India and other colonies

[Ansar]

I read that the British were not so much conquerors of India, but as intruders at the higher levels of political power. Addtionally, when the British were leaving, Clement Atlee concluded that "two things were necessary: one was to make the Indians feel their responsibility by announcing that we were clearing out within a definite period of time, and the other was to find the man to put this through."

Now, many European colonies put a leader of their choice in power when they left their colonies...but how come India managed to rise and African colonies did not? I guess there are more divisions in Africa, but isn't the Indian subcontinent pretty diverse in its peoples too?

 

[aronnax]

I read that the British were not so much conquerors of India, but as intruders at the higher levels of political power. Addtionally, when the British were leaving, Clement Atlee concluded that "two things were necessary: one was to make the Indians feel their responsibility by announcing that we were clearing out within a definite period of time, and the other was to find the man to put this through."

Now, many European colonies put a leader of their choice in power when they left their colonies...but how come India managed to rise and African colonies did not? I guess there are more divisions in Africa, but isn't the Indian subcontinent pretty diverse in its peoples too?

While Im not too sure, I think the high degree of self-government as well as influential nationalistic movements, allowed India to retain stability (in relativity to Africa). Indians were heavily investing in running the Indian Bureaucracy, the Indian lower Government post, the Indian Civil Service. So the degree of transition from colonial empire to Self-government wasn't too large that resulted in power struggles.

 

[bombshoo]

While Im not too sure, I think the high degree of self-government as well as influential nationalistic movements, allowed India to retain stability (in relativity to Africa). Indians were heavily investing in running the Indian Bureaucracy, the Indian lower Government post, the Indian Civil Service. So the degree of transition from colonial empire to Self-government wasn't too large that resulted in power struggles.

Actually by the time the British left the Indians even had a degree of control in higher level government. The Indian National Congress was quite influential, to the British were forced to negotiate with them during WWII.

It's interesting that the countries that had a degree of self government by the native population really did end up the best off. Botswana is probably the sole example of this in Africa where the black population was given a say in running affairs during the 1920s. I don't think its a coincidence they are also one of the only Sub-Saharan African countries that is currently prospering.

 

[Arwon]

Starting points and degree of damage done to societies by the colonial era. Most of Africa was, simply put, left further behind the 8-ball than any other region of the world upon decolonisation. With hindsight it was probably never realistic to expect them to chart a Latin American or Asian course upon decolonisation.

 

[luiz]

Was India really that much better than Africa right upon independence? The ammount of famines and poverty that it experienced seem to suggest that no. No doubt India was more sophisticated in many regards, including the very important factor of better existing institutions. But they went through hell.

 

[Ansar]

Was India really that much better than Africa right upon independence? The ammount of famines and poverty that it experienced seem to suggest that no. No doubt India was more sophisticated in many regards, including the very important factor of better existing institutions. But they went through hell.

Perhaps they went through hell, but they are so large...much larger than some African countries...and yet they're already a force to be reckoned with and although there exists poverty, the big cities are very developed.

A lot of African countries are still stuck in a rut.

 

[Dachs]

Perhaps they went through hell, but they are so large...much larger than some African countries...and yet they're already a force to be reckoned with and although there exists poverty, the big cities are very developed.

A lot of African countries are still stuck in a rut.

This was his point.

 

[Ansar]

This was his point.

I'm not arguing as to how they got to where they are today...but how they are today. Are African countries unwilling to make such sacrifices?

 

[Kraznaya]

South Korea had a GDP equivalent to Zambia at the end of the Korean War, FWIW.

 

[Metal_Casting]

A few things that worked in India's favour are

1.National Icons after independence were very democratic, none of them tried to embezzle power or place themselves as 'Ruler for life'.

2.Even though India was pretty diverse, the leaders tend to embrace diversity instead of trying to bury it. Sometimes in diverse countries leaders try to 'unify' the populace by forcing the dominant religion/language/ethnicity down other people's throat, that usually leads to unrest. Indian leaders didn't try to do anything like that.

3.Nothing unifies different people more than a common enemy. The fact that India fought 3 wars within 17 years after independence, helped instill a sense of national identity among the populace. That identity seems to be missing among some african countries.

4.India is a diverse country in terms of climate, different regions of India gets water from different sources. So even if one monsoon fails and one region gets into drought, the other regions could support them. So the effect of drought can be minimized.

5. After independence the leaders actively tried to build a scientific pool, several technology institutes were set up around the country, even though there was little or no high tech job available at that time. This was done, with the thinking that it could help the country in the future. Unfortunately not all African countries tried that.

6. India also had the economy of scale, while Africa is huge, individual African countries are not. So they could never have the domestic market that India could have.

7. A strong centralized government and the lack of oil or other mineral resouces meant there was little impact of the cold war superpower rivalry, that tore some African countries apart.

I'm not arguing as to how they got to where they are today...but how they are today. Are African countries unwilling to make such sacrifices?

Sacrifices can't develop a country,

for that one needs long term planning and a lot of luck.

 

[Mansa Musa]

I read that the British were not so much conquerors of India, but as intruders at the higher levels of political power. Addtionally, when the British were leaving, Clement Atlee concluded that "two things were necessary: one was to make the Indians feel their responsibility by announcing that we were clearing out within a definite period of time, and the other was to find the man to put this through."

Now, many European colonies put a leader of their choice in power when they left their colonies...but how come India managed to rise and African colonies did not? I guess there are more divisions in Africa, but isn't the Indian subcontinent pretty diverse in its peoples too?

They're a lot of factors involved including the idiocy of some African leaders after the British left but the Brits had been in India since the early days of the East India Company and had been governing India since the Indian Mutiny. Nigeria, for instance had only been governed since around 1900 and was given independance 60 years later.
In terms of development, the construction of an effective civil service...India was much better off than say most of British controlled Africa except for South Africa

Also, India had a larger economy than Britain had before they were colonized and that reversed by 1947. The British had improved productivity in some African colonies due to the trade networks they built

 

[Ansar]

7. A strong centralized government and the lack of oil or other mineral resouces meant there was little impact of the cold war superpower rivalry, that tore some African countries apart.

Well, Nehru did exploit the Cold War mentality by pursuing non-alignment.

 

[Quackers]

Basically we taught the Indians how to run local and central government with Prussian-effieiciency in about the 1860s/70s. This enabled a higly educated Indian middle class with Faustian values of civic service drilled into them to start forming political movements like the Indian national congress. By about 1947 or whenever we gave them independence their existed a competant political class which could take over and run India well.

Unfortunately many of these politicians were following down a more pro-soviet path than even Western which meant they have had poor growth and devolopement untill now - now that the economy has been freed and deregulated.


Former African colonies didn't prosper because we weren't their long enough. If we could establish a Western political class in these countries they would have an Indian's chance of success. Due to some bizzare idealogical nonsense we gave leadership to African leaders and expected them to take their populations from tribalism to capitalism - didn't work. To be honest Ian Smith's comment "1000 years than Black rule" was a bit harsh - but more like 50 - 100 years than black rule would of been more preferable for that country.

 

[Arwon]

Was India really that much better than Africa right upon independence? The ammount of famines and poverty that it experienced seem to suggest that no. No doubt India was more sophisticated in many regards, including the very important factor of better existing institutions. But they went through hell.

Just a small note, those 20th century famines were largely the result of government action or inaction - it's not a coincidence that India hasn't had a famine since independence. The Bengal famine in 1943 can be directly attributed to the war and to British policies doing nothing to prevent export, stop speculation, redistribute to the hungry, or give them financial assistance to buy rice.

 

[GinandTonic]

The indian situation was completely different from african one. The more developed states already had a civil society, bureaucracy, extensive middle class, enviable higher education and a rather practical intellectual elite. Under the brits the states had been unified with an external party to resent for the process (quite justifiably so), and so at least the theory of those institutions were made widespread. In practice, as far as I understand it, many of the backwaters remained so and were as irrelevant to the policy of New Delhi as they ever were to London.

If many of the institutions of india were not (unless grotesque that that business with the salt making etc) resented it was because the indians had their own tradition of bureaucracy and because of the educated populace the vast majority of those in those institutions were indian. Add to that a middle class that understands how the system works and how their lives are dependent upon it.

There was/ is india's cast system, which was - however I may feel about it - a stabilising influence.

Finally, the whole history of the raj was about business, indeed for the first half of it's history was a business. Too many indians were doing well to want anything to happen that was bad for business.

 

[Arwon]

I just found out today that the Mughal Empire had about 60 times the GDP of Britain when it first entered India.

 

[Plotinus]

To be honest Ian Smith's comment "1000 years than Black rule" was a bit harsh - but more like 50 - 100 years than black rule would of been more preferable for that country.

Yes, if only those uppity natives hadn't been so uncivilised as to start a civil war against a racist minority state that systematically refused to recognise their rights. I'm sure another half century or two of being put in their place by the white minority would have completely removed any hint of anger and radicalisation on their part, and when they finally took power they would have treated the white settlers with great love and care.

What Smith was never able to understand, and it seems his apologists still cannot comprehend, was that if you continue to prevent people from governing themselves, and continue to organise a country on racist lines which keep power for a small minority and disenfranchise the rest, then people will get rather angry about it and things will get worse. This is true no matter how benevolently paternal your intentions. Smith thought that the brutality of Mugabe proved that he - Smith - had been right to try to prevent black people from running their own affairs. The unfortunate irony is that Mugabe was, to a large extent, Smith's own creation. It was Smith's own intractability, and that of people like him, that caused the radicalisation, violence, popularity, and ultimate victory of Mugabe and those like him. The civil war and the brutal anti-settler measures of the Mugabe era are not a disruption of Smith's policies - they are the inevitable outcome of it.

 

[Quackers]

Yes, if only those uppity natives hadn't been so uncivilised as to start a civil war against a racist minority state that systematically refused to recognise their rights. I'm sure another half century or two of being put in their place by the white minority would have completely removed any hint of anger and radicalisation on their part, and when they finally took power they would have treated the white settlers with great love and care.

What Smith was never able to understand, and it seems his apologists still cannot comprehend, was that if you continue to prevent people from governing themselves, and continue to organise a country on racist lines which keep power for a small minority and disenfranchise the rest, then people will get rather angry about it and things will get worse. This is true no matter how benevolently paternal your intentions. Smith thought that the brutality of Mugabe proved that he - Smith - had been right to try to prevent black people from running their own affairs. The unfortunate irony is that Mugabe was, to a large extent, Smith's own creation. It was Smith's own intractability, and that of people like him, that caused the radicalisation, violence, popularity, and ultimate victory of Mugabe and those like him. The civil war and the brutal anti-settler measures of the Mugabe era are not a disruption of Smith's policies - they are the inevitable outcome of it.

Actually Smith's rhodesia was doing very well right up too 1979 before the so called "free elections" (LMAO DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!), even with a economic blockade from much of the West. Mugaba was a Communist gueriila explicitely funded by the Soviet Union and other soviet trained and equipped people. Their was some black political participation Abel Muzorewa for instance would of been a good candiate for leader but we didn't have a profeicient native political class to take over.

 

[Tee Kay]

Their was some black political participation Abel Muzorewa for instance would of been a good candiate for leader but we didn't have a profeicient native political class to take over.

Because the politics in Rhodesia didn't allow for the formation of one.

 

[bender19]

India was more developed than most parts of Africa before colonialisation. Colonialisation started earlier in India because it was a far more desirable colony due to greater economic prosperity, and ended earlier for similar reasons, the more advanced Indian society was better able to create a credible independence movement. The factors that have led India to rise faster than Africa predate British involvement, superior education systems, technology, agriculture, merchant and ruling classes etc.