What caused the Christian and Muslim invasions of India?

[paarsurrey]

During the age of empires, causes are hard to understand. It's better to look at outcomes. The so called "Islamic empire" when ruling India the country was THE largest contributor to the global economy. 26% as I remember. And they stayed there. They did not steal the countries wealth and send it back to their so called "country" which did not exist. They made India their country. The British Invasion was to loot and steal and their wealth went back to Britain. When the British left, India was contributing 3% of the global GDP. That's an 800% decline in the countries economy.

Ok

Regards

 

[Augustus]

The so called "Islamic empire" when ruling India the country was THE largest contributor to the global economy. 26% as I remember… When the British left, India was contributing 3% of the global GDP. That's an 800% decline in the countries economy.

Siri, can you show me a short argument by someone who doesn’t understand maths, logic, economics or history?

(For comparison, in the past 50 years or so, Europe has seen a significantly bigger percentage decrease in % share than this while their economies have been growing)

If Bobby eats all of a 3 inch pizza, and Wendy eats 1/2 of a 24 inch pizza, who eats more pizza? You are arguing that Wendy sees a 50% decline in pizza consumption (and that this means someone must have stolen her pizza).

 

[firedragon]

Siri, can you show me a short argument by someone who doesn’t understand maths, logic, economics or history?

(For comparison, in the past 50 years or so, Europe has seen a significantly bigger percentage decrease in % share than this while their economies have been growing)

If Bobby eats all of a 3 inch pizza, and Wendy eats 1/2 of a 24 inch pizza, who eats more pizza? You are arguing that Wendy sees a 50% decline in pizza consumption (and that this means someone must have stolen her pizza).

Cheers.

 

[Augustus]

Cheers.

No problem. Glad you learned something about fallacious arguments.

800% decline

 

[firedragon]

No problem. Glad you learned something about fallacious arguments.

800% decline

Great. Thanks.

 

[Augustus]

They did not steal the countries wealth

They stole around 25% of Indian GDP every year to live in the height of luxury while the vast majority of people were subsistence farmers.

They were every bit as avaricious as the EIC, so much so that Indian bankers (Jahat Seth) bribed Clive and the EIC to kick them out of power.

It was simply one extractive elite replacing another. Most people were poor farmers before and after.

 

[firedragon]

They stole around 25% of Indian GDP every year to live in the height of luxury while the vast majority of people were subsistence farmers.

Irrelevant. India was rich, and contributed 26% of the global GDP, and with the British Raj, they went down to some 3%. They became poor. The Muslims lived there and made it their home. The British took the wealth back home. They ate the Indian economy down by over 80%. That's the point you are ignoring.

That's the last interaction with you on this topic mate. Have a great day.

 

[firedragon]

Religion

Can you prove the causation?

 

[Augustus]

India was rich

You seem unable to understand income distribution.

The parasitic elites were rich, the vast majority were very poor.

This was true under both regimes.

and contributed 26% of the global GDP

It had a quarter of the world’s population too.

and with the British Raj, they went down to some 3%. They became poor.

Most people stayed poor.

Leading Indian historian Tirthankar Roy:

In the most accepted view on inequality in colonial India, inequality increased between the propertied and the property-less because of capitalist exploitation and colonial institutional intervention, and between the colonists and the indigenes because of unequal political power. The paper rejects the thesis.. The extractive power of the state is overstated... Colonial economic policies were good for business, and had a weak effect on agriculture. To sum up, there was the emergence of a middle-class that gained from the open trading economy. There was no other pattern of much significance.

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90409/1/WP286.pdf

The Muslims lived there and made it their home

I know it’s important for you to believe the Muslims emperors who conquered a foreign land and took 25% of their wealth every year to buy fancy food, concubines, palaces and thrones were benevolent protectors of the masses.

We all need our myths after all.

They ate the Indian economy down by over 80%.

Only if you think 20% of an extra large pizza is 80% less than 100% of a tiny pizza.

That's the point you are ignoring

No, I’m directly addressing your fallacious reasoning on exactly this point, but seems you can’t comprehend that share of global GDP is not a measure of domestic economic growth or decline.

That's the last interaction with you on this topic mate. Have a great day.

Fair enough, it’s nice to maintain illusions about how your folk stealing 25% of the country’s wealth were the good guys.

Enjoy your day.

 

[firedragon]

The parasitic elites were rich, the vast majority were very poor.

So what was the distribution? And how in the world does that have anything to do with India being the biggest contributor to the global economy? That's a fact. And in the United States, 1% of the population control 30 to 33 percent of the country's wealth. This is how it is in any country. Percentages may differ. The country contributes 25% to the global economy. Very similar to India back when the moguls were ruling. Those were feudal periods mate. During the British Raj, 5-10 percent of the elite including the British controlled 70 to 80 percent of the wealth. During the 15th to 1850 India is said to have clothed the world. Read the economic history of India directly.

Fair enough, it’s nice to maintain illusions about how your folk stealing 25% of the country’s wealth were the good guys.

It will be interesting to read up a proper source for this information. Please do provide. I believe you are talking about the Haraj. But let's see.

Anyway, how much is your government "STEALING" from the people there? In the U.S, it could go up to 37% or even up to 50% without taking consumer taxation products. As an example. And, how much did the British "STEAL" from India? What percentage? Do you even know that they "stole" or "taxed" the Ryots or the peasant farmers 50% of their produce? And imposed the Mahalwari system in Punjab and some other parts a whopping 66% of the produce? And read up on why Gandhi did the famous "Dandi Sathyagraha". The 20% imposed by the Moghuls was nothing compared to this. The country prospered. Under the British, they became absolutely poor, people went hungry, famines were rampant, mainly due to these monstrous taxes. These are facts. Check it up.

Ciao.

 

[Augustus]

.

The country contributes 25% to the global economy. Very similar to India back when the moguls were ruling. Those were feudal periods mate.

Yes and you’re comparing feudal agrarian societies to the industrial age.

If you order a pizza at a restaurant and sit alone, you have 100% of the pizza at the table. If your friend arrives and orders the same thing you now have 50%.

It tells you nothing about how much pizza you have or how likely you are to be full after eating it.

You are arguing that every time someone else orders a pizza, your pizza is shrinking and you have less to eat.

% of global GDP between a pre industrial and post industrial economy says nothing meaningful about the average person or how benevolent the rulers were.

Do you even know that they "stole" or "taxed" the Ryots or the peasant farmers 50% of their produce? And imposed the Mahalwari system in Punjab and some other parts a whopping 66% of the produce?

Shall we compare that to the “goodies” of your comic book history, the benevolently imperialistic Mughals?

the Mughal administration aimed at realizing about 60 per cent of the total claimed land revenue. With such a large share of the surplus appropriated by the apparatus of the State, its distribution among the ruling class necessarily constituted a major element
in the economy of Mughal India…

The major source of income outside the jama' was war booty. Large amounts were seized from the treasuries and hoards of rulers of conquered provinces. A sizeable amount of such booty must have gone to the imperial hoard. While the actual size of the contribution of such booty to the hoard cannot be determined, I have assumed that out of the total hoard, 10 per cent was gained from this source.

Shireen Moosvi - The economy of Mughal India

The 20% imposed by the Moghuls was nothing compared to this

The 25% was the % they kept for themselves, not the total tax revenue or the money distributed to other elites.

Read the economic history of India directly

You should try this instead of dealing in foolish narratives of good Muslim imperialists and evil British imperialists.

Empires were “joint ventures” where a variety of elites cooperated to rule largely in their own benefit.

Empires ruled by elites from a minority rely significantly on the cooperation of (parts of) the majority group.

Those who benefited from Mughal rule were a network of Mughal and Indian elites and their patronage networks. The average person was a poor farmer.

Those who benefited from EIC rule were a network of European and Indian elites and their patronage networks. The average persons was a poor farmer.

Perhaps you could read An economic history of India 1707-1850 by Tirthankar Roy to develop a less comic book version of history full of goodies (your side) and baddies (not your side).

His general advice though:

How should we debate the British Empire? What is the debate about?
A narrative in the media says that the empire’s aim was to repress and exploit its subjects, and it caused genocide in the process. Pay reparations! A historian who says “that story doesn’t quite fit the facts” faces a backlash: “Ah, apologist of evil, you love imperialism!”…

In 2012, OUP published “India and the British Empire.” The eminent scholars who edited it said that a book had become necessary to show how our understanding of the empire had radically changed. Evidence processed by historians (Bayly, Marshall, et al.) led to that advance.

The field advanced by discarding a “cluster of binaries” with which left-nationalist historiography studied colonialism. These analyses turned colonialism into a machine of exploitation, opposing the colonizer and colonized, exploiter and exploited, as enemies on a battlefield.
From binary models, the field moved closer to the idea that the empire was a joint venture based on alliance, compromise, and legitimacy. These compromises collapsed from time to time and became unstable in mid-20th c. We see the collapse better if we see the compromise.

An example from economic history: For every ton of goods exported from India to Britain in the 19th c, the profit from which was repatriated, another ton of goods was traded overland. Indians controlled the overland trade and reinvested the profit in India.

An example from social history: The Raj had support among some of the most oppressed Indians, who feared other Indians more than they feared the British. For many, the empire was a buffer against home-grown racism, slavery, unfreedom, and exploitation.

In the last five years, the media has seen an extraordinary relapse into “binaries.” Accepting that relapse means losing my identity as a professional historian. It means discarding real learning accumulated over decades to embrace trashy popular histories.

 

[firedragon]

.


Yes and you’re comparing feudal agrarian societies to the industrial age.

If you order a pizza at a restaurant and sit alone, you have 100% of the pizza at the table. If your friend arrives and orders the same thing you now have 50%.

It tells you nothing about how much pizza you have or how likely you are to be full after eating it.

You are arguing that every time someone else orders a pizza, your pizza is shrinking and you have less to eat.

% of global GDP between a pre industrial and post industrial economy says nothing meaningful about the average person or how benevolent the rulers were.



Shall we compare that to the “goodies” of your comic book history, the benevolently imperialistic Mughals?

the Mughal administration aimed at realizing about 60 per cent of the total claimed land revenue. With such a large share of the surplus appropriated by the apparatus of the State, its distribution among the ruling class necessarily constituted a major element
in the economy of Mughal India…

The major source of income outside the jama' was war booty. Large amounts were seized from the treasuries and hoards of rulers of conquered provinces. A sizeable amount of such booty must have gone to the imperial hoard. While the actual size of the contribution of such booty to the hoard cannot be determined, I have assumed that out of the total hoard, 10 per cent was gained from this source.

Shireen Moosvi - The economy of Mughal India



The 25% was the % they kept for themselves, not the total tax revenue or the money distributed to other elites.



You should try this instead of dealing in foolish narratives of good Muslim imperialists and evil British imperialists.

Empires were “joint ventures” where a variety of elites cooperated to rule largely in their own benefit.

Empires ruled by elites from a minority rely significantly on the cooperation of (parts of) the majority group.

Those who benefited from Mughal rule were a network of Mughal and Indian elites and their patronage networks. The average person was a poor farmer.

Those who benefited from EIC rule were a network of European and Indian elites and their patronage networks. The average persons was a poor farmer.

Perhaps you could read An economic history of India 1707-1850 by Tirthankar Roy to develop a less comic book version of history full of goodies (your side) and baddies (not your side).

His general advice though:

How should we debate the British Empire? What is the debate about?
A narrative in the media says that the empire’s aim was to repress and exploit its subjects, and it caused genocide in the process. Pay reparations! A historian who says “that story doesn’t quite fit the facts” faces a backlash: “Ah, apologist of evil, you love imperialism!”…

In 2012, OUP published “India and the British Empire.” The eminent scholars who edited it said that a book had become necessary to show how our understanding of the empire had radically changed. Evidence processed by historians (Bayly, Marshall, et al.) led to that advance.

The field advanced by discarding a “cluster of binaries” with which left-nationalist historiography studied colonialism. These analyses turned colonialism into a machine of exploitation, opposing the colonizer and colonized, exploiter and exploited, as enemies on a battlefield.
From binary models, the field moved closer to the idea that the empire was a joint venture based on alliance, compromise, and legitimacy. These compromises collapsed from time to time and became unstable in mid-20th c. We see the collapse better if we see the compromise.

An example from economic history: For every ton of goods exported from India to Britain in the 19th c, the profit from which was repatriated, another ton of goods was traded overland. Indians controlled the overland trade and reinvested the profit in India.

An example from social history: The Raj had support among some of the most oppressed Indians, who feared other Indians more than they feared the British. For many, the empire was a buffer against home-grown racism, slavery, unfreedom, and exploitation.

In the last five years, the media has seen an extraordinary relapse into “binaries.” Accepting that relapse means losing my identity as a professional historian. It means discarding real learning accumulated over decades to embrace trashy popular histories.

Cheers.

 

[Augustus]

Cheers.

No problem. Always happy to help you become better informed and gain a more nuanced understanding of history.

 

[firedragon]

No problem. Always happy to help you become better informed and gain a more nuanced understanding of history.

Haha. Telling yourself that makes you feel good about yourself? Good for you.

Cheers.

 

[Augustus]

Haha. Telling yourself that makes you feel good about yourself? Good for you.

Cheers.

Very good.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Very good.

Cheers.

Cheers.

 

[David1967]

Everybody gets invaded

Yeah, if someone has something someone else with more power wants, they will likely be invaded.

 

[Augustus]

Yeah, if someone has something someone else with more power wants, they will likely be invaded.

And then hundreds of years later people will decide that the invaders who most resemble them were “good invaders” and the ones that most resemble modern folk they don’t like were “bad invaders”.

Because it’s really just about them and their own sense of identity…

 

[firedragon]

And then hundreds of years later people will decide that the invaders who most resemble them were “good invaders” and the ones that most resemble modern folk they don’t like were “bad invaders”.

Because it’s really just about them and their own sense of identity…

Are you speaking about the United States?

 

[Augustus]

Are you speaking about the United States?

No, I’m speaking about people in general.

Many Muslims like to think of Muslims as “good imperialists” and Europeans as “bad imperialists”.

Many Europeans like to think of Europeans as being “good imperialists” and Muslims as being “bad imperialists”.

And so forth…

In general, if the imperialism was long enough ago, or our culture is that of the conqueror we think them as being more benevolent or acceptable.

If it is more recent, or we identify with the conquered we consider them as being more evil and rapacious.

This is a very silly way to look at things though, and the realities tend to be far more nuanced.

What tends to occur are patchworks of winners and losers from across the various divides.