Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] A genuine question - what did the UK gain from Indian occupation?
- Thread starter FloatLeft
- Start date
Read The Anarchy by William Dalrymple if you really want to learn about the Britain in India.
Also this is a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
Also this is a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
Last edited:
mr sheen
Well-known member
- Jan 17, 2008
- 1,555
He also covers aspects of it in this podcast - it's good -
https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/4066933
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
Actually Native American Indian tribes during the War of 1812 sided with the British because they wanted to safeguard their tribal lands, and hoped a British victory would relieve the unrelenting pressure they were experiencing from U.S. settlers who wanted to push further into Native American lands.
And this is connected to India how exactly?
India had the stongest economy in the world prior to Brtitish occupation. It's safe to say it did not by the time we left.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
Quite clearly the world would be a far better place if Britain had just stayed within it's boundaries.
I wonder what language we would be speaking now?
I wonder, did the invasions by the Romans, Danes, Vikings, Saxons and the Dutch take place as they cared about the people in Britain and wanted to improve their lives?
What are you talking about? The guy asked if Britain exploited the sub-continent. The answer is yes, yes we did, on an industrial scale.
I spent around 3 months in India. I spoke to several Indians who thanked me for the British Raj. At the time, I was quite shocked and wanted to apologise. I then read a book on India by V.S Naipaul and realised how complex the questions of Britain’s involvement are.
One thing is clear though, India should be viewed more as a continent such as Europe rather than a single country.
One thing is clear though, India should be viewed more as a continent such as Europe rather than a single country.
India wasn’t a country prior to British occupation. Are you talking about some rajput or mughal principality?
studio150
Well-known member
A larger empire.
Lots of tea.
Future cricket opponents.
Lots of tea.
Future cricket opponents.
ConfusedGloryHunter
He/him/his/that muppet
- Jul 6, 2011
- 2,051
You ask two different questions. What did the UK gain and how worse off was the sub-continent when we left. Both questions are not simple to answer.
Individuals throughout the period gained great personal wealth, but the financial cost of maintaining an empire cost more than was claimed by the UK government from it. However money was not the only consideration, in the light of the constant European wars in this era it was important to prevent rivals from growing their power. We grabbed as much as we could to stop others getting it.
As to how bad was everything afterwards, this isn't simple either, the industrial revolution changed so much that a direct before and after comparison is impossible, unlike say the British Isles before and after the Romans. I'd say the partition was the biggest harm that the empire imposed, however well meant it was.
Individuals throughout the period gained great personal wealth, but the financial cost of maintaining an empire cost more than was claimed by the UK government from it. However money was not the only consideration, in the light of the constant European wars in this era it was important to prevent rivals from growing their power. We grabbed as much as we could to stop others getting it.
As to how bad was everything afterwards, this isn't simple either, the industrial revolution changed so much that a direct before and after comparison is impossible, unlike say the British Isles before and after the Romans. I'd say the partition was the biggest harm that the empire imposed, however well meant it was.
The Mughal empire covered most of the subcontinent and made up about a quarter of the globe's economic output.
Last edited:
faoileán
Well-known member
- Jan 29, 2021
- 887
I genuinely can't think of a single country which can be considered to have benefited from British occupation, and I'm happy to be challenged on that. One of my beloved grandads was in the army helping to destroy the Turkish Empire during WW1 in Iraq and Palestine and look at the mess that Britain left behind them there...
That’s an incredibly simplistic statement. British occupation had huge benefits as well as huge draw backs. Perhaps one of the biggest benefits was that it meant that some countries were not colonised by Nazi Germany because the Brits had got there first in the last century.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain.
So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.
So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.
Large numbers of people from across the Empire fought in the world wars, so I'm not sure that can be considered a benefit for them so much as for us.
I'd also like to think we should aspire to a higher standard than "less evil than the Nazis".
Comrade Sam
Comrade Sam
Clive of India described the bay of Bengal the richest place on earth. Thanks to several hundred years of massive exploitation of people and resources, the wealthy in Britain became phenomenally wealthy and India was left backwards and impoverished. India's cotton industry was destroyed as it was a threat to Britain's and millions were falsed to grow opium which was then forced on China at the end of British Indian soldiers for tea. The policy of divide and rule left a legacy that has cost the lives of millions.