A moral dilemma

[Arrian]

Again, what do you think was the answer WRT India?

A little bit of this, a little bit of that, most likely. Some bad gummint by locals (this would include the Caste System, btw), some imperial nastiness by invaders (Islamic or British), some natural factors (disease, natural disaster, climate change), some economic factors (perhaps some things that used to make India wealthy became less valueable for whatever reason).

None of that is specific, because I lack the education to answer specifically. But given what I've learnt about human history, the above seems likely.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

In fact, if it turned out that it was ONLY internal corruption that caused the demise (though this happening is as remote as pigs flying, but assuming for the sake of argument that it is so concluded), I'd still accept that, and try to learn from it.

Bull****, as evidenced by your response. You already don't believe it, and thus would not accept anyone who tried to prove it. Of course, I happen to agree: purely interal mistakes doesn't make for a plausible answer since (during the relevant timeframe) India was conquered (in whole or in part) twice by powerful invaders, the second of which only relinquished control ~60 years ago (a veritable blink of an eye).

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's the British.

^ Teh answer

Seriously though, colonialism wasn't supposed to make the colony rich and powerful. It was supposed to make the mother country those things at the expense of the colony. One of the reason that it didn't happen to the same extent in say, the US or Canada is because those were settler colonies. So British subjects went over there and instead of merely a cash cow (so to speak) it was seen as a settlement. India didn't have the level of settlement (and if it did it wouldn't have mattered because of all that Indians that already lived there).

[Arrian]

So basically India would be fine, except the Brits didn't kill all the Indians and replace them with Brits.



-Arrian

[Japher]

I'm not wise on my Indian History. However, British insurgency was only possible because the weakness inherent to the Maratha empire, mainly that it established 'kingdoms' (as did Rome) and yeilded far to much power to those areas (which were far from central control). This, in turn, can and does lead to mistrust, treason, rejected loyalty and political turmoil unless properly managed.

Rome was tolerated by many of the republics because they brough infrastructure (a protective army, roads, clean water, etc.) and they left control of that infrastructure to someone that the general populace could become loyal, and not some some distant emporer or unseen king. Rome fell when internal politics arouse mainly due to armies being defeated and infrastructure being neglected or rather it being expected.

This too happened when the Maratha army was defeated, and the infrastructure was then being supplied by the British East India Trading Company. Loyalty swung, and with it the greatness of India.

It's kind of like how wolves attack the weakest member of their pack if he's seen licking his wounds.

[Arrian]

Here's a question:

Given how disunited India seems to have been at times, is it really correct to think of it as a single entity? During the time period you think of as India's golden age, aneeshm, was it united?

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
Here's a question:

Given how disunited India seems to have been at times, is it really correct to think of it as a single entity? During the time period you think of as India's golden age, aneeshm, was it united?

-Arrian

Though it was mostly united during the first, second, and third golden ages (after which there never was a fourth), I don't think that that unity was strictly necessary (though it may have been, because the analysis of golden ages is far, far more complex than the analysis of civilisational falls).

First Golden Age - Saraswati (Indus) valley culture (the one that set the trend)
Second Golden Age - Maurya empire (engineered by Chanakya and Chandragupta)
Third Golden Age - Gupta period (the big daddy of them all - this one was more like a diamond age)

The necessities of a golden age were peace and stability - a strong centre of power, capable of subduing all others, and itself held in check by society - in other words, a good king and a good administrative machinery.












And I would say that thinking of India as a unified entity is justified, because the cultural ideals and civilisational values of all the disparate political entities into which India was divided were uniform.

[Ben Kenobi]

India was never unified. It's a fiction promoted by hindu nationalists that the naga have anything in common with the hindus, or with the tamils in the south or the Sikhs in the north.

The British, on the other hand, actively destroyed those same institutions. Why do you think that Chanakya's economic policies, many of which make sense EVEN NOW in the context of the rural agricultural economy, were lost, and their constructive power never put to use for over a thousand years?

The same British who built railways across these individual kingdoms so that grain could be shipped quickly to areas under famine?

You can blame the British for many things, but ask yourself why you have the world's largest democracy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
AS I said before I don't care that the kid with the half billion dollar inheritence has more opportunites as long as the impoverished kid has a reasonable opportunity to advance himself.

I don't know why opportunity should be important, when the outcomes are just different regardless. You can't necessarily deposit opportunity in the bank. You can money though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


May I be so bold as to enquire as to who are the perpetrators of this crime? Who are the ones responsible for the impoverishment of India?

Those who reproduce top-down ideology that just fattens peoples pockets who don't need it. A real effort needs to be made to DIRECTLY help those who need it. This INDIRECT help thru those who already have everything they need is too blame.

[Arrian]

Third Golden Age - Gupta period (the big daddy of them all - this one was more like a diamond age)

Which was apparently ended by military defeat long before the Muslims showed up.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

India was never unified. It's a fiction promoted by hindu nationalists that the naga have anything in common with the hindus, or with the tamils in the south or the Sikhs in the north.

The Sikh scripture has hundreds (and I mean this - literally hundreds, if not thousands) of positive references to the Hindu Avatar Lord Rama.

The Tamils, by the way, are the ones who kept old traditions alive when the north had caved.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Let me ask you this - how much do you know of Hinduism? Or of India? And what are your sources of knowledge?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The same British who built railways across these individual kingdoms so that grain could be shipped quickly to areas under famine?

I'll let Wiki do the talking.

Bengal Famine of 1770
Bengal Famine of 1943

The horror of the 1770 famine cannot be overstated. The living eating the corpses of the dead, large tracts of cultivated land turning into jungle land as the people migrated to find food, a third of the total population (over 10 million people) dead from starvation.....

And what was the great East India Company doing? Causing the damn famine, of course, by raising the tax on agricultural goods from 10% or 15% of produce to 50%.

For reference, 16.67% (or rather, a sixth of the total produce) is the maximum permissible Hindu rate, with tax breaks built in in cases of crop or monsoon failure, according to a law codified as long back as 200 BC, which also states that the state should stabilise the marked for grain by buying when there was over-abundance and selling when there was a shortage, to ensure that farmers never have to face a glut, but the common people also never have to face a situation when they cannot afford food.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You can blame the British for many things, but ask yourself why you have the world's largest democracy.

I've often thought about that, and speculated about what would have been the course of history of the Muslims and British had never come, or rather, if the Muslims had never gained a foothold in India.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Which was apparently ended by military defeat long before the Muslims showed up.

-Arrian

Yes. Another set of invaders ended that one. But that invasion had no real long-term impact.

[Arrian]

No long term impact? Color me dubious.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

I don't see any effects of that invasion on my life AT ALL, whereas the legacy of the Muslim desecration and the British looting is all around me.

Do you know what it is like to live in a land of abject poverty, both economic and cultural, and most of all, civilisational?