Progress yet again from you., , Yes to use your words modern Bharat ( which only Indians would now what yiu are talking about ) has little connection with ancient Bharat, ,
It was my argument that ancient Britain has nothing to do with modern Britain , or any with its modern nation, thank you for agreeing.
The Indian middle class had little in common with the wealth of the Indian upper classes, so what is the point if your comparison with the British vastly outnumbered by Indian upper classes..

EMR----many non-Indians speak Hindi.

The above posts were specifically about the Indian middle classes during the Raj and resident British and the differences in possessions.

A very small minority of Indian people were 'multi' wealthy land owners/ mill owners etc.
The Chandavarkas, Sirurs of Hubli and Nehru's father etc. The British gave them top jobs/titles to keep in with them and have good relations!

Are you really trying to convince me and yiurself fthat there was no income disparity in India before the British arrived.
That everyone was better off, there were no poor, no immensely wealthy..
As a %"of the total population do you honestly believe that the British were the majority of the wealthy in India..
None of the millions of landlords, merchants, traders, ruling families were wealthier than the average Brit..
Do you ever think through your arguments..

EMR----you are mixing up replies to Morpeth's posts and mixing up the dates in question!
Do you ever read posts?

Of course there was disparity in wealth before the British came. India was a wealthy country before the British came------Why do you think they stayed there!!!!!!

During the last years of British time there were still those immensely wealthy land owners and mill owners-------SEE MY ABOVE POST. I gave you examples!
These were a very MINUTE % of the multi-million Indian population.

The discussion with Morpeth was regarding the state of the Indian 'Middle classes' towards the end of British rule----their possessions were nothing compared to the possessions of the middle class British SERVING IN India
----the army officers and families ---the British Industrialists (so-called boxwallahs).
There was also much difference in the income of the ordinary British soldiers and the British army officers!

Over the time of British rule, the estimated % of 'middle class'---had REDUCED to about 10%---15% of the population.
This has obviously risen now to 50-60%, always an estimate as difficult to compare different criteria of measurement.

Middle class number has risen dramatically globally, in the second half of the 20th century nothing to do with the end of British rule in India.
The biggest rise in China, who was responsible for that..
Your figure of a reduction as a % of the growing population in India during the period of British rule, what is the source, ?.
What income measure was used, how were the statistics collected and collated.?

2017 university of Mumbai regards Indian middle class as having a spending power of $2 - $12 dollars a day.
Would you say that anyone in the UK with a spending power of less than £ 2 day was middle class ?., far from it .

1) EMR there are so many books regarding the reduction of wealth in India during the Raj.
(I made a mistake in my replies to Morpeth regarding Tharoor's book, the bibliography is 130+ books not pages!!-)
No need to read the book itself! However you could read these books/articles etc in the bibliography and find the answers to your questions---authors of several nationalities including British.

2) Could you give a link to this. Or is this the one you mean?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/...g-middle-class

You cannot compare the UK ------cost of living is entirely different----also land values are not included (vast increase over the years).

You try to argue both ways------ first you say there are so many wealthy Indians ------then you doubt the middle class is increasing in numbers!!!

There are millions still alive in India who remember the Raj----talk to them on your next visit.

Your comprehension problems again Bipat.
I said middle lass number had increased globally , each countey seting its own designation of whatbis middle class..
Its good propaganda to set a low income level .
I find it impossible to believe that an Indian with a spending power of £5 day has the same lifestyle , possesions as their British equivalent however low you say prices are...
The prices in the malls are certainly not low ..

I am sure their millions who do not believe that they lived theirr lives controlled by gun toting British soldiers.
Millions who will not claim that they were reduced to penury by British rule.
Millions who lived under the rule of local landlords, ,local rulers with little if sny conract with British rule.

Morpeth there are hundreds of books written about colonial rule in India and the detrimental affects to the population---I have provided you with personal knowledge (which you discount as "folk memory").

-And in Germany under Hitler hundreds of books printed about the superiority of the Aryan Race. And in the Soviet Union about its high standard of living.

-As far as I know you were not in India during the Raj so you rely on subjective views of people apparently with little objective consideration of evidence, and you reject any and all evidence. On multiple subjects your only answer was folk memory. You repeat nonsense economic claims.

- No one has denied there were not some negative and detrimental effects.

If written in a book apparently it becomes sociological research!! As I have said the Raj was not ALL bad.
You choose the 'evidence' that you agree with!!

-No, I just mentioned the nonsense impression you sought to give that middle class Indians all didn’t have possessions you yourself now have indicated isn’t true and I only stated I was relying on personal and folk memory either, I pointed out neither of us had hard evidence to rely on such as some sort of sociological study on the issue.

-No, when we had several topics discussed usually was form some comment you made , I ( and EMR ) looked up evidence, presented it and you had no answer except to deny any evidence because it wasn’t in accord with your family’s subjective folk memory.


"Silly assertion about taxes"-----not silly to those taxed!! The Jewel in the Crown-----they didn't want to lose it did they?

- Whether people liked taxes or not, under the British r Mughals r today proves nothing, the issue was the nonsense hat the taxes were sent away from India or that the taxes were at all significant to British economy, etc. When someone catches you on inaccuracies or assertions without basis, your only answer is that people must be “anti-Indian” or “pro-empire” or “prejudiced” for whatever fashionable PC insult you can’t think of.

- The motivations for Empire according to any observer at the time were varied, British parliamentary debates alone show this. I definitely am not an expert but certainly appears I have read more about the subject than you have except patriotic drivel.


Personal experience is to you 'subjective'! It is difficult to be objective about a foreign occupier!!!!

- Quite correct and exactly the issue. I don’t start with a pro or con view of the effect of the Raj in India, just what the evidence shows. Not even being Indian except by adoption of being Indian, you start automatically with a subjective view when discussing historical facts. When you use institutions and science and technology not native to India it seems you hardly think where did this one from in your calculation of the benefits vs the negative of British rule. I realize easier for you to adopt subjective views to get along in your family of your new country.

- Countries including India have been occupied since the dawn of time.

-
-Regarding Tharoor---He is certainly a 'fool', in that you are correct. He wrote the book in question to make money and to further his political ambitions, cover his tracks, as also with his job with the Guardian Newspaper (no point in explaining the details to you). The law caught up with him, the money didn't help!!
He writes and speaks well and his views regarding British rule have already been put in many other books and essays.

He dos speak and write well I agree. And you show exactly why some discernment is necessary, if his rather simplistic and inane views are quoted by others, it just perpetuates stupidity or lack of understanding.

And again assertions that are unsupported, or perhaps totally wrong, you write as though it is a given

of course there was disparity in wealth before the British came. India was a wealthy country before the British came------

Kind of a strange assertion. Maybe true in the 16th century but in the decades before British rule? The great divergence between Asian and European nations has been debated as far as the timetable but most books I have read have put in as starting in the 17th century, some the 18th century with the principle reasons being the effects on the domestic economies in Europe of the capitalist, technological and scientific revolutions. Tharoor uses the childish logic that with India’s population times GDP per capita being high in 1700 as percentage of the world economy, but lower as a percentage two hundred years later as if this was proof of his assertions. Complete illogical nonsense.

Why do you think they stayed there!!!!!!

Answered over and over, it might help you read and learn more about the subject. Let alone if India was so profitable why did the bulk of British capita get invested elsewhere, n particular outside the Empire ?

During the last years of British time there were still those immensely wealthy land owners and mill owners-------SEE MY ABOVE POST. I gave you examples!
These were a very MINUTE % of the multi-million Indian population.

Nial Feruson ( though a Historian and not an economist) states that (a) India’s GDP and GDP per capital rose under British rule ( b) the percentage of the economy accounted for y those in agriculture increased during the period.



Certainly not conclusive figures but on the surface discounting your comments.


The discussion with Morpeth was regarding the state of the Indian 'Middle classes' towards the end of British rule----their possessions were nothing compared to the possessions of the middle class British SERVING IN India

And so ? Not sure what the point is, and in any case there were numerically very few British middle class n India.


Over the time of British rule, the estimated % of 'middle class'---had REDUCED to about 10%---15% of the population.

On the surface this appears very unlikely- the gowth in oplaton and GDP, and how few British were necessary to rule the Indians, implies a steady growth in middle class professions. What is the source for this figure ?

This has obviously risen now to 50-60%, always an estimate as difficult to compare different criteria of measurement.

Has risen worldwide.

1) Morpeth whatever negative views are expressed about British Rule in India you will search for writers who shares your views. Not surprising to find them and that a less than admirable time of history wants to be forgotten.

2) No, I was not there during the Raj -----but my husband was---that wouldn't count with you!!! Neither would 50 years of friends, work colleagues, in most States, working WITH or for the British, those ex-army/navy airforce etc. If such views were collected and published it would be sociological research!!

3) Good of you to say so----forgive the sarcasm!

4) How can you possible know what I have read???? Why is my decades of reading "patriotic drivel" and yours 'authentic evidence'!!!!

5) What has 'history' got to do with getting on with a family?????

6) we are discussing occupation during the 20th century.

7) Tharoor --again---- I said---- 'read the books/articles etc. in the bibliography---all 130+ of them'------authors including British ---not quotes from his book-----can you not understand the difference or is it a language problem?

Well they can certainly eat out at cheaper food outlets than the British (apart from McDonalds etc.)!!!!

Malls-----how many cities have 'malls'!? (The term 'city' is according to population )
How many people wandering around malls actually buy anything? We never have!!
'Most' go there for the toilets and the food courts.'

Our local supermarket, I can completely fill two Asda carrier bags at our local supermarket in India for less than £5.

2) They knew where soldiers were-----their lives were not 'ruled' because in the normal way peaceful of life they were not affected.

How many millions have you talked with?
Have you heard of newspapers and wireless?? Do you know that people talked to each other and had contacts in different States and areas.
Indians apart from the destitute have always been great travellers.

You have just confirmed how nonsensical your comparison between the British middle class of the period of British rule and that of the Indian middle class was,
Different expectations, different culture, different tastes , etc etc .

The rest is Your usual rambling when your views are questioned and facts used to counter them..

EMR---what is the matter with you????? What are you talking about?????
Your post was discussing the present day middle classes---YOU mentioned Malls!!


(How many Indian middle class of British rule time and present time do you know? -----That you can have any idea what there 'tastes' were then or are now???)

When actual 'facts' are presented to you, you always describe it as "rambling"!!!

EMR as the Poster on the 'Republic' thread realised it is hopeless to explain anything to you.

You are losing it Bipat, it was your claim that Indian middle classes suffered under British rule with the British having more possessions etc. as if there was any durect comparison.
You are rambling again,and again and again..
Of course in Bipat world the 100s of millions living in rural India under local rule with little or no contact with British rule did not exist..
The poster on the republic thread posted opinions , his standpoint was clear, we agreed to disagree..
He did not ramble, invent , accuse others of being prejudiced, pro empire, anti Indian, nonsense which you all to often resort to..

EMR-----read your post 442-----the most recent that I was giving a reply to. You were discussing present day middle class----malls and daily income.

You have now flipped back to the discussion with Morpeth about middle class life styles during the Raj.

You now 'flip' to the millions of desperately poor in rural districts. As I said you how do you KNOW what contacts anyone had at that time YOU were not there.

The poster on the other the Republic thread--- far from 'agreeing to disagree'---- in his last post----desperately asked for help, for "a third person" ( to provide you with facts as he had given up!!)