Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 18th, 2011, 03:09 PM   #31

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,952
Blog Entries: 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by amanda200 View Post
Can you read in English? I did not say that Industrial Revolution took place in India. I said that Industrial Revolutionn was driven by at the expense of India. If you want to to know the details of British cruelty, fins out yourself.
Actually all countries are cruel. The British conquered India because they were more advanced, including from an economic point of view. More complex cultures tend to assimilate less complex ones.

In fact UK has been richer than India since the 13-14th centuries. By the 19th century the difference was as big as it could get, nearly as much as between the USA today and Ethiopia.

The industrial revolution also did not happen only in the UK. European countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, etc, also industrialized in close parallel with the UK (in fact, France's iron output was larger than UK's until the 1810's).

The industrial revolution was a process of increasing speed of economic growth caused by institutional change. That's it. It's main cause was the enlightenment. The revolutions, such as the glorious revolution of 1688, the French revolution of 1789 and the American revolution of 1776 were signals of the institutional change that provided the foundations for the industrial revolution.

British colonization of India started before the industrial revolution, indicating that even before the start of the process of fast economic growth in Europe, European countries were already powerful enought to reduce the former mighty Asian empires to colonial dependencies.

Did the colonization of India help Britain's economy to grow faster? Considering that the costs of colonization were higher than the benefits the colonization of India actually hindered the industrial development of the UK, as did the British Empire: countries not burdened with the almost useless Asian and African dependencies such as the USA and Germany could industrialize a lot faster.

Did the colonization of India help the British Empire to become the world's most powerful? No. UK alone was responsible for 99% of the power of the British Empire in the mid to late 19th century.

So what was the whole purpose? Simple, all States have a natural tendency for territorial expansion and in the 18-19th centuries it was much easier to expand outside Europe than inside, so the European powers expanded their territories outside of Europe, which was the focal point of power at the time, like in classical Greece when central Greece was the focal point of power and the great powers had their empires spread over the aegean and the rest of the mediterranean and black sea. So UK colonized India for 1 reason: It was easy.
Guaporense is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 18th, 2011, 03:41 PM   #32

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,952
Blog Entries: 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toltec View Post
In the 17th century the Moghul Empire was one of the great empires in history and second only to China in global power.
In the 17th century the Netherlands alone were more powerful than China. Since the Netherlands had global power projection capability, Chinese power projection was restricted to a corner of the world in East Asia.

Quote:
European ambassadors couldn't even secure an audience with high up officials, let alone monarchs, had little the Indians saw as worth to trade and were seen as poor barbarians.
Of course, the poor European barbarians had 75% of the world's demand for silver: In the 1651-1675 period the European economy demanded 200 tons of silver annualy while all of Asia demanded only 76 tons of silver annualy (China demanded 30-35 tons annualy, less than some individual European countries, such as France and Spain).

Also, by the mid 17th century the European merchant fleets had over 90% of the world's merchant fleet tonnage.

Considering that European countries had global power projection, 90% of the world's merchant fleet tonnage and 75% of the world's demand for silver a rational person can only reach the conclusion that in the 17th century Europe was actually more powerful in relative terms to the rest of the world than during the second half of 20th century.

Quote:
In the 18th century, Maharatta India had surpassed China as the richest and most powerful country on earth, but was divided.
So a divided country was the most powerful (how can a divided country, hence several states, be compared in terms of geopolitical power to another undivided state?) because it surpassed Qing China. Okay, that's the most nonsense I have ever read in this forum ever compressed in a single sentence.

By the early 18th century the most powerful country in the world was France. That's because France was more powerful than Spain, UK and the Netherlands, countries that had global power projection and hence were more powerful in technical terms than any other in the rest of the world.

Quote:
In the 19th century Britain controlled the global opium trade from India and managed to steal tea from China and plant it in India creating the global tea trade, generating huge wealth.
Huge wealth is a great exageration. It was an industry of interest to British investors, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Up till then India had been a coffee grower and Britain trading at a deficit with China.
The "trading a defict" must be understood. A country exports goods when it needs money to pay for imports. A country that is running at a continuous defict maybe because there are people living in that country that have investments elsewhere and these investments pay returns with are used to buy imports. Usually rich countries run trade defcits and poor countries run supluses.

Quote:
By the turn of the 20th century India generated more wealth than the whole of the rest of the empire combined.
Not in terms of industrial output in 1913:

(% of global output)

UK - 14%
Canada - 2.3%
India - 1.1%

Canada alone was responsible for well over twice the manufacturing value produced as compared to India.

Quote:
In fact the wealth generated in India rivalled the wealth generated by Britain.
In terms of industrial output it did not rival Scotland.

Quote:
Also it was a captive market to buy British goods.
Which actually hurt the development of India as a taxpaying colony.

Quote:
The British economy being so uncompetitive and undercut by cheap third world bootleggers and sweat shops such as the US that it needed a captive trade bloc (the Empire) to trade with to even be able to sell its goods.
American daily wages in the late 19th century were 20% higher than the British, while German wages were 80% of the British by 1905. They were not "third world" in any possible sence of the term, but developed countries like the UK that had more dynamic economies, perhaps because they did not carry the burden of maintaining vast colonial empires.

Also, less mature economies tend to grow at faster rates, British industry was becoming smaller in comparison with German and American industry because the latter were growing at a faster pace not because British industry was declining in absolute terms.
Guaporense is offline  
Old November 18th, 2011, 04:08 PM   #33

The Imperial's Avatar
MentalManja
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: 3rd rock from Sol
Posts: 4,253
Blog Entries: 1

There are so many faults in the above particular user's posts, that am too lazy to point out. Including the falsely said sentence about the cost of maintaining a colonial india was more than the benefits. And you have no sources to your biases.
The Imperial is offline  
Old November 19th, 2011, 01:35 AM   #34
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: INDIA
Posts: 1

For your information, the contributions from Briton to India were Railway( by Lord Delhousie), English Schools etc, but the main contribution is done unknowingly ie they defeated and destroyed small small kingdoms and treated Indians so badly so that whole Indians united under one aim, which ultimately led to the formation of Indian Union. But trust me Briton contributed ideas only, the investments to apply the ideas were made from India itself. If you can estimate the wealth drained from India, you will be astonished.
chauvin is offline  
Old November 20th, 2011, 09:35 AM   #35

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
Actually all countries are cruel. The British conquered India because they were more advanced, including from an economic point of view. More complex cultures tend to assimilate less complex ones.
Dependes where exactly you define the british conquest of India: British mercenaries and corporate interests started collecting tax on behalf of Indian monarchs as early as 1770 CE but the British crown did not officially rule over India till the Indian rebellion against British East India Company, in 1857 CE.

If we use the former date(as is the convention), Britain was probably at par with India as far as per-capita Income went. By the latter date, yes Britain, in post Industrial revolution, had per capita income orders of magnitude greater than India.


Quote:
In fact UK has been richer than India since the 13-14th centuries.
Sorry, that isn't fact, that is fiction.
We have tax and revenue collection data from Akbar the Great and Elizabeth the Ist's era, which coincide almost identically(they both ruled 40+ years and started their reigns within 3-4 years of each other).
British and Mughal records show that during the early-mid Mughal period (1550s CE to 1700 CE), Mughal India was the 1st/2nd largest economy in the world, changing positions only with Ming/Qing China.
It is also worth remembering that Mughal India, for most of its history, did not encompass peninsular India- which was only incorporated by Aurangzeb, last of the powerful Mughal emperors and promptly lost after him.

Records show that the annual tax collection of Akbar's India (which was Pakistan+India+Bangladesh-Peninsular India) in 1600 CE was 17.5 million pounds, while the entire treasury of British Empire circa 1800 CE was 16 million pounds.
In 1700 CE, the exchequer of finances of Aurangzeb reported annual tax revenue to be 100 million pounds- easily greater than entire western Europe combined.

Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
British colonization of India started before the industrial revolution, indicating that even before the start of the process of fast economic growth in Europe, European countries were already powerful enought to reduce the former mighty Asian empires to colonial dependencies.
That is simplistic and quite misleading. Britain begged and pleaded with the Mughals, the Vijayanagara empires, etc. to grant them trading outposts such as Pondicherry, Chandannagore, etc. When they were revoked by Aurangzeb, Britain simply tucked its tail and went away in consternation. Fact of the matter is, Britain- or any european power- did not have the economic or military means to wage a war against a powerful empire such as the Mughals from half a world away: the Mughals had excellent cannonry(until Napoleon's cannon modifications, the best cannons in the world since its inception - in terms of barrel quality, firing rate and accuracy- came from central Asia, from the region of Bukhara-Samarkand-Tashkent, etc, a region that the Mughals recruited heavily from), they had excellent cavalry, logistics and sheer numbers that was orders of magnitude greater than any european power at that time.

The British and the French got politically involved in India only after the third battle of Panipat (1761), which left the largest military power in India- the Maratha Empire- badly weakened and fast collapsing under internal feuding.
Before this period, there is hardly a major engagement between European powers and Indian powers and the only significant one was the Portuguese menace against the Mughals, which was ultimately crushed by joint Mughal-Ottoman alliance.

Quote:
Did the colonization of India help Britain's economy to grow faster? Considering that the costs of colonization were higher than the benefits the colonization of India actually hindered the industrial development of the UK, as did the British Empire: countries not burdened with the almost useless Asian and African dependencies such as the USA and Germany could industrialize a lot faster.
That is utter nonsense. There was a study from the Harvard University economics department that estimated the total net gain of the British Empire from 1780(loss of America) to 1947(loss of India) to be roughly 110-150 trillion dollars of 1990 value dollars. This is almost entirely from India (the study notes that 80% of revenues of the British empire at that period derived either from direct resource trade with India or trade of finished goods with India- something the British actively banned the Indians from doing in several key industries, such as refining sugar, textiles and metallurgy).

The 'useless Asian/African countries' as you put it, is what kept the British ahead of the Americans and Germans on a technological level until WWI: they were the veritable treasure trove of resources, a huge market for finished English products and major source of manpower.

Quote:
Did the colonization of India help the British Empire to become the world's most powerful? No. UK alone was responsible for 99% of the power of the British Empire in the mid to late 19th century.
It was the Indians under the British empire that almost singlehandedly conquered the Middle east during WWI and during WWII, it was again the Indians who held the Japanese at bay in Burma while being the main personnel active in Egypt and transjordan.
It was India which fed the allied war theatre in Europe- as much as 70% of
the food consumed at the western front came from India- such a huge burden that it lead to the great Bengal famine. You might want to read Dr. Amartya Sen (a nobel lauriate in economics) on the matter.

Without these 'useless asian/african countries' as you so put it, our soldiers in the western front would resemble the german soldiers of the eastern front, who by the end of the war, didn't look much healthier than a jewish concentration camp dweller.

Quote:
. So UK colonized India for 1 reason: It was easy.
They conquered India because it was hugely profitable. Anything else really flies against the face of evidence and reeks of colonial superiorism. No empire in the history of mankind conquered and held a region simply because it was 'easy or fun', they did it because it was profitable.
Alexander conquered persia for its riches, Genghis Khan did what he did to China for the same reasons, the Mughals did the same to India, etc etc.
Areas that are not profitable to control become like the Libyan desert or Siberia: uncontrolled for millenias by great poweres residing right by it, until there is some profit to be derived from its conquest.


Quote:
In the 17th century the Netherlands alone were more powerful than China. Since the Netherlands had global power projection capability, Chinese power projection was restricted to a corner of the world in East Asia.
That is again, disingeneous. That basically means he with a navy is greater than he without, because with navy you can globally power project much more effectively than without.
By that standard, Australia is more powerful than Germany because Aussie navy is far more powerful.
Fact of the matter is, the Dutch, the British, the English- all of them could control the waters but were in no position to control any land in India until late 1700s when military power in India collapsed at the aftermath of Panipat-III.

Quote:
Considering that European countries had global power projection, 90% of the world's merchant fleet tonnage and 75% of the world's demand for silver a rational person can only reach the conclusion that in the 17th century Europe was actually more powerful in relative terms to the rest of the world than during the second half of 20th century.
A rational person would look at the above as nothing more than economic obfuscation.
By 'merchant fleet capacity', demand for luxury items and ability to operate navies away from home waters, Japan should be able to conquer China easily today, since in all these barometers, Japan leads China significantly.
Yet, wars are decieded with bullets, manpower and will. Not by who has a bigger pile of cash and who can sail furthest from home. This is why Russia defeated Germany in WWII, not the other way round.

The focus on naval trade is a deliberate obfuscation tactic of yours, since it completely ignores the prime avenue of mercantile trade for most of mankind's history(till 1500s, when trans-oceanic trade became viable): via land. Small surprise, since in this category Asia dominates the tally for all of history till 1950s, with the rise of North American intranational trade.

Quote:
So a divided country was the most powerful (how can a divided country, hence several states, be compared in terms of geopolitical power to another undivided state?) because it surpassed Qing China. Okay, that's the most nonsense I have ever read in this forum ever compressed in a single sentence.
a divived country by modern context. In reality, a country is not 'divived' until there is civil war within the realm. America wasn't a 'dived country' till it colonized the western US, it was simply smaller. Europe today is 'divided' from the prism of a Roman or Frankish fellow, but it isn't by someone of today's perspective.

Quote:
By the early 18th century the most powerful country in the world was France. That's because France was more powerful than Spain, UK and the Netherlands, countries that had global power projection and hence were more powerful in technical terms than any other in the rest of the world.
In terms of most revenue, active personnel and technology of warfare, France or any other European country couldn't shake a stick at China or India in 1700 CE. They couldn't till early 1800s CE even begin to compete on military level or gross economic level. Per capita income is irrelevant: we are not talking about an era of 'men-at-arms' where each individual is required to pay for the procurement and upkeep of their weaponry (that is what makes per capita income relevant in power equation: a system where the onus is on the individual to train and equip themselves will see better results in a society of higher per capita income). We are talking about an era where Europeans as well as Asians are fighting under a centralized banner of state, where the states' total revenue is the main contributing factor towards military expenditure.
In such an argument, 1700s Europe combined would probably be barely enough to compete with China or Mughal India, since the latter two were not significantly behind in armaments but had greater revenue than entire Europe combined, thus their 'treasury', which funds the national army has far deeper pockets.


Quote:
In terms of industrial output it did not rival Scotland.
And that is because of deliberate policy of the British. India generated tremendous wealth for the British by being the prime resource producer AND the prime consumer of manufactured goods.
Ask yourself a simple question: why did the British ban refinement of sugar, production of iron and aluminium of more than 30 tonnes per annum per factory and processing of cotton in India ? The answer is simple: the Indians had been refining sugar, making the best iron implements in the world and processing cotton before even the Romans had began civilizing themselves, let alone the British. They also grew
cotton and sugar and were one of the greatest sources of iron ore.
Without British policy specifically condemning Indian industries, India would continue to be rich and Britain poor: only by banning industries in India did the British manage to sustain their industrial boom: raw resources came out from India, processed in Britain (specifically, manchester and liverpool region) and then shipped back to India for sale.
This is the fundamental backbone of the British economy of the late 1800s and early 1900s: pillage resources from India, prevent them from processing it, process it in Britain and sell it back in India.
Obviously, with such a policy in place, Indian industrial output would be greatly depressed compared to their domestic need.

Quote:
Which actually hurt the development of India as a taxpaying colony.
exactly what the British wanted. They didn't want to develop India. India had (and still has) huge amount of diversified resources and a huge consumer base. By preventing the industrial development of India, the British were able to keep the Jacks and Jills of Manchester and Liverpool employed, the famous cotton mills of Manchester running. Had they not done so, the industries would have fled to India: why ship goods halfway across the world to process and ship it back again to sell, when you can process right at home and cut out 6 months of transportation and the middle-man ? because that is how the British industry remained relevant.

Quote:
American daily wages in the late 19th century were 20% higher than the British, while German wages were 80% of the British by 1905. They were not "third world" in any possible sence of the term, but developed countries like the UK that had more dynamic economies, perhaps because they did not carry the burden of maintaining vast colonial empires.
As an engineer, let me tell you that in metallurgy and heavy industries, the British were the apex of technological quality till 1920. The americans, germans, etc. were very much the 'bootleggers', since on qualitative analysis, there wasn't a single american product- guns, gears, shafts, electric cable, measurement device- that could compare to the British product in terms of quality.
Also, daily wages are irrelevant- 1 dollar doesn't buy you the same amount of a good all over the planet- a dollar in America gets you much less stuff than a dollar in Ethiopia. So who made how much money is irrelevant without purchasing power being invoked- which you won't do, since it unravels your entire 'economic analysis'.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old November 20th, 2011, 09:55 AM   #36
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,749

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
The British involvement in India began with Bombay the Dowry of Catherine of Braganza when she married Charles II as this was a Portuguese territory first. Their first interests were in trade.
The dowry were abundantly lavish, especially for the second part of the XVII century.
Pavel is offline  
Old November 20th, 2011, 10:00 AM   #37

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,952
Blog Entries: 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Imperial View Post
There are so many faults in the above particular user's posts, that am too lazy to point out. Including the falsely said sentence about the cost of maintaining a colonial india was more than the benefits. And you have no sources to your biases.
I would happily concede the point of India costing less to colonize than it's revenues if you provide the data.

And there is absolutely no bias at all in my posts, as I have no incentive to generate bias in my posts: why would I care if India was useful or not for Britain? You care because you are indian and hence has the natural bias of seeing the world with a pro-indian bias. That's normal: brazilians see the world with a very strong pro-brazilian bias.

The simple fact is that the European colonial empires generally did not benefit Europe!
In fact their impact on Europe was rather small and the most important regions of the world that Europe colonized were already sovereign by the 1820-1830's: North and South America.
Guaporense is offline  
Old November 20th, 2011, 10:07 AM   #38
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,749

India brought in the big money for the British Empire, because rapacious industrialists mined scarce resource here, which were used on English factories. Certainly, they were bereft of
compassion toward Indians.
Pavel is offline  
Old November 20th, 2011, 10:07 AM   #39
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Border of GA and AL
Posts: 7,890
Blog Entries: 3

Doesn't a crown, especially a European one, have more than one jewel? I know the British Royal Crown does.
Qymaen is offline  
Old November 20th, 2011, 10:10 AM   #40

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
The simple fact is that the European colonial empires generally did not benefit Europe!
Quote:
In fact their impact on Europe was rather small and the most important regions of the world that Europe colonized were already sovereign by the 1820-1830's: North and South America.
Right! so say all the apologists of colonialism. Apparently the British, the Spanish, the Portuguese were all stupid people, who went halfway across the world to die and shed blood for pieces of land to poor to do anything with, inhabited by people only two degrees more intelligent than an amoeba, simply because they wanted to boast 'who has the bigger empire' and do some 'kindness to the locals'.
The trillions of dollars worth of silver the Spanish empire got from Potosi alone did not exist, the spanish spent just as much building hospitals and schools for the natives. The british prevented the Indians from processing cotton, sugar, salt and metals because the Indians were superior and the British couldn't bear to see calloused Indian hands and as such, the entire point of colonialism wasn't profit, it was isnanity.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
british, crown, empire, india, jewel



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
British Empire, good or bad? Belisarius European History 1006 August 5th, 2017 01:19 AM
Creation of the British Empire okamido European History 30 January 29th, 2010 03:58 AM
British empire Numa_is_the_boyo History Book Reviews 20 December 31st, 2009 02:35 AM
The British Empire Chookie European History 107 September 5th, 2009 02:13 PM
india before the British Empire wei Asian History 12 May 3rd, 2008 09:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.