Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!varikoot
From: varikoot@psuvax1.UUCP (Ashok P. Varikooty)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: muslim_baiting
Message-ID: <1907@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 30-Nov-85 15:40:24 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1907
Posted: Sat Nov 30 15:40:24 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 08:25:43 EST
References: <11@sbcs.UUCP> <101800012@uiucdcs>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 46

Reply to Mr. Reddys 
> /* Written  3:32 pm  Nov 10, 1985 by mohan@sbcs.UUCP in uiucdcs:net.nlang.india */
> /* ---------- "muslim_baiting" ---------- */
> The plunder of India & its impoverishment by British colonizers was
> no boon to Indians, Muslim or non-muslim.
> /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.nlang.india */
> 
> Changing the topic, has it ever been established that the British plundered
> India?  Does anybody have figures representing the rate of growth in India
> for a substantial period before the British arrived in India, and the rate
> of growth during the British rule?  If the British did plunder India, what
> did they plunder and howmuch?
  I would suggest that Mr. Reddy read any of the books by Gunnar Myrdal
  a non-Indian expert on the South Asian economy. 
  As for Indian sources he could possibly read an umpteen number of authors
  an instance is Dandekar.V.M.   
> 
> 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.
 I would like to know the basis for this comment. Myrdal has said 
 that there is evidence of  at least a one-half percent decline in growth
 rate due to the effects of colonisation.  This is a direct figure due
 to transfer payments made. The indirect effects like perpetuation of 
 a low literacy rate over 300 years, prevalence of a high infant mortality
 a lopsided excise and customs system to prevent development of the domestic
 industry has not been included. The above statistics have significantly 
 improved after independence even with a constricing socialistic system.

 As I recall the growth rate during the preindependence era was less than
 2%. After independence the growth rate even with restrictive social 
 policies has been about 3.5%.

 It is no secret that transfer payments to the British were taking place in
 1943 when millions died of starvation in Bengal.


 A country does not develop in a generation. While there could be a definite
 improvement in the current economic policies eg. elimination of the public
 sector in most areas, the development in the post independence era has been
 much better than that during over 300 years of colonisation.

 SO IT IS ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS TO SAY THAT INDIA MAY HAVE BEEN BETTER OF AS
 A COLONY OF THE BRITISH

Ashok. 
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***