India's $22B treasure trove has great 'archeological significance': expert

Edmonton News ^ | July 4, 2011 | Carmen Chai, Postmedia News

[ravager]

“Pretty darn unlikely. Recurring famines are caused byt failure of the monsoon rains, over which I think the British had little control. I am perfectly willing to agree British policies may have been ineffective at reacting to famines when the occurred or have made them worse than they need have been.”

And to support that, you have what? Your own con jecture? Thats all?

“During colonial times, India suffered more frequently, more severely, and at larger extents under famines than at pre-colonial times. [...] It is important to note that hunger and death occurred even when there was a uniform administrative structure and a far superior traffic system than at the time of pre-British India under the moguls. In addition to usual climatic factors it turns out that the bad situation got even worse as a result of price manipulations by food merchants, inactivity of the government as well as export of food even at times of shortages, accompanied by a gradual deterioration of the income as well as the employment situations of the agricultural workers and small farmers.”

http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Pfitzner71-75.html

” Bengali Holocaust, the man-made, 1942-1945 Bengal Famine in which 6-7 million Indians were deliberately starved to death by the British under Churchill for strategic reasons in what was one of the greatest atrocities in human history but which has been largely white washed from British history. “

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya130611.htm

“Genocide committed by British Government in Bengal was bigger, more ghastly and more cruel than the killing of Jews by Hitler.....After independence, from 1947 till date, East Bengal (presently known as Bangladesh) has been ruled by dictators for many years. Yet, during the past five and a half decades, the number of starvation deaths in East Bengal (or West Bengal) is not even one per cent of the number of people that died of starvation during the half-century before independence. The issue, obviously, is not dictatorship versus democracy.”

http://www.samarthbharat.com/bengalholocaust.htm

“It was Europe that did something unique, with the industrial/scientific revolution bounding far ahead of all others.”

Your point that with out British rule India would never have advanced technologically is simply racial superiority nonsense. Japan is a perfect example of how Asia can technologically advance (perhaps further ahead of Europe) without European rule and look at China and India today kicking Europe's butt left right and center.

“This was possible because of their long history of imitating the most advanced civilization of which they were aware,”

Many would argue the same about Europe that the industrial revolution and Europe's technological leap forward was partly the result of her interaction with the Eastern civilizations through trade and crusades. Eurocenterist like you would never admit to that of course.

“China, India, SE Asia, Islam, etc. were incapable of such imitation, as culturally they were convinced of the superiority of their own ways.”

It had very little to do with incapability of imitation as much as it had to do with timing and geopolitical dynamics of the time. There are very few cultures in the world which are not convinced of the superiority of their own ways and that includes US and Europe as well. In fact Indian, Islamic and Asian cultures if anything are far more adapting give then extent of constant interaction among themselves both positive and negative. As far as cultural adaptation goes do you see Indians ad Chinese learning English and adapting to western culture or White Anglo-Saxons adapting to Asian ways and languages?

“I find most people have a very limited understanding of the devastation caused by premodern wars.”

I find YOU have a very limited understanding of British empire wars. Wars in India were localized. The largest Mughal army hardly numbered more then a hundred thousand. Mostly Empires came and went and people were hardly even aware. Their only concern was who they paid taxes to (mostly it was the local rulers). British style of warfare changed the whole dynamic of war. At the peak of WW2 Indian army had a strength of 4 million soldiers. Throughout the reign of British raj vast numbers of Indian mercenaries were used as cannon fodder to fight the wars of British empire in East Africa, North Africa, West Asia, Asia minor, Indo-China. Illiterate Indian slaves euphemistically called “indentured laborers” were uprooted from their homes and were shipped to far corners of British empire to places such as west indies, africa, fiji etc. And back home it caused hunger holocausts of unimaginable proportions. It wasnt about modern or pre modern wars, British empire wars took a far heavier toll both socialogically and economically on India more then anytime ever in her history.

[ravager]

“Much, never all, of the subcontinent was intermittently and briefly united by exceptionally capable rulers. However, in every case this quickly fell apart into a welter of semi and fully independent states struggling against each other.”

If you consider the long timeline of Indian history then perhaps those period that stretch over a few centuries may seem intermittent and brief. Beside which country on the planet was united and in the same shape it was for thousands of years as it is today? For how long was the United States in the same shape as you see it today? How about China? or Great Britain? Germany? Italy... or any country in the world. Boundaries changes, borders are drawn, re-drawn, countries get split or united all the time throughout history.

And the reason why I mentioned “Bharat versa” which evoked a very predictable customary smirk of ignorance from you was that the idea of “Bharat versa” or “Akhand Bharat” or “Hindustan” as a civilization and nation state existed very widely in common in political dimension, public discourses, popular epics and folklore's all throughout Indian history long before the British imported the idea of Indian nation state ...which they actually did not.

Beside Mughal empire at its peak controlled most of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan from 1556 to 1707.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MughalEmpire1700.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mughal_empire_large.png
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Mughal.gif

And see the stark resemblance to Mauryan Empire under Chandragupta and Asoka lasting over 2 centuries
....
http://tjbuggey.ancients.info/Mauryamap.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg

“I'm no expert on Indian history, but you've obviously fallen prey to the idea that everything negative in Indian history is a result of the evil British rule.”

Obviously you are no expert on Indian history and that is a huge difference between us and more importantly what you overlook is your own eurocentric cultural superiority bias which is so glaringly clear that your post are not only factually incorrect but also there is a whole lot of careful and deliberate attempt to make conjectures geared towards proving your cultural superiority agenda at the cost of historical facts. And you aren't the first or the only American to fall prey to that knowingly or unknowingly.

[ravager]

“As I recall the British left in 1947. The USA alone accounted for half of all the world GDP at that point.”

Of course it did only because US had NO competition then. How does it look now with a little competition? US down to 18.2% already as of 2008.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/pie-chart-of-gdp-top-58-countries

Wait another 10 years when India and China grows larger. India and China getting back to take their rightful place in the global GDP share is proof of European colonization decimating economies.

“Non-industrial states couldn't’t grow at any comparable rate, regardless of either their independence or membership in an empire.”

Colonies were PREVENTED from being industrialized through stringent regulations and exorbitant taxation so Europe could grow faster. Today it is Europe that is unable to keep up with the rate of industrialization in China and India.

“No, it says nothing so stupid that would compare either the Brits or the French treatment of India to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia”

Oh but it absolutely does. You compared one evil as a better alternative to another one because it is better only in your own eyes but contrary to the historical experience of those under colonization. Asking people to be thankful it wasn't Spanish, Nazi or Russian is not an argument but prejudice. There is ample evidence against British excesses all over Asia and Africa that would very easily dwarf or equal Soviet and Nazi excess forget Spanish. A western style legal and constitutional system that Indians adopted out of their own accord (which didnt exist under colonial rule) is no compensation for those excesses.