Secular world has a Christian foundation

[Waffen SS]

Finland is not the only European country which became rich and well-developed without having any colonies. The same is true for many other European countries, including Ireland, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Greece, and even Poland. Ireland was itself a colony for 800 years and lost half of its population to famine and emigration. It became independent only in the 20th century, but today it is has a GDP per capita of $45,000, which is higher than that of Britain itself.

Being landlocked, having a dense population, or being mountainous does not prevent a country from becoming developed. Switzerland has a higher population density than Nepal, and is also very mountainous as well as landlocked.This did not prevent Switzerland from becoming one of the richest countries in the world with a GDP per capita of $80,000, while Nepal has a GDP per capita of just $700.

Before the Industrial Revolution, per capita incomes throughout the world were mostly the same. An average Nepali in the Middle Ages was not richer than an average man from Finland, Switzerland, or Ireland.

Nepal is in Asia just like Japan is in Asia, but the Nepalis never attempted to modernize their country like the Japanese did in the 19th century - even though they were not a colony. They did not take even basic steps towards modernization, like the Iranians and Thais did in the 19th and 20th centuries. The result is that the Nepali monarchy was overthrown in 2008, for failing to provide anything useful in hundreds of years of rule.

I am not sure why you said Tibet was "always primitive". Tibet was an important regional power at its height. A "primitive" place cannot build something like this:

Then what do you want to say? Christianity is better than Hinduism that's why Europeans are developed?

In Medieval age, Nepal as a country had more money than Switzerland. Until to modern age there was no concept of theory to distribute wealth properly among people.

That's why despite India's farmers generally pathetic situation, we say overall Indian economy was better and India was rich. Equality in wealth's distribution is modern theory and it did not exist neither in Asia or in Europe.

Calculating which country's people have better per capita income, so this country is richer it is not right way to calculate in medieval ages.

I again say we are living in such era when rise of Asia still not finished, so we can see influence of past European domination.

Tibet was primitive in Military or politically, Tibet was subject of China, all though Tibetans ignored this as soon they get a chance. Tibet has rich Buddhist culture and knowledge despite this, simply because of lacking military power, now it is ruled by China.

Native Americans were not primitive either but still how Spanish and Portuguese managed to destroy it?

 

[civfanatic]

Then what do you want to say? Christianity is better than Hinduism that's why Europeans are developed?

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Some of the world's poorest and least-developed countries like Haiti, Uganda, and Liberia are predominantly Christian. On the other hand, Japan (a non-Christian country) is one of the richest and most developed countries in the world. So Christianity cannot be the reason why a country becomes developed.

In Medieval age, Nepal as a country had more money than Switzerland. Until to modern age there was no concept of theory to distribute wealth properly among people.

That's why despite India's farmers generally pathetic situation, we say overall Indian economy was better and India was rich. Equality in wealth's distribution is modern theory and it did not exist neither in Asia or in Europe.

Calculating which country's people have better per capita income, so this country is richer it is not right way to calculate in medieval ages.

I am not talking about equality of wealth distribution, but how developed a country is. Equality of wealth distribution is measured by Gini coefficients, not per capita income. We use GDP per capita to measure the productivity of a country, i.e. how much wealth is produced by a country relative to its population size. In order for a country to be well-developed, it needs to have a high GDP per capita (high productivity).

During the ancient and medieval periods, India had a higher overall GDP than most other countries simply because it possessed more natural and human resources. In particular, it had more fertile farmlands and a higher population (more labour) than most other countries. However, the level of development was the same as in the rest of the world. Medieval India was at the same level of development as Medieval Europe, but overall it was richer because it had more resources and had a higher overall economic output.

Similarly, we can say that medieval England or medieval France were richer than medieval Nepal, because they possessed more resources and had a higher population than Nepal. But the level of development between England, France, and Nepal was about the same until the Industrial Revolution.

I again say we are living in such era when rise of Asia still not finished, so we can see influence of past European domination.

I again say that Nepal was never colonized by the Europeans, so you cannot use the Europeans as an excuse for why Nepal is so poor and undeveloped today.

Tibet was primitive in Military or politically, Tibet was subject of China, all though Tibetans ignored this as soon they get a chance. Tibet has rich Buddhist culture and knowledge despite this, simply because of lacking military power, now it is ruled by China.

Tibet was a subject of China only during the Yuan and Qing dynasties. For most of its history, Tibet was independent. In fact, the Tibetans in the 7th-9th centuries had their own empire that extended into Central Asia and western China.

By your definition, North India was even more primitive than Tibet, because North India has been under foreign domination for much longer than Tibet.

Native Americans were not primitive either but still how Spanish and Portuguese managed to destroy it?

I have covered this in a previous post. See my Post #88 here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/53402-genocide-indians-america-6.html

To give it in brief, it was mainly because of devastating diseases like smallpox, which killed up to 90% of the Native American population. Also, there was a lot of luck involved.

 

[Waffen SS]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Some of the world's poorest and least-developed countries like Haiti, Uganda, and Liberia are predominantly Christian. On the other hand, Japan (a non-Christian country) is one of the richest and most developed countries in the world. So Christianity cannot be the reason why a country becomes developed.

So then what could be the reason behind while some Christian country's are developed but others are undeveloped? It must be having access to sea, having modern neighbours and political peace as I said before.

I am not talking about equality of wealth distribution, but how developed a country is. Equality of wealth distribution is measured by Gini coefficients, not per capita income. We use GDP per capita to measure the productivity of a country, i.e. how much wealth is produced by a country relative to its population size. In order for a country to be well-developed, it needs to have a high GDP per capita (high productivity).

During the ancient and medieval periods, India had a higher overall GDP than most other countries simply because it possessed more natural and human resources. In particular, it had more fertile farmlands and a higher population (more labour) than most other countries. However, the level of development was the same as in the rest of the world. Medieval India was at the same level of development as Medieval Europe, but overall it was richer because it had more resources and had a higher overall economic output.

Similarly, we can say that medieval England or medieval France were richer than medieval Nepal, because they possessed more resources and had a higher population than Nepal. But the level of development between England, France, and Nepal was about the same until the Industrial Revolution.

Then please tell why industrial revolution started in Europe instead of Asia, both were agriculture based society? When Europe once was poorer than Asia? Because as I said Asia by 18th century began to decline, Europe began to rise. It is about time circle.

I again say that Nepal was never colonized by the Europeans, so you cannot use the Europeans as an excuse for why Nepal is so poor and undeveloped today.

What could be the reason then? Hinduism or Nepalese people's primitive attitude or Nepal's big neighbour India's decline? Was not India's declines started because of British rule? If industrial revolution started in India, then Nepal would too be affected just like Holland and Belgium were from Britain's industrial revolution. Here again as I say by 18th century Asia began to decline, it is proved again.

Tibet was a subject of China only during the Yuan and Qing dynasties. For most of its history, Tibet was independent. In fact, the Tibetans in the 7th-9th centuries had their own empire that extended into Central Asia and western China.

By your definition, North India was even more primitive than Tibet, because North India has been under foreign domination for much longer than Tibet.

What is definition of Foreign rule? Mughals and Sultans all though came from West Asia, they believed India their motherland, yes they exploited some times, but under their rule India's wealth remained in India, as opposed to British rule, British despite capturing India never considered them as Indians, but Mughals and Sultans did. They were invaders but did not remain it.

I consider them Indians.

I have covered this in a previous post. See my Post #88 here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/53402-genocide-indians-america-6.html

To give it in brief, it was mainly because of devastating diseases like smallpox, which killed up to 90% of the Native American population. Also, there was a lot of luck involved.

And dont forget who carried this disease? Europeans, Europeans had natural immunity against this which Native Americans did not have. Small Pox was even used as biological weapon against Natives by British. so what does it mean, Native Americans all though well developed in Architecture were primitive in political sense and Military technology.

 

[civfanatic]

So then what could be the reason behind while some Christian country's are developed but others are undeveloped? It must be having access to sea, having modern neighbours and political peace as I said before.

Political peace is the only one of those three that is necessary. Haiti has access to sea and has the most advanced neighbor in the world (U.S.), but it is still one of the world's poorest and least-developed countries.

Nepal has had political peace for centuries, but never developed.

Then please tell why industrial revolution started in Europe instead of Asia, both were agriculture based society? When Europe once was poorer than Asia? Because as I said Asia by 18th century began to decline, Europe began to rise. It is about time circle.

There are many reasons why the Industrial Revolution started in Europe instead of Asia. Historians have written whole volumes about it, but I can summarize some basic points here.

The Europeans were the first to develop modern property rights, as well as modern patent laws (beginning in the 15th century). This gave individuals an economic incentive to develop new technology, since they would receive a secure patent for their creation. For example, the early steam engine, which made the Industrial Revolution possible, was invented by Thomas Savery in 1698, and an improved version was developed by Thomas Newcomen in 1712 (by the way, this was several decades before the Battles of Plassey and Buxar, when the British became powerful in India). Both Savery and Newcomen received patents for their work.

At the same time, there was a Scientific Revolution in Europe (beginning in the 16th century) where people like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Leonhard Euler, Antonie von Leeuwonhoek, Robert Boyle, and many others laid the foundations of modern physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics. All this new scientific knowledge also enabled new technological breakthroughs. For example, Benjamin Robins (a military engineer for the East India Company) applied Newton's physics to ballistics and artillery technology.

What could be the reason then? Hinduism or Nepalese people's primitive attitude or Nepal's big neighbour India's decline? Was not India's declines started because of British rule? If industrial revolution started in India, then Nepal would too be affected just like Holland and Belgium were from Britain's industrial revolution. Here again as I say by 18th century Asia began to decline, it is proved again.

Actually, India's economy didn't really "decline" under British rule; it stagnated. Its overall GDP actually rose under British rule, because its population rose, but GDP per capita remained stagnant between the medieval and colonial periods.

However, the interesting thing is that Nepal also remained economically stagnant, even though it wasn't even a colony. If you want to find out the reason for Nepal's poor economic performance, I suggest you do some research on the Rana dynasty of Nepal and how they ruled their country. Then, compare it to how European governments in the 18th and 19th centuries ruled their own countries.

What is definition of Foreign rule? Mughals and Sultans all though came from West Asia, they believed India their motherland, yes they exploited some times, but under their rule India's wealth remained in India, as opposed to British rule, British despite capturing India never considered them as Indians, but Mughals and Sultans did. They were invaders but did not remain it.

I consider them Indians.

I am considering foreign rule as any ruling dynasty which came to power in India after conquering it from the outside. All because some foreigners were Indianized and others weren't, doesn't change the fact that India was still invaded and conquered several times. By your own definition (not mine), this would make India even more primitive than Tibet.

And dont forget who carried this disease? Europeans, Europeans had natural immunity against this which Native Americans did not have. Small Pox was even used as biological weapon against Natives by British. so what does it mean, Native Americans all though well developed in Architecture were primitive in political sense and Military technology.

The Spaniards who conquered the Aztecs and Incas didn't even know what viruses were or how smallpox spread. It is beyond ridiculous to say that they were more "advanced" because they carried diseases; if anything it should be the other way around.

It is true that Europeans had more advanced military technology than the Native Americans (horses, steel armor and weapons, guns and cannon, etc.), but all this played a very minor role compared to disease.

 

[Waffen SS]

@civfanatic

Political peace is the only one of those three that is necessary. Haiti has access to sea and has the most advanced neighbor in the world (U.S.), but it is still one of the world's poorest and least-developed countries.

Nepal has had political peace for centuries, but never developed.

Wrong Germany and Italy were also turbulent by the time, you know Germany had Napoleonic wars, War of German unification and exclusion of Austria from Germany? Same was with Italy, then how they are developed? France did not have political peace either up to 1815.

Peace, access to sea, having modern neighbour all are factor.

There are many reasons why the Industrial Revolution started in Europe instead of Asia. Historians have written whole volumes about it, but I can summarize some basic points here.

Why Europeans were first? Why scientific revolution happened? As I said 18th, 19th and first half of 20th century were Golden era of Europe and Darkest era of Asia and Africa. So it was time circle.

Actually, India's economy didn't really "decline" under British rule; it stagnated. Its overall GDP actually rose under British rule, because its population rose, but GDP per capita remained stagnant between the medieval and colonial periods.

Are you an imperialist or Cambridge Historian? Then I say I am nationalistic historian. W e may have huge debate regarding this. I only say China and Iran were never colonies dont they have railways? If British even did not come to India, India would still get Railways, besides hence India was agriculture based country and for agriculture based country it is wiser to spend money for irrigation than making railway, and British made railway to smuggle Indian goods to harbour and to send army to put down rebels. They made modern education system to collect some Indian people to work in colonial administration.

British rule was extremely bad for India.

I am considering foreign rule as any ruling dynasty which came to power in India after conquering it from the outside. All because some foreigners were Indianized and others weren't, doesn't change the fact that India was still invaded and conquered several times. By your own definition (not mine), this would make India even more primitive than Tibet.

So who was Indianized and who were not? Those invaders who settled permanently in India were Indianized such as Sultans and Mughal. Mean while Mahmud of Ghazni came only to loot.

For Native Americans, yes Small pox played major role, Spaniards did not have idea of this, British had and they used it. Besides Native Americans were not united, some tribe fought against Europeans while some supported Europeans and some remained neutral.

 

[civfanatic]

[
Wrong Germany and Italy were also turbulent by the time, you know Germany had Napoleonic wars, War of German unification and exclusion of Austria from Germany? Same was with Italy, then how they are developed? France did not have political peace either up to 1815.

No. Germany only industrialized in the latter half of 19th century, when it had political peace (Prussia united the German principalities into a single nation in 1871). Before the mid-1800s, when Germany was ravaged by numerous wars, it was economically backwards compared to Britain, but by 1900 it had surpassed Britain as an industrial power (thanks to the political peace caused by the German unification). Italy did not industrialize until the early 20th century, and even by the time of WWII, Italy was relatively backwards compared to other European nations (it was the weakest of the main Axis powers). It did not become an industrial giant until the post-WWII era. As for France, it too industrialized only after the Napoleonic Wars. France in 1815 still had an agricultural-based economy.

Why Europeans were first? Why scientific revolution happened? As I said 18th, 19th and first half of 20th century were Golden era of Europe and Darkest era of Asia and Africa. So it was time circle.

Actually, the Scientific Revolution began two centuries earlier than the dates you gave. It began at a time when the Mughal Empire was at its height.

Why the Scientific Revolution began in Europe is also a topic that historians have written many volumes about. Again, I can summarize some basic points here.

In general, the Europeans were more open to new technology than most other people, and they were more interested in further developing new technologies and improving existing technology. For example, the Europeans were among the first people to use artillery in warfare and invented the first muskets, even though gunpowder itself was invented in China. Warfare was very frequent in Europe, and states that did not keep up with the times were defeated and wiped off the map. For example, Hungary was defeated by the Ottomans in the Battle of Mohacs (1526) because their army still relied on medieval-style heavily-armored cavalry, while the Ottomans deployed large numbers of musket-armed infantry (Janissaries) and artillery. All of this warfare encouraged the development of new military technology (like the flintlock, first developed in France in 1610).

On the other hand, most rulers of India did not show great interest in science or new technologies (with some exceptions like Akbar and Tipu Sultan), nor were they interested in promoting scientific education like in European universities. Plus, there was no concept of individual property rights or patent laws that would encourage scientists and inventors to make new discoveries and inventions. The Mughals were so large and powerful that they saw no need for change; the same was also true for Qing China. In addition, labour was so cheap in India that there was no incentive to develop time-saving or time-regulating machines like steam engines, windmills, or clocks, which Europe already had by the time of Aurangzeb's death, but which no Indian manufacturer could produce.

Are you an imperialist or Cambridge Historian? Then I say I am nationalistic historian. W e may have huge debate regarding this. I only say China and Iran were never colonies dont they have railways? If British even did not come to India, India would still get Railways, besides hence India was agriculture based country and for agriculture based country it is wiser to spend money for irrigation than making railway, and British made railway to smuggle Indian goods to harbour and to send army to put down rebels. They made modern education system to collect some Indian people to work in colonial administration.

I am not an "imperialist" historian; I am telling the facts as they are. If you cannot handle the facts, then you shouldn't study history.

I never said that India wouldn't have railways if the British didn't colonize it, so I don't know why you even brought that up. The British also built many irrigation canals in addition to railroads (like the Ganges Canal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but that is irrelevant. Your argument was that India was "rich" in ancient and medieval times because it had a high overall GDP (while GDP per capita remained as low as anywhere). However, the overall GDP of India rose under British rule; it did not decline.

I would agree that British rule was bad for India, but not because of "economic decline". I dislike British rule because of the tens of millions of Indians that perished in preventable famines between the late 18th and mid-20th centuries.

So who was Indianized and who were not? Those invaders who settled permanently in India were Indianized such as Sultans and Mughal. Mean while Mahmud of Ghazni came only to loot.

It doesn't matter who was Indianized and who wasn't. The point is that they all ruled India because they conquered India first. They were not peacefully invited by the native Indians to come rule them. According to you (not me), this means that India was primitive in military and political sense.

 

[Waffen SS]

@civfanatic this discussion seems to go OT.

Well.

Germany and Italy when had peace then they utilized it fully, but why Nepal could not develop itself when Nepal was peaceful? So As I said other factors access to sea and good neighbour also matters.

Yes, there were some great differences between India and Europe, in Medieval time, India's progress in scientific sector was very bad, all though literature and Music developed. It may be because Europe experienced Black Death, which killed many people.

Then you are Cambridge Historian, it is neo-colonialism type, why many Indians died due to famine? What caused this? Their inability to buy, as British were exporting India's grain to other countries. During Mughal era India's GDP was 22% of whole world when British left then it was reduced to 3% only. You heard the book "Poverty and Un-British Rule India" written by Dadavai Nauroji? Drain Of Wealth?

Read it carefully.

Full text of "British rule in India condemned by the British themselves"

Economic decline happened because British exported India's raw material in low cost from India and imported prepared things to sell in India. Indian industry was devastated. Yes, British made some modern industry as well but their contribution was minimal.

For Indianized well , Mauyrans and Guptas were not peacefully invited by Indians either, they had to fight a lot of war to capture India, so do you think Mauyrans and Guptas were not Indians as they were not peacefully united?

 

[civfanatic]

Well.

Germany and Italy when had peace then they utilized it fully, but why Nepal could not develop itself when Nepal was peaceful? So As I said other factors access to sea and good neighbour also matters.

I already explained to you why access to sea and having "modern neighbors" are irrelevant. Haiti has both, but is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Besides, Nepal in the 19th and 20th centuries was not as isolated as you seem to think. The rulers of Nepal had close relations with the British (they neighbored British India) and were aware of the progress that Britain had made, but unlike other leaders in Asia they didn't care about catching up with the West. Even some Indian princely states, most notably Mysore, took some steps to modernize their country, but the rulers of Nepal took hardly any steps at all. They had a useless government where the rulers simply exploited the population without giving anything in return.

Then you are Cambridge Historian, it is neo-colonialism type, why many Indians died due to famine? What caused this? Their inability to buy, as British were exporting India's grain to other countries. During Mughal era India's GDP was 22% of whole world when British left then it was reduced to 3% only. You heard the book "Poverty and Un-British Rule India" written by Dadavai Nauroji? Drain Of Wealth?

Read it carefully.

Full text of "British rule in India condemned by the British themselves"

Economic decline happened because British exported India's raw material in low cost from India and imported prepared things to sell in India. Indian industry was devastated. Yes, British made some modern industry as well but their contribution was minimal.

It seems you don't know basic economic history. India's share of global GDP declined because the GDP of other countries (mainly European ones) greatly increased after the Industrial Revolution, NOT because India's GDP declined. As I already stated, India's GDP actually increased under British rule, but its GDP per capita remained stagnant. Those figures you posted of India's share of global GDP come from Angus Maddison. Here are his statistics of Indian GDP compared to British GDP between 1600 and 1947:

Source: http://theunbrokenwindow.com/Development/MADDISON The World Economy--A Millennial.pdf

As you can see, between 1757 and 1947 (maximum duration of British rule), India's GDP increased from $99.9 billion to $255.85 billion. This means that India's GDP increased by 156% during the duration of British rule.

However, Britain GDP during the same time period increased from $18.77 billion to $314.97 billion. This is an increase of 1578%. In other words, Britain's GDP increased over 10 times as fast as India's GDP, thanks to industrialization. In 1757, India's GDP was over 5 times larger than Britain's GDP, but by 1947, Britain had a GDP that was over 20% larger than India's. This is because Britain's GDP grew much faster than India's GDP during the 18th-20th centuries, NOT because India's GDP fell (it rose by 156% as I showed above). Do you understand now why India's share of global GDP fell compared to the GDP of European countries?

I know about the famines that killed tens of millions of Indians, and that is the main reason why I oppose the British rule, not because of some "economic decline".

For Indianized well , Mauyrans and Guptas were not peacefully invited by Indians either, they had to fight a lot of war to capture India, so do you think Mauyrans and Guptas were not Indians as they were not peacefully united?

They were Indians because Magadha (where the Mauryas and Guptas came from) is a part of India. The Indians from other regions may have viewed the Mauryas and Guptas as enemies, but ultimately they were all part of the same civilization. On the other hand, Central Asia, where the Mughals came from, is not a part of India.The Sultans of Delhi and the Mughals after them belonged to a different civilization from the Indians.

Actually, it is highly debatable whether the Delhi sultans or the Mughals were ever "Indianized". The very late Mughals might be called "Indianized" because they started speaking Hindi-Urdu instead of Persian, but most of the Mughals and all of the Delhi sultans spoke Persian rather than some native Indian language. They were more Persianized than Indianized.

 

[Waffen SS]

I already explained to you why access to sea and having "modern neighbors" are irrelevant. Haiti has both, but is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Besides, Nepal in the 19th and 20th centuries was not as isolated as you seem to think. The rulers of Nepal had close relations with the British (they neighbored British India) and were aware of the progress that Britain had made, but unlike other leaders in Asia they didn't care about catching up with the West. Even some Indian princely states, most notably Mysore, took some steps to modernize their country, but the rulers of Nepal took hardly any steps at all. They had a useless government where the rulers simply exploited the population without giving anything in return.

Haiti did not have peace, in 19th century there was constant political chaos. Note it. Nepal's neighbour India was British colony and having a colony is not exact same as having a free country as neighbour. Mysore was part of India, but Nepal not. If Nepalese Government acted as primitive then it is the main cause of Nepal's economic stagnation.

It seems you don't know basic economic history. India's share of global GDP declined because the GDP of other countries (mainly European ones) greatly increased after the Industrial Revolution, NOT because India's GDP declined. As I already stated, India's GDP actually increased under British rule, but its GDP per capita remained stagnant. Those figures you posted of India's share of global GDP come from Angus Maddison. Here are his statistics of Indian GDP compared to British GDP between 1600 and 1947:

My question is why India's GDP growth rate declined compared to other countries? In other countries Government took step to bolster economy as well as to make industries but in India, British opposed it and acted complete oppositely, you get the point?

It is like this price rise continue to happen, similarly workers salary continue to increase, suppose price rises up to 50% mean while worker's salary only increased to 10% is it enough?

Just increasing does not matter, we need to compare growth among many countries also. When European countries prospered so rapidly, why India's growth rate was low compared to them? It is because of British rule. India's growth under British all though happened but not at same as it should have been.

Japan also experienced industrial revolution, but Japanese Government did take actions to protect Japanese industry from Foreign industry, but in india, case was different.

Economic decline happened if we compare growth of other countries to India's.

They were Indians because Magadha (where the Mauryas and Guptas came from) is a part of India. The Indians from other regions may have viewed the Mauryas and Guptas as enemies, but ultimately they were all part of the same civilization. On the other hand, Central Asia, where the Mughals came from, is not a part of India.The Sultans of Delhi and the Mughals after them belonged to a different civilization from the Indians.

I consider Mughals and Sultans as Indians. You may not. Mughals and sultans came to India for luck and eventually settled in India.

If they are not Indians, then how you consider Aryans as Indians as they did not speak India's more native languages or Anarya languages? Are not Santal, Munda and Koles and Dravidians are original Indians according your theory? As you see hence Sultans did not speak indian languages so they were not Indians.

 

[civfanatic]

Haiti did not have peace, in 19th century there was constant political chaos. Note it. Nepal's neighbour India was British colony and having a colony is not exact same as having a free country as neighbour. Mysore was part of India, but Nepal not. If Nepalese Government acted as primitive then it is the main cause of Nepal's economic stagnation.

You're right, the lack of political peace is the main reason why Haiti is undeveloped; that is exactly my argument. Access to sea and having modern neighbors are irrelevant in comparison. A country can become modern and developed even if its is landlocked and surrounded by poor, backwards countries. Botswana is a good example; it is one of the richest and best-developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a GDP per capita of $10,000. But right next to Botswana in Zimbabwe, one of the poorest countries in the world.

Having political peace and having a well-organized government with a development agenda are requirements for modernization to take place. Nepal had a decent amount of political peace, but its government did not care about developing the country, only exploiting the population and enriching itself. This is also the reason why many African and Latin American countries remain poor today.

My question is why India's GDP growth rate declined compared to other countries? In other countries Government took step to bolster economy as well as to make industries but in India, British opposed it and acted complete oppositely, you get the point?

India's GDP growth rate did not decline. As I already showed, India's GDP rose by 156% between 1757 and 1947; this gives an average GDP growth rate of 0.84% per year during those 190 years (British period). In comparison, India's GDP between 1600 and 1757 rose by 34.5%, which gives an average GDP growth rate of just 0.22% per year during those 157 years. This means that India's average GDP growth during the colonial period was about 4 times higher than in the previous period, when India was ruled by Mughals and others.

India did not fall behind because its GDP declined or even because its GDP growth rate declined (both of them increased, as I have shown). It fell behind because the European countries were going through industrialization and their economies were expanding at a very rapid pace. It was not just India, but many other countries that fell behind during this time (colony or non-colony).

If they are not Indians, then how you consider Aryans as Indians as they did not speak India's more native languages or Anarya languages? Are not Santal, Munda and Koles and Dravidians are original Indians according your theory? As you see hence Sultans did not speak indian languages so they were not Indians.

The Indo-Aryan languages have a heavy influence from Dravidian and Munda languages. They developed within India itself, even though the original Aryan language probably came from outside India (that is a whole other debate). In the same way, we can say that Urdu is an Indian language, because it developed entirely within India itself, even though it uses a lot of foreign vocabulary and also a foreign script. However, the Persian and Turkish languages spoken by most of the sultans did not develop within India; they were completely foreign languages which were already spoken in other parts of Asia before the Muslims introduced them to India.

 

[Deccani]

Western countries Secularism is completely different from Indian Secularism .

European colonialism was having ethnic, racial and sectarian angle and because of this only world wars were waged in Europe which resulted in the deaths of millions where as in Eastern countries things were different and people were identify by their religion and all the universal religions are born in the Eastern world where as in European countries ideologies like fascism, Nazism, communism, Zionism which were more or less based on ethnic or racial nationalism and from starting worked to divide the Eastern nations on the basis of religious nationalism, racial nationalism, language nationalism etc . European secularism is based on race and ethnicity and its hard for the European governments to make their population to not follow that racial theory.

 

[Waffen SS]

You're right, the lack of political peace is the main reason why Haiti is undeveloped; that is exactly my argument. Access to sea and having modern neighbors are irrelevant in comparison. A country can become modern and developed even if its is landlocked and surrounded by poor, backwards countries. Botswana is a good example; it is one of the richest and best-developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a GDP per capita of $10,000. But right next to Botswana in Zimbabwe, one of the poorest countries in the world.

So I was talking about all access to sea, having good neighbour and political peace and 1 more will to change, all are important.

India's GDP growth rate did not decline. As I already showed, India's GDP rose by 156% between 1757 and 1947; this gives an average GDP growth rate of 0.84% per year during those 190 years (British period). In comparison, India's GDP between 1600 and 1757 rose by 34.5%, which gives an average GDP growth rate of just 0.22% per year during those 157 years. This means that India's average GDP growth during the colonial period was about 4 times higher than in the previous period, when India was ruled by Mughals and others.

In Medieval time all most all countries GDP rate was same, but why india's GDP rate was low compared to European countries? Because of British rule. European countries were going through industrialization and they got full Government support mean while India suffered deindustrilization and Drain of Wealth. No one can deny India's economic regress due to British rule.

The Indo-Aryan languages have a heavy influence from Dravidian and Munda languages. They developed within India itself, even though the original Aryan language probably came from outside India (that is a whole other debate). In the same way, we can say that Urdu is an Indian language, because it developed entirely within India itself, even though it uses a lot of foreign vocabulary and also a foreign script. However, the Persian and Turkish languages spoken by most of the sultans did not develop within India; they were completely foreign languages which were already spoken in other parts of Asia before the Muslims introduced them to India.

That is other Indo-Aryan languages such as Bengali, Oriya language, main language of Aryans who came to India was Sanskrit, it has hardly any influence of Dravidian and Munda languages, the Indo-Aryan languages we speak today have evolved Sanskrit vocabulary and Dravidian and Munda vocabulary. Like Urdu Urdu is mixture of Foreigner Farsi and Indian Hindi language. Yes. I still consider Sultans as Indians, because they did not rule India or North India from West Asia, Delhi was their capital, not Kabul or Samarkhand.

 

[civfanatic]

So I was talking about all access to sea, having good neighbour and political peace and 1 more will to change, all are important.

Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. I already showed you with examples why having access to sea and having good neighbors are not that important compared to political peace.

In Medieval time all most all countries GDP rate was same, but why india's GDP rate was low compared to European countries? Because of British rule. European countries were going through industrialization and they got full Government support mean while India suffered deindustrilization and Drain of Wealth. No one can deny India's economic regress due to British rule.

India never suffered "deindustrialization" because it was never industrialized in the first place. Some rural cottage industries are in no way comparable to modern, steam-powered factories located in large cities. Even now, in 2013, India is still not industrialized. The majority of Indians still work in agriculture, like they did in medieval times.

Show me the statistical proof for the "economic regress" in the British period. Neither India's GDP nor India's GDP growth rate declined under British rule compared to previous periods. Both of them increased.

That is other Indo-Aryan languages such as Bengali, Oriya language, main language of Aryans who came to India was Sanskrit, it has hardly any influence of Dravidian and Munda languages, the Indo-Aryan languages we speak today have evolved Sanskrit vocabulary and Dravidian and Munda vocabulary. Like Urdu Urdu is mixture of Foreigner Farsi and Indian Hindi language. Yes. I still consider Sultans as Indians, because they did not rule India or North India from West Asia, Delhi was their capital, not Kabul or Samarkhand.

No, there are many words in Sanskrit that are from local languages rather than Indo-European ones. For example, ,ost of the words relating to agriculture (like karpasa/cotton, keenasa/cultivator, kulisa/axe, etc.) are from local languages.

Most of the Muslim Sultans were "Indians" only in the geographic sense, i.e. they were born, lived, and died in India. In all other respects (language and culture) they were foreigners.

 

[Waffen SS]

Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. I already showed you with examples why having access to sea and having good neighbors are not that important compared to political peace.

No, Bhutan also had political peace, why Bhutan is not developed then?

India never suffered "deindustrialization" because it was never industrialized in the first place. Some rural cottage industries are in no way comparable to modern, steam-powered factories located in large cities. Even now, in 2013, India is still not industrialized. The majority of Indians still work in agriculture, like they did in medieval times.

You know in Different times, different type industry, in ancient and in Medieval time, hand industry and if we say this as standard industry of Medieval age then we need to accept India was very developed here.

Industry does not only mean having giant factories, I agree hand loom industries were no match against power loom industries, but why India did not see rise of power loom industry in which scale it should have been?

In medieval time all countries industry was hand held no one had power looms, it was normal, India and England were no exceptions and in this hand made industry India was far better than British.

Plus Indian industry does not mean only hand held industries also power loom industries which did progress enough under British rule. Why you have idea that Indian industry= Hand industry, British industry= power loom industry.

India's traditional hand industry was bound to defeated , but by whom? This defeat against which competitor would be better for India? British power loom industry or Indian power loom industry? Of course Indian power loom industry. Just like British power loom industry replaced British traditional hand industry, but it did not happen in India, why? But happened in Japan, because India was a colony.

Hand held industry is bound to be defeated by power loom industry, but for India it would be far better if India's traditional industry was defeated by Indian power loom industry instead of British. You get my point?

Leave the idea Indian industry= Hand made industry and British industry= power loom industry. Hence Indian hand loom industry was weak so it was defeated by British power loom industry so India was never deindustrialized.

British hand loom industry defeated by British power loom industry then why Indian hand loom industry was defeated by British hand loom industry instead of Indian hand loom industry?

No, there are many words in Sanskrit that are from local languages rather than Indo-European ones. For example, ,ost of the words relating to agriculture (like karpasa/cotton, keenasa/cultivator, kulisa/axe, etc.) are from local languages.

Most of the Muslim Sultans were "Indians" only in the geographic sense, i.e. they were born, lived, and died in India. In all other respects (language and culture) they were foreigners.

If I am correct than Paan, Lungi this words came from Munda languages, plus evolved Sanskrit words .

May be, but they considered themselves as Indians.

 

[afako]

@afako I am still waiting for your response to my query about Shastra Dharma Prachar Sabha. Explain to me what your fellow Hindus meant when they said, "The [Hindu Code] bills go against fundamental principles of the Hindu Shastras, God's spoken words, on which the society is based."

What "God" are they talking about and how did it speak?

Here is the link to the Shastra Dharma Prachar Sabha website: Shastra Dharma Prachar Sabha

Read it in the context.

The Bastardized -isms from Christianity were Copy pasted in India without any consideration of the Indic value system.

Dharmic framework which is the backbone of India has nothing to do with Middle Eastern Desert Unfertile cults and the following -isms.

 

[afako]

Pope says Christians must work together to challenge secularism

Pope says Christians must work together to challenge secularism | CatholicHerald.co.uk

 

[dhananjay1]

Pope says Christians must work together to challenge secularism

Pope says Christians must work together to challenge secularism | CatholicHerald.co.uk

Obviously pope would want his brand of one true abrahamism to replace the other brands of one true abrahamism like secularism.

 

[Meriv90]

Pope says Christians must work together to challenge secularism

Pope says Christians must work together to challenge secularism | CatholicHerald.co.uk

Sorry javascprit not working, think of a FACEPALM here pls.

Lol the person that wrote that artcile can't be called a journalist, he forgot quite some words and concepts.


it isn't a challenge to secularism, he was asking in his speech to not stop the Ecumenism since it was a meeting with ortodox and lutheran priests.

if it is about a challenge to secularism yes he said it once last year, but he was refering to nihilist secularism

And my contribution to this thread is just one, everything is explained in IMHO in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" of Weber

 

[rusellviper89]

India never suffered "deindustrialization" because it was never industrialized in the first place. Some rural cottage industries are in no way comparable to modern, steam-powered factories located in large cities. Even now, in 2013, India is still not industrialized. The majority of Indians still work in agriculture, like they did in medieval times.

What are you ranting about what you call an industry, do you need only machines to industralize a country ? The East India Company systematically destroyed our indigenous industry most notably textiles. We where reduced to a state when we could not even produce small needle. Remember swadeshi movement Gandhi using Chakra to weave cloth. Just to prove your arguement you are showing intellectual dishonesty.

 

[rusellviper89]

@civfanatic Those famines where not the only thing that the british did which is responsible for the sorry state of affairs in our country Zamindari system destruction of our local Industry and large scale economic exploitation.