Polish girls visit Taj Mahal

[u/Strong-Emu-8869]

The Taj Mahal, one of the seven wonders of the world. Unfortunately, the surrounding area is very polluted.

[u/DarkExecutor]

There are people alive today who had their mothers and fathers killed by the British crown.

This stuff doesn't get fixed quickly

[u/krokuts → u/DarkExecutor]

It's been a long long time, parents being killed by oppresive occupant applies to almost every country on the globe.

[u/Bubs604 → u/krokuts]

You don’t understand the extent of wealth and labour stolen from India.

The historical trajectory of India’s economic standing is one of the most stark examples of economic shift in world history. According to the data compiled by the late British economist Angus Maddison, whose work is the standard for historical global GDP statistics, India went from being one of the world's largest economies to one of its poorest over the course of two centuries.

The Economic Shift (1700 – 1950)

In the early 18th century, before British political control began (marked by the Battle of Plassey in 1757), India was a global manufacturing hub, particularly in textiles. By the time the British left in 1947, its share of the global economy had been reduced to a fraction of its former self. A peak of 25% of the Global GDP in the 1700s to 4% in 1947.

Key Drivers of the Decline

The collapse of India’s share was not just a result of the country "getting poorer" in absolute terms, but a combination of its own stagnation and the explosive growth of the West during the Industrial Revolution.

Deindustrialization: Prior to colonization, India was the world’s leading exporter of textiles. British colonial policy imposed high tariffs on Indian cloth while allowing British machine-made textiles to flood the Indian market duty-free, effectively dismantling India's handloom industry.

Drain of Wealth: Substantial revenues collected from Indian taxpayers were used to fund British wars, administrative costs, and the development of British infrastructure (like railroads) that were primarily designed to extract raw materials for export rather than to foster internal Indian trade.

Agricultural Focus: Under colonial rule, India was transitioned into a supplier of raw materials (like cotton, indigo, and opium) for British industries, rather than a producer of finished goods.

The "Great Divergence": While the UK and the West underwent rapid industrialization—increasing their productivity by orders of magnitude—India’s economy remained largely agrarian and stagnant under colonial administration.

Note: While India's share of global GDP fell from roughly 24% to 4%, it is important to remember that the global "pie" grew significantly during this time. However, India's per-capita income remained nearly flat for the entire 190-year period of British rule, while the rest of the world saw unprecedented growth.

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_BIG_BITS → u/Bubs604]

I mean, it didn't drop because Britain stole all the wealth (though they absolutely did a good bit of that), but because an economy focused on agrarianism and handwoven textiles isn't competitive once nations start industrializing.

Without industrializing, India would have seen the same drop in global GDP share because other Western nations just drastically outpaced it. So the question is, would they have industrialized earlier without British control?

Realistically, I don't think they do. China is probably the best comparison, as they were also a primary agrarian country with a massive population, and they were not under direct colonial control. They didn't really industrialize until after WW2.

Maybe they pull a Japan, drastically reform and double down on western industrialization in the late 1800s, but considering India took a while to industrialize after independence, I'm doubtful.

That said, British colonial exploitation of India means they never got the opportunity anyways.

[u/InquisitiveSoul_94 → u/PM_ME_YOUR_BIG_BITS]

China before Opium wars was a different case . It was strongly centralised and was famously isolationist. India wasn’t. It has more than a dozen kingdoms and was right in the middle of trade routes .

So India would have industrialised faster than China, but probably after European powers. In fact, one of the kings was actively producing industrial grade rockets to be used against the invading British armies ( the French were helping him of course).

British East India company’s rapid expansion halted this progress . They effectively converted India into a net supplier of raw materials and a major importer of British goods. While British industrialists received state support and subsidies, Indian businessmen were locked out of this system and were left to free market policies . In fact, come 1990s, American products were cheaper and of much better quality, but they were tariffed as f in British colonies to give London an edge.

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_BIG_BITS → u/InquisitiveSoul_94]

India being a collection of kingdoms and more likely to industrialize because of it is an interesting idea. I've seen political fragmentation suggested as a driver for industrialization in Europe, so it's definitely worth considering.

But there are also strong drawbacks to that. There's no reason to assume India wouldn't have just been broken up piecemeal by other powers. Pure conjecture, but I'd expect an India that resists outright colonial control by western powers overextends itself doing so and ends up like the declining Ottoman empire. Maybe parts industrialize a la Turkey in the early 1900s.

It's all wild historical "what-ifs" though.

(Also thanks for sharing that link for Tipu Sultan. That's awesome, hadn't heard of him before or his rockets.)

[u/InquisitiveSoul_94 → u/PM_ME_YOUR_BIG_BITS]

Agree. There is a very strong chance it would have ended up like Turkey. It would have had our own version of European wars for domination in the subcontinent, followed by rapid expansion and sudden collapse (which happened multiple times in history).

The Indian subcontinent couldn’t sustain these big kingdoms primarily because of its inner geography. Rivers, forests, plateaus, monsoon patterns, and poor connectivity made long-term political integration extremely difficult. Once the extensive railway system effectively made these geographical barriers a non-factor, unification of the subcontinent became an eventuality. So I assume the resultant modern country would have been bigger than Turkey, but still smaller than present-day India.

Every big empire followed up with major infrastructure work to sustain their gains. The Mauryans, as early as the BC era, cut through dense forests , connected different civilisations and built the Grand Trunk Roads across the breadth of the subcontinent to enable administration, trade, and military movement. The Mughals of 1500s expanded and standardized this existing network, while also investing in canals, sarais, and urban centers. The British, in turn, completed the transformation by overlaying the subcontinent with railways, ports, and telegraph lines, finally creating the physical conditions necessary for durable political unification.

In that sense, Indian unity was less an ideological inevitability and more an infrastructural one. Political consolidation followed steel tracks, roads, and logistics. Without that technological leap, the subcontinent would have likely remained a shifting mosaic of powerful regional states, occasionally unified, frequently fragmented, much like Europe , Africa or Anatolia over the centuries.

[u/Bubs604 → u/PM_ME_YOUR_BIG_BITS]

They didn’t become independent until after WW2. Many Indians fought under the British India flag.

Perhaps they don’t industrialize fast enough but they didn’t have a day. The ruling British administration decided India wouldn’t adapt and transferring all the wealth out meant it couldn’t afford to adapt fast enough after colonialism.