What would India be like if it had never been colonized by the British?
A literal turd
>>318929
Either Maratha confederacy still or Indian clusterfuck. Nationalism wasn't a big deal in state borders outside Rajput and Aryan-Dravidian divide
DESIGNATED
Pretty shitty (no jokes intended)
>>318929
Muslimfrei
The biggest crime of the English was interrupting the reconquista.
>>318929
A lot worse, a lot less developed.
>>318929
Like now, but with sati and even more rape and castism.
>>318977
and no victorian trains
>what would x be like if this retarded counterfactual happened
This is why /his/ sucks
Controlled by the Ottomans for some odd reason maybe?
>>319010
You are the kind of people who ruined /sci/.
In the unlikely scenario that it wouldn't been conquered by some other outside force, such as the french, I'd say that it would probably be composed of smaller trade-focused states. If however one of these countries managed to conquer a majority of the subcontinent then that state would probably be a highly developed one who belonged to the top league of countries as India historically have been.
>>319013
I have never been to /sci/
>>319013
What ifs are one of the most plebian threads ever because anything can happen in a what if no matter how stupid and you just circlejerk over stupid possibilities.
>>319014
I don't see why an India armed with modern or near modern weapons wouldn't have been able to defend itself had the Brits not wormed their way into the country.
>>319031
Good boards need a healthy number of plebs and pleb threads. Completely shutting them out is what killed /sci/.
You can also have a lot of knowledge about history/science and still want to have a thread just for fun what-ifs. Just skip over them if you don't care for it. That's what I do for threads I don't enjoy. It's a big board and we more than enough room for extra traffic.
>>318929
India was self sufficient and rich before the British came and robbed it.
Colonialism was basically muscling into another country or region, taking its wealth and leaving. It was thug-like, yet they write it in history as if there was some eloquence about it.
>>319093
>India was self sufficient and rich before the British came and robbed it.
India was a medieval shithole.
>>318929
A peripheral part of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
>>319135
Pakistan wouldn't exist. Mudslimes would've been genocided by the based Marathas.
>>319103
It wasn't, it was very prosperous and advanced to the point they were able to mass produce matchlock rifles - which were basically the assault rifles of the day. As well as that they introduced rockets for military use to the British.
The idea that everywhere outside of Europe was full of spear-chucking savages is just another part of imperialist propaganda.
>>319193
>It wasn't, it was very prosperous
The average indian was constantly on the brink of starvation. Very prosperous for who? The nizams in their palaces?
>As well as that they introduced rockets for military use to the British.
Rocket technology =/= prosperity. Otherwise you could say that Stalinian Russia was prosperous since they had Katusha rockets...
>The idea that everywhere outside of Europe was full of spear-chucking savages is just another part of imperialist propaganda.
Africa was indeed full of spear chucking savages. India on the other hand was a warzone between the Marathas and some tyrannical mudslime warlords.
I'm indian by the way.
>>319014
You know India was already mostly united under the Mughals before the Brits colonized it, right?
A few wealth states from trade. Everything else is poor and undeveloped.
Japan has an easier time expanding into India during WW2.
Afterwards, the Soviets and Chinese try to make India into a communist state. USA and others get involved. Huge proxy war, that ends like the Korean war. Communist India develops rapidly at first due to Soviet help. Then just sort of stops at 1970s USA level. Pro West India is a dictatorship at first, but eventually becomes a republic with elected representatives.
>>319219
>Africa was indeed full of spear chucking savages.
No it wasn't.
>>319219
>The average indian was constantly on the brink of starvation. Very prosperous for who? The nizams in their palaces?
Not the original anon, but do you think the rest of the world was any different? Famines still happened all the time in that era, even in Europe, and being poor was shit no matter where you lived until very recently.
>>319219
>The average indian was constantly on the brink of starvation.
This is true, as was the case in most places with such a volatile climate and dense population.
However the British somehow managed to cause worse and more frequent famines. Yet the British were obviously not medieval savages.
>Rocket technology =/= prosperity. Otherwise you could say that Stalinian Russia was prosperous since they had Katusha rockets...
I was actually pointing out how advanced it was as opposed to how prosperous it was in that incidence.
And in that same spirit, Stalinist Russia was very advanced.
>Africa was indeed full of spear chucking savages. India on the other hand was a warzone between the Marathas and some tyrannical mudslime warlords.
India at the time saw a great deal of war, like everywhere else on the planet Europe included.
>>319219
>constantly on the brink of starvation
whoa lad, we aren't talking about EIC controlled India.
>population clearly supported diversified craftsmen and traders, but they were always malnourished.
Fucking hell, I didn't know India had it's own edgy hipsters.
>>318937
>aryan dravidian divide
>t. soul harvesting pastor
>>318977
>implying different indian rulers hadn't stopped sati
>casteism was stopped by the brits who ossified the entire system so that they could have a supply of labor to farm all their cash crops and raw materials
>>318994
>british railways
you mean the entire clusterfuck in pre independent India that had different track gauges and connected a few ports to facilitate movement of raw material but not population?
>>319219
>rocket tech =/= prosperous
alright, how about the metalworking industry, a large chunk of the spice trade and the bevy of fortresses in rajputana, and the deccan, or the cities of mysore, poona and hyderabad.
>>319253
Okay fine, Africa was an advanced land of queens and kings with flying pyramids. Happy?
>>319263
>Not the original anon, but do you think the rest of the world was any different?
Europe was definitely breaking the Malthusian cycle by that time. Look up Maddison's gdp/capita estimates, India was really really low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
>>319275
>However the British somehow managed to cause worse and more frequent famines.
Famines weren't more widespread during the British, it's just that for the first time famines were actually documented. If you believe that medieval India didn't have famines regularly you're a bit naive.
>Yet the British were obviously not medieval savages.
Afaik they didn't build any minarets out of human skulls, unlike the previous rulers of the subcontinent...
>I was actually pointing out how advanced it was as opposed to how prosperous it was in that incidence.
They were advanced in this single technology. To claim that this makes them more advanced overall is a bit of a stretch.
>And in that same spirit, Stalinist Russia was very advanced.
Stalinist Russia was a total shithole
>India at the time saw a great deal of war, like everywhere else on the planet Europe included.
But India at the time was specifically undergoing a sort of "collapse of the western roman empire" event. The Mughals had collapsed, the Marathas were undertaking a reconquista, the north was being ravaged by Afghan warlords. It would be akin a foreign colonizing power arriving in Europe during the Napoleonic wars.
>>319282
>whoa lad, we aren't talking about EIC controlled India.
Right, we're talking about pre-colonization India.
>Fucking hell, I didn't know India had it's own edgy hipsters.
If being historically literate is considered edgy nowadays, so be it.
>>319314
>alright...
doesn't change that the average indian was very poor and that indian society was very backwards.
>>319373
>historically literate
>average indian was very poor and that society was backwards
pick one you massive cockmongling faggot.
>>319382
>pick one you massive cockmongling faggot.
I pick both, because that's the correct answer.
>>319392
>I am historically literate
>I believe that society was backwards and the average indian was poor and starving.
>>319392
I like you don't care or know about the different trade networks in the subcontinent or that society wasn't evil brahmin eating lower caste babbies.
>>319405
>>I believe that society was backwards and the average indian was poor and starving.
That is correct
>>319373
>Afaik they didn't build any minarets out of human skulls, unlike the previous rulers of the subcontinent...
who did it? i gotta look into it
>>319413
>I like you don't care or know about the different trade networks in the subcontinent
How is that relevant? Are you implying that the British suppressed trade?
>in the subcontinent or that society wasn't evil brahmin eating lower caste babbies.
Sure, it was nizams taxing the shit out of poor peasants.
It's funny that you harp on and on about the British "stealing all the wealth out of India" when there were literally regular raids from Afghan warlords during those times whose explicit goal was to sack the maximum number of indian cities and hindu temples for booty.
>>319414
care to substantiate that claim?
>>319423
>who did it?
The Mughals, Tamerlane, the Deccan sultanate, heck I think every muslim ruler must have built one during his rule.
>>319430
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Care to substantiate your claim that India was this prosperous land?
>>319429
>the brits suppressed trade
they turned india from an exporter of finished goods and products to an importer, while turning it into an exporter of raw materials. That makes india poorer than paying taxes to your feudal leader.
>nizams taxed the shit out of poor peasants
>except those peasants were from different strata of society, and were often from craftsmen's guilds that made products that were in demand and made good amounts of profit.
>said nawabs either invested it into their kingdoms by either improving security or building shiny buildings.
>brits literally took the money back to britain to lead lavish lifestyles, and indians are supposed to be thankful for it.
>Afghan raids.
you mean the ones that were completely stopped by the sikhs under ranjit singh?
>>319460
>they turned india from an exporter of finished goods and products to an importer, while turning it into an exporter of raw materials. That makes india poorer than paying taxes to your feudal leader.
They didn't "turn" shit, it just so happens that industrialization happened in the west.
Why did the exports of China suffer a similar collapse despite not being colonized?
>you mean the ones that were completely stopped by the sikhs under ranjit singh?
>completely stopped
>>319474
>industrialization happened
which wouldn't have happened if the entire pre-existing system wasn't suppressed in the first place.
There is a reason why the greeks didn't start the industrial revolution.
>Completely stopped
>ranjit singh stops the afghan raids
>anglos do their eternal anglo,
>take over punjab
>start invading kabul because they are retarded.
>>319441
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India#Declining_Share_of_World_GDP
>goes from 27% to 3%
>inb4 it was all due to industrialization by glorious english science.
>even though the raw materials largely came from their colonies, notably India.
>>319511
>which wouldn't have happened if the entire pre-existing system wasn't suppressed in the first place.
What?? Industrialization wouldn't have happened in Europe had the Brits not colonized India??
>There is a reason why the greeks didn't start the industrial revolution.
Right, they were a slave-based society.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India#Declining_Share_of_World_GDP
>inb4 it was all due to industrialization by glorious english science.
It really was
The SHARE of world GDP declined. Not the raw GDP of India. The reason for this decline is because the GDP of Western countries greatly increased thanks to industrialization.
Non-colonized China also saw its share of world GDP shrink to nothingness.
>>319237
Post Aurangzeb Mughal Empire was a joke and the opposite of "mostly united".
If we have to look for a unificator before the Brits, that would be the Marathas, but they were a decentralized confederacy (except in their earlist stages).
Awnsering to OP, my bet is that we would have a series of Indian states formally united in a confederation but highly autonomous. This is actually pretty close to what the modern indian state is, but I think that in this no-colony timeline it would be even more disunited. India would have been less exposed to western values, and the fear against european aggresion would not be as strong, so they would've developed a different nationalism, suited for the elites of those autonomous states who would be fine keeping the confederacy but not with relinquishing power. It would be like the EU, maybe a bit more or less united depending on events between state that we cannot predict.
>>319373
>Famines weren't more widespread during the British, it's just that for the first time famines were actually documented. If you believe that medieval India didn't have famines regularly you're a bit naive.
Except they were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#British_rule
Not only that but the defence that "Uh, well they happened before too, just no one wrote it down" is absolutely daft
>Afaik they didn't build any minarets out of human skulls, unlike the previous rulers of the subcontinent...
No, the British had the tact not to do that. However when the British showed up the Muslim states were on a steep decline.
>They were advanced in this single technology. To claim that this makes them more advanced overall is a bit of a stretch.
You're retarded, no society just happens to pull advanced technology out of their ass.
They were capable of producing advanced weaponry because they had the necessary understanding of metallurgy, physics, chemistry and military strategy required to manufacture and use such equipment.
> Stalinist Russia was a total shithole
Say what you will, but technologically the USSR was advanced as sin. You can harp on about dead Ukrainians
until the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact they were one of two countries advanced enough to go to space.
>But India at the time was specifically undergoing a sort of "collapse of the western roman empire" event.
One of the major turning points in the colonization of India was the Seven years war. Which is one of the most significant wars in recent western history and involved basically every country in Europe.
It's not true at all that India was more of a warzone than anywhere else.
>>319518
industrialization wouldn't have happened in the way we know about it if there wasn't a supply of raw resources from colonies in the first place.
>slave based society
and the output of machines is always greater than slaves, you have to scale it in a way that is economically viable first.
>>319511
>There is a reason why the greeks didn't start the industrial revolution.
The reason being that greece is not an island full of coal, family. Nothing to do with colonialism.
>>319534
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#British_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#Ancient.2C_medieval_and_pre-colonial_India
>No, the British had the tact not to do that. However when the British showed up the Muslim states were on a steep decline.
Sure, my biggest problem with british colonization is that they prevented the cleansing of the subcontinent.
>You're retarded, no society just happens to pull advanced technology out of their ass.
Well first of all, calling the Mysore rockets "advanced" is a bit of a stretch. They were nifty devices, but their elaboration was completely empirical. For instance, the rocket-makers had absolutely no idea about how the rockets worked, or about how to calculate the trajectories of the rockets using Newtonian physics.
>They were capable of producing advanced weaponry because they had the necessary understanding of metallurgy, physics, chemistry and military strategy required to manufacture and use such equipment.
Once again, you're overstating the importance of Mysore rockets. Their military technology was overall inferior which is why the British dominated most military encounters.
>Say what you will, but technologically the USSR was advanced as sin.
It wasn't, except for a few sectors in which the soviet government invested all its funds (nuclear and space). Most russians didn't own cars until the late 1980s.
>It's not true at all that India was more of a warzone than anywhere else.
It really was. But hey I won't change your mind. I just think it's sad that marxism is so prevalent in India.
>>319518
Not the same person but the article itself says "Modern economic historians have blamed the colonial rule for the dismal state of India's economy, investment in Indian industries was limited since it was a colony"
Not to mention that the GDP of China did not start to shrink until the Opium Wars
>>319553
I don't think this is true, yes they were getting supplies but it was the vast amounts of coal and certain societal factors that lead to the industrial revolution. Indian supplies at best indirectly helped cause it.
>>319566
>brits dominated most military encounters.
because mysore wasn't fighting against the brits alone, the brits allied with the marathas and travancore because that is how it worked.
>india was a warzone
and it had nothing comparable to the 30 years war except when aurangzeb suffocated his empire because of lolJihad
>>319572
then explain the cotton mills in england then, and the banning of finished indian products in europe that suffocated the market.
>>319572
>"Modern economic historians have blamed the colonial rule for the dismal state of India's economy, investment in Indian industries was limited since it was a colony"
Two citations doesn't encompass all "modern economic historians".
>Not to mention that the GDP of China did not start to shrink until the Opium Wars
That's not true, China's share of GDP was already falling by the time of the first opium war.
>>319595
>and it had nothing comparable to the 30 years war
In terms of casualties? Every single muslim dynasty was a 30 years war.
>>319605
it didn't devastate large stretches of the subcontinent, even aurangzeb wasn't as autistic as that.
>>318954
You do realise that it was ruled by the Mughal Empire right? A Muslim empire, which the British conquered.
>>319630
>it didn't devastate large stretches of the subcontinent,
Nigger what? Ever heard of Tamerlane? Of Mahmud of Ghazni? Of Tughluq?
>>319642
you do realize that you are a retard right?
>>319642
>I've never heard of the Marathas : the post
Heaven on earth
>>319647
we are talking about 17th and 18th century india
>ghazni
should have been killed the first time around
>tughluq
yes, the autist who tried to move delhi to the deccan
>>319566
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#Ancient.2C_medieval_and_pre-colonial_India
I never denied famines happened, I just rightly pointed out that the British made it significantly worse.
>Well first of all, calling the Mysore rockets "advanced" is a bit of a stretch. They were nifty devices, but their elaboration was completely empirical. For instance, the rocket-makers had absolutely no idea about how the rockets worked, or about how to calculate the trajectories of the rockets using Newtonian physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysorean_rockets#Technology_and_deployment
They knew exactly how they worked and what they were doing, they didn't just slap some fuel into a bucket and hope it flies. In this field they were well ahead of Europeans to the point the British wisely decided to start using this kind of technology after Mysore wrecked them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Mysore_War
>It wasn't, except for a few sectors in which the soviet government invested all its funds (nuclear and space). Most russians didn't own cars until the late 1980s.
You're confusing "advanced" with "nice" for some reason. The USSR wasn't a nice place to live, but it was very advanced in all fields.
>It really was. But hey I won't change your mind. I just think it's sad that marxism is so prevalent in India.
Okay, what does Marxism have to do with this?
>>319670
>we are talking about 17th and 18th century india
I wasn't particulary talking about that period, but fine.
>>319701
>I never denied famines happened, I just rightly pointed out that the British made it significantly worse.
Perhaps certain British policies exacerbated food insecurity, but let's not pretend that in pre-colonial India people weren't chronically hungry.
>They knew exactly how they worked and what they were doing, they didn't just slap some fuel into a bucket and hope it flies. In this field they were well ahead of Europeans to the point the British wisely decided to start using this kind of technology after Mysore wrecked them.
The fact that it didn't become a staple of european warfare attests to its limited potential. But fair enough, this is one instance where indian engineers were ahead of the British.
>You're confusing "advanced" with "nice" for some reason.
I'm not. The USSR was really lagging behind. Most of its industry was antiquated.
>Okay, what does Marxism have to do with this?
Marxist historians are largely responsible for the whole "India was a paradise before the evil British exploited it" narrative, to help explain the pathetic failure of India's economic policy following decolonization.
Did you know that the time when there was the greatest difference in wealth between the average Briton and the average Indian was during the 1970s?
>>318929
There would be even fewer toilets than there are now. Indian unification in its modern iteration would be unlikely. Hospitals, infrastructure, and education would all stand at an even poorer level than today.
Let's face it, colonisation was the best thing that ever happened to this """""""""""country""""""""""". If the British hadn't done it then another intellectually superior power would have dominated the subcontinent, be it China or France. That's just the nature of geopolitics: there are losers (Indians) and there are winners. Indians were unable to harvest their resources and form a functioning country, so another power did it for them. I don't pity them.
>Two citations doesn't encompass all "modern economic historians"
Alright, I'll give you that. But that doesn't mean that my point is completely eradicated either.
>China's GDP was already falling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_China_before_1912
"The result was disastrous for the Chinese. It is estimated that between 1821 and 1840, as much as one-fifth of the silver circulating in China was used to purchase opium, the abuse of which incapacitated able men throughout the country."
1821 is just about where the Chinese Economy starts its downturn on your graph. The loss of men helps cause this fall in the economy. It slows down at roughly 1870 when the Taiping Rebellion ends, but keeps falling due more unrest and the fact that China was probably still paying off millions of dollars of reparations.
Why is it that topics on South Asia tend to produce the most heated debates in /his/
>>319777
what a waste of trips.
>education
which was increased post decolonization
>china would dominate
because history happens in a void.
>intellectually superior power
what crack are you smoking?
>>319767
>marxist historians
no, that has more to do with india following socialist policies post independence and not a handwringing by colonial apologists like yourself
>can you believe
yes, europe having higher literacy, a more developed industry and american aid in the marshall plan had to do with that.
>>319794
because anglos legitimately think that colonization was a good thing, and a piss poor bare minimum level of infrastructure makes up for bleeding the subcontinent dry
>>319794
because a lot of /his/torians know jackshit about it and get their knowledge from /int/
>>319803
>makes up for bleeding the subcontinent dry
Pleb who bases their economics on Lenin's work on Imperialism detected. Read some actual economics.
>>319817
yeah, the stagnation of the economy was actually good for India.
forget the GDP percentage and turning large amounts of productive farmland into opium fields, or the documented reduction of bengal's finances under the company, it was all good for india because of railways
>>319803
The Indian peoples weren't robbed, they were conquered. They were weaker, less developed, less intelligent, and less unified, and so when a superior power challenged them for use of their resources, they failed to defend them miserably.
Losing their resources I'm sure is very emotionally hurtful for you, and maybe if they were given another couple of centuries alone with them they could have figured out how to form a democratic government or build a university, but that is not how history was written. Instead, history shows that they were only able to accomplish these things after being ruled and shown how to overcome their savagery. Sad but true.
>>319890
jesus, do you study memes instead of history?
>less developed
which is why the EIC was primary trading with bengal before they bribed the cousin of a nawab and took control of a province.
>superior power
you mean the EIC which was primarily composed of peasants being trained soldiers
>form a democratic government
>what are the former vrijji republics
>build a university
>nalanda didn't exist
>the different indian kingdoms didn't patronize education and have complex bureaucracies
>only after being ruled
yes, which is why the standard of life has gone up post decolonization.
>overcome their savagery
>coming from a people who will gladly cause famines because of profit and brush their hands off it because destiny.
kill yourself, and all your fellow /pol/acks.
>>319794
Too much indians here.
>>319890
Actually India wasn't conventionally conquered.
The Brits just made dodgy deals with the princely states that slowly integrated them into the empire, and fought the odd war.
>>319958
problem?
>>319890
>superior power
Most of the East India Company's force were Sepoys.
>democratic government, university
There were definitely universities, no idea about democratic governments though.
>savagery
Literally /pol/ the post, may as well add a DESIGNATED SHITTING STREET in there for good measure.
>>319979
Not a single one, just explaining the reason to that anon. It's even obvious and natural.
I'm sure that let's say civil war threads also produce heated debates.
>>319031
>What ifs are one of the most plebian threads ever because anything can happen in a what if
I think it can facilitate discussion, if you focus on the relevent historical facts, and leave the actual alternative timeline entirely to the reader's imagination.
probably a lot fewer famines.
man made famines were happening like clockwork, 1 per decade under British rule.
30 million died over a century.
Funny thing is, India's population growth and England's population growth were both roughly a steady 1% prior to the first wave of industrialization. Malthus predicted millions of British would die due to inability of agriculturalists to support the growth.
In England, he was devastatingly wrong, because of mechanization and food imports from colonies.
In India, he was devastatingly right, because farmers were forced to move from subsistence toward exports, and India saw no mechanization of farming.
Virtually the only major infrastructure left to India as a result of British rule was the railroad used to extract resources.
There's pretty much no way to contest that colonialism had an absolutely devastating effect on India's people and economy.
>>318958
The vast majority of India was completely undeveloped, like completely agrarian / pastoralist economy because the UK forced India to consume its industrial exports whlie extracting raw material from it.
There was no industrial revolution in India until after the British left.
![019PHO0000002S8U00002000[SVC2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vYmcMqK.jpg "019PHO0000002S8U00002000[SVC2].jpg")
>>319890
>The Indian peoples weren't robbed, they were conquered.
they were conquered but with little to no British military commitment necessary, probably the single greatest instance of economic conquest in human history.
the British literally just paid princes to use their armies. many of them were allowed to maintain a degree of autonomy to govern
India would not exist there'd probably be religion or caste based stares. .. love the British or hate them.. They got India under one roof.. so yeah they screwed up with freedom and set India back by centuries but at least there is a country..
>>322891
I love how india's knowledge is based on high school tier history.
>>322891
It wouldn't have existed as a single polity. It's likely that it would have remained a series of warring kingdoms and empires as it had been since the end of the classical era.
Many people did die in famines which are now blamed on colonialism.
In the longer term, like, today, I don't really know whether India would be better or worse off; an alternate history concerning such a large and diverse part of the world over a century isn't simple, if Indian princes were complicit in the subjugation of their people it doesn't say much good about most of the former rulers in the first place really.
At the same time, being a series of infighting princedoms might have actually served as an incentive for India to industrialize and adopt military mechanization more rapidly like Europe had, than, say, China, which was largely stable and unchallenged.
>>322935
>complicit
it was a far more gradual process, the brits for a long time had a few plots of land next to a few trading ports they stored their goods in, IE a factory. They remained relatively in the background while trading and selling cannon for profit.
it all changed after plassey which they won by bribing the nawab of bengal's cousin into acquiring bengal.
Their greatest territorial expansion occurred when they implemented the doctrine of lapse and they nearly lost india because of it.
>>318929
Prosperous and very advanced
India was one of the most civilized country on earth, but then the British invaded and banned toilets and cemeteries (which is why Indians shit in the street and dump their dead in rivers)
>>318929
Absolutely horrible. A literal Hell on Earth.
>>322982
But it's true.
>>322988
well, it wouldn't have the kebab problem for once.
>>322996
Why not? It's not like the Hindu's managed to kill them to any great measure. Pakistan got them out to a great extent.
>>322952
communal latrines were widely used, but pit latrines have to be cleaned out and even water-based latrines have to be serviced.
there was basically an entire caste whose entire purpose was performing these necessary functions on behalf of the other castes.
it wasn't until the caste system was abolished that most of them collectively went "fuck it", because even if it's an essential service who the hell would want to spend their life ridding of corpses and human excrement while being treated like shit for it, and teaching their children to do the same?
the caste responsible for maintaining hygiene in society was basically abolished with nothing to take its place.
the reason Indians didn't simply start using toilets wasn't because shitting outside was more convenient, but because sharing a toilet between father and daughter is for example a big taboo in much of India. Moreover, the level of scientific thinking of the general population is very low, so they're mostly informed by traditions. Hindu purity rituals dictate that it's dirty to do one's business within 150ft of one's house, and one must urinate no closer than 15ft from a river (so as not to contaminate what might be drinking water). So installing toilets was and remains largely seen as something dirtier.
>>318937
maratha confedaracy wouldnt have lasted. many of the leaders were ambitious but ignorant.
>>323062
they were doing a good job modernizing
>>323099
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics
>>323099
well parts of it are very undeveloped but that's quite a stretch, and economic growth is outpacing population growth, so there's a positive trajectory overall.
plus, there's added value to even having a mostly undeveloped population cooperate under a single flag, in that you can fund the sort of "one-off" achievements that are only possible with a large economy like a space program.
>>323155
there's more to development than gdp too, although economic growth might be essential in the long term.
Kerala has relatively low GDP per capita, yet it's one of the only developing regions that met all 8 millennium development goals. HDI in Kerala qualifies it at the higher-end of what would constitute a middle-income nation.
>>323155
we might be lower than the arab nations in gdp but India's economy is more complex and we're democratic and secular.
>>323183
well the islamic world isn't exactly a shining example of human development in the first place so if your point is that you're on par by some estimate, you're sort of scraping at the bottom of the barrel.
>>319800
>yes, europe having higher literacy, a more developed industry and american aid in the marshall plan had to do with that
No, India wasting her time with that socialist economic planning had to do with that.
Socialism = death
>>322808
>There's pretty much no way to contest that colonialism had an absolutely devastating effect on India's people and economy.
Yet the poorest and most famine-stricken regions of India were invariably the princely states.
>>318929
Worse
>>323353
>hey you wanna invest in a country where half the population is starving and the country looks unstable because it is a democratic mess that looks like it might fall apart soon, or would you invest in it's neighbor that seems relatively stable and whose elite isn't as hostile to you and co-operates with you readily?
yeah
Funny how people are talking about castes and shit. It was the brits that revived the caste tradition after it was long dead/dying.
Anyway, here's what I'd think would happen. The british conquest of India was a economic/diplomatic conquest using the divide-conquer strategy. It was very effective against the various states in the region. If we assume other countries don't replicate this strategy, then most likely due to global awareness, there might be an United States of India with the various states of the region joining in to become a nation-state. Technologically/Economically, India was probably similar to China at the time. Politically it was divided. If a greater political unity was formed, we could very well see a rise of a global power much sooner. Political identity of India might take form of either socialist democracy or capitalist system.
On the neighboring side, with India no longer producing opium for China, China would undoubtedly be a much stronger regional power. Without Opium Wars and undermining of the Qing, the money stays in China and corruption is reduced and economy of China never stops growing due to wide spread opium addiction problem. The Qing will either modernize/industrialize much faster as a result and therefore might last even longer (to this day).
On the British front, with the money going to China, their economy output will be greatly reduced and the military will be reduced as a result of less money. With no India to provide huge amounts of resources and wealth, it will further reduce British's ability to either expand/grow into the most powerful empire.
WWI would have been a lot different. It might instead be called "Europe War" instead of "World War" due to change of power balance.
>>319193
the Marthas had the rifles and cannons to defend themselves, the issue was the Indians couldn't fight for shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assaye
I'd imagine it would be in a similar position that it is today. While the Brits did drain their resources, they did leave behind infrastructure like railways. Also India would have probably never been partitioned.
>>324041
Well the British armies in India were in significant part manned by Indians too.
>>325301
Indians were true cücks
DESIGNATED
SHITTING
STREETS
A FUCKING WAGON WHEEL
>>318929
French and portuguese
Sounds horrifying.
>>318929
There would be even more shit in the streets
>>319024
That is he said "kind of people"
>>325382
r o c k m e m a m a l i k e a f u c k i n g l e a f
>>319010
>hurr durr alternate history is useless
>>325472
B A C K T O L E D D I T
A
C
K
T
O
L
E
D
D
I
T
>>319253
GIMME A 'WE'!
India would still be a third world shithole, only this time with Japan as colonial master.
>>318929
literal shit
>>324336
They left behind 5 railway standards that the government now was to waste billions on standardizing to 1.
POO IN THE LOO
India wouldn't exist ti would be several states
>>318929
Better since they wouldn't be subjected to Britain's retarded colonial restrictions on trade, lack of investment and heavy taxation.
>>318929
It would've been colonized by the French. If not them, the Dutch.
>>327970
does europe not exist because it isn't a single polity?
>>328224
Yes Europe doesn't exist as a state so talking about it as a state like India would be silly.
>>328215
>I know literally nothing about pre colonial india: the post
>>319031
Posting on 4chan automatically grants you pleb status.
>>328235
Not that anon, but he actually made a good point. The India he was talking wasn't India the country but rather the Indian subcontinent, which is a bit like Europe.
Comparing the two, India is analogous to Germany, Pakistan is France, Bangladesh is Italy, Nepal and Bhutan are like Spain/Portugal, and Afghanistan is the Balkans. Infinitely shittier versions without the Eurozone and all that jazz, but still comparable.
>>328559
>implying that bangladesh wouldn't have been better as part of India proper.
>when their entire jute industry was dependent upon the mills in calcutta.
yeah, but that would upset a lot of pan india elitists though.
>>328559
>India
>infinitely shittier
b--but, muh nukes...
>>328654
yes, when was the last time europe as a whole was conquered by an imperialist power that was interested in maximizing profit
