the good Impact of BritishRaj in South Asia.

kandal said:

I wonder what else the Hindu extremists have in the works. Replace Gandhi with Shivaji as the father of the nation? After all it was the same Hindu extremists (Hindutva-vadis) who murdered him. They have a serious problem with separating the nation of India from the religion of Hinduism.

Click to expand...

As Lord Macaulay wanted to create of breed of Indians who would be brown by skin only but would hate anything that is Indian and pretend themselves identical to whiteman. Only those kind of people would detest native heroes of India.

Dewal said:

So you are posting here with an agenda to push. And Shivaji is a symbol of right-wing Indian nationalism which is well demonstrated by this book:

Shivaji and Indian Nationalism

Click to expand...

i could also accuse you of having an agenda to push, but alas someone who doesn't know difference between nationalism and patriotism certainly won't be able to push an agenda,thisvact requires both knowledge and wit.

Please maintain some decorum instead of throwing around swear words. I made a point a couple of days ago that Shivaji is not perceived as a "godly figure" by the vast majority of Indians. You all of sudden butt in and start calling other peoples heroes "rubbish" and "unknown" which completely ignores the fact that they are local heroes for a reason. Its literally in the name. Anyone with a braincell could figure that out. And again, it had nothing to do with my original point. If you cannot even argue properly then why are you even here? Go to some Indian forum instead of lowering the standard of discussion with your rubbish.

Click to expand...

never knew that calling Unknown people unknown is offensive, and the reason why comparision was made was because impact of shivaji is far greater than anyone you have named, combined if i may add. I never had anything against your original point but mostly against your idiotic rhetoric against shivaji, infact i have clarified that shivaji is not a godly figure but certainly a hero to pretty much everybody who knows about him among indian patriots.

Please point out which part I skipped over. And again, we can see more personal attacks.

Click to expand...

If you only read further i have mentioned you dragging MNS to belittle me somehow, nothing about made any sense.

Dewal said:

Why do I have to teach you how to argue this is basic stuff that even kids know. Lets start with the fact that you can't even address the argument but resort to flailing around like a fool trying to change the argument and attack (what you presume to be) my caste. I guess you consider that a good debating tactic LOL. Pathetic.


HAHA what sort of child like logic is this? "Other posters agree with me therefore I am right". Jesus...


You keep repeating this, but your actual point seems to be hidden behind aspersions as to my caste and attacks on North Indians. I have shown you that appreciation for Shivaji outside of Maharashtra is close to zero as did this by showing the naming of facilities and monuments in the rest of India. All of these are based on local figures and not on Shivaji.



Because that's a great indicator of appreciation for a figure within an area. Can you name a better one outside of the anecdotal accounts you have provided? And don't misrepresent my argument. I am talking about the entirety of India (outside of Maharashtra). I merely used Haryana as an example. And a source will be needed on public input, it is likely that you are making that up. Everything you have shown indicates bad intentions and dishonesty on your part so I wouldn't be surprised if you are making that up.

Click to expand...

When was the last time public poll was taken to name a public place? Governments name things according to political significance not popularity, gandhi family is far more significant to rulers than any one who is infact popular like bhagat singh, subhash chandra bose, etc

Ariaca said:

There' a reason Akbar and Aurangzeb both came to crush local kings with army of 30000+ Mughals. Gujarat = $$$ even before IVC existed, you know this being a bihari in Gujarat.

the pointis we were under local kings since pratihars (most likely even before that) until 1947.

Click to expand...

You are completely missing my point, let me add to it

My original point was that even mughals took 150+years to conquer vast mahority of india, even then extreme bits of india like south and east were not conquered by them, marathas on the other hand conquered around 70% of what mughals did in 50% of the time of mughals. So your whole point that marathas weren't able to conquer some areas is nonsensical, the fact that marathas achieved something even mughals couldn't shows their military capability

Ariaca said:

Chiese are 2nd largest economy due to their single party rule and economic liberalization.

India on other handg ..... slapped with ineffective democracy and we are still suffering today due to this system.

Click to expand...

Chinese economy will be a flash in the pan; Indian economy is a slow and steady burn, ending up far brighter.

This is my prediction at least.

Baldtastic said:

Chinese economy will be a flash in the pan; Indian economy is a slow and steady burn, ending up far brighter.

This is my prediction at least.

Click to expand...

Interesting to note that with both China and India have each developed a middle class of around 200 million. A crucial development, because it is the middle class which drives development and political change.

I've long thought that China will be the next super power. However, this view is based on the idea of the collapse of the Communist dictatorship in China. I haven no idea if that's a realistic expectation, at leas in the short term of say the next 10-20 years.

As things stand , it seems to me that it's questionable whether China can maintain its present rate of economic growth. It seems unlikely to me, but I'm not an economist.

You may well be correct. I guess right now, it's a matter of wait and see.

bboomer said:

Interesting to note that with both China and India have each developed a middle class of around 200 million. A crucial development, because it is the middle class which drives development and political change.

I've long thought that China will be the next super power. However, this view is based on the idea of the collapse of the Communist dictatorship in China. I haven no idea if that's a realistic expectation, at leas in the short term of say the next 10-20 years.

As things stand , it seems to me that it's questionable whether China can maintain its present rate of economic growth. It seems unlikely to me, but I'm not an economist.

You may well be correct. I guess right now, it's a matter of wait and see.

Click to expand...

While I don't see China becoming a hyperpower as many feared owing to its slowing economy, I also don't see China or the Chinese state 'collapsing'. Chinese state is remarkably stable for an authoritarian regime and China appears more stable right now than many democratic nations wrecked by populism (such as Italy). China will likely continue growing, albeit slowly and turn the world bipolar.

bhattacharya said:

While I don't see China becoming a hyperpower as many feared owing to its slowing economy, I also don't see China or the Chinese state 'collapsing'. Chinese state is remarkably stable for an authoritarian regime and China appears more stable right now than many democratic nations wrecked by populism (such as Italy). China will likely continue growing, albeit slowly and turn the world bipolar.

Click to expand...

OF COURSE the communist dictatorship will either collapse as dictatorships eventually do, or the form of government will evolve into something else. Even our capitalist system will do the same; evolve or collapse, as we begin to run out of non renewable resources. THAT could throw a spanner in the works; a serious war over say oil is not out of the questions. Kuwait and Iraq where just appetisers.

My time scale is decades, even a century or a bit more.

This is my opinion based on observation and some reading. Spend a few minutes checking online, and you will find support for either China or India becoming the next superpower. For all I know, it could be both, or neither, although I suspect' neither' is a bit unrealistic..

Even Australia gets a mention because of our vast natural resources plus economic and political stability. I don't know how realistic an idea that is . I haven't really though of Australia in that way, and really don't care. I do think Australia will continue increasing its involvement with Asia, because we are geographically on the Pacific Rim. That especially means increasingly strong ties with China, over time.

I honestly don't know. You may well be right. Predicting future events is always tricky, so I'll sit on the fence I think.


Below is one of my favourite poems; "Ozymandias", by Percy Bysshe Shelley. I believe it refers to Ramses The Great

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert... near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.[4]

bboomer said:

Interesting to note that with both China and India have each developed a middle class of around 200 million. A crucial development, because it is the middle class which drives development and political change.

I've long thought that China will be the next super power. However, this view is based on the idea of the collapse of the Communist dictatorship in China. I haven no idea if that's a realistic expectation, at leas in the short term of say the next 10-20 years.

As things stand , it seems to me that it's questionable whether China can maintain its present rate of economic growth. It seems unlikely to me, but I'm not an economist.

You may well be correct. I guess right now, it's a matter of wait and see.

Click to expand...

90% of Chinese population are Han Chinese, even if Communism go away, it won't meet the fate of USSR and Yugoslavia as there would be no ethnic divide. Beside this, only government is Communist, entire economy is run on capitalistic setup.

bboomer said:

OF COURSE the communist dictatorship will either collapse as dictatorships eventually do, or the form of government will evolve into something else. Even our capitalist system will do the same; evolve or collapse, as we begin to run out of non renewable resources. THAT could throw a spanner in the works; a serious war over say oil is not out of the questions. Kuwait and Iraq where just appetisers.

My time scale is decades, even a century or a bit more.

This is my opinion based on observation and some reading. Spend a few minutes checking online, and you will find support for either China or India becoming the next superpower. For all I know, it could be both, or neither, although I suspect' neither' is a bit unrealistic..

Even Australia gets a mention because of our vast natural resources plus economic and political stability. I don't know how realistic an idea that is . I haven't really though of Australia in that way, and really don't care. I do think Australia will continue increasing its involvement with Asia, because we are geographically on the Pacific Rim. That especially means increasingly strong ties with China, over time.

I honestly don't know. You may well be right. Predicting future events is always tricky, so I'll sit on the fence I think.

Click to expand...

Indeed, every communist/authoritarian government that has ever existed has collapsed. I foresee China being dragged, kicking and screaming, into this historical inevitability. It won’t be pretty during the times of unrest. Rather than talk being of how China developed so far so soon, the talking point of the latter half of the century will be, IMO, how India provides a greater stability for long term investments and will be the “slow burn” I spoke of earlier.


In terms of becoming the “next” superpower i.e. supplanting the US, the gulf between the US and competitors is so incredibly vast that I don’t see any other becoming #1 (by any meaningful measurement). Unless there is an event leading to the collapse of the US, in which case all competitors will surely be rocked by this (global financial crisis far, far in excess of 2007).

Devdas said:

90% of Chinese population are Han Chinese, even if Communism go away, it won't meet the fate of USSR and Yugoslavia as there would be no ethnic divide. Beside this, only government is Communist, entire economy is run on capitalistic setup.

Click to expand...

I didn't realise the Han population was that high. That would make all the difference in the power structure in a new state. After all, the PRC recognises 55 ethic groups. I guess their populations are too small for any successful bid for independence. Would Mongolia and Tibet be exceptions?

songtsen said:

I see few usual apologists here. Anyway ...

The British left India a poor, uneducated and unhealthy nation divided into more than a hundred kingdoms.

Click to expand...

The British left India more unified than it had ever been before in its history. Even the greatest empire before the British never covered all of India. The hundred kingdoms you refer to were small, most of India was united under an efficient civil service and unified judicial system.

India had literacy in single digits in 1947. Life expectancy was 31 years of age. Roads outside the cities were almost non existent. GDP Economic growth from 1900-1941 was 1 percent.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that literacy was ever higher before the British came. The Indians all on their own rejected the printing press for the better part of 3 centuries. Roads were equally non existent before the British came, and there is no evidence that they declined under the British.

The British did build a network of railroads which did greatly improved land transportation in India, and they did build the first modern universities. The institutes of higher learning in India had vanished centuries before the British came, and the Indians despite many centuries had made not effort to re-establish them on their own. India's current system of higher education was created by the British.

When the medieval Indian institutes of higher learning were destroyed, nothing prevented the Indians from rebuilding them, but the Indians themselves. It took the British to rebuild institutes of higher learning in India, india despite centuries did not take any action to do it on their own.

Colonial India was almost bankrupted when much vaunted Indian Railways were built at astronomical cost (corruption).

Click to expand...

Corruption was as much a fault of the Indians themselves, and corruption still is a problem in even modern India.

Now, the British might not have done much to address the problems of literacy, and poor internal transportation network, but that is not to say they created the problem in the first place.

Bart Dale said:

The British left India more unified than it had ever been before in its history. Even the greatest empire before the British never covered all of India. The hundred kingdoms you refer to were small, most of India was united under an efficient civil service and unified judicial system.



There is no evidence that literacy was ever higher before the British came. The Indians all on their own rejected the printing press for the better part of 3 centuries. Roads were equally non existent before the British came, and there is no evidence that they declined under the British.

The British did build a network of railroads which did greatly improved land transportation in India, and they did build the first modern universities. The institutes of higher learning in India had vanished centuries before the British came, and the Indians despite many centuries had made not effort to re-establish them on their own. India's current system of higher education was created by the British.

When the medieval Indian institutes of higher learning were destroyed, nothing prevented the Indians from rebuilding them, but the Indians themselves. It took the British to rebuild institutes of higher learning in India, india despite centuries did not take any action to do it on their own.



Corruption was as much a fault of the Indians themselves, and corruption still is a problem in even modern India.

Now, the British might not have done much to address the problems of literacy, and poor internal transportation network, but that is not to say they created the problem in the first place.

Click to expand...

You keep parroting the same lines over and over again. As I had mentioned already, british did not unify India (it wasn't in their interests to begin with). It is Indians who unified India by using institutions british created to rule over the subcontinent. Britain also played the main role in de-industrialization of India which severely affected local manufacturing. Indians weren't fools, they would have built railroads themselves had they understood its importance, however with the destruction of Indian manufacturing, the railroads were more of a white elephant during those times. It is only after independence that the railroads were put to a better use. Even today the real money in rail transportation is in movement of freight, not passengers. Without effective local manufacturing, the railroads were frankly of no use to Indians.

Similarly literacy rates barely rose during british rule, while I am not sure how literate India was during medieval times, it seems that there was no major rise in literacy even during raj period. Most universities, especially the prized ones (like IIT & IISC) were built after independence.

Like many others, you keep crediting british rule when the real credit actually goes to Indians. As I had said before too, modern Indian political state is a by-product of british rule but not the main product. No one is blaming brits for internal conflicts (like religious divide between Hindus and Muslims), but there is frankly very little direct benefit India received during colonization. The one direct benefit that sprouts to my mind is the meticulousness with which officials conducted census.

Bart Dale said:

The British left India more unified than it had ever been before in its history. Even the greatest empire before the British never covered all of India. The hundred kingdoms you refer to were small, most of India was united under an efficient civil service and unified judicial system.

Click to expand...

This is a false claim. British only left provinces as organized, princely states were virtually independent having their own currency. Travancore in Southern Kerala was first to declare independence. There was 5 days war to integrate Hyderabad into India, the largest princely state. It was strong diplomacy of Vallabh Bhai Patel and V K Krishna Menon that led to integration of all princely states, all at a cost of hefty privy purse to princely states for merging their states with India.

Devdas said:

This is a false claim. British only left provinces as organized, princely states were virtually independent having their own currency. Travancore in Southern Kerala was first to declare independence. There was 5 days war to integrate Hyderabad into India, the largest princely state. It was strong diplomacy of Vallabh Bhai Patel and V K Krishna Menon that led to integration of all princely states, all at a cost of hefty privy purse to princely states for merging their states with India.

Click to expand...

The princely states in total were only a fraction of India, it is you who are bending the truth. The fact remains that India was united more under the British than it had ever been. Not only did the British rule directly control more of India than any previous empire, but they left behind an administration and legsl system that exerted direct control.fsr greater than any previous India empire. When the Mughals ruled India, the Hindu states were largely governed by their own laws and legal codes, and the way previous India empires ruled was not much different the way the British ruled through the princely states.

The Indian princes of the conquered countries were still kept in place as long as they did not rebel, which probably contributed to the Indian empires being weak and not long lasting, since the individual states were left largely intact to reassert themselves once the central power weakened. India was not a quilt work of tiny equal size countries when the British left as you imply. Around 80 -90% of what is now India was under the direct control of the Raj when India became independent.

bhattacharya said:

You keep parroting the same lines over and over again. As I had mentioned already, british did not unify India (it wasn't in their interests to begin with). It is Indians who unified India by using institutions british created to rule over the subcontinent. Britain also played the main role in de-industrialization of India which severely affected local manufacturing. Indians weren't fools, they would have built railroads themselves had they understood its importance, however with the destruction of Indian manufacturing, the railroads were more of a white elephant during those times. It is only after independence that the railroads were put to a better use. Even today the real money in rail transportation is in movement of freight, not passengers. Without effective local manufacturing, the railroads were frankly of no use to Indians.

Similarly literacy rates barely rose during british rule, while I am not sure how literate India was during medieval times, it seems that there was no major rise in literacy even during raj period. Most universities, especially the prized ones (like IIT & IISC) were built after independence.

Like many others, you keep crediting british rule when the real credit actually goes to Indians. As I had said before too, modern Indian political state is a by-product of british rule but not the main product. No one is blaming brits for internal conflicts (like religious divide between Hindus and Muslims), but there is frankly very little direct benefit India received during colonization. The one direct benefit that sprouts to my mind is the meticulousness with which officials conducted census.

Click to expand...

The fact that Indins did not make use of the printing press for centuries demonstrates that India had no importsnce for general literacy outside a very small elite.

And the British did build some universities in India , which is far more than India had before they came, which was none at all. India's indigenouz institutuosn had disappeared centuries earlier and India was making no effort to recreate them on their own. The British universities served as a template for the additional universities.

However you are right, that India as a nation was just the creation of the Indians themselves. The idea of that I am an Indian national, not just a Maratha or other ethnic group, was something the British did not create, that is true. But Indian naional identity would not have arisen except for the Raj. Indi today would have been as divided today as it ever was had it not been for the British.

And the British did notnde-industrialize India because India was never industrialized in the first place. The skill of making complex geared machinery, essential for the industrial revolution, was one where India historically lagged in. The hand textile industry of India when pitted against the mechanized textile production was always going to lose out. Even China, which did have a long established tradition of complex of complex machinery that India lackrd, also.experienced decline.

Bart Dale said:

The princely states in total were only a fraction of India, it is you who are bending the truth. The fact remains that India was united more under the British than it had ever been. Not only did the British rule directly control more of India than any previous empire, but they left behind an administration and legsl system that exerted direct control.fsr greater than any previous India empire. When the Mughals ruled India, the Hindu states were largely governed by their own laws and legal codes, and the way previous India empires ruled was not much different the way the British ruled through the princely states.

The Indian princes of the conquered countries were still kept in place as long as they did not rebel, which probably contributed to the Indian empires being weak and not long lasting, since the individual states were left largely intact to reassert themselves once the central power weakened. India was not a quilt work of tiny equal size countries when the British left as you imply. Around 80 -90% of what is now India was under the direct control of the Raj when India became independent.

Click to expand...

The reality is British and French meddled in the time of political turmoil in India, that British united India is nothing more than a half baked truth. Most of the princely states were created by British were erstwhile Mughal or Maratha provinces.

bhattacharya said:

You keep parroting the same lines over and over again. As I had mentioned already, british did not unify India (it wasn't in their interests to begin with). It is Indians who unified India by using institutions british created to rule over the subcontinent. Britain also played the main role in de-industrialization of India which severely affected local manufacturing. Indians weren't fools, they would have built railroads themselves had they understood its importance, however with the destruction of Indian manufacturing, the railroads were more of a white elephant during those times. It is only after independence that the railroads were put to a better use. Even today the real money in rail transportation is in movement of freight, not passengers. Without effective local manufacturing, the railroads were frankly of no use to Indians.

Similarly literacy rates barely rose during british rule, while I am not sure how literate India was during medieval times, it seems that there was no major rise in literacy even during raj period. Most universities, especially the prized ones (like IIT & IISC) were built after independence.

Like many others, you keep crediting british rule when the real credit actually goes to Indians. As I had said before too, modern Indian political state is a by-product of british rule but not the main product. No one is blaming brits for internal conflicts (like religious divide between Hindus and Muslims), but there is frankly very little direct benefit India received during colonization. The one direct benefit that sprouts to my mind is the meticulousness with which officials conducted census.

Click to expand...

Rightly said, except few exceptions like India or Malaysia, British given institutions and democracy only succeeded in white settled colonies only. It failed in most of their former Asian and African colonies. Most of them plunged into civil war or military rule. Take India's neighbour for instance, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives all have history of failed British institutions and democracy.

Bart Dale said:

The fact that Indins did not make use of the printing press for centuries demonstrates that India had no importsnce for general literacy outside a very small elite.

And the British did build some universities in India , which is far more than India had before they came, which was none at all. India's indigenouz institutuosn had disappeared centuries earlier and India was making no effort to recreate them on their own. The British universities served as a template for the additional universities.

However you are right, that India as a nation was just the creation of the Indians themselves. The idea of that I am an Indian national, not just a Maratha or other ethnic group, was something the British did not create, that is true. But Indian naional identity would not have arisen except for the Raj. Indi today would have been as divided today as it ever was had it not been for the British.

And the British did notnde-industrialize India because India was never industrialized in the first place. The skill of making complex geared machinery, essential for the industrial revolution, was one where India historically lagged in. The hand textile industry of India when pitted against the mechanized textile production was always going to lose out. Even China, which did have a long established tradition of complex of complex machinery that India lackrd, also.experienced decline.

Click to expand...

You dint actually disprove what I said. I mentioned that I am not aware of literacy rates in medieval times, however if even with the introduction of printing press literacy barely rose prior to independence then I am really not sure how credit goes to british rule for that.

India did have some very good institutions even after islamic invasions, kerala school of mathematics comes to my mind. While university education did indeed decline in indo gangetic plains, it survived in other hindu states of that time and the gurukul system of education survived well into the 19th century before being replaced by the modern british inspired one. I mean marvels like Hampi and breathtakingly beautiful temples & forts of Maharashtra, Orissa, Madhya pradesh, Gujarat & Rajasthan (many of which were built after islamic invasions) surely did not arise from thin air. The 5 jantar mantar's built by maharaja jai singh ii further shows that talent was still there if resources were adequately allocated. With the inevitable decline of islamic power, I feel rise of universities was inevitable. I will however credit brits for making that transition faster.

Largely agree with the 3rd point, except India would have been slightly more united than EU is today, Marathas would have probably been like the a combination of Germany & France and been the clear top dogs of the subcontinent.

India may not have been industrialized in the modern sense, it did however have a vast local manufacturing ecosystem. I mean you surely don't think India dominated indian ocean trade without any local manufacturing? Industrialization of India would have been inevitable as indian merchants would have tried to compete with the global best, what brits did is delay this process by a loooong time, in effect destroying local manufacturing ecosystem. Industrialization does not occur out of thin air, it requires sufficient local ecosystem. There is a reason why even after independence, it took 4 decades for India to be called an industrialized nation. China in comparison became industrialized quickly after its independance as the ecosystem in China was still alive. Compare CO2 emissions of China and India in the 60's, despite same income, China was way way more industrialized by then.

bhattacharya said:

You dint actually disprove what I said. I mentioned that I am not aware of literacy rates in medieval times, however if even with the introduction of printing press literacy barely rose prior to independence then I am really not sure how credit goes to british rule for that..

Click to expand...

But you are quite happy to blame them for not improving literacy rates? rather hypocritical.

bhattacharya said:

.............................With the inevitable decline of islamic power, I feel rise of universities was inevitable. I will however credit brits for making that transition faster..

Click to expand...

Why is it 'inevitable'?

bhattacharya said:

Largely agree with the 3rd point, except India would have been slightly more united than EU is today, Marathas would have probably been like the a combination of Germany & France and been the clear top dogs of the subcontinent..

Click to expand...

Great! so numerous murderous small wars and two World Wars of unsurpassed destruction! and only now getting a small measure of unity (will not mention Brexit) how is this better for India?

bhattacharya said:

India may not have been industrialized in the modern sense,.

Click to expand...

Right so when you and others claim the British 'de-Industrialised India' you admit that you just using Nationalistic rhetoric and its not actually true.

bhattacharya said:

it did however have a vast local manufacturing ecosystem..

Click to expand...

A local but the world was going Global.

bhattacharya said:

I mean you surely don't think India dominated indian ocean trade without any local manufacturing? .

Click to expand...

Dominated local manufacturing but the world was changing, Indian artisans were not going to have to compete with European Factories whether the British were in India or not.

They failed to compete in Europe why will they succeed in India?

bhattacharya said:

Industrialization of India would have been inevitable as .

Click to expand...

Why?

It didn't happen any where else outside Europe (except perhaps Japan and that country is very different to the Indian sub-continent) so why is it inevitable that it will occur ?

Why it occurred in Britain is an incredibly complex question (that still hasn't really been answered and perhaps never will) so inevitable in India?

India had been highly advanced for thousands of years but no industrial revolution.

bhattacharya said:

indian merchants would have tried to compete with the global best, .

Click to expand...

And why would they have not industrialised and still used artisans? would they have been responsible for 'de-industrialising' India?

And why would they have out competed Europe?

bhattacharya said:

what brits did is delay this process by a loooong time, in effect destroying local manufacturing .ecosystem

Click to expand...

.

Why? would any other capitalists acted differently?:

bhattacharya said:

Industrialization does not occur out of thin air,.

Click to expand...

You just claimed it did.

bhattacharya said:

it requires sufficient local ecosystem. .

Click to expand...

Did that exist in India? if so why didn't industrialise before the British dominated.

Why did this local ecosystem exist strong enough to industrialise but no where else in the world but Britain?

bhattacharya said:

There is a reason why even after independence, it took 4 decades for India to be called an industrialized nation..

Click to expand...

Which would imply the issue is a great deal more complex than simply blaming the dastardly Brits.

bhattacharya said:

China in comparison became industrialized quickly after its independance as the ecosystem in China was still alive. Compare CO2 emissions of China and India in the 60's, despite same income, China was way way more industrialized by then .

Click to expand...

But China was a Communist one party stated not really like the republic of India.