British role in Indian famines

[Tynesider]

Probably the gravest charge against the British Empire is that it allowed millions of Indian people to die in a series of famines in the late 19th century, through a combination of over-taxation, globalised agrarian reform and rigid 'laissez-faire' policies which prevented effective famine relief. I'm very keen to hear what Historum regulars feel about such a disturbing yet often forgotten aspect of British rule.

Having read Mike Davis's Great Victorian Holocausts, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that certain British officials (notably Lord Lytton) exacerbated the effects of famine through callous incompetence and parsimony. Davis estimates that famines between 1876 and 1901 killed between 12-29 million.

However, in my view, Davis's work is seriously flawed, in that it underestimates famine prior to British rule (for example, totally overlooked are the Chelisa famine of 1783/4 and the Skull famine of 1792/3 which occurred in then non-British states are estimated to have the highest death tolls of all Indian famines of about 11 million each), and he has a tendency to 'big up' famine deaths - notably the 1896/7 famine, where he estimates a death toll of 11 million against contemporary estimates of 1 million, most of whom were victims of post-famine malaria outbreaks (malaria is boosted hugely by the arrival of famine-ending rains). In presenting anecdotal evidence, he zeroes in on where the British famine relief works failed (and clearly it very often did), but fails to mention where it succeeded (for example, the Lt-Governor of famine-ravaged Oudh and Agra in 1896, Anthony MacDonnell, was awarded one of the highest imperial citations for 'saving millions') and how the system of successive famine enquiries, famine codes and relief works did work successfully in minimising famine mortality until 1943, when disastrously, famine codes weren't observed in wartime Bengal. Nor is there any mention of the legacy of the last Famine Enquiry under Curzon - the Imperial College of Agricultural Research, which would pioneer high yielding crops and lead to the Green Revolution of the 1960s. These may be minor consolations to the millions of lives snuffed out, but they don't seem to be the actions of the thoroughly callous and exploitative imperial power that has been presented by Davis and others.

[Rosicrucian]

Probably the gravest charge against the British Empire is that it allowed millions of Indian people to die in a series of famines in the late 19th century, through a combination of over-taxation, globalised agrarian reform and rigid 'laissez-faire' policies which prevented effective famine relief. I'm very keen to hear what Historum regulars feel about such a disturbing yet often forgotten aspect of British rule.

Is that the gravest charge against the Brits?

So do the colonizers anywhere else in the world have a history of taking good care of their people? For instance, if a natural calamity struck a colony, they would do their best to keep the death toll at the minimum?

However, in this case it seems like it was their policies that led to the famines. Am I correct in deducing that? If so, I'm not surprised they let so many die. It's actually only fitting, given their track record. And that they would want to sweep it all under the carpet is also not in the least surprising. No one ever made the mistake of expecting those Brits to behave in a moral fashion. ;)

[Tynesider]

'No one ever made the mistake of expecting those Brits to behave in a moral fashion'.

Which Brits?
In 2006, an Indian Chief Minister lionised his agriculture minister as the 'new Arthur Cotton'. Who's (Sir) Arthur Cotton? An Englishman whose life was spent creating brilliant irrigation works in India during the second half of the 19th century, bringing prosperity and protection against famine to millions.

Or Lord Lytton, a viceroy who obsessively curbed famine relief on economic grounds so that at one stage its recipients were as likely to die as those left starving in the disastrous famine of 1876.

The question is so much more complex than saying 'I'm not surprised they let so many die'. This isn't the Belgians in the Congo, or the Spanish in Mexico. The British efforts to create public relief works during the 1890s famines were only beaten in scale and extent by Roosevelt's New Deal, while great medical advances were achieved by the Indian medical service in the global battle against cholera, plague, malaria and small pox. Many Indian states still use famine codes and relief works based on the British system. These are not the actions of a callously indifferent empire, yet millions died.

Was it British policies that led to famines? Very possibly - they certainly seem to have occurred with greater frequency, except that the famines that occurred pre-British rule may have had even higher death tolls (where there is a historical record). And the famine mortality in independent Indian states was up to 10 times that of British-ruled states in the famine of 1899/1900.

These catastrophes shouldn't be white-washed out of history, but they also deserve a proper analysis, looking at the heroes and villains, the blunders and the successes.

[Rosicrucian]

Those Brits = the ones who were in charge during the famines. Or whose polices, even if unintentionally, led to the famines.

I have to admit that Indian history, or any history for that matter, isn't my forte. I was just giving the general perception in India about the Brits from those days. No one hates them though for the things they did or didn't do. No one that I know of. Our skepticism about people in general is all-sweeping and unsparing.

Of course, the Brits also did some good stuff, nobody denies that. And they are given their due. But I thought we were talking about something else here. The famines, for instance. It's ugly stuff. And a death toll of millions is not an everyday occurrence.

If you don't mind my asking, are you a Brit?

[Robin57]

Rosicrucian I like your fair open-mindedness. Most people look at us and our history in a darker light.

[Rosicrucian]

Most people look at us and our history in a darker light.

Could be coz the empire was a public relations disaster? ;)

It is an emotional topic for some, I'm well aware of that, but honestly we are so far away in time from those days that now it's just a theoretical subject. But it's human nature not to forget a slight, even if it is forgiven. And we all know there's no love lost between the rulers and the ruled. But if you take emotions out of the equation, and forget for a moment that you're a Brit or an Indian, and look at things from an utterly dispassionate p.o.v., I think you'll be surprised at what you find in your heart. That goes for everybody. But not everybody is capable of being so dispassionate, hence the maligning of the Brits and the empire by those who suffered at their hands, and the maligning of the (ex) colonies by those who ruled them. Everybody thinks, or should I say are convinced, they are right.

[Belisarius]

One factor often overlooked when apportioning ‘blame’ is that of scale. (India is a huge country; approximately 16 times the size of the UK!). Despite British achievements in improving the communications infrastructure, large areas of the sub continent were still operating in ‘medieval’ conditions, virtually self-governed with only a token British presence. Local officials might well have done what they could, but to rapidly get relief supplies into a famine ridden area from elsewhere may well have been beyond the capabilities of the technology available.

[Robin57]

Could be coz the empire was a public relations disaster? ;)

It is an emotional topic for some, I'm well aware of that, but honestly we are so far away in time from those days that now it's just a theoretical subject. But it's human nature not to forget a slight, even if it is forgiven. And we all know there's no love lost between the rulers and the ruled. But if you take emotions out of the equation, and forget for a moment that you're a Brit or an Indian, and look at things from an utterly dispassionate p.o.v., I think you'll be surprised at what you find in your heart. That goes for everybody. But not everybody is capable of being so dispassionate, hence the maligning of the Brits and the empire by those who suffered at their hands, and the maligning of the (ex) colonies by those who ruled them. Everybody thinks, or should I say are convinced, they are right.

Couldn't agree more, the amount of times I have been accused of to do with historic events is amazing. One crazy example is how we treated th NZ Moaries (spelling ?), so I asked her since NZ is now under their own control have they made things right, she coloured up and never bought the subject again.

Also as a Catholic, at times I have been accused of taking part in the Inqusition in Spain (no wonder my joints creak being such a grand age!). It goes to show that people can't disvern the past from the present. I don't know if you have soap operas on the TV in India but people over here are unable to seperate reality from fiction on a silly TV programme, so how can they when it comes to the reality of history?

[Tynesider]

Rosicrucian - yes, I'm a Brit, and I can't deny I've a fascination with the effects of British rule on other countries - it's a lot more interesting than our home history.

With India, for a long time the famines scarcely rated a mention, which is wrong - the British, particularly in 1876 could have done so much more to save lives; now though opinion has swung way too far the other way, like the British are comparable to Stalin with the Kulaks or Mao's Great Leap Forward, where millions upon millions died because the end justified the means.

Belasirias - you're right, it's a vast sub-continent, and dependent on a capricious tropical monsoon weather system. If that shifts, somewhere in India - Madras, Bengal, Tamilnadu or Punjab is going to have a failed crop, and all that entails. Hence India has always had dreadful famines - but they weren't always as well reported prior to British rule. As for relevance today, if climate change has the effect predicted, the famine history of India may yet prove a vitally important role in informing future famine strategy - even if it's looking at the mistakes to avoid.

[galteeman]

The thing with the empire is that it was pretty crap in many areas but hey we all know that human beings are jumped up animals barely down off the trees so if it wasn't the british empire doing the dirty deeds someone else would do it anyway.
Most people know that the British empire was no worse than any other and better than most as these things go. If the people under the control of the empire got half the chance they would have done the same thing themselves and conquered the British.

[Rosicrucian]

Couldn't agree more, the amount of times I have been accused of to do with historic events is amazing. One crazy example is how we treated th NZ Moaries (spelling ?), so I asked her since NZ is now under their own control have they made things right, she coloured up and never bought the subject again.

Also as a Catholic, at times I have been accused of taking part in the Inqusition in Spain (no wonder my joints creak being such a grand age!).

:D I know the type you're referring to. I always steer clear of such discussions. Some questions are so ridiculous, I don't honour them with an answer. I've been repeatedly told that if I come across people holding some misconceptions about India or Indians then I should try to clear them, but I so don't give a damn. Let people think what they want to think. Most are so set in their ideas that they'll continue thinking that way anyway so why should I waste my time and energy on them!

[Rosicrucian]

Rosicrucian - yes, I'm a Brit, and I can't deny I've a fascination with the effects of British rule on other countries - it's a lot more interesting than our home history.

With India, for a long time the famines scarcely rated a mention, which is wrong - the British, particularly in 1876 could have done so much more to save lives; now though opinion has swung way too far the other way, like the British are comparable to Stalin with the Kulaks or Mao's Great Leap Forward, where millions upon millions died because the end justified the means.

I don't think anyone compares the Brits with Stalin or Mao! For starters, they killed their own people, at least the Brits were loyal to their own country!

I wish there was some well-informed Indian on this forum to conduct a proper discussion on this topic and give it the different perspectives it deserves. Unfortunately I'm not that person. :(

[Tynesider]

'I wish there was some well-informed Indian on this forum to conduct a proper discussion on this topic and give it the different perspectives it deserves. Unfortunately I'm not that person.'

Very much agree, I'm not that person either.

From my own perspective I don't think there is a great deal of post-colonial antagonism between India (and Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Great Britain; you'll find plenty of pro-British Empire as well as stridently anti-British Empire Indian historians, while my British Indian friends seem relaxed about the colonial past. However, supposing the Davis view - essentially equating the famines with genocide - be adopted in history classes in the sub-continent (bearing in mind that parts of the USA have in the past taught the Irish Potato Famine as genocide). That would, in my opinion, be both very wrong and very troubling.

[Robin57]

'I wish there was some well-informed Indian on this forum to conduct a proper discussion on this topic and give it the different perspectives it deserves. Unfortunately I'm not that person.'

Very much agree, I'm not that person either.

From my own perspective I don't think there is a great deal of post-colonial antagonism between India (and Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Great Britain; you'll find plenty of pro-British Empire as well as stridently anti-British Empire Indian historians, while my British Indian friends seem relaxed about the colonial past. However, supposing the Davis view - essentially equating the famines with genocide - be adopted in history classes in the sub-continent (bearing in mind that parts of the USA have in the past taught the Irish Potato Famine as genocide). That would, in my opinion, be both very wrong and very troubling.

You mention the Irish potato famine as a genocide, may add the Highland clearances of the 18th century, this was a cultural genocide which forced people off their lands and made many Scots emigrants to far off lands (again the US being one port of call).

Hazard a guess Tynesider = Newcastle?

[Tynesider]

Robin57
Yes, I'm from near Newcastle, the area trampled every time the Scots got restless ...

I mention the Irish potato famine, but inept response to a natural disaster is not genocide - arguably it's not far short, but it's not the same. The Scottish clearances may be a different case, but that's a whole new thread.

[Robin57]

Robin57
Yes, I'm from near Newcastle, the area trampled every time the Scots got restless ...

I mention the Irish potato famine, but inept response to a natural disaster is not genocide - arguably it's not far short, but it's not the same. The Scottish clearances may be a different case, but that's a whole new thread.

I agree, the clearances are worhy of a different thread, when I think of a title I'll post it.

You have my sympathy about being trampled every time the Scots got restless. I hear about these things quite a lot, we are originally from Worcester (me) and Peterborough (wife). I hear a lot about Scots history through the course my wife is doing at the moment.

[Guy Montag]

These days its MONSANTO.

http://www.ask.com/web?q=monsanto+indian+suicides&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA

[Himanil]

It is indeed peculiar as to how little I am interested in my homeland history as compared to my interest in other nations and empires.

Well one thing I'd like to give straightforward- The only thing that the Britishers ever managed to achieve in India which I shall say was an important achievement was to unify the nation which till then was divided into many, many parts (not that it was impossible to be done by an Indian) . However if I discount this 1 good deed or even if I take it up, Britain did not 1 single good thing in India practically or morally and I can list one more examples of Britain misdeeds in India than good deeds that Britain has done in it's entire history.

[Himanil]

It's been standard British policy all these years to partition countries, so that they're so involved in their own affairs that Britain doesn't need to formulate a foreign policy for them.

If you want a modern example-
Britain is responsible for world terrorism indirectly because for some reason the then government saw it fit to partition them. And even now governments of countries like America. Britain etc., are supplying Pakistan with massive amounts of money despite glaring evidence of the misuse of the funds and then there are talks of countries co-operating to quash terrorism.

However be the story, the fact is that India is suffering more than ever today because of the actions of the then British government.

[Belisarius]

It is indeed peculiar as to how little I am interested in my homeland history as compared to my interest in other nations and empires.

It shows. :D


Well one thing I'd like to give straightforward- The only thing that the Britishers ever managed to achieve in India which I shall say was an important achievement was to unify the nation which till then was divided into many, many parts (not that it was impossible to be done by an Indian) .

Asoka managed to unite India in the 3rd century BCE, so uniting India was quite easy. The problem came with keeping the country united.


However if I discount this 1 good deed or even if I take it up, Britain did not 1 single good thing in India practically or morally and I can list one more examples of Britain misdeeds in India than good deeds that Britain has done in it's entire history.

So you think Thugee and Sutee were good things?

[Tynesider]

"The only thing that the Britishers ever managed to achieve in India which I shall say was an important achievement..."

I quote prominent Indian historian and authority on Mughal India, Abraham Eraly:

"Nearly everything that is modern in India today was initiated by the British -- modernisation of the economy, education, transportation and communication systems, judicial system, and so on. They introduced us to parliamentary democracy. And they gave India political and administrative unity. But for the British rule, the subcontinent today would have been in all probability fragmented into a large number of small states. All this was recognised and gratefully acknowledged by our great leaders, particularly Gandhi, Nehru and Tagore."

Then again, perhaps some of these things aren't important achievements...

[Rosicrucian]

"Nearly everything that is modern in India today was initiated by the British -- modernisation of the economy, education, transportation and communication systems, judicial system, and so on. They introduced us to parliamentary democracy. And they gave India political and administrative unity. But for the British rule, the subcontinent today would have been in all probability fragmented into a large number of small states. All this was recognised and gratefully acknowledged by our great leaders, particularly Gandhi, Nehru and Tagore."

Then again, perhaps some of these things aren't important achievements...

Well if it werent the Brits, it would have been someone else. It was only a matter of time; India would have gotten that "modern" stuff sooner or later. Point is, colonisation for a few hundred years was way too high a price to pay for the abovementioned. To look for good in the days under the British rule is like consoling oneself with the old standby "It could have been worse." Who are we kidding?

[Himanil]

Indeed I wholeheartedly acknowledge that and am grateful to the British for

'Initiating modern developments'

However how do the British justify the fact that they made India one of the poorest countries in the world from the richest one.

[Guy Montag]

Britain did not 1 single good thing in India practically or morally ...

You're a history buff? Read this!

The Buddha and the Sahibs: The Men Who Discovered India's Lost Religion

http://www.azbookreviews.com/id/0719554284/History/TheBuddhaandthe.htm

[Belisarius]

Well if it werent the Brits, it would have been someone else. It was only a matter of time; India would have gotten that "modern" stuff sooner or later. Point is, colonisation for a few hundred years was way too high a price to pay for the abovementioned. To look for good in the days under the British rule is like consoling oneself with the old standby "It could have been worse." Who are we kidding?

The point is, it WAS the British, like it or not, that's history. Maybe you would have preferred the French, or the Germans, or the Japanese? Or, you might have got really lucky and got the Belgians.

[Rosicrucian]

The point is, it WAS the British, like it or not, that's history. Maybe you would have preferred the French, or the Germans, or the Japanese? Or, you might have got really lucky and got the Belgians.

Easy. My point was that if it weren't the Brits, someone else would have helped India "modernise". It was bound to happen sooner or later.

[Himanil]

Cheez Guy Montag, Buddhisms almost dead in India, the fleeing immigrants are the only ones who practice it. We really wouldn't care if anyone that Buddhism was India's religion, because it never was, an exception being Ashoka who briefly attempted to spread Buddhism all over the world.

[Himanil]

It would appear that the value of the Indians was considered no more than that of a dog in British Imperial India-

Earlier (and even today) all the hill stations used to have a main road (call it trendy in this case) called 'mal road' which was where everything new and all the 'in' things would be there. Ever since the British came, apart from a guarded fence all about it, everywhere there would be boards reading- 'No Dogs and Indians allowed.'

[Guy Montag]

Cheez Guy Montag, Buddhisms almost dead in India, the fleeing immigrants are the only ones who practice it.

We really wouldn't care if anyone that Buddhism was India's religion, because it never was, an exception being Ashoka who briefly attempted to spread Buddhism all over the world.

Almost, eh?

Well, that's a whole lot better than the sad state it was in until its re-discovery by British archeologists some 200 years ago.

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

http://www.azbookreviews.com/id/0719554284/History/TheBuddhaandthe.htm

Fleeing immigrants? Huh?

Are you referring to the large numbers of lower-caste indians who've recently been converting?

ASHOKA :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwSYOw4PM8Q&feature=related

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejrFwpK2n_M&feature=related

[Tynesider]

Royal Avenger, so apart from the nation's unity, 'modern developments' (Parliamentary democracy, a codified justice system, communication, transport, education, a modern economy), the rediscovery of Buddhism, and if you refer to the very early part of this thread, cures for cholera, malaria and Bubonic plague, the Indian (formerly Imperial) College of Agricultural Research which begat the Green Revolution and the end of famine, WHAT HAVE THE BRITISH EVER DONE FOR INDIA?

[Belisarius]

Royal Avenger, so apart from the nation's unity, 'modern developments' (Parliamentary democracy, a codified justice system, communication, transport, education, a modern economy), the rediscovery of Buddhism, and if you refer to the very early part of this thread, cures for cholera, malaria and Bubonic plague, the Indian (formerly Imperial) College of Agricultural Research which begat the Green Revolution and the end of famine, WHAT HAVE THE BRITISH EVER DONE FOR INDIA?

LOL :D I was looking for an opportunity to do just this! Well done Tynesider.

[Rosicrucian]

Like I said before, the price India paid wasn't anywhere near worth the things it got in return. Talking about simple price/return ratio here.

I've heard people in South-East Asia say that India was lucky to be colonised by the Brits and not by the Dutch or the French, the ones who colonised SE Asia, as they never gave their colonies ANYTHING in return unlike the Brits. However, my point is that SE Asia got all that "modern" stuff on its own. India could have too. So to say that colonisation was a good thing (regardless of by whom) is pure BS.

[galteeman]

It is probably very irritating for someone to tell you all the stuff they did for you and taught you. As if you are a child that would never have been able to learn these things for yourself without the aid of your helpful master.

[Belisarius]

Indeed I wholeheartedly acknowledge that and am grateful to the British for

'Initiating modern developments'

However how do the British justify the fact that they made India one of the poorest countries in the world from the richest one.

Nice try, but you managed that all by yourselves. Indian nationalists often used this argument, "the wealth of India is being drained into the pockets of foreigners." From 1868 to 1930 for example, at the height of the Raj, the net drain on Indian domestic product was a mere 1% of GDP. That's one thing you can't blame us for.

[Belisarius]

It is probably very irritating for someone to tell you all the stuff they did for you and thought you. As if you are a child that would never have been able to learn these things for yourself without the aid of your helpful master.

Perhaps no more irritating than being constantly told that you are the embodiment of all the evil that has ever befallen the world. :rolleyes:

[Rosicrucian]

Perhaps no more irritating than being constantly told that you are the embodiment of all the evil that has ever befallen the world. :rolleyes:

No, no, no, no, no. Britain is NOT the "embodiment of all the evil that has ever befallen the world", I don't think I said that. And sorry if I suggested anything like that. Maybe those who suffered directly at the hands of the British empire, of which I doubt any are alive today, might think so but I'm not one of them. Anyhow, without swinging to any extreme here, let me just say that of course Britain did a few good things in India too. I'm not disputing that at all. I never really gave a thought to the positive contribution of the Brits in India though. Might look up now.

[Tynesider]

"However, my point is that SE Asia got all that "modern" stuff on its own."

Unfortunately it didn't - China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, Afghanistan, North Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillippines have all suffered terribly at some point at the hands of dictatorship since 1948. India is a country of 1 billion people and yet has remained a fully functioning federal democracy since independence.

[Rosicrucian]

"However, my point is that SE Asia got all that "modern" stuff on its own."

Unfortunately it didn't - China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, Afghanistan, North Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillippines have all suffered terribly at some point at the hands of dictatorship since 1948. India is a country of 1 billion people and yet has remained a fully functioning federal democracy since independence.

Wasn't referring to democracy. By "modern stuff" I meant the infrastructure, like the railway network etc.

[Himanil]

Almost, eh?

Well, that's a whole lot better than the sad state it was in until its re-discovery by British archeologists some 200 years ago.

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

http://www.azbookreviews.com/id/0719554284/History/TheBuddhaandthe.htm

Fleeing immigrants? Huh?

Are you referring to the large numbers of lower-caste indians who've recently been converting?

ASHOKA :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwSYOw4PM8Q&feature=related

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejrFwpK2n_M&feature=related



only 0.8% of the population practices Buddhism

[Belisarius]

No, no, no, no, no. Britain is NOT the "embodiment of all the evil that has ever befallen the world", I don't think I said that.

No, YOU didn't. ;)

[galteeman]

Perhaps no more irritating than being constantly told that you are the embodiment of all the evil that has ever befallen the world. :rolleyes:

Thats the white mans burden for you Belisarius!
The kind hearted British crossed half the world to help the Indians civilise themselves and shine a light on that dark place and the begrudgers wont even give so much as a thank you for all their efforts. The British will just have to content themselves with the knowledge that their reward will be in heavan.

[Belisarius]

Thats the white mans burden for you Belisarius!
The kind hearted British crossed half the world to help the Indians civilise themselves and shine a light on that dark place and the begrudgers wont even give so much as a thank you for all their efforts. The British will just have to content themselves with the knowledge that their reward will be in heavan.

Well, no we didn't, but that aside, I love your signature! It explains everything. :rolleyes:



Now only 25 to go.

[Himanil]

Royal Avenger, so apart from the nation's unity, 'modern developments' (Parliamentary democracy, a codified justice system, communication, transport, education, a modern economy), the rediscovery of Buddhism, and if you refer to the very early part of this thread, cures for cholera, malaria and Bubonic plague, the Indian (formerly Imperial) College of Agricultural Research which begat the Green Revolution and the end of famine, WHAT HAVE THE BRITISH EVER DONE FOR INDIA?

Is this a sick prank or what

[Belisarius]

It's a pastiche on the scene in the film "Life of Brian" where the Jewish resistance fighters are justifying their hatred of Rome. Here's the original version,

REG:They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.
LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDO #2: Education.
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And the wine.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES: Brought peace.


:D

[Tynesider]

Royal Avenger - I take it you've not seen Monty Python's Life of Brian ('What have the Romans ever done for us?')? Watch it, it's very funny.

[Tynesider]

Thanks Belisarius - it's an excellent scene.
Can I add irrigation to my list?

[Himanil]

This'll escalate into some major thing, a flame, trolling, war or something similar which is something that no one wants, so let's just stick to the topic.

[Belisarius]

Thanks Belisarius - it's an excellent scene.
Can I add irrigation to my list?

Yes you can! In 300 years of Mughal rule only 5% of farmland in India was under irrigation, compared to 100 years of British rule when 25% of all farmland was irrigated. If we screwed up from time to time, it wasn't through want of trying.

[Belisarius]

This'll escalate into some major thing, a flame, trolling, war or something similar..

No it won't. The moderators on this forum won't allow it.

[Himanil]

Ok, then.

Yes you can! In 300 years of Mughal rule only 5% of farmland in India was under irrigation, compared to 100 years of British rule when 25% of all farmland was irrigated. If we screwed up from time to time, it wasn't through want of trying.

Your facts are pretty much right right, except for that it's the other way round with the irrigation under the Mughals having been much higher and irrigation was supplied by the British only to 'certain' groups of people (the nobility). The Indians were totally screwed by the high amount of taxes that the British extorted from India.

[Himanil]

This is dealing education-

Earlier each village in India boasted of having a school of some sort or the other in it, but the British education system neglected the education of the masses which led to the traditional education system withering away. Education centres were mostly located in the urban areas. The only reason that the Britishers introduced government in India to the upper classes was because-
* Employing Indians in public offices would drastically reduce administrative costs.
* They hoped that the Indians thus employed would develop a sense of loyalty to the British.
* Western influence would change the lifestyle of educated Indians so that they would readily accept British goods.

(my next post will show how the British purposefully destroyed Indian industry)

[Himanil]

Nice try, but you managed that all by yourselves. Indian nationalists often used this argument, "the wealth of India is being drained into the pockets of foreigners." From 1868 to 1930 for example, at the height of the Raj, the net drain on Indian domestic product was a mere 1% of GDP. That's one thing you can't blame us for.

THE SYSTEMATIC DRAINAGE OF WEALTH

As the Industrial Revolution progressed, the English manufacturers sought cheap agricultural products as raw materials for their industries. So, the British exported from India goods such as cotton, jute and indigo to feed England's industries. The salaries drawn by the British personnel in India, the goods purchased with revenues raised in India and the enormous profits made by British merchants in India were all sent to England. Thus, India's wealth was systematically drained out.

[Guy Montag]

The British East India Company, vast quantities of OPIUM & cotton.

3 key variables to India's 19th century imperial "progress".

Today one of the nation's great "new-age" psychopath "saviours" is Monsanto.

Plus ca change :rolleyes:

[galteeman]

Well, no we didn't, but that aside, I love your signature! It explains everything. :rolleyes:



Now only 25 to go.

Such an impolite tone for a gentleman!:)

[galteeman]

Here is a post from Gile na Gile which I remembered and was stuck on the wrong thread. It is more relevent here so I have copied it.


I have taken time out to read up on the Great Bengal famine of 1770 and I haven’t been too surprised to learn that historians are somewhat divided on how much culpability should be ascribed to the British East Indian Company but none however are so foolhardy as to suggest that the policies pursued by the company did anything but worsen the conditions met with by the peasantry once the famine began. Moreover, there are a significant number, and I now count myself among them, who blame the company directly for making the conditions of famine inevitable. Before we go there however it has to be clear that there was nothing ‘so-called’ about it. As John Fiske, writing in The Unseen World (1868) comments;

Throughout the entire course of recorded European history, from the remote times of which the Homeric poems preserve the dim tradition down to the present moment, there has occurred no calamity at once so sudden and of such appalling magnitude as the famine which in the spring and summer of 1770 nearly exterminated the ancient civilization of Bengal. It presents that aspect of preternatural vastness which characterizes the continent of Asia and all that concerns it. The Black Death of the fourteenth century was, perhaps, the most fearful visitation which has ever afflicted the Western world. But in the concentrated misery which it occasioned the Bengal famine surpassed it, even as the Himalayas dwarf by comparison the highest peaks of Switzerland.


So, this was an unprecedented catastrophe unique in the area’s history which happened to occur a mere six years after major agrarian ‘reforms’ were carried out by the presiding British authority. As we know, after the 1764 Battle of Buxar and the subsequent 1765 Treaty of Allahabad the East India Company took upon themselves the right to collect the diwani or peasants tribute formerly held by the Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam 11. The enormous area in question (some 650,000 sq..km; roughly eight times the size of Great Britain) and which now comprises modern day Bangladesh and the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Jharkand prompted many in parliament to question the wisdom of placing its management under the authority of the EIC. This business ‘transaction’, which, according to one indignant Mughal official was “done and finished in less time than would have been taken up in the sale of a jackass" not only ensured for the first time British economic and military dominance in the Indian subcontinent but also entailed perhaps the most radical restructuring of taxation policy the world has ever seen. Back in London shares in the EIC doubled and expectations were naturally high of further handsome dividends such as those allotted when Clive several years before had plundered the Bengali treasury after the Battle of Plessey. Those in Westminster who didn’t board the gravy train naturally baulked at the transparently insane step of effectively ceding full sovereignty of such a vast area to a private company ultimately beholden to anonymous shareholders 2,000 km away and with no vested interests in the well-being of the populace. Would they not grind the peasantry into the ground through rapacious taxation? Well yes in fact that it appears is precisely what happened.


Fortunately the records for this period have been meticulously kept by the India Office and can be viewed in the British Library. A five minute sitting there will reveal to anyone who cares to bother that the average tribute prior to 1764 was 10-15% of the gross agricultural produce. Under the EIC this was raised to 40-50%. It was still called a tribute as opposed to a tax for the British wished to ensure that the peasantry were not aware that it was the East India Company and not the Emperor Shah Alam who were in ultimate receipt of the inflated tax/tribute. To further this illusion of a dual power-sharing agreement they ensured that Shah Alam was kept in the luxury he was accustomed to but under virtual ‘house arrest’ at his palace in Allahabad. The amount of caution that was taken to ensure that this state of affairs did not not become generally known can be glimpsed in a letter written by Clive to the directors of the EIC as he finally left India in 1767;

“We are sensible that, since the acquisition of the dewany, the power formerly belonging to the soubah of those provinces is totally, in fact, vested in the East India Company. Nothing remains to him but the name and shadow of authority. This name, however, this shadow, it is indispensably necessary we should seem to venerate."

This ‘co-option’ by stealth as even the most superficial analysis would show had the evident aim of preventing the scandal of revolution. For no-one who has been to the Victoria and Albert museum and glimpsed some of the thousands of paintings and artefacts on display can have any doubt as to the complexity of the civilisation under discussion here. Needless to say the Mughal rulers had in place from the mid 15th century a delicate and evidently successful system of tribute born of trial and error which contributed to their long and steady rule. It stood to reason that the tribute should be raised in times of plenty and reduced in times of scarcity. Under the auspices of a chartered company however there can be no such sensible forward planning. How were the directors to know when the game would be up? As I said there were already many disgruntled voices calling for a reform of the EIC charter but they were being held in check by the most powerful lobby group in Westminster. The most sensible business strategy therefore would be to opt for maximum profit realisation as quickly, as efficiently and as ruthlessly as possible. And so it was that wherever it was possible the planting of cash crops such as indigo and cotton were made compulsory. Likewise, because the raised tax had to be collected in cash and at the point of a bayonet if necessary the ‘hoarding’ of rice was forbidden, and so with little option this was sold on and a thriving grain market came into being which was of course eventually monopolised by the company . Thus it was that the peasants lifeline, the stock of surplus staples was drastically reduced and were in fact no longer available to tide them over when the partial failure of crops (itself nothing out of the ordinary)came in 1768. With the sudden cessation of the September rains in 1769 reports began to emerge of a widespread famine gripping the countryside. These were duly ignored until it was too late. Estimates vary as to the death toll. Some place it as high as 10 million and it appears that at the very least one million lives were claimed. In 1771 the company raised the land tax to 60%. Again this is perfectly logical from a business perspective as this would make good the regrettable shortfall in income occasioned by the deaths of some two million tenants.

Sadly, the promised reform came too late. Despite fierce opposition from the East India lobby the East India Company Act of 1773 was belatedly passed clearly establishing that the "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right." If only this were a guarantor to prevent future abuse. In the same year the British poet Richard Clarke wrote;

"Historians of other nations (if not our own), will do justice to the oppressed of India and will hand down the Memory of the Oppressors to the latest Posterity".

Clearly they have not done a good job.

[Rosicrucian]

so apart from the nation's unity, 'modern developments' (Parliamentary democracy, a codified justice system, communication, transport, education, a modern economy), the rediscovery of Buddhism, and if you refer to the very early part of this thread, cures for cholera, malaria and Bubonic plague, the Indian (formerly Imperial) College of Agricultural Research which begat the Green Revolution and the end of famine, WHAT HAVE THE BRITISH EVER DONE FOR INDIA?


This is like a random man forcing himself on a woman and then yelling at her 20 years later: "You bloody accept the child I gave you is something."

[Himanil]

Rubber Extraction in Putumayo

The extraction of rubber in the Putumayo region of the Amazon, was dependent on the forced labour of the local Indians. From 1900-1912, the Putumayo output of 4000 tonnes of rubber was associated with a decrease of some 30,000 among the Indian population due to torture, disease and flight. A letter by an employee of the rubber company describes how the rubber was collected-

He (commanding British officer) grasped his carbine and machete and began the slaughter of these defenceless Indians, leaving the ground covered with 150 corpses, among them, men, women and children. Bathed in blood and appealing for mercy, the survivors were heaped with the dead and burned to death, while the officer shouted, "I want to exterminate all the Indians who do not obey my orders about the rubber that I require them to bring in."

[Belisarius]

Rubber Extraction in Putumayo

The extraction of rubber in the Putumayo region of the Amazon, was dependent on the forced labour of the local Indians. From 1900-1912, the Putumayo output of 4000 tonnes of rubber was associated with a decrease of some 30,000 among the Indian population due to torture, disease and flight. A letter by an employee of the rubber company describes how the rubber was collected-

He (commanding British officer) grasped his carbine and machete and began the slaughter of these defenceless Indians, leaving the ground covered with 150 corpses, among them, men, women and children. Bathed in blood and appealing for mercy, the survivors were heaped with the dead and burned to death, while the officer shouted, "I want to exterminate all the Indians who do not obey my orders about the rubber that I require them to bring in."

Oh please, at least get the right continent, Putumayo is in South America, not India!
The systematic atrocities in this region were perpetrated by Julio Arana, a Peruvian 'middle man' and his organization and was neither sponsored by or carried out by the British government. There were certainly no British troops in the area and the whole shameful episode was actually finally exposed by two Britons, W. E. Hardenburg and Sir Roger Casement. I'd like to see the source for the above quote.

[Belisarius]

Such an impolite tone for a gentleman!:)

Was I being impolite? :eek: Sorry, certainly not the intention.

[Tynesider]

At last people are returning to the point of the original thread!

Re-Bengal famine
The Bengal famine was indeed terrible, but it's wrong to suggest the British introduced famine to India. The Bengal famine was followed by bigger and probably more deadly famines in 1784 (the Chalisa famine) and in 1792 Doji Bara famine, both of which affected non-British administered territories such as Hyderabad, Punjab and the Deccan. The East India company tax system was certainly extortionate (and would be properly corrected a decade or so later by Lord Cornwallis), but it didn't create famine, it exacerbated it.

The whole point of the original thread was to question Britain's role in India's famines, particularly after the shocking famine of 1876; in my opinion, there was a sustained effort to alleviate famines, through famine codes, relief works, attempts to counter diseases, irrigation, and crop innovations. These measures didn't have to happen and this is highlighted by the fact that mortality was usually much higher in independent rajah-ruled states, where they did or didn't do their own thing; or when they weren't carried out properly by the British (e.g. 1876), when results were similarly catastrophic.

Royal Avenger - the event you describe is appalling, but nobody is claiming there haven't been a lot of terrible things done by British people. The example you cite is notable in that it happened in an independent country outside of British law. It's noteworthy that at the same time (1900s) one of the great political campaigns in Britain was underway to stop exactly the same type of atrocities going on in the Congo (where millions died under Belgian King Leopold's dreadful regime), led by an obscure shipping clerk called Edmund Morell. A century earlier, a similar crusade led to the abolition of slavery and the Royal Navy's destruction of the Atlantic slave trade. Like the fight against famine, this stuff didn't just 'happen' - it had to be fought and laboured over in order that a cruel and barbaric world was made a little bit better. Just like Parliamentary democracy or a proper legal system or even Sir Arthur Cotton's brilliant irrigation programmes (he is still hailed as a great hero in India - see http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/27/stories/2006102708580400.htm

My point is simple - India has gained a lot more from the British period than Royal Avenger's single suggestion of 'unity', and the legacy of this to present-day India is very valuable. Whether it was the best thing for India to have been colonised or not - that's a whole different argument. I'd also be the first to argue that India is much better off for its independence, and that post-1947 Britain is much better off itself because of the Indian imperial legacy.

[Himanil]

The extraction of rubber was carried out by the Peruvian Rubber Company (with Peruvian and British interests). Michael Taussig 'Culture of Terror Space and Death'

How about another popular incident 'The Jallianwalla Bagh' massacre.

The famines were a product of both uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies, which since 1857 had led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indian citizens to support unsuccessful British expeditions in Afghanistan, inflationary measures that increased the price of food, and substantial exports of staple crops from India to Britain.

[galteeman]

While it is true that all those millions of Indian people who died in famines were ultimatly shafted by the British elites (together with elements of the Indian elites who played along), it is also true that they would have been shafted anyway by purely Indian rulers. Those in power back then always shafted those on the bottom of the heap. Perhaps it is more difficult for a persons pride when the shafting is done by an elite from another nation than your own.
Not that its any consolation but the same British elite were shafting their own population as well. The British soldiers involved in policing the Indians would have probably been Irish peasants who signed up to avoid starvation themselves, or English or Scottish slum dwellers escaping an utterly miserable existence. They were also effective in exploiting the pre-existing emnities of the local troops to police each other.
Bottom line is that men being men means that someone has to do the shafting and someone has to do the starving. Its still happening today remember. The inflictors and the victims are only a matter of luck.

[Lucius]

Well said, Tynesider.

[Lucius]

About the rubber; (http://www.lgm.gov.my/general/storymnr.html)

"In 1876, Sir Henry Wickham, at the request of the India Office, collected and shipped from Brazil 70,000 seeds from the wild rubber tree. These were rushed to Kew Gardens in London and planted in specially prepared hot-houses. The small number, which survived, were taken in 1877 to Ceylon and later to Malaysia and other countries of South-east Asia."

As I understand it, and I would love to be corrected, the South American rubber market was serviced by extraction from "wild trees" growing in the forests. In Malaysia, the trees were planted in rows, like a farm, to facilitate the harvesting of the sap. This, uh, optimized the economics of it all, and so, ruined the market in the New World. The livelihood of the Malaysians displaced by the rubber groves was also impacted.

So, was there some great crime here? The Euro-types wanted rubber, right now, as it were. Everybody else could become marginalized, get run over, or buy in. Hmmmm.

[Himanil]

Indians were forced to grow opium to fund British tea imports from China, opium required great care, lot's of time and the best soil, which in turn left their food crops to be grown on unfertile soil where produce was uncertain. Then the British forcibly brought opium from the Indians at unacceptably low prices and sold it at very high prices in China whose population was starting to get addicted to it, and as everyone knows this trade was forcibly imposed on China after defeating them in wars, this led to-

1.) Drug Addiction in China
2.) Economic ruin of Indian farmers and thus famines.

[Tynesider]

Royal Avenger - that's quite a simplistic argument, which overlooks (a) Chinese drug addicts existed long before the Opium Wars; (b) famine occurred in areas not affected in anyway by opium planting (which was mainly Bengal and Bihar); (c) famines occurred frequently and with dreadful mortality in India before any British meddling in Indian agriculture or taxation; (d) increasing areas for cultivation is essential for any growing economy, and can be done in conjunction with irrigation and crop evolution, both of which were pursued by the British.

[Guy Montag]

Indians were forced to grow opium to fund British tea imports from China, opium required great care, lot's of time and the best soil, which in turn left their food crops to be grown on unfertile soil where produce was uncertain. Then the British forcibly brought opium from the Indians at unacceptably low prices and sold it at very high prices in China whose population was starting to get addicted to it, and as everyone knows this trade was forcibly imposed on China after defeating them in wars, this led to-

1.) Drug Addiction in China
2.) Economic ruin of Indian farmers and thus famines.

Does this not remind anyone else of the current state of affairs in AFGHANISTAN?

[Himanil]

Royal Avenger - that's quite a simplistic argument, which overlooks (a) Chinese drug addicts existed long before the Opium Wars; (b) famine occurred in areas not affected in anyway by opium planting (which was mainly Bengal and Bihar); (c) famines occurred frequently and with dreadful mortality in India before any British meddling in Indian agriculture or taxation; (d) increasing areas for cultivation is essential for any growing economy, and can be done in conjunction with irrigation and crop evolution, both of which were pursued by the British.

Yours is a simplistic reply which overlooks-
a.) :rolleyes: The number of drug addicts were negligible compared to how many addicts there became after the British exported drugs to China.
b.) Oh pleeaassee, don't tell me that there wasn't any opium planting in Bengal and Bihar. Get your facts right as on the contrary these were the areas where opium production was at it's fullest.
c.) Famines didn't occur as frequently as they did before the British meddled and the famines caused back then were inevitable famines which resulted due to factors out of the control of the then rulers who in fact did everything in their power to prevent them.
d.) Our economy was better off before the British, AND hardly any of the produce actually went to the Indians.

[Belisarius]

c.) Famines didn't occur as frequently as they did before the British meddled and the famines caused back then were inevitable famines which resulted due to factors out of the control of the then rulers who in fact did everything in their power to prevent them.


Prove it.

[Tynesider]

Royal Avenger
a.) The number of drug addicts were negligible compared to how many addicts there became after the British exported drugs to China.

The Opium Wars, whether right or wrong is for another debate, but opium was a legal drug used for medicinal and recreational purposes throughout Indian and British society with very few of the problems that occurred in China - alcohol was a much greater cause of illness and social problems. An 1895 Royal Commission set up by Gladstone decided against a ban in India as it would be a form of 'cultural imperialism'.

b.) Oh pleeaassee, don't tell me that there wasn't any opium planting in Bengal and Bihar. Get your facts right as on the contrary these were the areas where opium production was at it's fullest.

You misunderstand, there was plenty of opium growing in Bengal and Bihar. That's my point - famine struck other areas like the Central Provinces, where there wasn't opium growing and therefore disproves your point about displacing farmers. Growing opium wasn't illegal - parts of Turkey were also major exporters.

c.) Famines didn't occur as frequently as they did before the British meddled and the famines caused back then were inevitable famines which resulted due to factors out of the control of the then rulers who in fact did everything in their power to prevent them.

That's not proven, records weren't kept by previous rulers like the British, but we do have considerable travellers' reports of famines during the Mughal period - even at the height of Aurungzheb's rule (and the pinnacle of Mughal power and wealth), millions died in the 1661 famine in the Deccan. And as I said, the Chelisa and Doji Bara famines were as bad as they come in non-British ruled areas. And as I've said before, how come the princely states were far, far worse at mitigating the effects of famine - the evidence points to some rulers who did everything they could, others who made 'gestures' to the hungry and others, the majority, who did nothing at all. Even Mike Davis, arch-critic of the British, describes conditions in the princely states as ‘unspeakable’. Finally major famines (with bigger death tolls than India) continued in China throughout the 19th century (and of course in the 20th century, culminating in the ‘Great Leap Forward’ when tens of millions died..

d.) Our economy was better off before the British, AND hardly any of the produce actually went to the Indians.

I return to my list - the Indians and India benefitted in a number of ways from the British rule, and I don’t think it’s conceivable that even a stable Mughal India would have kept up with the west – very little of the wealth was being put into technology or opening up new markets – the West effectively did this for them, which of course meant they were able to dictate the terms of trade.

Finally returning to your point:
"The famines were a product of both uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies, which since 1857 had led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indian citizens to support unsuccessful British expeditions in Afghanistan, inflationary measures that increased the price of food, and substantial exports of staple crops from India to Britain."

I agree with much of this argument. However, massive famines also occurred prior to the British, and my point is that the British put a lot of effort into fighting famine which reaped dividends for India and Indians - whether the development of famine codes (still used in India), relief works, fighting famine-related disease, building irrigation and developing new crops. And when it came to fighting wars, invasions of Afghanistan tended to be mercifully brief compared to the constant warring of the Mughal, Marathas and Sikhs – one civil war lasted 27 years.

[Himanil]

Many Indian cities of that time, according to travelling foreigners, were better than those in Asia and Europe. Communication and transport facilities had also improved during the time of the Mughals and Sher Shah. There were several metalled highways reaching various places of the empire. River transport was also important, especially those which were navigable throughout the year. River transport was a cheap and fast way of transporting goods over long distances. Bridges were also constructed to speed up the movement of land transport. Such initiatives and conditions were important contributing factors to the development of the economy. In 1580 Akbar obtained local revenue statistics for the previous decade in order to understand details of productivity and price fluctuation of different crops. Aided by Todar Mal, a Rajput king, Akbar issued a revenue schedule that the peasantry could tolerate while providing maximum profit for the state. Revenue demands, fixed according to local conventions of cultivation and quality of soil, ranged from one-third to one-half of the crop and were paid in cash.
Before the British empire there had been only 4 famines on a large scale of major repute.

During the British Empire- (to name but a few)
Bengal Famine of 1770
1789-1792 Skull Famine
Orissa famine of 1866
Rajputana famine of 1869
Great Famine of 1876–78
Indian famine of 1896–97
Indian famine of 1899–1900
I'll post more in some time.

[Himanil]

The Portuguese had introduced opium in China in the early sixteenth century, opium however was known primarily for it's medicinal properties and used in miniscule quantities for certain types of medicines. The Chinese were aware of the dangers of opium addiction, and the Emperor had forbidden it's production and sale except for medicinal purposes.

While the English cultivated a taste for Chinese tea, the Chinese got addicted to opium. People of all classes took a taste to the drug- shopkeepers and peddlers, officials and armymen, aristocrats and paupers. Lin-Xe-Zu, Special Commissioner at Canton estimated that there were over 4 million smokers in China. A British doctor in Canton put the figure at 12 million.

[Himanil]

Royal Avenger
a.) The number of drug addicts were negligible compared to how many addicts there became after the British exported drugs to China.

The Opium Wars, whether right or wrong is for another debate, but opium was a legal drug used for medicinal and recreational purposes throughout Indian and British society with very few of the problems that occurred in China - alcohol was a much greater cause of illness and social problems. An 1895 Royal Commission set up by Gladstone decided against a ban in India as it would be a form of 'cultural imperialism'.

b.) Oh pleeaassee, don't tell me that there wasn't any opium planting in Bengal and Bihar. Get your facts right as on the contrary these were the areas where opium production was at it's fullest.

You misunderstand, there was plenty of opium growing in Bengal and Bihar. That's my point - famine struck other areas like the Central Provinces, where there wasn't opium growing and therefore disproves your point about displacing farmers. Growing opium wasn't illegal - parts of Turkey were also major exporters.

c.) Famines didn't occur as frequently as they did before the British meddled and the famines caused back then were inevitable famines which resulted due to factors out of the control of the then rulers who in fact did everything in their power to prevent them.

That's not proven, records weren't kept by previous rulers like the British, but we do have considerable travellers' reports of famines during the Mughal period - even at the height of Aurungzheb's rule (and the pinnacle of Mughal power and wealth), millions died in the 1661 famine in the Deccan. And as I said, the Chelisa and Doji Bara famines were as bad as they come in non-British ruled areas. And as I've said before, how come the princely states were far, far worse at mitigating the effects of famine - the evidence points to some rulers who did everything they could, others who made 'gestures' to the hungry and others, the majority, who did nothing at all. Even Mike Davis, arch-critic of the British, describes conditions in the princely states as ‘unspeakable’. Finally major famines (with bigger death tolls than India) continued in China throughout the 19th century (and of course in the 20th century, culminating in the ‘Great Leap Forward’ when tens of millions died..

d.) Our economy was better off before the British, AND hardly any of the produce actually went to the Indians.

I return to my list - the Indians and India benefitted in a number of ways from the British rule, and I don’t think it’s conceivable that even a stable Mughal India would have kept up with the west – very little of the wealth was being put into technology or opening up new markets – the West effectively did this for them, which of course meant they were able to dictate the terms of trade.

Finally returning to your point:
"The famines were a product of both uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies, which since 1857 had led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indian citizens to support unsuccessful British expeditions in Afghanistan, inflationary measures that increased the price of food, and substantial exports of staple crops from India to Britain."

I agree with much of this argument. However, massive famines also occurred prior to the British, and my point is that the British put a lot of effort into fighting famine which reaped dividends for India and Indians - whether the development of famine codes (still used in India), relief works, fighting famine-related disease, building irrigation and developing new crops. And when it came to fighting wars, invasions of Afghanistan tended to be mercifully brief compared to the constant warring of the Mughal, Marathas and Sikhs – one civil war lasted 27 years.


a.)The Portuguese had introduced opium in China in the early sixteenth century, opium however was known primarily for it's medicinal properties and used in miniscule quantities for certain types of medicines. The Chinese were aware of the dangers of opium addiction, and the Emperor had forbidden it's production and sale except for medicinal purposes.

While the English cultivated a taste for Chinese tea, the Chinese got addicted to opium. People of all classes took a taste to the drug- shopkeepers and peddlers, officials and armymen, aristocrats and paupers. Lin-Xe-Zu, Special Commissioner at Canton estimated that there were over 4 million smokers in China. A British doctor in Canton put the figure at 12 million.

b.) Yes, but see the Bengal and Bihar region was earlier the major grain producing area and forcing them to grow opium affected the supplies in other areas.

c.) I gave a reply to this 2 posts back.

d.) The west might've 'opened up markets', however it certainly didn't help the Indians, they became even worse than they were earlier.


Well the 'famine code' that the British established most certainly did not help as 'the most devastating famines in Indian history struck after the Code had been established'. And what about the various taboos and cast norms that the British forced the Indians to violate. Under the new British land revenue system, many zamindars lost their lands. Peasants were impoverished by the high rates of tax and rigid collection. The British policies ruined Indian handi-craft industries and agriculture. Famines became a regular feature.

[Himanil]

In 1793, the new Governor-General, Lord Cornwallis, promulgated the permanent settlement of land revenues in the presidency, the first socio-economic regulation in colonial India. It was named permanent because it fixed the land tax in perpetuity in return for landed property rights for zamindars; it simultaneously defined the nature of land ownership in the presidency, and gave individuals and families separate property rights in occupied land. Since the revenue was fixed in perpetuity, it was fixed at a high level, which in Bengal amounted to £3 million at 1789-90 prices. According to one estimate, this was 20% higher than the revenue demand before 1757.
However, these expectations were not realized in practice, and in many regions of Bengal, the peasants bore the brunt of the increased demand, there being little protection for their traditional rights in the new legislation. Forced labor of the peasants by the zamindars became more prevalent as cash crops were cultivated to meet the Company revenue demands.

Although commercialized cultivation was not new to the region, it had now penetrated deeper into village society and made it more vulnerable to market forces.The zamindars themselves were often unable to meet the increased demands that the Company had placed on them; consequently, many defaulted, and by one estimate, up to one-third of their lands were auctioned during the first three decades following the permanent settlement.

[Himanil]

Just a 'small official' figure of the 'drain of wealth'

(1800-1860) – 1,000,000,000 sterling in gold, jewels, interest, etc., taken out of India.

September 21, 1931 to December 31, 1932: $298,-000,000 in gold bullion was shipped to London from India.
Interest collected annually on Indian National Debt: $100,000,000.

Interesting, have a look at the Indian budget and note the 'British priorities'
The Indian Budget: (1935-1936)

Percent

Military Expenses

23.9

Interest on National Debt

22.5

Police and Jail Expenses

9.6

Civil Administration

8.7

Education

5.7

Medical and Public Health

2.6

Agriculture and Industry

2.1

Miscellaneous

24.9

Total

100.00

General Conditions of Life:

Illiteracy: 345 million people cannot read or write any language. (this was barely non- existent at a time)
Education: 2/3 of 700,000 Indian villages have no schools.
Life, Death and Infant Mortality:


India England

Life Expectancy

23 years 55 years

Death Rate per Thousand

26.8 12

Infant Mortality per Thousand

250 51

Deaths:
6,000,000 die annually in India.
44% of deaths are due to malaria.
Bengal province: 750,000 under the age of 15 years die each year.
Housing: Calcutta: An average of 9 to 10 people inhabit rooms having an average size of 8 ft. x 6 ft.

Miscellaneous:
Bengal – 1771: 15,000,000 died in food famine. (Interesting that more people died in this famine than the total population of Britain)
1858-1922: There were 72 military expeditions on the Northwest Frontier.
Upkeep of one British soldier equals 4 times that of an Indian soldier. (The British Army comprises 60,000 soldiers, plus British officers for the native army of 600,0000).


Well this sure does make some reading, eh.

[galteeman]

Between 1757 and 1947 British per capita GDP increased in real terms by 347%, Indian GDP increased by 14% in the same period.
Many Indians also worked in the British colonial enterprises from Africa to Malaya to Fiji, in slave like conditions supplying much of the cheap labour on which the imperial economy depended.
What about the Bengal famine of 1943. This event caused more deaths than the entire war dead of Britain itself. The response of the authorities was reputed to have been poor. According to Wiki

When in response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Amery), and Wavell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavell) to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavell) asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi) hadn’t died yet."

[Tynesider]

Galteeman/Royal Avenger, and it goes on.

Given that malaria was the chief killer, the Nobel laureate who isolated the malaria vector, a Briton, Robert Ross, working in India. It was also the British who introduced DDT which rapidly brought down malaria deaths from 6 million to 800,000 per year in the 1950s - just in time for independence, and a huge boost to life expectancy in India and throughout the tropics.

Small pox - eradicated by the British in India with vaccination drives throughout the 19th century, a disease which elsewhere killed half a billion people in the 20th century; Bubonic plague, the cure found by Doctor Haffkine working for the Indian Medical service. I guess they stretched those budgets a long way; or maybe you've overlooked the number of charitably supported hospitals, for example the Lady Dufferin Hospital, still the largest women's hospital in Pakistan and set up to stop the soaring infant mortality rate. Remember this was before the national health service in Britain and any extensive state provision for health anywhere - I doubt the budget breakdown for Britain would be that much different, however Britain and the more temperate west happily has never had a malaria problem, or was reached by the Third Plague pandemic. Despite this the role played by Britain in combating tropical disease is second to none.

You mention the taxes on agricultural produce - one-third to a half for government revenue during the Mughals. According to Romesh Chunder Dutt, only Central Provinces came close to this level in 1900, with Bengal on 5-6% of income, North India (Punjab etc) 8-10%, Bombay and Madras 12-30% (in 1900), depending on soil quality, rainfall etc.

As for the Bengal famine, wartime, famine codes ignored, Churchill and encumbent viceroy Lord Linlithgow disinterested - I agree, quite a shocking state of affairs. The new viceroy Wavell did react vigorously and a belated famine relief operation saved many lives. Why was no famine code in place and who was in charge of the original failed relief operation? Maybe you can look that one up.

[Belisarius]

Between 1757 and 1947 British per capita GDP increased in real terms by 347%, Indian GDP increased by 14% in the same period.
Many Indians also worked in the British colonial enterprises from Africa to Malaya to Fiji, in slave like conditions supplying much of the cheap labour on which the imperial economy depended.


Nice paraphrase of Niall Ferguson, without all the 'good bits' about the British Empire. ;)

[Belisarius]

Royal Avenger, not forgotten you. Time to respond in full is a problem at the moment (as it always seems to be for me at present :().

[galteeman]

Nice paraphrase of Niall Ferguson, without all the 'good bits' about the British Empire. ;)

You know I noticed you used a good bit statistic from the same book earlier so I thought I'd balance it with some of the bad bits:)

[Belisarius]

You know I noticed you used a good bit statistic from the same book earlier so I thought I'd balance it with some of the bad bits:)

Touché :D

[Himanil]

The Peasantry:

a. There are 270,000,000 peasants.
b. They are divided into 700,000 villages.
c. There are 40,000,000 unemployed agricultural workers.
d. The Halis (slaves): average of 12 years debt slavery each; 4½ annas (9¢) fixed wages per year.

Interest, Debts and Taxation:
e. Bengal peasants: Total annual taxation equals 40% of total harvest value.
f. (1929-1939) 50% of Bombay Presidency peasant debts paid by seizure and sale of peasant lands.
g. Interest rates on loans: 25% (minimum) to 200%.
h. Total agrarian debt: $4,500,000,000.

i. Peasant Taxation and Debt Burden:
1. Rent to local, private landlord.
2. Land tax payable to province or native state government.
3. Land tax payable to British government.
4. Interest on loans from local money lenders.
5. Taxes on water wells, streams, cattle, grazing lands, forests, license fees, wood-chopping, etc.
6. Tax on imported and exported agricultural products.
7. Feudal obligations: forced labor on roads, buildings, etc.; marriage, birth and death taxes; religious dues; hunting taxes, etc.
j. Land Hunger:
Bengal (1931) : 9,995,000 landless laborers (25% of total Bengal peasantry).
Bombay: below 5 acres – 1,128,732 families. 1 to 25 acres – 2,047,986 families.

k. “Making a Living”: Bihar Province:

Annual expenses Annual Income

Rent $ 85,000,000 $250,000,000

Interest $100,000,000

Cultivation $ 85,000,000

Total $270,000,000 $250,000,000

Deficit: $20,000,000

plus: Central government land taxes
plus: Livelihood of peasantry
Total: Permanent Slavery

[Tynesider]

Royal Avenger - you're quoting a lot of statistics, some of them decidedly dubious (your 15 million toll in the 1770 Bengal famine, for example; the generally accepted upper limit is 10 million, based on contemporary accounts).

Your 'only four major Indian famines ever' prior to the British. The Chinese count 1,868 famines in their history. The difference is that Indians haven't been counting, but their historians did note an 11-year famine, and a 12-year famine (Durga Devi) - gargantuan events which depopulated whole provinces and dwarf even more recent great famines. The high British figure for famines includes scarcities and many smaller regional famines, which the Chinese might have counted, but evidently wouldn't qualify as 'major' by your standards.

The Skull famine (1792 onwards) you allude to took place in regions at the time fully independent of Britain (as did the Chelisa famine of ten years earlier).

If as you say, Indians were enslaved, how come so many went elsewhere in the Empire, Fiji, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa - yes, a lot as labourers, but also as lawyers, traders (like my sister-in-law's grandparents in Kenya), entrepreneurs and obviously soldiers, and had a galvanising effect on the smaller colonial economies. To para-phrase Michael Caine in The Man Who Would Be King, 'men like that built our bloody empire'.

[Himanil]

I can't recall saying that all Indians were enslaved.

[Tynesider]

I can't recall saying that all Indians were enslaved.:confused:

Perhaps I inferred it from your last message - "Total: Permanent Slavery".

[Belisarius]

The Portuguese had introduced opium in China in the early sixteenth century,

Wrong!

The Arabs introduced Opium into China. The Dutch started the 'smoking' habit via their outpost at Amoy, the Portuguese saw the potential market for the drug...and guess who started the industry, long before the British made any impact...the Indian growers and traders of Malwa, Bihar, and Bengal. The British didn't need to force anyone to grow the Opium Poppy, it was a highly profitable industry before the British ever arrived; the Mughals even had a monopoly on the trade. Check out "Colonialism, Indian Merchants, and the Politics of Opium, 1790-1843By Amar Farooqui

[Belisarius]

The extraction of rubber was carried out by the Peruvian Rubber Company (with Peruvian and British interests). Michael Taussig 'Culture of Terror Space and Death'

Wrong! It was carried out by the Casa Aranja on behalf of the Peru Amazon Company, a subsidiary of the Peruvian Rubber Company. Tausigg paraphrased to make his point about the use of Terror. Apart from buying Rubber from Aranja, there was no British involvement in the atrocities.


How about another popular incident 'The Jallianwalla Bagh' massacre.


I'll see your 'Jallianwalla Bagh', and raise you the 'Satichaura Ghat massacre' and the 'Bibighar massacre' what's your point?

[Belisarius]

Interesting, have a look at the Indian budget and note the 'British priorities'
The Indian Budget: (1935-1936)

Military Expenses 23.9%
Education 5.7%
Medical and Public Health 2.6%

Well this sure does make some reading, eh.

Yes it does. Since looking a UNICEFs figures for 2003 (British have been gone 56 years now)

Military Expenses (less nuclear weapons) 18.62%
Education 3.26%
Medical and Public Health 1.19%

Good grief!! The 'Evil British' spent more on Health and education in the 1930s than the government of modern India does now!

Yes, the British made mistakes. Yes, the British weren't saints. Guess what? Neither were the Indians oppressed nor were they innocent victims. Now shall we please get back on topic?

[Guy Montag]

1789-1792 Skull Famine

As in Skull & Bones, yes?

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

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

PLUS CA CHANGE! :D

Afghanistan is, as of March, 2008, the greatest illicit (in Western World standards) opium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium) producer in the world, before Burma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma) (Myanmar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar)), part of the so-called "Golden Crescent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crescent)".

Opium production in Afghanistan has been a significant problem (or a significant business) for Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), especially since the downfall of the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) in 2001.

Based on UNODC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNODC) data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004-2007), than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan, than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.

This amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords and drug traffickers.

In the seven years (1994-2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families

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

[Himanil]

Yes it does. Since looking a UNICEFs figures for 2003 (British have been gone 56 years now)

Military Expenses (less nuclear weapons) 18.62%
Education 3.26%
Medical and Public Health 1.19%

Good grief!! The 'Evil British' spent more on Health and education in the 1930s than the government of modern India does now!

Yes, the British made mistakes. Yes, the British weren't saints. Guess what? Neither were the Indians oppressed nor were they innocent victims. Now shall we please get back on topic?

That's wrong.

Boy looking at this after so much of time makes me a feel like a partial *******.:D
This certainly taught me a lot,even though I never was able to express myself properly.

[Belisarius]

That's wrong.

Fair enough if you have better figures than UNICEF that refute what I was saying, go for it! ;)

[historian]

The words of Thomas Babington Macaulay (son of the abolitionist
Zachary Macaulay) in 1835.

“It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population”

I would say a very sensible idea and helped bring about an educated class in India which made it different from other nation’s colonies. Macaulay also enacted many of the laws still used throughout the sub continent.

In 1833 he gave the following speech in support of the Government of India Bill

“Education and the English Empire in India

I feel that, for the good of India itself, the admission of natives to high office must be effected by slow degrees. But that, when the fullness of time is come, when the interest of India requires the change, we ought to refuse to make that change lest we should endanger our own power, this is a doctrine of which I cannot think without indignation. Governments, like men, may buy existence too dear. "Propter vitam vivendi perdere causas," ["To lose the reason for living, for the sake of staying alive"] is a despicable policy both in individuals and in states. In the present case, such a policy would be not only despicable, but absurd. The mere extent of empire is not necessarily an advantage. To many governments it has been cumbersome; to some it has been fatal. It will be allowed by every statesman of our time that the prosperity of a community is made up of the prosperity of those who compose the community, and that it is the most childish ambition to covet dominion which adds to no man's comfort or security. To the great trading nation, to the great manufacturing nation, no progress which any portion of the human race can make in knowledge, in taste for the conveniences of life, or in the wealth by which those conveniences are produced, can be matter of indifference. It is scarcely possible to calculate the benefits which we might derive from the diffusion of European civilisation among the vast population of the East. It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilised men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages. That would, indeed, be a doting wisdom, which, in order that India might remain a dependency, would make it an useless and costly dependency, which would keep a hundred millions of men from being our customers in order that they might continue to be our slaves.
Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may keep them submissive? Or do we think that we can give them knowledge without awakening ambition? Or do we mean to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered in the affirmative, by every person who maintains that we ought permanently to exclude the natives from high office. 1 have no fears. The path of duty is plain before us: and it is also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, of national honour.”

Does not sound like a dyed in the wool evil colonialist to me.

[galteeman]

The fact that you appeal to the authority of one of the greatest falsifiers of history says it all.

[historian]

“The fact that you appeal to the authority of one of the greatest falsifiers of history says it all.”

Such a sweeping statement care to back it up?

Do you dispute that many of the laws put into effect by the likes of Lord Macaulay remain today? Macaulay was the architect of the Indian Penal Code something India is proud of even today.

Do you dispute the fact that the British administration created educated elite who on independence continued to run the country as they had done before independence?

Do you dispute that his father and he himself were abolitionists?

[galteeman]

He is a falsifier of history. Read his work, I remember reading it and it was riddled with bogus info and halftruths.
No I don't neccessarily dispute any of that stuff you just said. However I see MacAuley as a sort of arch propagandist of Britain. The British were in India for one fundamental reason. That is to strip wealth from those conquered and transfer it back to the ruling class in Britain. In order to do this in a more efficient way they created many structures of state, some of which may have had beneficial effects on the Indians.
The British were not there to help educate higher orders of native Indians.
The British were not there to teach the Indians how to irrigate their land.
The British were not there to stop the Indians burning their widows.
They were not there to invest capital and develope India into a modern country.
etc. etc. etc.
All of these things happened but they were only subplots to the main narrative which was the transfer of wealth and resources. I don't know whether the empire was good or bad for India, mabye without it the Indians would have gone to pot and all starved to the last man or burned themselves alive or something. We will never know will we? so whats the point in trying to make out is was good or bad?
MacAuley and those like him were the propagandists of this gigantic cleptocracy. His role was to create an acceptable version of history which presented these guys as a force for progression towards a better world. In his version of history there was a natural order of civilisation with the noble and glorious Anglo Saxon race on the top of the pyramid. The god given entitlement of the Anglo Saxons to rule was enshrined in this narrative. From them the rest of humanity could learn to progress. You believe that don't you Historian?
Nobody likes to see themselves as a crowd of thieves and pirates so they needed people like MacAuley to create a history where they could feel good about what they were doing. They could do their imperialist thing in a self satisfied and selfrighteous way.
Thats how I see MacAuley and his role.
Yourself Historian being a lover and admirer of the Empire days would naturally like MacAuley.

[historian]

“He is a falsifier of history”

Yet still no examples of this falsification, no surprise there.

India was not a free democratic state before the Europeans arrived it was ruled by the Mugals from the early 1520’s. The Mugals were in fact outsiders foreign rulers just as the Europeans were. Well to be honest not like the Europeans, definitely not like the British.

The Mugals wars between each other, there was no unified India, caused famine as well as bubonic plague and still the British had not arrived.

The Portugese were first to arrive buying up ginger and they sold them at the price of 60 times of the total cost. They then took control of Goa and began Portugal's Indian Empire, an Empire where no Muslim was allowed to hold public office. While all this was going on the British, who would allow Indians of all creeds a role in running their country, had not arrived.

You forgot to mention this hope it was not an attempt to falsify history? The demonization of the British Empire is rather fashionable but is bad and inaccurate history.