NEW DELHI: External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has asserted India suffered “humiliation” for two centuries under colonial rule and quoted a study stating that the wealth British took from India was close to $45 trillion in today’s monetary value.

“India had two centuries of humiliation by the West in its predatory form it came to India in the mid-18th century. An economic study tried to estimate how much British took out of India, it ended up at a number of $45 trillion in today’s value,” Jaishankar stated while delivering an address at noted think tank Atlantic Council in Washington DC on Tuesday.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45083818)

In fact, Britain didn't rule India directly until the late 1850s. Prior to that it had been private enterprises like the East India Company that ruled India.

The industrial revolution was a byproduct of internal raw materials, namely coal, which became mined on an enormous scale and provided the fuel for the new factories, the development of internal improvements via canals and new roads, and later, the railroads, vastly improved farming techniques, closing of the commons, the draining of the fens, a better educated population and the great Enlightenment spirit of curiosity, and close proximity to other developed markets for trade.

The colonies were a drain on Britain for the most part. They ended up spending more on the colonies than they ever received, with the exception of the Anglo colonies like Australia and Canada, but those became self governing by the 1860s, and, of course, the US left.

The colonies that generated the most wealth for the British government were the sugar colonies in the Caribbean. Tax revenues from those colonies did flow into the government coffers and much of it was spent on the Napoleonic wars. This pretty much petered out by the 1830s and after that the sugar colonies were afterthoughts.

The biggest flow of wealth into Britain from India were from various nabobs who became wealthy in India and transferred that wealth home in the sense of a billionaire making a fortune in the US and returning to his home country. But large scale importation raw resources is mainly in the imagination of the Indian neo-nationalists.

There was attempt starting the late 19th century to start exploiting India as a bigger market for British exports like textiles by dissuading the growth of local industries, but this would have been 150 years after the Industrial revolution and long post the laissez-faire economic attitudes of most of the 19th century. And it didn't amount to much for either Britain or India. India was too poor to be a valuable market, the two countries were too far apart for ease of trade, and other developed anglo countries like Canada and the US and Australia were much more dominant trading partners.

And, of course, Britain poured huge amounts into India, building the railroads, ports, schools, hospitals, national bureaucracy, and a new capital city at New Delhi. But by the time Britain withdrew, it was readily apparent that India was a major economic drain on Britain. Its value as a colony was symbolic and imaginary, not economic. Certainly, a major factor behind the rapid and easy withdrawal from empire in the 1940s-1960s is because the empire was a net economic loss.

From what I gather of this bitter neo-nationalist, the 45 trillion is hypothetical, based on a fantasy of what the Indian economy could have become had Britain not ruled India. Which, to me, is rather laughable as there was no India before the British. It was a series of warring princeling kingdoms and dying mini empires like the Mughals. Who knows what would have happened had British explorers and mercantilists never stumbled onto India, but one of the reasons why British traders found it easy to effectively take over India was because there was a power vacuum. Absent the British, something else would have happened. But there's no guarantee it would have been some rosy tinted vision of growing unity leading to great prosperity. Knowing history as well as I do, it'd most likely have been more bloody wars among the various maharajahs and puppet emperors. One could very well project an equally valid vision for India's alternative history that involves a nascent visionary general who, through 30 years of endless wars and deaths of tens of millions, brutally unified most of India, and then subjected the Muslim minority to a reign of nationalist terror. Why not?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45087348)

No resources means you develop trade and commercial/technological innovation

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45102686)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sRMMwpDTs5k&t=56m

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45085241)

Ravi Shindekarh (born Ari Cohen in Brooklyn, New York) from Bombay adjusts turban and cocks gun: "Time to pay up, you evil goyi--er, Brits."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45083949)

In 1700 India had like 27% of global GDP, in 1800 like 22% and then it went down a ton under the British. when the fat Birdshits left in 1947 India was like 1% of global GDP. How did that happen Goyshits? Just magic?

Before the Brits and the Mughals India was the most advanced place on the globe. It had supreme civilizations for thousands of years while Birdshits were in caves.

The reason Pradeep shat on the sidewalk pre-Modi is because of the Brits. The reason he smelled like shit is cause of the Brits. The reason he pipe raped lizards is because of the Brits.

That's just the COLD HARD NIGGA TRUTH u terrorist Britshits

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45087597)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45088009)

the random psuedo-intellectual turds who came up with this made-up backwards shit are the exact same kind of people as tommy turdskin. totally insane, delusional, simultaneously self-loathing and hateful and envious of whites

india was a net drain on the british when it was a colony, just like it's a net drain on the rest of the world today

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45088348)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45088399)

According to British economist Angus Maddison, India's share of the world economy went from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950. India's GDP (PPP) per capita was stagnant during the Mughal Empire and began to decline prior to the onset of British rule.[28] India's share of global industrial output also declined from 25% in 1750 down to 2% in 1900.[11] At the same time, the United Kingdom's share of the world economy rose from 2.9% in 1700 up to 9% in 1870,[28] and Britain replaced India as the world's largest textile manufacturer in the 19th century.[21]

After the British victory over the Mughal Empire (Battle of Buxar, 1764) India was deindustrialized by successive EIC, British and colonial policies (see Calico Act above).[6]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45088508)

AJ+

@ajplus

Kenyans are suing the UK for colonial abuses and land theft, seeking a reported $200 billion.

British colonizers forced Talai and Kipsigis people off their land to make tea farms, with reported killings and torture. Tea companies like Lipton and Unilever still occupy the land.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45091574)

Indian subcontinent

In the Indian subcontinent, a variety of herbs and their extracts have been used as shampoos since ancient times. A very effective early shampoo was made by boiling Sapindus with dried Indian gooseberry (amla) and a selection of other herbs, using the strained extract. Sapindus, also known as soapberries or soapnuts, a tropical tree widespread in India, is called ksuna (Sanskrit: क्षुण)[6] in ancient Indian texts and its fruit pulp contains saponins which are a natural surfactant. The extract of soapberries creates a lather which Indian texts called phenaka (Sanskrit: फेनक).[7] It leaves the hair soft, shiny and manageable. Other products used for hair cleansing were shikakai (Acacia concinna), hibiscus flowers,[8][9] ritha (Sapindus mukorossi) and arappu (Albizzia amara).[10] Guru Nanak, the founder and the first Guru of Sikhism, made references to soapberry tree and soap in the 16th century.[11]

Cleansing the hair and body massage (champu) during one's daily bath was an indulgence of early colonial traders in India. When they returned to Europe, they introduced the newly learned habits, including the hair treatment they called shampoo.[12]

Europe

Swedish advertisement for toiletries, 1905/1906

Sake Dean Mahomed, an Bengali traveller, surgeon, and entrepreneur, is credited with introducing the practice of shampoo or "shampooing" to Britain. In 1814, Mahomed, with his Irish wife Jane Daly, opened the first commercial "shampooing" vapour masseur bath in England, in Brighton. He described the treatment in a local paper as "The Indian Medicated Vapour Bath (type of Turkish bath), a cure to many diseases and giving full relief when everything fails; particularly Rheumatic and paralytic, gout, stiff joints, old sprains, lame legs, aches and pains in the joints".[13]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5181610&forum_id=2#45102691)