octoberman
Banned
Not true colonization of India did not cause industrialisation because industrializing trends didn't change with it https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/maleoccupationalstructure/
What if India was never colonized?
- Thread starter Apple3169
- Start date
octoberman
Banned
Proto industrialisation is just a word to equate human made goods with industrial machinery the format does not lead to the latter
I think Habsburg Austria would be a more appropriate comparison to the Mughals. The Mughals were still a gunpowder empire akin to the Safavids and Ottomans, bro.
What I'm saying is that it's still a very odd process.
octoberman
Banned
You got it reversed Comparing Mughals with Normans is a false equivalency of the highest order. Normans did not institute a religiously discriminatory tax on the population of England like the Mughals did with Hindus. Mughals always preferred foreigners as officials and soldiers over natives unlike normans
You got it in the reverse Japan modernised only because it give up the right to be free to dictate their own foreign and domestic policy without without a single fight when the shogunate gave i into the Perry's demands from America before he fired any shot unlike Siraj ud-Daulah who jumped into war with Britain with traitors in his ranks. Shogunate did not support regional rulers like Satsuma who fought against Europeans unlike China started the second opium war supporting the actions of canton's administrators despite fighting rebellions and already being soundly defeated by the Britian in the first opium war. Japan patiently waited for the Europeans to renegotiate unequal treaty until they modernised and defeated China which motivated Europeans ended the unequal treaties unlike Indians like Mir Jafar, Mir Qasim, Baji Rao II who quickly double crossed Britian after Britian helped them gain the throne
By constant innovation you mean ? only a portion of the regular army being modernised while most of their troops did not have any guns and their primary guns using 300 year old matchlock mechanism
By going toe-to-toe you mean ? being Completely subjugated
Only Japan modernised and they escaped colonization because the modernised not the other way around. Ethiopia did not escape colonization it was colonized by Italy under Mussolini the least of great powers. Ottomans, Iran, Thailand escaped by becoming buffer States and India is too big to become one. China was not colonized because Britain opposed it from there experience of the hurdles in administering a large colony like India so it won't happen to India
Turkey, China and Iran will still fail to modernize in the Absence of Raj. if anything makes Turkey weak it does not strength in it because Britain assisted Turkey throughout the 19th century against Russia. China fail to modernised because of conservatism and it will still be defeated in the opium wars with Europeans being still be motivated by trade deficit and opium is not unique to India it can even be grown in Britain. Iran will be conquered by Russia without Britain to balance amount
You got it reverse. Egypt was on the verge of conquering Turkey before Britain and other European powers stopped it
octoberman
Banned
India didn't have industries to be deindustrialized
which led to massive famines, British were able to be food secure precisely because of India
Prove it with data not mere assertions
That's outdated propaganda. Weaver cut their thumbs by themselves in protest of low wages in India
octoberman
Banned
Which was nothing infront of european navies. because it was soley for costal defence none it's ships were capable of transoceanic warfare.India's last and only navy were the cholas. So no colonization
Protugal never destroyed all Naval power in india.They only destroyed Naval power of petty kingdoms and continued fighting Deccan navy. Mughal navy even managed to evict BEIC in 17th century
octoberman
Banned
Upper castes never wanted a population balance with a lower castes. They always wanted to oppress most of their population through caste system. If surdas are exiled who will be forced to work the field. Before Green Revolution which happened after WW2 and independence Indian Agricultural efficiency always depended on amount of labour. If Dalits are exiled who will be forced to perform tasks nobody wanted to like Sewage cleaning, Managing graveyards and dead cows
@octoberman chill, dude. In like the past hour, you've replied like ten times to every thread about India being colonized. Give people a chance to reply.
octoberman
Banned
Kick
Because it was used to oppress most Indians for thousands of years. Evidence for caste oppression goes back to end of Vedic age in Iron age 10th century BCE in Purusha Sukta and Indian castes mostly stopped intermarriage by 5th century CE
You got it reverse. British curtailed caste system and they were the first to do affirmative action against it.
Substitute British Era laws for Dominant religious and cultural discriminatory beliefs ingrained for thousands of years
It would be the opposite and they would no improvement as neither Mughals nor Marathas who kept oppressing the lower castes who were most of the population but replaced the previous upper castes with themselves
No power in Delhi ever had the zeal to Islamasize India.
octoberman
Banned
But only after being defeated in a pitched battle by a French army that was outnumbered 10 to 1 and even then military reforms were only a portion of the regular army being modernised while most of their troops did not have any guns and their primary guns using 300 year old matchlock mechanism
Ottomans were always more centralized than Mughals. Provinces didn't go out of control despite centuries puppet emperors before Egypt became independent and even that happened because of invasion not internal weakness. While Mughal provinces went out of control in less decade of puppet emperors under sayyid brothers
octoberman
Banned
By the time Britian conquered Bengal. France was not under threat in Europe and had already abandoned Americas outside carribbean which needed a navy not an army which was needed for India
octoberman
Banned
Your point doesn't stand. French priorities outside India were not big than that of the British. French conquest of India does not need funds from Paris it can be sustained on local territories. It wasn't a fool's errand Europeans had been doing that for centuries before and centuries after
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Come on, dude. This thread doesn't need you to respond to 30 month-old posts. I've told you not to spam before. Slow down, catch your breath, and maybe make a new thread on the topic with one well-considered post.
Kicked for a week.
Sounds ridiculous, especially when you consider the GDP Percentage of India going from 25% before British to 2% after British
This sounds ridiculous, because even as per the links provided by you, it shows that India having, very, VERY few famines, that can be counted in one hand before British and even during those famines, there were reliefs provided and famines causes addressed, compared to British, where famines became a commonplace and so did mass deaths. The excuse that it was not recorded is a flimsy one, especially since the ones all recorded all happen in already far flung areas of the empire and they are still recorded, why wouldn't Indian empires record famines ?
That is factually wrong though, I could agree with it only intensified after 5-6 Century CE and during Islamic Era, but to say it was always present is wrong, at best it were similiar to social classes in Europe
They literally did nothing, Literally they did nothing. All progress comes from Modern Indian Govt.
What beliefs are you referring to and it is as if you are saying British did not have any discriminatory laws or beliefs, they had it even worse than what even the worst Indian empires could do.
How though ? Both Marathas and Mughals, though discriminatory, were not that different from any other empire of their time, even British. You are taking the present Religious and Caste scenario and pasting it upon 15-16th Century India and it obviously is wrong. Again, Europe was probably worse than India at this point regarding unequal wealth and power distribution among Caste or Classes
They did have them, none were able to enact their zeal
He's a troll ....he replied to my post about caste too, seems to be a trend, he seems to be Indian too cause his understanding of caste seems to be what you'd expect to learn in a typical Indian high school, with no nuance whatsoever.
To continue your line of answer, i would like to add something:
Look you're not going to abolish the caste system unless you abolish cousin marriage, which was common amongst all indo European society. The indo European have a taboo against cousin marriage, that is marrying your first cousin but oddly enough they were totally cool with marriage amongst second cousins though was ok so long as you don't end up violating the gotra rules and you tended to marry close to your family.
This marriage between close but no so close relatives help form extended kinship groups through blood and marriage which helped in accumulation of capital in a clan/tribe as people avoided marrying outside the select group of relatives and in a lot of cases they refused to marry out because of group solidarity.
Now your caste/jati/clan performed a lot of work for you, one it helped you get married and thus have kids, it ensured that you get a job as knowledge and know how is kept within the group with all marrying within, your privileges with reference to a job was enforced by your group, your contacts came from the group and more importantly in times of need this extended kinship group came to your aid.
Now in Europe catholic Church destroyed this kinship because it got in the way of spreading the word of" God", since pagan culture was pretty closely connected to this kinship and there by you break paganism and to the Church's credit it did take on all the responsibilities that these kinship groups did, for a while anyway.
Problem here is Indians don't understand the nuances of their own history and how similar and different we are from the rest. This is down to two problems
1. Politicisation of history thought in school, nuances such as these are not even though in school, caste system is thought in a very poor manner as if it was one solid unchanging institution for 5000 years, which it was not.
The line between brahman and Kshatriya blurred as time passed by, as they inter married, and that of vaishya and Shudra was often blurred, again because of inter marriage. This is one example as to how it contradicts the state's lazy attempt to propagate history.
Social mobility was possible as a group because as i stated earlier, We were a group culture and we even have instances in British rule of certain groups rising to the rank of vaishya or kshatriya or even Brahman and the depreciation of fortune of some groups. Another example.
2. Chauvinism: Islamists saying Mughal rule was golden, Hindu nationalists saying Gupta rule was the golden age, secularist saying it was the Mauryan empire. We know all of them are dead wrong and what's worse is that they say other eras were bad.
Indian history like all history is messy, complicated, nuanced and has no black and white, infact it's not even grey, it's a rainbow, a spectrum.
Yeah there were periods in history where all groups, were well off but it kept happening at every point in the long history of of country during the mauryas, the Guptas and the Mughals were not the only ones
Again not all groups suffered under the British rule and the experience of the British rule is complicated for many groups, Bengalis suffered a lot because of famines but the flowering of the language took place during the British rule in Bengal, Paris community benefited disproportionately yet a lot of independence activists were Parsi disproportionately, The upper caste muslim and Hindus also benefited but then again it's not all upper castes, a lot saw their fortunes taken away as the British rule was established.
Yeah history is confusing, complicated and contradictory , which is what I use to test how true a narrative is and if it's simple, straight forward, self contained/consistent, it's probably wrong.
Last edited:
This has been explained earlier to you. That's not an indication of Indian economic decline, but an indication of the growth of others.
I made up the figures, but this shows the principal. Let's say the world is divided in four countries, who have in 1600 an equal GDP, so each has 25% of the total GDP. All countries increase their GDP, but certain countries increase it more than others. Now the smallest GDP is only 2% of the total. But it didn't decline.