"Pillage and looting" seems a but of a bit of a misleading description of the economic exploitation, but it certainly didn't finance the industrial revolution. The sums involved just don't add up to be a significant part of economic activity in the UK. Most of the money exploited from Indians was reinvested in security to pacify the place. The industrial revolution was funded almost entirely from domestic sources, mainly the profits from agricultural revolution and enclosure.
What if India was never colonized?
- Thread starter Apple3169
- Start date
There are so many flaws in your percentage numbers argument I don't know where to start. India definitely had its economic growth retarded by the Brits, but the pie of world GDP is not a static zero sum thing. Those numbers are due to astonishing growth in British GDP due to technological advancement. Growth later replicated by plenty of other countries in even quicker time periods, despite no imperialism at all, like Finland or Taiwan.
As I already stated in my first reply, pre-colonial records are sparse. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and pardon me if I treat this claim of only 12 pre-colonial famines in 2000 years with heavy scepticism. The wikipedia page on pre-colonial famines lists far more from 1500 to 1765 alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_prior_to_1765
The British administration maintained better records on famine and the mortality arising from scarcity, I don't recall any instance of a pre-colonial Indian ruler attempting to do the same.
Quoting from Donald W. Attwood's paper Big is Ugly: How large-scale institutions prevent famines in Western India
Dave Donaldson's paper that I cited in my previous reply arrives at the same conclusion, attributing this decline in famines to railroad infrastructure that allowed food to be redistributed from surplus to deficit areas.
That's literally what happened? As I stated, India's GDP did not decline: Maddison's figures show that it continued to grow in the colonial period both in absolute and per capita terms.
When you speak of Indian industries, do you mean handloom production? Because calling that industry is extremely generous, seeing handloom production barely sufficed to meet India's domestic consumption. The first modern textile mills(ergo industry) were set up in India under the British administration. In the 1920's, they were also awarded protection via import tariffs to better compete with Japanese textiles. And it seems clear to me that mill manufacturing continued to grow in the colonial era, going from zero in the pre-colonial era, to nearly 4 times what the handloom production was prior to British rule.
As for cotton production, it is a myth that Indian cotton fed Britain's industrial revolution. From Frank Hitchcock's work Agricultural Imports of the United Kingdom, 1896-1900:
74 per cent of Britain's cotton came from the USA, and 22 per cent from Egypt. India supplied a whopping 1.7 per cent.
Kick
It is one of the issues in these kinds of discussions, some people (Not pointing at anyone personally
) are not going to accept the truth even when presented with facts.Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
You don’t get to accuse people of various nasty things just because you’re struggling to articulate your position. Do better.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I just gave you an extremely specific warning to stop making this thread worse by cheerleading obnoxious behavior, and here you’re doing it again.It is one of the issues in these kinds of discussions, some people (Not pointing at anyone personally
Kicked for a week.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Britain significantly curtailed the import of Indian finished fabrics even before they had a significant presence in India. This was protectionism pure and simple and had nothing to do with a deliberate desire to destroy Indian production only a mercantile instinct to protect their own industries. By the time the EIC /Raj controlled significant land in India, the industrial revolution was underway in the UK with mechanical looms which could out compete local Indian manufacturers. There were also some disincentives to indigenous Indian production through taxation but in the main it was technology and protectionism that did the damage.
For the fourth time I'll try and bring it back to the OP's point - what would it be like if India had remained free of colonial control. The answer is that not much would have changed. Britain would have sourced cotton from America and Egypt and imposed import tariffs / bans on Indian products to protect their own industries. By the time the free trade mantra takes hold Britain can out compete any competition from India
On famines, the work I have seen suggests that the Mughals were better organised than the British at preventing local famines and it was not until late in the Raj that the British really got their heads around food distribution. Your comparison with Ireland is valid but the reasoning for the motives is not. Laissez-faire capitalism was not inclined to intervene in the markets even when it was next door to the metropole, still less so in a colony with a minuscule administrative corps. The big one of course was the Bengal famine which was driven primarily by wartime priorities. Whether more people died through mass murder and famine under the Mughals or the Raj I cannot say but the Mughals were no saints.
Again, the economic history of India is a fact. It did not / was not allowed to industrialise at the same time as Britain. The question is not whether this happened - it did. The question is whether, absent colonialism, India would have industrialised. The examples of their peer nations would suggest that they would not - or at least nowhere near as quickly as the colonial powers. The outcome is still a massive shrinkage in India's share of world GDP albeit with a small absolute increase over time. The logic which you describe as "hilariously bad" is in fact solid. China, pre-Mejii Japan and Thailand all failed to grow at anything like the exponential growth achieved by the industrialising colonial powers. Hence their relative share of the world GDP shrunk. I would suggest India would have been the same with or without colonialism. The "proto industrialisation" you mention in Bengal was present in China centuries before our time period and did not lead to the explosion of growth seen in Europe - in fact even in Europe there was a lag of some centuries before the proto industrialisation of the Flemish weavers transitioned into the true industrial revolution
For the second or third time as well - nothing mentioned here justifies the exploitation, racism and atrocities carried out by the colonial regimes. The more interesting question is the OP's. My answer would be - not as much as we might expect.
A mughal-united "Hindustan" or maratha-(dis)united "Bharat" would influence geopolitics in south Asia. However, it is unlikely that these states will own the same territories as modern-day India. Take for example, the north-eastern states, which would either fall under the influence of whoever owns Bengal, or form their own kingdom(s) in a similar vein to Nepal and Bhutan. Similarly, Lakshwadeep and Andaman & Nicobar islands would not be controlled by these states either.
Also, I have not gone through the entire thread but as always on topics related to India and colonisation, there was some back and forth on the topic of its impacts. Can we all at least agree that the British colonization of India was bad? That the systems the British put in place were harmful to the people living in India and destroyed the lives of many people?
Also, I have not gone through the entire thread but as always on topics related to India and colonisation, there was some back and forth on the topic of its impacts. Can we all at least agree that the British colonization of India was bad? That the systems the British put in place were harmful to the people living in India and destroyed the lives of many people?
As always, it's "compared to what"?
Compared to a standard Mughal? Compared to Aurangzeb? Compared to a new warlord period? A lot of history is just bad in general, and it always feels worse when it's a foreigner doing it.
There were some dynasties of small territorial extent that seemed to govern well, but absent foreign colonization (French or British) our main contenders are the Marathas and Sikhs. And probably something new and mean coming out of Afghanistan.
The Marathas either reform or fall apart. Probably won't reform. Meaning 3 big powers in India:
1. What's left of the Marathas. (96-kuli-ocracy, though we can hold out hope for something better)
2. Afghan adventurers reanimating the spirit of the Mughal Empire (all those Muslim North Indians aren't going anywhere and will accept new, vigorous leadership), and
3. the Sikh Empire.
Significant also-rans like whoever sits on Bengal, but otherwise India will look like the Balkans for a long time. Lots and lots of small states, mutual hostility, regular warfare. I personally can't see a likely scenario where one power even dominates the Subcontinent, let alone conquers most of it.
So who are the winners and losers?
Winners
1. The Tsars of Russia.
2. Bengal and Bengalis: Avoid the evil early company rule, avoid most of the new warlord 'fun'. Still outcompeted by cheap European manufactures, but generally, probably a nicer place to live. Probably a lower population.
3. VOC: unless the British decide to take Indonesia from them.
4. The Sikh Empire. If they can avoid civil wars. My read is they were good administrators. Will face a cotton boom-bust cycle, but the economy should be diverse enough to handle it.
5. Small coastal South Indian states. Chilling out there, developing, avoiding too much war, doing their own thing. May get colonized or 'protectorate'-ed in the late 19th century.
6. Small Himalayan states that fort up and stay out of the way. Might look indistinguishable from OTL sometimes.
7. Indian wilderness. A lot fewer Indians? A lot more jungle.
8. Burma. British aren't coming.
9. The Indian ruling classes. They're collecting the rents and living the life, not the British.
Losers
1. Ordiary people living in the Northern Deccan, the Gangetic Plain, and in-between. Congratulations, overpopulation isn't an issue. It isn't an issue because armies are living off the land, and your governments are stationary pirates or dacoits as often as not.
2. Hyderabad. They got a sweet deal with the British OTL. Now they have to defend themselves.
Alternatively, IF you can get one well-run hegemonic state that doesn't hate its people, then you could get an outcome in India that in general beats British colonization.
Last edited:
I think it would be better to make that argument directly instead of quoting highly misleading %worldGDP figures.
I don't think this kind of consumer surplus argument always holds water. That said @Rothbardian21 @Sardar I am learning a lot from your back and forth.
Last edited:
Derek Pullem
Donor
I still have a theory that tea is the problem. If everyone drunk coffee from South and Central America the world would be a happier place And we might still have USA in the Commonwealth!
And we might still have USA in the Commonwealth!And again, it seems people are ignoring the fact India was systematically deindustrialized by British for their own benefit. British also were able to have agricultural revolution in the Isles precisely because They were also able to exploit India for crops as well, which led to massive famines, British were able to be food secure precisely because of India
But it does explain why India had its growth curtailed, which is the British economic destruction of the Subcontinent, Like literally even you admit it that British retarded the growth India here.
Again, the sources for Pre colonial famines are sparse compared to colonial famines, which is ignored here. Its not the fact that British maintained record, its just that more people died under their regime.
And no, Growing in absolute terms here means nothing when the growth is so little compared to how British grew. There are literal record of how British came in and cut the thumbs of Handloom weavers in Bengal in order to remove them from competition. Like literally its hilariously evil in practice noted by everyone from Marx to Gandhi but is again ignored here again and again.
Considerations on India Affairs" by William Bolts (1772)
And no, British did rely on India for a variety of cash crops like Cotton, Indigo, Jute and Opium. Later of which was used on China as well
It declined as time went on but it was the foundation of the British Empire
Cash Crops also ruined the land, which made famines all the more common, which again no one here is addressing and is quietly trying to ignore or just say it always happened.
The question is whether or not India would have been industrialized here or not, the question is whether British rule was terrible for India and beneficial for Britain and the answer is yes, India got obliterated under British and pretending otherwise is dishonest. Without India, British would have never been the Superpower of the world. They would not be able to fund their Militaries in asia and would not be able to turn Indian Ocean into a British Lake.
Unfortunately, the belief that imperialism was beneficial for the colonized country is a belief that runs deep across Europe and many are still unable to accept the fact their riches and prosperity came at the death and destruction of people in Asia, Africa and Americas, not because their country was predisposed to wealth like many believe.
If India was independent, I see it being a bigger and more powerful Ottoman Empire. A Country that is not that Industrially powerful but has a really good military and can beat Europeans in war if needed. Bigger difference would be Britain would not be as powerful and that is what would have the most differences in OTL as it changes the dynamics of European politics all together
So it would seem India is rather close to the Asian averages. Even a little above at 0.25%.
I agree. I don't think it's too optimistic to say it is likely other than the Ottomans and Japan, Indian states might be the closest on Europe's heels tech-wise, seeing as military reform was initiated IOTL by many Indian states in the 18th century, before China and Iran.
Sure, theoretically "foreign rule" with the economic data tells a certain story, but this is all in a vacuum. The people who lived in the Raj will certainly tell you the British were not welcome, nor did the British look upon their Indian subjects with the same lens as the Australians or Canadians. One can't say that the Raj resulted in even a little economic growth yet discount all the tangible human suffering, racism, discrimination, and colonial disdain which the Raj came with, and native polities did not, or inflicted much less and in a quite different manner. Certainly the Mughals favored foreign Muslims for government positions, but they also married into the Rajput and Hindu nobility, and settled in India along with many foreign Muslims. No similar process carried out long-term over British rule, be it Company or the Raj.
And it's not like the British encouraged native Industry either; all that growth was for the Empire, not India. The tangible benefits of such apparent growth didn't really benefit Indians.
I don't doubt that, but only looking at the bottom half of the possibilities in an alternate TL is to me at least not an honest endeavor into this possibility.
Again you only highlight the good parts of what the Raj gave India while neglecting what colonial baggage still remains with us today. The British also gave us the ineffective and corrupt bureaucracy and limited state capacity which hobbles New Delhi to this day. They also directly contributed to fanning communal tensions (Partition of Bengal among other things) and entrenched the feudal Zamindar class. And again all the racism, discrimination, and oppression which came with colonial rule. One can certainly say these things were common to Indian states in the pre-colonial era, but again the role of the British in entrenching these things can't be ignored, nor can the fact that Indians were prevented for over a century in trying to alleviate such problems with governance, among other things.If India can get a stable native government, or a stable interplay between various governments on the sub-continent, then I think they'll probably do a better job than OTL
A native polity would, as you say, likely follow the trends of other Asian nations, but we must also look at what we have IOTL. Mysore and the Sikh Empire were advancing pretty fast in regards to military tech, and even the Marathas could go toe-to-toe with the EIC, if not for their poor leadership. We must also consider that Indian states, perhaps even more than the Ottomans had strong contact with the most advanced nations of Europe in a diplomatic manner (France, the Netherlands) potentially providing future avenues for advancement in economic and political spheres while maintaining their sovereignty. So while I agree that Indian states are very likely to follow their Asian counterparts, we must also consider from an alt hist point of view what kind of trajectory they were already on by the time of our POD.
I don't think you understand. Even if the Raj did that, being a colonial construction it would only do such things for the benefit of the the mother country. And yes, I do understand it makes such discussion whether the Raj was "good" or not moot, because frankly it should be. Modern colonial rule is fundamentally worse than any native polity, simply based on the core ethos of how they approach the whole manner of governance. That doesn't mean some native polities weren't worse than the Raj, but it does mean the average native state will be significantly better than it colonial counterpart.
In the subcontinent you will find a pretty big consensus that British rule was bad, regardless of out-of-context economic data says. And considering that their are still people alive who lived through the Raj I will take their word for it over yours.
By saying the Mughals "were no saints" you imply that the Raj was actually "not too bad". And trying to justify the Bengal famine? Really? I'm sorry, but this reeks of colonial apologism.
The suggestion that India would have remained basically the same as under colonial rule as without is frankly ridiculous (and is honestly insulting towards the ability of Indians to rule themselves).
Let us take your assumptions and apply them to other nations. You take China as an example, but I seriously doubt the Chinese would have rather had the EIC rule them than the Qing. I imagine the Japanese, Turks, Iranians and Thais would echo a similar sentiment. And I doubt those countries would remained the way they are with colonial rule, and in fact I think it's hard to argue that they wouldn't have been worse off with colonial rule.
"Compared to what" as an argument doesn't hold water if you try and extrapolate out for more than fifty to a hundred years. Again, besides the implication that Indians won't at least be marginally better rulers than the colonial British, taking this "warring states" India to it's full extent implies a mid-18th century POD, and would also imply that the system of alliances that were sustained between the French, British, and Indian states would very likely continue. At least until the Napoleonic wars (if they even still happen).
It doesn't make any sense to assume such Indian states would remain in a state of war forever, and that they would remain static in their military and ways of governance. As we saw in Europe IOTL, when one state adopts new and improved military technology, soon the other states follow. This happened in India IOTL, and was stopped by the British conquest. So I think it's reasonable to assume that such competition would generate innovation and advancement among Indian states. As for Western threats, the Sikhs pretty handily defeated the Afghans IOTL, so in a TL where the Sikhs could be even more powerful, I don't see why the Afghans would pose more of a threat, not less.
Let's take an earlier POD, say, Aurangzeb's successors are more competent (not a hard thing to achieve when they were barely competent IOTL). The religious issue would not come to the fore for at least a hundred and fifty years seeing as even during Aurangzeb's time his religious restrictions were either ignored or lightly enforced, and his OTL successors repealed most of them anyway. So we have a "mostly" hegemonic North Indian power, that can project power into the far south even though they might now be able to directly annex it. Again, European ideas were already diffusing into the subcontinent at this time, so it makes sense to assume this would continue for a while. And again competition would likely encourage innovation, but you have a relatively peaceful North India.
Of course, non of this is guaranteed, but assuming Indian states would do worse than their Asian counterparts when 1) the British would be less powerful without conquering the subcontinent and 2) Indian states were already trying and successfully catching up to their European counterparts goes against the logic you use to extrapolate the economic data we have into the future by saying they would stay the trends of OTL Asian states.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Saying the Mughals were no saints means exactly what it says - there is no "hidden meaning". As for colonial apologism, I have stated in this thread many times that I deplore the atrocities carried out by the British Empire in India, I deplore the robbery of India's wealth and I deplore the overt racism that was characteristic of the heydays of the EIC and Raj.
By "staying the same" what I meant was that I don't believe the economic growth of India would have been significantly greater if they had remained independent as the countries I gave as examples managed to do. India's share of the global wealth would still have plummeted. They would have had the dignity of ruling themselves throughout the period in question but ultimately the European colonial powers demonstrated in case after case that if they could not occupy a nation they would control it economically or alternatively the nation would have to turn in on itself and exclude Europeans (and Americans) from its polity. And even then in the case of China and Japan the Europeans and Americans would impose their influence on the state when they wished.
I am not glorifying the colonial and neo-colonial powers, I am only trying to imagine an alternate history where India joins the small group of independent states which are directly or indirectly controlled by colonial or neo-colonial states in the 19th century. I'd love to be able to say that I thought India would be strong enough to "buck the trend" but I just don't see it happening. At best as @Brahman said they could aspire to being on a par with the Ottomans. If they did follow the Ottoman's pathway then a united India is very unlikely to be the end point, more likely when the Mughals finally fall India is left a shattered state like the Ottomans or the Hapsburgs.
You know why this was wrong. Only one Asian state succeeded, Japan. And they had several things going for them that the Indian states do not.
The states of India in this ATL are confronted with enormous strategic hurdles to peace, prosperity and industrialization. Some states had good ideas about the military and or economics OTL, but so did many countries OTL that didn't make it. The Egyptians failed, and they had truly inspired leadership. The Ottomans failed, the Chinese failed, the Thai failed (though they kept their independence), the Arabs failed, the Persians failed, the Balkan states failed. The Indians were in no way successfully catching up OTL. They were showing signs of trying.
In terms of becoming a first rank nation, only the Sikh Empire has a reasonable chance of success in this ATL.
Edit: How is the strategic deadlock broken in India? I don't see that happening. There's too much diversity, too many geographic barriers to hide behind. A totalizing force would be required (like Islam or Sikhism, or some Hindu revival) but that would create too much resentment among religious minorities for the resulting state to be stable. What I see here is a larger version of the Balkans.
Last edited:
Ah ok. I definitely agree with this.
But considering that this is alternate history, we have to think what would the knock-on affects of an uncolonized India actually be? The Ottomans were carved up because they lost WW1, but preceding that was a century of territorial loss beginning with the Independence of Egypt, a direct result of the French invasion of Egypt...which itself was partly motivated by a desire by the French to have access to their Indian allies against the British in Mysore.
So now you might see where many of the assumptions about the rather inevitable fall of Asian Empires in our 19th and 20th century changes quite drastically without the Raj, and the British being significantly less powerful than OTL. Assuming India will be carved up like the Ottomans were should they remain independent kind of a useless question when the Ottomans ITTL will have a wildly different time than OTL, in fact likely surviving given greater breathing room in the 19th century. The ceiling of an ATL-Mughal or Maratha United India would be something incomparable to most OTL things, because Asian history is changed so drastically because of the lack of the Raj.
I have already states I agree with this, only that I think it would be easier for Indian states compared to say Iran or China, to advance than what many think If I had to put it on a slider I would say slightly above OTL Ottomans, below OTL Japan, and farther above Iran, Thailand, and China for the reasons I stated.
I agree. Large scale industrialization is very unlikely, but peace among the various Indian states? I don't see why that wouldn't happen after 50 years of give-and-take in the subcontinent among the various Kingdoms and Empires. Continual unchecked warfare for the next three centuries doesn't seem that realistic for the subcontinent.
The sultans following Muhammed Ali weren't very competent, though he was.
The Ottomans were torn apart by the victorious Allied powers.
The Chinese were also just about the closest thing from being directly colonized by the end of the Qing, while the Persians were de facto colonized anyway. The Arabs did not get independence until the mid-20th century, so I don't know how you include them here. Also not sure why you include the Balkan states, when they were puppetted after being devastated by the World Wars.
Not Mysore? Not Bengal? I am surprised by the determinism here, truly.
Again by this logic most states outside of Europe, including India and Iran, should collapse. This determinism doesn't hold up in the real world. And then Mughals nor Marathas required such a unifying force, as contrary to what revisionist historians of both Empire believe, they were quite pluralist. And when such national ideas are implemented (i.e. Pakistan, Middle Eastern states, etc.) they fall apart quickly.
Take the word "company" out of the equation and it stops sounding weird.
Fiscal-military organizations with near limitless budgets and firm control over the sea lanes are good at conquering. Who would have guessed?
Mysore is too small, and too close to the Marathas. The Marathas will probably not reform soon enough, so they're a waste. Bengal might, MIGHT take advantage of its coal fields and start industrializing, but they need new economic institutions for that.
The Sikh Empire, IIRC, was already building railroads and getting things moving before they were conquered.
Of course, all this changes if you somehow get an effective hegemon in the subcontinent.
Last edited: