British authority in India was shaped around a hierarchy which was ultimately designed to enhance the security and prosperity of Britain, defined along racial lines, and guaranteed by force of arms. Whatever adjustments to history had been made along the path of its 200 year history, and whatever the complexities of the human relationships which existed within that framework, this hierarchy could not possibly survive the global conditions which prevailed in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Had it seriously attempted to, it's fair to speculate that issues such as healthcare and women's rights would not have been foremost in the thoughts of those British authorities left clinging on to power in the face of what would have been an inevitably bloody conflict across the subcontinent. And certainly no more so than the actually representative Indian governments which followed 1947.
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
British authority in India was shaped around a hierarchy which was ultimately designed to enhance the security and prosperity of Britain, defined along racial lines, and guaranteed by force of arms. Whatever adjustments to history had been made along the path of its 200 year history, and whatever the complexities of the human relationships which existed within that framework, this hierarchy could not possibly survive the global conditions which prevailed in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Had it seriously attempted to, it's fair to speculate that issues such as healthcare and women's rights would not have been foremost in the thoughts of those British authorities left clinging on to power in the face of what would have been an inevitably bloody conflict across the subcontinent. And certainly no more so than the actually representative Indian governments which followed 1947.
The state of this thread
Honestly, I really think it's just troll bait now.
You should really read some books about all the wealth Britain looted from India. If Britain had stayed what on earth makes you think it wouldn't have carried on exploiting Indian resources for Britain's gain?
Just a small example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/20/britain-took-more-out-of-india
A closer parallel is Bengal, the Indian province whose economy was destroyed by the technological strength of northern Britain in what the writer Jeremy Seabrook has called "the first great de-industrialisation of the modern world".
For at least two centuries the handloom weavers of Bengal produced some of the world's most desirable fabrics, especially the fine muslins, light as "woven air", that were in such demand for dressmaking and so cheap that Britain's own cloth manufacturers conspired to cut off the fingers of Bengali weavers and break their looms. Their import was ended, however, by the imposition of duties and a flood of cheap fabric – cheaper even than poorly paid Bengali artisans could provide – from the new steam mills of northern England and lowland Scotland that conquered the Indian as well the British market. India still grew cotton, but Bengal no longer spun or wove much of it. Weavers became beggars, while the population of Dhaka, which was once the great centre of muslin production, fell from several hundred thousand in 1760 to about 50,000 by the 1820s.
Tigers and leopards roamed the streets. Seabrook gives a memorable picture of dereliction: "The city of men had become a city of animals. Weavers' dwellings were overgrown, the thatch alive with birds, snakes and insects, while roussettes – bats small and multi-coloured as butterflies – flew in and out of earth-mounds that had been homes; hunched vultures surveyed tracts of land in which the human voice was stilled. People lost the skill of their fingers, and only the roughest-made country cloth still found a market among the poorest."
Subsequently, India became the exporter of raw materials and foodstuffs – raw cotton and jute, coal, opium, rice, spice and tea – rather than manufactured goods. British shareholders could also make money by investing in Indian infrastructure, principally the railways, where the Indian government attracted funds by guaranteeing returns on capital of 5% net per year. If the railway company couldn't achieve that return on its own, then the government made up the shortfall from its revenues, which came from Indian and not British taxes. In the event, it was 20 years before the first lines earned more than 5% of their capital outlay, but that did nothing to inhibit their extravagant spending: a mile of Indian railway cost double the same distance in the equally difficult terrain of Canada and Australia.
It was a splendid racket for everyone, apart from the Indian taxpayer. In terms of a secure return, Indian railway shares offered twice as much as the British government's own stock. Guaranteed railway shares absorbed up to a fifth of British portfolio investment in the 20 years to 1870 – the first line opened in 1853 – but only 1% of it originated in India. Most of the rest came from small shareholders with addresses in southern England: from bankers, barristers, spinsters, retired army officers and people known simply as "gentlemen".
Their holdings averaged only £1,500, but the total invested meant that India's railways represented one of the 19th century's largest flows of money between continents. India got an expansive railway system far in advance of any other Asian nation, but Britain retained its grip on the technology as the supplier of all its equipment, which meant once again that the profits were repatriated. The English economist William Thomas Thornton, who was secretary of public works at the India Office, described the guaranteed scheme in a phrase that became well known. It was, he said, "private enterprise at public risk". When arguments began to be made for Indian independence, it was also evidence for the idea that Britain took more out of its most magnificent colony than it put in.
For at least two centuries the handloom weavers of Bengal produced some of the world's most desirable fabrics, especially the fine muslins, light as "woven air", that were in such demand for dressmaking and so cheap that Britain's own cloth manufacturers conspired to cut off the fingers of Bengali weavers and break their looms. Their import was ended, however, by the imposition of duties and a flood of cheap fabric – cheaper even than poorly paid Bengali artisans could provide – from the new steam mills of northern England and lowland Scotland that conquered the Indian as well the British market. India still grew cotton, but Bengal no longer spun or wove much of it. Weavers became beggars, while the population of Dhaka, which was once the great centre of muslin production, fell from several hundred thousand in 1760 to about 50,000 by the 1820s.
Tigers and leopards roamed the streets. Seabrook gives a memorable picture of dereliction: "The city of men had become a city of animals. Weavers' dwellings were overgrown, the thatch alive with birds, snakes and insects, while roussettes – bats small and multi-coloured as butterflies – flew in and out of earth-mounds that had been homes; hunched vultures surveyed tracts of land in which the human voice was stilled. People lost the skill of their fingers, and only the roughest-made country cloth still found a market among the poorest."
Subsequently, India became the exporter of raw materials and foodstuffs – raw cotton and jute, coal, opium, rice, spice and tea – rather than manufactured goods. British shareholders could also make money by investing in Indian infrastructure, principally the railways, where the Indian government attracted funds by guaranteeing returns on capital of 5% net per year. If the railway company couldn't achieve that return on its own, then the government made up the shortfall from its revenues, which came from Indian and not British taxes. In the event, it was 20 years before the first lines earned more than 5% of their capital outlay, but that did nothing to inhibit their extravagant spending: a mile of Indian railway cost double the same distance in the equally difficult terrain of Canada and Australia.
It was a splendid racket for everyone, apart from the Indian taxpayer. In terms of a secure return, Indian railway shares offered twice as much as the British government's own stock. Guaranteed railway shares absorbed up to a fifth of British portfolio investment in the 20 years to 1870 – the first line opened in 1853 – but only 1% of it originated in India. Most of the rest came from small shareholders with addresses in southern England: from bankers, barristers, spinsters, retired army officers and people known simply as "gentlemen".
Their holdings averaged only £1,500, but the total invested meant that India's railways represented one of the 19th century's largest flows of money between continents. India got an expansive railway system far in advance of any other Asian nation, but Britain retained its grip on the technology as the supplier of all its equipment, which meant once again that the profits were repatriated. The English economist William Thomas Thornton, who was secretary of public works at the India Office, described the guaranteed scheme in a phrase that became well known. It was, he said, "private enterprise at public risk". When arguments began to be made for Indian independence, it was also evidence for the idea that Britain took more out of its most magnificent colony than it put in.
I read somewhere that the Indian economy as a share of the world's GDP collapsed from 24% before the British came, to 4% when they left.
WE GAINED SO MUCH
WE GAINED SO MUCH
Well it was a generally honest but perhaps naive question
It was actually prompted by a poster who claimed to be Indian mentioning how harshly the british are viewed in general and almost all the good we (eventually) did now is lost in the wash so to speak.Seeing as though the Indian famine is the biggest point people refer to in their disgust of Churchill I thought it was a naturally progressive question to the topic.
In answer to your post, I don't think it would have remained that way, we became morally inclined at a certain point and I assume that was partly what made the British inclined to hand back.
I still think it's a relative question, shoot me.
Put me on block brother, it will break my heart but I will live.
please can we just lock this thread
You have literally just paraphrased the white supremacist classic "They would all still be in mud huts if it wasn't for us". Get that hamster wheel running a bit quicker in that spot between your ears.
The Indian education system mainly highlights the wrongs that the British Raj did to India. But as an unbiased student of history, I would say that yes the British rule did inadvertently do good for India as well in many aspects. But it's absolutely incorrect to say a lot of Indians wanted the British to stick around. A minority did, but most of the Indians were done with British exploitation by that point.
My Dad told me that a cabdriver in a country that was a former british colony told him, that he wished the British would come back. True story. Don't remember which country, would have to ask him again about that. Obviously that random cabdrivers view probably represents the majority of the population.
Last edited:
Ash Sarker expresses views on the narrow portrayal on Churchill very succinctly: from 3m 25sec
This pretty much sums it up with the statues. Churchill is and always will be remembered in the UK for WW2, and that's what the statues represent and mean to people. Other countries might remember him for other things but his statue is not in those countries.
There are statues in other countries that would not be welcomed in the UK - Napoleon for example, but hes a national hero in France.
That's a very idealistic view. Have you heard of operation legacy?Well it was a generally honest but perhaps naive question
Seeing as though the Indian famine is the biggest point people refer to in their disgust of Churchill I thought it was a naturally progressive question to the topic.
In answer to your post, I don't think it would have remained that way, we became morally inclined at a certain point and I assume that was partly what made the British inclined to hand back.
I still think it's a relative question, shoot me.
Why would the government of the time have gone to such lengths to destroy evidence of their wrongdoings, if they'd become morally inclined?
As a socialist I think it's only fair that we collectively suffer this awful thread.We can lock you out of it if you like.
We can lock you out of it if you like.
Nice to know where the lines are drawn I guess. God save the queen.
Churchill was 2nd last PM of the British Raj. His acts were just a few, the list of crimes start from 250 years before.Well it was a generally honest but perhaps naive question
Seeing as though the Indian famine is the biggest point people refer to in their disgust of Churchill I thought it was a naturally progressive question to the topic.
In answer to your post, I don't think it would have remained that way, we became morally inclined at a certain point and I assume that was partly what made the British inclined to hand back.
I still think it's a relative question, shoot me.
You have alot of reading to do, though Britain destroyed most of the evidence.
Such views come across as deeply ignorant or poorly educated.
Last edited:
There were hundreds of US war films throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's.
OK. I wasn't aware of them, but believe you.
Round and round we go.
Yeah I was hinting more towards modern day Britain, not the bloodthirsty conquerors of yesteryear. I was drawing comparison on the two in modern day and wondering if anybody there might be inclined to think it would have become better/worse for our continued involvement.
Unfortunately, like almost the entire thread, people are stuck in their views on the negative and the racial outlook and morality of people from generations ago.
it's really insulting isn't it, "yeah we stole your money and resources and poisoned your culture but (insert thing that every people have done anyway)"
I really don't mean to pile on regards this post but really look at these words, what they mean and why you think them.
Can you see the arrogance and the issue with this viewpoint?
None of that is fair to say and it's besides the point regardless. I know you've stated it's as much out of ignorance and you're just floating a question - and I really accept that - but I think so many of us in Britain are so conditioned into believing that we, and those before us are or were the benevolent global arbiters of justice, bringing enlightenment wherever we deigned to roam.
Without entering into a potentially never ending and impossible discussion about all the good vs all the harm caused by Britain globally & how that balances out over time immemorial you have to be able to see how these opinions are so grossly ill informed and incendiary, particularly in 2020.
It's really not hard to see why that kind of national identity superiority complex is often called out as sometime else - rightly or wrongly.
That's not to say you can't be immensely proud of Britain/England/Whatever as a nation, or hold certain historical figures or administrations in extremely high regard if you wish but please temper it with a dose of empathy and common sense - Often these days I do think people can go overboard on the national identity/history self deprecation to try and balance their own moral compass - but the blind belief that the 'native people of India' are a second class nation that would so obviously have been better off if Britain stuck around is so many times worse.
At the beginning of the 18th Century, India's share of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to less than 4% - Surely you can see that any of your perceived failings of India post decolonisation - the less well off economy, not as great healthcare and more limited human rights access - could be so easily & compellingly argued to be because of Britain and the massive hole dug for them? In fact It's so much more likely we would have just carried on decimating and inhibiting local progress for our gain rather than crafting the Indian Utopia in Britain's image you're imagining.
I find that so mental, yet the really mental part is it will be such a common and quite insidious belief - Please examine the pride you're bestowing on 'We Brits' in this instance.
Or be honest and say I'm happy & proud that we completely fecked them for our own gain - go us!
Why is it that whenever you get an answer after framing your question as an honest attempt at polite discourse, you throw in some comment disparaging how other people think about and approach the subject? If you were really arguing in good faith, you would not feel the need to do so.
It's incredible, and the lack of awareness or self awareness is astonishing and reflective of the levels of skewed education these generations have been sustained on.
Racism btw, doesn't come from a lack of education. It comes from SHIT education. Just to address a phrase the uneducated - yet pretentious - like to use.
Yes it was called the Jewel of the British empire. Its was much valuable the the U.S was at the time.
Well yes of course you can but this thread would lose almost all debate as a result. Plus these guys love shooting me down, I'm doing them a service during lockdown.We can lock you out of it if you like.
But don't worry I'll keep a low profile, people are very charged at the moment, balanced discussion is non existent without the history teachers of the caf getting the cane out.
I mean it's not as if I didn't mention in my question that I knew little of the subject and then went on to say I meant no offence in that same post.
Sorry this is a bit confusing, would you mind rephrasing?
I think direct support for colonialism is novel in this thread, though I have missed a few pages before.
I don't know which ones you've missed but given this thread has gone round in circles again and again I've no doubt those pages could be enormously valuable to catch up on.
I don't understand what you mean.
I bet it was interesting for you. Got 'more eyes since in CE'. None of it gave a balanced nuanced view, rather why the oppressed colonies should stfu cos he was your hero.
I'ma leave it to you being the man of yesteryear.
Oh okay. Very constructive, so accurate, you must know me personally to give such a detailed review.
It's so good that @Niall's thread and OP in the Admin thread has been taken on board by so many.
I could say the same when I first posted a detailed post with why Indians and Bengalis could feel upset, and you ignored it, never addressed me directly, insinuating that it lacked research.
Yeah, you're the mature one here.
Such hate speech.
Valuable how, for example? One was a colony, one was a sovereign nation.
I requested you add balance to my post, which you didn't. Which is hypocritical. And that's worse.
I'd rather get stabbed by my enemy than those who pretend to be my friend.
Hey listen I've posted about my opinions on British history, very few were worse. I don't know where you get to an opinion that I think we are superior, I never intimated that. And it's not a viewpoint - it's a question.
Simply pointing out that when Britain entered India, from my little knowledge on the subject it was a largely populated and politically advanced compared to the majority of other regions we had conquered within the empire. All the terrible British acts within India aside, did India progress at a similar/acceptable rate to Britain (or other similar countries) after our absence - in a sense of human rights, economy, healthcare etc. Like I said - I don't know the answer, if I did I wouldn't have feckin asked
It's like people want to be offended at the moment.
You read about lack of education, huge issues with rape and the lack of government intervention on that, healthcare issues and although they are reducing poverty rates it's been obviously a poverty stricken country for a long time. Can you not see that there is a genuine question in there - without the prejudice that you and others are adamant on labelling.