Britain stole $45T from India (2018)
aljazeera.com
aljazeera.com
I'm not unsympathetic or unaware of what India went through when it was occupied. Obviously imperialism is wholly unacceptable. But we seem to be revisiting historical wrongs with a particular selectiveness.
> Reparations? Perhaps – although there is not enough money in all of Britain to cover the sums that Patnaik identifies. In the meantime, we can start by setting the story straight.
In your world, do you see a place for this sort of historical investigation of the consequences of past actions, to learn from history?
It seems you'd be okay with using true facts to incite racial or religious hatred, something which is against the law in most western countries.
That's exactly what many 'investigations', which are not always historically accurate, are about: Stroking nationalism, hate, and a sense of revenge on the one side (and we can see good examples of that in the comments here), and shame on the other side.
The UK and Europe have nothing to be ashamed of (which isn't to say that past actions cannot be criticised). Stroking hate and revenge is taking a path of perpetuation of aggression.
Certainly, this article is crass propaganda and not journalism. I flagged the submission to no effect.
Of course if we were working to right or at least learn about all historical wrongs without being selective about it, then I would argue that attempting to undo the horrors of human history is quixotic and a fool's errand.
I'm simply trying to dispel this naive, dangerously ignorant, ironically racist notion of slavery, so that people can hopefully have a greater understanding of human nature as a whole, and focus on fighting for people who are living in slavery right now, rather than just focusing on the legacy of slavery of 1 or 2 predominantly white nations from hundreds of years ago.
And how kind of the British, like any major power with an advancing economy, seem to start focusing on human right just about the time slavery is offering more of an advantage to their adversaries. (But I'm not going to complain about that progress).
Sorry, but that's not a very convincing argument to excuse the extremely selective outrage and demands for reparations and accountability. Personally, I think the biases that drive this selective outrage are rather obvious. But draw your own conclusions.
The weak and divided will always be taken advantage of. That's a historical constant. From the Renaissance onward Europe (yes, it was heavily divided but somehow that seemed to have fostered competition and progress) was unstoppable and miles ahead of everyone else. I think that's key and it's really interesting to study the causes of that. What we've seen starting in the second half of the 19th century is the world trying to catch up.
Energies are better used to build a prosperous and well-governed country rather than dwelling on who took what from whom in the past (everyone took whatever they could from everyone else).
I can understand that Indians feel a degree of humiliation at having been colonised by a comparatively rather small island nation, but bitterness an burying one's head in the sand is not going to change history. Trying to shutdown discussion by basically insulting others won't, either.
If what is now India had been a single, unified political entity it would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, for the British to take over the way they did. We can look at China as an example of that: While it was in a state of 'decay' that allowed a level of colonisation and land grab it was still an single, unified country that was able to resist complete takeover.
Note that I'm not making any judgment or attempt at justifying anything. I am just pointing out that what happened is what happened everywhere throughout history. The particularity of the period is perhaps what I mentioned in my previous comment: Europe's advance that allowed it to essentially subjugate the world. It is much more useful to learn from the past (and to learn from others) than to stay in the past.
Fair enough, but in today's age of liberal democracies, we can maybe take lessons from the past and use that to inform decisions that our countries take in the future. Perhaps a population better educated on the atrocities of colonialism may be less willing to support unjustified wars and exploitative projects in the future.
It seems like we have a lot of infringements of basic and fundamental rights in which we are forgetting history and how we got here. However, I haven't seen a significant effort to revive colonialism. So perhaps this isn't the highest priority example of where we need to learn from history at the moment?
Even America's expeditionary wars don't have the intention of changing the lines on maps. The only nation that has done that recently that I'm aware of is Russia. Trying to fly today's wars and examples of exploitation of peoples under the flag of colonialism seems rather forced to me. Why not just say "bad stuff" and tie that to colonialism?
Citation needed. What exactly did not exist? What do you mean by "India" here?
The people, the culture, languages etc have all existed for many many years before the British even thought of setting foot in India.
As for the land that we call India today:
Babur (the Founder of Mughal Empire in the 1500s) described "Hindustan" as follows:
“The country of Hindustan is extensive, full of men and full of produce. On the east, south and even on the west, it ends at its great enclosing ocean (muhit-daryasigah). On the north it has mountains which connect with those of Hindukush, Kafiristan and Kashmir. North-west of it lie Kabul, Ghazni and Qandahar. Delhi is held to be the capital of the whole of Hindustan.”
As for being "weak and divided", I believe you are implying that India was ruled by many kingdoms and thus wasn't a unified entity. At the time the British landed, Mughal Empire was the prominent power and controlled almost all of modern day India. Before the Mughal Empire, there were other Empires that controlled almost all of Modern day India + Pakistan. One such empire is the Maurya Empire which reigned from 322 - 185 BC.
Also the British company that came to India was literally named after India and was the East *India* company that was founded in 1600s. Not to mention naming other places after India when they were no where near India like the West Indies or like referring to North American Natives as "Indians"
So please elaborate on what exactly did not exist?
> Perhaps the very existence of India is the most important legacy of the British in the region.
I see this article as an attempt to correct such blatant revisionisms of history. India existed long before the British came. They enslaved, and looted India. And to say that existence of India is their legacy is slap in the face of thousands who died in search of freedom and an Identity and to not be a slave. Would you go around saying the Nazis put Jews on the world map? If not, then don't say the same about India and the British. The British were an occupying force and their biggest achievement in India is that they didn't kill the natives like they did in Australia or America. And they didn't do that because it was more profiting to put enslave the local population than to kill it.
Source on Babur's Description of India: https://www.dawn.com/news/591800/time-check-medieval-india-b...
But the whole point is that Great Britain extracted and enslaved from their colonies, and not the other way around?
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-blockade-of-africa-how...
Furthermore, they didn't "enslave colonies". They established colonies. They conquered nations and territories. And they shipped slaves, a minority of whom were captured by British slavers, but most of whom they bought from Arab and African slavers.
I don’t know where your argument is going, other than that hey they stopped doing this bad thing. My original comment was about how colonies got nothing in return from the colonizer. You chose to state a tangential point, that the slavers stopped slaving.
Some people in the British Empire took part in the slave trade, and those people should be condemned. Some other people didn't. They fought against it and when they were in power they stopped it and expended considerable resources stopping others from doing it. Those people are praiseworthy, even though they were part of the British Empire.
I’m saying Nazis+Hitler should be condemned, never mentioned Germany. Similarly, I said Great Britain, both the monarchy and their colonial companies and the government resulting, which is what the article talks about as well. Never mentioned the citizens that fought back shouldn’t be acknowledged.
They established two kind of colonies - one which exploited man power and natural resources, and the other was territorial and treated as a natural extension of their own kingdom (after they conquered and replaced the orginal habitants with their own citizens). All the Asian and African colonies fall into the former category where as all the "white mans land" - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA - falls into the latter category. (I know some Americans would debate that they were in the exploitive category too, but as an indian I'd disagree).
Today, we can certainly draw upon the culture and history of all these various kingdoms and take pride in our multicultural society and the rich history it provides. But to go beyond that is just egoistical, and like you rightly said, will leave you stuck in the past rather than giving important to your present state and the future you desire.
Columbus was looking for a route to "India", there was the East India company.
Moreover, the British left India as 600+ kingdoms. It was the Indian who rebuilt the nation.
And if you believe the British Crown isn't a political entity that is part and parcel with the government of the United Kingdom but instead just a culpable family that needs to be stripped of their ill gotten assets, then perhaps the Commonwealth doesn't exist at all.
Let us look at some effects of British rule that still lingers
1. The British transferred power to British educated loyalists/elites esp. Nehru, whose family dynasty continues to be dominate politics.
2. Did you know that the word "Caste" can not be found in any Indian languages, because it originates from Europe and was introduced into India by the British and fortified by the Church. The amount of propaganda and weaponisation is so strong that this has be internalised by the society.
3. The culture of British institutions and politics continue to be patronising towards India. So much so that they continue to interfere in the Internal matters of India.
None of this has to do with money but treating a civilisation on equal terms.
Britain can reverse at least a part of the damage by being honest.
'Soft Power Reparations' [Lecture at British Parliament] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDvNGAQhSYs
'Did British Create The Indian Caste System?' [Breaking India at Warwick] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrTUp2mKbWs
Another quote that is incorrect and tantamount to a lie: > - "David Cameron asserted that British rule was a net help to India."
The link this journalist added mentioned Camron saying: > "I would say that it’s a help because of the shared history, culture, the things that we share and also the contributions the Indians talk about that we’ve made. Obviously, where there are bad events, we have to remember them, be clear about them and learn from them."
He said nothing about Britain being a net help for India...
You say the assumption that Britains occupation of India " was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself." is incorrect. Yet, I hear many post-facto justifications of colonialism or minimisations of the cruelty and harms of colonialism.
This revisionist history or blindness towards the actual harms of the British Raj could cause Britons to yearn for the glory of yesteryear, and could lend to support for neocolonialist programs.
But on an individual level Britons are much better off now than they were then.
[..] The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits." -Winston Churchill
The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of British rule, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain. Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxation the famines brought about.[..]
> Patnaik identifies four distinct economic periods in colonial India from 1765 to 1938, calculates the extraction for each, and then compounds at a modest rate of interest (about 5 percent, which is lower than the market rate) from the middle of each period to the present.
Certainly interest on stolen funds is also “stolen”. Usually I just see people account for inflation though. I wonder what the original number is before the interest*.
I am reading through "Inglorious Empire" by Shashi Tharoor [1] after a friend recommended it. It's extremely detailed, down to the exact numbers and what's more convincing is that this data cited from British sources and historical accounts, not Indian.
Pakistan is not even mentioned in the article....for me this undermines the quality of the work.
How to assess the debt for the millions very deliberately starved, as recently as by direct choice of Winston Churchill, would be hard to imagine.
There are many other scenarios that could have played out.
The transference of knowledge and institutions is undervalued.
The Romans did not build the roads, either.
That's also why Churchill didn't care about the Japanese capturing Australia during WW2, but he couldn't allow the Japanese to take India.
New research on the cost of colonization to India - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682678 - Dec 2018 (107 comments)