Chinadaily BBS - China & the World - What the British did to India

Guest: Login | Register | Search | FAQ

Chinadaily BBS » News Talk» China & the World» What the British did to India

Last Thread

Next Thread

northwest
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 88546
Digest Posts 1
Credits 5483
Posts 5096
Registered 2006-1-4
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Originally posted by seneca at 2007-12-3 11:23
Not me, emucentral, not me! I can find more entertaining stories in the Brothers Grimm story books or Andersen's fairy tales.

Thank you for that anecdote about horse-drawn carriages. I've l ...

Hmm, you're very excited in revealing the ugliness in Chinese history. You do this to remind you how superior you are?

I guess you're clever enough to know the value of yuan compared to dollar, that's why you're here finding job.

The feeling of gratitude is of higher value of human being. I expect you have it to the place that save you from being a loser out there.

2007-12-3 12:17 PM

#281

interesting (Steven Schreiber)
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 144857
Digest Posts 0
Credits 6530
Posts 6370
Registered 2007-9-9
Status Offline

Petera,

Actually the destruction of the Summer Palace was justified by the fact that the Emperor betrayed the emissaries on route to Beijing to discuss the terms of the treaty, he set up an ambush instead. When a counteroffensive was ordered, there were two choices for making the Emperor understand the gravity of the situation he put China in: they could burn the city to the ground or they could strike his own personal wealth. They chose the latter both because they did not desire to do such a thing as the former and because they suspected that the Emperor would be willing to watch Beijing burn so long as his own palaces were not singed. I suspect they were correct in that estimation.

2007-12-3 12:36 PM

#282

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

THE BRITISH METHODS IN WAR.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/lee ... trocities-india.htm

WE republish on this page, from the London Illustrated Times, an illustration which appeared in that journal in the year 1857, representing THE BLOWING OF SEPOY PRISONERS OF WAR FROM THE MOUTH OF CANNON. The circumstances of the case bear some analogy to those which are recurring at the present time in our Southern States. The natives of British India, whose grounds of discontent with their Government, unlike those of the Southern rebels, were substantial and grievous, rose in arms to strike for their freedom. The British Government, at first unsuccessful in its struggles with the rebellion, at length gathered up its energies and put them down. How it dealt with the prisoners of war taken in fight our illustration shows. The following extracts from British journals contain the narrative of a couple of executions :

A late mail from India brought accounts of two such executions. On 12th June, at Pashawar, forty men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to be blown from the guns. The execution was a dreadful sight. Three sides of a square were formed by British troops, and in the centre ten guns were planted, pointing outward. In dead silence the decree of the court was read, and this ceremony concluded, a prisoner was bound to each gun-his back placed against the muzzle, and his arms fastened firmly to the wheels. The signal is now given, and the salvo fired. The discharge, of course, cuts the body in two; and human trunks, heads, legs, and arms may be seen for an instant flying about in all directions. As there were only ten guns used on this occasion, the mutilated remains had to be removed four times. All of these forty criminals met their fate with firmness, with the exception of two; and to save (Next Page)

Image Attachment: british-atrocities-india.jpg (2007-12-3 04:12 PM, 302.92 K)

2007-12-3 04:12 PM

#283

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

(Previous Page) time, they were dropped to the ground, and their brains blown out by musketry.

Another execution of a similar nature took place on the 13th of June, at Ferozepore. All the available troops and public establishments were convened to witness the scene. Some of the mutineers were to be hung, and around the gallows, erected during the night previous, the soldiers were drawn up. The mutineers were then brought into the centre, and the proceedings of the general Court-Martial was read. Upon being informed that if they would become Queen's evidence they would be reprieved, twelve of the criminals accepted the offer and were marched to the rear. Two were taken to the gallows. They ascended the ladder with firm steps, and to the last moment betrayed no emotion of fear.

The remaining ten were now led away to the artillery guns, and while their irons were being struck off some cried, "Do not sacrifice the innocent for the guilty!" Two others rejoined, "Hold your sniveling: die men and not cowards—you defended your religion, why then do you crave your lives? Sahibs! they are not Sahibs, they are dogs!" Others then began to upbraid their commanding officer. The wretched beings were quickly fastened to the muzzles of ten guns, charged with blank cartridge. The commanding officer directed port-fires to be lit. "Ready!" "Fire!" and the drama was played out. An eye-witness says: "The scene and stench were overpowering. I felt myself terribly convulsed, and could observe that the numerous native spectators were awe-stricken—that they not only trembled like aspen-leaves, but also changed into unnatural hues. Precaution was not taken to remove the sponge-and-load men from the muzzles of the guns; the consequence was that they were greatly bespattered with blood, and one man in particular received a stunning blow from a shivered arm!"

Another witness, W. H. Russell, LL.D., then as now correspondent of the London Times, wrote as follows :

A French General, in a letter to Sir Colin, expressed his regret that certain violences attributed to some of our officers in cold blood—I presume alluding to Hobson shooting the Princes of Delhi, and things of that sort—but he should know that here there is no cold blood at the sight of a rebel . . . . . . When Neile marched from Allahabad his executions were so numerous and indiscriminate, that one of the officers attached to his column had to remonstrate with him, on the ground that if he depopulated the country he could get no supplies for the men.—Diary, vol. i. p. 222.

And again, the same witness said:

The officer in command (Renaud) was emulous of Neile, and thought he could show equal vigor. In two days forty-two men were hanged on the roadside ; and a batch of twelve men were executed because their faces were "turned the wrong way" when they were met on the march. These severities could not have been justified by the Cawnpore massacre, because they took place before that diabolical act. An officer remonstrated with Renaud, on the ground that if he persisted in this course he would empty the villages and render it impossible to supply the army with provisions.

In another instance Mr. Russell stated that a helpless boy, leading a blind man, sought the protection of an officer of Fusiliers, when the latter drew his revolver, snapped it at the wretched suppliant's head—but it missed fire—cocked and snapped it again and again, until the fourth time, when it went off, and the "boy's life-blood flowed at his feet!"

2007-12-3 04:14 PM

#284

northwest
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 88546
Digest Posts 1
Credits 5483
Posts 5096
Registered 2006-1-4
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Originally posted by interesting at 2007-12-3 12:36
Petera,

Actually the destruction of the Summer Palace was justified by the fact that the Emperor betrayed the emissaries on route to Beijing to discuss the terms of the treaty, he set up an ambu ...

Your statement approaching the level of insanity. Invaders justified to burn and loot!

Beware of the city guard schreiber, you nearly cross their line!

2007-12-3 04:15 PM

#285

tripitaka
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 145299
Digest Posts 0
Credits 214
Posts 214
Registered 2007-9-14
Location Beijing
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Thanks for that. I was wondering why they burnt it to the ground. China doesn’t give any information at the sight. It just says that the French and English forces united to burn it down. I tried to ask some Chinese why, but no one could ever tell me.

I find that is the case at most of the heritage sights. They never explain the reason for the damage. If the damage was done by a foreigner that is always mentioned, but not the explanation for why. When it was done by Chinese; however, some excuse is made up. For example, I went to Da Tong to see these Budhist sculptures. They were really great, but they had these huge holes drilled in them. The tour guide explained that the holes were drilled in the statues so that special chemicals could be added to strengthen the stone. I found this explanation a little difficult to believe considering there where a few small Budhas with heads less than 2 inches in diameter, and there is a one-inch drill hole straight into its face to “protect” it.

Asia definitely has a different approach to history to what you see in western countries. It seems that for a lot of westerners, they feel a lot of status, on an individual level, when they raise awareness of the bad things done in their country’s history. Asians, on the other hand, always want their history to be positive. I’ve sometimes wondered whether that stems from the difference in group-individual social dynamic.

2007-12-3 04:22 PM

#286

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Atrocities by British on India during the British rule

Aggregated from:
http://www.hindunet.com/forum/sh ... &o=&fpart=1

Pages from the History of the Indian subcontinent: British rule and the legacy of colonization

The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs

While few educated South Asians would deny that British Colonial rule was detrimental to the interests of the common people of the sub-continent - several harbor an illusion that the British weren't all bad.

Didn't they, perhaps, educate us - build us modern cities, build us irrigation canals - protect our ancient monuments - etc. etc. And then, there are some who might even say that their record was actually superior to that of independent India's! Perhaps, it is time that the colonial record be retrieved from the archives and re-examined - so that those of us who weren't alive during the freedom movement can learn to distinguish between the myths and the reality.

2007-12-3 04:24 PM

#287

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Literacy and Education

Several Indians are deeply concerned about why literacy rates in
India are still so low. So in the last year, I have been making a point
of asking English-speaking Indians to guess what India's
literacy rate in the colonial period might have been. These were
Indians who went to school in the sixties and seventies (only two
decades after independence) - and I was amazed to hear their fairly
confident guesses. Most guessed the number to be between 30% and 40%.
When I suggested that their guess was on the high side - they offered
25% to 35%. No one was prepared to believe that literacy in British
India in 1911 was only 6%, in 1931 it was 8%, and by 1947 it had
crawled to 11%! That fifty years of freedom had allowed the nation to
quintuple it's literacy rate was something that almost seemed
unfathomable to them. Perhaps - the British had concentrated on
higher education ....? But in 1935, only 4 in 10,000 were enrolled in
universities or higher educational institutes. In a nation of then over
350 million people only 16,000 books (no circulation figures) were
published in that year (i.e. 1 per 20,000).

2007-12-3 04:25 PM

#288

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Urban Development

It is undoubtedly true that the British built modern cities with
modern conveniences for their administrative officers. But it should be
noted that these were exclusive zones not intended for
the "natives" to enjoy. Consider that in 1911, 69 per cent of
Bombay's population lived in one-room tenements (as against 6 per cent
in London in the same year). The 1931 census revealed that the figure
had increased to 74 per cent - with one-third living more than 5 to a
room. The same was true of Karachi and Ahmedabad. After the Second
World War, 13 per cent of Bombay's population slept on the streets. As
for sanitation, 10-15 tenements typically shared one
water tap!

Yet, in 1757 (the year of the Plassey defeat), Clive of the East
India Company had observed of Murshidabad in Bengal: "This city is as
extensive, populous and rich as the city of London..." (so quoted in
the Indian Industrial Commission Report of 1916-18). Dacca was even
more famous as a manufacturing town, it's muslin a source of many
legends and it's weavers had an international reputation that was
unmatched in the medieval world. But in 1840 it was reported by Sir
Charles Trevelyan to a parliamentary enquiry that Dacca's population
had fallen from 150,000 to 20,000. Montgomery Martin - an early
historian of the British Empire observed that Surat and Murshidabad had
suffered a similiar fate. (This phenomenon was to be replicated all
over India - particularly in Awadh (modern U.P) and other areas that
had offered the most heroic resistance to the British during the revolt
of 1857.)

The percentage of population dependant on agriculture and pastoral
pursuits actually rose to 73% in 1921 from 61% in 1891. (Reliable
figures for earlier periods are not available.)

In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in "Public Works in India"
noted: "Public works have been almost entirely neglected throughout
India... The motto hitherto has been: 'Do nothing, have nothing done,
let nobody do anything....." Adding that the Company was unconcerned if
people died of famine, or if they lacked roads and water.

Nothing can be more revealing than the remark by John Bright in the
House of Commons on June 24, 1858, "The single city of Manchester, in
the supply of its inhabitants with the single article of water, has
spent a larger sum of money than the East India Company has spent in
the fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 in public works of every kind
throughout the whole of its vast dominions."

2007-12-3 04:25 PM

#289

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Irrigation and Agricultural Development

There is another popular belief about British rule: 'The British
modernized Indian agriculture by building canals'. But the actual
record reveals a somewhat different story. " The roads and tanks and
canals," noted an observer in 1838 (G. Thompson, "India and the
Colonies," 1838), ''which Hindu or Mussulman Governments constructed
for the service of the nations and the good of the country have been
suffered to fall into dilapidation; and now the want of the means of
irrigation causes famines." Montgomery Martin, in his standard
work "The Indian Empire", in 1858, noted that the old East India
Company "omitted not only to initiate improvements, but even to keep in
repair the old works upon which the revenue depended."

The Report of the Bengal Irrigation Department Committee in 1930
reads: "In every district the Khals (canals) which carry the internal
boat traffic become from time to time blocked up with silt. Its Khals
and rivers are the roads end highways of Eastern Bengal, and it is
impossible to overestimate the importance to the economic life of this
part of the province of maintaining these in proper navigable order
....... " "As regards the revival or maintenance of minor
routes, ... practically nothing has been done, with the result that, in
some parts of the Province at least, channels have been silted up,
navigation has become limited to a few months in the year, and crops
can only be marketed when the Khals rise high enough in the monsoon to
make transport possible".

Sir William Willcock, a distinguished hydraulic engineer, whose name
was associated with irrigation enterprises in Egypt and Mesopotamia had
made an investigation of conditions in Bengal. He had discovered that
innumerable small destructive rivers of the delta region,
constantly changing their course, were originally canals which under
the English regime were allowed to escape from their channels and run
wild. Formerly these canals distributed the flood waters of the
Ganges and provided for proper drainage of the land, undoubtedly
accounting for that prosperity of Bengal which lured the rapacious East
India merchants there in the early days of the eighteenth
century.. He wrote" Not only was nothing done to utilize and improve
the original canal system, but railway embankments were subsequently
thrown up, entirely destroying it. Some areas, cut off from the
supply of loam-bearing Ganges water, have gradually become sterile and
unproductive, others improperly drained, show an advanced degree of
water-logging, with the inevitable accompaniment of malaria. Nor has
any attempt been made to construct proper embankments for the Gauges in
its low course, to prevent the enormous erosion by which villages and
groves and cultivated fields are swallowed up each
year."

"Sir William Willcock severely criticizes the modern administrators and
officials, who, with every opportunity to call in expert
technical assistance, have hitherto done nothing to remedy this
disastrous situation, from decade to decade." Thus wrote G. Emerson in
"Voiceless Millions," in 1931 quoting the views of Sir William Willcock
in his "Lectures on the Ancient System of Irrigation in
Bengal and its Application to Modern Problems" (Calcutta University
Readership Lectures, University of Calcutta, 1930)

2007-12-3 04:26 PM

#290

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Modern Medicine and Life Expectancy

Even some serious critics of colonial rule grudgingly grant that the
British brought modern medicine to India. Yet - all the statistical
indicators show that access to modern medicine was severely
restricted. A 1938 report by the ILO (International Labor Office) on
"Industrial Labor in India" revealed that life expectancy in India was
barely 25 years in 1921 (compared to 55 for England) and had
actually fallen to 23 in 1931! In his recently published "Late
Victorian Holocausts" Mike Davis reports that life expectancy fell by
20% between 1872 and 1921.

In 1934, there was one hospital bed for 3800 people in British India
and this figure included hospital beds reserved for the British
rulers. (In that same year, in the Soviet Union, there were ten times
as many.) Infant mortality in Bombay was 255 per thousand in 1928. (In
the same year, it was less than half that in Moscow.)

2007-12-3 04:26 PM

#291

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Poverty and Population Growth

Several Indians when confronted with such data from the colonial
period argue that the British should not be specially targeted
because India's problems of poverty pre-date colonial rule, and in any
case, were exacerbated by rapid population growth. Of course, no one
who makes the first point is able to offer any substantive proof that
such conditions prevailed long before the British arrived, and to
counter such an argument would be difficult in the absence of
reliable and comparable statistical data from earlier centuries. But
some readers may find the anecdotal evidence intriguing. In any case,
the population growth data is available and is quite remarkable in what
it reveals.

Between 1870 and 1910, India's population grew at an average rate of
19%. England and Wales' population grew three times as fast - by 58%!
Average population growth in Europe was 45%. Between 1921-40, the
population in India grew faster at 21% but was still less than the 24%
growth of population in the US!

In 1941, the density of population in India was roughly 250 per
square mile almost a third of England's 700 per square mile. Although
Bengal was much more densely inhabited at almost 780 per square mile -
that was only about 10% more than England. Yet, there was much more
poverty in British India than in England and an unprecedented number of
famines were recorded during the period of British rule.

In the first half of the 19th century, there were seven famines
leading to a million and a half deaths. In the second half, there were
24 famines (18 between 1876 and 1900) causing over 20 million deaths
(as per official records). W. Digby, noted in "Prosperous
British India" in 1901 that "stated roughly, famines and scarcities
have been four times as numerous, during the last thirty years of the
19th century as they were one hundred years ago, and four times as
widespread." In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that
here were 31(thirty one) serious famines in 120 years of British rule
compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule.

Not surprising, since the export of food grains had increased by a
factor of four just prior to that period. And export of other
agricultural raw materials had also increased in similar proportions.
Land that once produced grain for local consumption was now taken over
by by former slave-owners from N. America who were permitted to set up
plantations for the cultivation of lucrative cash crops
exclusively for export. Particularly galling is how the British
colonial rulers continued to export foodgrains from India to Britain
even during famine years.

Annual British Government reports repeatedly published data that
showed 70-80% of Indians were living on the margin of subsistence. That
two-thirds were undernourished, and in Bengal, nearly four-
fifths were undernourished.

Contrast this data with the following accounts of Indian life prior to
colonization:-

" ....even in the smallest villages rice, flour, butter, milk, beans
and other vegetables, sugar and sweetmeats can be procured in
abundance .... Tavernier writing in the 17th century in his "Travels in
India".

Manouchi - the Venetian who became chief physician to Aurangzeb (also
in the 17th century) wrote: "Bengal is of all the kingdoms of the
Moghul, best known in France..... We may venture to say it is not
inferior in anything to Egypt - and that it even exceeds that kingdom
in its products of silks, cottons, sugar, and indigo. All things are in
great plenty here, fruits, pulse, grain, muslins, cloths of gold and
silk..."

The French traveller, Bernier also described 17th century Bengal in a
similiar vein: "The knowledge I have acquired of Bengal in two visits
inclines me to believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports in
abundance cottons and silks, rice, sugar and butter. It produces
amply for it's own consumption of wheat, vegetables, grains, fowls,
ducks and geese. It has immense herds of pigs and flocks of sheep and
goats. Fish of every kind it has in profusion. From Rajmahal to the sea
is an endless number of canals, cut in bygone ages from the
Ganges by immense labour for navigation and irrigation."

The poverty of British India stood in stark contrast to these eye
witness reports and has to be ascribed to the pitiful wages that
working people in India received in that period. A 1927-28 report noted
that "all but the most highly skilled workmen in India receive wages
which are barely sufficient to feed and clothe them. Everywhere will be
seen overcrowding, dirt and squalid misery..."

This in spite of the fact that in 1922 - an 11 hour day was the norm
(as opposed to an 8 hour day in the Soviet Union.) In 1934, it had been
reduced to 10 hours (whereas in the Soviet Union, the 7 hour day had
been legislated as early as in 1927) What was worse, there were no
enforced restrictions on the use of child labour and the Whitley Report
found children as young as five - working a 12 hour day.

2007-12-3 04:27 PM

#292

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Ancient Monuments

Perhaps the least known aspect of the colonial legacy is the early
British attitude towards India's historic monuments and the extend of
vandalism that took place. Instead, there is this pervasive myth of the
Britisher as an unbiased "protector of the nation's historic
legacy".

R.Nath in his 'History of Decorative Art in Mughal Architecture'
records that scores of gardens, tombs and palaces that once adorned the
suburbs of Sikandra at Agra were sold out or auctioned. "Relics of the
glorious age of the Mughals were either destroyed or converted beyond
recognition..". "Out of 270 beautiful monuments which existed at Agra
alone, before its capture by Lake in 1803, hardly 40 have survived".

In the same vein, David Carroll (in 'Taj Mahal') observes: " The
forts in Agra and Delhi were commandeered at the beginning of the
nineteenth century and turned into military garrisons. Marble reliefs
were torn down, gardens were trampled, and lines of ugly barracks,
still standing today, were installed in their stead. In the Delhi fort,
the Hall of Public Audience was made into an arsenal and the arches of
the outer colonnades were bricked over or replaced with rectangular
wooden windows."

The Mughal fort at Allahabad (one of Akbar's favorite) experienced a
fate far worse. Virtually nothing of architectural significance is to
be seen in the barracks that now make up the fort. The Deccan fort at
Ahmednagar was also converted into barracks. Now, only its outer
walls can hint at its former magnificence.

Shockingly, even the Taj Mahal was not spared. David Carroll
reports: "..By the nineteenth century, its grounds were a favorite
trysting place for young Englishmen and their ladies. Open-air balls
were held on the marble terrace in front of the main door, and there,
beneath Shah Jahan"s lotus dome, brass bands um-pah-pahed and lords and
ladies danced the quadrille. The minarets became a popular site for
suicide leaps, and the mosques on either side of the Taj were rented
out as bungalows to honeymooners. The gardens of the Taj were
especially popular for open-air frolics....."

"At an earlier date, when picnic parties were held in the garden of the
Taj, related Lord Curzon, a governor general in the early
twentieth century, "it was not an uncommon thing for the revellers to
arm themselves with hammer and chisel, with which they wiled away the
afternoon by chipping out fragments of agate and carnelian from the
cenotaphs of the Emperor and his lamented Queen." The Taj became a
place where one could drink in private, and its parks were often
strewn with the figures of inebriated British soldiers..."

Lord William Bentinck, (governor general of Bengal 1828-33, and later
first governor general of all India), went so far as to announce
plans to demolish the best Mogul monuments in Agra and Delhi and
remove their marble facades. These were to be shipped to London,
where they would be broken up and sold to members of the British
aristocracy. Several of Shahjahan's pavilions in the Red Fort at
Delhi were indeed stripped to the brick, and the marble was shipped off
to England (part of this shipment included pieces for King George IV
himself). Plans to dismantle the Taj Mahal were in place, and
wrecking machinery was moved into the garden grounds. Just as the
demolition work was to begin, news from London indicated that the first
auction had not been a success, and that all further sales were
cancelled -- it would not be worth the money to tear down the Taj
Mahal.

Thus the Taj Mahal was spared, and so too, was the reputation of the
British as "Protectors of India's Historic Legacy" ! That innumerable
other monuments were destroyed, or left to rack and ruin is a story
that has yet to get beyond the specialists in the field.

2007-12-3 04:27 PM

#293

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

India and the Industrial Revolution

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....."

2007-12-3 04:27 PM

#294

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Unfair Trade

Few would doubt that Indo-British trade may have been unfair - but it
may be noteworthy to see how unfair. In the early 1800s imports of
Indian cotton and silk goods faced duties of 70-80%. British imports
faced duties of 2-4%! As a result, British imports of cotton
manufactures into India increased by a factor of 50, and Indian
exports dropped to one-fourth! A similiar trend was noted in silk
goods, woollens, iron, pottery, glassware and paper. As a result,
millions of ruined artisans and craftsmen, spinners, weavers,
potters, smelters and smiths were rendered jobless and had to become
landless agricultural workers.

2007-12-3 04:28 PM

#295

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

Colonial Beneficiaries

Another aspect of colonial rule that has remained hidden from popular
perception is that Britain was not the only beneficiary of colonial
rule. British trade regulations even as they discriminated against
Indian business interests created a favorable trading environment for
other imperial powers. By 1939, only 25% of Indian imports came from
Britain. 25% came from Japan, the US and Germany. In 1942-3, Canada and
Australia contributed another 8%. In the period immediately
before independence, Britain ruled as much on behalf of it's imperial
allies as it did in it's own interest. The process of "globalization"
was already taking shape. But none of this growth trickled down to
India. In the last half of 19th century, India's income fell by 50%. In
the 190 years prior to independence, the Indian economy was
literally stagnant - it experienced zero growth. (Mike Davis: Late
Victorian Holocausts)

Those who wish India well might do well to re-read this history so the
nation isn't brought to the abyss once again, (and so soon after being
liberated from the yoke of colonial rule). While some Indians may wax
nostalgic for the return of their former overlords, and some may be
ambivalent about colonial rule, most of us relish our freedom and wish
to perfect it - not gift it away again.

References: Statistics and data for the colonial period taken from
Rajni-Palme Dutt's India Today (Indian Edition published in 1947); also
see N.K. Sinha's Economic History of Bengal (Published in
Calcutta, 1956); and "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis

Bibliography: (For further research into this area)

M. M. Ahluwalia, Freedom Struggle in India,
Shah, Khambata: The Wealth and Taxable Capacity of India
G. Emerson, Voiceless India
W. Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern
Times
Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilization and Decline
J. R. Seeley, Expansion of England
H. H. Wilson, History of British India
D. H Buchanan, Development of Capitalist Enterprise in India
L. C. A Knowles: Economic Development of the Overseas Empire
L. H. Jenks: The Migration of British Capital

2007-12-3 04:28 PM

#296

soapdodger
Junior Member
Rank: 3

UID 141911
Digest Posts 0
Credits 1562
Posts 1475
Registered 2007-8-6
Status Offline

Wow

QUOTE:

Originally posted by northwest at 2007-12-3 12:17

Hmm, you're very excited in revealing the ugliness in Chinese history. You do this to remind you how superior you are?

The most hypocrtical comment I have EVER read on the CD board.

This from a man, whenever someone mentions the word China and a topic, immediately hits google to drag up anything unsavoury from the history or current events, most likely completely unrelated, of (choose one of the following) America, UK, Australia and starts comparing on the topic about how all white westerners are/were evil b@stards.

ROTFLMAO

2007-12-3 06:58 PM

#297

zglobal
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 126428
Digest Posts 0
Credits 10698
Posts 10329
Registered 2007-2-8
Status Offline

Perhaps Northwest gets tired of the repeated attacks on China by a select few on CD.

I've never found Northwest anything but reasonable when he's dealing with reasonable people.

2007-12-3 07:15 PM

#298

tongluren (tongluren)
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 24306
Digest Posts 0
Credits 4948
Posts 4703
Registered 2004-3-10
Status Offline

How Do We Know Whether It is Good or Bad Without Comparison?

BTW, obviously not ALL white westerners are/were evil b@stards.  But the ones that are/were did leave some rather huge scars on humanity.

I think it was a Pope that started the Crusades, to take care of the problem of too many knights fighting each other in Europe, causing instability.  So he trumped up the untrue story of Islam doing dastardly things in the holy city of Jerusalem (which has been under Islamic rule for several hundred years at that point).  So the knights marched off to war, and along the way massacred multiple cities along the way (like Antioch) BEFORE they ever got to Jerusalem.  The white westerner warriors then proceeded to butcher everyone in sight (much like they do today in Iraq), AND they drove all the Jews into the Jewish temple and set it on fire.  That was the first Crusade, and white westerners have never looked back.  Nothing has changed in the hundreds of years hence.

Suds, it appears that the "reputation" of  "white westerners" is well deserved.

2007-12-3 07:27 PM

#299

northwest
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 88546
Digest Posts 1
Credits 5483
Posts 5096
Registered 2006-1-4
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Originally posted by soapdodger at 2007-12-3 18:58
The most hypocrtical comment I have EVER read on the CD board.

This from a man, whenever someone mentions the word China and a topic, immediately hits google to drag up anything unsavoury fr ...

Your inferiority complex made you a laughing stock here.

Point one of my post whether I brand westerners as b@tards, provide facts to support your claims. Not prejudiced opinion.

Remember Zglobal also a westerner here, but he's willing to share his future in China, largely different from you.

2007-12-3 10:41 PM

#300

Printable Version | Email to Friend | Subscription | Favorites


Forum Rules	Feedback	Privacy