Why Wasn't India United Before?

May 2013
1,720
The abode of the lord of the north
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.
It isn't anybody's doing. I'm just saying ultimately it is the capitalists who will benefit the most from Globalization. It is just my view though.


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?
That's not what I said.
I said we can't point out one single way of how the wealth would've been used. But yes, kings have utilized their private share of wealth for civilians in the past. For one instance, I remember reading how Travancore royalty have distributed relief from their personal share, following the great flood of 1924. Now whether this was a universal phenomena, if the kings all over India have done that or not, is a different question. I don't know that. I'm saying these kind of distributions aren't unheard of, and it is one of the many ways the wealth could've been useful to the country.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,215
New Delhi, India
Like the Andaman aboriginals, Indians were happy with their self-sufficient village economy. But the world changes. It would not let us remain like we were. So, now we too are in the race, the fifth largest world economy shortly to be the the fourth largest, overtaking Britain; and by 2050, the second largest, overtaking the US, if we do not end up with a nuclear war with Pakistan. :)
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,216
India
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.



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.
If they are were ruling India and collecting tax from the people. Then it was their job to improve the way of life of Indians in the same way they were doing for native Brits. Alas, the native Whites and people in the colonies were not considered equal.
 
May 2011
13,738
Navan, Ireland
If they are were ruling India and collecting tax from the people. Then it was their job to improve the way of life of Indians in the same way they were doing for native Brits. .
Is this a serious comment?

Its shows such a breath taking naivety and or lack of knowledge of history and a simple failure to have a clue about context.

You really believe that Kings and Queens, Empired and the ruling elites of the past ruled countries/societies with a view of bettering the lot of the common people?

You think the BEIC gave a second thought to the lot of the average Briton as they did the average Indian?

For someone who claims to know British history if you haven't a concept of the grinding poverty of the common people during at least the first part of the Industrial revolution then sorry you know little.

BEIC working to 'help native Brits'!!!!! sorry grow up.

Now if you want to try and understand history (other than simply hug your nationalism) you'd see that the period saw a massive change in the world --1600 the British arrive in India its a supreme monarchy (almost-- the almost bit is very important) then slowly over the centuries things change ,for many and complex reasons, until in the 1940's a government elected by near universal suffrage (think how much different that is to the 1600's) supports Indian independence.

The idea that because Britain is ruling India and taxing the people it should therefore rule for the benefit of the people is a concept that very slowly develops over time.


Alas, the native Whites and people in the colonies were not considered equal .
Well



he is elected (by white people) to a seat in the Westminster Parliament when my ancestors could not even dream of such a thing.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,583
USA
If they are were ruling India and collecting tax from the people. Then it was their job to improve the way of life of Indians in the same way they were doing for native Brits. Alas, the native Whites and people in the colonies were not considered equal.
Blame it on the Germans. WW1 bankrupted Britain. That was the main reason.

Indians never considered equal among themselves, so why blame the British? The inequality practiced by Indians pales in comparison to how British behaved towards the Indians.
Did World War One nearly bankrupt Britain?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,216
India
Blame it on the Germans. WW1 bankrupted Britain. That was the main reason.

Indians never considered equal among themselves, so why blame the British? The inequality practiced by Indians pales in comparison to how British behaved towards the Indians.
Did World War One nearly bankrupt Britain?
Caste system was bad all Indian accepts it. But if the crown was not treating the people of the colonies as par with the native whites, then it better for them to stop making bogus claim of working for betterment of Indian people. Churchill could dare to say "I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of the Bengali" but he would never dared to say "I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of Scots."
 
Likes: prashanth
Nov 2008
1,255
England
Caste system was bad all Indian accepts it. But if the crown was not treating the people of the colonies as par with the native whites, then it better for them to stop making bogus claim of working for betterment of Indian people. Churchill could dare to say "I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of the Bengali" but he would never dared to say "I would rather feed a sturdy Greek instead of Scots."
Churchill did actually ask Roosevelt, the American president, for help with the Bengal famine. This is what he wrote:

I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented http://storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.

I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help.

Roosevelt expressed sympathy but on the advice of his Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote back saying:

"they were unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavorable reply.”

This information is taken from the official telegraphic traffic between Churchill and Roosevelt held in both the UK and USA.