Education Reform: Signs of Hope

ranjit #107 You are of course welcome to hang on to your views, given that they make you happy. :-) Far be it for me to put a few inconvenient facts between a man and his hallucinations.

#116 ``They`` didnt teach me what the GCC is either, so kindly spell it out so I can try to understand what you are trying to say. As for myself being an ``ex-Indian``, I am delighted to learn of this, having been born in Pakistan. Perhaps you are referring to some previous incarnation of mine (perhaps the incarnation when I was Sivaji) ... :-)

I am no Anglophile -- but one will have to accept that todays Pakistan and India owe a lot to British colonialism -- this was indeed the lucky silver lining in the colonial clouds that had darkened certain aspects of subcontinental lives for almost 200 hundred years -- Tahseen that was a good post.

We can be eternally indebted to the Brits for atleast one -- English.

Re: # 104

Tahmed you claim to be some kind of ex Bureaucrat. Strange they never taught you permanent settlement and Ryotwari act of Bengal and how it changed the old system of Damdaupat (literally meaning twice over) which meant that once twice the amount of a loan was repaid there was no liability to repay it anymore none of the usury that happened after the British did wwhat was above.

And Tahmed there were very few famines in this country before the Brits came and many after them.

Regards
Sanatani

P.S. As an ex-Indian you find it very hard to digest that in economic terms India was the biggest king of the block and till 1963 the Indian Rupee was the second most prized but the most commonly accpeted tender in the areas that comprise the GCC.

#112 by Tehsinabbasi

Excellent post abbasi sahib. I also agree with Tahmed’s posts on this subject. I just don’t have enough time right now to contribute to the discussion and would write something over the weekend hopefully.

Urstruly, ``Asaar-ul-Sinadeed`` is not some authentic book about the economy. It was all about old buildings and other points of interests in Delhi. I read that book in my teens so I may not have grasped the whole idea behind the book but even at that time it was apparent that Syed Ahmed was just glorifying the past like the current Indians talk about inventing the Zero but they still remained Zero after inventing it.

India’s GDP myth does not take into account that India, population wise, was one of the two largest countries in the world even some two or three centuries ago. Most of the world was still agrarian and India with population and area available for cultivation was perhaps the largest entity after China. There have always been armies of beggars that roamed Indian cities and towns throughout the history.

British tried to turn India into a major cotton producing country and that caused major shift in economic activity and destroyed some ancient agriculture base.
Will post more later…

#109 by SR

But for the disclaimer, you bring fond memories of Ustaad Echoboom :~)

#79 by bulleya

Well ... these things can be discussed back & forth as to how an army trust should be constituted. But I would contest your statements that :

(a) `` it is a trust run by the money of the retired officers, plus the resources of the pakistan army (i.e. the pakistan govt.) ``

There is no evidence to support that and you may citre references.

(b) ... if the army puts all its budget into askari bank, then obviously it will be profitable.......however, the army generals don`t own the budget, the budget belongs to the people of pakistan........what if the people want the budget to go to habib bank?........if askari computers is given the contracts for the army`s own projects ...

The entire budget including army is passed by the Parliament and allocated to respective authorities. After that it is upto those department`s own rules/regulations which banks to use etc. One can`t go back to the people for routine operational issues time and again.

As for the army preferring its own foundation/trust to award in-house business, what is wrong with that? It does award what it doesn`t itself do, to outside vendors.

Besides, two of the army`s businesses compete in the open market and win hands down fair & square. These are NLC (National Logistics Corp) for heavy surface hauling, and FWO (Frontier Works Organisation) which is building fresh world-standard highway infrastructure plus improving on the old one all over the country.

No one likes military rule, but give credit where it`s due.

:~)

Myth Mongering:

India sonay ki chirrya – refers to the fact that the Golconda diamond mines had the reputation through out the world for their riches. This in addition to gold mines made India very wealthy according to pre-industrial standards. The wealth in India was measured in terms of hiray jawahirat and eating in gold plates and drinking out of gold goblets. But beyond this it was not so great. Muslin, cotton fabric, and a variety of other manufactured products could fetch good prices, agriculture production, double harvests (both summer and winter crops), spices was perhaps all that was produced. The British came to India for spices but ended up trading in manufactured goods from India as the spices they were looking were in the East Indies.

The first battle of Panipat was fought in 1526 and Babur was proclaimed Emperor of India establishing the Mughal empire in India. He defeated Ibrahim Lodhi a muslim ruler also of Pathan – Afghan descent. (Good, very good – establish strong Muslim rule in India) He looted pillaged, subdued whoever came in his path Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and carved out a kingdom in Northern India.

From 1499-1599 Portuguese establish trading colonies in Goa and Surat, along with other colonies through out the Indian Ocean establishing a monopoly for all trade from the East to Europe. The local rajas oblivious to the external world used their services in petty disputes with rival rajas. The Dutch supplanted the Portuguese and in turn were supplanted by the British. But this was essentially a trading venture. The Dutch East India Company was formed through common stock sale and the crown refused to partake considering the venture to be too risky, only concession made was that the company was allowed to carry the Dutch flag and employ troops to protect its property in the colonies, which of course were always in danger of being attacked by the Portuguese or local potentates. The British East India Company fashioned itself on the Dutch model and ended up being much more successful then all of the colonists.

Akbar 1556 -1605 abolished jizya, tolerated diversity and ushered in an era of unparalleled prosperity in India. Only to be supplanted by his great grand son Aurangzeb 1658 – 1707 who re-imposed the jizya, resumed destruction of Hindu temples and caused such anger and discontent that the whole empire disintegrated. The Mughal Empire never reached the southern coast of India, and other then sending pilgrim ships to Mecca did not participate in any sea trade.

The invaders from the North who came a hundred years earlier we celebrate while the traders who became rulers from the South we continue to lament.

By early 18th century India was back in its traditional shape of being ruled by local potentates always at war with their neighbors. Whereas the rulers lived in relative luxury the teaming masses (India even then was over populated) lived in abject poverty. Victorian Britain was full of poverty as well, which is so vividly portrayed in the writings of Charles Dickens. The early industrial revolution had been so rough on the working class that it prompted the theories of Marx and Engel about a workers revolution. But still John Stuart Mill was so appalled by the scenes of abject poverty that he saw in India that he wrote something to the effect that religion and custom had so destroyed the spirit of a people that there was no parallel in history. Poverty until the advent of the industrial revolution was universal, the whole world was poor it was only rare pockets where people had roti, kuprra and mukaan. Colonialism, industrialization was bringing prosperity to the British masses, this phenomena prompted Adam Smith to write his book “Wealth of Nations” in which he tried to study the reasons for the relative prosperity of some nations as compared to others.

But the real asset that India had and which elevated India’s position as the ‘jewel in the crown’ was its compliant work force. A huge mass of humanity, which was smart and willing to be trained and mobilized for any cause. The British used Indians as their surrogates all over the world and this made them a huge empire and in the process lifted Indians as well. India got its telegraph, railways, school system, universities, news papers a lot before any of its erstwhile neighbors and many European countries as well.

Did Britain help or hurt India, we will continue to debate that till kingdom come but fact remains that it was not even one percent of them and more then 99 percent of us who they had submit to their will. Could they do it without our help, I don’t think so.

anil

Thank you. The name of the book is indeed ``Rise and Fall of Empires`` by Paul Kennedy.

Sir Walter Scott, commenting on the abdication of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1814

``Although I never supposed that he (Napoleon) possessed, allowing for some difference of education, the liberality of conduct and political views which were sometimes exhibited by old Haidar Ally, yet I did think he (Napoleon) might have shown the same resolved and dogged spirit of resolution with induced Tippoo Saib to die manfully upon the breach of his capital city with his sabre clenched in his hand.``

I think, the East India Company first, and later the British were able to conquer the Sub-Continent, not because of superior wealth, technology, social sophistication etc. They were able to conquer it due to a more mature political process.......

......if one studies the battles fought by the the East India Company and the British in the Sub-Continent, invariably, it turns out that the British played one local kingdom against the other........the defeat of Tipu Sultan is one such example......

``After Horatio Nelson had defeated Napoleon at the Battle of the Nile in Egypt in 1798 CE, three armies, one from Bombay, and two British (one of which included Arthur Wellesley the future first Duke of Wellington), marched into Mysore in 1799 and besieged the capital Srirangapatnam in the Fourth Mysore War. There were over 26,000 soldiers of the British East India Company comprising about 4000 Europeans and the rest Indians. A column was supplied by the Nizam of Hyderabad consisting of ten battalions and over 16,000 cavalry, and many soldiers were sent by the Marathas. Thus the soldiers in the British force numbered over 50,000 soldiers whereas Tippu Sultan had only about 30,000 soldiers.`` wikipedia......

.......so basically, the East Indian Company only had 4,000 Bristish soldiers, out of the 50,000 who attacked Tipu Sultan!! The remaining were all Marathas and Hyderabadis etc.........indians fighting indians, on behalf of the British!!

interesting fact about Tipu Sultan: ``Tippu Sultan was a founder-member of the Jacobin Club. While accepting the membership, he said of France, ``Behold my acknowledgement of the standard of your country, which is dear to me, and to which I am allied; it shall always be supported in my country, as it has been in the Republic, my sister!``. He was named as ``Citizen Tippu Sultan``,

the Jacobian Club was the famous political club in the French Revolution.........

LORD MACAULAY`S ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, 2 FEBRUARY, 1835

``I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.``

disclaimer: It is disputed that this is a part of Lord McCauley`s speech to British Parliament because Lord McCauley arrived in India on 10th June 1834 and returned to England in early 1838. If in 1835 he was in India then how could he have delivered a speech in the British Parliament. He arrived in India by a 3 month long journey by ship so it is unlikely the Lord made a quick visit to England for delivering this speech.

...when the east india company, ``invaded`` bengal, bengal was one of the welthiest areas in the world.....granted it had a nawab/king ruling the area, but that was the norm all over the world......

.......the east india company massively exploited bengal......it literally taxed people into starvation and eventually death.......the lifestyles of the east indian company employees were unmatached even by those of the richest people in england.......all of this was done by taxing the poor bengali laborer.....

........so much so, that by the time the east indian company (and later the british) left bengal, it was one of the poorest areas in the world (if not the poorest)....

......an easy criteria to use is that bengal had massive famines during the days of the british rule........it lost upto 1/3rd (?) or some huge number of its citizens due to these famines.......once again, these famines were due to the policies of the british.......this combined with the massive taxation by the east india company, left the local population in tatters.........from which it has yet to recover.........

......it is incorrect to think that the sub-continent was some boondock with natives waiting to get civilized by the white man........the sub-continent was a very sophisticated and rich area......even after the demise of the mughals, it may have remained so......it would have divided into its traditional monarchies........

.........there was vast interaction between sub-continental leaders/nawabs etc. and british, which indicates that technology etc was being transfered.......shah jahan had thousands of european artisans/architects etc. working for him........ranjit singh`s army was set up along the most modern european lines, with european doctors, trainers etc.......tipu sultan was a very learned man and had direct interaction with the french (napolean?), to form an alliance to get rid of the british.......

so much so that the east indian company officers were settling down in the sub-continent and heavily inter-marrying into the local population and integrating into the society.....this notion of east is east and west is west only started in the 19th century onwards........

Re:tahmed

[..ranjit: So India is just like the US, and the Pakistan military is a puppet in the hands of India? :-)

You guys dont need any alcohol in India - you seem to produce your own internal hallucinatory drugs....]

Tahmed, this is how the future is shaping up. US and Indian interests are very closely aligned now. The Pak army is a total puppet of the US so it is by default a puppet for Indian interests.

Also, as Kashmir gets resolved, all of Pak army attention will be focused on its western borders for the foreseeable future. It is already happening that way now. Effectively Pak army is becoming a shield from jihadis for India and the US. The suicide bombs are going off in Pakistan now rather than in India, if you have not noticed.

Re: # 99

Urstruly:

The book you probably mean is by Paul Kennedy and called ``Rise and Fall of Empires``.

India had richer economy till the advent of European Colonialism, which impacted not only India but China also. In 1800s European colonies were to provide raw material and not industry, but also the markets to buy European goods and pay for services (= ruling thru taxation) from the sale of raw material. The U.S. rebelled - ``No taxation without representation``, was the reason for Boston Tea Party.

The rapid industrialization that followed in Europe is the evidence. This was the systematic policy. To this date, East India Company has provided the highest shareholder returns, not even Microsoft has been able to repeat this performance.

In fact economic historians have demonstrated that France till early 1990s lived off the riches and wealth accumulated during its colonial days. Its overall domestic product contribution during the post colonial period had been negative overall. The stop was put at Suez-Canal, till then Brits and French were ready to send their troops, probably different only in savagry to the early Islamic soldiers. Missionaries complimented the role where soldiers could not reach.

The world now has entered a new era of knowledge economies, where jobs (=labor of industrial period), technology, information and capital can move in seconds.

Re: # 102

According to IMF and WB figures the world GDP today stands at about 61 Trillion dollars; whereas US and European Union each has a contribution of 20% each into it with 12 Trillion dollar GDP respectively.

So even if we accept your 25% (Maddison, Bairoch, Frank) figures to be true then Hindustan`s GDP was still more than present day US or EU. Today the combined GDP of India and Pakistan stand at about 4 trillion dollars which means they together contribute about 6% of world GDP. The question is what brought us to this level from producing 25% (or about 50% according to Adam Smith) of world GDP down to 6%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Tahmad

Do you see now, that even with 25% GDP Hindustan was richer than present day US or EU. I hope the point is clear now.

#102 Thank you. 25% is half of what urstruly was saying.

what is not mentioned in the quote from the wikipedia you provide is that in the 19th century the rest of the world grew by leaps and bounds. The US, e.g. had massive inflows of capital from europe that transformed it from a rural society to an industrial society in the 19th century - the civil war considered the first major war of the industrial age. Japan had the meiji restoration that transformed it from a rural society into an industrial society that a few years after the end of the 19th century had a steam-age navy strong enough to sink the russian fleet. Germany was transformed from a rural society to an industrial one in the same century. So, it is is more accurate to say that India did not grow in the 19th century like other nations rather than that India was impoverished and (as is implied in the quote) the rest of the world stood still. The latter could not be further from the truth.

So, dont go by statistics too much - as they say, there are lies, damned lies, and (worst of all), statistics. :-) And what you quoted from wikipedia is a good example.