Hacker News Reader

Comment by scythe | Hacker News Reader

>As for doing good in India, even under the Mughal empire, India is estimated to have a share of 30% of world GDP until the 18th century.

Wiki doesn't agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Technological_and_e...

>India's per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857, although it had increased to $618 by 1947

I'm not sure whose dollars those are... but it certainly doesn't sound like the Mughal empire ever controlled anything remotely approaching 30% of world GDP. Here's how the British won India, for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

750 European soldiers and 2100 sepoys defeating 53000 Indians speaks volumes about the latter's ability to organize.

View on HN

25% is about right for indian gdp around mughal period. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/history-of-world-gdp/

these early wins were against muslim rulers who did not have that much support of their majority populace because of taxation issues and also suffered from lost revenues due to the new trade routes.

the hardest wars were against the hindu/sikh rulers - marattas, rajputs and sikhs who were not subdued until 1850s with great effort.

Ability to organize isn't really an indicator of the good or harm you do.

Do you know what another regime is that had a legendary ability to organize? NAZI GERMANY.

The difference is that the British, instead of killing the "lower races", sought to reform them with what history indicates was a genuine sense of altruism among British Empire-builders.

Hitler put the minorities in gas chambers.

England invited minorities to Oxford and taught them everything they knew.

> The difference is that the British, instead of killing the "lower races", sought to reform them with what history indicates was a genuine sense of altruism among British Empire-builders.

The Empire understood that collaborative local elites were beneficial for the plundering of the colonies, and where necessary, it invested in them. That's all.

You can find cynical explanation for every act of altruism if you want to. Bottom line is there were plenty of powerful British idealists and humanists with a vision for the world who acted to help the colonies at Imperial expense.

If you believe England didn't gas minorities, then you should read up on what Churchill did to the Kurds during the 20's.

His treatment of the bengals was worse. Nevertheless my point stands

Reply on news.ycombinator.com