I agree with you- you could keep India within the Empire- but it would have to be a dominion within it... otherwise you're looking at the continuation of authoritarian rule that will be looked upon as tyrannical, war or no. For the British electorate to b responsible for the administration of India, or the ICS being more engrossed in files and dossiers than the people they govern, is an eventual recipe for a movement. And in the end, the elite would still drive this movement, just as they always do.

Also, Ceylon was only a part of the Madras Presidency from 1793 to 1798, and was thereafter administered as a separate Crown Colony.

Apologies Badshah! I guess i missed that.

Coming back to your previous post. Yes i agree with you almost entirely. The lucknow pact and the 1917 declaration happened before the war had ended. I am not of the opinion that the idea of india was solely forged in the crucible of the Great War. But i certainly had a significant contribution to it. Though certainly not as great as what the elites of the various political parties had later on.

Moving on to a more important point: Indian Liberals. Yes certainly the liberal had been moving to garner support for more responsible government and even suggested devolution of certain powers since before the turn of the century. They had an invaluable impact in galvanizing political opinion around the issue of initially responsible government and later the question of 'swaraj'. They also were the fist to sow the seeds of the idea of an 'indian' in the minds of the common folk, or atleast other upper and middle class folk.

They were very influential in forming the foundation of the long and protracted and frankly quite unique Indian freedom struggle but they were also in the end Indian elites and not White. Wait that sounded racist so before i get banned let me clarify.

You see at the turn of the century political affiliations of the British voters, as you are well aware of, was broadly divide into liberal and conservative with a a few large blotches of socialist here and anarchists there, etc. It wasn't certain that the balance of power would remain with the Liberals forever.

People could very well have gotten upset in the situation of lack of involvement of Britain in the Great War and vote Sir H.H.Asquith out of the office.

It is easy to forget in the horror that followed the Great War how eager the belligerents were at the onset to march to war. It was a very fine balance.

All the ruling political parties, especially in a parliamentary setup, walk on a tight rope. While the Liberal party did believe in supporting dominion status for India the opposition most certainly did not. Either party may budge on minor issues but changing party stance on a major issue like dominion for a large non-white colonial holding was difficult.

All of this was compounded because it happened when racism was still considered legitimate political and social theory. An Indian was never seen as the same as a White man, even by many liberals. An educated westernized Indian, as most of the elites were might have been viewed as an equal by some Europeans but the 'uneducated, uncultured, unwashed' destitute masses were most certainly not. Even then an Indian 'elite' was nowhere as politically important as a white-man of similar social standing would be for the British politicians.

Many conservative politicians, even on the eve of Indian independence held the view that democracy is not viable in the sub-continent. I guess i am fortunate history has proven them wrong.

In summary, yes the Indian liberals would have been more influential in the absence of a Great War, especially if the Liberal party and British supporters of 'better governance=dominion status for India' remained in power as you very rightly pointed out. However there influence compared to OTL Independence movement would only be marginally better in the short run and somewhat better in the long-run. Would that have been enough to get dominion status for India? Quite possibly. Would it take longer? Most certainly. But all i say is it might take longer not because of the reasons you might imagine.

Also such an arrangement might lead to friction were Indians would not be accorded the same respect by their European and other white dominion counterparts. More important than ensuring the rise of Indian liberals was ensuring the change of the perception of Indians by the British. That way a more equitable and stable relationship would have been established between the various dominions of the Empire.

I hope my answer satisfies your query and makes you appreciate things from my perspective. I have never read many books about my country's history nor am i any expert on the subject and i have no illusions of the same. But i will certainly try my best to answer whatever questions i can.

Best regards

 

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

alright after further research I have come to some conclusions showing just how India was negatively effected by the British colonization.

Throughout the 16th-18th centuries India was the largest silk maker in the world. Cottons and silks from India flooded Europe and though imitated by Irania, Turkish, and European traders all were cheap imitations and indian cloth was preffered. At the same time India was rapidly undergoing an intellectual and scientific revolution as well. The main reason for british success in the 19th century in making british made cotton more popular was due to their tariff and protectionist policies.

On another note real living standards in India during this time period were comparable to those of the people living in Britain according to Voth. yet in the 20th century living standards in India were worse than in Britain. I don't really see how that is actually an improvement...

Buchanins data also supports this conclusion based on his extensive travels throughout the region.

Places such as Cochin, Gujarat, Bengal etc were all very rich trading nations. In fact over 28 million tons of bullion(conservative estimates) were being traded and given in the region a fifth of the worlds silver supply at the time. By the 19th century all this had changed. Even if gdp was lower all this data on the region quantitatively paints a different picture between 1600-1800. You got to understand trade formed the backbone of the subcontinent and it was this massive trade in cotton that allowed living standards to rise. In the Mughal empire alone 120 tons of silver were imported every year based on calculations by Najaf Haider.

Overall the data supports that large scale exports of textiles and large imports of money show a vibrant economic and mercantilist india.

At the same time contrary to popular belief the Mughal state was not centralized but very decentralized and was a loose centre of authority that sat on existing power structures and so competition was widespread and the various rulers of india fought each other and this competition fuelled growth.

One could say the unification by the raj negatively effected this growth that at the time was akin to Europe with its many balkanized states. All of this fuelled, Incipient state beurocracies, fiscal rationalization, restricting and modernization of militaries, standardization of weights and measures, etc. All of this required massive state spending. That in turn required expansion of economic realms including agriculture.

Contrary to popular belief about the large scale caste system in 18th century india their was large scale fluidity and movement. In south india you had skilled workers belonging to untouchable communities and weavers themselves being agriculturists or merchants or soldiers. Parayans were also a big part who were found in all sorts of occupations. many individuals also followed mixed occupations.

During british colonial rule such fluidity and movement became impossible.

Not only that their was movement among the hierarchy. many of the new leaders according to Bayly , such as the new kingdoms and lordships were descended form peaseants and/or pastorilists.(due to their martial and political abilities) Such a thing in colonial india and afterwards woul d be unheard off really.

It was so common that in Bengal Gholam Hassan commented negatively on the rise of low born commerce men to positions of power. That is clear evidence that social mobility was possible for those with political clout,talent or money. And caste rather than being harmful benefitted this whole process given it lead to connections for the banking communities to develop bonds and trusts which was crucial for business transactions over long distances. extended kinship and marriage reinforced the community to this trust and bond in mercantile trading.

In fact economically even till the end of the eighteenth century their was shortages of coin in many commercial centers in England but from copper to gold coins were plentiful in India for trade form the bottom poor to the richest few. Thus during the 16th-18th centuries india was very monetized.

Most inhabitants of the commercial and modernized regions of india were dependant on trade for their standard of living. Once most of this was curbed during colonial india many of these regions were struck badly.

In essence subsistence for most Indians depended on the successful profit made from the trading of salt, cotton, and grain, two of which were restricted by the british.

There was widespread integration of capital markets in the Mughal empire. While interest rates were higher than those of Europe the main difference was that capital could be obtained in whatever qualities desired. According to heath the interest rates ranged form 0-12.5 percent per month. While some of the lower classes were hit with harder interest rates, interest free loans in the seventheenth and eighteenth centuries were commonplace.

Basically the self sufficient village that marx though of in the 1820s and 30s iin india was not really the true situation of the region. In a gist advances in technology and science in the areas of armamaents, increasing centralization, and a vibrant trading economy charachterized india between 1600-1800.



I will continue later on in the next post about the reasons for why a divergence occurred and why Britain was able to gain dominance in the region, and why that lead to a decline in the capabilities of india and affected the subcontinent negatively. In fact from the second decade of the nintheenth century their was sustained economic regression in areas such as Bengal, South India and Gujarat to name a few.

Most of my sources come from Power and plenty, Trade and War in the second mellenium by Rourke and Findlay

Kenneth Pomeranzes China, Europe and the making of the modern world economy

and Prasannan Parthasarathi's why Europe grew Rich and Asia did not 1650-1800.

 

[Badshah]

@Kalki: the Liberals were voted out during the War. Without a war, it is likely they remain in power, which is why I reason that there would be serious reform- especially in light of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms which happened right when the Libs got back in power.

I do agree with you on many aspects. I just believe that dominion-status is inevitable if 1914 is the POD. If we go earlier, like 1870 or thereabouts, I think we can look at different possibilities.

EDIT: Because here's the main problem: as much as a lot of British politicians were racist, most whom worked in India had a more practical view of things; the Viceroys, for example, and even many Secretaries of State. The presumption that racism is going to prevent Indians from getting Dominion-status just isn't going to matter in the long run, because most educated Indian elites were treated fairly well in Britain. That's the entire point; those elites were treated equally in Britain, but in India they were not: a result of stringent rules and regulations. That is what they wanted to circumnavigate.

It is a rather bad thing to underestimate the British voter; after all, Dadhaboi Naoroji was voted into the House of Commons. While this may be a fluke, it is a fair thing to say that the Indian Liberals would not have a marginally better influence over Indian politics, but a huge one. They can present themselves as the 'equal'. The British interest in India. Thy are the link between India and Britain. And while Tory politicians can try and say otherwise, this would not be ignored by even the British electorate; give them a little credit.

While racism will last longer, and I'm not saying dominion status will happen earlier, I do think that eventually, simply through continued education, India will attain dominion-status. That is the legacy of Macaulay's reforms, and while the masses would no doubt be ignored, it's not the masses who are wooing the British electorate, anyways.

In terms of resistance, I absolutely agree with the Conservative Party being against dominion-status right away. However even they would see reforms as an imperative thing, especially in light of not just British Indian politicians but those of the Indian States. And throughout British rule, there was always that belief of ruling for the interest of India. Even if this isn't really true, there is a lot of support for reform; creating wider electorates in India, broadening provincial autonomy, reforming provincial governance, creating a constitution, etc. etc. The Tories don't believe that responsible government means Dominion-status, but these other steps do ultimately open the way to Dominion-status on their own, anyways!

Thus I think without WWI, you would be more likely to see an Indian Dominion within the Empire. Perhaps it would take til 1960 to actually happen. But I believe it would happen nonetheless.

If we go past WWI, into the initial formation of those Indian interest groups in the 1870s, that is where I think we can look at different ways to keep a British India in power. But after the 1890s, I think India's on the path to independence,by some degree.

As an aside, I have only acquire all this information over the last two weeks. University libraries are fantastic!

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Back then, i.e., pre-World War 1, people were just too divided linguistically, culturally, etc., to allow for the concept of a 'Hindutva' (Lit. 'Hindu-ness') based identity, predominated by the culture of the Hindi-speaking belt in North India, to really catch on in the other parts.
Today Bollywood and the dominance of Hindi pop-culture has helped Hindi become much more widely spoken in the sub-continent. This was certainly not the case a century ago. Heck it wasn't the case even for my parents generation. My grandparents don't speak much Hindi, my father was born in Delhi so he is quite fluent, but my mother was born in Cuttack, Orissa so she never spoke Hindi until after she was posted in a Hindi-speaking state of Bihar 1996-97. I myself didn't know Hindi till i was like 7 years old.

There are parallel currents in Chinese speech usage. "Mandarin" has become more widely used. ISTR a comment about Mandarin displacing Taiwan dialect even among ethnic Taiwanese with nationalist sentiments.

In general a lot of very interesting information. Thanks for typing it all in. (And to other contributors as well.)

 

[Kalki]

@Fredrick Barbarossa II

I have never denied that the Influence of the British on the Indian Economy and the Indian people in the days of the Raj had been anything but catastrophic. I am not an apologist for the terrible crimes of Colonialism.

I admit every single fact stated by you in your post is true. There was a huge detrimental influence of the British East India Company and later the British Raj on the sub-continent.

Native merchants lost their livelihoods and had to resort to more local and less profitable trade. A vast sum of money which was previously flowing into the coffers of local merchants and rulers was soaked up by first the BEIC and later by British merchants who monopolized the market between for foreign trade from the subcontinent.

The British East India company first drove the native traders out of the market for foreign trade, specially trade of cloth and later eliminated virtually all competition.

When the Industrial revolution kicked off in Britain they resorted to dismantling the Indian textile industry, which used to supplement the livelihoods of millions of farmers in the sub-continent. They then raised taxes in cash instead of kind, resulting in millions of farmer being forced to produce cotton and other raw products for the factories in Britain. The elimination of the domestic textile industry, centered primarily around the labor intensive cottage industries, ensured a market for British cloth produced from the same cotton exported from the sub-continent.

All of this combined to push millions into poverty and was directly the cause of several massive famines which wiped out millions in the sub-continent. In fact the expansion of the railway network directly contributed to the scale of the famines as more and more raw materials could be shipped from those parts serviced by the railways, easing the burden of robbing the sub-continent.

However this only part of the story.

You said that at the turn of the 17th century the standard of living for much of the sub-continent was the same or a little better than that for much of Europe. I don't contest that fact. Infact it had to be so because it was a time before the Industrial revolution and the modern age of plenty we live in.

The vast majority of the population of either continent were farmers. Simple farmers with little or no means of expanding their incomes very significantly. Neither the Indians nor their European counterparts necessarily enjoy their lives, as evidenced by the emigration of thousands from Europe to the Americas and the occasional revolts in the Mughal provinces. Of course religious conflict and war and disease also accounted for a fair share of the immigration but India was not a land of peace and tranquility either back in the 1600s. The Mughals fought their fair share of wars, especially in the Southern and Western half of the sub-continent. The regions of Bengal, Eastern India and Gujurat, etc., that you mention were relative conflict free compared to say the Sultanate and Maratha lands of the Deccan. That stability might have afforded these regions better options for establishing trade ties and promoting commerce. But the rest weren't necessarily so much better off.

In short there wasn't much difference in the standard of living between East and the West because there wasn't much that could make a difference.

As for the caste system, it has gone through several phases of being more or less rigid. These have always coincided with economic prosperity of the sub-continent. This is happening even today as the economic progress of India has allowed millions of lower caste Indians a degree of social mobility. Of course more needs to be done to ensure adequate social mobility for the different castes in India, but that is not the discussion here. Just as economic difficulties limit upward mobility in any economy so did they do in India, except for the fact that instead of absolute social mobility we have mobility of castes in general. I am sure that the economic difficulties of the sub-continent in the 18th and early 19th century must have made the caste system a lot more rigid compared to the prosperous times of the 17th century.

Coming back to the Industrial revolution. It did raise the standard of living of thousands of factory workers in Europe but it was not necessarily by an extraordinary amount. Just read any of the social commentaries, i mean 'novels', authored in the mid 19th to late 19th century. The appalling conditions of the Urban poor mentioned in works such as Oliver Twist, Christmas Carol and other works were very much existent in the Industrial Era. Such a social structure pretty much was the reason why ideologies such as communism emerged.

I hope the points i have raised are considered in this discussion. Apologies if i come across as hostile or confrontational in any of my thoughts above, i am in a squeeze for time and such couldn't properly edit this post.

Respectfully,

Kalki

 

[Kalki]

@Kalki: the Liberals were voted out during the War. Without a war, it is likely they remain in power, which is why I reason that there would be serious reform- especially in light of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms which happened right when the Libs got back in power.

I do agree with you on many aspects. I just believe that dominion-status is inevitable if 1914 is the POD. If we go earlier, like 1870 or thereabouts, I think we can look at different possibilities.

EDIT: Because here's the main problem: as much as a lot of British politicians were racist, most whom worked in India had a more practical view of things; the Viceroys, for example, and even many Secretaries of State. The presumption that racism is going to prevent Indians from getting Dominion-status just isn't going to matter in the long run, because most educated Indian elites were treated fairly well in Britain. That's the entire point; those elites were treated equally in Britain, but in India they were not: a result of stringent rules and regulations. That is what they wanted to circumnavigate.

It is a rather bad thing to underestimate the British voter; after all, Dadhaboi Naoroji was voted into the House of Commons. While this may be a fluke, it is a fair thing to say that the Indian Liberals would not have a marginally better influence over Indian politics, but a huge one. They can present themselves as the 'equal'. The British interest in India. Thy are the link between India and Britain. And while Tory politicians can try and say otherwise, this would not be ignored by even the British electorate; give them a little credit.

While racism will last longer, and I'm not saying dominion status will happen earlier, I do think that eventually, simply through continued education, India will attain dominion-status. That is the legacy of Macaulay's reforms, and while the masses would no doubt be ignored, it's not the masses who are wooing the British electorate, anyways.

In terms of resistance, I absolutely agree with the Conservative Party being against dominion-status right away. However even they would see reforms as an imperative thing, especially in light of not just British Indian politicians but those of the Indian States. And throughout British rule, there was always that belief of ruling for the interest of India. Even if this isn't really true, there is a lot of support for reform; creating wider electorates in India, broadening provincial autonomy, reforming provincial governance, creating a constitution, etc. etc. The Tories don't believe that responsible government means Dominion-status, but these other steps do ultimately open the way to Dominion-status on their own, anyways!

Thus I think without WWI, you would be more likely to see an Indian Dominion within the Empire. Perhaps it would take til 1960 to actually happen. But I believe it would happen nonetheless.

If we go past WWI, into the initial formation of those Indian interest groups in the 1870s, that is where I think we can look at different ways to keep a British India in power. But after the 1890s, I think India's on the path to independence,by some degree.

As an aside, I have only acquire all this information over the last two weeks. University libraries are fantastic!

As i said before Badshah I completely agree with you. However racism as you rightly pointed out, would remain a factor until pretty much later than in OTL. It is just that for dominion status to be accorded, the Indian masses, or at least a significant part of the Indians with franchise in a dominion, will have to be viewed as equals by he British public. As for Dominion status i agree with your analysis. late-1950s sounds about right.

We both have been pretty much arguing the same thing except for the details, don't you think?

Regards

kalki

 

[Kalki]

There are parallel currents in Chinese speech usage. "Mandarin" has become more widely used. ISTR a comment about Mandarin displacing Taiwan dialect even among ethnic Taiwanese with nationalist sentiments.

In general a lot of very interesting information. Thanks for typing it all in. (And to other contributors as well.)

Thank you @Rich Rostrum for your appreciation of my modest efforts. And thank you for the interesting little nugget about 'Mandarin' in Taiwan. Increasing economic integration anywhere in the globe eventually lead to a merging of dialects and even dialects. Increasing Taiwanese economic ties with the mainland will of course result in a more mainland like dialect being spoken in Taiwan. Wouldn't you agree?

Kalki

 

[Badshah]

As i said before Badshah I completely agree with you. However racism as you rightly pointed out, would remain a factor until pretty much later than in OTL. It is just that for dominion status to be accorded, the Indian masses, or at least a significant part of the Indians with franchise in a dominion, will have to be viewed as equals by he British public. As for Dominion status i agree with your analysis. late-1950s sounds about right.

We both have been pretty much arguing the same thing except for the details, don't you think?

Regards

kalki

I'm not arguing with you, but simply elaborating my ideas.
I'm pretty amped to see what you do think up for your tl.

 

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

@Fredrick Barbarossa II

I have never denied that the Influence of the British on the Indian Economy and the Indian people in the days of the Raj had been anything but catastrophic. I am not an apologist for the terrible crimes of Colonialism.

I admit every single fact stated by you in your post is true. There was a huge detrimental influence of the British East India Company and later the British Raj on the sub-continent.

Native merchants lost their livelihoods and had to resort to more local and less profitable trade. A vast sum of money which was previously flowing into the coffers of local merchants and rulers was soaked up by first the BEIC and later by British merchants who monopolized the market between for foreign trade from the subcontinent.

The British East India company first drove the native traders out of the market for foreign trade, specially trade of cloth and later eliminated virtually all competition.

When the Industrial revolution kicked off in Britain they resorted to dismantling the Indian textile industry, which used to supplement the livelihoods of millions of farmers in the sub-continent. They then raised taxes in cash instead of kind, resulting in millions of farmer being forced to produce cotton and other raw products for the factories in Britain. The elimination of the domestic textile industry, centered primarily around the labor intensive cottage industries, ensured a market for British cloth produced from the same cotton exported from the sub-continent.

All of this combined to push millions into poverty and was directly the cause of several massive famines which wiped out millions in the sub-continent. In fact the expansion of the railway network directly contributed to the scale of the famines as more and more raw materials could be shipped from those parts serviced by the railways, easing the burden of robbing the sub-continent.

However this only part of the story.

You said that at the turn of the 17th century the standard of living for much of the sub-continent was the same or a little better than that for much of Europe. I don't contest that fact. Infact it had to be so because it was a time before the Industrial revolution and the modern age of plenty we live in.

The vast majority of the population of either continent were farmers. Simple farmers with little or no means of expanding their incomes very significantly. Neither the Indians nor their European counterparts necessarily enjoy their lives, as evidenced by the emigration of thousands from Europe to the Americas and the occasional revolts in the Mughal provinces. Of course religious conflict and war and disease also accounted for a fair share of the immigration but India was not a land of peace and tranquility either back in the 1600s. The Mughals fought their fair share of wars, especially in the Southern and Western half of the sub-continent. The regions of Bengal, Eastern India and Gujurat, etc., that you mention were relative conflict free compared to say the Sultanate and Maratha lands of the Deccan. That stability might have afforded these regions better options for establishing trade ties and promoting commerce. But the rest weren't necessarily so much better off.

In short there wasn't much difference in the standard of living between East and the West because there wasn't much that could make a difference.

As for the caste system, it has gone through several phases of being more or less rigid. These have always coincided with economic prosperity of the sub-continent. This is happening even today as the economic progress of India has allowed millions of lower caste Indians a degree of social mobility. Of course more needs to be done to ensure adequate social mobility for the different castes in India, but that is not the discussion here. Just as economic difficulties limit upward mobility in any economy so did they do in India, except for the fact that instead of absolute social mobility we have mobility of castes in general. I am sure that the economic difficulties of the sub-continent in the 18th and early 19th century must have made the caste system a lot more rigid compared to the prosperous times of the 17th century.

Coming back to the Industrial revolution. It did raise the standard of living of thousands of factory workers in Europe but it was not necessarily by an extraordinary amount. Just read any of the social commentaries, i mean 'novels', authored in the mid 19th to late 19th century. The appalling conditions of the Urban poor mentioned in works such as Oliver Twist, Christmas Carol and other works were very much existent in the Industrial Era. Such a social structure pretty much was the reason why ideologies such as communism emerged.

I hope the points i have raised are considered in this discussion. Apologies if i come across as hostile or confrontational in any of my thoughts above, i am in a squeeze for time and such couldn't properly edit this post.

Respectfully,

Kalki

nah your not confrontational.

As for the points you make

even in the 18th and 19th century early on it was as prosperous if not more in South Asia. Its only starting from the 1820s-30s that I mentioned were when things go downhill for the subcontinent.

As for your points on the rigidity due to economic conditions I agree. It seems in times of prosperity the system was very lax but in times of hardship it would become rigid. Either way that is not what's being discussed.

I agree that industrial revolution did raise standard of living for most workers but that occurred in Europe. All im saying is that because the implementation of industrialization and mercantile commerce in India was botched up during the 1800s the entire regions standard of living fell. No doubt if South Asia had properly industrialized and modernized at the time its living standards would have rose but they didn't unfortunately.

Yes their was no tranquillity in India which I mentioned in my post. In fact there was active competition among the statelets which is a good thing because it fuelled economical, agricultural, and technological growth and lead to a rapid expansion and centralization of the various statelets. Perhaps not the mughals state itself but certainly the statelets of the rajas and nawabs especially those in South and East India.

Actually their were many differences between Europe between 1500-1700. Such as deforestation leading to Europeans seeking other resources such as coal.

Most European traders struggled to compete in the market for silks, porcleans, and texitiles because even though they imitated the crafts from Asia, people preffered the Asian ones even though they were priced higher. In fact large numbers of those who bought cotton in Europe could tell which cloths were superior and which were inferior which hurt European traders. At least in the economic sphere their was a difference that favoured asia.

In fact Asian cotton lead to ottoman bankruptcy. Ottomans tried imitating the designs from Asia, people preffered the Asian cotton and the Ottomans sunk lots of their silver and went bankrupt trying to prop up their traders. It may not be the only cause but it certainly was a major one.

The difference was that by the late 18th century, European states unlike the Ottomans, and more specifically the dutch and the English began introducing protectionist policies and sending their merchants to Asia to learn the trade through apprenticeships and this would become the death knell you could say for the Asian traders since the Asian states did not pursue such protectionist policies in regards to commerce.