The British Raj: Good On Balance?

[communism]

Yeah, but to say good on balance, who can say that with any shred of respectability?

If that was the case then no historian would be able to apply any good to any situation even if it was awared merit due to your classifications. God, let the matter drop already.

Arguments aside, please stop hijacking my thread to debate the essence of a balanced good or bad arguement, I want to debate the aspects of the Raj because I find the subject facinating, as you are facinated by my choice of words to describe the debate. If you want to challenge an assertion that you cannot merit some good things out of bad, or vice versa then do so in another thread.

Anyway back to the actual topic

As to the British rule, while there doubtlessly were positive sides, all these famines in India during it make me tilit towards the negative answer to that question.

I see what you're saying, and nonetheless the British did willfully ignore the calamity of these famines and were straightjacketed into the rules of the freemarket, however, this isn't able to be compared to previous famines under previous empire in the region due to lack of records of them. I'd say they look bad as there was no previous comparison.

 

[Verbose]

I see what you're saying, and nonetheless the British did willfully ignore the calamity of these famines and were straightjacketed into the rules of the freemarket, however, this isn't able to be compared to previous famines under previous empire in the region due to lack of records of them. I'd say they look bad as there was no previous comparison.

Possibly, yes.

Though there seems to be the problem that the 19th c. famines under the Raj were exacerbated by the authorities switching agricultural production to cash-crops, away from the older kind of better self-sustaining systems of food production.

That, and the fact that until the 18th c., the Indian textile industry was quite possibly the largest and most advanced in the world, subject to endless in particular French industrial espionage (since the French state derived like one third of its incomes from its own textile industry, India was their main competitor, killing the French in both quality and quantity). And then the British East India Company took India firmly in hand, and suddenly there was no longer an Indian textile industry, but just this huge supplier of raw material, which isn't really the best way for a nation to enrich itself, especially if it in fact had a rock-sold manufacturing tradition previously.

The use of India as a historically unprecedented producer of narcotic substances, sold under government license, not least to China against the explicit wishes of the Chinese government (but opium was one of the few Chinese market demands, even if illegal, the British could actually provide, and it was cheaper to force the Chinese to take opium than pay them in the silver they actually wanted), prompting the Opium War eventually, isn't really all that commendable either.imp:

Afaik the Indians themselves seem to consider the legal system, the actually very good record of non-corrupt administration, and the railways, to be the useful British additions. As for the rest, the Indians did better on their own. The cuisine in particular, going the other way in fact.

 

[communism]

I thought the advent of the industrial revolution was the reason why the Indians fell by the wayside, because although I agree they manufactured products, its industry was more along the lines of a cottage industry, rather than the mass production line type we associate it with now, as until up to the 18th century you're correct, as the Mughals were still in power. However once their power declined, various feudalistic states cropped up and damaged India economically.

On another important point, is it good to say that without the Raj, the empire would of been alot more reduced in terms of influence? I mean, alot of troops for extending our influence came from India and helped prop up our influence in South East Asia, here's a hypothetical map of what I reckon would of happened if we didn't control India. It's just a rough idea.

[/IMG]

 

[Dachs]

On another important point, is it good to say that without the Raj, the empire would of been alot more reduced in terms of influence? I mean, alot of troops for extending our influence came from India and helped prop up our influence in South East Asia, here's a hypothetical map of what I reckon would of happened if we didn't control India. It's just a rough idea.

No India => no reason to acquire the Cape Colony

 

[communism]

But it would be a good alternative for going towards Australia

 

[innonimatu]

No India => no reason to acquire the Cape Colony

Actually, no India, Britain would turn elsewhere. Probably expand Canada southward, or at least grab the whole pacific coast and part or Central America.

 

[Dachs]

Actually, no India, Britain would turn elsewhere. Probably expand Canada southward, or at least grab the whole pacific coast and part or Central America.

Precisely.

 

[Slobadog]

I'm wondering how it can be judged good or bad. It happened; then it needed to go, and it went.

This is like asking, "The Black Death: Good on Balance?".

A good thing to ask.
I've read that the black death helped to lead to free labor economics. With less workers around competition for the remaining was increased.

 

[Agent327]

On another note, Gandhi, Nehru and Al Jinnah were all products of the British Education system.

If the Raj didn't exist or was controlled by someone else, would it have been much more harder to maintain the Empire\or would of it falled much sooner than anticipated?

I'm just wondering about this because after we left India, the empire pretty much fell like a deck of cards.

I'm not sure Gandhi would agree, seeing as his methods were hardly derived from the British educational system. That many later nationalists were trained by Western education may indeed have played a substantial part in the post-1945 decolonization.

Also, the Empire did not fall apart after India: in the face of the Four Freedoms declaration and the founding of the UN (basically the whole postwar global configuration), not granting independence was basically not a real option - as various European nations found out to their disgrace when trying to hold on to their prewar colonies.

 

[aelf]

If that was the case then no historian would be able to apply any good to any situation even if it was awared merit due to your classifications. God, let the matter drop already.

I don't think respectable historians are generally in the business of rating colonialism as good on balance, even if it had its benefits.

Arguments aside, please stop hijacking my thread to debate the essence of a balanced good or bad arguement, I want to debate the aspects of the Raj because I find the subject facinating, as you are facinated by my choice of words to describe the debate. If you want to challenge an assertion that you cannot merit some good things out of bad, or vice versa then do so in another thread.

Suit yourself, but your blind fascination only seems kinda childish.

 

[communism]

Suit yourself, but your blind fascination only seems kinda childish

There you go, I gave you the last word. Now go.

 

[Masada]

And you're happy with that kind of misleading imprecision?

It's not like the Belgians had many colonies...

That, and the fact that until the 18th c., the Indian textile industry was quite possibly the largest and most advanced in the world, subject to endless in particular French industrial espionage (since the French state derived like one third of its incomes from its own textile industry, India was their main competitor, killing the French in both quality and quantity). And then the British East India Company took India firmly in hand, and suddenly there was no longer an Indian textile industry, but just this huge supplier of raw material, which isn't really the best way for a nation to enrich itself, especially if it in fact had a rock-sold manufacturing tradition previously.

It wasn't suddenly I can assure you: it took decades. Are you happy with that sort of misleading imprecision?

I thought the advent of the industrial revolution was the reason why the Indians fell by the wayside, because although I agree they manufactured products, its industry was more along the lines of a cottage industry, rather than the mass production line type we associate it with now, as until up to the 18th century you're correct, as the Mughals were still in power. However once their power declined, various feudalistic states cropped up and damaged India economically.

That isn't quite true. A considerable amount of India's internal trade in textiles took the form of cottage industry, that didn't hold true for India's external trade which was mass produced from patterns using looms which were technologically superior to European models. The process itself was intricate and usually involved multiple stations. Industrialization was only one factor in the decline of Indian textile manufacturing, others include the collapse of the monetarized economy, the decline in urbanization and a loss of external markets.

But it would be a good alternative for going towards Australia

It would still have Virginia to export its prisoners to.

 

[communism]

Industrialization was only one factor in the decline of Indian textile manufacturing, others include the collapse of the monetarized economy, the decline in urbanization and a loss of external markets.

You mean the decline of the Mughals?

 

[Masada]

You mean the decline of the Mughals?

None of those had anything do with the collapse of the Mughals.

 

[aelf]

There you go, I gave you the last word. Now go.

I'm not the one trying to turn this personal.

 

[Verbose]

It wasn't suddenly I can assure you: it took decades. Are you happy with that sort of misleading imprecision?

So educate us!

 

[communism]

None of those had anything do with the collapse of the Mughals.

I disagree, I think in some part the decline of Mughal strength relative to the East India company and the other feudalistic states played a part in it's decline in comparison to European countries.

 

[Vox de Villainy]

I'd say no.

The mention of the 'Indians messing it up afterwards' is insane, and ignores the actual policies of the British Raj; which were of Divide and Rule, as with all imperialism.

In the partition of Bengal, Viceroy Curzon deliberatley, with an encyclopediac knowledge of India, chose to cause violent to divide and subjugate a region; setting the Hindu middle class against the Muslim middle class. The British were more than willing to use violence against their servants, most notably at the Jalianwala Bagh in Amritsar, but also in the Salt Satyrgraha and during the second world war.

Similarly, any attempt the Raj made to communicate with the Indians was based around Divide and Rule. In the Round Table Conferences (30,31,32 off the top of my head), the British executive deliberatley invited unrepresentative lackeys of the Empire, like the hapless Princes, to subvert the democratic purpose and strangle demands for independence. Similarly, it exaggerated the representation of some groups (The Muslim League, Indian capitalists) over the vastly more representative INC (who only gained one representative; Gandhi) who had won a gigantic majority across the board in the recent elections.
There was little large-scale religious conflict in India prior to British rule, were not the Mughals famed for religious tolerance?

Thus, is it any suprise that groups who had been divided forcibly for years were in conflict come independence? The massacres that occured are entirely the fault of the British; caused by their imperialist methods and rushed jump towards independence and random allocation of land by Mountbatten. Which also disproves the myth that Britain 'unified' India; Are Kashmir, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma and the Maldives considered 'unified'?

All the infrastructure built by the British were for the British; the railroads and telegraph system weren't used by the average Indian, they were used by the British army and British administration.
Indians education in the Indian Civil Service helped administer India, nothing more, nothing less. These 'advances' weren't given for any benign or altruistic purpose; merely to facilitate exploitation. Being a capable imperialist doesn't make you a 'moral' imperialist.

Indian interests were always held secondary to British; with the Lancashire textiles market being a stirring example of this. Indian soldiers were sent 'over the top' first, where present, in the First World War. Indians were a commodity; cheap, unskilled labour after what is laughably called the abolition of slavery in 1833.

 

[Masada]

There was little large-scale religious conflict in India prior to British rule, were not the Mughals famed for religious tolerance?

Yes, there was. Mahmud of Ghazi, Muhammad of Ghor and Qutb-ud-din Aybak were not famed for their treatment of Hindu's or Hindu temples, the last two are recorded by Ferishta boasting about the destruction of a thousand Hindu temples; the near constant use of Infidel kind of gives them away as well.

Thus, is it any suprise that groups who had been divided forcibly for years were in conflict come independence? The massacres that occured are entirely the fault of the British; caused by their imperialist methods and rushed jump towards independence and random allocation of land by Mountbatten.

There is something to be said of being a geographically dispersed religious minority; there wasn't much anyone could have done to defuse tensions, a certain national icon had attempted unsuccessfully to cool heads and was killed for it.

Which also disproves the myth that Britain 'unified' India; Are Kashmir, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma and the Maldives considered 'unified'?

Whut?

So educate us!

I'm pulling together the sources.

I disagree, I think in some part the decline of Mughal strength relative to the East India company and the other feudalistic states played a part in it's decline in comparison to European countries.

Can you take the time to write out something I can respond to. Your current argument seems to reside in the province of the general rather than the specific, and suffers for it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Originally Posted by Vox de Villainy
Which also disproves the myth that Britain 'unified' India; Are Kashmir, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma and the Maldives considered 'unified'?

Whut?

Apparently, Vox thinks that only when these countries will unite, India will be truly unified.