I know the history as it is written. The thought of what could have been is of interest. Of course Indians will not look positively from a colonialist view, but it is not all negative.
Your opinion apart (everyone has one, anyway), honestly speaking, were you actually aware of the information shared by the two posts that I had quoted ?
Did I ever claim to be an expert on subcontinent history? I am not only here for defence but to LEARN about India and pick your brains for perspective. I am not Indian, regardless of what Chicoms say. When people get defencive over simple questions, it shows closed minds. Just because you are taught one history and perspective does not mean it is shared in Europe.
Again, more BS.. Ranjit Singh was never friends with the British, nor did the British trust him.. they were always rivals while he lived.. as soon as Maharaja Ranjit Singh died, and a succession crisis broke out in Punjab, the British saw a chance and invaded.. you really need to pick up a history book..
The original question remains unanswered: were you actually aware of the information shared by the two posts that I had quoted?
Not hatred, really. On the contrary, I have learnt a lot from his posts on multiple threads. Also, I have a thing for France
You quoted someone being insulted by me using the term city state which there certainly would have been a few if India didn't unite so I didn't pay attention to that. The second post was very interesting facts with India going from 20% of global GDP to 2% and is the most decisive argument to be made of the ill effects of British damage to the Indian economy. However, the counter argument is made that this drop of global GDP % wasn't wholly the fault of UK but industrial revolution hitting Europe first. Everything has to be taken into perspective such as technology and production on a global stage.
Could you name a few of these "city-states" which supposedly existed in, say, 1700? I would like to know about them.
The question is wrong because, if the British had not united India, we would not be a "couple dozen city states [sic]" but a couple dozen large nation-states. India overall might be a much better place to live than it is now, even without political unity.
Actually, what the British did was hold back the industrial revolution in India because the truth is, contrary to what many Indians believe, the British's biggest asset in India were the people, more than the resources... What the British got from India was a huge market for British goods, and whatever infrastructure they built in India was precisely for this purpose. Take the raw materials out, and import British goods to be sold in India.. that's why when Gandhi started telling Indians to boycott everything British and put fourth an example himself by shedding his market bought clothes and started weaving his own, and distilling his own salt, etc.. it hurt the British like nothing else..
That is certainly true, but was India on the verge of its industrial revolution before the British came? China was the pinnacle of knowledge and invention, yet they never did have an industrial revolution before Western Imperialism.
That gets into speculative history, but many Kingdoms in India, like Punjab, at the time were more innovative and technologically advanced than the Japanese shogunates, but the Japanese industrialized in 1868, while during that time, the Indian Kingdoms were subjugated by the British.
The Japanese industrialised by importing Western technology.
Yeah, but weapons don't translate to industrialisation. What we are looking for is the switch from manual labour to the use of machines powered by water or heat. Signs of mass production and interchangeable parts, printing presses for dissemination of knowledge and the like. Also a stable place in India with the resources, capital and a strong government that could have fostered these changes without collapse.
Metcalfe's 1809 treaty is only an agreement settling British-India and Punjab's borders. You were implying as if Ranjit Singh abandoned sections of Punjab to the British, which is total BS. Beyond the Sutlej river were the independent Sikh princely states such as Patiala, Jind, Nabha, etc, who withdrew from the Sikh confederacy on their own accord and chose to join with the British... All those princely states continued to exist under the British until Indian independence, when India did away with Princely states. Ranjit Singh's kingdom chose to go down fighting in war against the British, so to paint it as if Ranjit Singh willingly ceded sections of his Kingdom to the British is total ignorance and BS on your part.. Ranjit Singh did not cede a single inch of his Kingdom to anybody without bloodshed.
As did pretty much everybody else. No need to re-invent the wheel.
I don't believe every nation has to follow the same path to industrialization. For example, Muhammad Ali Pasha started off Egypt's industrialization by starting heavy weapons mass manufacturing, and than expanding his resources to improve agricultural and civil infrastructure. What did him, and Egypt in, were aggressive imperial European powers which pushed their own goods in at a much cheaper price than what Egypt could produce, which again led to the de-industrialization of Egypt.
Okay, say India imported the technology like Japan. Japan was surrounded by water which gave it a safe place to develop. What state in India could have been the safe haven for industrialisation to take place. It wasn't like India was at peace.
That's the whole point. "India" (by which, I'll take the Maratha Empire and Sikh Empire, being the two dominant powers in the subcontinent at the time) could not develop industrially in time as they were defeated and toppled by the British. Had the British not arrived, than we would not be having this discussion, right? Without the British, these two kingdoms faced no other existential threats, and they stayed away from direct confrontation against each other.
It was the Maratha Empire's use of Ganimi Kava on Muhgal cities that left India's economy in shambles. If the Maratha's hadn't destroyed everything, they would have had enough resources to fend off the British. They didn't really seem interested in industrialisation.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New Chronology of Indian History | History & Culture | 11 | |
| H | The history of Indian Cyber Warfare | Knowledge Repository | 0 | |
|
|
DFI Member research into the Origins of Indian ancient history | History & Culture | 53 | |
|
A Brief History of Indian Orbital Rockets | Indian Space Program | 5 |
