HOW COLONIAL INDIA MADE "MODERN BRITAIN" - By Aditya Mukherjee

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25764217?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Journal Article

Empire: How Colonial India Made Modern Britain

ADITYA MUKHERJEE

Economic and Political Weekly

Vol. 45, No. 50 (DECEMBER 11-17, 2010), pp. 73-82

Publishedby: Economic and Political Weekly

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25764217

Page Count: 10

[RH156RH]

Translation: the territories of the Raj had the great good fortune to come under the firm guiding colonial hand of the country which developed the first industrialised state. This gave the subcontinent not only an inside track to the Industrial Revolution but also the great benison of the greatest railway network in the world, the idea of Representative government, the Common Law, a modern civil service and army, schools, huge amounts of general infrastructure building from New Delhi to roads, the recovery of much of the subcontinent's archaeological past,cricket, hockey and the the stamping out of barbaric practices such as suttee and thugee ... RH

[Byker]

"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:2BxED.343386$ql2....@fx06.iad...

>
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/25764217?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>
> Journal Article
>
> Empire: How Colonial India Made Modern Britain

How Britain made modern India:

https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/if-the-british-had-never-ruled-our-country-this-would-be-india-today-243538.html

The Brits were simply replaced by a rich bourgeoisie upper class caste. The
rest of the country is still poor. Ask any farmer or a dalit outside urban
areas about what changes independence brought to their lives. Sure, they
got independence, but they're still slaves of the caste system, poverty,
Hinduism and illiteracy...

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

TRANSLATION: You and your fellow white christian brits are ENJOYING the
fruits of YOUR ANCESTORS (RACIST THIEVES) "LOOTING/STEALING" Indian wealth.

It is an "UNDENIABLE FACT".

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Stupid dick,

India was "one of the poorest countries" in 1947 when the BRITISH WHITE
CHRISTIAN RACIST THIEVES left India for the reason "there was nothing
left to loot". This is a FACT.

Today India already passed Britain as the 6th or 7th biggest economy in
the world AND is on its way to become the third largest economy by 2050.

At least 200 to 300 million Indians are already pulled out of poverty in
the last 30 years. The remaining poor people will also prosper in the
next 20 years as it is HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE to turn an "extremely poor
country of 900 mil population in the 1990s" into a rich country
overnight UNLESS India emulates the white christian thieves and steals
other countries' wealth.

Just stick to your expertise....which is doing fellatio and then
gossiping....

[RH156RH]

Meaningless comparison because the UK has a population of 65 million and India a population of 1.339 billion (2017) of whom at least 800 million have no access to modern sanitation.

Per capita is what counts.

RH

[RH156RH]

Just try to get some sleep. Try counting the numbers of superfluous arms and legs the Hindu Pantheon contains ....RH

[Arindam Banerjee]

They did not get independence. Indian democracy is a joke. From serving the British Jews&Protestants the Indians are serving the US Jews&Protestants. The only real freedom Indians have is to destroy their Sanskritic traditions. That they have done. So we see so many creeps on gobbling sprees, for they have no moral sense. Nor aesthetic sense. Instead of creating proper jobs they are letting Chinese build grotesque statues. Sad.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

I already asked you many times in the past, who the fuck are the western
white christian racist thieves to decide what is superior and what is
inferior. So what if Hindu gods have many arms and legs?

You christian clowns worship a FUCKING LOSER JESUS who couldn't even
save his own fucking sorry ass from a few jews and yet you sell that
LOSER as a "savior".

The abrahamics are a complete fucking joke. The two abrahamic VIRUSES
destroyed human species for the last 2000 years by constantly preaching
hatred and committing genocides against non-believers and are still
doing it in the 21st century.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Your lunatic ass should be neutered immediately. It is so hard to
tolerate that your dumb parents didn't abort you.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/7/2018 2:36 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> They did not get independence. Indian democracy is a joke. From serving the British Jews&Protestants the Indians are serving the US Jews&Protestants. The only real freedom Indians have is to destroy their Sanskritic traditions. That they have done. So we see so many creeps on gobbling sprees, for they have no moral sense. Nor aesthetic sense. Instead of creating proper jobs they are letting Chinese build grotesque statues. Sad.
>

You are a joke. You are just another typical human filth that thinks it
is an expert in every topic under the Sun.

See a shrink and get help for your slavish mind. That should your
highest priority.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/7/2018 3:41 AM, Byker wrote:

What an ignorant idiot you are to actually post a link in which the
AUTHOR himself said "These are just some amateur predictions of the
future of the sub-continent".

And you complain about illiteracy in India?

[Arindam Banerjee]

Tch tch

[RH156RH]

If you have passed ten just get your shoes and socks off... rH

>
> You christian clowns worship a FUCKING LOSER JESUS who couldn't even
> save his own fucking sorry ass from a few jews and yet you sell that
> LOSER as a "savior".

An heroic misunderstanding of Christianity and JC's role in the religion. .,... RH

>
> The abrahamics are a complete fucking joke. The two abrahamic VIRUSES
> destroyed human species for the last 2000 years by constantly preaching
> hatred and committing genocides against non-believers and are still
> doing it in the 21st century.

What does your imam say about this? RH

[RH156RH]

Just imagine that you and another nine of your fellow Muslims produce a GDP of 1,600 rupees. That means you have a per capita GDP of 160 rupees... RH

[Byker]

"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:gXHED.784952$3L2.2...@fx44.iad...

>
> Just stick to your expertise....which is doing fellatio and then
> gossiping....

Hit your hot button did I? Here in the U.S. I can say what I want about
"people of colour" and not be charged with "hate speech"...

[Byker]

"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:N2UED.470300$um3....@fx32.iad...

>
> What an ignorant idiot you are to actually post a link in which the AUTHOR
> himself said "These are just some amateur predictions of the future of the
> sub-continent".
>
> And you complain about illiteracy in India?

It's not worth the effort to destroy Hinduism. We need the Hindoos to
destroy the Muzzies.

Is an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war just one terrorist attack away?:
http://herald.dawn.com/news/1153648/is-a-pakistan-india-war-just-one-terrorist-attack-away

Best what-if scenario I've yet seen: http://tinyurl.com/gr2vfjd

Pakistan will cease to exist for the rest of the 21st century:
http://www.abplive.in/india-news/how-india-can-completely-destroy-pakistan-in-war-280247

MSM coverage won't be biased in favor of the Pakis:
http://tinyurl.com/gnyz73n

There is a greater chance of a Pakistan vs. India nuclear war than there is
of a U.S./Russia nuke conflict:

http://qz.com/541502/a-nuclear-war-between-india-and-pakistan-is-a-very-real-possibility/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/india-pakistan-heading-nuclear-showdown-160303053541342.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-are-pakistan-india-fighting-nuclear-war-threatened-after-kashmir-attack-uri-2423462

Chances are the superpowers will just stand back until the smoke clears and
the radiation dies down. While India would regard such an event as a
catastrophe, for Pakistan it would simply be "jihad". Let the asslifters and
curry-munchers nuke it out. Their fecundity will replace the lost population
in a few years...

[Arindam Banerjee]

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is unlikely despite all the malevolent efforts by the evil parties in foreign lands to make that happen. With better communication the good people on both sides will unite. They need to identify their sources of discord. Then discuss them to find mutually acceptable solutions. Usually the causes are trifling in nature.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Once I proved your stupidity, you moved on to a completely different topic.

An Indo-Pak nuclear war will negatively affect the entire world
including all the western white christian countries infested with
fellatio experts like you with severe economic consequences.

Secondly YOU basically admitted that western white christians DON'T HAVE
THE BALLS to nuke the 6th century pakistani pigs to rubble.

Thirdly, IF there is an Indo-Pak nuclear war, then India should NUKE
Mecca and Vatican along with Paki pigs to get rid of the two filthy
racist bigoted abrahamic viruses for good from this planet.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Just imagine if India forced you british white christian thieves to pay
9.2 trillion pounds of reparations for the stolen Indian wealth, YOU and
YOUR FELLOW bible thumping brit thieves will be "BEGGING FOR FOOD".

What a beautiful sight it would be.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Again I put you in your fucking place and you removed all the comments
and moved on to another entirely different topic like a typical cunning
loser.

Stupid dick,

India was "one of the poorest countries" in 1947 when the BRITISH WHITE
CHRISTIAN RACIST THIEVES left India for the reason "there was nothing
left to loot". This is a FACT.

Today India already passed Britain as the 6th or 7th biggest economy in
the world AND is on its way to become the third largest economy by 2050.

At least 200 to 300 million Indians are already pulled out of poverty in
the last 30 years. The remaining poor people will also prosper in the
next 20 years as it is HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE to turn an "extremely poor
country of 900 mil population in the 1990s" into a rich country
overnight UNLESS India emulates the white christian thieves and steals
other countries' wealth.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Thanks for ADMITTING you LOST the point.

>>
>> You christian clowns worship a FUCKING LOSER JESUS who couldn't even
>> save his own fucking sorry ass from a few jews and yet you sell that
>> LOSER as a "savior".
>
> An heroic misunderstanding of Christianity and JC's role in the religion. .,... RH

Again Thanks for ADMITTING Jesus is a "LOSER" who couldn't save his own
ass from a few jews and yet sold as a "savior" by the cunning christians.


"LOSER" Jesus sold as a "savior" proves that western christians are
SNAKE OIL SELLERS.

>>
>> The abrahamics are a complete fucking joke. The two abrahamic VIRUSES
>> destroyed human species for the last 2000 years by constantly preaching
>> hatred and committing genocides against non-believers and are still
>> doing it in the 21st century.
>
> What does your imam say about this? RH
>

That 6th century pig said CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS are "pathological
liars" like YOU and that christianity is just a "cunning version of islam".

[RH156RH]

Perhaps you could have genetic manipulation and grow more arms and legs (and hence more fingers and toes to count with) to make matters easier on the counting front... RH

>
> >>
> >> You christian clowns worship a FUCKING LOSER JESUS who couldn't even
> >> save his own fucking sorry ass from a few jews and yet you sell that
> >> LOSER as a "savior".
> >
> > An heroic misunderstanding of Christianity and JC's role in the religion. .,... RH
>
>
> Again Thanks for ADMITTING Jesus is a "LOSER" who couldn't save his own
> ass from a few jews and yet sold as a "savior" by the cunning christians.
>
>
> "LOSER" Jesus sold as a "savior" proves that western christians are
> SNAKE OIL SELLERS.
>
>

An even mower spectacular misunderstanding of Christianity... RH

>
> >>
> >> The abrahamics are a complete fucking joke. The two abrahamic VIRUSES
> >> destroyed human species for the last 2000 years by constantly preaching
> >> hatred and committing genocides against non-believers and are still
> >> doing it in the 21st century.
> >
> > What does your imam say about this? RH
> >
>
>
> That 6th century pig said CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS are "pathological
> liars" like YOU and that christianity is just a "cunning version of islam".

Why are you worshipping a sixth century pig? RH

[RH156RH]

...which is about the average Indian would get once foreign aid is subtracted from the subcontinental GDP... RH

[Byker]

"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:6m7FD.541040$Ac3.4...@fx45.iad...

>
> Again I put you in your fucking place and you removed all the comments and
> moved on to another entirely different topic like a typical cunning loser.
>
> Stupid dick

Yup, just what you'd want the West to emulate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WERK7ycyIg&t=43s

The Thames and Seine were never this bad: https://tinyurl.com/pstccwv

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

1) Even after deducting the foreign aid (peanuts), Britian STILL OWS
INDIA 9.1 Trillion pounds in reparations.

2) Indian govt already told Britain in 2012 that India does NOT need any
aid (peanuts) from Britain.

India tells Britain: We don't want your aid
India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require”
British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9061844/India-tells-Britain-We-dont-want-your-aid.html

Your aid is a PEANUT in out total development spending - India tells UK
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096628/British-foreign-aid-India-tells-Britain-dont-need-peanuts-offer-us.html

[RH156RH]

.....and that could be easily counted on the extra arms and legs of the Hindu Pantheon... RH

[Byker]

"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:u6vFD.847026$tK2.5...@fx42.iad...
>
> I still wonder WHY white christians think they are some superior race,
> when in reality overwhelming majority of them don't even have "basic
> common sense and basic logic".

White Christians don't chop down 800 square miles of trees annually to
provide wood for funeral ghats, nor did they become (in)famous for throwing
live widows on them: https://didoisux.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sati.jpg

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5f5abe5ba9da7177e5e8c48ab849003c

https://shirenpanjolia.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/suttee1c-940x500.jpg?w=940

[RH156RH]

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 7:52:40 AM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

> So WHEN are YOU PAYING BACK THE $9.1 TRILLION POUNDS, YOU RACIST BRITISH
> WHITE CHRISTIAN THIEF?

...Think of the extra arms and legs as a substitute for the abacus ....RH

[Byker]

"FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer" wrote in message
news:VbRFD.213052$LL1....@fx23.iad...

> But white christians POLLUTED THE FUCK OUT OF WORLD during their
> industrialization and thats a FACT.

Correct. We Europeans knew HOW to industrialize and leave the rest of the
turd world in the dust.

> White christians committed genocides around the world and looted
> everybody's wealth and destroyed native cultures and civilizations
>
> Nobody else will come anywhere close to the crimes committed by the
> western white christian thieves.

But for the "White Christian thieves" you'd still be in the Bronze Age, if
not the Stone Age.

Although Europe represents only about 8 percent of the planet's landmass,
after c.1492, Europeans conquered or colonized more than 80 percent of the
entire world. There are many possible explanations for why history played
out this way, but few can explain why the West became so powerful for so
long.

Example: China has provided a vast amount of intellectual property to the
world. Too bad their emperors and their edicts kept them in the Middle Ages
500 years longer than the West. Mustn't upset the delicate yin and yang of
things by such trivial concepts as innovation! What separates the West from
cultures like China and the Islamic world is the idea of PROGRESS.

Why was there was no Thai Leeuwenhoek, no Korean Galileo, no Chinese Newton,
no Indian Leibniz and no Turkish Tycho Brahe?

GREAT articles: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3769

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/Hsu/newton.htm

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/03/curious-civilization.html

[RH156RH]

British Empire in 1920 covered 13.71 million square miles or 23.84% per cent of the world's landmass. Of course that does not include the USA which was structurally English in its culture,. That is another 3 million square miles.In addition, there were territories such as Argentina and China over which Britain exerted considerable influence....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#Empires_at_their_greatest_extent

RH

RH

[Arindam Banerjee]

And racists+bigots caused its downfall.

[RH156RH]

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 8:47:00 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> And racists+bigots caused its downfall.

Actually no. It was a combination of native peoples being educated by the Brutish to believe in things such as national determination (the great creed of the 19th century), a loss of nerve and determination by the British elite and a deliberate undermining of the imperial idea by liberal internationalists in Britain and broad. Also, two world wars did not help matters. RH

[Arindam Banerjee]

Racists and bigots caused the downfall of the British Raj in India.

The East India Company crooks stole as much as they could, creating problems even in England. They were envied as white nabobs.

In due course, the robbers got unhappy as the more decent British folk running the show were turning native. That would not do. They robbers promoted racism and bigotry to curb this trend.

Racism and bigotry had already proved its worth to economic success in the USA, with the use of slavery and genocide. The US experience could not be repeated in India, for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, racism and bigotry halted the "going-native" for the British. It also created social barriers. Poingnantly, for the offspring of the English and Indians, who were not integrated into the British society.

The failure of the British in India resulted from social and religious issues. Had they continued in the style of the 18th century when there was no or little bias, India may have become, anthropologically, like a Brazil with more than ten times the present per capita income. And the whole world would be Hindu, or Hindu-like. Terrific efforts were created by the racist+bigoted British elites to prevent that from happening. They did not want any Caesars or Antonys, seduced by superior cultures. (Such are my thoughts; who knows, they could be original!)

Nirad Chaudhuri writes at length about the racial issues, in his book "The Continent of Circe" dedicated to the memory of the British Raj. He is full of praise for the British in that book, as an ardent Anglophile all his life. To this day the elderly people say how wonderful things were during the Raj - so cheap, so neat, so safe, so orderly. I have grown up hearing of such things!

You are right in saying that the two world wars were responsible for the British leaving India. Without those wars, the Indian leaders would never have got much prominence, and the people being too happy with British rule would have wanted it to continue. This is, as things were.

Without the racism and bigotry, India+UK would have been so powerful, no other nation would have dared to attack or offend.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 9:58:31 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:44:37 PM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 8:47:00 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > And racists+bigots caused its downfall.
> >
> > Actually no. It was a combination of native peoples being educated by the Brutish to believe in things such as national determination (the great creed of the 19th century), a loss of nerve and determination by the British elite and a deliberate undermining of the imperial idea by liberal internationalists in Britain and broad. Also, two world wars did not help matters. RH
>
> Racists and bigots caused the downfall of the British Raj in India.
>
> The East India Company crooks stole as much as they could, creating problems even in England. They were envied as white nabobs.

But vastly more constructive than the Muslims and Hindus who ruled before them. RH

>
> In due course, the robbers got unhappy as the more decent British folk running the show were turning native. That would not do. They robbers promoted racism and bigotry to curb this trend.
>
> Racism and bigotry had already proved its worth to economic success in the USA, with the use of slavery and genocide.

On the contrary, slavery is a very inefficient way of running an economy. The USA grew stupendously after it had been abolished. RH

The US experience could not be repeated in India, for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, racism and bigotry halted the "going-native" for the British. It also created social barriers. Poingnantly, for the offspring of the English and Indians, who were not integrated into the British society.
>
> The failure of the British in India resulted from social and religious issues. Had they continued in the style of the 18th century when there was no or little bias, India may have become, anthropologically, like a Brazil with more than ten times the present per capita income. And the whole world would be Hindu, or Hindu-like. Terrific efforts were created by the racist+bigoted British elites to prevent that from happening. They did not want any Caesars or Antonys, seduced by superior cultures. (Such are my thoughts; who knows, they could be original!)
>

Pure fantasy...RH

> Nirad Chaudhuri writes at length about the racial issues, in his book "The Continent of Circe" dedicated to the memory of the British Raj. He is full of praise for the British in that book, as an ardent Anglophile all his life. To this day the elderly people say how wonderful things were during the Raj - so cheap, so neat, so safe, so orderly. I have grown up hearing of such things!

Hundreds of millions of subcontinentals allowed around a couple of hundred thousand white imperialists to run the show. There had to be a good deal of acceptance of Imperial rule .. RH

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:42:20 AM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 9:58:31 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:44:37 PM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 8:47:00 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > And racists+bigots caused its downfall.
> > >
> > > Actually no. It was a combination of native peoples being educated by the Brutish to believe in things such as national determination (the great creed of the 19th century), a loss of nerve and determination by the British elite and a deliberate undermining of the imperial idea by liberal internationalists in Britain and broad. Also, two world wars did not help matters. RH
> >
> > Racists and bigots caused the downfall of the British Raj in India.
> >
> > The East India Company crooks stole as much as they could, creating problems even in England. They were envied as white nabobs.
>
>
> But vastly more constructive than the Muslims and Hindus who ruled before them. RH
> >
> > In due course, the robbers got unhappy as the more decent British folk running the show were turning native. That would not do. They robbers promoted racism and bigotry to curb this trend.
> >
> > Racism and bigotry had already proved its worth to economic success in the USA, with the use of slavery and genocide.
>
>
> On the contrary, slavery is a very inefficient way of running an economy. The USA grew stupendously after it had been abolished. RH

That is because the freed slaves were used to genocide the native Americans, who stole their land.

Without the black slaves the present prosperity of the USA would not have been possible. The back-breaking labout in the cotton fields made the development capital avialable, for the nation as a whole.

To industrialise, a nation must have some means to buy or make the machines. The North had the machines; the South had slavery. The North was screwing the South, so the Civil War as the South wanted out - they were after different markets to make more money so that they too could industrialise. After winning the war, the North bled the South with their carpetbaggers, got even more wealthy, and made more machines for more productivity. At this stage, yes, wage labour started playing its part.

Just as, without robbing the Indians, the UK would never have been successful. The initial wealth was got from slavery in the US, and robbery in India. Such extra wealth gave UK the edge over other European powers, and the means to develop other colonies like Australia.

Yes, slavery was inefficient, but before machines and modern wage slavery, it was the only way for a cruel and violent set of pirates/robbers to live well - at the expense of the slaves.

The British used racism as a means for control, to put the natives in their place and show off who was boss. Entire areas were marked off as out of bounds for the natives. That rankled the once better-off Indians, notable from the relics of the Kshatriya varna. It led to calls for independence from them.


Since ordinary Indians were not affected by such racist displays, they could not be bothered by that sort of racism. They could see only the benefits of British rule, in the first part of the 20th century when according to my elderly relatives India was relatively a paradise.

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 10:34:08 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:42:20 AM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 9:58:31 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:44:37 PM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 8:47:00 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > And racists+bigots caused its downfall.
> > > >
> > > > Actually no. It was a combination of native peoples being educated by the Brutish to believe in things such as national determination (the great creed of the 19th century), a loss of nerve and determination by the British elite and a deliberate undermining of the imperial idea by liberal internationalists in Britain and broad. Also, two world wars did not help matters. RH
> > >
> > > Racists and bigots caused the downfall of the British Raj in India.
> > >
> > > The East India Company crooks stole as much as they could, creating problems even in England. They were envied as white nabobs.
> >
> >
> > But vastly more constructive than the Muslims and Hindus who ruled before them. RH
> > >
> > > In due course, the robbers got unhappy as the more decent British folk running the show were turning native. That would not do. They robbers promoted racism and bigotry to curb this trend.
> > >
> > > Racism and bigotry had already proved its worth to economic success in the USA, with the use of slavery and genocide.
> >
> >
> > On the contrary, slavery is a very inefficient way of running an economy. The USA grew stupendously after it had been abolished. RH
>
> That is because the freed slaves were used to genocide the native Americans, who stole their land.

The idea that freed blacks conquered the Amerindians in the USA is laughable. Most of what was Indian territory had been captured and pacified by white America before the freeing of the slaves. RH

>
> Without the black slaves the present prosperity of the USA would not have been possible. The back-breaking labout in the cotton fields made the development capital avialable, for the nation as a whole.

That was not what made the USA a great industrial power, this was:how it and every other industrialised nations got there:

https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/the-wealth-and-poverty-of-nations-david-landes/

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations – David Landes
Published by Little, Brown and Co 1998 650 pages)

Robert Henderson

As my old history master never tired of saying, Wealth Is Power! That is the reason why the cause of nations becoming rich or staying poor is so fundamental a political and social question. It is also an infinitely intriguing subject, being in principle beyond a definitive answer because any ascription of importance to any quality or event judged relevant to the matter is by its nature subjective. However, objectively unanswerable as it may be, it is important to continue to address the subject because it has become a central part of the ideological battleground between the First World and the Third World, East and West, Left and Right.

To this ideological battle David Landes brings an antidote to the anti-western forces which are so strongly entrenched in the Third World and amongst the elites and ethnic minorities of the First World. Driven by a deep knowledge of the subject, he refuses to take uncritically the “right-on” party line on colonialism, slavery and, indeed, the causes of national wealth. In fact, this book is an abattoir for sacred cows dear to the progressive mind. As Mr Landes is an American academic, this is a particularly brave stance to adopt in the hysterical atmosphere of the typical modern US campus. On that count alone he is to be congratulated.

Two themes dominate Mr Landes’ thinking. The first and lesser is the colonial experience, particularly of European colonialism, since the fifteenth century: the second is industrialisation.

Mr Landes dismisses the claim that colonialism was the primary cause of the wealth of European powers or their cultural offshoots such as the United States, by pointing to inconvenient facts such as the experience of Spain, the greatest power in Europe between 1500 and 1650, and Portugal. Despite the immense wealth generated by their American possessions, as societies they remained poor even during their period of greatest material gain from the Americas. Nor did their rulers achieve financial respectability – the Spanish Crown managed to go bankrupt in 1557, 1575 and 1597.

As for the slave trade, one may point to the wealth of Britain at the time of abolition and in the century which followed. In 1807 Britain’s GNP was approximately 200 million pounds. By 1914 in was over 2 billion pounds. (Prices in 1807 and 1914 were approximately the same as far as these things can ever be judged) At most, Mr Landes allows that the wealth received by Britain from the slave trade, India and the Americas may, but only may, have slightly accelerated the first Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution drives the book. For Mr Landes, the question of the wealth or poverty of nations only becomes important after the onset of industrialisation:

“The industrial revolution made some countries richer, others (relatively) poorer; or more accurately, some countries made an industrial revolution and became rich; and others did not and stayed poor.” (page 231 ) Prior to industrialisation, the disparity in wealth between states, regions and even continents was relatively small. Come the Industrial Revolution and massive disparities begin to appear. For Mr Landes, it is to the success or otherwise in industrialising which is the primary cause of present disparities in national wealth.

Mr Landes’ general interpretation treads a well worn path. He views the historical process of industrialisation as twofold. First, comes a pre-industrial preparatory period in which irrationality of thought is gradually replaced by scientific method and what he calls “autonomy of intellectual inquiry” (page 239) , that is, thought divorced from unquestioned reliance on authority, irrationality, especially superstition. At the same time technology begins to be something more than by- guess-and-by-God. This gives birth to industrialisation by creating both the intellectual climate and the acquired knowledge, both scientific and technological, necessary for the transformation from traditional to modern society.

Those are the bare bones of Mr Landes’ argument. He backs it with considerable detail. All the usual suspects for the causes of the Industrial Revolution are paraded and examined: technological, intellectual, cultural, social, political, legal, economic, natural resources and climate. Mr Landes gives greatest weight to intangibles such as intellectual development, political maturity, legally enforced respect for private property and a sound system of money and credit.

One of the great strengths of the book is Mr Landes’ refreshing determination to pay attention to what actually occurs rather than what theory says should happen. Thus he goes against the economic fashion of the age and questions that shibboleth of classical and neoclassical economics, comparative advantage, the idea that countries should manufacture what they are most suited to in the circumstances of the international market. Mr Landes cites the instance of the Englishman John Borrow, who in 1840 urged the states of the German Zollverin to concentrate on growing wheat, and sell it to buy British manufactures and comments: “This was a sublime example of economic good sense: but Germany would have been the poorer for it. Today’s comparative advantage…may not be tomorrow’s.”

At a time when casual and gratuitous public insult of the English is commonplace, the book is a salutary reminder of how disproportionate an influence this country has had on the world. Two of the chapter headings will give a flavour of this: “Britain and the others” and “Pursuit of Albion”. In the latter Mr Landes is emphatic on England’s importance:

“The Industrial Revolution in England changed the world and the relations of nations and states to one another…The world was now divided between one front-runner and a highly diverse array of pursuers. It took the quickest of the European “follower countries” something more than a century to catch up”. (page 168). In other words, without England industrialisation would have been at best greatly delayed and at worst have never occurred. (To that immense influence, may be added the Empire, the founding of the United States by involuntary proxy, the development of parliamentary government, the international success of the English language and the individual likes of Newton, Locke and Darwin.)

Mr Landes also gives the modish lie to the idea that Englishness is a weak or non existent plant. When examining the reasons for the first Industrial revolution occurring in these Islands, Mr Landes (he refers to Britain but it is clear from the context that he means England) lists among the prime causes precocious English nationhood viz: “To begin with, Britain had the early advantage of being a nation. By that I mean not simply the realm of a ruler, not simply a state or political entity, but a self-conscious, self-aware unit characterised by common identity and loyalty and by equality of civil status…Britain, moreover, was not just any nation. This was a precociously modern, industrial nation.” Page 201).

Before English readers get too bigheaded, it should be added that Dr Landes is distinctly critical of Britain’s failure to maintain the momentum of their initial industrialisation and cites as dreadful warnings to others such failures as Britain’s inability to keep the lead in the chemical industry in the nineteenth century and the dismal story of our car industry since 1945.

There is one part of the book which the reader should treat with caution. Mr Landes spends the first two chapters lending rather uncritical credence to the distinctly contentious idea, much favoured by the Left and the Third World, that Europe was above all of the world especially favoured by climate and natural resources, while sub-Saharan Africa was especially disadvantaged by Nature.

However, even here he redeems himself by refusing to make this a prime cause of differences in national wealth. At best, in Mr Landes’ eyes, natural advantages are necessary but not sufficient conditions for industrial progress.

In the end David Landes, like every historian, economist and sociologist before him who has considered the subject, of necessity fails to provide an absolute explanation for the phenomenon of the wealth of nations. What he has achieved is a work of very considerable scholarship, which describes and analyses the multifarious possible causes of disparities in national material success as comprehensively and intelligently as any work the reader is likely to put their hands on.

Readers afraid that economic history is dry stuff should put their fears behind them. David Landes has an easy literary style and litters his text agreeably with anecdotes and surprising facts in the manner of Fernand Braudel’s Capitalism and Civilisation.

>
> To industrialise, a nation must have some means to buy or make the machines. The North had the machines; the South had slavery. The North was screwing the South, so the Civil War as the South wanted out - they were after different markets to make more money so that they too could industrialise. After winning the war, the North bled the South with their carpetbaggers, got even more wealthy, and made more machines for more productivity. At this stage, yes, wage labour started playing its part.
>
> Just as, without robbing the Indians, the UK would never have been successful. The initial wealth was got from slavery in the US, and robbery in India. Such extra wealth gave UK the edge over other European powers, and the means to develop other colonies like Australia.

Again piffle. England was responsible for the one and only bootstrapped industrial economy - see above. RH

>
> Yes, slavery was inefficient, but before machines and modern wage slavery, it was the only way for a cruel and violent set of pirates/robbers to live well - at the expense of the slaves.

England was a wealthy country without slavery long before industrialisation. T First came enclosure, then an expansion of commerce and finally the industrialisation which if you want a foundation event I give you Thomas Savery who invented the steam engine in 1698. RH

>
> The British used racism as a means for control, to put the natives in their place and show off who was boss. Entire areas were marked off as out of bounds for the natives. That rankled the once better-off Indians, notable from the relics of the Kshatriya varna. It led to calls for independence from them.

Britain educated some Indians and in so doing instilled the idea of national determination in them. RH

>
>
> Since ordinary Indians were not affected by such racist displays, they could not be bothered by that sort of racism. They could see only the benefits of British rule, in the first part of the 20th century when according to my elderly relatives India was relatively a paradise.
> >
> > The US experience could not be repeated in India, for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, racism and bigotry halted the "going-native" for the British. It also created social barriers. Poingnantly, for the offspring of the English and Indians, who were not integrated into the British society.
> > >
> > > The failure of the British in India resulted from social and religious issues. Had they continued in the style of the 18th century when there was no or little bias, India may have become, anthropologically, like a Brazil with more than ten times the present per capita income. And the whole world would be Hindu, or Hindu-like. Terrific efforts were created by the racist+bigoted British elites to prevent that from happening. They did not want any Caesars or Antonys, seduced by superior cultures. (Such are my thoughts; who knows, they could be original!)
> > >
> >
> > Pure fantasy...RH
> >
> > > Nirad Chaudhuri writes at length about the racial issues, in his book "The Continent of Circe" dedicated to the memory of the British Raj. He is full of praise for the British in that book, as an ardent Anglophile all his life. To this day the elderly people say how wonderful things were during the Raj - so cheap, so neat, so safe, so orderly. I have grown up hearing of such things!
> >
> > Hundreds of millions of subcontinentals allowed around a couple of hundred thousand white imperialists to run the show. There had to be a good deal of acceptance of Imperial rule .. RH
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You are right in saying that the two world wars were responsible for the British leaving India. Without those wars, the Indian leaders would never have got much prominence, and the people being too happy with British rule would have wanted it to continue. This is, as things were.
> > >
> > > Without the racism and bigotry, India+UK would have been so powerful, no other nation would have dared to attack or offend.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee

Pure fantasy. India was no more than a geographical expression until the Raj. RH

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 21:16:18 UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 10:34:08 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:42:20 AM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 9:58:31 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:44:37 PM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 8:47:00 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > And racists+bigots caused its downfall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually no. It was a combination of native peoples being educated by the Brutish to believe in things such as national determination (the great creed of the 19th century), a loss of nerve and determination by the British elite and a deliberate undermining of the imperial idea by liberal internationalists in Britain and broad. Also, two world wars did not help matters. RH
> > > >
> > > > Racists and bigots caused the downfall of the British Raj in India.
> > > >
> > > > The East India Company crooks stole as much as they could, creating problems even in England. They were envied as white nabobs.
> > >
> > >
> > > But vastly more constructive than the Muslims and Hindus who ruled before them. RH

Rubbish. They constructed nothing, for in that period (1757-1857) Europe was not ahead of India in any technical way. Their advances in sciences and maths had not come down to engineering. They stole whatever they could from India, and pretended that it was their own discovery or invention.

The British only robbed India thoroughly in the East India Company (Rob India Come Home = RICH period). Their earlier trading schemes (from 1600-1757) were not that profitable. Once they were ruling the land by playing one local leader against the other, then they got filthy rich from ruinous taxation, direct appropriation of land, loot from treasuries, pinching marbles and goods from Indian homes, robbing temples and individuals, etc. and finally from breaking the Indian industries like cotton manufacture. India was like a rich ship continuously plundered by pirates. This was the sad story, which led to India's economic downfall, from which India has still not recovered.

I must add, that this non-recovery is the fault of the Indians themselves. Many other nations have recovered from even worse situations, recently, like say Poland or Japan or Vietnam. Indian social issues go very deep, and mingle with many historic grievances. Once these issues are overcome recovery of all kinds will be assured. In my view, forgetting the losses of the past is a key criteria to address the current social issues.

Pointing out the positive possibilities, as initiated by the wonderful European greats, and following them up in the Indian context has long been my endeavour. British rule introduced many good things which should be worked upon, but that does not mean that the evils done by the East India Company should be forgotten, or its impact upon the world not seen in the way it all happened.

In the Company period, what the British actually did was take away the political power from the relics of the Mughals, the Sikhs, the Marathas. The main reason they could do so, was because they hired the best Indians as they could pay them regularly. Proper wages to the Company soldiers was the key to conquest over India. The Indian soldiers under the Indian aristocracies were ill paid, and their management was bad.

The war of 1857 was initiated by the Christian bigots. They thought that if their sepoys lost their religious status as a result of contamination of beef or pig fat, they would convert to Christianity as the only alternative. With the military Christianised, the path to Christianising the whole land would become very easy. It was a clever plan, but also evil in its tricky way, so it backfired. There were other issues, like stagnant wages and non-promotion for the Company soldiers. Those too counted, Now, racism accounted for such unhappiness in the sepoys. Racism and bigotry had been building up with the increasing power of John Company Sahib, ultimately it was no longer sahib, and booted out of power by the Queen of England.


With the outing of the evil robber-capitalist racist+bigoted East India Company, the true progress of India began, though it would take a few more decades after 1857 for positive measures to take roots.


Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[RH156RH]

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 1:44:57 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 21:16:18 UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 10:34:08 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:42:20 AM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 9:58:31 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:44:37 PM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 8:47:00 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > > And racists+bigots caused its downfall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually no. It was a combination of native peoples being educated by the Brutish to believe in things such as national determination (the great creed of the 19th century), a loss of nerve and determination by the British elite and a deliberate undermining of the imperial idea by liberal internationalists in Britain and broad. Also, two world wars did not help matters. RH
> > > > >
> > > > > Racists and bigots caused the downfall of the British Raj in India.
> > > > >
> > > > > The East India Company crooks stole as much as they could, creating problems even in England. They were envied as white nabobs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But vastly more constructive than the Muslims and Hindus who ruled before them. RH
>
> Rubbish. They constructed nothing, for in that period (1757-1857) Europe was not ahead of India in any technical way.

Nonsense. The British industrial revolution was well under way by 1757...RH

Their advances in sciences and maths had not come down to engineering.

Steam engines were operating commercially in England in the early 1700s....RH

They stole whatever they could from India, and pretended that it was their own discovery or invention.

Such as? RH

>
> The British only robbed India thoroughly in the East India Company (Rob India Come Home = RICH period). Their earlier trading schemes (from 1600-1757) were not that profitable. Once they were ruling the land by playing one local leader against the other, then they got filthy rich from ruinous taxation, direct appropriation of land, loot from treasuries, pinching marbles and goods from Indian homes, robbing temples and individuals, etc. and finally from breaking the Indian industries like cotton manufacture. India was like a rich ship continuously plundered by pirates. This was the sad story, which led to India's economic downfall, from which India has still not recovered.

Whose rule did subcontinentals prefer, that of the Mughals, Sikhs, Hinus or British? RH

>
> I must add, that this non-recovery is the fault of the Indians themselves. Many other nations have recovered from even worse situations, recently, like say Poland or Japan or Vietnam. Indian social issues go very deep, and mingle with many historic grievances. Once these issues are overcome recovery of all kinds will be assured. In my view, forgetting the losses of the past is a key criteria to address the current social issues.
>
> Pointing out the positive possibilities, as initiated by the wonderful European greats, and following them up in the Indian context has long been my endeavour. British rule introduced many good things which should be worked upon, but that does not mean that the evils done by the East India Company should be forgotten, or its impact upon the world not seen in the way it all happened.
>
> In the Company period, what the British actually did was take away the political power from the relics of the Mughals, the Sikhs, the Marathas.

All that means is such rulers were effete... RH

The main reason they could do so, was because they hired the best Indians as they could pay them regularly. Proper wages to the Company soldiers was the key to conquest over India. The Indian soldiers under the Indian aristocracies were ill paid, and their management was bad.
>
> The war of 1857 was initiated by the Christian bigots. They thought that if their sepoys lost their religious status as a result of contamination of beef or pig fat, they would convert to Christianity as the only alternative. With the military Christianised, the path to Christianising the whole land would become very easy. It was a clever plan, but also evil in its tricky way, so it backfired.

Pure fantasy.... RH

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 15 November 2018 20:55:55 UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 1:44:57 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 21:16:18 UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 10:34:08 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:42:20 AM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 9:58:31 AM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:44:37 PM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 8:47:00 PM UTC, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > > > And racists+bigots caused its downfall.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually no. It was a combination of native peoples being educated by the Brutish to believe in things such as national determination (the great creed of the 19th century), a loss of nerve and determination by the British elite and a deliberate undermining of the imperial idea by liberal internationalists in Britain and broad. Also, two world wars did not help matters. RH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Racists and bigots caused the downfall of the British Raj in India.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The East India Company crooks stole as much as they could, creating problems even in England. They were envied as white nabobs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But vastly more constructive than the Muslims and Hindus who ruled before them. RH
> >
> > Rubbish. They constructed nothing, for in that period (1757-1857) Europe was not ahead of India in any technical way.
>
>
> Nonsense. The British industrial revolution was well under way by 1757...RH
>
> Their advances in sciences and maths had not come down to engineering.
>
> Steam engines were operating commercially in England in the early 1700s....RH
>

Steam engines were there in the Roman times as well. It was only in 1775 that James Watt made proper steam engines. Thermodynamics was developed by the French in the time of Napoleon. The East India Company did not win in India because of better technology. The Marathas and the Sikhs bought from the French. They won because the soldiers were better trained and motivated, and the Indians were not united. When the Mughal empire was at its peak, the British had no chance at all. They were getting robbed, so they asked for their own militia. Granting them that, sealed the fate of the Islamic rule in India.

>
> They stole whatever they could from India, and pretended that it was their own discovery or invention.
>
>
> Such as? RH

The main area of their interest was in India's sacred literature. They distorted it, and then claimed to have discovered its meaning, and also saved it from the clutches of the evil Brahmins who did nothing but burn innocent widows to death.

They could not compete with Indian cotton manufacture, so they destroyed it by wiping out the weavers. Many aspects of weaving design were incorporated into their machinery.

Direct theft related to looting treasuries after winning battles, robbing individuals, acquiring land by evicting the farmers, etc. apart from ruinous taxation. The Kohinoor diamond among the Crown Jewels is one such theft.

According to some reports, they would have broken down the Taj Mahal for its marble, but that effort was not worth it as there was a glut of marble from the looting of many palaces.

>
> >
> > The British only robbed India thoroughly in the East India Company (Rob India Come Home = RICH period). Their earlier trading schemes (from 1600-1757) were not that profitable. Once they were ruling the land by playing one local leader against the other, then they got filthy rich from ruinous taxation, direct appropriation of land, loot from treasuries, pinching marbles and goods from Indian homes, robbing temples and individuals, etc. and finally from breaking the Indian industries like cotton manufacture. India was like a rich ship continuously plundered by pirates. This was the sad story, which led to India's economic downfall, from which India has still not recovered.
>
>
> Whose rule did subcontinentals prefer, that of the Mughals, Sikhs, Hinus or British? RH

The British rule from say 1890 to 1940 was indeed a golden period for the Indian population. A great deal was achieved in just 50 years.
During the period of the Mughal Jehangir, India was at the very top of the world - nothing like that since.
Sikh rule, was good while it lasted; but it was never vast and rather short. Hindu rule, that happened on a substantial scale over 1000 years ago, so it is largely forgotten. People like you do their best to see that it does not happen again!
Now it is secular-atheistic rule, a messy and confusing situation.
As to choice, it would depend upon who you are asking. Speaking for myself, I would rather have British rule which is what I am enjoying in Australia. A Muslim would have different ideas - he would love Mughal rule. Ditto for a Sikh who would want the times of Ranjit Singh back. The lower castes of India are happy with the present regime.