Okay plink, I'm going to respond to this comment and the other one you made. First off -
> Yeah? I thought he was just being inflammatory and arrogant.
> When you are ignorant you don't need courage. I can bring in all kinds of "uncommon views" (hey George Bush was the real planner of 9/11!! Really! Because I say so!) if I don't have to substantiate them. I find his claim that India has declined since Independence from the British ignorant, and yes, idiotic.
> No he wasn't. He was making bigoted and inflammatory claims.
Look, this sort of thing is unnecessary. I don't mean any disrespect to you and your ancestors, I'm a student of history, and many brilliant scientists, artisans, traders, and statesmen have come out of India. I'm not sure how you feel about Shah Jahan since he was of mixed Mughal descent, but I'm a huge admirer of his, his military campaigns, his statesmanship, his warriorship, his relationship with Mumtaz Mahal, his childrearing, his artistry, and of course the building of the Taj Mahal. One of the people I look up to. I like to think through things and analyze governance and history, but you ought to know I have a deep respect and admiration for a number of great thinkers and doers in Indian history. Perhaps I'm inflammatory (not intentionally), but I'm certainly not being bigoted. Onwards -
> You have no idea what you are speaking about. "serious decline in properity"? yeah right. If you can prove that you'll get the Nobel prize for economics.
"India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow growth.[12][13][14][15] Since 1991, continuing economic liberalisation has moved the economy towards a market-based system."
I didn't know what year it ended until I saw that piece (1991), but I did know some of Indian economic history from the withdrawl of the British to the late 1970's, because I studied it in contrast to the Japanese. India had a larger population, more capital, more natural resources, and Japan became a world power from ruins while India languished. Why is that? It was because of modern mercantalism and protectionism. Modern machinery and industrial techniques were actually banned to protect traditional industry - thus the Japanese output-per-worker was 30 times higher in some industries. Yes, 30 times higher. The Indian government also severely restricted foreign investment.
This started changing in the 1990's. What India's done over the last 20 years is amazing, and a great thing. I've got Indian friends who live in Goa and Khajuraho, and I worked with a fellow from Mumbai. I also had a lovely girlfriend from Northern India a couple years ago. I've talked a lot with them. India's on the rise and incredibly prosperous these days. But the economy, infrastructure, and management of India from 1950-1990 was pretty poor.
> Decline in prosperity? You have no idea, you arrogant idiot.
Mate, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm talking governance and economics. Seriously, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, but can you not flame when you disagree? You did this last time you disagreed with me when I wrote about my thoughts on beauty standards in response to the Okcupid message response rates by photo. You seem like a smart, technically inclined, good person - I'm not your enemy. Or hell, maybe I am, but you're not my enemy. I respect you. We can have a civil discussion without insults.
Yes, that's true. The Japanese absolutely savaged the British Army in Singapore, Burma, and parts of India. And there was a drought. The British severely mismanaged it, but they were previously importing 15% of Bengal's food from Burma. And a drought hit. Bad timing. People were on starvation rations in England itself, and Bengal got hit hard. It was a terrible tragedy. I'm not sure I'd chock it up to England's fault, except to say that their commanders weren't competent enough to defeat the superiorly armed, superiorly supplied, greatly outnumbering Imperial Japanese Army.
> one, that all former British colonies has inevitably declined when the British ruled it is laughable when applied to India
Well, I didn't say all British colonies declined, but yes, India did decline in economy, safety, sanitation, and infrastructure after British withdrawal, only starting to turn it around in the 1980's. Nowdays there's been rapid growth and India's coming onto the world stage as a potential imperial power under good governance, with a rapidly getting educated large labor force. India is in good and improving shape these days yes.
> "resurgence of the caste system" my ass. The caste system while still present and still harmful is way less powerful than in the period under British rule. You have no idea what you are speaking about.
> No one In India today yearns for life under British rule. I can see how someone in say, Sierra Leone, might.
Now? Yes. In 1950? Maybe, maybe not. Life improved for the elite of India, life got a hell of a lot worse for the lower castes. One million died in religious fighting in the two years after the British pulled out, millions more were turned into refugees. Before that, people of any caste were eligible to join Indian regimes of the British Armed Forces and join the civil service. Economic mobility was much higher under British rule than post-British rule for the next 50 years.
> An independence movement (like the Indian Independence movement) by definition consists of people who lived during british rule and didn't want to. But by your logic all of them would have wanted to live under British rule forever.
Some people in India didn't want to live under British rule. Some did. The home rule side won, and Indian independence happened. Nowdays, people will be taught that everyone hated the British except some bastard corrupt loyalists, just like we're taught in America. I've read a little bit of primary source 1940's and 1950's Indian history, including quotes from people friendly to the British and the various debates, but I've read a lot more early American history. American was by no means all pro-revolution. Maybe it was 50-50. Maybe. Or more like 20% revolution, 20% loyalist, 60% neutral/confused. The revolutionaries won, so history books now record everyone as pro-revolution anti-Britain. It certainly wasn't the case in the United States, and it wasn't the case in India. Not everyone wanted the British to leave. Many did. That side won.
Nowdays India is doing great, so you could say it worked out, but there were some downsides. There was a decline when the skilled British personnel went home, law enforcement was understaffed, there was rioting and violence, sanitation declined, city planning declined, infrastructure declined, the government adopted some really awful command-based economic policies that were really shoddy, and quality of life did decline for many people. It's water under the bridge as India is now greatly on the rise. And none the less, this is not a critique of Indian people - the Indian people I know are by and large superb people with excellent ethics, a hard work ethic, who place a strong premium on family ties, loyalty, and industry. I'm an admirer. Actually, by coincidence I had dinner tonight in Hong Kong with an Indian acquaintence. I had chicken tikka masala on rice. It was delicious. But I digress, when I critique the policy of India from 1950-1990, it's a critique of a shoddy government of bureaucrats, not a critique of the Indian people, nor you personally or any of your friends or family, all of whom I have the best wishes towards.
""India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow growth.[12][13][14][15] Since 1991, continuing economic liberalisation has moved the economy towards a market-based system."
I didn't know what year it ended until I saw that piece (1991), but I did know some of Indian economic history from the withdrawl of the British to the late 1970's, because I studied it in contrast to the Japanese. India had a larger population, more capital, more natural resources, and Japan became a world power from ruins while India languished. Why is that? It was because of modern mercantalism and protectionism. Modern machinery and industrial techniques were actually banned to protect traditional industry - thus the Japanese output-per-worker was 30 times higher. Yes, 30 times higher. India also severely restricted foreign investment."
A couple of subtle errors here.
(1) India didn't do well compared to the Japanese in the period 1947 to 1990. This doesn't prove that India didn't improve from its colonial days. If you have any evidence for India's econmoy declining from its colonial days till the 90's (vs not growing as sharply as the Japanese economy), let us see it.
(2) Let us look at the first five year plan initiated just after independence.
(From wikipedia)
"First plan (1951-1956)
The first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru presented the first five-year plan to the Parliament of India on December 8, 1951. The first plan sought to get the country's economy out of the cycle of poverty. The plan addressed, mainly, the agrarian sector, including investments in dams and irrigation. The agricultural sector was hit hardest by partition and needed urgent attention.[1] The total plan budget of 206.8 billion INR (23.6 billion USD in the 1950 exchange rate) was allocated to seven broad areas: irrigation and energy (27.2 percent), agriculture and community development (17.4 percent), transport and communications (24 percent), industry (8.4 percent), social services (16.64 percent), land rehabilitation (4.1 percent), and other (2.5 percent).[2]
The target growth rate was 2.1 percent annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth; the achieved growth rate was 3.6 percent. During the first five-year plan the net domestic product went up by 15 percent. The monsoon was good and there were relatively high crop yields, boosting exchange reserves and the per capita income, which increased by 8 percent. National income increased more than the per capita income due to rapid population growth. Many irrigation projects were initiated during this period, including the Bhakra Dam and Hirakud Dam. The World Health Organization, with the Indian government, addressed children's health and reduced infant mortality, indirectly contributing to population growth.
At the end of the plan period in 1956, five Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) were started as major technical institutions. University Grant Commission was set up to take care of funding and take measures to strengthen the higher education in the country.[3]"
Does any of that spell "decline" to you ? This was just 9 years after Independence. Did India not progress as fast as the japanese? of course she didn't.
But did India do better than under British rule? Of course she did.
More errors.
" Before that, people of any caste were eligible to join Indian regimes of the British Armed Forces and join the civil service."
This is completely wrong. The British targeted specific warrior castes and upper castes (besides muslims) and did not have an "anybody can join the army" policy (except in WW1 where massive losses on the Western Front made them grateful for any warm body willing to join).
Pre independence, the Civil Service did have a (very very) few exceptional lower caste people(like Ambedkar) but by and large was almost completely upper caste during colonial rule.
It is after independence that people of any caste could join (though there was unoffical discrimination). A policy of reservations was brought in and since then we have had lower caste Indians at the highest levels. More importantly and the situation is getting better every day and was so well before 1990 .
How is any of this "decline from the days of colonialization"?
"Economic mobility was much higher under British rule than post-British rule for the next 50 years."
Rubbish. Show me a few lower caste industrialists/statesmen/diplomats from the British days. I can show you dozens post independence. Economic mobility increased post independence(again relative to colonial rule, not relative to teh japanese!).
You are saying this
"Well, I didn't say all British colonies declined, but yes, India did decline in economy, safety, sanitation, and infrastructure after British withdrawal, only starting to turn it around in the 1980's. "
This is completely incorrect. All the evidence you have is that India didn't progress as fast as the Japanese. This is a very different proposition from India declining from pre colonial levels.
There was a massive increase in economy, safety , health, sanitation and infrastructure from the British days (though growth was MUCH slower than Japan certainly).
"But I digress, when I critique the policy of India from 1950-1990, it's a critique of a shoddy government of bureaucrats"
That still doesn't explain the fact that while the bureaucrats did slow down Idnia's growth relative to other nations, they were much better than British colonizers. If you are caliming that their polciies stopped India from growing as fast as it could have, sure that is valid. But to claim that they drove prosperity below pre independence days is flatly untrue. and that was the point I opposed.
PS: I apologize for calling you an idiot. It isn't so much that I am some kind of defender of all thinsg Indian (I am fairly critical of my country) but I get irritated when people pontiicate about what they know very little about. Bad trait and it is totally my fault not yours. If you ever happen to cme to Bangalore, beer is on me.
PPS: My favorite Mughal emperor is Akbar, not Shah Jahan. I think SJ was a bit of a wuss.
Well, I just spent about an hour reading up on the history of India, and you're right on a lot of counts. Let me ask, since you seem quite knowledgeable - do you think the British meant well in India, or not? It's fashionable these days to bash colonialism, but my understanding is that the British generally tried to do right by the people they governed. (With some exceptions - Oliver Cromwell, for instance)
Take education:
Wikipedia:
"Between 1867 and 1941 the British increased the percentage of the population in Primary and Secondary Education from around 0.6% of the population in 1867 to over 3.5% of the population in 1941. However this was much lower than the equivalent figures for Europe where in 1911 between 8 and 18% of the population were in Primary and Secondary education.[18] Additionally literacy was also improved. In 1901 the literacy rate in India was only about 5% though by Independence it was nearly 20%.[19]"
So things improved, but slower than Europe. India also de-industrialized through British rule, but then, the Industrial Revolution in England absolutely wrecked all pre-Industrial workforces everywhere, not just India.
It looks to me like there was an initial surge of chaos after the British pulling out, but that can be explained by inadequate police, safety, and emergency response personnel which the Indian government did try to remedy quickly.
Nehruvian Socialism looks like it was a disaster - per capita GDP looks like it shrunk from 1950 to 1995:
But I'd just chalk that up to socialism, no? Socialism historically has slow rates of growth, more poverty, quality of life lagging.
Since the free market liberalization, India's growth rates have been crazy fast. From '99 to '07 the lowest per capita GDP growth rate was 7%, the average somewhere around 12%. Which is fantastic.
Beyond that - what's your take if you have a free minute? I don't want to be ignorant on global affairs and you're obviously quite studied in Indian history. What's your take on the British, the socialism afterwards, and the liberalization? My previous thinking was that the British were trying, but upon reflection the improvements they made did lag the rest of the world. Mixed socialism was probably the worst thing India could've jumped into after that (me: not a fan of socialism at all...) but the liberalization in the 90's was really good.
But what's your take, and can you recommend anything to read? I try to overcome my ignorance when it's there.
And yeah - I'll wind up in India for some reason sooner or later, and I'll look you up. I'd say do likewise if you're in the same place as me, but I'm not sure where that's going to be! I'm in Kowloon, Hong Kong if you're here in the next week or two, most likely Beijing after that. I'll do some more reading on Akbar - I'm familiar with the name but haven't spent so much time checking him out. Thanks for the recommendation, and thanks for the discussion.
I've found "Thy Hand, Great Anarch!" by Nirad Chaudhuri to be a very interesting source. He was an Indian civil servant who lived through the independence movement. He has unkind words for both the British and the nationalists alike.
Let me ask, since you seem quite knowledgeable - do you think the British meant well in India, or not? It's fashionable these days to bash colonialism, but my understanding is that the British generally tried to do right by the people they governed.
Chaudhuri's take is pretty interesting. He found most administrators to be generally capable and well meaning. The ex-patriots living in India he found to be quite patronizing and racist. They may have been well meaning, but in that "Bauno cares about Africa" sort of way.
GDP stats are created in a political sausage factory, you cannot take claims of "12% growth" or of shrinking GDP at anything like face value.
It's not fair to compare India to Japan, because Japan had a lot of human and cultural capital that India did not have. Japan's low GDP in 1945 was a result of war time destruction, before the war it was an industrialized country that already was way ahead of India.
But it's also not fair to compare present India to colonial India, and claim that the current government is better because certain indicators are better now. Life expectancy went up because of medical advances in other nations (penicillin, etc) that India imported. We have no definitive way of knowing how a 2010 British ruled India would compare to the actual India. But we do know that the change in government produced immediate political change that generally resulted in policies that slowed growth.
"it's also not fair to compare present India to colonial India, and claim that the current government is better because certain indicators are better now. "
Huh? If indicators are used to prove life is worse off now in Africa say, then of course indicators can be used to prove life is better now in India. Besides, I used "indicators" for life 9 years after the British left. Penicillin doesn't account for dams and roads and schools and hospitals and no more famines (for example).
Besides, I was explicitly countering lionhearted's (original) claim that India had devolved from colonial rule, an assertion for which there was (and can be) zero evidence provided, but a lot of people here accepted and voted it up. So it seems "colonialism was a good thing" is a popular idea among people who were never colonized. Sometimes HN surprises me.
On a lighter note, when I was living in America, a co worker wanted to know if we still used elephants for transport, like they used cars! Well I preferrd the flying carpets but we had a spare elephant or two in the stables for when it rained :-P
Ok now I am done with all this historical discussion. Back to hacking!
>Huh? If indicators are used to prove life is worse off now in Africa say, then of course indicators can be used to prove life is better now in India.
But technology in general has been improving, so things should be better, all other things being equal. Things may even be better if government is somewhat worse.
But if things have gotten worse, you're really screwing up, so much that technology can't make up for it.
I have no idea how this applies to India, just making a general point.
"Let me ask, since you seem quite knowledgeable - do you think the British meant well in India, or not?"
This is one of those meaningless questions imo. I'll just say that the British were probably better than the other colonizing powers. (The french had a presence in some parts of India for a while and were no worse than the British, but Germans or Belgians would have been worse I guess. So in that very narrow sense we got lucky).
As for books, Try "The Lotus Throne" By Abraham Eraly for the Mughal period and "India After Nehru" for Indian hiatory from 1965 or so.
.png){kind=link}
> Yeah? I thought he was just being inflammatory and arrogant.
> When you are ignorant you don't need courage. I can bring in all kinds of "uncommon views" (hey George Bush was the real planner of 9/11!! Really! Because I say so!) if I don't have to substantiate them. I find his claim that India has declined since Independence from the British ignorant, and yes, idiotic.
> No he wasn't. He was making bigoted and inflammatory claims.
Look, this sort of thing is unnecessary. I don't mean any disrespect to you and your ancestors, I'm a student of history, and many brilliant scientists, artisans, traders, and statesmen have come out of India. I'm not sure how you feel about Shah Jahan since he was of mixed Mughal descent, but I'm a huge admirer of his, his military campaigns, his statesmanship, his warriorship, his relationship with Mumtaz Mahal, his childrearing, his artistry, and of course the building of the Taj Mahal. One of the people I look up to. I like to think through things and analyze governance and history, but you ought to know I have a deep respect and admiration for a number of great thinkers and doers in Indian history. Perhaps I'm inflammatory (not intentionally), but I'm certainly not being bigoted. Onwards -
> You have no idea what you are speaking about. "serious decline in properity"? yeah right. If you can prove that you'll get the Nobel prize for economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India
"India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow growth.[12][13][14][15] Since 1991, continuing economic liberalisation has moved the economy towards a market-based system."
I didn't know what year it ended until I saw that piece (1991), but I did know some of Indian economic history from the withdrawl of the British to the late 1970's, because I studied it in contrast to the Japanese. India had a larger population, more capital, more natural resources, and Japan became a world power from ruins while India languished. Why is that? It was because of modern mercantalism and protectionism. Modern machinery and industrial techniques were actually banned to protect traditional industry - thus the Japanese output-per-worker was 30 times higher in some industries. Yes, 30 times higher. The Indian government also severely restricted foreign investment.
This started changing in the 1990's. What India's done over the last 20 years is amazing, and a great thing. I've got Indian friends who live in Goa and Khajuraho, and I worked with a fellow from Mumbai. I also had a lovely girlfriend from Northern India a couple years ago. I've talked a lot with them. India's on the rise and incredibly prosperous these days. But the economy, infrastructure, and management of India from 1950-1990 was pretty poor.
> Decline in prosperity? You have no idea, you arrogant idiot.
Mate, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm talking governance and economics. Seriously, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, but can you not flame when you disagree? You did this last time you disagreed with me when I wrote about my thoughts on beauty standards in response to the Okcupid message response rates by photo. You seem like a smart, technically inclined, good person - I'm not your enemy. Or hell, maybe I am, but you're not my enemy. I respect you. We can have a civil discussion without insults.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)
Yes, that's true. The Japanese absolutely savaged the British Army in Singapore, Burma, and parts of India. And there was a drought. The British severely mismanaged it, but they were previously importing 15% of Bengal's food from Burma. And a drought hit. Bad timing. People were on starvation rations in England itself, and Bengal got hit hard. It was a terrible tragedy. I'm not sure I'd chock it up to England's fault, except to say that their commanders weren't competent enough to defeat the superiorly armed, superiorly supplied, greatly outnumbering Imperial Japanese Army.
> one, that all former British colonies has inevitably declined when the British ruled it is laughable when applied to India
Well, I didn't say all British colonies declined, but yes, India did decline in economy, safety, sanitation, and infrastructure after British withdrawal, only starting to turn it around in the 1980's. Nowdays there's been rapid growth and India's coming onto the world stage as a potential imperial power under good governance, with a rapidly getting educated large labor force. India is in good and improving shape these days yes.
> "resurgence of the caste system" my ass. The caste system while still present and still harmful is way less powerful than in the period under British rule. You have no idea what you are speaking about.
> No one In India today yearns for life under British rule. I can see how someone in say, Sierra Leone, might.
Now? Yes. In 1950? Maybe, maybe not. Life improved for the elite of India, life got a hell of a lot worse for the lower castes. One million died in religious fighting in the two years after the British pulled out, millions more were turned into refugees. Before that, people of any caste were eligible to join Indian regimes of the British Armed Forces and join the civil service. Economic mobility was much higher under British rule than post-British rule for the next 50 years.
> An independence movement (like the Indian Independence movement) by definition consists of people who lived during british rule and didn't want to. But by your logic all of them would have wanted to live under British rule forever.
Some people in India didn't want to live under British rule. Some did. The home rule side won, and Indian independence happened. Nowdays, people will be taught that everyone hated the British except some bastard corrupt loyalists, just like we're taught in America. I've read a little bit of primary source 1940's and 1950's Indian history, including quotes from people friendly to the British and the various debates, but I've read a lot more early American history. American was by no means all pro-revolution. Maybe it was 50-50. Maybe. Or more like 20% revolution, 20% loyalist, 60% neutral/confused. The revolutionaries won, so history books now record everyone as pro-revolution anti-Britain. It certainly wasn't the case in the United States, and it wasn't the case in India. Not everyone wanted the British to leave. Many did. That side won.
Nowdays India is doing great, so you could say it worked out, but there were some downsides. There was a decline when the skilled British personnel went home, law enforcement was understaffed, there was rioting and violence, sanitation declined, city planning declined, infrastructure declined, the government adopted some really awful command-based economic policies that were really shoddy, and quality of life did decline for many people. It's water under the bridge as India is now greatly on the rise. And none the less, this is not a critique of Indian people - the Indian people I know are by and large superb people with excellent ethics, a hard work ethic, who place a strong premium on family ties, loyalty, and industry. I'm an admirer. Actually, by coincidence I had dinner tonight in Hong Kong with an Indian acquaintence. I had chicken tikka masala on rice. It was delicious. But I digress, when I critique the policy of India from 1950-1990, it's a critique of a shoddy government of bureaucrats, not a critique of the Indian people, nor you personally or any of your friends or family, all of whom I have the best wishes towards.