Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New research on the cost of colonization to India

aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 111 posts

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#61

Post by BeetleB »

InGodsName wrote: post #9
wjnc wrote: post #3

My government uses my taxes to buy goods and services in the local market. Is that defrauding or just the nature of providing government? This article is on somewhat loose economic grounds, I fear. People paid taxes, albeit to the coloniser, some people could sell their goods at market prices. Things we still find pretty reasonable. On top of that compounding at 5% for 250 yrs is not a good way to create current doll…

I don't understand this comment. If tax money of the tax payers of India is used to buy good/services for the tax payers of Britain. How is it not defrauding?

I think you don't understand taxes.

My tax money is used to buy goods/services for people in other states. Not only is that not considered fraud, it is a fundamental reason taxes exist.

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#62

Post by newyankee »

Never forget that Winston Churchill let millions in Bengal starve to death because they were not civilized people according to him.

Modern day Indians do acknowledge that history is complex, nuanced and there were many factors that led to the colonization of India.

However the sheer ignorance of a lot of Western folks to British and other colonial atrocities is alarming. For them the history starts and ends with their own lens and seldom beyond the same Greek/ Roman/ Judeo mythology and/or history.

It is funny for example when so many call the modern no system the Arabic no system when in fact the Arabians merely took it from India and exported it westwards (an important feat)

There is a reason why Western civilization became so powerful - conquering large territories (Aus, Ca, NZ etc.) , resources, imposing their culture.

I really commend the self respect Chinese have in this regard. They consider this century as the one where China regains its lost glory. I hope India can manage to become economically better although i doubt it would ever come even close to China.

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#63

Post by porpoisely »

iguy wrote: post #47
a11r wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple statistic: Before the British showed up, Indian GDP was 15 to 20% of world GDP. When they left its was 1.5 to 3% of world GDP. Something tells me the colonial experience might have something to do with it.

No this is nonsense. That relative decline was because the pie grew... and grew spectacularly, for the first time in history, for reasons that had next to nothing to do with some colonial adventure.

The pie grew and india was intentionally prevented from partaking in the pie by the british. Ignoring the mass famines and the humanitarian destruction caused by the british empire in india, the greatest damage inflicted on india was its lack of industrialization. Britain simply prevented india from industrializing until they were kicked out in 1947.

Britain and the US really industrialized in the mid 1800s ( although britain loves to pretend it did in the 1700s ). Parts of europe followed soon after. Japan industrialized in the late 1800s. India ( and china ) industrialized after ww2 - india much more slowly than china due to its democratic and bureaucratic baggage. For more than 100 years, india was prevented from industrializing by britain. You can't ignore that significant opportunity cost.

Also, you are wrong when you say colonial "adventure" had nothing to do with industrialization. Excess capital and excess resources are the prerequisites for national industrialization. British industrialization was funded by opium money from china and resources from india. The need for resources is why japan and germany sought to create empires for themselves. It was a necessity to industrialize.

Having said that, I don't think you can honestly calculate the costs of colonization because there are so many factors involved. Would india have been able to follow meiji japan's or even mao's china's example and industrialize? We can say that india lost a lot due to british imperialism, but I doubt we'll ever know exactly how much. At best, it's just a guess.

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#64

Post by notahacker »

iguy wrote: post #44
pickdenis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the government buys things with tax money, the things are supposed to be used for the benefit of people who paid the taxes. It doesn't seem like the Company even pretended that this was the case.

> ... tax money ... used for the benefit of people who paid the taxes This is a surprising recent notion. The Mughals sure didn't conquer territory to tax it for the peasant's benefit -- the entire purpose of conquering land was to extract taxes from these peasants, for yourself & your army.

Yep. This is also a weakness of the original article, with its "If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development" which seems to rather ignore the fundamental reason the East India Company was able to take over the subcontinent in the first place is that the various Indian empires and fiefdoms had ploughed rather more into conflict and ceremony than exploiting India's headstart in areas like steel working.

Indian economist Amartya Sen is fond of pointing out that although India has no shortage of hungry people, it hasn't had a famine since the departure of the British. But he's also keen to point out that the significant difference is that the average Indian person now gets to vote governments in and out of power. This wasn't the case under the British, but it also wasn't the case when Shah Jahan dedicated more tax revenue to monumental architecture and unsuccessfully attempting to conquer Qandahar than resolving the Deccan Famine.

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#65

Post by drieddust »

sachdevap wrote: post #34
yumraj wrote: post #8

To add to that: India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952.[1] And, India got partitioned into 3 countries, all of which have spend insane amounts of resources fighting each other when that same could have been spent on economic development and other hostile neighbors of the unified India would have been smaller in size t…

> India got partitioned into 3 countries ... This is a huge simplification of the history of the Indian subcontinent. The British are the architects of the new boundary lines, but they are also the architects of what is now a unified country, India. Indian subcontinent as a unified entity prior to the arrival of the British as a major colonizing force in India is a lie. India was quite divided before that, which made…

> India was quite divided before that, which made it easy for them to play their little game of "divide and rule".

The fact that entire region was called Bharat escapes you I think. Just before British India was centrally organized and ruled by Mughals and Marathas so your argument does not stand.

As far as "divide and rule" is concerned, due to the vastness of India regional leadership was always delegated. British utilized this structure to their advantage.

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#66

Post by jvsg »

sachdevap wrote: post #34
yumraj wrote: post #8

To add to that: India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952.[1] And, India got partitioned into 3 countries, all of which have spend insane amounts of resources fighting each other when that same could have been spent on economic development and other hostile neighbors of the unified India would have been smaller in size t…

> India got partitioned into 3 countries ... This is a huge simplification of the history of the Indian subcontinent. The British are the architects of the new boundary lines, but they are also the architects of what is now a unified country, India. Indian subcontinent as a unified entity prior to the arrival of the British as a major colonizing force in India is a lie. India was quite divided before that, which made…

That's incorrect IMHO. The Mughals had ruled over an area greater than India's current area. The Marathas too had almost replaced Mughals after their downfall, and the British replaced Marathas. There was infighting in a few kingdoms towards the south and the east, and that's where the British gained their initial territory.

There was a concept of a united India/Hindustan/Bharat/Aryavart in Ancient times.

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#67

Post by graeme »

newyankee wrote: post #58
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To add to that: India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952.[1] Industrialization happened in this time period. India did not industrialize as rapidly or to the same extent as Europe and the US. Share of world income is a zero sum game. Some of that decline is made up for by increased income elsewhere. The absolute income…

Where did the British get a lot of raw materials for their industrialization. Where did they dump a lot of their products ?

Doesn't this line of reasoning apply equally to the Swiss? They had no colonies, and are richer than Britain today. Probably were in 1952 as well.

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#68

Post by graeme »

porpoisely wrote: post #63
iguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this is nonsense. That relative decline was because the pie grew... and grew spectacularly, for the first time in history, for reasons that had next to nothing to do with some colonial adventure.

The pie grew and india was intentionally prevented from partaking in the pie by the british. Ignoring the mass famines and the humanitarian destruction caused by the british empire in india, the greatest damage inflicted on india was its lack of industrialization. Britain simply prevented india from industrializing until they were kicked out in 1947. Britain and the US really industrialized in the mid 1800s ( althoug…

How does this argument apply to European countries that had no colonies, such as Switzerland?

Japan is a bit of an aberration. It was the only non-western country to industrialize early.

Now, India might have done so also, had it somehow avoided industrialization yet maintained contact with industrializing countries. But, a counterpoint to this is that India basically didn't industrialize after independence either. Only when the "License Raj" was done away with several decades later did India start to grow quickly. (In other words, mere absensce of colonization was not sufficient for growth)

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#69

Post by iguy »

porpoisely wrote: post #63
iguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this is nonsense. That relative decline was because the pie grew... and grew spectacularly, for the first time in history, for reasons that had next to nothing to do with some colonial adventure.

The pie grew and india was intentionally prevented from partaking in the pie by the british. Ignoring the mass famines and the humanitarian destruction caused by the british empire in india, the greatest damage inflicted on india was its lack of industrialization. Britain simply prevented india from industrializing until they were kicked out in 1947. Britain and the US really industrialized in the mid 1800s ( althoug…

Obviously this is a huge subject. I'm not sure it's so clear that British rule slowed Indian industrialisation... I guess answering that requires a counterfactual, and as you say post-1850s Japan is the best-case one. But do note that this was not a kind and gentle democracy... even if its rulers spoke the same language. (And, of course, the fact that there was a same-language to speak indicates that it was long a united country, in a way that India was not.)

But something like pre-1850s hermit kingdom Japan is another possibility. And the hermit kingdon's share of the world's pie would have declined greatly, too, with nobody to blame.

Certainly lots of cotton mills got built in the late 19th C, in both Japan and India, and all using the same off-the-shelf technology, and often the same capital. There's lots of interesting detailed work comparing them, and tracking things over the decades. And while I'm not an expert, I don't think it supports any very simple ideas of good guys / bad guys.

For example, here's a link: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/

Re: New research on the cost of colonization to India

#70

Post by sachdevap »

jvsg wrote: post #66
sachdevap wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> India got partitioned into 3 countries ... This is a huge simplification of the history of the Indian subcontinent. The British are the architects of the new boundary lines, but they are also the architects of what is now a unified country, India. Indian subcontinent as a unified entity prior to the arrival of the British as a major colonizing force in India is a lie. India was quite divided before that, which made…

That's incorrect IMHO. The Mughals had ruled over an area greater than India's current area. The Marathas too had almost replaced Mughals after their downfall, and the British replaced Marathas. There was infighting in a few kingdoms towards the south and the east, and that's where the British gained their initial territory. There was a concept of a united India/Hindustan/Bharat/Aryavart in Ancient times.

You can read about the disintegration of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb here: http://www.historydiscussion.net/empires/later-mughals-and-d...

The Marathas never controlled an "undivided India" given the extent of their empire at it's peak: https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/maratha-empire.html

Not to mention, even Akbar did not have the North east and the southernmost parts of India.

The rise of the Sikh empire, and the Deccan sultanate also limited the extent of the later Mughal and Maratha kingdoms.

I did not question that these empires had their time. But the notion of undivided India as united as one under the Mughals at the time right before the British arrived is wrong. Ancient times do not affect contemporary affairs, or in this case affairs of 1750s are not affected by the Maurya dynasty's claim on some version of modern day India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

Post reply on HN