Fw: How the British riuned India-2

[Guest guest]

-

"Ajilkumar" <avajil

<drpatel; <gkrama; <garud;

<krishnadas_m; <knarayanan; <dieteggs;

<ajan1; <pnair;

<pnair; <prasanth71in; <rajuagastya;

<sajjew; <lucksmysangam; <Shah;

<sasocty; <bramiyer;

<shashi; <kumarkishore;

<sbabu; <sree4000; <gans73;

<vkumar; <rkannan; <kavubal;

<mpmahesh

Friday, October 31, 2003 2:27 PM

How the British riuned India-2

 

 

> INDIAN ECONOMY BEFORE THE BRITISH SUPREMACY

>

> The India ruled by the Moslem invaders, as well as conquered by the

British,

> was wealthy and prosperous. "The Hindu kingdoms overthrown by the Moslems,

> were so wealthy that Moslem historians tire of telling of the immense loot

of

> jewels and coin captured by the invaders", describes Mount Stuart

Elphinstone

> in 'History of India' (1916 ed). Nicolo Conti described the banks of the

> Ganga (ca.1420) as lined with one prosperous city after another , each

well

> designed, rich in gardens, and orchards, silver and gold, commerce and

> industry. Shah Jahan's treasury was so full of that he kept two

underground

> strong rooms, each some 150,000 cubic feet capacity, almost filled with

> silver and gold. British historian Vincent Smith in his "Akbar' (Oxford,

1919

> ed) writes, "Contemporary testimonies, permit no doubt that the urban

> population of the more important cities was well to do". Travlers

described

> Agra and Fatehpur Sikri as each greater and richer than London!

>

> 'The World- An Illustrated History' which the PBS TV Series 'The World: A

> Television History' was based on, gives following information: In the year

> 1750, Asia with China and India's 150 million population each, was home to

70

> % of world population. China and India also boasted levels of production

and

> prosperity that astonished the Europeans. For the Portugese poet Luis de

> Camoes in 1572, India was the "land of wealth abounding'... The praise was

> not unwarranted. Although it is very difficult to 'measure' economic

output

> of early modern Asia, since reliable statistics on production were rarely

> kept, every scrap of information that comes to light confirms a far

greater

> scale of enterprise and profit in the East than in the West. .

>

> The output of textiles which was also enormous. In India, the city of

> Kasimbazar in Bengal produced, just by itself, over 2 million pounds of

raw

> silk annually during the 1680s, compared to the annual export of mere

250,000

> pounds of silk from Europe's foremost silk producer, Sicily. The cotton

> weavers of Gujarat in the West India, turned out almost 3 million pieces a

> year FOR EXPORT ALONE, compared to the largest textile enterprise in

> continental Europe, the Leiden 'new drapery' produced less than 100,000

> pieces of cloth per year. ASIA, NOT EUROPE, WAS THE CENTER OF WORLD

INDUSTRY

> THROUGHOUT EARLY MODERN TIMES. It was likewise the home of the greatest

> states. The most powerful monarchs of their day were NOT Luis XIV or Peter

> the Great, but Manchu emperor Kangshi and the Moghul Aurangzeb. After

the

> decline of the Mughal empire in 1707 the Marathas became the powerful

rulers

> of large part of India.

>

> Anquetil-Duperon, journeying thru the Maratha districts in 1760, found

> himself "in the midst of the simplicity and happiness of the golden age...

> the people were cheerful, vigorous, and in high health".

>

> ROBERT CLIVE, the chief architect who laid the foundation of British

empire

> in India, visiting Murshidabad IN 1759, RECKONED THAT THE ANCIENT CAPITAL

OF

> BENGAL AS EQUAL IN EXTENT, POPULATION AND WEALTH TO THE LONDON OF HIS

TIME,

> WITH PALACES FAR GREATER THAN THOSE OF EUROPE, AND MEN RICHER THAN ANY

> INDIVIDUAL IN LONDON". Yet the state of Bengal was not the richest or

nor

> the most powerful in India at the time, as Marathas were more powerful

than

> Siraj ud-Doula and ruled larger territory.

> INDIA, said Clive, WAS A COUNTRY OF INEXHUSTIBLE RICHES.

>

> Paul Kennedy in his 'The Rise and Fall of Great Powers' gives statistics

on

> the India's manufacturing clout in 1750 CE and 1800 CE. In 1750, India's

> relative share of entire World's manufacturing output was 24.5 % , i.e.

> higher than entire Europe's output of 23.2 % which included UK (a mere 1.9

> %) , France, Germany, Habsburg Empire, Italian states, and Russia.

>

> BY 1800, INDIA STILL ACCOUNTED FOR 19.7% OF TOTAL WORLD MANUFACTURING

OUTPUT

> COMPARED TO MERE 4.3% BY U.K.

> Even the tea shipment in ' the Boston Tea party' in 1773, which started

the

> American War of Independence, was exported from India!

>

> But more importantly, all the balance of trade in favour of India was

> received as goods and bullion which went into the Indian economy and

helped

> the standard of living of Indians.

>

> A logical question at this point will be: above data indicates that India

had

> a powerful economy, but were all the sections of society prosperous?

Because

> the distribution of wealth within the society is equally important. Thanks

to

> the oft repeated description of Indian caste system in the West and even

in

> India, there is a prevalent opinion that only upper castes were

beneficiaries

> of India's riches. But were they?

>

> For his classic article , on misconceptions about pre-British India,

eminent

> syndicated columnist and former editor of Illustrated Weekly of India,

> M.V.Kamath researched conditions of India before the British rule. He

> notes, 'Economically speaking the non-elitist castes were well off.

> Agricultural productivity in India was very high in the 19th century. On

> comparing the Indian data with that relating to British agriculture around

> 1804 it was found that the productivity in India, was "SEVERAL TIMES

HIGHER'

> than in British agriculture. What surprised the British even more was the

> finding that: the wages of the Indian agricultural labourer in real terms

> were substantially higher" than those of his counterparts in Britain. And

it

> was then remarked that if they were high around 1800 when Indian economy

was

> on a decline, how much higher must wages have been before such decline

began.

>

> The evidence of higher crop yields in India compared to even Britain,

comes

> from British themselves. Drill plough, crop rotation, animal husbandry and

> breeding were virtually unknown in the Europe in the 17 th and 18 th

century.

> The average wheat yield in Britain in 1850 was 20 bushels per acre.

Compared

> to that when a complete report on Indian wheat was ordered by the

Secretary

> of State of Indian .. the result of Forbes Watson 's examination was found

> most satisfactory. India was capable of growing wheat of highest quality.

The

> average what yield was 56 bushels per acre, plus Indian farmers used to

take

> two crops a year, resulting in yield of 112 bushels per acre per year,

i.e. 5

> times greater than his British counterpart!

> Data for 1806 of consumption of the "more prosperous", "families of medium

> means" and the "lowly" make even more significant reading. The consumption

of

> pan (betal leaves) per year in a family of six among the more prosperous

was

> 9600, among those of those of medium means 4800 and among the lowly 3600.

The

> consumption of ghee (clarified butter) and oil was in the proportion of

3:1:1

> approximately, and pulses 8:4:3. The total per capita consumption among of

> the more prosperous was Rs 17-3-4, among those of medium means Rs 9-2-4

and

> the lowly Rs 7-7-0. Economically speaking, then, there really were

> no "backward castes" or deprived classes.

>

> Most of the jobs dealing with production such as weaving, dyeing, smithy,

> carpentry, metal-work were practically the monopoly of Shudras and what

today

> would be described as backward castes. The brahmins were hardly in the

> picture.: Agriculture, again, was practically the monopoly of the backward

> castes. Extensive Government records maintained by the British show that

> from: 1800 onwards "a very large" proportion of the rural population

enjoyed

> the rights of Meeasdars, i.e., hereditary proprietors and cultivators of

> land. In the district of Tanjore, for instance, in 1805 out of 62,048

> meerasdars, only 17,149 were upper caste Brahmins 1,457 were Moslems .

>

> Contemporary account by Maria Graham who visited Pune early nineteenth

> century gives following information : " Among the lower classes (castes)

it

> is very common to see a man loaded with Jewels of gold and silver on his

> hands, feet, waist, neck, ears and nose."

>

> To be continued..

>

>

Attachment: [not stored]