Did the British really 'drain' Wealth from India?

Great Debates
81

Ok, that’s just dumb. The majority of India wasn’t conquered until the defeat of the Marathas in 1818. Maybe the defeat of Mysore in 1800, but definitely not before that. The Punjab wasn’t conquered till 1849.

Bright and Shiny in fairness, actual Soviet central planning was doing very well until around 1970- it turned out to be good for the early stages of industrialization and less good for providing the wants of a consumer society. India after independence underperformed the Soviets for several decades, though of course they did over perform the British colonial regime.

82

Well, I’ve made the point in the thread that central planning resulted in rapid industrialization for both the Soviets and the Indians. I just think a more market-oriented approach would have been better (in hindsight). But any attempt at rapid industrialization is going to require heavy government intervention, no matter the approach taken.

But, as we both agree, Indian central planning was much better than what came before, so I have no idea why the neocolonialists think pointing at India’s economic performance after independence is some great argument. If they think central planning is bad, then they should think that colonial policies are even worse. And yet, somehow, the neocolonialists try to argue otherwise.

83

If course Britain wasn’t acting in India’s best interests, if they were, they wouldn’t have conquered and exploited them. What I’m saying is that Britain imposed a disastrous series of economically exploitative policies on India that impoverished the region, and in return Britain reaped very little in reward. Britain didn’t get rich looting India. India was devastated, and a few British factory owners reaped a modest profit.

I’m convinced this is the source of certain strains of pro-colonial mythology that grew up over the years. Britain isn’t getting rich enslaving the lesser races, so hey, we must be over there for some other reason, like bringing civilization to the savages, and building them railroads. Nevermind that the railroads existed solely to move cash crop raw materials to ports where they could be loaded on ships bound for Britain. But those raw materials didn’t make Britain rich either. So we’re protecting the Indians from the Russians! Or from each other! Or bringing them Christianity! Or something! It can’t be looting the continent, because where’s the goddam loot?

And protecting India from the Russians is really a hoot. Yes, the British fought the Russians to keep them out of India. That wasn’t for the benefit of the Indians, you know.

The thing is, the looting of India was done for the economic benefit of a small class of British businessmen. For Britain as a whole, it was a net economic loss. That’s not because they spent soooooo much money helping the Indians.

84

It’s worth pointing out that some Asian states were conquered by the Russians (the Central Asian republics and much later Tannu-Tuva), and they all are more developed than India today, though in the case of Tajikistan just by a hair. Central Asia of course has advantages that India doesn’t, like oil, but it’s far from clear that the Russians conquering India instead of the British would have been a disaster.

On second glance, Bright and Shiny, I think I’m probably going to disagree with Periyar and agree with you. I’m not a knee-jerk anticolonialist, and I think bringing modernity to India and breaking the power of tradition was a good thing. But a good argument can be made that the British didn’t actually bring about much modernity, and that independent Indian states might have modernized on their own, like Japan did. IIRC, Karl Marx originally thought the British conquest of India would be a good thing, but he later changed his mind after seeing how India was stagnating under British rule.

85

You might be on to something here, although I’m not sure I’d agree with the “few British factory owners” and “modest profit” part. But, the British certainly didn’t treat the English lower classes very well during the colonial period (as I mentioned earlier, they still had tenant farming during the colonial period). The wealth probably didn’t trickle down to the lower classes (does it ever?).

Additionally, the British were paying down debt during most the 1800s, and they basically ran one long austerity program to do this, which meant that the lower classes would have suffered even more.

I’m wondering if wealth inflows went to debt repayment, which if it did, might explain this perception. I’m going to have to do some research on this, though.

86

I mostly agree with what you’re saying. But I don’t think it’s really relevant to the topic. The question was whether the British drained wealth out of India. We seem to be in agreement that there was a flow of wealth from India to Britain. I don’t see how it matters if it was British businessmen, British politicians, British aristocrats, or British workers who did the draining.

87

The only point I’m making is that it is entirely possible to wreck a country and not get any benefit yourself from wrecking that country. “Draining Wealth” implies that Britain got rich by looting India. They looted India but didn’t get rich doing so, India’s losses didn’t benefit Britain, they just made India poorer without making Britain richer.

88

I guess it depends on when you look at British involvement in India. As I said before it went on for 400 years. Certainly the early part, before the industrial age, was a time when huge wealth was derived from India by the likes of Clive of India and Hastings and the Nabobs as a result of their dealings with the Mughals.

However, that was under the British East India Company, long before the British consolidated power under the British Raj in 1858. One of the reasons for taking control of areas controlled by the East India Company was economic mismanagement. A large number of reforms were instituted.

I would not confuse British policy in India with the worst examples of colonial exploitation such as were found in the scramble for Africa in the 1880s.

The railways were and still are a comprehensive network that has done much to consolidate the country into a nation. If it were otherwise, there would just be a few rail lines for moving goods to the coast.

India was a big deal for the British and dominated it much of its foreign policy and strategic thinking during the days of Empire. The institutions and civil administration it put in place formed the basis the modern state of India.

At some point it and the colonial system generally, became uneconomic. I am interested in when that point was reached.

Certainly the leaders of Indian Independence were not adverse to economic sabotage in their efforts to encourage the British to leave. The politics of protests are still very prevalent in India and it holds the country back in so many ways.

89

What about in relativist terms?

90

I doubt it. Muslims generally don’t put such things in their tombs.

91

No doubt they would have.

What is your point?

92

:dubious:

93

. . . Wtf?!

94

Didn’t it? I thought the postwar years were really hard on the Brits.

95

I see the big picture just fine; you just want to call the colonial wars Britain fought in Afghanistan and Tibet Britain defending India in defiance of all logic, brush WWI under the rug, claim Germany was threatening India by threatening the trade routes of the British Empire and it was somehow normal and natural for India to send one million men to fight overseas to protect British trade routes from the Kaiser, repeatedly ignore that India sent 2.5 million men to fight for the British in the Second World War, continue to make the bizarre and absurd claim that Britain saved India from Japan and the Nazis when it was the other way around, and repeatedly ask what would have happened if the Japanese made it to India after fighting their way up Burma after it has already been pointed out to you several times with a great deal of citation that the Japanese did make it to India, did try invading it and were stopped dead in their tracks by a Commonwealth force comprised mostly of Indians and a very few British and their complete inability to logistically support a move against India.

As far as Russian expansionism being a dominant theme of the 19th century goes, how on earth do you imagine they were going to reach India via Afghanistan or be any more successful in Afghanistan than the British were in the 19th century or the USSR in the 20th? Afghanistan is most certainly not the key to India as has been amply demonstrated to invaders over the centuries.

You need to consider that this applies to those in charge of the empire, not to its subjects. Why do you think Britain had to fight so many colonial wars in the glory days of empire? Or do you really think the Boers thought being a part of the British Empire was itself an attractive ideal? How about the Zulus? The Boxers? The Mahdists?

What Tamerlane said. If you think revising history is a dirty word, you’ve no business trying to be an historian, even an armchair one.

96

The postwar years were hard on Britain because of the effects of the war; they didn’t suddenly get worse with the loss of India.

97

There’s another kind?

98

What’s your question?

99

That was to do with WWII, not really India.

100

[QUOTE=me in post #76]
Still isn’t “several hundred.”
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
Certainly the early part, before the industrial age, was a time when huge wealth was derived from India by the likes of Clive of India and Hastings and the Nabobs as a result of their dealings with the Mughals.
[/QUOTE]

Glad to see you’ve belatedly acknowledged that the BEIC era was a disaster for India. I guess that research you finally started doing after you were called out on your nonsense is beginning to pay off.

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
However, that was under the British East India Company, long before the British consolidated power under the British Raj in 1858.
[/QUOTE]

Bzzt! Oh, we were making progress, but then you show clearly again that you don’t even know basic facts about this period. The BEIC period wasn’t “long before” the British Raj. It was right before the British Raj. The British Government nationalized the BEIC in 1858, directly taking over its operations. Before you try to weasel out of this, let me reiterate. The BEIC runs India until 1858 at which point its power is directly transferred to the British Raj. Not “long before.” How many times are you going to get called out on your ignorance before you stop giving us lectures about topics you know nothing about?

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
One of the reasons for taking control of areas controlled by the East India Company was economic mismanagement. A large number of reforms were instituted.
[/QUOTE]

And yet, despite the reforms, the British Raj economy still sucked and still ruined India.

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
I would not confuse British policy in India with the worst examples of colonial exploitation such as were found in the scramble for Africa in the 1880s.
[/QUOTE]

Given your performance in this thread, you probably know less about colonial policy in Africa than you do about India.

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
The railways were and still are a comprehensive network that has done much to consolidate the country into a nation. If it were otherwise, there would just be a few rail lines for moving goods to the coast.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Me in Post #43]
Yes, the colonial period resulted in a widespread technology transfer worldwide, which would have probably taken a few hundred years longer in the absence of the colonial period. But, a number of countries which weren’t colonies still managed to build railroads and telegraphs during this period (although, it’s easier to glom onto the idea of a railroad if the country/colony next door has railroads).

But if we’re talking about how British colonial policy impacted the Indian economy, it’s pretty clear that it was disastrous for it. Even despite the introduction of the railroad and telegraph to India, the British still managed to ruin the economy.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
India was a big deal for the British and dominated it much of its foreign policy and strategic thinking during the days of Empire.
[/QUOTE]

For the British’s benefit. Not for India’s.

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
The institutions and civil administration it put in place formed the basis the modern state of India.
[/QUOTE]

India had institutions and civil administration before the British showed up.

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
At some point it and the colonial system generally, became uneconomic. I am interested in when that point was reached.
[/QUOTE]

It was uneconomic for the Indians for the entire colonial period. As has been shown to you multiple times in this thread.

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
Certainly the leaders of Indian Independence were not adverse to economic sabotage in their efforts to encourage the British to leave.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, economic disruption is a tactic used in a number of resistance movements. What’s your point?

[QUOTE=filmstar-en]
The politics of protests are still very prevalent in India and it holds the country back in so many ways.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Me in Post #68]
In looking over those [GDP] numbers, I think they show how dumb it is for the neo-colonialists to point to post-independence Indian economic policies. No matter how shitty you think post-independence management of the economy was (and as I’ve stated before, I’m not a fan), they still managed to outperform economic growth rates during the colonial period. Think about how shitty that makes British colonial economic policy in India.
[/QUOTE]

Seriously, what is your problem, dude? You keep demonstrating to everyone your complete ignorance about every topic discussed here. You’ve made it very clear to everyone that you can’t be bothered to even do the most basic of research. You ignore cites and facts and statistical analysis and try to pretend as if all this makes you an expert.

You are completely ignorant of this subject. You are spouting the same nonsense over and over again. I can literally just keep quoting my previous responses in this thread, because you can’t even from a coherent rebuttal to them. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing here?