longsword14

Banned
Wasn't stagnant in Japan, for instance. It's a pretty bad tell for British rule that it had no impact on India's economic development.
Eh, not so bad as some pretend. The Raj wasn't a native post colonial state desperately trying catch up, they would never have done the same that a competent local body would have.
Still, they were not worse than any India ruler previously.
 
Still, they were not worse than any India ruler previously.

Of course they were worse. Colonial empires are worse than older states in a very fundamental way, and India was not special in that way.

I realize you probably have me on ignore, but I highly dispute this.
 
which sounds fairly, well, supportive to me (you can find plenty of more detailed accounts elsewhere on the web, I cited this because it's from the horse's mouth, so to speak). Oh, and the Tatas didn't even seek British funding because they wanted the business to be entirely Indian owned.
Let me suggest you not rely on the corporate website for a history of their relations with British capital. Tata Iron and Steel was funded entirely from Indian capital. What your quotes actually show is that in the early 1900s, the British liberalized restrictions on Indian industry (what did you think the licenses were?) Check The Chaos of Empire: The British Raj and the Conquest of India for more on this. It is undisputed that the initial capital raises for Tata Steel came about form Indian investors during the first stirrings of Indian nationalism.
 
Eh, not so bad as some pretend. The Raj wasn't a native post colonial state desperately trying catch up, they would never have done the same that a competent local body would have.
Still, they were not worse than any India ruler previously.

"Britain: No worse than the Mughals!" Is not a high bar.
 
"Britain: No worse than the Mughals!" Is not a high bar.
. Higher than you might think. In terms of population and economic growth the Mughal dynasty was the high point of pre-Raj India's history. I once twenty years ago had a very interesting conversation with an Indian Air Force officer who was of the opinion that, on balance, British rule had been a good thing for India and that local rulers would have done more harm than the British. He made the point that the Viceroys were specifically selected to govern Britain's most important colonial possession and that consequently, of 30 or 40 odd, none were mad, bad or incompetent and only one (Dalhousie) a proselysing religious zealot. He felt that Indian rulers 1860-1947 could not have matched that record. While he did not explicitly criticize Indian rulers 1947 -1998, I got the strong impression that he was comparing them unfavourably also.
Population was rising around most of the world during this period, certainly in Britain. But in much of the world per capita incomes also increased. Keeping up with Malthus is pretty bad, IMO.
Not as bad as not keeping up;). But look at Britain or Germany 1816-2017. Britain had (including Ireland) around 20 million people in 1816 and Britain and the ROI together have around 76 million in 2017. Population has roughly quadrupled. Germany had just over 23 million people in 1816 and has around 81.3 million in 2017. Population has just fallen short of quadrupling.
India had around 209 million people in 1820 and now has 1.33 billion. Population has more than sextupled.
So Britain or Germany have been able to outpace Malthus much more easily than India. If their populations had grown at the same rate as India's then their economic growth would have needed to be consistently 25% higher than OTL for their living standards to be comparable with OTL today. As I said, India has to run harder in order to stay still
 
Let me suggest you not rely on the corporate website for a history of their relations with British capital. Tata Iron and Steel was funded entirely from Indian capital. What your quotes actually show is that in the early 1900s, the British liberalized restrictions on Indian industry (what did you think the licenses were?) Check The Chaos of Empire: The British Raj and the Conquest of India for more on this. It is undisputed that the initial capital raises for Tata Steel came about form Indian investors during the first stirrings of Indian nationalism.

Do you know of any academic reviews on this book? I generally like to see the opinions of scholarly people before I purchase a history book.

. Higher than you might think. In terms of population and economic growth the Mughal dynasty was the high point of pre-Raj India's history. I once twenty years ago had a very interesting conversation with an Indian Air Force officer who was of the opinion that, on balance, British rule had been a good thing for India and that local rulers would have done more harm than the British. He made the point that the Viceroys were specifically selected to govern Britain's most important colonial possession and that consequently, of 30 or 40 odd, none were mad, bad or incompetent and only one (Dalhousie) a proselysing religious zealot. He felt that Indian rulers 1860-1947 could not have matched that record. While he did not explicitly criticize Indian rulers 1947 -1998, I got the strong impression that he was comparing them unfavourably also.
Not as bad as not keeping up;). But look at Britain or Germany 1816-2017. Britain had (including Ireland) around 20 million people in 1816 and Britain and the ROI together have around 76 million in 2017. Population has roughly quadrupled. Germany had just over 23 million people in 1816 and has around 81.3 million in 2017. Population has just fallen short of quadrupling.
India had around 209 million people in 1820 and now has 1.33 billion. Population has more than sextupled.
So Britain or Germany have been able to outpace Malthus much more easily than India. If their populations had grown at the same rate as India's then their economic growth would have needed to be consistently 25% higher than OTL for their living standards to be comparable with OTL today. As I said, India has to run harder in order to stay still

The Mughals were a regime that didn't even maintain power into the 18th century. It's absurd to compare them to a regime in the 19th century that had the full benefits of the Industrial Revolution. Imagine if you used that defence for the modern British government. "Well they aren't any worse that the British government of the 1600's".

In any case, I haven't met anyone making this comparison that even understands the basic differences of colonial versus indigenous rule. Did that air force officer have any kind of academic historical knowledge?
 
The Mughals were a regime that didn't even maintain power into the 18th century. It's absurd to compare them to a regime in the 19th century that had the full benefits of the Industrial Revolution.
They were also a regime that carried out extensive land and administrative reform and improved infrastructure which laid to considerable population growth, urbanisation and proto-industrialisation so possibly not all that absurd? Prior to the arrival of the railways and telegraph system, the best time to be an Indian in terms of life expectancy and career and business opportunities was the heyday of the Mughals.
 
"Britain: No worse than the Mughals!" Is not a high bar.

Longsword tends to defend Britain a lot, and they hold a quite massive hatred for the Mughal Empire. Arguing with them over this subject is simply useless.

In terms of population and economic growth the Mughal dynasty was the high point of pre-Raj India's history.

I disagree with that. The high point of pre-British conquest Indian history was Mysore, which grew so much that it surpassed Bengal - which once made up half of India's GDP. Though I don't doubt that Bengal's devastation at the hands of the British, as well as the massive famine of 1770 played a role as well.

They were also a regime that carried out extensive land and administrative reform and improved infrastructure which laid to considerable population growth, urbanisation and proto-industrialisation so possibly not all that absurd?

Yes, it's totally absurd. It would be more accurate to compare the Mughal Empire to Britain in around the same time period, or Italy in about 1790.
 
In any case, I haven't met anyone making this comparison that even understands the basic differences of colonial versus indigenous rule. Did that air force officer have any kind of academic historical knowledge?
Well he spent about two hours with me discussing the continuity and differences between Indian foreign and defence policy under the Raj and today (today being 1998) with some discursions into trade and economic policy (as it influenced the former). And in a digression critically analysed both General Dyer's actions in Amritsar and those of the Indian security forces sixty five odd years later that led to the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi (in his view both were trigger happy and could have handled the situation better). And had a better knowledge than I of the Indian Viceroys. And fully realised the racially prejudiced nature of British rule at the time. So I would imagine Staff College at least.
 
And in a digression critically analysed both General Dyer's actions in Amritsar and those of the Indian security forces sixty five odd years later that led to the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi (in his view both were trigger happy and could have handled the situation better).

So, he compared Dyer to Indira Gandhi? Well, that's pretty ridiculous. For one, the Punjabis celebrating Vaisakhi were hardly threatening the unity of India - all they were doing was what people in the general region did every year. The Sikh terrorists, on the other hand, certainly were. Second, if we were to accept that Indira Gandhi and General Dyer are equals in every way, Indira Gandhi was a tyrant who jailed her opposition and allowed her son to enact a tyrannical campaign of forced sterilization. To compare General Dyer to who was easily the most authoritarian prime minister in independent India's history is pretty damning.
 
I'll grant you Mysore but arguably its growth was coeval with British conquest of India rather than prior to it?

Mysore's growth began during Mughal times, actually, in the time of Chikka Deva Raja. The difference, of course, is that the collapse of the Mughal Empire did not deeply affect Mysore too much, and so it grew substantially to the point that it surpassed Bengal, which made up half of India's GDP in 1700.
 
His criticism was not of Mrs.Gandhi per se but the forces on the ground (or of her only in so far as permission was given by her). In both cases he felt that there had been an immediate recourse to the use of force without adequate intelligence gathering or analysis. And consequences that went far beyond the objectives of the local commanders. Nor did he have any objection to action to eliminate the Sikh group that I discerned. He did however think it foolish and counterproductive to storm a holy site and compared this to Britain's actions in Dublin 1916 post the Rising. Alienation of those hitherto loyal.
 
Top