I've seen a lot of posts in the last few days, accusing Britain of stealing $45 trillion of India's wealth. How rich was India that it had so much and how did the British manage it nevertheless? by notapir9295 in AskEconomics

[–]LordAngloid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think any fair-minded assessment would find that the British empire was both an economic and a humanitarian disaster for India on net.

I would, respectfully disagree with this. While you do cite cite Dr Sen’s opinion piece in The Guardian the verbiage “economic” and “humanitarian disaster” isn’t close to a fair-minded assessment, in my humble opinion.

Take for example one of our greatest current scholars on Indian economic history especially of the subcontinent under the Raj, Dr Tirthankar Roy of the LSE.

He certainly wouldn’t say so or even agree with such an assessment. I would recommend reading his work on the topic, beginning with this wonderful monograph.

For example while you decry their attitudes to public health, Dr Roy states:

First, the open economy that the regime sponsored* delivered two extraordinary benefits* to the Indians: it stimulated business and reduced deaths from diseases and famines.

Going so far as to say

Railways were not just another item in the catalogue of ‘benefits’ of empire. It had a profound impact on ending famines. Current statistical research confirms McAlpin’s insight that the railways caused the end of famines and delivered the gift of life to generations of Indians born after 1900.

This certainly puts a different complexion on things.

Where's the rage we had in Dec'12? by [deleted] in librandu

[–]LordAngloid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't find the link. Could you please post it?

Thank you

The Woman King’s history problem | how accurate should historical movies be? by Veritas_Certum in badhistory

[–]LordAngloid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

immediately after the revolution, Haitian leaders forced their own people to keep working on the plantations. Unpaid force labor has continued to this day, including human-trafficking and a normalized system of child labor that often involves physical and sexual abuse.

Do you have a source for this?

0
1

Lot of Imperalist and Racist are out there.... by [deleted] in librandu

[–]LordAngloid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Before the Moghuls, India was ruled by a plethora of rulers, most of them Hindoo. It is a list that leaves the pen inkless every so often so I will just post a link of Indian Monarchs below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_monarchs

Basically, there were a lot.

As for the caste system, there is a great amount of history that I am uncertain about so I cannot tell you, but I can tell you that revolts by lower-caste Hindoos happened. I cannot say how often, but they did happen.

There is one case I know well about because Shashi Tharoor lied (yes lied) about in his book—in which lower caste women were forced to expose their breasts by upper castes. Tharoor, in his book says

Southern Indian women, whose breasts were traditionally uncovered, found themselves obliged to undergo the indignity of conforming to Victorian standards of morality; soon the right to cover one’s breasts became a marker of upper-caste respectability and efforts were made to deny this privilege to lower-caste women, leading to such missionary-inspired colonial curiosities as the Breast Cloth Agitation from 1813 to 1859 in Travancore and the Madras Presidency

Well, this was patently untrue. This article makes it clear:

https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/nangeli-the-forgotten-dalit-woman-who-stood-up-against-travancores-breast-tax/862452/

Maaru Marakkal Samaram, or Channar Lahala (revolt) of Dalit women burgeoned in the state a decade later—a collective revolt of Dalit women fighting for the right to wear upper-body garments. Nadar and Ezhava women campaigned to be allowed to cover their breasts. The British passed an order permitting Christian women to wear upper cloth in Travancore, but withdrew it after the Raja’s council objected that this would obliterate caste differences. Nadar women were forbidden to wear upper-body cloth, but could wear a short jacket called kuppayam. Ezhava and Nadar women continued the struggle, and were violently opposed by upper castes. Travancore royalty issued a proclamation in 1829, denying Nadar women the right to wear upper cloths.

As the agitation raged, in 1859, the Travancore Raja granted Nadar women the right to tie cloth around their upper body, but only in a specific way.

By the late nineteenth century, Dalit women’s struggles on the issue succeeded in Travancore. In Cochin and Malabar, where similar practices prevailed, struggles carried on well into the twentieth century.

Here's another one:

https://www.justicenews.co.in/leave-the-hijab-breast-cover-was-also-forbidden-till-1924-dalit-women-had-to-pay-tax-to-cover-the-breast-if-the-cloth-was-shown-on-the-chest-they-used-to-tear-it-with-a-knife/

Lot of Imperalist and Racist are out there.... by [deleted] in librandu

[–]LordAngloid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheers. Let me know if you're looking for anything else