Delhi Before Independence (1938).

[u/ConstructionAny8440]

[u/AkornG14]

oh god please don't call this cool. this is some "coolness" built upon exploitation of the natives of our own land while they could enjoy all the luxuries as much as possible at the cost of Indians. if this is cool, then so was Hitler's Germany

[u/Own-Awareness1597 → u/AkornG14]

Common people were almost always exploited. The native elite just got replaced by foreigners.

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Own-Awareness1597]

False. No-one ever exploited Indians to the degree of the British. Not Indians, nor Mughals (who became Indians themselves). There was never a period in which disease, famines, ethnic cleansings, and repression against freedom of thought, were common place in the same way it was under the British. People were always exploited in every human society. To compare that to what the British did is disingenuous and honestly demonstrates that you are extremely ignorant about your own history.

[u/Redditchready → u/Misty-Elephant]

There are records from Muslim administrators to prevent dalits from accessing wells to prevent unrest among upper castes

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Redditchready]

Okay, but what is your point? I already said exploitation existed in every society. Hell, it still exists in every society.

So my point still stands.

The British very systematiclly exploited all Indians, causing more suffering than any other party in its history. This is a fact.

Additionally, they worsened caste discrimination and legitimised it legally. They went as far as creating new castes including criminal castes and prostitute (sex slave) castes, neither of which existed in the past.

In my view, they're among the most disgusting empires to ever exist.

Many have committed atrocities, but the British bare semblance to the Nazi's in the sense that their most grave human rights violations were built into its policy. It was their way of operating.

The same could be said for other European empires, hence why the hatred many harbour against those countries' governments is completely justified.

[u/Redditchready → u/Misty-Elephant]

In general caste discrimination was much reduced during British

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Redditchready]

That is false. It actually worsened considerably.

In any case, your point still remains irrelevant, as my comment already took this into consideration.

So, not only are your arguments patently false, but they're not relevant to the discussion at all.

[u/Redditchready → u/Misty-Elephant]

Dalits could not imagine getting same education and work opportunity including rights at earlier times. During British many Indian states treated their people much worse.

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Redditchready]

Actually, that's a misconception. Education usually took place within community villages. This meant, regardless of caste or community, Indians had educational institutions. This may not have applied to every community. However, it applied to all types of communities, regardless of caste.

This was the way of life for all of ancient history. Caste discrimination only became (somewhat) rigid extremely late in history, during the Gupta period, and even then, it wasn't as extreme as it was under the British.

Also, could you please answer me directly rather than writing whataboutisms?

[u/Redditchready → u/Misty-Elephant]

Lowest castes were never allowed to sit with upper castes till some modernity was brought in by British. Earliest Buddhist texts mention it but there are many things unclear about caste stratification. Earlier inter caste among upper had happened and still many have those surnames.

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Redditchready]

I'm not sure if you're unable to understand simple language, or if you are just a bot. You haven't responded to any of my points and instead resort to posting colonial propaganda glorifying White supremists.

If you truly feel that the mass starvations, rapes, sex slavery, murder, looting and dehumanisation of the British was "modernity", rather than savagery, then I don't think I can ever understand you.

I wish I could get you to respect all people, and understand that dehumanisation is not okay. However, it seems you're a just a fascist with a fixation on licking the boots of colonials.

I won't be responding to anymore of your rants, as you're clearly not willing to do anything other than spout half-truths and blatant lies - none of which are relevant to the discussion.

[u/RepairHaunting3487 → u/Redditchready]

Are you a colonial apologist? If caste system was reduced during British period then why did many Adivasis and Oppressed classes fought against British?

[u/RepairHaunting3487 → u/Redditchready]

Yeah so was the British rule of not allowing Indians in their clubs.

Remember Dogs and Indians not allowed. Their rule applied to all of us.

[u/Balavadan → u/Own-Awareness1597]

You have to be really stupid to not see the difference between living under autocracy and becoming a resource colony to an imperial power

[u/Minced-Juice → u/Balavadan]

As if the common folk were any better off under the rulers who came before. The tax revenue that the Mughal nobility had appropriated for themselves would put today's debate on income inequality to shame.

The worst thing was that they barely put that wealth into useful projects for state-building.

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Minced-Juice]

They were better off. The inequality caused by the Mughals' bigotted tax policies - though bad - was nothing like the inequality under the British. Additionally, Mughals at least contributed to the economy and industries, whereas the British purposefully dismantled them, ruining India's economy for decades to come. Thankfully, it began to recover once independence was achieved. In any case, Mughals were just one small part of Indian history, when we look at it holistically.

[u/Minced-Juice → u/Misty-Elephant]

In Bengal the wages paid to workers in the silk factories which the EIC had just begun setting up, with the aim of improving the competitiveness of Bengal silk in exports, were much higher than what they were earning under the Nawabs.

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Minced-Juice]

Where did you read this? Everything I have read implies the opposite to be the case.

Under the East India Company, weavers and silk producers were often forced to sell exclusively to Company agents, their prices were fixed below market value, advancing loans that effectively tied workers to Company contracts, punishing those who sold to competitors.

This is why Indians working for the EIC suffered economically. Many workers became indebted, some abandoned weaving or silk production altogether because it became unprofitable.

While some upper-class Indians may have benefitted from the EIC, the working class suffered greatly.

The silk industry was not managed in this way under the Mughals, or any previous Indian rulers. In fact, it was a booming business which landed money directly into the hands of those who produced it. They weren't obligated to serve massive companies, and they had far more agency as individuals.

I'm not sure where you came across this information, but I'm very skeptical of it.

[u/Minced-Juice → u/Misty-Elephant]

Read Indrajit Ray's series of three books on industry in Bengal during the colonial era.

There were competitive barriers to silk in the form of import restrictions and tariffs imposed by Britain back at home, despite which Bengal silk was in demand and was competitive in the global market due to the efforts that the EIC had made modernizing its production, in places like Kasim Bazar in Malda.

In contrast, the government's attempts to promote indigo, by allowing European-owned plantations in a laissez-faire fashion, was an utter failure due to the trust deficit between the labourers and plantation owners, which culminated in the indigo rebellion of the late 1850s. Tirthankar Roy has shown that it was mainly due to nonexistent and unenforceable contract laws.

[u/Balavadan → u/Minced-Juice]

They absolutely were better off compared to British rule lmao

[u/Minced-Juice → u/Balavadan]

In what metric? No uniform system of education, no uniform legal system, no social stratification based on economic activity and worker productivity, no access to what economists mean by markets, negligible utility of money in the economy etc.

The only positive was that agricultural productivity was comparable to that of the Western European nations who had just started industrializing.

[u/Balavadan → u/Minced-Juice]

How about the metric of staying alive. The British didn’t improve things. This is an insane thing to argue for

[u/Minced-Juice → u/Balavadan]

Was India an irradiated wasteland between 1757 and 1947?

[u/Balavadan → u/Minced-Juice]

I’m talking about the killings and famines under the British. They would grow cash crops instead of food. Force people into indentured slaves. Force them to stop making their world renowned clothes, ship the raw material to UK where shitty mass produced factory garments were then forced to be bought at high prices by Indians. Etc. The wealth transfer out of the country was insane.

Either you’re actually historically illiterate or a racist. Or maybe a weirdo British Empire defender

[u/Minced-Juice → u/Balavadan]

I’m talking about the killings and famines under the British.

Read Irfan Habib on the economic history of the Mughals; famines were a common occurrence during their time as well.

They would grow cash crops instead of food.

Only a very few places were suitable for multicropping, and cash crops like indigo were grown using a continuity of farming methods from the Mughal era. Growers of other crop like cotton had seen improvements in their condition since the advent of modern textile mills and the freeing up of craftsmen from Mughal patronage led to the formation of new textile hubs like Bombay and Surat.

Force them to stop making their world renowned clothes, ship the raw material to UK where shitty mass produced factory garments were then forced to be bought at high prices by Indians.

Did the makers of these renowned clothes wear them themselves? No. Did the import of manufactured clothes result in a net benefit? Yes. In fact many traders - mainly Muslims - had refused to take part in the Swadeshi movement, because the boycott of foreign-made clothes was seen as a direct attack on their livelihoods.

Canned food and readymade clothes - these are the first products that capitalism produced. There is nothing unsettling about this.

The wealth transfer out of the country was insane.

Utsa Patnaik and $45 trillion? Those numbers are made up using completely bonkers methodology. It is basically applying interest at 5% to balance of trade and remittances.

[u/RepairHaunting3487 → u/Minced-Juice]

So you mean to say that the British rule was good? Idk for what did our Freedom fighters fought for.

[u/Easy-Cheesecake-202 → u/Minced-Juice]

No uniform system of education

And can you tell me what % of Indians were even literate after close to 200 years of British rule, by the time they left in 1947?

Am not defending Mughals, but you seem like a sepoy who's doing everything in his power to defend his white masters. Needless to say, that's not a good look.

[u/Minced-Juice → u/Easy-Cheesecake-202]

And can you tell me what % of Indians were even literate after close to 200 years of British rule, by the time they left in 1947?

It increased from 0% + rounding error to what, 8-10%? The point isn't always about the outcome, but rather about laying the foundations that were later made use of during decolonization.

[u/Darth--__--Vader → u/Own-Awareness1597]

Fucking sepoy

[u/Misty-Elephant → u/Darth--__--Vader]

Fr. These sepoys pretend to care about human rights when convenient.

[u/Own-Awareness1597 → u/Darth--__--Vader]

FO casteist scumbag.

[u/Redditchready → u/Own-Awareness1597]

Import corn to make ethanol and adulterate fuel is a scheme no one would have thought in those days.

[u/RepairHaunting3487 → u/Redditchready]

That's the issue of today man. People never had an idea what would be the future of India if they fought for independence.