Why Wasn't India United Before?

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,990
New Delhi, India
Kutch is seismic area and rivers flow into Kutch (Sindh, Saraswati at one time, Khari) and Gulf of Cambay (Narmada, Mahi and Sabarmati), that has shaped the geography of Saurashtra. Population of Gujarast today is 70 million. A time may soon come when a bifurcation of the state can be thought of. Smaller states can induce growth.
 
Likes: Ariaca

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,624
Navan, Ireland
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 isn't that a symptom of Globalisation? money now flowed around the world -- to a degree it always has, in Eurasia anyway---slowy by modern standards but it did nevertheless.

The Industrial Revolution was occurring ,whether Britain 'colonised' India (which they really didn't) or not changes was going to occur--the artisan craftsmen for instance were doomed in India as they were in Britain.

Now perhaps 'India' (or rather the collection of states found on the Indian sub-continent) could have avoided being colonised by another European power (or powers) and do something that virtually no other state did and that was industrialise with colonial influence why would it still have not been an horrific process?

Looking at British social history, they were not colonised but the Industrial Revolution was not a good time for common people -- it varied and changed over time but went from good to ok through to simply horrific.

Why would this have not been the case in India?



...................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.
I would agree
 
May 2013
1,600
The abode of the lord of the north
But isn't that a symptom of Globalisation? money now flowed around the world -- to a degree it always has, in Eurasia anyway---slowy by modern standards but it did nevertheless.
Globalization is more or less, a more decent way of doing that. Globalization is the ultimate result when a healthy capitalist economy grows strong. Capitalism simply takes wealth from one place to other; that is, whoever owns the means of production ultimately gains as he grows. This requires a class of people from whom, willingly or not, the capital has to be taken away. In short, your country can't be both capitalist and super-rich. If you want to be richer than the other countries, you should exploit them. A capitalist country grows at the stake of somebody else, elsewhere. Just that with globalization, this is not that obvious, and thus less sinister.
The Industrial Revolution was occurring ,whether Britain 'colonised' India (which they really didn't) or not changes was going to occur--the artisan craftsmen for instance were doomed in India as they were in Britain.

Now perhaps 'India' (or rather the collection of states found on the Indian sub-continent) could have avoided being colonised by another European power (or powers) and do something that virtually no other state did and that was industrialise with colonial influence why would it still have not been an horrific process?

Looking at British social history, they were not colonised but the Industrial Revolution was not a good time for common people -- it varied and changed over time but went from good to ok through to simply horrific.

Why would this have not been the case in India?
You're asking how the civilians would've not suffered even if the resources were still in the country? Oh we might not have a single answer. But there are cases were Kings have donated their private share of wealth to citizens at times of hardships and famines. Likewise, the resources would've been useful one way or the other.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,052
India
But isn't that a symptom of Globalisation? money now flowed around the world -- to a degree it always has, in Eurasia anyway---slowy by modern standards but it did nevertheless.

The Industrial Revolution was occurring ,whether Britain 'colonised' India (which they really didn't) or not changes was going to occur--the artisan craftsmen for instance were doomed in India as they were in Britain.

Now perhaps 'India' (or rather the collection of states found on the Indian sub-continent) could have avoided being colonised by another European power (or powers) and do something that virtually no other state did and that was industrialise with colonial influence why would it still have not been an horrific process?

Looking at British social history, they were not colonised but the Industrial Revolution was not a good time for common people -- it varied and changed over time but went from good to ok through to simply horrific.

Why would this have not been the case in India?





I would agree
But there was no Industrial revolution in India, India was meant to produce raw materials for Industries in mainland Britain.

Even Britain contribution to democracy is exaggerated, Democracy is no magic wand, its the native people that makes it successful. Except some countries like India or Malaysia or White-settled former British Colonies, Democracy failed in almost every former British colony. Pakistan and Burma fell to military rule, Sri Lanka plunged into a civil war, South Africa and Zimbabwe ended up as Apartheid state. almost every former British colony in Africa ended into Civil war or military rule.
 
May 2013
1,600
The abode of the lord of the north
Even Britain contribution to democracy is exaggerated, Democracy is no magic wand, its the native people that makes it successful. Except some countries like India or Malaysia or White-settled former British Colonies, Democracy failed in almost every former British colony. Pakistan and Burma fell to military rule, Sri Lanka plunged into a civil war, South Africa and Zimbabwe ended up as Apartheid state. almost every former British colony in Africa ended into Civil war or military rule.
Yes, democracy isn't a magic wand. It doesn't magically appear out of Imperial nations. Strong will as well as sense of unity is required for people to step-up and establish their own governance over a pre-existing monarchy. This is where the British have helped. They provided the need to unite, even if it was against them.
 
Likes: prashanth

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,052
India
Yes, democracy isn't a magic wand. It doesn't magically appear out of Imperial nations. Strong will as well as sense of unity is required for people to step-up and establish their own governance over a pre-existing monarchy. This is where the British have helped. They provided the need to unite, even if it was against them.
foreign occupation always strengthens sense of nationalism.
 
May 2013
1,600
The abode of the lord of the north
foreign occupation always strengthens sense of nationalism.
Yes, but had the British empire been based on an Indian region, say Bengal, instead of Britain, things would've been really different. This whole Geo-ethnic unity would have been hard to beget for the native people. If that was the case, Indians wouldn't have been able to make people just ask British to 'quit india'.

I'm saying the role of British in formation of Indian republic cannot be underplayed.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,624
Navan, Ireland
But there was no Industrial revolution in India, India was meant to produce raw materials for Industries in mainland Britain..
Why would the British want to industrialise India?

Were the pre-conditions there for India to industrialise?

The Industrial Revolution started in the UK and then gradually spread all around the world, its nature has changed and continues to do so.

Even Britain contribution to democracy is exaggerated, Democracy is no magic wand, its the native people that makes it successful. Except some countries like India or Malaysia or White-settled former British Colonies, Democracy failed in almost every former British colony. Pakistan and Burma fell to military rule, Sri Lanka plunged into a civil war, South Africa and Zimbabwe ended up as Apartheid state. almost every former British colony in Africa ended into Civil war or military rule.
Not sure how his is relevent, I haven't mentioned democracy but sure OK the British are the bad guys and Indians are thr good guys-- must be of great comfort to you.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,624
Navan, Ireland
Globalization is more or less, a more decent way of doing that. Globalization is the ultimate result when a healthy capitalist economy grows strong.......................
No it isn't it the world economy just becoming more and more interlinked and communications making cultural interchange much faster and easier----- this could be a good thing or a bad thing perhaps both.

Oh and I am sure you are correct the main purpose of Indian rich elites is wealth redistrubution.

India a symbol of wealth equality today?