Would India have been a first world country if the Kashmir Conflict didn't exist?

[Tibarn]

.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Tibarn
Swachh Bharat

[Tibarn]

 

3 hours ago, Moochad said:

Yeah, but that is the definition. You can't have people making up their own definitions for everything and then arguing from the position that their definition is the correct one. I also don't care about being a so-called first world country, but when the OP uses that benchmark the question should be asked, what does he think one is. I only put the actual definition. What is important is for the OP to define what he thinks it means, so we all can answer from there. The textbook definition is academic in that sense depending on if the OP meant something else, but he hasn't responded to his own thread since the first post, so its basically pointless to discuss these definition issues.  

Oh, I understand your point about it being the textbook definition. I was more criticizing the use of the phrase at all. We need to purge it from the lexicon.

 

Unless, of course, the OP defines what he means.   

Quote

That is a bare bones definition or a lowest common denominator definition. I can agree with it, but other factors such as environment, crime, homogeneity may also affect getting to that point and being actually 'developed'. The latter is common among democracies it seems with diversity coming after the fact rather than during or before. Begs the question, how does India proceed doing something the others didn't have to?

That's an interesting hypothesis, regarding diversity vs economic growth. 

 

The only country with similar size and diversity is China really, where they underwent forced homogenization. The US had coerced homogenization of the European migrants into English/Anglo-Saxon culture, but the US was a democracy and has always been small compared to us in terms of population. On the other hand, the US was/is a democracy, and China isn't, so neither is really totally similar to us. 

 

Singapore is diverse, but it is also basically a city and not really a democracy.

 

Japan, Korea, and most European countries were mostly homogeneous as well. 

 

I still think the main issue is economic freedom/policies for development. That is the commonality, IMO. The issue may be whether diversity + democracy can lead to development. If we do it, we will probably be the first to do so!

Quote

I think you had shared it on the other site one time, at least teh excerpt.  

No, on DF I think I posted from Angus Maddison. This chart was from a different author's book. It noted the difference between the percentage of wealth in ruling class's possesion and the wealth inequality overall. 

 

The Mughals were the worst on the list, in entire recorded world history. The British were bad too, but my memory is hazy regarding where they ranked. I am getting pissed, because it would be a great chart for this discussion. 

 

If the goal is to show just that the Mughal economy was horrible and exploitative, Angus Maddison is enough. From

Class Structure and Economic Growth: India and Pakistan Since the Moghuls

Spoiler

The pre-colonial economy of India is sometimes portrayed by Indian historians and politicians as a golden age of prosperity. According to R. C. Dutt, the doyen of nationalist historians, 'India in the eighteenth century was a great manufacturing as well as a great agricultural country'.1 Gandhi and others have stressed the social harmony of the traditional village society. These views have been very influential and it is obviously important to see whether they stand up to critical analysis. Our own conclusion is that they exaggerate the productivity of the Moghul economy which was probably significantly lower than that of west Europe in the eighteenth century.

-------------------------------------

 

The Standard of Living India had a ruling class whose extravagant life-style surpassed that of the European aristocracy. It had an industrial sector producing luxury goods which Europe could not match, but this was achieved by subjecting the population to a high degree of exploitation. Living standards of ordinary people were lower than those of European peasants and their life expectation was shorter. The high degree of exploitation was possible because of the passivity of village society. The social mechanism which kept the villages passive also lowered labour productivity, and provided little incentive to technical progress or productive investment. Moghul India had a good deal to impress Western visitors. From
the time of Akbar to Shah Jehan the court was one of the most brilliant in the world. It was cosmopolitan and religiously tolerant. Literature and painting flourished and there were magnificent palaces and mosques at Agra, Delhi, Fatehpur Sikri, and Lahore. The nobility lived in walled castles with harems, gardens, fountains and large retinues of slaves and servants. They had huge wardrobes of splendid garments in fine cotton and silk.

-----------------------

The living standard of the upper class was certainly high and there were bigger hoards of gold and precious stones than in Europe, but there is substantial evidence that the mass of the population were worse off than in Europe. The Moghul economy seems to have been at its peak under Akbar (1556-1605) and to have declined thereafter.1 At its peak, it is conceivable that the per capita product was comparable with that of Elizabethan England. By the mid eighteenth century, when India became a European colony, there seems little doubt that the economy was backward by West European standards, with a per capita product perhaps two-thirds of that in England and France.2 In spite of India's reputation as a cloth producer, Abul Fazl, the sixteenth-century chronicler of Akbar, makes reference to the lack of clothing in Bengal, 'men and women for the most part go naked wearing only a cloth about the loins'. Their loincloths were often of jute rather than cotton. In Orissa 'the women cover only the lower part of the body and may make themselves coverings of the leaves of trees'.3 They also lacked the domestic linen and blankets, which European peasants of that period would have owned. In terms of housing and furniture the Indian peasantry were worse off than their European counterparts and their diet was also poorer. Consumption of meat and wine was negligible and there was no beer.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Conditions in the early seventeenth century were described by Francisco Pelsaert in a report to the Dutch East India Company which sums up his seven years in Agra in 1620-7: '. . . the rich in their great superfluity and absolute power, and the utter subjection and poverty of the common people—poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people can be depicted or accurately described only as the home of stark want and the dwelling place of bitter woe .. . a workman's children can follow no occupation other than that of their father, nor can they intermarry with any other caste. . . . They know little of the taste of meat. For their monotonous daily food they have nothing but a little khichri, made of "green pulse" mixed with rice, which is cooked with water over a little fire until the moisture has evaporated, and eaten hot with butter in the evening; in the day time they munch a little parched pulse or other grain, which they say suffices for their lean stomachs. 'Their houses are built of mud with thatched roofs. Furniture
there is little or none . . . bedclothes are scanty, merely a sheet or perhaps two, serving both as under- and over-sheet; this is sufficient in the hot weather, but the bitter cold nights are miserable indeed.'1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Degree of Exploitation The revenue of the Moghul state was derived largely from land tax which was about a third or more of gross crop production (i.e. a quarter or more of total agricultural output including fruits, vegetables and livestock products which were not so heavily taxed).1 Other levies, tolls and taxes were of smaller importance but not negligible. Total revenue of the Moghul state and autonomous princelings and chiefs was probably about 15-18 per cent of national income. By European standards of the same period this was a very large tax burden.2 No European government succeeded in claiming such a large part of the national product until the twentieth century. But there was a fundamental difference in social structure between India and Europe, and the Moghul levy should not be compared with taxes in a European country. Taxes were used not only for state purposes but to provide for the consumption expenditure of the ruling class. They were, therefore, equal to the tax revenue and a large part of the rental income of a European country (not to the whole of rents because the upper layer within the village hierarchy retained some of the rental income).

----------------------------------------------------------

It should be stressed that the uses to which the Moghul state and aristocracy put their income were largely unproductive. Their investments were made in two main forms: (a) hoarding precious metals and jewels (India's imports of precious metals were equal to practically the whole of its exports and there was also some internal production of these items); (b) construction of palaces and tombs, particularly under Shah Jehan.2 There were also some public irrigation works but, in the context of the economy as a whole, these were unimportant and probably did not cover more than 5 per cent of the cultivated land of India. It is misleading in the Indian context to suggest, as Marx did, that the 'oriental despotism' of the state apparatus had a functional justification in the development and protection of irrigation.3 As far as the economy was concerned the Moghul state apparatus was parasitic. It therefore seems inappropriate to call the system an agrarian bureaucracy. It was a regime of warlord predators which was less efficient than European feudalism. Its adverse effects on output have been described vividly by Bernier.1 Moghul officials needed high incomes because they had many dependents to support. They maintained polygamous households with vast retinues of slaves and servants. Military spending was also large because there were so many soldiers, and they were frequently engaged in wars.

----------------------------------------------------

...

Quote

Proper Islamist the bigot is  

 

Chup deplorable, you have no inner humanity  

Quote

This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel though. You can stretch the definition to include anything as a positive contribution of Brits or Mughals. Libtards say salwar kameez and kebabs are some great contribution of Mughals to India. Millions murdered, enslaved, etc, and all we get are kebabs for dhimmis. Like meat on a stick was some great intellectual achievement or that putting meat on a stick somehow changes its value over eating meat stickless 

That is an achievement though! For barbarians, even skewering meat takes 90% of their processing power. The other 10 percent is slitting an innocent creature's throat and cooking it. Imagine meat on a stick being the pinnacle of achievement for a civilization. 

Quote

I remember Ravan Guha giving a speech to a English crowd, as a display of 'patriotism', meant as an in-your-face to Churchill's prediction of India's disintegration. This guy said India is united because of English language, railroads, and cricket.  

Ravan Guha 

Quote

The real 'contribution' of Brits to India was facilitation of tech transfer of certain technologies/industry into India. However, a number of early Indian industrialists had their origin during British rule, ie Birla and Tata. Tata was able to import a more advanced type of  machinery for his mills. IIRC, I think India even had produced a war plane by the early 1900s, on behalf of the Brits of course. The British didn't ban industry, just didn't facilitate its growth in India. Tata attempted to expand heavy industry in India, but the Brits didn't provide capital.

I agree with that. There is little chance we would have gotten the industrial technology in India at the same rate we did under the British if we were ruled by our native rulers. We were simply not at that point in technological development.

 

I know the Maratha's had "howitzer factories", but they didn't exactly have an assembly line. 

 

The British did ban the arms industry. A percentage of the Indian cottage industry was focused on the production of small arms/weapons, which were explicitly banned by the British, but what percentage that was, I am unsure. 

Quote

The decline of industry was in areas like handcrafted goods and textiles, which India lost competitiveness in. There was also only one way free-trade. The Brits could trade and sell in India, but the Indian craftsmen couldn't sell in Britain. 

Right, once England and Europe in general started creating textiles on a mass-produced scale due to the Industrial Revolution. I don't think Indian textiles could've kept up, unless the poms moved those same factories into India. They were no way going to do that, as that would cause unemployment there. 

 

Indian hand-crafted textiles would've become more of a high-end good for middle class people to buy, vs English mass produced, affordable variety for the working class. 

Quote

This is the salient point. Our intellectual Nehru couldn't keep the growth high in a country where people were subsistence farmers, despite having some backbone for industry left when the Brits left. He was busy scamming and awarding himself Bharat ratna.

 

A country with a low income should easily have a high growth rate. 1 Rs to 2 Rs is 100% growth.  

 

I agree with the sentiment, but I wonder how high could Real GDP growth have been. I feel like agriculture would be an easy realm to rapidly expand, but manufacturing and services would've been limited without enough capital, Prophet Nehru or no Prophet Nehru. 

Quote

Right, the imaginary wealthy Mughal rule is just hagiography by Ganga-Jamuna Tehzeebis 

Just the "intellectuals" who get screen-time or when political compulsions force them to speak. Even Irfan Habib noted how exploitative the Mughal economy was. 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Sure you are, because you are an Islamist. No one is buying your Taqiyah here. There's a reason you bark the moment anyone criticizes Islamic tyrants and constantly post Hinduphobic bile on the forum. 

If you don't accept my opinion, it is fine. If you think it is a Taqiyah, it is fine. No one needs your approval of telling my opinion about any case. 

 

But if you use abusive words like Barking, then I have to protest upon it and blame you for being a rude person. 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

You have even engaged in apologia for Islamic tyrants before, when you stated that Islamic tyrants were less violent than Hitler. Add to that your support of Communists, and the question naturally arises: how can a shameless person like you, with a straight face, even pretend to be a "Humanist" when defending such people?

Yes, I firmly believe in what I wrote to be exactly correct. And it is the path of JUSTICE to place everything at it's proper place. 

And I firmly believe that Communists in India are not as blood thirsty are as the Saffron Brigade has become and lost it's senses and want to rule India through Might is Right and want to spell the blood of all who differ with their fanaticism. Hindutva fanatics are becoming the exact image of Islamist fanatics. What can I do when this is exactly what that humanity in me showing it to me. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

By all means, carry-on, the point will come soon when others will start abusing/name-calling you like you do to others, block you, or report you and get you banned. All three would provide comedic relief for me. 

If I have broken any rule of the forum, then do block me.

But abusing me for expressing my opinion which differs from you, it is ridiculous. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

There are scores of people like you in India who are pushing common Hindus towards what you call "fanatic Hindutva." Keep up the good work. 

I don't agree with you. You people were already having your leanings towards RW before I arrived here. I am only learning here about the RW mentality and how they think.  I want to debate the issues with arguments. I want them to listen to the opinions of those too who differ them. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

1) You advocated discrimination against Hindus, because Brahmins, some 3-5% of the population of Hindus, in the past discriminated against Sudras/Dalits(some 80% of Hindus, all of whom are also discriminated against by the Indian constitution), but then say that Muslims shouldn't be legally discriminated against, despite Muslims being the perpetrators of far worse atrocities, all backed by actual evidence, in both the Subcontinent and the world in general. 

This is your comprehension problem, while neither you want to hear the differing voices, not try to understand them. 

 

I have never being of opinion that the "Present Day Brahmins" should pay for the crimes of their ancestors. 

 

I am of the opinion that Dalits should get the quota while "at present" they are unable to compete with the others due to their educational background, and there are fears that they will still get discriminated when they apply for the jobs while the people who are giving the jobs, they are still from the higher castes and may still have a biased attitude against the Dalits. Therefore, Quota system will guarantee that Dalits are not discriminated today. 

 

The quota of the Dalits must not be more than population ratio. In this way, in no way they are going to usurp the right of other castes in name of quota. 

 

Same is for the Muslims. Nothing to do with their past. But all the reports of the Indian commissions are testifying that they are far behind in education at present, especially their women, and they don't have the ability any more to compete with others. Only way of bringing them in the stream again is to give them the quota. 

 

I am not of opinion that the present day poor Muslims have to suffer for the wrong doings of their ancestors. 

 

In my observation, it is not any more a matter for the RW Saffron brigade to bring back Indian Muslims in the mainstream, but they aim to keep them backward and make them 2nd or even 3rd class citizens. I don't agree with you upon this. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

2) In one thread you claimed that books were not proof, yet tried and failed to use a book as "proof". Books are haraam when they don't agree with me, and books are halaal when they agree with me. This is the level of your hypocrisy.(That's ignoring the fact that you read neither the book that refuted you nor the one that you thought supported you).   

Off course I am correct that simply naming book is not enough, but if we are here to debate, then the other party must bring the arguments from that book (which he did later). For his first action (i.e. giving the link of the book), I could only answer him by giving him too the link of the book as reply. What is the difference in our attitude that your party becomes angel while giving the link of the book, while I became hypocrite by doing the same action? 

If any, then it shows that you are behaving like a cry baby. You keep every thing Halal for yourself, but blame others for the same thing. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

3) You claimed that  Hindus who translate their own texts, are biased when translating, but European Christians with no Vedic Sanskrit training are are unbiased when translating Hindu texts. Then in another thread on Islam, you ask another poster if they know Urdu implying that knowledge of Urdu is a requirement of understanding Islam.  (FYI: Only 1 of the two languages are considered sacred).

Yes, and I have provided the complete proofs there where one Hindu translator was even refuted by other Hindu translator, while all the western Translators were unanimous in the translation. 

You got all the chances to prove otherwise in the thread. Why didn't you bring any proof there to deny it?

It is not my fault if you lack the proofs, but then come up with blames against me. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

No, the worst part is that your attention-seeking is so cancerous that you have started to drag down the quality of this forum. Multiple people have told you to stop bothering them, but, like the good little fundamentalist you are, you continue to bother them and derail threads.  

I didn't derail the thread.

Just open up your eyes and watch that it is you who are bringing all the other threads here and complaining against me about them. 

If you have problem with those threads, then just continue the discussions there and don't derail  the thread here. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

He didn't claim that his statement was proof that only Mughals were corrupt and tyrants. He stated a fact that Mughals hoarded wealth and were tyrants. This is established history. 

Off course it was his sole argument. When he was told that all Kings of old time were tyrants and looted the people, then he came up with the sole excuse that Mughals had the zamindars and thus they were the only tyrants. 

Defending such lame excuse is even more bigger joke than this lame excuse. 

 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

When asked by him to prove that Hindu Rajas were equally oppressive

I already answered him and gave him a proof of same amount that he presented against the Mughals i.e. Hind Rajas were also having the zameendars. 

Why this hypocrisy and double standards then where his argument of zamindars of Mughals holds value and my same argument of Hindu zamindars hold no value? 

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Furthermore, you have no locus standi to ask others for proof. You never provide proof for anything you say.

In every thread, someone asks you for proof, and you run away. Seriously, how shameless can one person be? 

I disagree. 

I have provide the proofs in every thread. 

I leave the discussion when other party starts abusing, and making personal attacks and behaving ridiculously where only their arguments (even lame ones) hold value while my arguments and proofs have no value.  

Otherwise the proofs about Indra eating beef in the Veda are still present there and none of you refuted them. And also the latest study about the Aryan Dravidian divided is also present there and none of your ever uttered a single word to answer it. 

 

If you are truthful, then open up these threads again and answer them. It is better for you than again and again bringing all these issues in the non related thread and derail it. 

[Tibarn]

Keep barking...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Tibarn
Swachh Bharat 2.0

[Muloghonto]

25 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

You seem surprised at the fact that the British put artificial quotas in our industries such as iron foundries and such to impede the development of Indian industries ?

 

I don't know where exactly i encountered this, but this is fact and this has some merit: in a free-market system, sans government interference, processing of raw materials happen as close to the source or raw material as possible ( possible meaning the nearest town/city/area with skills to process the raw material). This is why pashmina shawls are made in kashmir from pashmina wool of Kashmir, Muslin was made in east bengal, close to where the cotton itself was produced.

 

The KEY to English middle class wealth was tampering with this system, so raw goods are shipped all the way to England, finished there and then exported out to Europe & English markets. This directly created the textile jobs in England, as i am not sure even with their far superior industrial looms, if it'd have been cost effective to ship the cotton all the way to England in its raw form than make the clothes in India and ship the finished product there. 

 

 

PS: Word about Alam Dar - he is not very smart and is intensely dogmatic about his belief systems. Look at the nonsense he's spewed over time about how raw meat is healthier than cooked meat ( thus overturning tens of thousands of years of decisive, food consumption data. As if our ancestors were all morons, from Americas to China and liked to make extra work for no reason instead of just eating raw meat). 

 

His religion isn't Islam, its intersectionality, raw foods and anti-GMO idiocy. The good news is, if you engage with him in a sustained manner and expose him like i have, you will end up in his ignore list and he will stop bugging you with his nonsense.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You seem surprised at the fact that the British put artificial quotas in our industries such as iron foundries and such to impede the development of Indian industries ?

 

I don't know where exactly i encountered this, but this is fact and this has some merit: in a free-market system, sans government interference, processing of raw materials happen as close to the source or raw material as possible ( possible meaning the nearest town/city/area with skills to process the raw material). This is why pashmina shawls are made in kashmir from pashmina wool of Kashmir, Muslin was made in east bengal, close to where the cotton itself was produced.

 

The KEY to English middle class wealth was tampering with this system, so raw goods are shipped all the way to England, finished there and then exported out to Europe & English markets. This directly created the textile jobs in England, as i am not sure even with their far superior industrial looms, if it'd have been cost effective to ship the cotton all the way to England in its raw form than make the clothes in India and ship the finished product there. 

No, I know about that part. I thought you meant that they banned industry in general, which I don't think is the case. They didn't help it, but there were some companies/tycoons who got their start in British India.

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

No, I know about that part. I thought you meant that they banned industry in general, which I don't think is the case. They didn't help it, but there were some companies/tycoons who got their start in British India.

No what i meant is, they didn't just 'not support' it, they also put impediments in the path. Like for eg with Iron foundries, they deliberately put artificial quotas on it to keep it 'cottage industry' scale. 

[Mariyam]

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No what i meant is, they didn't just 'not support' it, they also put impediments in the path. Like for eg with Iron foundries, they deliberately put artificial quotas on it to keep it 'cottage industry' scale. 

Shashi 'Bombastic English' Tharoor has written a book on the topic.

An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India

 

It highlights how the Brits over the period of their colonization of India, de-industrialized (mainly textile, shipping and iron/steel) and then partially re-industrialized (mainly fertilizers) certain sectors only.

 

You must read it, in case you haven't.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

22 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Shashi 'Bombastic English' Tharoor has written a book on the topic.

An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India

 

It highlights how the Brits over the period of their colonization of India, de-industrialized (mainly textile, shipping and iron/steel) and then partially re-industrialized (mainly fertilizers) certain sectors only.

 

You must read it, in case you haven't.

 

 

Argh.

Sashi Tharoor is so hard to read. He sounds like a PMS-ing granny having a root canal while giving birth in EVERYTHING he does. I used to hate reading Neitzche because of how obtuse and how big-worded he was. But compared to Tharoor, Neitzche is valium. Please i hope there is someone who did a good paraphrasing of him for my own sanity's sake.

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

No what i meant is, they didn't just 'not support' it, they also put impediments in the path. Like for eg with Iron foundries, they deliberately put artificial quotas on it to keep it 'cottage industry' scale. 

"Throttling" is true, but it is a nonsensical criticism, IMO. Some of that was indirectly addressed earlier in this thread by me and the other poster. This goes along with what the above poster is talking about as well, regarding Tharoor's book: he talks about Indian Ship building, Textiles, and Steel being "throttled" by the British, but a lot of that criticism is just empty whinging(see below).  

 

Tharoor selectively uses the data. He starts with this quote from Sutherland in his book, the one the other poster mentioned above

Quote

Nearly every kind of manufacture or product known to the civilized world—nearly every kind of creation of man’s brain and hand, existing anywhere, and prized either for its utility or beauty—had long been produced in India. India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or any other in Asia. Her textile goods—the fine products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silk—were famous over the civilized world; so were her exquisite jewellery and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, color and beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal—iron, steel, silver and gold. She had great architecture—equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great engineering works. She had great merchants, great
businessmen, great bankers and financiers. Not only was she the greatest shipbuilding nation, but she had great commerce and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilized countries. Such was the India which the British found when they came.

 

Then as support, Tharoor mentions the Maddison graph where India had 23% of the world GDP pre-British, but he selectively chooses that era only and compares it to the British era. He also doesn't actually look at the data or the rest of what Maddison wrote, which is what I quoted above in an earlier post in the spoiler ie: people in Bengal/Orissa didn't even have clothes to cover anything other than their "junk", only 5% of land was even irrigated, the industry was centered around selling to nobles, the Mughal economy was parasitic, the rulers used money extracted from the ruled to buy/hoard jewels, gold etc.

 

According to Maddison, Indias GDP/capita PPP is:

1500: $550

1600: $550

1700: $550

1820: $533

1870: $533

1913: $673

1950: $619

 

Based on the Maddison data he doesn't quote, there is a dip from Pre-British to British era, but not much, and not enough to justify some rosy picture of the Indian economy beforehand, as is his hypothesis.  Going by the same data, the British improved the Indian economy post 1870.

 

One could argue that the British hoarded all the wealth, even though the per capita increased, but that doesn't change that this is exactly the same thing as what the Mughals did. The only difference in that case is that the British generated more total wealth, and so they had more to hoard. 

 

Textiles were never going to remain competitive once the Industrial revolution come about in NA/Europe. They produced cloth etc via machines, while the Indian industry was a cottage industry. Hand-made/crafted goods from Indian cottage-industries would at best be a niche product. The English could mass produce more in less time = less price. 

 

Furthermore, the British were an occupying power, it is not their job to provide the same industrial technology to their colony or facilitate its industrial growth as they would do to their actual home industry. The master-slave relationship is one of exploitation, not collaboration.  Who is their right mind thinks a foreign occupying power is going to facilitate the growth of industry in its colony, when that could be detrimental to the occupier's own interests? 

 

If the British had good intentions, then they wouldn't have forced farmers to start growing cash-crops like Sugar, Indigo, Jute, Tobacco, instead of actual food crops, but that is not what happened, and many perished in famines.

 

Ship building and Steel were more legitimate criticism of the British, as Indian ship-building and the steel industry was competitive and quality, but, again, once the British took over India, what does one exactly expect, that the British were going to make India an economic powerhouse? Likewise, why exactly would a foreign occupying power open its market to its colonies products?

 

Exactly, they wouldn't unless it was beneficial to them. It wasn't, so they didn't. Tharoor and like-minded people can whinge about reparations ad infinitum.  That India got any of the industrial technology transferred into it from England during foreign occupation is already more "charity" than one can expect. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

33 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

"Throttling" is true, but it is a nonsensical criticism, IMO. Some of that was indirectly addressed earlier in this thread by me and the other poster. This goes along with what the above poster is talking about as well, regarding Tharoor's book: he talks about Indian Ship building, Textiles, and Steel being "throttled" by the British, but a lot of that criticism is just empty whinging(see below).  

I fail to see why throttling a huge chunk of human population would not be a valid criticism towards impediment of economic development and thus, poverty ?

33 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Based on the Maddison data he doesn't quote, there is a dip from Pre-British to British era, but not much, and not enough to justify some rosy picture of the Indian economy beforehand, as is his hypothesis.  Going by the same data, the British improved the Indian economy post 1870.

True in absolut terms. But post 1870, economies that were industrializing improved by several folds in just a few decades. As such, wouldn't it be the economic equivalent of 'throwing crumbs to the dog' and pretending that you did feed the dog ? 

33 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Textiles were never going to remain competitive once the Industrial revolution come about in NA/Europe. They produced cloth etc via machines, while the Indian industry was a cottage industry. Hand-made/crafted goods from Indian cottage-industries would at best be a niche product. The English could mass produce more in less time = less price. 

Well, i am not so sure, primarily due to geography. Indians had handlooms for millenias, its not like its all needlework only. The reason i am unsure, is because the cost of labor (in finishing the goods) would be way higher in Europe than in India - i am guessing, but i'd guess that the average loom-worker in Manchester circa 1820 made way more money than the average loom-worker in India. Along with the fact that doing it the British way involved shipping the raw goods (cotton for eg) over 25,000 kms via sea to get processed, with the finished goods being shipped around again, rather than the goods being finished in India and shipped out in one shot. Given the distances/transportation costs involved, i am wondering if the Indian enterprises would've died a natural death anyways in textiles owing to European mills.

 

33 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Furthermore, the British were an occupying power, it is not their job to provide the same industrial technology to their colony or facilitate its industrial growth as they would do to their actual home industry. The master-slave relationship is one of exploitation, not collaboration.  Who is their right mind thinks a foreign occupying power is going to facilitate the growth of industry in its colony, when that could be detrimental to the occupier's own interests? 

Ofcourse, i am not saying that is what the Brits should've done, i am simply pointing out that them throttling the industrial revolution in India is a big reason why India fell so far behind in the industrial age. 

33 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Ship building and Steel were more legitimate criticism of the British, as Indian ship-building and the steel industry was competitive and quality, but, again, once the British took over India, what does one exactly expect, that the British were going to make India an economic powerhouse? Likewise, why exactly would a foreign occupying power open its market to its colonies products?

Well, there were a few Islamic rulers of India who actively strived to improve Indian economy & industry (Sher Shah comes to mind most prominently), because their policy was ' i shall make the land i enslaved rich, so i can enrich myself more via my enslaved land'. Why would that not be a valid strategy for the British as well ? So long as they can militarily dominate Indian subcontinent, a richer India equals a richer Britain owing to the master-slave dynamics, no ?

33 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Exactly, they wouldn't unless it was beneficial to them. It wasn't, so they didn't. Tharoor and like-minded people can whinge about reparations ad infinitum.  That India got any of the industrial technology transferred into it from England during foreign occupation is already more "charity" than one can expect. 

Agreed. Reparations is a dumb history denying leftist 'woe-is-me' nonsense idea. 

[Moochad]

 

Quote

 

That's an interesting hypothesis, regarding diversity vs economic growth. 

 

The only country with similar size and diversity is China really, where they underwent forced homogenization. The US had coerced homogenization of the European migrants into English/Anglo-Saxon culture, but the US was a democracy and has always been small compared to us in terms of population. On the other hand, the US was/is a democracy, and China isn't, so neither is really totally similar to us. 

 

Singapore is diverse, but it is also basically a city and not really a democracy.

 

Japan, Korea, and most European countries were mostly homogeneous as well. 

 

I still think the main issue is economic freedom/policies for development. That is the commonality, IMO. The issue may be whether diversity + democracy can lead to development. If we do it, we will probably be the first to do so!

I am not saying that diversity itself is a hindrance to economic growth, but it would be interesting if there was compiled data in regards to how diverse the current developed countries were when they adopted free market principles. There may be no correlation, or there may be some, but it would be interesting to study nevertheless. 

 

I'd imagine that diversity can be good or bad depending on who makes up the diversity of the country as well: religious diversity vs ethnic diversity vs racial diversity vs importing labor from different educational backgrounds. 

Quote

No, on DF I think I posted from Angus Maddison. This chart was from a different author's book. It noted the difference between the percentage of wealth in ruling class's possesion and the wealth inequality overall. 

 

The Mughals were the worst on the list, in entire recorded world history. The British were bad too, but my memory is hazy regarding where they ranked. I am getting pissed, because it would be a great chart for this discussion. 

 

If the goal is to show just that the Mughal economy was horrible and exploitative, Angus Maddison is enough. From

Class Structure and Economic Growth: India and Pakistan Since the Moghuls

  Reveal hidden contents

The pre-colonial economy of India is sometimes portrayed by Indian historians and politicians as a golden age of prosperity. According to R. C. Dutt, the doyen of nationalist historians, 'India in the eighteenth century was a great manufacturing as well as a great agricultural country'.1 Gandhi and others have stressed the social harmony of the traditional village society. These views have been very influential and it is obviously important to see whether they stand up to critical analysis. Our own conclusion is that they exaggerate the productivity of the Moghul economy which was probably significantly lower than that of west Europe in the eighteenth century.

-------------------------------------

 

The Standard of Living India had a ruling class whose extravagant life-style surpassed that of the European aristocracy. It had an industrial sector producing luxury goods which Europe could not match, but this was achieved by subjecting the population to a high degree of exploitation. Living standards of ordinary people were lower than those of European peasants and their life expectation was shorter. The high degree of exploitation was possible because of the passivity of village society. The social mechanism which kept the villages passive also lowered labour productivity, and provided little incentive to technical progress or productive investment. Moghul India had a good deal to impress Western visitors. From
the time of Akbar to Shah Jehan the court was one of the most brilliant in the world. It was cosmopolitan and religiously tolerant. Literature and painting flourished and there were magnificent palaces and mosques at Agra, Delhi, Fatehpur Sikri, and Lahore. The nobility lived in walled castles with harems, gardens, fountains and large retinues of slaves and servants. They had huge wardrobes of splendid garments in fine cotton and silk.

-----------------------

The living standard of the upper class was certainly high and there were bigger hoards of gold and precious stones than in Europe, but there is substantial evidence that the mass of the population were worse off than in Europe. The Moghul economy seems to have been at its peak under Akbar (1556-1605) and to have declined thereafter.1 At its peak, it is conceivable that the per capita product was comparable with that of Elizabethan England. By the mid eighteenth century, when India became a European colony, there seems little doubt that the economy was backward by West European standards, with a per capita product perhaps two-thirds of that in England and France.2 In spite of India's reputation as a cloth producer, Abul Fazl, the sixteenth-century chronicler of Akbar, makes reference to the lack of clothing in Bengal, 'men and women for the most part go naked wearing only a cloth about the loins'. Their loincloths were often of jute rather than cotton. In Orissa 'the women cover only the lower part of the body and may make themselves coverings of the leaves of trees'.3 They also lacked the domestic linen and blankets, which European peasants of that period would have owned. In terms of housing and furniture the Indian peasantry were worse off than their European counterparts and their diet was also poorer. Consumption of meat and wine was negligible and there was no beer.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Conditions in the early seventeenth century were described by Francisco Pelsaert in a report to the Dutch East India Company which sums up his seven years in Agra in 1620-7: '. . . the rich in their great superfluity and absolute power, and the utter subjection and poverty of the common people—poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people can be depicted or accurately described only as the home of stark want and the dwelling place of bitter woe .. . a workman's children can follow no occupation other than that of their father, nor can they intermarry with any other caste. . . . They know little of the taste of meat. For their monotonous daily food they have nothing but a little khichri, made of "green pulse" mixed with rice, which is cooked with water over a little fire until the moisture has evaporated, and eaten hot with butter in the evening; in the day time they munch a little parched pulse or other grain, which they say suffices for their lean stomachs. 'Their houses are built of mud with thatched roofs. Furniture
there is little or none . . . bedclothes are scanty, merely a sheet or perhaps two, serving both as under- and over-sheet; this is sufficient in the hot weather, but the bitter cold nights are miserable indeed.'1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Degree of Exploitation The revenue of the Moghul state was derived largely from land tax which was about a third or more of gross crop production (i.e. a quarter or more of total agricultural output including fruits, vegetables and livestock products which were not so heavily taxed).1 Other levies, tolls and taxes were of smaller importance but not negligible. Total revenue of the Moghul state and autonomous princelings and chiefs was probably about 15-18 per cent of national income. By European standards of the same period this was a very large tax burden.2 No European government succeeded in claiming such a large part of the national product until the twentieth century. But there was a fundamental difference in social structure between India and Europe, and the Moghul levy should not be compared with taxes in a European country. Taxes were used not only for state purposes but to provide for the consumption expenditure of the ruling class. They were, therefore, equal to the tax revenue and a large part of the rental income of a European country (not to the whole of rents because the upper layer within the village hierarchy retained some of the rental income).

----------------------------------------------------------

It should be stressed that the uses to which the Moghul state and aristocracy put their income were largely unproductive. Their investments were made in two main forms: (a) hoarding precious metals and jewels (India's imports of precious metals were equal to practically the whole of its exports and there was also some internal production of these items); (b) construction of palaces and tombs, particularly under Shah Jehan.2 There were also some public irrigation works but, in the context of the economy as a whole, these were unimportant and probably did not cover more than 5 per cent of the cultivated land of India. It is misleading in the Indian context to suggest, as Marx did, that the 'oriental despotism' of the state apparatus had a functional justification in the development and protection of irrigation.3 As far as the economy was concerned the Moghul state apparatus was parasitic. It therefore seems inappropriate to call the system an agrarian bureaucracy. It was a regime of warlord predators which was less efficient than European feudalism. Its adverse effects on output have been described vividly by Bernier.1 Moghul officials needed high incomes because they had many dependents to support. They maintained polygamous households with vast retinues of slaves and servants. Military spending was also large because there were so many soldiers, and they were frequently engaged in wars.

----------------------------------------------------

...

That is pretty damning. Bengal was one of the wealthier territories of the Mughal empire, yet the common peasant lacked even cloth to cover themselves. 

 

Samrat Ramdas supposedly noted that due to Mughal mismanagement of Maharashtra, one of the big results was the Deccan Famines and supposedly the population of Maharashtra declined to 5% of what it was. 

 

You need to fly back to India soon, that chart sounds interesting.  

Quote

Chup deplorable, you have no inner humanity  

I reject your accusations apologist!  

Quote

I agree with that. There is little chance we would have gotten the industrial technology in India at the same rate we did under the British if we were ruled by our native rulers. We were simply not at that point in technological development.

 

I know the Maratha's had "howitzer factories", but they didn't exactly have an assembly line. 

I am guessing that there would've been at least more wars for several decades had the British lost. After that who knows what would happen. 

 

The only option for that would've been to import it or invent it ourselves. I don't think India had much educational infrastructure at the time, so I am not sure how long it would take to develop it. Importing this tech would be possible at a cost, but the question is how would we import such large scale machinery from the West at the time. We would've needed an established trade route with either North America or Europe.

Quote

The British did ban the arms industry. A percentage of the Indian cottage industry was focused on the production of small arms/weapons, which were explicitly banned by the British, but what percentage that was, I am unsure. 

Aurangzeb banned that as well, so how much effect could the British ban really have compared to the Mughal one I wonder???

 

Quote

I agree with the sentiment, but I wonder how high could Real GDP growth have been. I feel like agriculture would be an easy realm to rapidly expand, but manufacturing and services would've been limited without enough capital, Prophet Nehru or no Prophet Nehru. 

Agriculture would be enough for high growth, even if there was a bottleneck of capital at industry sector. Even today most people in India work somewhere in agriculture. 

[Tibarn]

On 4/2/2019 at 7:00 PM, Muloghonto said:

I fail to see why throttling a huge chunk of human population would not be a valid criticism towards impediment of economic development and thus, poverty ?

It's valid only from an Indian perspective or a "humanitarian" perspective. Neither of those two are based in what could realistically be expected.   The British had no requirement to develop India beyond what was useful to them: if that was 0% or 100% "development", that was their prerogative.

 

Again, India was Britain's slave, what else does one expect except what is convenient for them(the British), not Indians.

 

Everyone is free to criticize them on whatever grounds, I am arguing it is nonsensical because it was/is unrealistic to expect anything else.

 

On 4/2/2019 at 7:00 PM, Muloghonto said:

True in absolut terms. But post 1870, economies that were industrializing improved by several folds in just a few decades. As such, wouldn't it be the economic equivalent of 'throwing crumbs to the dog' and pretending that you did feed the dog ? 

I am replacing dog with slave here:

Again, the point is that whatever they fed the Slave, whether crumbs, a gourmet dinner, poison, or nothing at all was their prerogative. No one was going to make them feed this slave, if they didn't want to. They could have eaten the slave for all anyone else cared or could do about it. Such is the life of a slave. 

 

They indeed chose to feed this slave some crumbs. 

If the Slave wanted to eat like a Free-man, in this example the US or UK, the onus was on the Slave to become one(a Free-man).  

 

They had no responsibility to develop India beyond what was convenient for them. 

 

On 4/2/2019 at 7:00 PM, Muloghonto said:

Well, i am not so sure, primarily due to geography. Indians had handlooms for millenias, its not like its all needlework only. The reason i am unsure, is because the cost of labor (in finishing the goods) would be way higher in Europe than in India - i am guessing, but i'd guess that the average loom-worker in Manchester circa 1820 made way more money than the average loom-worker in India

Numbers for 1750s: 

 

Once England took the technological leap, there was no possible advantage for India. 

Quote

Along with the fact that doing it the British way involved shipping the raw goods (cotton for eg) over 25,000 kms via sea to get processed, with the finished goods being shipped around again, rather than the goods being finished in India and shipped out in one shot. Given the distances/transportation costs involved, i am wondering if the Indian enterprises would've died a natural death anyways in textiles owing to European mills.

Britain and France imported their cotton through trade with the US, even when the US was a free country and Britain was in possession of India as a colony.

 

During the American Civil War, in the 1860s, the Confederate Government, the South, engaged in   an embargo on cotton exports to Britain/France to coerce them into helping them during the war.  

On 4/2/2019 at 7:00 PM, Muloghonto said:

Well, there were a few Islamic rulers of India who actively strived to improve Indian economy & industry (Sher Shah comes to mind most prominently), because their policy was ' i shall make the land i enslaved rich, so i can enrich myself more via my enslaved land'. Why would that not be a valid strategy for the British as well ? So long as they can militarily dominate Indian subcontinent, a richer India equals a richer Britain owing to the master-slave dynamics, no ?

Yes, but only when convenient for them. The British did invest and transfer technology into India in different fields, ie the famous railways, electricity, modern healthcare, etc. Those developments were still making India relatively more rich compared to the Mughal warlord economy, even if they were there to make looting easier. 

 

The examples Tharoor mentions in his book: textiles, ship-building, steel were mostly industries where Britain had a direct interest in keeping Indian production down. If they hadn't, it could have hurt industry in their home country. 

 

Other industries, for example automobile, had its origin during British rule. Tata Motors originates in 1945 and Hindustan Motors in 1942. These weren't a threat to British industry, so they didn't curtail it, even though they didn't actively promote it. If they did become a threat, then they would have been curtailed. 

 

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

I am not saying that diversity itself is a hindrance to economic growth, but it would be interesting if there was compiled data in regards to how diverse the current developed countries were when they adopted free market principles. There may be no correlation, or there may be some, but it would be interesting to study nevertheless. 

 

I'd imagine that diversity can be good or bad depending on who makes up the diversity of the country as well: religious diversity vs ethnic diversity vs racial diversity vs importing labor from different educational backgrounds. 

I basically provided the rundown above. It's not like most of the countries in the world are developed. 

 

The last sentence is the truth, IMO. Who/what is diversity made of? Depending on what it is, then it can be good or bad. Diversity isn't good in and of itself, and likely vice-versa. 

 

However, the real question is whether the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. 

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

That is pretty damning. Bengal was one of the wealthier territories of the Mughal empire, yet the common peasant lacked even cloth to cover themselves. 

Seriously, read this book of Tharoor's mentioned in this thread, particularly the economics section. One can easily get the gist of what he was trying to propagate. Mughals good, British bad.  Selectively quotes data to indulge in his hagiography. 

 

Quote

Samrat Ramdas supposedly noted that due to Mughal mismanagement of Maharashtra, one of the big results was the Deccan Famines and supposedly the population of Maharashtra declined to 5% of what it was. 

I saw that(or a similar stat) mentioned somewhere. I can't imagine Samrath Ramdas's writings would be digitized as of now. I wonder which library would have such writings. 

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

I am guessing that there would've been at least more wars for several decades had the British lost. After that who knows what would happen. 

 

The only option for that would've been to import it or invent it ourselves. I don't think India had much educational infrastructure at the time, so I am not sure how long it would take to develop it. Importing this tech would be possible at a cost, but the question is how would we import such large scale machinery from the West at the time. We would've needed an established trade route with either North America or Europe.

I honestly have no idea how technology transfer would've worked. The most practical way would've been for Indian engineers/scientists to have studied in Europe and learned the technology there and brought the idea itself here. We would have had to assemble the machinery here with our own materials however. 

 

I think there was a Indian woman from Tamil Nadu who studied medicine in the US sometime in the 1800s. She could have feasibly established a school based off of Allopathic medicine in India after her training was done, and the technology would've spread from there. 

 

I am guessing, the US would've been the country where we would've been able to send people to study such topics. I doubt after we would've threw out the Topikars if they would've let us into their countries to study science/engineering.  

 There is little chance way we were going to have an actual machine exported here. 

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

Aurangzeb banned that as well, so how much effect could the British ban really have compared to the Mughal one I wonder???

The Mughals banned anyone not aligned with them having weapons, but they weren't really able to enforce it. This is implied by the fact that the British had to enact the same policy, but, in the latter's case, they were actually able to enforce it. 

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

Agriculture would be enough for high growth, even if there was a bottleneck of capital at industry sector. Even today most people in India work somewhere in agriculture. 

Agriculture has its own capital bottleneck. There was a lack of irrigation or water stores in India, at least North India, as Angus Maddison notes. One would need capital to invest in such stuff as well.  

 

Capital would always have been the bottleneck for India at independence, but I agree that depending on where the capital was focused, higher growth would've been attained.  

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

I reject your accusations apologist!  

No need to be rude Bahman,  what about Dalits? Do they have the right to refuse accusations? Where is your inner humanity? How many Muslims have you forced to play Holi recently? Fanatic! I hope you don't murder me! 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Tibarn

[Ankit_sharma03]

Nope, we wud have created another one

[mishra]

Not sure about India but Kashmir has major impact on Pakistans GDP

 

GDP Pakistan:GDP$ 305 Billion (Nominal, Dec 2018)

GDP per capita $ 1179.40 (nominal, FY18 est.)

Expected to Grow: 3.9%

Debt to GDP Ratio: 73% To increase to 75% by 2020

 

GDP Bangaldesh: $286.275 billion (nominal, FY18 0

GDP per capita $1,736 (nominal, FY18 est.)

Expected to Grow: 7.9%

Debt to GDP Ratio: 27% (Bongs can reduce further but may choose to increase)

 

 

Thats with 50 million less(20%) population. So effectively Kashmir has Screwed Pakistan.

[vayuu1]

I dunno about Kashmir, but we would have been much better if their was no Congress in India and cpi in Bengal, starting with a tharki we call chacha.

[Tibarn]

I am disappointed, the "Secularism" would make India a first-world country type post didn't come until page 2   

[Moochad]

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

I basically provided the rundown above. It's not like most of the countries in the world are developed. 

 

The last sentence is the truth, IMO. Who/what is diversity made of? Depending on what it is, then it can be good or bad. Diversity isn't good in and of itself, and likely vice-versa. 

 

However, the real question is whether the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. 

At first glance 

Racial diversity and Religious diversity seem to cause issues

Linguistic diversity is a mixed bag

Opinion diversity is good and keeps people honest.

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

That is pretty damning. Bengal was one of the wealthier territories of the Mughal empire, yet the common peasant lacked even cloth to cover themselves. 

Seriously, read this book of Tharoor's mentioned in this thread, particularly the economics section. One can easily get the gist of what he was trying to propagate. Mughals good, British bad.  Selectively quotes data to indulge in his hagiography. 

Are there also historians who write more sympathetically on the Mughal era economy? 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Quote

Samrat Ramdas supposedly noted that due to Mughal mismanagement of Maharashtra, one of the big results was the Deccan Famines and supposedly the population of Maharashtra declined to 5% of what it was. 

I saw that(or a similar stat) mentioned somewhere. I can't imagine Samrath Ramdas's writings would be digitized as of now. I wonder which library would have such writings. 

Can't say for sure.

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

I am guessing that there would've been at least more wars for several decades had the British lost. After that who knows what would happen. 

 

The only option for that would've been to import it or invent it ourselves. I don't think India had much educational infrastructure at the time, so I am not sure how long it would take to develop it. Importing this tech would be possible at a cost, but the question is how would we import such large scale machinery from the West at the time. We would've needed an established trade route with either North America or Europe.

I honestly have no idea how technology transfer would've worked. The most practical way would've been for Indian engineers/scientists to have studied in Europe and learned the technology there and brought the idea itself here. We would have had to assemble the machinery here with our own materials however. 

 

I think there was a Indian woman from Tamil Nadu who studied medicine in the US sometime in the 1800s. She could have feasibly established a school based off of Allopathic medicine in India after her training was done, and the technology would've spread from there. 

 

I am guessing, the US would've been the country where we would've been able to send people to study such topics. I doubt after we would've threw out the Topikars if they would've let us into their countries to study science/engineering.  

 There is little chance way we were going to have an actual machine exported here. 

That seems the most plausible way. That is largely how we got the Green and White revolutions as well. 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

Aurangzeb banned that as well, so how much effect could the British ban really have compared to the Mughal one I wonder???

The Mughals banned anyone not aligned with them having weapons, but they weren't really able to enforce it. This is implied by the fact that the British had to enact the same policy, but, in the latter's case, they were actually able to enforce it. 

I suppose there would be a divide in controlled regions as well? The British controlled different regions than the Mughals, so both could've been effective in disarming the populace but in different areas.

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

Agriculture would be enough for high growth, even if there was a bottleneck of capital at industry sector. Even today most people in India work somewhere in agriculture. 

Agriculture has its own capital bottleneck. There was a lack of irrigation or water stores in India, at least North India, as Angus Maddison notes. One would need capital to invest in such stuff as well.  

 

Capital would always have been the bottleneck for India at independence, but I agree that depending on where the capital was focused, higher growth would've been attained.  

What was irrigation like in South India in comparison? 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

On 4/2/2019 at 8:14 PM, Moochad said:

I reject your accusations apologist!  

No need to be rude Bahman,  what about Dalits? Do they have the right to refuse accusations? Where is your inner humanity? How many Muslims have you forced to play Holi recently? Fanatic! I hope you don't murder me! 

JUSTICE! I am afraid this is nothing but apologia. I have a right to my opinion.

[mishra]

I see things in simple terms.

1. GDP growth pace should be higher

2. Population growth pace should be lower.

 

No government, including BJP has taken any serious measure on point 2 apart from relying on education and voluntary family planning. May be Chinese growth story have a lesson

 

 

[mishra]

59 minutes ago, ProudLiberal said:

Chinese growth model is incompatible with India, those constantly pointing towards the Chinese model will be the first ones to cry if it implemented in India because that model will take away a lot of the freedoms they currently enjoy

Governance/Ruling System is not same as Chinese economic model. Don’t mix the two