Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcsb
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!mcdaniel
From: mcdaniel@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: muslim_baiting
Message-ID: <141700058@uiucdcsb>
Date: Sat, 16-Nov-85 03:36:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.141700058
Posted: Sat Nov 16 03:36:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Nov-85 06:29:00 EST
References: <11@sbcs.UUCP>
Lines: 34
Nf-ID: #R:sbcs.UUCP:11:uiucdcsb:141700058:000:1717
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcdaniel    Nov 16 02:36:00 1985


> Written  6:14 pm  Nov 15, 1985 by reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU in
uiucdcsb:net.nlang.india
> I have'nt seen a detailed study of these issues, but what I have seen
> suggests that India progressed faster during the British rule than
> before it.

Even if that could be shown (and I am HIGHLY dubious of such an
assertion) it wouldn't prove a thing.  For example, England progressed
much faster under the House of Hanover (Industrial Revolution) than
under the House of Plantagenet (Middle Ages).  However, the Hanovers
were mediocre*, and there were many capable Plantagenets (though there
were a few execrable horrors).  You must demonstrate that India under
British rule progressed faster than India would have progressed IN THE
SAME TIME FRAME without British rule.

In any event, if the UK had taken less taxes and profits OUT OF India
TO the UK, India would certainly have grown faster.  (Note the emphasis
on OUT OF and TO.  If those phrases are omitted, the statement may not
be true -- cf.  John Maynard Keynes.)

In addition, economic progress is not all.  For example, if the UK were
to conquer the USA now (fat chance!), subjecting us to a ruthless
totalitarian regime and skimming the profits, but causing the USA to
have higher growth than we would have had on our own (fat chance!),
would you justify the regime on the basis of the economic growth?
Would you say that the UK's skimming of the cream were justified?

The economic arguments were important -- BUT the issue of Indian
freedom was more important.  (Letting bygones be bygones, while
remaining vigilant against repetitions, is important, too!)

* I consider William IV to be the last Hanoveran King, succeeded by
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Windsor.