Jab Mr. Singh Ko Gussa Charta Hai

Fuzair #29: ``But Egypt and Ottoman Turkey are much closer in society/culture/attitudes/what-have-you to Ranjit Singh`s Punjab and Tipu Sultan`s Mysore than these places are to France or Germany.``

As I said, I know next to nothing about Egypt and Turkey, during those timeframes. So I cannot make the comparison. I am just basing my argument on what was happening in India. Just because something failed in Turkey or Egypt doesn`t mean it will fail in Mysore or Punjab. This holds even today. If a computer company fails in Egypt, it doesn`t mean it will fail in India. Even though both India and Egypt are very different from Europe.

So what are you basing this corelations on? Just because both Egypt and India are different from France and Germany does not mean they are identical to each other. You and I maybe different from Dost-mittar, but does that make us identical to each other? ......... Also, if one is just going to use superficial comparisons, then why not look at Japan?

I think a good criteria is to go 500 years ahead. In 500 years, when people look back at South Asia, they will see the British period as a time, when South Asia was at its lowest point in per-capita income and human development, in ratio to the rest of the world (specifically Europe).

As the paper you presented yourself, states that the average South Asian laborer had about 1/3rd the buying power of a Londoner, pre-British days. By the time the British left that figure had been reduced to 1/45th or so. Which is where it sat for a few decades, after independence. However, I doubt it will be at 1/45th in 50 years. Or in a hundred years. It will be moving back towards the 1/3rd figure. So the graph would look like a, ``U.`` Comparable before British, and comparable sometime after British. But low during the British rule.......

If the British rule was a source of progress then the graph would not have gone from 1/3rd to 1/45th. It would have at least stayed the same. And, more importantly, it would have kept going down after the British left, since the locals would have been worse off without the British. However, after taking a few decades to get the local human resources in management positions, this graph is now going up, and not going down, now that the British are gone.........

The reasons are simple: The South Asians (not all, but a large group) are no longer simply labor. They are part of management. And the profits of their work are being fed into their own societies (like they were in the pre-British days), and not to support the economy of another country, like Britain. A hundred years ago, I may have been in a Lahore, which was cleaner than today. It may have had better law and order. If I had a court case, it may have been processed faster, under the British. But more than likely, I would have been an enlisted labor in the British Army in that Lahore. Or a part of the labor in a factory. And much of the profits of any company I worked for, would have been fed back into the British economy. Not into the local economy.......

Romair:

Oops, you are quite right; didn`t actually pose it as a question so you can`t be blamed for not answering it! Let me ask it now: Why do you think that Tipu Sultan or Ranjit Singh would have succeeded where Mohammed Ali and the Ottomans failed?

My point in making the comparison between them and Indian rulers is fairly straightforward. They did what you said the Indians did: hire Western specialists to train and reorganize their armies, build Western factories and attempt to modernize at least some crucial aspects of their societies. Both of these reforms were relative failures (Egypt`s more than the Ottoman`s).

Of course all these areas are very different. However, Canada is quite different from Australia which is very different from France which is not exactly the same thing as Austria which is very different from Russia. Modernization/economic development/whatever-you- want-to-call-it succeeded in all these places. Even in Russia, a backwards boondocks if ever there was one, it succeeded admirably compared to Ottoman Turkey or Egypt.

Why is that? Maybe because they were Christian? Because they shared a common culture? Common values? Who knows? But it did succeed.

Now, all these places are much closer to each other than to, say, Egypt. But Egypt and Ottoman Turkey are much closer in society/culture/attitudes/what-have-you to Ranjit Singh`s Punjab and Tipu Sultan`s Mysore than these places are to France or Germany.

So it seems reasonable to me that efforts that failed in Egypt and Ottoman Turkey would be more likely to fail in India than they would to succeed. Of course there is no assurance they would fail; just as there is no assurance they would have succeeded. However, if you play the odds, the odds are definitely against them.

I know a lot more about Ranjit Singh`s army than I do about Tipu`s but I do know a bit about both. In both cases, the reforms and advisors they had imported only brought about a fairly superficial change in the overall culture. The Sikh Army was certainly the equal of the HEIC Army and, probably, the British Army as well, but the Army was not the society. You can see the temporary nature of the `reforms` initiated by Ranjit Singh in the short-lived nature of his kingdom. Like many Asian empire-builders, his realm did not long outlast him.

The history of India between 1707 and 1857 is a fascinating one and, probably, one or two of the Indian successor states to the Mughals would have done much better than the others. Then again, they might not have. Maybe the Mahrattas would have taken over most of Northern India; maybe the Afghans; maybe the Sikhs would have expanded. Maybe India would have been like the Balkans. Who knows. There is no hard evidence to show that, absent the British, it would definitely have done much better in economic development terms.

Fuzair #26: ``You`re deliberately NOT answering a very important point that I raised: Why didn`t Mohammed Ali`s reforms succeed in Egypt?``

You never asked this question, which is why I did not answer it. All you said in the previous reply was, ``Take a look at the failed reforms/modernization attempts of Mohammed Ali in Egypt and the continual failure of the Ottoman Empire to reform.``

To me this does not seem like a question.........It is merely a statement.

I have no idea why Mohammad Ali`s reforms did not succeed in Egypt. I have next to no knowledge of that area. The Turkish reforms, I don`t know the details of either. But Turkey has been quite a bit ahead of South Asia on HDI, for a long time. And still remains ahead. And what are you views about what happened in Japan?

In either case, one would have to do a detailed analysis and comparison of the regions. Even within the Sub-Continent, the regions were so different. They were bound to be different a quarter of the way around the world, in Egypt and Turkey. Even Ranjit Singh and neighboring Afghanistan were different, what to talk of Egypt and Turkey. How are you so easily relating all these areas?

Before I proceed furthur, I would like to ask you, in how much detail have you studied the period between 1750-1850 in various states in India. For example, you mention:

``he was at least as smart, brave and as capable as, say, Tipu Sultan or anyone else in India?`` How have you reached the conclusion that both were equals. And as smart and as brave. And what does bravery have to do with reforms?

And, ``Tipu and Ranjit had a few mercenaries working in his army or building his cannons or his arsenal.`` Are you sure? Have you studied what Ranjit Singh was doing with his Army. From what I have read, it was more than a few mercenaries. And how close Tipu Sultan was getting to the French?

The question here isn`t that India would have turned into Europe. It wouldn`t have. But would some of its parts been better off had its various states been allowed to evolve, independently. Some of the states had strong interactions with Europe, with visionary leaders, and a population that had a history of keeping up with the world.

I think around 1800 time frame progress could have been initiated. However by 1900, it was too late. The states HR development had been completely cut-off by that time......They were nothing but efficient laborers, by that time........

#23 hindvi
{In ``The Mughal Empire`` by John F. Richards, C. A. Bayly (Editor), Gordon Johnson (Editor)Banda Bahadur is reffered to as the leader of a millenial movement in the reign of Bahadur Shah I, he sacked sirhind in which the sikhs committed general massacre, rape, and loot on the civilians of that city}

Fyi, Sirhind massacre was a revenge for bricking alive Guru Gobind Singh’s two young sons. You see, some times tyrants get the message only when they are made to pay the price. As you know, Sikhs were non-violent and peaceful folks until this vicious action/reaction cycle was started by the mugal emperors.

Selective reading is not very helpful in understanding history.

Regards.

http://allaboutsikhs.com/martyrs/sahibzade2.htm
{At the court, seeing no let up in the firm resolve of the brave sons of great Guru, the Nawab asked them as to what would they do in case he freed them. The young boys said in reply, “We would organise Sikhs and fight to finish against the tyrant rulers to provide freedom to the opressed. We will stick to our Sikh faith under all circumstances and you or others like you will never succeed in deflecting us from our faith.”
Nawab Wazir Khan failed in his mission to convert the two Sahibzadas into Islam. He felt dejected and humiliated. He asked his court Kazi to suggest appropriate punishment for the kids. The Kazi promptly suggested bricking alive of the kids and then doing them to death with sword blows as per Muslim law, as understood by him.
Shaken by this inhumane punishment for the young innocent children suggested by Kazi, Nawab Sher Khan of Malerkotla protested and said, “Islam does not specify punishment to the children for the guilt of their father. They are innocent and should be freed.” The Kazi lost his temper and told Sher Khan that he (Kazi) was much more conversant with Muslim law than him. Sucha Nand added fuel to fire by suggesting that Cobra’s off springs should be killed promptly lest they create trouble when they are fully grown up.
On this, Wazir Khan approved the punishment suggested by Kazi without any amendment. Nawab of Malerkotla protested loudly at this decision and walked out of the court.
When no one came forward to carry out the punishment pronounced for the young children, two Pathans of Ghilaza Tribe (known for their barbarism) were successfully persuaded to do the job. They made the young lads stand close to each other and started raising a wall around them. Sahibzada Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh started reciting hymns of Guru ji (Gurbani) and meditating on the name of God, remained composed and in high spirits.
The Kazi carrying his holy book Koran in his hands continued to persuade the kids to accept conversion to Islam to save their precious lives. The children fully concentrating their minds on the name of God, paid no heed to what Kazi was trying to tell them. When the wall reached the shoulders of Sahibzada Fateh Singh, on a signal from Kazi, the two Pathans promptly choped off the heads of the two kids with the blows of their swords.
Mata Gujri was thrown to death from the cold tower by the soldiers after being informed of the fate of her grandsons.}

Romair:

All such papers have to rely on very limited data; that`s why he has the disclaimers. However, you will notice that, having given the necessary disclaimers, he is quite confident of his conclusions. Its quite a respectable academic piece.

You`re deliberately NOT answering a very important point that I raised: Why didn`t Mohammed Ali`s reforms succeed in Egypt? After all, he was at least as smart, brave and as capable as, say, Tipu Sultan or anyone else in India?

Also, why didn`t the Turkish reforms succeed? Why didn`t they modernize and beat the West? Why were Selim III and Mahmud II so unsuccessful in their reforms (relatively speaking, of course, they did change things but the Ottoman Empire was still the ``sick man of Europe,`` just not the ``absolutely dying man``).

Look at the big picture and not on whether Tipu and Ranjit had a few mercenaries working in his army or building his cannons or his arsenal. Indian social and institutional structure, just like Ottoman or Egyptian, was not conducive to a Western-style economic or military revolution. For example, one of the things the Ottomans kept doing wrong was that they continued to think that all they had to do was to hire a few more technical experts to train their troops and they`d be able to beat the Russians or whomever. It never occurred to them that they`d have to completely reorder their society from top to bottom to achieve the same level of economic (and so military) success.

The first book printed in Istanbul was in 1493 but it was printed by the Jews there. No Ottoman Turk thought it was an important invention and worth emulating until the 1700s! If that is not a reactionary mindset, what is? Why do you think the Indians (whether Hindu or Muslim) were any better? Their governments were all also rentier/extractive ones, just like the Ottomans.

BTW, I`m not just picking on non-Europeans. Why do you think the Spanish empire went into a permanent decline after the 17th Century? Same reactionary/extractive/rentier mindset.

You gotta be kidding man! What else do you expect Mr Manmohan to ang about amidst all that British elite...the notorious Lagaan? Mr Manmohan may well be a statesman, and a seasoned one at that, but the global politics has little if not no space for right out statesmanship.

This “author”, probably another creation of Chowk’s prejudiced Pakistani elite to ridicule Indian political leaders (hey, be my guest!) just likes to beat upon the British and Mr. Singh simultaneously over trivialities! The facts are:

(1) Mr. Singh is a duly elected representative of the world`s largest democratic nation which is mature enough to put aside the foolishnesses created by British leaders of the past (Pakistan being the most glaring example!) and focus the vision on the future.

(2) A convocation speech is not necessarily a venue for policy statements of any kind.

(3) At this point in time, there is a certain convergence of interests between India and the British – over the issues of terrorism (something this “author” so conveniently is innocent of!)

Of course, then the People here bite the bait and start going through history back to the Mughal Raj.

Like SOMEBODY ought to advise the Pakistani leaders – STOP living in the past!

In ``The Mughal Empire`` by John F. Richards, C. A. Bayly (Editor), Gordon Johnson (Editor)Banda Bahadur is reffered to as the leader of a millenial movement in the reign of Bahadur Shah I, he sacked sirhind in which the sikhs committed general massacre, rape, and loot on the civilians of that city.

Dost-mittar #20: ``The Mughals created lavish splendour and sumptuous monuments and memorials and some Indian rajas and nawabs even imprted latest weaponry, but no one tried to follow the industrial revolution sweeping Europe.``

I used to think the same way. Until I started discussing this with some very knowledgeable persons and reading up on the memoirs of some of the local rulers as well as the British officers, themselves. They make very interesting reading.

The Mughals were nobodys, by 1857. Or even before then. Their own salaries were being paid by other local rulers. You may want to read about what some of the other local rulers were thinking and doing. Some of them were actively looking at Europe around the 1800 or so era, for military, industrial and intellectual vision. However their ideas got killed in their infancies. The British basically annihilated everyone who opposed them, and empowered land owners who supported them (many of whose next generations are still ruling Pakistan).

``And let`s be fair. I am sure you have heard from your elders, as I have, that the Angrezi Raaj was quite benign; they did not show any favours (generally speaking) between various subjects; laws were meant to be enforced and were enforced.``

They were benign (as far as colonists go), in the later part of their rule. Post-1900. Do look at what the East India Company did to Bengal and the famines that occured there. I would hardly call that benign.

But the point being discussed is not benigness. It is the acceleration or decelaration of HR development in India, due to colonization. I think the development would have been far higher had it not been colonized and the various states had been allowed to trade with Europeans (from which they would learned and progressed, eventually)........

``It was ahead of every other country with the exception of Japan.``

Why do you think it was behind Japan? Could it be because the Japanese were not colonized (pre- WWII). Japan had a long period of isolation. The Meiji Restoration, also resulted in an Emperor. However, the local rulers drove it and held power. They started interacting with the West, through trade. The West did not occupy them. Look where they are today..........

One would have to look at Japan in more detail. I am not an expert, at all, on the subject. But is it a coincidence that the one country that traded with the West, without being occupied, came out the furthust ahead. While the one country, that neither traded with the West nor was occupied - Afghanistan - came out the furthust behind. While India, which was occupied and traded with the West came out in between..........

Again, I am basing all of this on the assumption that you and I are not genetically inferior. And that with eventual exposure to advanced societies, we can learn, even if we are in a rot......I am quite convinced that once India had broken up into various states (which would have happened had the British not come in), some of the states would have had some sort of a rennaissance........

Fuzair #18: The paper you have presented, according to its own admission, has very limited data on which it is based. So it cannot be considered too accurate.

But what it does present seems to support what I am saying, i.e. South Asia was doing fine, in comparison to the rest of the world, in pre-British times. In 1600, the average buying power of the South Asian laborer was 1/3rd that of the average Englishmen, according to the paper. What is it today? What was it in 47? Far poorer than 1/3rd. More like 1/45th.

However, this gap will narrow as the 21st century goes along. Let`s just take India, which constitutes 80% of the South Asian population. It could be a developed nation in 50 years. And I doubt the per capita income of the average Brit will be 45 times that of the average Indian in 50 years. It will probably be a more comparable figure.

Historically, 1750-1950 (the British time) will be seen as a time, when South Asians, as individuals, were at their lowest point, with respect to the rest of the world. Not in comparison to where they may have been in 1700. But in comparison to where the rest of the world was during 1750-1950.

The reasons, I have explained below: South Asians were reduced to being labor in a gigantic capitalistic European machine. That machine was more advanced, as a whole, than anything South Asians could have put together. But the South Asian`s own human resource development was stunted, since they could not rise to the manager or executive or entrprenueral levels in that machine. They would have been better off, had they been able to reach all levels in an organic local capatilistic machine, even if it was less efficient machine.

The net result is that while the average European laborer and peasant was allowed toadvance up through this capatilistic machine, the average South Asian remained a laborer in the machine. The only trickle down benefit he got was that some infrastructure and social development was done in his areas, to ensure the machine functioned efficiently, i.e. as the machine got bigger and more efficient, the South Asian laborer was also trained on better tools However, he was almost totally cut off from the intellectual and human resource growth that is needed for any kind of rennaissance. He just kept becoming a more efficiently trained laborer. In fact, it wasn`t till 20 to 30 years before independence that the Brits started recruiting locals, in larger numbers, in managerial positions. Uptil then, barring the odd exceptions. locals were factory, construction, farming and military labor.......

As the colonial lid has lifted off now, the locals have access to all levels of the capitalistic machine. And one can see the changes. Locals are becoming managers, and executives and entreprenuers. Their machines are inefficient now. But slowly their local machines will start competing with the European capitalistic machines. Something that could have never happened in the 18th and 19th century (and much of 20th century), when they were colonized.

All of this is, of course, based on the following pre-requisites:

- South Asians and their ancestors weren`t and aren`t genetically inferior and ignorant bufoons with no capacity to learn from ideas that they are exposed to
- There would have been interaction, through trade and travel between various South Asian states and European states, during the previous centuries, even if the British had not taken over

Thus South Asians would have been much better off had the Brits just traded with South Asian states and not occupied them. This is what the situation was during the pre-Brit days. And this is what the situation is today. India will progress more if Dell comes and opens a plant in India, which is run by Indians. Then if Michael Dell comes in and takes over India, declares himself the emperor, establishes a plant and relegates all Indians, for the next generations to menial labor jobs in his plant, with no opportunity to grow in terms of human resource development.........

Had the Brits just traded with South Asia and allowed other European nations to trade with it, and not outrightly occupied it, South Asia would not be so low on the HDI scale, circa 47. It would have been exposed to Western ideas, while simultaneously catering for local human resource development........As I said, this is what is happening today, and happened in the pre-Brit days........

The only exception is towards the end of the British rule, when the Brits had started to allow local HR development at all levels. So had the Brits stuck around for another 20 years, South Asia (definitely Pakistan) would have been better off. Much like Hong Kong. However, South Asia would have been overall better off, had the Brits not occupied it in the first place (and just traded with it).

They did neither. They occupied it, and then left it abruptly, in a mess. I suppose their saving grace is that, unlike the French in Algeria, they left without having to be kicked out militantly..........

Manmohan Singh has been quoted out of context. In his speech, he did make mention of the fact that India and China were rich countries before the British came. He was just giving the British their due.

Fuzair is right. Just because India was ahead in the past did not mean that the rot had not set in and the decline wouldn`t have continued without foreign intervention. The Mughals created lavish splendour and sumptuous monuments and memorials and some Indian rajas and nawabs even imprted latest weaponry, but no one tried to follow the industrial revolution sweeping Europe.

And let`s be fair. I am sure you have heard from your elders, as I have, that the Angrezi Raaj was quite benign; they did not show any favours (generally speaking) between various subjects; laws were meant to be enforced and were enforced.

As far development, do a comparison of India of 1947 with other Asian countries. It was ahead of every other country with the exception of Japan. It had a great infrastructure of roads, railways, post office, telecommunications, educational institutions, judiciary and a functioning and relatively honest bureaucracy. It had the greatest city east of London in Calcutta and a functioning stock market in Bombay and Calcutta. India even had its own steel mill. India had comfortable foreign exchange reserves, the Indian rupee was strong and a defacto currency in the Gulf and even some Asian countries.

Fast forward to 1987 after forty years of Nehru-Indira Raj. From the leader of the pack, it was almost at the tail of the Asian countries, with the exception of Bangladesh and Nepal. The Indian rupee was worthless, the country almost insolvent and Indians treated with contempt throughout the world. Pushton ki kamayee, 40 sawaal mein ganwaayee.

Fuzair/bbabu #: The biggest key in reformation is the free flow of ideas across civilizationns, a population that is sophisticated enough to implement those ideas, as well as a leadership that has the vision to consider such ideas.

Europeans weren`t born into a rennassaince. They lived in their own dark ages, also. They implemented their rennaissance slowly as their societies grew from a feudal-based to capatilistic. Their societical institutions didn`t change overnight. The advantage they had was due to the close geographical proximity of states, the ideas flowed quite quickly from one place to the other. And no one external entity was able to colonize them and stunt their progress.

This is the criteria against which one must map out the history of the Sub-Continent. Was their a local population that was sophisticated enough to incorporate modern ideas? Were there rulers who had the vision to look at those ideas? Did the area have a history of being a developed civilization, vis-a-vis the rest of the world? Was there some level of free flow of such ideas, from other parts of the world?

I think the answer to those questions is yes. It certainly wasn`t at the pace, as within Europe, but it was happening. It would have happened, at least in some parts of South Asia. Perhaps 50 years, or a 100 years slower than in Europe. But it would have happened. I think South Asia, in various areas, could have had its own delayed, but organic, rennaissance. The history of the area is filled with such events. No one is saying, nor have I said, that Bengal would have been an industrial power. But it certainly would not have been as poor as it was, circa 47. Or even today.

Ranjit Singh and Tipu Sultan are just two examples. There are more. Tipu Sultan was a founding Jacobian. He was deeply in touch with the French, and refered to himself as citizen Tipu Sultan. His writings and ideas and actions indicate an understanding and perhaps a strong desire to reform.

Ranjit Singh did not just, ``bring in a few European advisors.`` Please study it in more detail. He was reforming and overhauling his whole military along European lines.

People only tend to look at what was happening with Bahadur Shah Zafar and the Mughals. When, in fact, there were multiple other parties in South Asia, which were experimenting with different ideas. Was the society already at a point where it could adapt those ideas. No, of course not. But was it at a point where the ideas could find a foothold? Yes, I think so.

If around 1800, Tipu Sultan (had he not been pre-occupied with British, and eventually killed by them) been allowed to implement his ideas, maybe a mini-rennassaince would have started in his area. Then again, maybe not. But if it had started, imagine where it would have been today, had it been allowed 200 years of development, much like the European rennaissance was allowed. Where would Ranjit Singhs military be, today, had it been allowed 200 years of growth along European lines?

Similarly other areas and rulers would have carried out similar steps. Many would not have, but some would have.....

However, once the British took over, all organically grown Human Resource development stopped. Any interaction and free flow of ideas was filtered through the British. Most importantly, the leadership positions were taken away from the locals. They became the labor in the big Capatilist machine, with no opportunity to become the managers. Hence there was no chance of even a belated rennaissance. The only rennaissance they would experience would be some material developments through railroad tracks and canals etc. But they lost access to intellectual and human resource rennaissance......

Once this happens, then within a few generations, the population does reach a stage where it cannot do anything else except be labor. Which is where it was circa 1900. It does become totally dependent on outsiders for advancement.

It would be the equivalent of Microsoft - a gigantic and powerful company- hostilly taking over Wipro (of five years ago). And then designating that all Indians can only be janitors and clerks, in the company. As can their next generations. Now Wipro of five years ago, may not have been much, in terms of skills, in comparison to Microsoft. But, at least there was potential to grow. It would grow a few decades behind Microsoft, but it would grow organically. However, after the take-over scenario described above, the next generations of Indian Wipro employees would be totally dependent on Microsoft to do anything for them.

I don`t think all of South Asia would have developed. But it would have consisted of smaller states, and some of them, would have had a belated rennaissance, as long as the kept interacting with Europe through their leaderships and through trade. They would not have ended up like Switzerland and USA, but they could have ended up like Russia and Turkey or even Cuba.

Do keep in mind that Russia and Cuba are about 85 places ahead of South Asia on the Human Development Index today. And Turkey`s - the remnant of the sick Ottomon Empire that you mentioned - has a per capita income that is three times that of South Asia. South Asia is still the second worst place to live in the world, after Sub-Saharan Africa. Even PLO areas are ranked higher than all South Asian states. The situation of South Asia was even worse, when the British left in 47. A point for some reason, no one wants to consider.

When the history of South Asia is written, 500 years from now, the British period will be the time when the area was at its poorest in HDI in comparison to its history and future, i..e before the Brits, South Asia was quite advanced and a power vis-a-vis various other parts of the world. And the time after the British left, next century will also see most South Asians catching up with the rest of the world. Why? because before the Brits and after them, the local human resource had a chance to organically advance within the institutions it had.

I think in 500 years, people will remember 1947, when the Brits handed over the land to the locals, as the point when the locals were at their lowest point, vis-a-vis the rest of the world.........

Romair:

PS: Check out this paper for a fascinating study about comparative living standards and wages in Europe, India and China. Its not particularly technical but he has done excellent work in analyzing the data!

http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Members/robert.allen/Papers/firstlook.pdf

Romair:

The ``Regulating Act for India`` of 1773 turned the HEIC into a de facto arm of the British government and it is from then on that the Company went into a serious decline--helped along by the fact that its officials were still notoriously corrupt and that it had to pay for a substantial British military and administrative presence in India.

As far as the stuff about ``if the Gora Saab hadn`t cut off the hands of the Bengali weavers, India would have had the Industrial Revolution 50 years before the UK`` is concerned, India probably wouldn`t have achieved much. Take a look at the failed reforms/modernization attempts of Mohammed Ali in Egypt and the continual failure of the Ottoman Empire to reform. You need much more than simply importing technical advisors and technology to radically transform a society; you need to change the societal institutions and incentive structure, and no one was doing that in India. For example, concepts such as property rights, legal system/code, etc. all have to be rationalized and reformed before simple technological innovations and entrepreneurial brilliance will give us spectacular results.

As Bbabu has pointed out, no Indian kingdom was able to institutionalize reform. Given the slightest chance, hysteresis took effect almost immediately and the system reverted back to its original state.

I`d suggest you spend some time reading Mancur Olson, Douglass North and David Landes to better understand why S. Asia did not prosper--i.e., did not achieve mass consumption society status.

BTW, who thinks that S. Asia was an uncivilized lump before the British came? Even the British history books from the 19th century are full of the wonders of Indian civilization. What they hasten to point out is how much it had degenerated by the 19th century.

++++++++++

Also, not sure who said that Attock was a Sikh outpost, Attock Fort was built by Akbar, not the Sikhs.

delhiwala #13

`` If there were no English India/Pakistan would be living in stone ages like Afghanistan or Tibet. Every single thing that we do in DESI-Land, education, writing, sports, clubs, what ever was introduced by English. Even this language that we are talking in and the Internet that is derived of the western worlds acheivements were gifted by the british.
Anyone who does not recognise English`s contribution to the modern world is an ungrateful person. ``

I would not say everything. A lot of things were passed on from the English.


Romair #14

`` No one is doubting the contributions of Westerners, to the world, like the Internet, etc. That is not the point. The point is an objective study of where South Asia was when the East India Company came on. How it conquered South Asia. And how, eventually, the Briitish empire took control of it. And how that accelerated or stunted the growth of the average South Asian, who today is one of the poorest human beings in the world.......... ``

I doubt South Asia would be prosperous given the exponential rise in population. If looting by the British is the sole reason for the poverty it does not explain Japan and Germany`s dramatic rise after WW II.

`` The more I study it, the more, at least I am begining to realize that this whole theory force-fed to South Asians that South Asia would have been Afghanistan and/or Tibet had the British not civilized it, seems to go down the drain. One could make an argument that much of Pakistan would have been Afghanistan had the Briish not come in (or had Pakistan not gotten indepedence, which led to large ecocnomic development in the area). But one cannot say that for the rest of India. ``

The NWFP and Baluchistan have more in common with Afghanistan. I doubt that any serious economic development would have happened.

`` If you get some time, do study the structure of Ranjit Singh`s army. It certainly didn`t look like anything from Afghanistan or Tibet of today. Also study Tipu Sultan`s writings, ideas etc. Quite advanced, and much inline with where Europe was going, at that time. Not to mention Ghalib`s poetry, which could put even Shakespeare to shame.....: ``

While Ranjit Singh and Tipu Sultan were smart to use European officers and tactics their kingdoms did not survive after their death. Their body politic was worse than the current situation.

#12
Much of what comprises present-day Pakistan and part of Kashmir was under the rule of Ranjit Singh prior to the Sikh wars. Ranjit Singh’s administration had several muslims in prominent positions (including brothers `Aziz udDin, Nur ud-Din). Research that a bit. There were a significant number of riots/killings by sikhs of muslims and vice versa around the time of partition but generally the two communities got along relatively well.

#13
“If there were no English India/Pakistan would be living in stone ages like Afghanistan or Tibet.
Every single thing that we do in DESI-Land, education, writing, sports, clubs, what ever was introduced by English.
Even this language that we are talking in and the Internet that is derived of the western worlds acheivements were gifted by the british.

We were not living in the stone-age prior to the Brits arriving (maybe those from Quetta were). The GDP of India equaled that of entire Europe in the mid 1700s. There was significantly less poverty.

Many of the sports are certainly European but education? What have you been smoking? Maybe the medium of Education (English) is different than it used to be but “education” was not invented or discovered by the British.

Indians developed the modern number system around 400 BC. Where would your so-called “modern world” be without that? You would be counting using X’s, I’s, D’s, and M’s. We don’t go around asking for a royalty from anyone use uses numbers and I’m certainly not “grateful” for England’s contribution to India’s prosperity.