Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

andtheywontstopcomin t1_iuejaqv wrote

Reply to comment by Odinshrafn in Fall of the East India Company by Vailhem

It’s also worth mentioning that the British didn’t really “capture” india through conquest or war. Nor did they directly rule the entire subcontinent.

2

never_rains t1_iuem91e wrote

All of the India wasn’t ruled by Britain but they controlled two thirds by area and more by population.

2

andtheywontstopcomin t1_iuepc65 wrote

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t the yellow areas in this map not even 2/3 of the subcontinent?

To my understanding the British Raj was much poorer and less productive per capita than the relatively autonomous princely states

1

never_rains t1_iuers3z wrote

Wikipedia says that princely states occupied 40% of the area and 23% of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state

British India was on average better than an average princely state. But there were few states like Travancore which performed better than British India. Tirthankar Roy has a really good book on it.

1

andtheywontstopcomin t1_iuevyh4 wrote

Can you elaborate?

I’m pretty sure the princely states outside of the nizams had higher GDP per capita than the Raj. Mysore (or maybe it was travancore) for example had electricity while the rest of the Raj was basically in poverty

Not to mention that nearly all industry in india collapsed when the British took over and there was a huge efflux of people from cities into rural areas. So rural poverty became a huge problem

1