Should India Have Become Independent?

[The Archregimancy]

No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

The economy of India was in free fall before the British arrived. It's why Britain was able to conquer them in the first place. The 38% figure is from the height of the Mughal period, but the Marathi rebellion had shattered the country and they were in a process of de-industrialization (from their proto-industrialization phase that they were in) and de-urbanization as a consequence. The first major inroad the British made was when the Bengali King couldn't afford to pay tax collectors due to the collapse of Bengali industry as a consequence of Marathi raiders and the collapse of their economy. He turned to the British East India company and asked them to collect the taxes for him and keep a share. The British considered this him ceding sovereignty to them and as evidence that Indians were unable to govern a country. The company then began collecting taxes on his behalf and informed him his territory was annexed into the company, but that he would continue to be paid a stipend. This formed the basic pattern that continually repeated across India as various Indian princes turned to the British because they were unable to keep order or manage the budget as a result of India's collapsing economy, and wanted to keep being kings and princes, and so needed the British to prop them up.

The British didn't grow India's economy, but they are not the reason India is poor. It was poor before they arrived, and then kept poor by the British. But even this is misleading when we examine "Why is India so poor?" as a question.

<snip>

From a historical perspective, this is a nuanced issue, and one deserving some attention.

You're right to bring attention to the impact that the Maratha wars and expansion of the Maratha confederacy had on India's economy and sociopolitical cohesion - though we should also note the collapse of the Vijayanagara state in southern India, the overextension of the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb, and the sack of Delhi during Nadir Shah's invasion of India as contributing factors that undermined the stability of the Indian subcontinent and the Mughal economy. European powers, particularly Britain and France and their quasi-official representatives, were able to skilfully exploit the political and economic instability to expand their own political and economic control. So you're correct in stating that the significant decline in Mughal (and, by extension, Indian) economic power after the early modern period can't really be ascribed to European colonial control since the latter is a symptom rather than cause.

You're also broadly correct in noting in bits of your post that I've snipped the we shouldn't ignore the impact of the Indian government's own policies on how India has developed economically since independence, though I think your rhetoric about 'westerners who hate the west' isn't conducive to having a balanced discussion, and your contrast of India with South Korea does rather ignore the extent to which direct US and Japanese aid in the post-Korean War period, especially during the Vietnam War, helped facilitate the 'Miracle on the Han River'; yes successive South Korean governments used that aid wisely, but it's not as if that economic growth occurred in a vacuum. So your rhetorical emphasis raises an eyebrow, and you're a bit too keen to brush over the different socioeconomic contexts of other Asian nations when damning post-independence Indian governments for their policies; but your basic point that post-independence India had both agency over and responsibility for its economic choices is fair enough.

Where I think you go too far in absolving the British Empire is in the two sentences 'The British didn't grow India's economy, but they are not the reason India is poor. It was poor before they arrived, and then kept poor by the British'. That's doing an awful lot of heavy lifting, and stating 'was kept poor by the British' without going into the details - while attempting to unpick the situation immediately before and then after British rule - lacks balance. You're clearly aware that the East India Company and the British state enacted protectionist policies that restricted Indian economic growth (even if the precise impact on industrialisation in Britain and deindustrialisation in India remains hotly disputed), but you're so focused on absolving Britain for both the Mughal economic collapse and post-independence economic policies - where you have a fair point (even if we can disagree on emphasis - that you're far too quick to brush over the long-term impact of the British Raj's protectionist economic policies.

A more nuanced view would be that while Britain was not directly responsible for India's economic collapse from c.1700 - this was largely caused by internal political instability - it certainly skilfully exploited that collapse; and that while India has had agency over and responsibility for its own economic policy since 1948, the British empire holds significant responsibility for stopping India from recovering economically after the Mughal collapse - and there's no reason to assume that India wouldn't have recovered given the cyclical nature of Indian politics - and for instituting protectionist policies that had a long-term impact on Indian economic development before and after independence.

Short version: All of these factors should be considered when asking the question 'why is India so poor?' - the Mughal collapse, British imperial rule, and India's own post-independence economic policies. They're inseparable from each other, have each had long-term impacts, and should be considered as part of a holistic whole; largely absolving the impact of the British Empire is as misguided as solely blaming the British Empire.

Though, that said, it's also possible to argue that the answer to the question 'why is India so poor?' is actually 'India isn't necessarily that poor; counting by nominal GDP, India is the world's fifth-largest economy - behind Germany, and ahead of the United Kingdom; the real issue is the extent to that economic wealth is unevenly distributed, leading to India having the world's fifth-largest economy on nominal GDP, but coming only 122nd on GDP per capita.

[Concejos Unidos]

God no. India's post colonial history has been one jump from catastrophe to another. Dear lord, they couldn't even guarantee their whole population access to clean water until 2015.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 726_1.html

Because the British colonial period was just all sunshine and rainbows. As bad as things are, things would have been so much worse if the British stayed.

[The Two Jerseys]

India as we know it to-day didn't use to be British territory; the British Raj was far larger than India.
I think it would have been better to split the Raj back into the various pre-British countries. Much more interesting.

Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

And who wouldn't want to be ruler of Tonk?

That place should've been given to a White Rajah, because the world absolutely needs the Honky Tonk State.

[Heloin]

If the question is should India still be ruled by the British or even should the British ruled India even slightly longer then the answer is always no. If the question is was the independence that the Indian subcontinent achieve the best possible the answer is also no but not as hard of a no as the British.

[Mostrov]

Short version: All of these factors should be considered when asking the question 'why is India so poor?' - the Mughal collapse, British imperial rule, and India's own post-independence economic policies. They're inseparable from each other, have each had long-term impacts, and should be considered as part of a holistic whole; largely absolving the impact of the British Empire is as misguided as solely blaming the British Empire.

Though, that said, it's also possible to argue that the answer to the question 'why is India so poor?' is actually 'India isn't necessarily that poor; counting by nominal GDP, India is the world's fifth-largest economy - behind Germany, and ahead of the United Kingdom; the real issue is the extent to that economic wealth is unevenly distributed, leading to India having the world's fifth-largest economy on nominal GDP, but coming only 122nd on GDP per capita.

China, which from 1850 until 1976 was afflicted with famine, poor government, invasion and so forth almost continuously on a scale which dwarfs any suffering India has undergone, has a GDP per capita 10 times greater than India's. India is afflicted by gross corruption, the cause of which can only lie in native hands: if the people cannot govern themselves, why should it be at Britain's expense to do so, only to be blamed for a situation not of their making.

I don't know why the fall of an empire in the 16th century effects events post-1947.

[Afrikan Staat]

I mean the real question asked by the British after WW2, can India not become independent? Britain was destroyed by the war and they don't have the capability to maintain their empire for a prolonged amount of time anymore.

[The Archregimancy]

Short version: All of these factors should be considered when asking the question 'why is India so poor?' - the Mughal collapse, British imperial rule, and India's own post-independence economic policies. They're inseparable from each other, have each had long-term impacts, and should be considered as part of a holistic whole; largely absolving the impact of the British Empire is as misguided as solely blaming the British Empire.

Though, that said, it's also possible to argue that the answer to the question 'why is India so poor?' is actually 'India isn't necessarily that poor; counting by nominal GDP, India is the world's fifth-largest economy - behind Germany, and ahead of the United Kingdom; the real issue is the extent to that economic wealth is unevenly distributed, leading to India having the world's fifth-largest economy on nominal GDP, but coming only 122nd on GDP per capita.

China, which from 1850 until 1976 was afflicted with famine, poor government, invasion and so forth almost continuously on a scale which dwarfs any suffering India has undergone, has a GDP per capita 10 times greater than India's. India is afflicted by gross corruption, the cause of which can only lie in native hands: if the people cannot govern themselves, why should it be at Britain's expense to do so, only to be blamed for a situation not of their making.

I don't know why the fall of an empire in the 16th century effects events post-1947.

A couple of points here.

A comparison with China is more valid than Ostro's comparison with South Korea, so it's not unreasonable to contrast India and China. But it's important to stress that I've never attempted to deny that Indian government policies - in which I would very much include approaches to corruption - have had a significant impact on India's economic development. Indeed, in the part of my post you don't quote, I specifically emphasised that 'we shouldn't ignore the impact of the Indian government's own policies on how India has developed economically since independence' and that it's fair to stress that 'post-independence India had both agency over and responsibility for its economic choices'. I don't think we can ignore the impact of British colonial rule on India's long-term socio-economic development, but I also entirely acknowledge that it's a gross oversimplification to place the blame solely on the British Raj; indeed, I think that viewpoint is itself often implicitly racist since it denies agency to India. It's possible to take a balanced view that acknowledges multiple impacts across time.

Your final sentence is more than a little awkward. None of the historical events I mentioned occurred in the 16th century - the Vijayanagara state's collapse dates to the 1640s, while the Mughal Empire went into a long century and a half decline from the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. You may, perhaps, be referring to the Battle of Talikota; but I wasn't. And as to why the fall of states in the early modern period might impact India, I'm slightly surprised to see that coming from you, of all people. It seems I'm more inclined to take a longue durée approach to history than you are - perhaps it's an archaeologist's perspective - but given how intelligent and historically aware you are (and I promise that this is intended to be an observation, and not my trying to be facetious) I don't doubt you can think of some examples of 16th- and 17th-century events that might have had some long-term consequences on European socioeconomic and political development through to the present if you put your mind to it; the consequences of the 30 Years War and the expansion of European colonialism in the western hemisphere immediately come to mind.

[Mostrov]

China, which from 1850 until 1976 was afflicted with famine, poor government, invasion and so forth almost continuously on a scale which dwarfs any suffering India has undergone, has a GDP per capita 10 times greater than India's. India is afflicted by gross corruption, the cause of which can only lie in native hands: if the people cannot govern themselves, why should it be at Britain's expense to do so, only to be blamed for a situation not of their making.

I don't know why the fall of an empire in the 16th century effects events post-1947.

A couple of points here.

A comparison with China is more valid than Ostro's comparison with South Korea, so it's not unreasonable to contrast India and China. But it's important to stress that I've never attempted to deny that Indian government policies - in which I would very much include approaches to corruption - have had a significant impact on India's economic development. Indeed, in the part of my post you don't quote, I specifically emphasised that 'we shouldn't ignore the impact of the Indian government's own policies on how India has developed economically since independence' and that it's fair to stress that 'post-independence India had both agency over and responsibility for its economic choices'. I don't think we can ignore the impact of British colonial rule on India's long-term socio-economic development, but I also entirely acknowledge that it's a gross oversimplification to place the blame solely on the British Raj; indeed, I think that viewpoint is itself often implicitly racist since it denies agency to India. It's possible to take a balanced view that acknowledges multiple impacts across time.

Your final sentence is more than a little awkward. None of the historical events I mentioned occurred in the 16th century - the Vijayanagara state's collapse dates to the 1640s, while the Mughal Empire went into a long century and a half decline from the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. You may, perhaps, be referring to the Battle of Talikota; but I wasn't. And as to why the fall of states in the early modern period might impact India, I'm slightly surprised to see that coming from you, of all people. It seems I'm more inclined to take a longue durée approach to history than you are - perhaps it's an archaeologist's perspective - but given how intelligent and historically aware you are (and I promise that this is intended to be an observation, and not my trying to be facetious) I don't doubt you can think of some examples of 16th- and 17th-century events that might have had some long-term consequences on European socioeconomic and political development through to the present if you put your mind to it; the consequences of the 30 Years War and the expansion of European colonialism in the western hemisphere immediately come to mind.

India was left such things as a highly functional state apparatus including a functional democracy, a luxury certainly more than almost any other post-colonial government had. By comparison, the Chinese suffered 100 million dead. If the Chinese had been dealt such a hand by fate, we would speak now of their colonies on Mars. Singapore is a still starker comparison: it isn't they who feel the need for Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Acts. The accounts I have read of India when Britain first arrived on its shores are of a place so backwards it is almost beyond comprehension, it is little surprize Britain failed to introduce modernity when the very word is still colloquially despised.

I did think you were referring to Talikota, as the moment of eclipse by the Islamic states over the Hindu south is of greater importance than the subsequent events of the dynasty. Events before the British came are likewise not so consequential as it was Britain that fully united the continent in a way that had not been done before: no power had ever established a uniform system of laws, language and state power across the entire subcontinent. It is much as Europe before and after Rome: the epochal moment. Something often forgotten about the building of railways is, geographically, the Deccan and the south were previously remote from the Hindustani plain—India could not exist as a unified nation before a similar feat of engineering.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

The British had no qualms in exponentially prioritizing their homeland over their Asian colonies and downright exploiting the latter (which has contributed to massive disasters like the Bengali famine of 1943), and (in reality) only cared about filling their own pockets (see the Opium Wars in China).

India was already struggling by the time the British arrived, but their rule had served to prolong the Indians' plight, so independence was likely the best option. There are very few cases in which the British Empire's rule was an actual good thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

The economy of India was in free fall before the British arrived. It's why Britain was able to conquer them in the first place. The 38% figure is from the height of the Mughal period, but the Marathi rebellion had shattered the country and they were in a process of de-industrialization (from their proto-industrialization phase that they were in) and de-urbanization as a consequence. The first major inroad the British made was when the Bengali King couldn't afford to pay tax collectors due to the collapse of Bengali industry as a consequence of Marathi raiders and the collapse of their economy. He turned to the British East India company and asked them to collect the taxes for him and keep a share. The British considered this him ceding sovereignty to them and as evidence that Indians were unable to govern a country. The company then began collecting taxes on his behalf and informed him his territory was annexed into the company, but that he would continue to be paid a stipend. This formed the basic pattern that continually repeated across India as various Indian princes turned to the British because they were unable to keep order or manage the budget as a result of India's collapsing economy, and wanted to keep being kings and princes, and so needed the British to prop them up.

The British didn't grow India's economy, but they are not the reason India is poor. It was poor before they arrived, and then kept poor by the British. But even this is misleading when we examine "Why is India so poor?" as a question.

<snip>

From a historical perspective, this is a nuanced issue, and one deserving some attention.

You're right to bring attention to the impact that the Maratha wars and expansion of the Maratha confederacy had on India's economy and sociopolitical cohesion - though we should also note the collapse of the Vijayanagara state in southern India, the overextension of the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb, and the sack of Delhi during Nadir Shah's invasion of India as contributing factors that undermined the stability of the Indian subcontinent and the Mughal economy. European powers, particularly Britain and France and their quasi-official representatives, were able to skilfully exploit the political and economic instability to expand their own political and economic control. So you're correct in stating that the significant decline in Mughal (and, by extension, Indian) economic power after the early modern period can't really be ascribed to European colonial control since the latter is a symptom rather than cause.

You're also broadly correct in noting in bits of your post that I've snipped the we shouldn't ignore the impact of the Indian government's own policies on how India has developed economically since independence, though I think your rhetoric about 'westerners who hate the west' isn't conducive to having a balanced discussion, and your contrast of India with South Korea does rather ignore the extent to which direct US and Japanese aid in the post-Korean War period, especially during the Vietnam War, helped facilitate the 'Miracle on the Han River'; yes successive South Korean governments used that aid wisely, but it's not as if that economic growth occurred in a vacuum. So your rhetorical emphasis raises an eyebrow, and you're a bit too keen to brush over the different socioeconomic contexts of other Asian nations when damning post-independence Indian governments for their policies; but your basic point that post-independence India had both agency over and responsibility for its economic choices is fair enough.

Where I think you go too far in absolving the British Empire is in the two sentences 'The British didn't grow India's economy, but they are not the reason India is poor. It was poor before they arrived, and then kept poor by the British'. That's doing an awful lot of heavy lifting, and stating 'was kept poor by the British' without going into the details - while attempting to unpick the situation immediately before and then after British rule - lacks balance. You're clearly aware that the East India Company and the British state enacted protectionist policies that restricted Indian economic growth (even if the precise impact on industrialisation in Britain and deindustrialisation in India remains hotly disputed), but you're so focused on absolving Britain for both the Mughal economic collapse and post-independence economic policies - where you have a fair point (even if we can disagree on emphasis - that you're far too quick to brush over the long-term impact of the British Raj's protectionist economic policies.

A more nuanced view would be that while Britain was not directly responsible for India's economic collapse from c.1700 - this was largely caused by internal political instability - it certainly skilfully exploited that collapse; and that while India has had agency over and responsibility for its own economic policy since 1948, the British empire holds significant responsibility for stopping India from recovering economically after the Mughal collapse - and there's no reason to assume that India wouldn't have recovered given the cyclical nature of Indian politics - and for instituting protectionist policies that had a long-term impact on Indian economic development before and after independence.

Short version: All of these factors should be considered when asking the question 'why is India so poor?' - the Mughal collapse, British imperial rule, and India's own post-independence economic policies. They're inseparable from each other, have each had long-term impacts, and should be considered as part of a holistic whole; largely absolving the impact of the British Empire is as misguided as solely blaming the British Empire.

Though, that said, it's also possible to argue that the answer to the question 'why is India so poor?' is actually 'India isn't necessarily that poor; counting by nominal GDP, India is the world's fifth-largest economy - behind Germany, and ahead of the United Kingdom; the real issue is the extent to that economic wealth is unevenly distributed, leading to India having the world's fifth-largest economy on nominal GDP, but coming only 122nd on GDP per capita.

To clarify Arch, I would fully accept that the poverty and human rights abuses that occurred during the British Raj were the sole responsibility of the British State, as well as those which occurred for a short period after, and I do agree that the situation was exploited by the European powers in order to annex India. However, the agency point is brought up because I don't think we can realistically say those abuses have any reasonable connection to the modern day and the state of the Indian economy.

I also think that "Modernism" would have been vital and even with the cyclical nature of Indian politics as you put it, their decline was inevitable without westernization. GDP per capita was entirely stagnant globally for centuries and even if India had managed to re-unite itself, the industrialization abroad would have cut into its GDP per capita share and led to an economic decline anyway. The decline was accelerated by the various factors you discussed, but I am not convinced that a re-united India with its particular politics and the system necessary for one late-feudal ruler to maintain cohesion was conducive to economic growth. Revenues were spent on patronage to keep people sweet. This goes back to the corruption point. India as a state seems to have serious issues in properly harnessing the resources at its disposal and it appears that it needs to waste them on corruption in order to maintain its cohesion as a nation. You would think that got better with the removal of the princes, but apparently not.

So while it's possible that India could have reunited under a new Indian Empire, I am not at all convinced it would have been meaningfully different from the Mughals, with stagnant standards of living and GDP per capita, much like the modern Indian state had until the 90s (Though is now returning to). Exports would have continued to decline and another collapse would have occurred, and at that point you're looking at whether they take a Japanese approach and westernize (Which given that it wasn't undertaken until Japan witnessed European powers completely overpower China and force Japan to open, seems unlikely to me), whether they continue to go unconquered, or simply slowly collapse in on themselves and balkanize as the revenues necessary to maintain their empire dwindle away over time, but nobody comes along to annex them for... some reason.

So we'd be looking at living standards slightly less than even under the British Raj and continual convulsions of violent civil war. I'm really not convinced that's preferable. The alternative of willing westernization would need to occur at a stage where the Empire was united or you inevitably "Involve" the western powers in the power struggle for India again, and we know how that goes. (Bengal realizes it should westernize and wants modern weapons, asks the British. The French throw a hissy fit and back the Marathas, and a decade or two later, the continent is annexed by a European power.).

The motive for doing so is absent. China only did it because of continually being humiliated by western powers. Japan did it for particularly unique reasons and by extensively cooperating with the new order. Russia tried, but largely failed. Maybe India would end up like Russia if it had a string of competent Emperors with some degree of foresight.

Or they'd end up like Japan, and i'm not really sure that's any better. "To defeat the Imperialism we must become the Imperialism". Annex bits of the Indian ocean as colonies maybe. Hardly the outcome those who morally condemn the west envision I suspect.

So it seems to me that the options were feudalism and poverty, the British and slightly less poverty, or India is given the Opium war treatment at some point which lets face it is colonialism by another name and the worst of both worlds. As we enter the late-modern era and begin decolonization and India takes responsibility for itself, they mess it up through their own policy decisions.

Path 1: India remains independent and poorer than it otherwise would be. As we enter the modern era, they either liberalize and fix their economy, or don't, and remain as such.

Path 2: India is annexed and is slightly better off, though still poor. In the modern era, they gain independence and then liberalize and fix their economy, or don't, and remain as such.

Path 3: India is annexed and the British have a major revelation that they should treat India like the homeland, and force them to liberalize.

I mean, Path 3 is obviously preferable, but I'm simply not confident it could have been done without the British deciding to kill and/or displace a huge amount of the Indian population, probably the Brahmins would have had to have been exterminated, or they would not have cooperated. And then we're into a whole different discussion, especially given the religious significance of the ruling class in India. To be sure this wasn't our motive for not doing so, other colonies were treated similarly and weren't liberalized even where we did manage to entirely crush their ruling class and remove their support for the feudal order as a factor. But nonetheless.

I think the most you can reasonably condemn the British for as a consequence, is our support of India's native ruling class. Which would have been there with or without us, and which even with the cyclical collapse and re-unification, would have remained the major problem facing India until they had a revolution of some kind.

That there is a hypothetical example where the British "could have done better" is not sufficient reason to condemn the British for raising standards of living for the first time in centuries, albeit modestly, and to hold us to a higher standard than the Indians hold themselves to. It is quite plainly racist and anti-western to do so in my opinion. The Indian ruler is worse, but the British one isn't perfect, so Britain bad.

[Mostrov]

Path 3: India is annexed and the British have a major revelation that they should treat India like the homeland, and force them to liberalize.

I mean, Path 3 is obviously preferable, but I'm simply not confident it could have been done without the British deciding to kill and/or displace a huge amount of the Indian population, probably the Brahmins would have had to have been exterminated, or they would not have cooperated. And then we're into a whole different discussion, especially given the religious significance of the ruling class in India. To be sure this wasn't our motive for not doing so, other colonies were treated similarly and weren't liberalized even where we did manage to entirely crush their ruling class and remove their support for the feudal order as a factor. But nonetheless.

I think the most you can reasonably condemn the British for as a consequence, is our support of India's native ruling class. Which would have been there with or without us, and which even with the cyclical collapse and re-unification, would have remained the major problem facing India until they had a revolution of some kind.

That there is a hypothetical example where the British "could have done better" is not sufficient reason to condemn the British for raising standards of living for the first time in centuries, albeit modestly, and to hold us to a higher standard than the Indians hold themselves to. It is quite plainly racist and anti-western to do so in my opinion. The Indian ruler is worse, but the British one isn't perfect, so Britain bad.

There was a period of rule in India which was as you say and so-termed liberal, reaching its apogee with Dalhousie and Macauley: this led to the Mutiny. This is often forgotten when people mention the inhumanity of our rule, for Indians liked humane rule neither.

India needed, and perhaps still does, a Stalin, able to break apart all existing bonds and yoke together the entire subcontinent to one will. There is no avenue to do so humanely and perhaps that is why we prefer India as it is, content to stagnate in its own course.

[Kyria]

As an Englishman, no. The government of the time made the right decision in decolonisation, as had we attempted to retain large colonial possessions, especially ones as culturally, religiously and ethnically different like India, then the both of us would have been worse off and stuck in pointless and financially draining violence - as what happened with Portugal and its colonial wars. India has done well for itself since decolonisation, and I wouldn’t wish the Indians retroactively deprived of that. Really, we should have supported India more after it had been given independence, as Pakistan has proven an unreliable ‘ally’ in my opinion and I’d rather we have India in our camp than it trying to build its own, independent power and sphere.

[Ethel mermania]

Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

And who wouldn't want to be ruler of Tonk?

That place should've been given to a White Rajah, because the world absolutely needs the Honky Tonk State.

A female white Rajah. Think of the national anthem

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqkGxZ1_8I

[-Astoria-]

Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

And who wouldn't want to be ruler of Tonk?

That place should've been given to a White Rajah, because the world absolutely needs the Honky Tonk State.

Remember what they took from you.

[Samudera Darussalam]

That place should've been given to a White Rajah, because the world absolutely needs the Honky Tonk State.

A female white Rajah. Think of the national anthem

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqkGxZ1_8I

Wouldn't 'Rajah' become 'Rani' though

[The Archregimancy]

A female white Rajah. Think of the national anthem

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqkGxZ1_8I

Wouldn't 'Rajah' become 'Rani' though

I'd have no problem with being ruled by The Rani. My 16-year-old self would have gladly submitted to her firm ruling hand.

[Ethel mermania]

Wouldn't 'Rajah' become 'Rani' though

I'd have no problem with being ruled by The Rani. My 16-year-old self would have gladly submitted to her firm ruling hand.

Now its starting to make sense

[Big Jim P]

No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

A great deal of Indias wealth was taken in the act of colonization.

[Mtwara]

I don't know a lot about this subject but I have read posts with a lot of interest.

I would ask if modern Indian history is bad. India might not have yet achieved a "first world" economy, but (as far as I know) it's been more peaceful and stable than other countries it's been compared to like China and Korea.

I recall in Andrew Marr's A History of Modern Britain, the East India Company had a policy of actively dismantling any Indian industry to make it dependent on British imports, particularly the textile industry. There was a quote I never found anywhere else, I think it was a dude called Napier who allegedly said it was his job to ensure all the bones of all the carpet makers in India were bleached under the sun. I don't know if that was Sir Charles James Napier since I never found mentioned anywhere else, but I remember thinking that it sounded pretty evil.

[Infected Mushroom]

The problem isn’t the UK. It’s the democratization and decentralization.

If India had strong leaders like China’s Deng Xiaoping and Singapore’s Lee Kyan Yiu then they could have been a world number one power (they would have utilized their huge population and resources properly). Instead, they elected poor leaders again and again, lost territory to Pakistan and other secessions, and chose to fight each other over largely irrelevant religious, linguistic, and cultural issues. To this day the nation remains ill-managed and there’s little hope for things getting better without fundamental reforms.

[Concejos Unidos]

The problem isn’t the UK. It’s the democratization and decentralization.

If India had strong leaders like China’s Deng Xiaoping and Singapore’s Lee Kyan Yiu then they could have been a world number one power (they would have utilized their huge population and resources properly). Instead, they elected poor leaders again and again, lost territory to Pakistan and other secessions, and chose to fight each other over largely irrelevant religious, linguistic, and cultural issues. To this day the nation remains ill-managed and there’s little hope for things getting better without fundamental reforms.

>Lost territory to Pakistan and other secessions.

If India had not been partitioned, it would have been a disaster. In fact, it would have been physically impossible; the amount of military force that would have been required is impossibly high. India would have ended much worse for all the pain of trying to hold onto Pakistan, the same way (West) Pakistan was drained by the burden of the war and violence it spent trying to hold onto East Pakistan, only to lose it in the end. This notion that "bigger is better" is such a grand strategy game mindset.