British Empire Without India

Sep 2015
1,602
England
#51
So just that one sentence is objected to then? Seems like you picked out the most commonly found, generic, part of EIC in India; defeated in battle followed by a “looted treasury”. Because, of course, the Nawab of Bengal would never have looted anyone, nor would his Mughal overlords.

Did Patnaik describe their treasures looted? Again, this is hit piece and nothing more.
I was wondering if the move of the treasury cash, which it says was down the river to Calcutta, really means a move to a new caital - where there ought to be an admin Treasury ?
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,949
#52
These fabrics might have been of 'extraordinary quality and exquisite beauty' and I'm sure they were, but how many people would have been able to afford them, in India or Europe? They could not be mass produced
Before cotton, linen was the cheap and affordable fabric that could be worn next to the skin. Easy to farm, to dye and produce. Easy to wash and dry. Easy to produce from flax the world over. People forget the widespread use of this fabric, pre and during industrialisation, so easily.
Actually that WAS the original Indian cotton exports to Europe.

The Portugese initially cornered the market and bulk exported Indian cotton fabrics to Europe that were at the same time cheaper and better quality than the European make. France repeatedly banned imported Indian cotton fabrics to protect the French 17th c. textile industry (1/3 of the revenue of the royal government from that alone). It never quite worked. Smuggling was huge.

So yeah, while not industrially produced the Indian cotton fabrics were effectively mass produced, cheap, yet superior in quality. The French alone sent a load of industry spies to India to work out what they were up to there.

Sure there was linen and wool etc. to be had in Europe. But they were more expensive, not less, than the imported Indian cotton fabrics. It was a game-changer once the Portugese worked out how to sail directly to and from India.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,575
Australia
#53
For all the faults of the Raj, would India exist today without it? Would it be a collection of smaller nations fighting among themselves instead of being the rather powerful nation it is today?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,149
India
#54
For all the faults of the Raj, would India exist today without it? Would it be a collection of smaller nations fighting among themselves instead of being the rather powerful nation it is today?
So according to you, how many small countries would have existed. To inform you, only North-East was the new region that was brought into Indian sphere by Brits. Mughals ruled India from Kabul to Thiruchchirapalli in Tamil Nadu in 1707 and their successor Marathas replaced Mughals in in most of the India by the time British annexed Bengal, Bengal was itself a former Mughal province.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,149
India
#55
Actually that WAS the original Indian cotton exports to Europe.

The Portugese initially cornered the market and bulk exported Indian cotton fabrics to Europe that were at the same time cheaper and better quality than the European make. France repeatedly banned imported Indian cotton fabrics to protect the French 17th c. textile industry (1/3 of the revenue of the royal government from that alone). It never quite worked. Smuggling was huge.

So yeah, while not industrially produced the Indian cotton fabrics were effectively mass produced, cheap, yet superior in quality. The French alone sent a load of industry spies to India to work out what they were up to there.

Sure there was linen and wool etc. to be had in Europe. But they were more expensive, not less, than the imported Indian cotton fabrics. It was a game-changer once the Portugese worked out how to sail directly to and from India.
Britain imposed heavy duty on textiles that was to be exported out of India while clothes that was imported to India was made duty free. Its not like that Indians were very fond of British textiles, nobody wanted to buy British made clothes despite mass production or high tech support, they were able to capture the Indian because Britain took lots of measures to destroy the native Indian industry.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#56
So according to you, how many small countries would have existed. To 0linform you, only North-East was the new region that was brought into Indian sphere by Brits. Mughals ruled India from Kabul to Thiruchchirapalli in Tamil Nadu in 1707 and their successor Marathas replaced Mughals in in most of the India by the time British annexed Bengal, Bengal was itself a former Mughal province.
The Marathas plundered Bengal, but never really directly ruled it, nor did they control Mysore or Travancore. And while Hyderabad was a tributary of the Marathas, they exerted less control over it than the British, and it is entirely possible that the Nizam could of overthrown Marathas sometime in the future.

Tipu Sultan.only setted for such easy terms with the Marathas after the Mysore-Marathas war only because he was rightly more worried about the British. The Mysore -Maratha war ended with a Mysore victory, and after the British had been dealt with, it is likely that Mysore would have taken back the territory it had given back after the war. The Marathas at their peak controlled less territory than the British directly, nor was there any indication the Marathas would have ever succeeded where the British did. The Marathas were nowhere near conquering Mysore, nor the Kingdom of Travancore and other places in India.

Had the British not colonized India, India would have been divided into. Dozen or so countries. A kingdom in Bengal, and a Muslim based kingdom in northern India, with a Sikh kindgom as well, with the Marathas controlling central India, but the Nizam of Hyderabad throwing off Marathas control, and Mysore ruling in southwestern India, with the Kingdom of Travancore remaining independent or absorbed by Mysore.
 
Jul 2012
2,855
Dhaka
#57
For all the faults of the Raj, would India exist today without it? Would it be a collection of smaller nations fighting among themselves instead of being the rather powerful nation it is today?
Smaller nations? Undivided Punjab is equal in area to Germany. Mughal province of Bengal was as big or greater than France.
 
Sep 2015
1,602
England
#58
Britain imposed heavy duty on textiles that was to be exported out of India while clothes that was imported to India was made duty free. Its not like that Indians were very fond of British textiles, nobody wanted to buy British made clothes despite mass production or high tech support, they were able to capture the Indian because Britain took lots of measures to destroy the native Indian industry.
That is not true.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,149
India
#59
The Marathas plundered Bengal, but never really directly ruled it, nor did they control Mysore or Travancore. And while Hyderabad was a tributary of the Marathas, they exerted less control over it than the British, and it is entirely possible that the Nizam could of overthrown Marathas sometime in the future.

Tipu Sultan.only setted for such easy terms with the Marathas after the Mysore-Marathas war only because he was rightly more worried about the British. The Mysore -Maratha war ended with a Mysore victory, and after the British had been dealt with, it is likely that Mysore would have taken back the territory it had given back after the war. The Marathas at their peak controlled less territory than the British directly, nor was there any indication the Marathas would have ever succeeded where the British did. The Marathas were nowhere near conquering Mysore, nor the Kingdom of Travancore and other places in India.

Had the British not colonized India, India would have been divided into. Dozen or so countries. A kingdom in Bengal, and a Muslim based kingdom in northern India, with a Sikh kindgom as well, with the Marathas controlling central India, but the Nizam of Hyderabad throwing off Marathas control, and Mysore ruling in southwestern India, with the Kingdom of Travancore remaining independent or absorbed by Mysore.
Actually, British and French interfere lead to more defragmentation of India. British helped a lot of former Mughal provinces not be annexed into the Maratha Empire, Hyderabad which controlled most of the South India was first of them to enter Subsidiary Alliance to avoid getting annexed into Maratha Empire. It was most likely that there would have a big Pan-India empire and 3-4 small kingdoms surrounding it without European meddling in the subcontinent.
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,624
Europe
#60
Actually that WAS the original Indian cotton exports to Europe.

The Portugese initially cornered the market and bulk exported Indian cotton fabrics to Europe that were at the same time cheaper and better quality than the European make. France repeatedly banned imported Indian cotton fabrics to protect the French 17th c. textile industry (1/3 of the revenue of the royal government from that alone). It never quite worked. Smuggling was huge.

So yeah, while not industrially produced the Indian cotton fabrics were effectively mass produced, cheap, yet superior in quality. The French alone sent a load of industry spies to India to work out what they were up to there.

Sure there was linen and wool etc. to be had in Europe. But they were more expensive, not less, than the imported Indian cotton fabrics. It was a game-changer once the Portugese worked out how to sail directly to and from India.

How can linen and wool produced in the UK, in the '17th century' or whenever, have been more expensive than imported hand made cotton fabrics from India? It doesn't make sense. Wool and linen were huge industries in the UK, even before industrialisation. Importing cotton fabric, of 'extraordinary quality and exquisite beauty' , was a costly endeavour.
 

Similar History Discussions