Why Wasn't India United Before?

Jul 2017
510
Sydney
The Indian government just announced a new highway building plan. I hope we don't see suspended projects like some of the ultra mega power plants (UMPP)

The central government needs to ensure national projects are protected and prioritised irrespective of which party is in power
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,216
India
The article is exaggerating the negatives and belittling the positives of the colonization. What the author doesn't realize is that colonization of that age was the globalization of today. He misses out that it came with pluses and minuses. Harping on the minuses is fine for critical thinking but is far from the truth.

He starts by pointing out the British holding on to the Kohinoor diamond, but never bothers to mention the enormous booty taken by the Persian Nadir Shah from India, much of it still reside in the Iranian treasury. Does any Indian even try to ask Iran to give back the loot? It doesn't even cross their mind, but they make much noise about the diamond. So he obviously picked it up to write about it.

The author also fails to mention the two previous colonizers of India, Aryan Invaders and the Muslim Invaders, who also found the land and the booty too good, so they decided to settle and colonize it forever by making Indians their eternal servants. British have long gone, with a unified India, their legacy, but the after effects of the Aryan and Muslim colonization continue to pain Indians, with a land divided on religion, and a people divided on caste system.

Overall the article is narrow and shallow in scope, and doesn't span the long histories of the European colonized lands, to assess its true impact.
Colonization was all about finding a new source of cheap raw materials and dumping the goods produced in British factories. That's was the British economic model with regards to India, that's why Britain flourished and Indian remained poor and entire Indian peasantry trapped into debt trap. Beside, this Indians really didn't have any representation in British Parliament, so how come you even compare this to globalization. LOL
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,216
India
I think a great deal of people simply don't understand that 'Globalisation' of today and 'Colonialism' of the past were just parts of the on going Industrial Revolution that is completely changing the world.
This is oversimplification. Despite 200 years of British rule, Britain become one of the wealthiest countries in the world while Indian reduced to among the poorest countries in the world, no industrial revolution in India, instead of reducing poverty, entire peasantry was trapped into debt due to harsh taxation, killing millions of people in man made famines time to time. Indians don't have any representation in British parliament or policy making of India, its rather quite bizarre to compare Colonialism to Globalization.
 
Likes: prashanth
May 2011
13,738
Navan, Ireland
This is oversimplification. Despite 200 years of British rule, Britain become one of the wealthiest countries in the world while Indian reduced to among the poorest countries in the world, no industrial revolution in India, instead of reducing poverty, entire peasantry was trapped into debt due to harsh taxation, killing millions of people in man made famines time to time. Indians don't have any representation in British parliament or policy making of India, .


What and this is not oversimplification?



its rather quite bizarre to compare Colonialism to Globalization .


And by this statement you show that you really don’t understand the concepts.



Of course Colonialism goes hand in hand with Globalisation, how do you think a small island of the coast of Europe could trade, exploit etc with places across the world?



How could a Private Company have its headquarters in London and mange to conquer a sub-continent.



If not for Globalisation how could a regional power like Britain develop a Global Empire?



Britain was never military dominant (other than at sea with gave it the ability at power projection) but the rapidly changing communications allowed it to expand globally.



The Industrial Revolution (which is on-going) Colonialisation (not to mention Neo-Colonialism) and Globalisation went (and perhaps are still) hand in hand.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,215
New Delhi, India
The question now is what would happen when Brexit occurs? Many companies are shifting their manufacturing units from UK to European countries.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,216
India
What and this is not oversimplification?







And by this statement you show that you really don’t understand the concepts.



Of course Colonialism goes hand in hand with Globalisation, how do you think a small island of the coast of Europe could trade, exploit etc with places across the world?



How could a Private Company have its headquarters in London and mange to conquer a sub-continent.



If not for Globalisation how could a regional power like Britain develop a Global Empire?



Britain was never military dominant (other than at sea with gave it the ability at power projection) but the rapidly changing communications allowed it to expand globally.



The Industrial Revolution (which is on-going) Colonialisation (not to mention Neo-Colonialism) and Globalisation went (and perhaps are still) hand in hand.
I think Churchill would never had dared to say,"I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of Scots or Welsh" like once he he said "I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of underfed Bengali"

You don't need to be colonized to get modern amenities like Railways, British or other Europeans like Portuguese rule brought an age of extreme exploitation of our land, although I do agree Mughals were far worse than Brits were, Mughals were just foreign barbarians from Uzbekistan.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,216
India
The question now is what would happen when Brexit occurs? Many companies are shifting their manufacturing units from UK to European countries.
Without collective EU unity, Britain won't stand before new global powers like China both militarily and economically.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,738
Navan, Ireland
I think Churchill would never had dared to say,"I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of Scots or Welsh" like once he he said "I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of underfed Bengali".
Sorry whats Churchill got to do with it -- you seem obsessed with him --he was Prime Minster for only 5 years he was not dictator of Britain for decades'

And if you were as knowledgeable about British history as you like to think, you'd know that during the 17th-19th century the conditions for many common people were often quite poor and indeed at times horrific. This did gradually change.

Perhaps try looking at history with something other than your nationalism and your obsession with Churchill.

You don't need to be colonized to get modern amenities like Railways,.
Don't you? which countries 'industrialised' with colonisation? (Japan maybe?) Why would one country help another industrialise? Its about people making money (still is).

British or other Europeans like Portuguese rule brought an age of extreme exploitation of our land, .
And there wasn't exploitation in Britain? You call the connection of Globalisation and Colonialism 'bizarre' yet you really don't seem to understand what they are, the world was changing in unbelievable ways --The Industrial Revolution was (and still is) totally changing the world.

India was 'colonialised' by a private company intent on making money do you think they cared about the poor in England any more than they cared about those in India?

Do you think Multi-Nationals today care?

I presume there is no exploitation in of common people in India today and you have a completely fair and equal society .

Of course perhaps things have changed, gradually they did in Britain we had a talk from an executive in Google and they claimed that their corporation 'did no harm' and was very socially aware and perhaps they don't-- even during the 18-19th century there were reformers who gradually changed things and model industrials such as the Cadbury's.

But call me cynical if you want but I suspect there is still a great deal of exploitation

although I do agree Mughals were far worse than Brits were, Mughals were just foreign barbarians from Uzbekistan .
You will find that history is a great deal easier to understand if you get away from labels and 'barbarians' etc looking for good guys and bad guys, heroes and villians may be comfortable but its makes for bad history.
 
May 2013
1,720
The abode of the lord of the north
And there wasn't exploitation in Britain? You call the connection of Globalisation and Colonialism 'bizarre' yet you really don't seem to understand what they are, the world was changing in unbelievable ways --The Industrial Revolution was (and still is) totally changing the world.

India was 'colonialised' by a private company intent on making money do you think they cared about the poor in England any more than they cared about those in India?

Do you think Multi-Nationals today care?

I presume there is no exploitation in of common people in India today and you have a completely fair and equal society .

Of course perhaps things have changed, gradually they did in Britain we had a talk from an executive in Google and they claimed that their corporation 'did no harm' and was very socially aware and perhaps they don't-- even during the 18-19th century there were reformers who gradually changed things and model industrials such as the Cadbury's.

But call me cynical if you want but I suspect there is still a great deal of exploitation
I believe there is a difference. Exploitation is still there all around the world, but when you see, Mughals or Delhi sultanate or such any Indian empires for that matter, which are percieved barbaric in today's society's POV, did exploit people alot in their days. But they made India their home. So effectively, the resource wasn't leaving the country. With the british, the case was different. By the time they left, the resources they used, plunder, if we are to use a word, was in britain, and India never got to take merit of those resources, never will she again also.

But again, this argument is based on several other assumptions such as:

1) India would've became the same republic she is now, without british colonization.
I don't think India would've ever been such a sovereign united republic she is now, had britain never colonized her. If we see the era of colonization, India was largely divided between regional powers, such as the Marathas, the Mughals, Mysore, Nizams and so on. If british hadn't came, I see no reason why any of these empires would willingly create a republic out of themselves. Why would Nizams or Mysore join Marathas in creating a republic? Several princely states might cede their territories, like Cochin, Cochinese did cede their kingdom willingly to create Travancore-Cochin superstate. But I don't really see a strong republic being created without consent from atleast three of the before-mentioned major powers. Atmost, we might get to see a Hindu conglomerate consisting of several princely states aligned with Maratha confederacy and, rest of the Muslim-ruling states might or might not form a state, I really don't know. But again, how stable would have these been during the coarse early-half of the twentieth century, we can only speculate.

The point is, without the formation of a republic, the idea that "'India' wouldn't have been looted" is kinda fatuous.

2) The current Indian republic makes complete use of all of its' available wealth for civilian betterment.
To start with, one of the many ways the British are supposed to have looted India, is by taking away the wealth owned by several princely states, which they subjugated. However, has all the wealth that was still left with these princely states been utilized for civilian merit in India? I don't think so.
Padmanabhaswamy Temple treasure - Wikipedia
A kingdom's acquired wealth over millenia is present over here in this temple. But its the property of the temple and so, government has no right to own or use it.

Therefore, it is much better for us to look at the colonial era just as it is, another period in eventful Indian history. Nothing more, Nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Likes: prashanth