vvvslaxman Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raiders Very lengthy read. I differ with author towards the end. But first few parts are really informative and educative. Very thought provoking. Definitely a must read. Also the comments section one can see very healthy debate between Indians and English.
amiret Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Good read .The painting Dalrymple is describing depicts the events after the Battler of Buxar when the Mughal Emperor handed over the Diwani (taxation) rights to Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. I believe UP was also lost. How 40,000 lost to 7000 odd mercenaries (850 brits) is difficult to understand. Only 4 years earlier the Raiders from Afghanistan led by Ahmed Shah Abdali had decisively defeated the Marathas at Panipat. " We still talk about the British conquering India, but that phrase disguises a more sinister reality. It was not the British government that seized India at the end of the 18th century, but a dangerously unregulated private company headquartered in one small office, five windows wide, in London, and managed in India by an unstable sociopath – Clive."
amiret Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 What Dalrymple does Not reveal about a major EIC battle in mid 18th Century India is equally interesting. But you will have to read between the lines to uncover that mystery. :winky: From the article : " Estimated to have cost $4.9bn – perhaps the second most expensive ballot in democratic history after the US presidential election in 2012 – it brought Narendra Modi to power on a tidal wave of corporate donations. Exact figures are hard to come by, but Modi’s Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), is estimated to have spent at least $1bn on print and broadcast advertising alone. Of these donations, around 90% comes from unlisted corporate sources, given in return for who knows what undeclared promises of access and favours. The sheer strength of Modi’s new government means that those corporate backers may not be able to extract all they had hoped for, but there will certainly be rewards for the money donated."
vvvslaxman Posted March 8, 2015 Author Posted March 8, 2015 I didn't miss that..In such a length article like this it is very difficult to agree with each and every opinion of the author. That is the part i was talking about. He was equating EIC to walmart. In modern world such kind of take over is stretching a bit. Also check out the comments. One guy said how UK gave everything to India.. look at the responses. Sugandha Srivastav caravanserai 3d ago Your argument implicitly assumes that without British presence India would've remained a feudal society and never modernised. If you read about India's history, the Indus Valley civilisation and its universities, perhaps you might realise that India is not dependent on 'foreign intervention' for modernisation. In fact, the assumption that the British helped modernise societies comes from a rhetoric that was used to justify colonialism. It's another form of saying 'we civilised those barbarians'. Report FinbarBarrington Sugandha Srivastav 3d ago Without our efforts you would be Pakistan, and you soon will be. Have you seen what a shot hole that place is? Your nearly as bad. Sati, female infanticide, child rape...how civilised you were ? GSGoraya caravanserai 3d ago You assume that when the British arrived in India they had all the things that you mention ready, well developed and geared to pass on. The British arrived in India in the 1600's, well before the English Civil War. And it is debatable whether Britain would have been able to develop as even a European power without the wealth from the Indies. And, assuming your argument about India being a feudal society is correct - which it is not - what was Britain at the time? The British did not introduce capitalism in India, they introduced mercantilism. Which is the opposite of capitalism, if you know your Adam Smith. If anything, they subverted local trade networks and industry. Till the mid-nineteenth century Indian textiles dominated the markets even in Britain. After the conquest of Bengal, farmers were forced to switch from cotton to other cash crops, such as opium and later tea. This ruined India's textile production, and filled up the coffers in Manchester and Birmingham, as also the pockets of the EIC, ruining China in the process. Then, education in English was only necessary because of the presence of English government in the first place. So your argument is a circular one. Besides, if you know anything about Mughal history and Indo-Persian high culture, education in English was hardly a step towards sophistication. Calcutta and Bombay were built in order to facilitate English trade, and later English power. In that, they were direct competitors, first to already well established Indian ports, and to Indian trade in general. Besides, it is arguable whether Calcutta or Bombay actually did any benefit to India at all, being as they were cesspools of poverty, segregation and corruption. British rule in India had its good things and it's bad. In sum, however, India would have been better off without colonialism. Why? Because before British rule, India was the richest region in the world, along with China. After, it was the poorest, along with, maybe even worse than, Africa. After Independence, we are progressively getting better. If you only treat the precolonial, the colonial and the post colonial as a change in government, it's quite obvious then, isn't it?
Recommended Posts