WI Indian Industrial Revolution

So, in discussions about the Industrial Revolution, it's often between Europe (competition, Americas, ideas...) and China (cohesive, rich...)

But there is another zone which could work.
India was a divided continent for most of its history, with a split between large nations and mercantile city states.
There was a solid industry and a middle class. It has a solid scientific tradition and is a melting pot of ideas.

So, why didn't it industrialise first? What if it did? Would the Indian industry bleed the world's cash reserves dry?
I'd imagine it'd need a bit more control over its outer shipping lanes to counteract Europeans if we're talking post-1498 but that wouldn't be impossible for a pissed Dehli Sultanate trying to kick the Portuguese out or a Mughal Emperor trying to score points against the Ottoman in Indonesia and Eastern Africa
 
It didn't exactly do it first, but I had the Mughal Empire go through an Industrial Revolution in The Silver Knight, and fairly early, starting in the tail end of the 18th century.

Basically, a fairly different composition of Europe and an isolationist, Puritan Britain meant that European ventures across the world ended up much less expansionist than OTL, and imperialism in India ended up limited to Ceylon and a few port towns. At the same time, a more Eastern-focused Ottoman Empire ended up clashing with the Mughals over Persia for a good hundred years, serving as a source of military advancements and as a kick in the pants to innovate and adopt European achievements, especially in investments to education and higher learning. So when the IR starts in France a few decades before schedule, India quickly begins adopting it.

Chapter detailing the Mughal IR here.

As for the impact on the world... well, India didn't end up bleeding the world dry, at the very least (industrializing a massive subcontinent such as India is much different from the same happening in a smaller and more compact European nation like Britain), but it certainly became... a superpower.
 
But even then, India is just an imitator (although at least it's better than OTL).

What caused it to not happen OTL? It seems it had everything, from a scientific tradition to a middle class, competition between states and solid financial markets.
Despite being different states, there were bounds between them through religion and tradition.
There was a massive demand for their goods and fairly centralized states that were young enough

I find it baffling it did not happen there first as it ticks all the boxes we put in place for Europe. It even had massive capital influx thanks to the discovery of the Americas
 

Marc

Donor
Perhaps the extensive use of slave labor in India ( as much as 10-15% the population in Northern India)?
There is a very viable hypothesis that slavery as a multi-faceted institution, economic, political, and social, worked as a significant inhibitor for many societies in regards to the development of an industrial society and modern capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the extensive use of slave labor in India ( as much as 10-15% the population in Northern India)?
There is a very viable hypothesis that slavery as a multi-faceted institution, economic, political, and social, worked as a significant inhibitor for many societies in regards to the development of an industrial society and modern capitalism.
Was it chattel slavery though? Because if not, it doesn't have to be a non starter. Nothing stops a serf or an indentured person working in a factory to repay their debts
 

Marc

Donor
My limited understanding is that alas, it seemed to have been primarily chattel slavery, particularly in North India where it was strongly infused with the attitudes of Central Asia and the Middle East.
 
Perhaps the extensive use of slave labor in India ( as much as 10-15% the population in Northern India)?
There is a very viable hypothesis that slavery as a multi-faceted institution, economic, political, and social, worked as a significant inhibitor for many societies in regards to the development of an industrial society and modern capitalism.

May I ask what your source for this is? Scrounging through Romila Thapar's History of India vol. 2 I can't find any reference to chattel slavery.

Even the Ottoman-like traditions of the Mughal had maybe 20-30 Abyssinian eunuchs at a time.
 
There's also the question of whether chattel slavery is an obstacle to this.
India got rich not just because of extractive work but because of skilled work (cotton and prints).
If the European government hadn't taken a protectionist stance, maybe the various Indian polities would have industrialised to cover the European demand
 

Marc

Donor
May I ask what your source for this is? Scrounging through Romila Thapar's History of India vol. 2 I can't find any reference to chattel slavery.

Even the Ottoman-like traditions of the Mughal had maybe 20-30 Abyssinian eunuchs at a time.

Quickly, I'll refer you to this: https://history.libraries.wsu.edu/fall2016-stratton/2016/09/09/modern-slavery-in-india/

While I have a personal admiration and respect for a great deal of Indian civilization, it was, and is, not exempt from the historical near universal pandemic of racism and sexism, made manifest by slavery and misogyny.
Sigh.
 
Quickly, I'll refer you to this: https://history.libraries.wsu.edu/fall2016-stratton/2016/09/09/modern-slavery-in-india/

While I have a personal admiration and respect for a great deal of Indian civilization, it was, and is, not exempt from the historical near universal pandemic of racism and sexism, made manifest by slavery and misogyny.
Sigh.

While I can agree with you that racism and sexism were definitely present in Indian society for millennia, definitely manifesting itself, the caste system cannot be classified as chattel slavery despite all its evils.

Despite the systematic oppression that made the caste system at its height, probably 14th century till the 19th century, an extremely hindering and backwards institution it also secured humans from owning one and other. Even the most oppressive of the Hindu texts and commentaries, the Manusmriti and a few Puranas, exprssely forbid the capture and sale of human beings.

While the Washington State article is very good at identifying the general situation, the 'whole division of Brahma's body' as a concept is present in perhaps three texts and was simply something that Western historians and Indologisys caught onto and used. However they mistakenly conflated Varna, simply four or three-fold division of labor present in all Indo-European societies, with the jati caste system which was immensely complex and had stipulations such as the black water law and the shadows distance rule.
 
I do wonder if, at the end of the day, slavery in itself is really hindering industrialisation.
Let's remember that industrialisation doesn't have to mean liberal capitalism. Paraphrasing Marx, wasn't proletarianism just a new form of slavery?
Really, the big question to me is, why didn't it happen? Were the European just faster?
 
Top