Re: UP vs South India during 1857

by Idéfix Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:19 am

India had a well-established economy based on various crafts for many centuries. As did China and Europe. But IMO the industrial revolution came about in Europe -- England in particular -- for a specific reason.

In the initial stages of the industrial revolution, the key innovation was replacing labor with machines that require capital. When labor is cheap and plentiful, there is little incentive to take the risk of investing capital for mechanization. If the market for your products is stable and low-growth, then there is little chance you can make a worthwhile return. If the market is a home market where the labor that is displaced by your innovation has the ability to riot and shut you down, your situation is even worse. So for an industrial revolution to take root and get into self-sustaining mode, you need one or more of these conditions to be true: (a) labor is not readily available and therefore wages are rising, (b) you have a growing population and therefore a growing home market, (c) you have a large foreign market where the displaced labor can't come attack you. If some of this exists, there is some incentive for investments in mechanization.

Now, as of 1760, India and China did not have a, b, or c. If the Marathas had thrown out the British and consolidated power, India would still likely not have had a, b or c. England did not have a or b to begin with, but it had c. Condition b then arose as a consequence of colonization as well as the nascent industrial revolution. Condition a took long while to arise after that. America had a and b, but not c. If England didn't give birth to the industrial revolution, America would have done so thanks to conditions a and b.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:21 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:One day history will say Karunanidis and the chithamparams ...

One day history will figure out one consistent spelling each for the names of all these leaders.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:28 am

panini press wrote:India had a well-established economy based on various crafts for many centuries. As did China and Europe. But IMO the industrial revolution came about in Europe -- England in particular -- for a specific reason.

In the initial stages of the industrial revolution, the key innovation was replacing labor with machines that require capital. When labor is cheap and plentiful, there is little incentive to take the risk of investing capital for mechanization. If the market for your products is stable and low-growth, then there is little chance you can make a worthwhile return. If the market is a home market where the labor that is displaced by your innovation has the ability to riot and shut you down, your situation is even worse. So for an industrial revolution to take root and get into self-sustaining mode, you need one or more of these conditions to be true: (a) labor is not readily available and therefore wages are rising, (b) you have a growing population and therefore a growing home market, (c) you have a large foreign market where the displaced labor can't come attack you. If some of this exists, there is some incentive for investments in mechanization.

Now, as of 1760, India and China did not have a, b, or c. If the Marathas had thrown out the British and consolidated power, India would still likely not have had a, b or c. England did not have a or b to begin with, but it had c. Condition b then arose as a consequence of colonization as well as the nascent industrial revolution. Condition a took long while to arise after that. America had a and b, but not c. If England didn't give birth to the industrial revolution, America would have done so thanks to conditions a and b.

Once the industrial revolution gets underway in one place, any country that has the wherewithal to do so will eventually copy it and industrialize itself. So if the Marathas had thrown out the British and consolidated power, and America gave birth to the industrial revolution, India would likely have begun the process of industrialization like Ottoman Turkey did -- slowly and reluctantly, but steadily.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:45 am

Ottoman Turkey was exactly what I was thinking would have been the best alternative path for post-1857 India. Only, we'd have had to pray for a desi Kemal Ataturk to deliver the country to modernity.

by Kris Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:48 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:Kris >>>> In that context, yes that would be bad. Here's my question though: who is giving credence to these chest-thumpers or this issue anyway? With the multitude of problems, this may make for a feel-good movie or two, but I suspect this is a fringe isue at best..

Indian gov spent lots of mony ro celebrate 150 anniversary and spread Hindian supremacy.

>>>>>> Go ahead and celebrate your own. Why are you looking for recognition from the "Hindians" you despise so much?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panini >>> am glad that you acknowledge that the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot were licking the boots of the British, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking.

One day history will say Karunanidis and the chithamparams were licking the boots of the Hindians, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking. It is the commander and the likes who kept freedom alive at great sacrifice

.. would that gerat sacrific include the child soldiers he recruited and the tamils he killed?

by Kayalvizhi Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:05 pm

>> the tamils he killed?

I always speak truth. Commander killed a FEW Tamils who betrayed the indep of Tamil eelam. Kaput.

by Kris Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:10 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> the tamils he killed?

I always speak truth. Commander killed a FEW Tamils who betrayed the indep of Tamil eelam. Kaput.

>>>>Could you quantify " a FEW"? Also, why the silence on the child soldiers? Please enlighten.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:11 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> the tamils he killed?

I always speak truth. Commander killed a FEW Tamils who betrayed the indep of Tamil eelam. Kaput.

do you think Prabhakaran made a mistake in allowing Rajapakse to become the president by not allowing tamils to vote in the area under his control? if he would have allowed tamils to vote they would have voted for ranil wickremasinghe who was seen to be more moderate and wanted to strike another peace agreement with Prabhakaran. By not allowing tamils to vote, do you agree that Prabhakaran not only murdered democracy but he was also responsible for his own death at the hands of Rajapakse who was determined to finish off the LTTE once and for all.

by Kayalvizhi Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:17 pm

NO. Mullaivaykal would have happened any way may be not in 2009.

Coomanders onbly weakness was being kind hearted and grateful for good deeds even after the good fellow turned traitor. It is a good thing in ordinary people but not in a national leader.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:52 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:NO. Mullaivaykal would have happened any way may be not in 2009.

Coomanders onbly weakness was being kind hearted and grateful for good deeds even after the good fellow turned traitor. It is a good thing in ordinary people but not in a national leader.

Why did Prabhakaran not allow tamils to vote in the presidential elections between Rajapakse and Ranil Wickeramasinghe? It was a close contest and since Ranil was more moderate and wanted to strike another peace agreement with LTTE the sri lankan tamils were going to vote for him. Prabhakaran ensured the victory of Rajapakse.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:58 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:NO. Mullaivaykal would have happened any way may be not in 2009.

Coomanders onbly weakness was being kind hearted and grateful for good deeds even after the good fellow turned traitor. It is a good thing in ordinary people but not in a national leader.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...... agree..... he was next only to Mahamad in kindness and gratefulness.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com