Tamerlane is… not really what I would point to for an average history of India. Don’t forget that the Mughal Empire was more powerful and prosperous than Europe, and included both Hindus and Muslims in the echelons of power. The only real improvement in the process of conquest is that the Brits were no longer interested in slavery by the time they took a keen interest in India in the 19th century.
The Brits brought certain technologies and institutions which are beneficial, that much is true. But medicine, sanitation, rule of law, and ‘basic technology’? Not particularly. Modern Western organizational techniques, honestly, was probably the most beneficial to India.
British medicine was only marginally better than the rest of the world until the late 19th century - and at that point, as uncolonized countries like Japan showed quite well - “Sent a few doctors for degrees at Western medical universities” was a much cheaper and more profitable avenue than getting one’s own damn country taken over. Sanitation, likewise, was not meaningfully improved even in Britain itself until the 1890s, and British efforts to improve sanitation in India were even more lackluster. Rule of law is arguable. Basic technology is very vague, but I struggle to think of anything ‘basic’ that the Brits actually introduced to India en masse.
Don’t confuse the worldwide advance of civilization with a single beneficiary. If India had not been colonized, it is extremely likely that they would have received ‘medicine, sanitation, rule of law, and basic technology’ by the same means that other non-colonized countries did. There’s no stopping modernity.
We have a lot of hate for colonialism because the ones who lost were the rich and powerful, my family were high caste, and I can tell you they were mostly entitled monsters and the world is better off with them losing power.
I agree with this, don’t get me wrong - people often taking “anti-imperialism” to mean “pro-local elites”. But the reason that many successful historical empires are successful is because “Shitty local elites” vs. “Shitty distant elites” don’t generally inspire strong feelings of resistance in the mass of the common people. And Britain was probably, on the whole, not particularly worse than most local elites.
But that doesn’t mean that colonization brought modernity to India. Rather the opposite - colonization was a step ahead of modernity spreading out from the scientific and material explosion of the industrial revolution, and so claimed credit for its arrival (and monopolized its local implementations). Like a sailor with the wind at his back claiming that he is the one who brought the coming storm, and not the other way around.
The only real improvement in the process of conquest is that the Brits were no longer interested in slavery by the time they took a keen interest in India in the 19th century.
That’s a gentle way to put it.
The British ended the global slave trade, and enforced it via the Royal Navy.f
but I struggle to think of anything ‘basic’ that the Brits actually introduced to India en masse.
Steam locomotives?
Fine, feel free to take back some of the argument, however, the brute force of British colonialism had, imho, an excellent destabilizing influence on millennia of the caste system’s stranglehold on Indian culture.
I think India was so infinitely hidebound to its traditions, much like China and Russia were, and the enforced change had much of the same revolutionary effects that the communist revolutions had on the latter.
Sometimes change is needed, and imperialism brought beneficial changes I doubt we would have seen otherwise, as the cultural inertia was, and remains to this day, quite powerful.
Hey man, if you want to argue that British imperialism wiped out the power of local elites, and that was a good thing (or at least better than local elites continuing), I’m not here to get in your way. I’m just in opposition to the technological side of the argument.
Tamerlane is… not really what I would point to for an average history of India. Don’t forget that the Mughal Empire was more powerful and prosperous than Europe, and included both Hindus and Muslims in the echelons of power. The only real improvement in the process of conquest is that the Brits were no longer interested in slavery by the time they took a keen interest in India in the 19th century.
The Brits brought certain technologies and institutions which are beneficial, that much is true. But medicine, sanitation, rule of law, and ‘basic technology’? Not particularly. Modern Western organizational techniques, honestly, was probably the most beneficial to India.
British medicine was only marginally better than the rest of the world until the late 19th century - and at that point, as uncolonized countries like Japan showed quite well - “Sent a few doctors for degrees at Western medical universities” was a much cheaper and more profitable avenue than getting one’s own damn country taken over. Sanitation, likewise, was not meaningfully improved even in Britain itself until the 1890s, and British efforts to improve sanitation in India were even more lackluster. Rule of law is arguable. Basic technology is very vague, but I struggle to think of anything ‘basic’ that the Brits actually introduced to India en masse.
Don’t confuse the worldwide advance of civilization with a single beneficiary. If India had not been colonized, it is extremely likely that they would have received ‘medicine, sanitation, rule of law, and basic technology’ by the same means that other non-colonized countries did. There’s no stopping modernity.
I agree with this, don’t get me wrong - people often taking “anti-imperialism” to mean “pro-local elites”. But the reason that many successful historical empires are successful is because “Shitty local elites” vs. “Shitty distant elites” don’t generally inspire strong feelings of resistance in the mass of the common people. And Britain was probably, on the whole, not particularly worse than most local elites.
But that doesn’t mean that colonization brought modernity to India. Rather the opposite - colonization was a step ahead of modernity spreading out from the scientific and material explosion of the industrial revolution, and so claimed credit for its arrival (and monopolized its local implementations). Like a sailor with the wind at his back claiming that he is the one who brought the coming storm, and not the other way around.
That’s a gentle way to put it.
The British ended the global slave trade, and enforced it via the Royal Navy.f
Steam locomotives?
Fine, feel free to take back some of the argument, however, the brute force of British colonialism had, imho, an excellent destabilizing influence on millennia of the caste system’s stranglehold on Indian culture.
I think India was so infinitely hidebound to its traditions, much like China and Russia were, and the enforced change had much of the same revolutionary effects that the communist revolutions had on the latter.
Sometimes change is needed, and imperialism brought beneficial changes I doubt we would have seen otherwise, as the cultural inertia was, and remains to this day, quite powerful.
Hey man, if you want to argue that British imperialism wiped out the power of local elites, and that was a good thing (or at least better than local elites continuing), I’m not here to get in your way. I’m just in opposition to the technological side of the argument.
I think then by inference you have to give me the rule of law.
They have the westminster system, something they could never have had under their local elites.
Everything else I concede as circumstantial at best.