Economic figures from history must always be taken with a pinch of salt. Firstly, they are very difficult to estimate.

Be that as it may, the destruction of local arts, industries, long-standing trade networks and political institutions and the devastating effect on previously-affluent Indian provinces & their inhabitants is a matter of documented historical fact (confirmed by British historians), starting with the impact of the actions of Robert Clive and the EIC in 1757 and continuing throughout the Raj.

Secondly, the relative change in GDP is more of a reflection of the rise of Western European countries as a result of the industrial revolution

In the case of Britain, the Industrial Revolution did not occur in isolation; it was heavily financed by the matters described in my post #67. The enrichment of Britain was the priority for those involved in the Raj and its counterparts elsewhere in the world, not the development (beyond a limited point) or enrichment of India itself.

Was it worse than earlier forms of colonialism in India?

Notwithstanding the fact that smaller European colonies already existed in India prior to the rise of British power in the region, it’s worth emphasising that “colonialism” and “imperialism” do not necessarily mean the same thing, although there’s obviously an overlap. Considering that the primary aim was the exploitation and looting of Indian wealth for the benefit of Britain (or at least – pre-1857 – for the enrichment of the EIC and its shareholders, and post-1857 for Britain as a whole), there is an argument to be made for the fact that it was a more large-scale, systematic and organised version of the raid & pillage expeditions into India which had been conducted by a couple of groups originating outside the northwest of the subcontinent during various periods in the 700 years prior to the Battle of Plassey. Some of the latter, like the EIC (and its post–1857 colonial successors) from the end of the 18th century onwards, did of course also claim an explicitly religious justification for their activities.

Kulvinder made a superb point about this subject on PP earlier this year, so I’m going to paraphrase him and expand on that:

Territorial expansion into one’s immediate vicinity and/or the neighbouring regions via military conquest is one thing; it’s been par for the course in human civilisation worldwide for thousands of years. India has been no exception, whether it’s involved local powers such as the Mauryans during the classical period or the Rajputs in northern India immediately prior to the Delhi Sultanate, or groups with origins outside India but relatively close to it, such as the Delhi Sultans or indeed the Mughals themselves.

However, what is a different matter is sailing thousands of miles to the other side of the world, completely bypassing the regions in one’s proximity, turning (relatively) peaceful trading operations into a vehicle for conquest via the utilisation of an armed military wing, recruiting soldiers from the region one is targeting to fight & kill other people from the same region, deliberately implementing concepts of “divide & rule” on both military and civilian populations as an explicit matter of policy, using the target’s wealth to enrich one’s home territory thousands of miles away whilst giving relatively little priority to the development of the region one is subjugating, and claiming moral justification and intrinsic superiority not only via religious fanaticism but the creation of completely fabricated pseudo-scientific racial theories which resulted in deliberately-engineered racial apartheid. This takes it to a whole other level, especially the last point, because the consequences have lasted into the present day and are still ongoing.

The remarks made by another commenter about “What did the Romans ever do for us ?” aren’t an appropriate analogy, unless white British people in 2010 are claiming that it is relatively common for modern-day Italians to treat them as though they are still “conquered natives” and a literally separate and inferior subspecies of human, from a country and a culture with absolutely nothing positive to offer at all.

Anyway, as I said in one of my earlier posts, this doesn’t mean there should be any animosity from Asians towards modern-day white British people or the UK in 2010. However, it is definitely important for people to understand the historical origins of the bigotry, ignorance and condescension which Asians can still be subjected to (including some of the more extreme forms of neurotic and even psychopathic behaviour which can occur), especially the fact that this is specifically a legacy of a very long and very wide-ranging 19th century propaganda & social-reengineering programme driven by explicitly religious fundamentalism, fabricated racial theories and self-justifying needs to legitimise colonial subjugation & expansion. Again, it must be emphasised that this didn’t just affect Indians – it also had an extremely destructive effect on British people who had more enlightened attitudes (previously the majority), especially those who actually spoke up against what was happening.

Most of all, it’s imperative for people to grasp the fact that, prior to the initiation of these corrupt activities from the end of the 18th century onwards, traditional British attitudes towards the subcontinent and people in/from that part of the world for centuries previously had historically been far more enlightened, broadminded and respectful in mainstream British culture, and that, far from allegedly being “politically-correct” or “multi-cultists”, in many aspects those modern-day people derided as “British liberals” are in fact being far more “traditionally British” in their attitudes towards Asians than the racists, either those with a subtly condescending stance towards Asians or the more overtly-bigoted far-Right.

Time to amicably draw a line under this discussion, Mr Rumbold.

British colonialism was in no way benign. Was it worse than earlier forms of colonialism in India? It is impossible to say based on a statisitical argument. What did change, as others have pointed out, was that the British remained, after a certain point, self-consciously aloof.

The number of major famines in India post-Independence in 1947 ? Zero.

Ie. from 1947 until the present day (not just in the year 1947).

British colonisation in India was not benign: the rationale was that Indians were a lesser race that required taking care of.

There are some further ramifications. The advances and innovations of the Industrial Revolution certainly played a major role in increasing Britain’s GDP and the overall standard of living in this country – the problem is the fact that this was heavily financed by the wealth generated from the exploitation of overseas colonies (especially India) and, until the start of the 19th century, the massive proceeds of the transatlantic slave trade that Britain had been heavily involved in for centuries. The latter resulted in the enrichment of the banking sector in the City of London along with cities like Bristol and Liverpool in particular. Along with various protectionist trade policies imposed on India, there are certain reasons that India was impoverished for the first time in its millennia-old history and that simultaneously Britain finally became a First World country (for the first time since the Roman era), and many of them are not necessarily benign.

This certainly doesn’t mean that there should be any animosity whatsoever towards modern-day white British people or indeed any lack of patriotism towards Britain in 2010, but it does mean that people should have a clear and accurate understanding of history and especially the ongoing impact on attitudes towards the Indian subcontinent and people in/from that part of the world, irrespective of the aforementioned Victorian propaganda & brainwashing efforts.

It’s also worth considering that the extent of railway facilities and electricity production in Indian territories under colonial control wasn’t even close to that of the United States during the same period, despite the similarly large landmass, the US’s comparatively smaller population, and the fact that the colonial administration actually had the resources of a global empire at their command. So much for the propaganda about the Raj being “for the betterment of the Indians”.

It gets worse. During the course of 190 years, there were approximately 30 million famine-related deaths of Indians in colonial-ruled territories as a result of colonial mismanagement and/or indifference. The number of major famines in India post-Independence in 1947 ? Zero.

As I keep saying, perhaps there’s a lot of “re-education” that needs to be done, in more than one direction. And ultimately, as Ravi and I have both indicated, the economic figures speak for themselves. So do the systematic religious and racial policies implemented during that era, along with the words of the individuals & groups directly involved in promoting those attitudes. Numerous examples of the latter have already been provided on this thread, and (again) readers interested in reading more accounts of the perpetrators (including first-person records) are advised to read the 3 books recommended.

India: Increased to nearly 25%. Britain: 2.9% (India had overtaken China as the wealthiest region in the world).

Thanks for the figures Jai. The amazing thing is that this figure was only 300 years ago.

Jai, are there any financial statistics available which gives the numbers?

Further to Ravi’s comment #59, I’d previously provided the percentage figures on another related discussion thread here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7469#comment-193454

Apart from the fact that Britain itself was a “Third World country” in comparison with the subcontinent when it began its trading and diplomatic activities in India (which, along with China, was jointly responsible for more than 50% of the world’s entire GDP at the time), let’s look at some actual figures:

Contribution to global GDP:

1600, the year of the founding of the East India Company:

India: 22.5%. Britain: 1.8% (India was the second wealthiest region in the world, after China).

1700:

India: Increased to nearly 25%. Britain: 2.9% (India had overtaken China as the wealthiest region in the world).

1820, a period of escalating aggressive British colonialism in India:

India: 16%. Britain: 5.2%

1870, the height of the British Raj in India:

India: 12.2%. Britain: 9.1%

1913:

India: 7.6%. Britain: 8.3%

1950:

India: 4.2%. Britain: 6.5%

Addressing and correcting the facts of the latest incident does not of necessity mean apportioning blame for the entire awful conflict to one side; or another for that matter.

You may have to.

Jai, are there any financial statistics available which gives the numbers? How many ’000s of billions was extracted from the Indian economy?

“I fail to see what bearing Baroness Cox’ invitation to the creep has on her standing on this subject.”

Well, she’s apportioning blame for the awful conflict to one side and, IMO, she’s not doing so as an impartial observer.

“An estimate by Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison reveals that “India’s share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe’s share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952″.[43]”

I think these dark-skinned people from India were doing pretty well before the British arrived.

Brits who at least didn’t stay long, unified the country (alright, against them) and developed a middle class (alright, for their own purposes) who were able to use the traditions and systems left behind (law, democracy, language) to build modern India.

British colonisation in India was not benign: the rationale was that Indians were a lesser race that required taking care of. The ‘aryan invasion’ theory (where aryans came from Europe) served to justify that all Indian advances (mathematics, science, etc) originated from a higher race.

The biggest impact of British colonisation is this: just before the British Raj, India’s GDP was identical to Europe (excluding Russia). After the British Raj, do I need to tell you?

Of course the Aryans who preceded the Mughals were the worst of all – enslaving the indigenous population and reducing them to the state of untouchables

1. The Aryans didn’t immediately precede the Mughals. The Delhi Sultanate did, and prior to that there had continuously been waves of migration by various groups into the subcontinent for thousands of years. There were also numerous other empires in the region, most of which were local, some of which stretched into regions outside the subcontinent, and in the case of Persia originated outside the subcontinent and covered some parts of the northwest.

2. “Aryans” make up a minority of India’s population (mostly, although not exclusively, in various parts of the north). The majority of Indians all over the subcontinent are either a mixture of Aryans, the original indigenous population and various other groups which migrated to India over the millennia, or some combination of two of the above. It will vary from family to family and region to region, but mostly this includes members of the “higher” castes. Also, most Indians are not “untouchables”, and never have been.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that, throughout the 19th century onwards, British colonial authorities (backed by the Evangelist clergy) were involved in deliberately distorting pre-colonial Indian history and demonising the Mughals and the associated Indian Muslim elite in particular, because they were aiming (successfully, as it eventually turned out) to replace the latter as India’s paramount powers and therefore needed to justify & legitimise their own rule and the associated actions they undertook.

Even more so because of the fact that, when Brits stationed in India dived into local society and cultures (which most of them did, prior to the end of the 18th century), it was Mughal culture which they embraced most of all, especially the most capable & successful members of the EIC. In many cases people would end up cutting their ties with the EIC completely and seek employment with various local rulers instead, a level of continuous employee attrition which the EIC had previously accepted because they knew that they couldn’t match the Indian elite in terms of salaries or lifestyle (along with higher standards of living, the latter was also more tolerant and pluralistic than its European counterparts at the time). So, again, from the end of the 18th century onwards, heavily backed by the rise of Evangelical Christian religious fundamentalism in Britain, a massive amount of historical, religious, racial, and cultural distortion & revisionist propaganda about India and Indians was implemented by the EIC and its post-1857 administrative successors in order to put a stop to this. We’re all still having to live with the legacy of those actions today.

All very deliberate, very calculating, and very cynical.

But as I’ve said previously, you’d need to read those 3 books by a couple of Britain’s most acclaimed historians in order to get the full picture. It’s the best way to begin to undo the destructive legacy of the Victorian propaganda campaign I mentioned in #41 and which has been confirmed by your own assertions.

They were presmuably no better or worse than the Mughals,

“Presumably” isn’t the right approach to take. It’s better to conduct thorough research on the subject and then draw conclusions once you’ve read all the facts, rather than basing opinions on assumptions. Those 3 books I mentioned earlier would be a good start.

by those wretched Brits who at least didn’t stay long,

British colonial rule in India lasted 190 years. And the Mughals weren’t “foreigners” from a fairly early stage of their reign, either “ethnically” or culturally, due to the extensive amount of intermarriage with members of Hindu Rajput royalty and the fact that Mughal culture itself became a hybrid of Indian culture and modified Persian culture; and during most of the “Great Mughal” era, from Emperor Akbar until the time of Shah Jahan, and eventually promoted again by later successors like the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, non-Muslims were integrated into the highest levels of the imperial administration, coupled with explicitly pluralistic and tolerant policies.

A similar level of cultural assimilation, integration and syncretism was occurring amongst the British in the EIC prior to the end of the 18th century, which was one of the reasons that a range of deliberately divisive colonial policies began systematically being implemented — because the people at the top didn’t want a recurrence of what had recently happened in America, and because of the massive influence of fundamentalist Christian Evangelism (and later various dubious racial “theories”). It didn’t just affect Indians – the destructive impact on more enlightened British people along with the children & descendents of Brits who had married Indians has also been discussed to some extent in the extracts from “White Mughals” in my posts #33 and #34.

developed a middle class

There had already been a middle class in India, and it had existed for thousands of years. Along with China, in GDP terms India had continuously been one of the top-two wealthiest regions in the world for at least 2000 years, and its GDP actually increased during the “Great Mughal” era. However, by the end of 190 years of British colonial rule, it had been reduced to one of the poorest regions in the planet for the first time in its history, and has only recently begun to recover.

because it could never be compared, muslims always lead in cruelty.

by the way, about mentioning the context – do muslims often mention about Damur, then they scream about Sabta and Shatila? typically for disgusting muslim defenders

the more crimes muslims commit – the louder they and the lefties scream about “islamphobia” and “mass media propaganda”

What context is Baroness Cox adding – she is “correcting” the Times’ article that stated that the January attack was instigated by Christians ?

She is adding the “context” that it is Muslims (she adds a few weasel words about them being extremists / militants) who start these attacks. Of course, this is the Baroness Cox who invited Wilders over to show his film.

They were presmuably no better or worse than the Mughals, who were not averse to a spot of mass murder themselves and were kicked out by those wretched Brits who at least didn’t stay long, unified the country (alright, against them) and developed a middle class (alright, for their own purposes) who were able to use the traditions and systems left behind (law, democracy, language) to build modern India.

Of course the Aryans who preceded the Mughals were the worst of all – enslaving the indigenous population and reducing them to the state of untouchables (the caste system a fantastic form of societal control).

It’s so easy to blame imperialism (although I grant you that this wasn’t the point of the thread). The most hilarious current example is the Falklands.

1600′s – empty rocks claimed by British seafarers.
1800′s – Spanish settlers sweep through South America committing genocide on the native population to a degree Hitler would envy.
1822 – a bunch of Spanish pirates claim the rocks for themselves (even though the land opposite the islands is still occupied by natives they have not yet exterminated)
1822 (or something) Brits kick them off. Hurrah!
2010 President Kirschner (doesn’t even sound Spanish to me) claims islands for “indigenous” population, and their cousins in the north (who also of course grabbed their own land through genocide) gang up against the “imperialists”.

Funny thing, history.