Spinning a wheel while the rest of the nations...

[nballa]

were in the midst or heading into an industrial revolution? did Gandhi set us back 50 yrs? discuss.

[achilles]

No.

[Nova]

The Industrial Revolution of Britain was partly successful because of the raw materials and goods the East India Company took from colonial India. Our leaders and the people in general started to become intolerant of this injustice, where the economy of British was being surplussed in the expense of what was happening in India. Our leaders wanted to stop this maltreatment and be self sufficient. Hence, the spinning wheel which was not only used to make your own cloth (Khadi) but also was a symbol against British occupancy. This was essential for the independence movement. What set us back was Nehru's and Indira Gandhi's socialist policies. The development you are seeing right now in India is primarily because of the socio-economic reforms of Dr. Manmohan Singh started in 1992. The Spinning Wheel was as integral part of the freedom movement. Mahatma Gandhi did not set us back... it was the British policies of divide and rule. This is an interesting read:

Perhaps the most important aspect of colonial rule was the transfer of wealth from India to Britain. In his pioneering book, India Today, Rajni Palme Dutt conclusively demonstrates how vital this was to the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Several patents that had remained unfunded suddenly found industrial sponsors once the taxes from India started rolling in. Without capital from India, British banks would have found it impossible to fund the modernization of Britain that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries. In addition, the scientific basis of the industrial revolution was not a uniquely European contribution. Several civilizations had been adding to the world's scientific database - especially the civilizations of Asia, (including those of the Indian sub-continent). Without that aggregate of scientific knowledge the scientists of Britain and Europe would have found it impossible to make the rapid strides they made during the period of the Industrial revolution. Moreover, several of these patents, particularly those concerned with the textile industry relied on pre-industrial techniques perfected in the sub-continent. (In fact, many of the earliest textile machines in Britain were unable to match the complexity and finesse of the spinning and weaving machines of Dacca.) Some euro-centric authors have attempted to deny any such linkage. They have tried to assert that not only was the Industrial Revolution a uniquely British/European event - that colonization and the the phenomenal transfer of wealth that took place was merely incidental to it's fruition. But the words of Lord Curzon still ring loud and clear. The Viceroy of British India in 1894 was quite unequivocal, "India is the pivot of our Empire .... If the Empire loses any other part of its Dominion we can survive, but if we lose India the sun of our Empire will have set." Lord Curzon knew fully well, the value and importance of the Indian colony. It was the transfer of wealth through unprecedented levels of taxation on Indians of virtually all classes that funded the great "Industrial Revolution" and laid the ground for "modernization" in Britain. As early as 1812, an East India Company Report had stated "The importance of that immense empire to this country is rather to be estimated by the great annual addition it makes to the wealth and capital of the Kingdom....." http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html

[Clarke]

Gandhi was a socialist, not an economist. You could blame the license raj instead.