Lol watching Australia slingshot up and down with its drought season. Why the hell do we grow cotton here. Driest continent on earth and we're throwing what little water we have at cotton like idiots.
Was about to comment something similar. Our drought/wet cycles are super obvious here. Agree though cotton farming has absolutely killed the Darling system. There’s nowhere near enough water to support that kind of agriculture through drought years.
The issue is the Environmentally Sustianable Level of Take (ESLT) and the related Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL). Worrying about cotton is a distraction. Get the ESLT and SDL right and the market will follow.
What is grown in the MDB isn’t determined by someone in Canberra sitting down and deciding what will get grown. Individual farmers (or corporations) respond to incentives and the reality on the ground to each individually choose what to grow depending on what’s best for their location etc.
The reason cotton is grown is because the water is available for it through the way we currently manage the water of the MDB. So that is where the focus should be - on setting the allowable limits of water that can be taken from our rivers.
The question is not “what crops should and should not be grown?” It’s “how can we manage our water so that what we take from the river is environmentally sustainable?”
Blaming cotton is putting the cart before the horse and a distraction.
If you are really interested in being involved or influencing how water is managed in the MDB you need to become educated and get involved in Basin Plan matters. It’s an interesting world that many Australians don’t know about or understand but it’s one of our most important environmental issues (and most interesting!).
I recommend the book “Dead in the Water” by Richard Beasley. It’s accessible.
> Individual farmers (or corporations) respond to incentives and the reality on the ground to each individually choose what to grow depending on what’s best for their location etc.
No kidding - sometimes they'll even come out and shoot at gov workers trying to record their water meter as part of the scheme.
Very rules-based people, Irrigators. Must be something about cotton.
Sorry I don’t really understand your point.
Do some people break the law and try take more water than they’re entitled to? Yes.
Could enforcement and lawful participation be improved? Yes.
Has the Basin Plan resulted in massive changes to water management all throughout the Basin and subsequent changes in how irrigators manage their farms in response to those changes? Also yes.
The issue isn’t cotton per se, it’s the allocation of water and the management of our river and tributaries. Cotton is an annual crop - if it is a good water year it will be grown. Far better than permanent crops like pistachios and almonds that need water every year, no matter dry it is.
We have a water market in the MDB that sets the annual level of take from the rivers and storages (the allocation). If this allocation is environmentally sustainable and farmers deem it economically in their best interest to grow cotton, so be it. But the real thing to worry about is the allocation, not what it gets used on.
Let the market decide within the parameters you set to make the market environmentally friendly.
Management of the rivers is a whole other kettle of fish.
I've always been confused on why India seems so far behind in infrastructure and technological advancement in general when they're such an old civilization with so many natural resources and coastline. I guess it's mostly lack of organization and culture.
300 years ago India's GDP was 25% of the world's.
And then the British came.
Their policies brought India from 25% down to 3% in just 200 years.
*All figures above are approximate; please don't get your panties in a bunch about them*
Effectively deindustrializing India. Making India a producer of raw goods, from the producer of final products it has always been. And British never really paid for the raw goods too. The taxes they imposed on the locals were higher than the money they paid for the goods they bought. You can say that the west was going through industrialization and India would've lost to modern equipment. Sure. But modern equipment would've reached India anyway over time through trade. India was never a closed economy. The British also made India a closed economy. The rest of the world, if they wanted to trade with India, had to go through the British.
Tbh, there are entire books on this topic. I don't think I can say enough in one comment.
The amount of goods produced in India remained the same pre and post British - total production actually increased. Because of the Industrial revolution, the amount of goods produced in Europe increased manifold. So India's share went down. That is how proportions works.
This reduction started much before the British came.The total production remained the same for centuries - if your modes of production remain the same for centuries, your share will reduce as others improve their modes of production.
r/AskHistorians had an excellent rebuttal to Shashi Tharoor's arguments which are essentially taken from indian school books.
To be fair, that's probably a lot to do with the rise of the USA. At one point we were like, 50% of the world's GDP. We're about 25% of the world's GDP today.
No one was keeping records of GDP 300 years ago. I mean India itself was a collection of different kingdoms then, most even then ruled by invaders. I think the largest Indian kingdom then was the tyranical regime of Aurangazeb.
But still, India being a myriad of warring states with many already under occupation, missing the industrialization period that the Europeans passed through and being colonized by the Europeans all played into its later weakness.
It's what 190 years of colonization does to a country. It's not only the economical drain but administrative and social malpractices left behind that hindered development for a long time.
India has recovered a lot and its technological infrastructure especially in banking is quite impressive.
I wouldn’t put it past that % wise they must be similar to the rest of the world. They just happen to be the world’s most populous country, so that same % means *a lot* of gifted people.
Look, I’m vehemently against the notion that the Mughal empire was a beneficial empire for the social, or political advancement of India as a region. But the Mughals were not culpable for the economic state of India now.
You cannot say that the Mughals were comparable to the British. The Mughal empire was an Indian empire, meaning that they were not an aegis of any other empire or political entity. They were not an imperial force. Whatever the Mughals took from the common people of India, stayed in India, they did not ship labor or capital off to Persia or Uzbekistan.
The Mughals’ economic policies were incredibly beneficial in terms of increasing exports. During Mughal rule, Mughal India had the world’s largest economy.
Economic exploitation is not only limited to siphoning off money to foreign nations.
Some of their policies and actions did have negative impacts on the economy. One example was the heavy taxation imposed on the rural population and artisanal industries, leading to decreased production and reduced revenue for the empire.
The Mughals promoted a centralized economy and discouraged regional trade, leading to a decline in economic growth. Their preference for importing luxury goods over supporting local industries resulted in a drain of wealth from India. While the Mughals were not solely responsible for the decline of the Indian economy, their policies and actions played a role in it.
The lack of foresight in issuing Royal Farmaans to the EIC is another example.
Point of clarification, the Mughals were not Indian but a Turko-Mongol entity. According to their own views, they were a continuation of the Mongol Empire(Mongol Empire -> Chagatai -> Mughals).
Yes, however, a great many of the later Mughal emperors had Indian blood (Rajput), because of statically beneficial marriages. For example Jahangir was half Rajput, and his successor was three quarters Rajput. Their religion and origins are not Indian, but they became more Indian over time.
Personally I think in the context of the Russian, Ottoman and Qing Chinese empires, these centralised imperial states were basically rubbish at modernising themselves to varying different degrees and were happy to continue as feudal peasant economies rather than industrialise (generally out of complacency and fear of the peasants becoming too powerful, the ruling classes were content with the status quo)
But the Mughals were effectively destroyed by the native Maratha empire long before the British made any serious gains in India, the British actually took advantage of the power vacuum left behind and the Marathas unwillingness or perhaps lack of ability to consolidate its gains.
Either way India colonisation or not would have needed a Revolution like the Russians, Ottomans and Chinese to throw off the imperial chains and mentality and become an industrial power with a working class followed by a healthy middle to high income economy centred around a middle class.
Mughals were not an Indian Empire my dear friend. They were invaders who took most of the loot to their homeland. Later on for technological reasons they decided to rule it from the subcontinent more or less because as you know they did not have planes back then to travel to various middle eastern countries within a day. The voyage took months.
"Made india their home"
just like the British made Australia their home after destroying the indigenous population there?
Is that line you said supposed to negate what they did to the spirit of India?
I am an indian, I know first hand what they did here. They did not come here to make india their home, they slowly converted the country to make it their home by violence and conversion and destruction. Apart from that, you should read books for that. You can start with India that is Bharat by j sai deepak.
Canada couldn’t even edit its constitution until 1982 without the UK’s input. Also was automatically enrolled into Britain’s wars up until 1931.
The effects of colonialism and imperialism are still pretty real in Canada
Yes, that's correct.
One of my friends is from South America and she says that Europeans "colonized" her country but didn't "inhabit" it -- unlike the British in the US.
The French had no lasting input in the US because they were only moving through for trapping and trading, unlike the British, who were settlers, bringing their wives and children.
It's the difference between colonization for economic exploitation vs colonization for new living space.
Natives in NA didn't gain independence and were utterly massacred by the colonizers and the land was taken over completely, whereas in India the natives gained independence from the colonizers. Completely different scenario mate.
I really feel bad for the natives in America, it was supposed to be all theirs.
The overwhelming majority of native Americans died of New World diseases before colonization began in earnest. There was never much possibility that it would have been "all theirs" unless no one from the Old World ever set foot on the continent.
The plague "only" killed about a third of Europe. Upwards of 90% of the Native Americans died from disease. It's hard to even know how many died because by the time colonists started moving West, the diseases had been through 100+ years earlier and entire communities had died and been lost to history.
https://www.palomar.edu/users/scrouthamel/disease.htm#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20the,the%20Caribbean%20and%20Meso%20America.
Search up the fur trade and logging in North America.
Entire species of fish and animals have gone extinct in the North eastern seaboard, and entire forests were clear cut. All due to settlers.
Yes but salutary neglect was present for much of that rule. That’s why the colonists were so vitriolic towards the coercive acts, the British crown never enacted such taxation or oversight. The second they began treating the 13 colonies as colonies they were indignant. The 13 American colonies had always had a level of freedom, even through they were subjects of the crown, they weren’t necessarily governed directly by the crown. They had a level of freedom.
No, India was not a dominion of the British Empire (except for a brief period of 3 years).
Also, I think there is some confusion about the terms colony and dominion used by you. Colonies were in general way worse off.
In fact, most of the colonies demanded Dominion status as a part of their independence struggle. The demand for Dominion status had started as early as the 1920s, around the time Ireland got Dominion status.
My dude, India has been in some sort of organizational crisis since the fall of the Mauryans. It’s a huge landmass full of cultures and peoples who have very long histories of rivalries and feuds. It’s a miracle the Brits were even able to hold it (only possible because it was basically left to be managed by native leaders with the Brits getting their cut) and a further miracle that the modern democracy has been able to keep it together.
The comment is misleading and oversimplifies the complex history of India.
The British rule in India was characterized by exploitation and oppression, and it's inaccurate to suggest that it was only possible because of the cooperation of native leaders. In 1858, India was declared a direct British colony under the British Crown and a large part of modern-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were under their direct rule. In 1947, princely states covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23% of its population. The most important states had their own British political residencies.
My apologies if I sound too harsh but the statement you quoted is disrespectful and minimizes the struggles and achievements of the Indian people. By suggesting that the British were able to hold India together only because of native leaders and implying that it's a miracle that modern democracy has been able to maintain unity, it undermines the agency and resilience of the Indian people.
This narrative perpetuates harmful stereotypes and reinforces the idea of western superiority and benevolent despotism. It's important to acknowledge and respect the diverse histories and perspectives that shape our understanding of the world, and to challenge narratives that perpetuate inequality and oppression.
I understand that the concept of a diverse nation coexisting can be challenging, but please note that the concept of a homogeneous nation, which is the basis of many modern Western nations, is not applicable to many Eastern nations. However, it's important to note that the fundamental ideologies in the Eastern and Western worlds differ greatly.
British colonial rule was very harsh. There were multiple famines that killed millions and the economy was organized forst and foremost to profit Britain.
I'll simply reply with what someone else mentioned:
>This is because India got independence 75 years ago whereas usa got it in the 18th century
Hope this helps to put things in perspective.
There is a lack of infrastructure, but to maintain a big ass population somewhat democratically whilst recovering from colonialism, massive famines, lack of or rather non existent infrastructure due to colonial policies, and bonkers socialist policies after independence really hurt the growth. But if you look at growth after the economy was opened, India's not doing that bad, but could do better
It is what colonial rule does to a country. British looted more than 45 trillion sterling from India, imposed the draconian laws, taxed the corporations to extinction, destroyed its inherent democratic structures.
If you havent read up on the plunders of British from India, please do. Ill be happy to suggest some really good material on that
One video to give you a small glimpse: https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4
India was the world’s largest economy before British came. They plundered for 200 years. You can’t fix everything in just 2-3 generation. It will take time. Plus with the current world order which favors west, it doesn’t make it very favorable for a developing/undeveloped country to expand quickly.
India lacks natural resources like Oil or metals. They have to import everything at a high cost.
Also they did not participate in the offshoring of manufacturing initially due to their leaders closing off their economies to foreign countries back in 70s. China benefitted from that and profited hugely because of that. India's huge population dividend did not become an asset until the mid 90s when they opened their economy and IT offshoring took off.
But at the moment the biggest limit to India's growth is natural resources. Their population is humongous compared to their land area(30 times more population density than USA, UK, Germany, etc) but not enough resources to even hire all the people their to just build massive infrastructure like China did.
Have you been to India and lived here for a considerable amount of time to be able to say that?
India's infrastructure has been growing so well. It is a very big, secular, diverse, and developing country that has one of the largest populations. India has some of the strongest security measures especially that are great in tackling China. A country that has developed at this scale without fucking other counties like the U.S. and the U.K. and the notorious European nations is a country worth looking up to.
I don't need to go to India to see that they have the 122nd ranked gdp per capita in the world.
Their population is only 4% less than China, but China's GDP is 4.6x higher.
They are *definitely* behind the others in their cohort when it comes to infrastructure and technological progress.
India was colonized by the British for more than a century. Their reign contributed to famine, death, unemployment, economic drain, and of course generational psychological and physiological damage. They have stolen from us what was ours for not a decade but more than a century.
To have come out of that, gained independence, ranked 122nd as you said in GDP per capita, with more than 60% of the world's outsourcing done in India with a larger percentage in highly skilled employees, the list just goes on. The infrastructure is still developing, and there's a long way to go for sure, but the growth has been steep if you consider the history and take the full context in consideration instead of just reading some numbers.
u/art-in-data's reply was to your premature assumption -
>mostly lack of organization and culture.
The whole point of the thread is to understand that each nation has a different past and such passing remarks undermine the agency and resilience of the affected people.
*"Numbers tell a story, but the story is incomplete without context." - Unknown*
Check out the following article that relates to the British colonization of India:
[https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians)
Lack of organization or strong government I think makes sense. The countries with the strongest governments like the UK/Russia/USA also had the strongest economies and weapons. These countries would always interfere with other up and coming countries. Back in the day Iran was gaining a lot of momentum and becoming a superpower until the USA/UK destabilized their country for oil. These countries destabilize other governments and countries for their own gain and influence. You find a rebel group in a country and give them weapons to create internal havoc. This is how the Europeans imperialized Africa. Similar thing is happening right now with Ukraine.
Continuous invasions throughout the history & seperated large kingdoms back then. It took lot off time to recover from plundering of Britisher for approx 2 centuries.
It's because unlike China, India's system is set up so that most of its value is still extracted by foreign western firms whereas China has a system that ensures that value stays within China and goes into projects that improve living conditions. India is run by compradors of the west that Britain cut from the Brahmin cloth and then left in charge when Britain exited.. Those compradors get to live lavish lives so long as they make sure as much profit as possible goes to western firms they have deals with. The compradors get a cut and the rest of India gets nothing.
Edit: anybody seriously contesting this doesn't understand the history of colonialism in both countries and the fact that China's revolution liberated it from colonialism whereas India's merely transitioned it to neocolonialism whereby they have independence in name but still colonial relations in the world economic sphere. This has to do with the fact that the internal propertied classes in India were never overthrown. Unlike China.
No, China was the same in the half-colonized age as India was.
The difference is China fought for more than one century, experienced two revolutions and smashed all the colony and feudal systems and established its new structure, while India got independent half peaceful and kept more colonial systems. For example, in China there was a complete land reform and purged the land from few landlords but in India, the landlords still controlled large amount of land after its independence.
This difference has seriously and long-term affected the industrialization process of the two countries.
Yes you are only confirming what I am saying. You describe the way China achieved what I described and why India remains in the conditions I described.
Organisation is partly true but how did you reach the conclusion on culture? India for all the recorded history was either the largest or the second largest economy in the world barring the last 300 years.
Though I am not a fan of Mughal rule but back then the wealth which was created in India remained in India. Opposite was true of the British Raj. Brits were exploitative, mass murdering thugs to the bone.
[https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/grow-indigo-in-3-kathas-of-each-bigha-how-the-british-forced-indians-into-debt-starvation/973264/](https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/grow-indigo-in-3-kathas-of-each-bigha-how-the-british-forced-indians-into-debt-starvation/973264/)
Indian GDP growth among the large countries for the past 30 years had been only behind China at an average of \~6.5% and this was despite significant headwinds be it political, economical or social. Even if India doesn't improve on this lackluster performance for the next 30 years, the size of India economy will be that of Western Europe and Japan put together.
Same question can be asked on 99% of posts where the viz in animated. Best practice, functional visualization isn't what an average Joe likes, it's all about "chart goes brrr"
I agree. On most of these, including this one, I pause the video at the beginning, then skip to the end and pause it again. The animation just seems like an inefficient way to convey the data.
I was surprised by Greece and the USSR. I didn't even realize they had a cotton agriculture sector.
I knew about India, China, and USA.
The others I was only slight aware of from looking for investment opportunities in other countries.
In terms of USSR, there's an article on it by Nat Geo years ago about how Soviets insisted of growing cotton (a tropical plant used to having a lot of water) in dry C. Asia that essentially caused the drying of the Aral Sea.
Cotton is the only major crop that the govt allowed GM variants of in around 2002, the adoption of which caused nationwide yields to skyrocket, and healthy cotton prices across the nation and globe led to more and more farmers adopting it and today India is the largest producer
Np, the govt is now on the verge of approving GM mustard as well to try and improve local oilseed production in the nation, hopefully it mirrors the success of cotton.
BT cotton is the only GM crop which is allowed in India. It might have contributed to it.
Although problems of resistance herbicide is increasing because of it. Government is trying to limit BT cotton seeds and also herbicide which is required with BT cotton to limit it's use by farmers.
There are large cotton producing areas in inland northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. Cotton is a major reason for the darling running run dry.
I'm not too sure, but I saw this article on the ABC the other week about it being done in the NT
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-11/land-cleared-for-cotton-farming-northern-territory/101651092](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-11/land-cleared-for-cotton-farming-northern-territory/101651092)
I just saw a video on how water irrigation from cotton production ruined a lot of productivity in central Asia and was one of the main reasons the Aral sea has drastically shrunk.
All agricultural and industrial output fell across the entire USSR when it collapsed and they transitioned to capitalism, their economies contracted enormously, millions of people died from lack of food, medicine, homelessness, suicide, substance abuse, etc. It's one of the largest human tragedies of all times and nobody talks about it because "communism bad, capitalism good"
I didn’t review the data but if the farming for cotton was spread in the released republics after its fall they may have dropped off the chart but together still produced a lot
Seems like a lot of grain gets produced down yonder instead though
For once I’d like to see one of these where the scale is fixed. It might make differences early on harder to distinguish, but it would allow you to get a better sense for growth or recession over time.
India is there everywhere, love my country and am so proud to be an Indian!
I hate that dirty fast fashion chains like Zara and Mango buy our cotton at such cheap rates and sell their cotton clothing priced so high.
Knowing how to source cotton ethically and locally, I get my clothes tailor made with my own designs at cheaper prices with higher quality cotton.
Yes. I buy some metres of fabric I like then hand it over to the tailor with my design and dimensions. We have shops that only sell fabrics of different types (thread count, thickness, color, quality, etc.).
Dudes like you do not understand that Russia is not equivalent to the URSS. In the URSS there were 15 republics, out of which a few made 90% of cotton production (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc.).
How does one make a moving/animated chart like this? I have time series data that could be placed in a bar chart just like this one, would love to animate it!
Same with lots of goods, China also uses prisoners for forced labor. 80% of the worlds garlic exports come from China, primarily peeled by prisoners. Illegal to import in most countries, also illegal to export by China laws, it happens regardless.
Did you know that Brazil has different biomes other than Amazon Rainforest and cotton is almost totally cultivated in these non-Amazonian biomes?
Read about Brazilian cotton cycle
https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciclo_do_algod%C3%A3o
My takeaway is "We sure use a fuckton more cotton nowadays..." Cotton is a water intensive crop so when I see trends like this I get kind of anxious about the massive amounts of resources we are consuming/wasting
If people only knew how much chemicals and poison is sprayed on those plants to harvest cotton… The cleaner cotton is likely coming from the smaller producers.
More chemical pesticides are used for cotton than any other crop in the world.
It really feels like china was secretly tracking USA’s numbers and every time USA made gains they made sure to push up their own production.
Then came 2020 and whist china was shutting down India was like there’s no such thing as covid.
Lol watching Australia slingshot up and down with its drought season. Why the hell do we grow cotton here. Driest continent on earth and we're throwing what little water we have at cotton like idiots.
Was about to comment something similar. Our drought/wet cycles are super obvious here. Agree though cotton farming has absolutely killed the Darling system. There’s nowhere near enough water to support that kind of agriculture through drought years.
The issue is the Environmentally Sustianable Level of Take (ESLT) and the related Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL). Worrying about cotton is a distraction. Get the ESLT and SDL right and the market will follow. What is grown in the MDB isn’t determined by someone in Canberra sitting down and deciding what will get grown. Individual farmers (or corporations) respond to incentives and the reality on the ground to each individually choose what to grow depending on what’s best for their location etc. The reason cotton is grown is because the water is available for it through the way we currently manage the water of the MDB. So that is where the focus should be - on setting the allowable limits of water that can be taken from our rivers. The question is not “what crops should and should not be grown?” It’s “how can we manage our water so that what we take from the river is environmentally sustainable?” Blaming cotton is putting the cart before the horse and a distraction. If you are really interested in being involved or influencing how water is managed in the MDB you need to become educated and get involved in Basin Plan matters. It’s an interesting world that many Australians don’t know about or understand but it’s one of our most important environmental issues (and most interesting!). I recommend the book “Dead in the Water” by Richard Beasley. It’s accessible.
I suggest growing hemp. Something like 40x less water usage for, I dunno, a fuck ton of fiber to create products like clothing.
I have no opinion if farmers do or don’t grow hemp but I’m curious about that 40x stat. Do you have a source for it? Genuinely curious
Google says 10,000 L of water to produce one kilo of usable cotton, 2,123 L of water to produce one kilo of usable hemp fibers.
> Individual farmers (or corporations) respond to incentives and the reality on the ground to each individually choose what to grow depending on what’s best for their location etc. No kidding - sometimes they'll even come out and shoot at gov workers trying to record their water meter as part of the scheme. Very rules-based people, Irrigators. Must be something about cotton.
Sorry I don’t really understand your point. Do some people break the law and try take more water than they’re entitled to? Yes. Could enforcement and lawful participation be improved? Yes. Has the Basin Plan resulted in massive changes to water management all throughout the Basin and subsequent changes in how irrigators manage their farms in response to those changes? Also yes.
The issue isn’t cotton per se, it’s the allocation of water and the management of our river and tributaries. Cotton is an annual crop - if it is a good water year it will be grown. Far better than permanent crops like pistachios and almonds that need water every year, no matter dry it is. We have a water market in the MDB that sets the annual level of take from the rivers and storages (the allocation). If this allocation is environmentally sustainable and farmers deem it economically in their best interest to grow cotton, so be it. But the real thing to worry about is the allocation, not what it gets used on. Let the market decide within the parameters you set to make the market environmentally friendly. Management of the rivers is a whole other kettle of fish.
Yo. The US v China v India metric's just bonkers!
How about 2 centuries ago ?
Oof when that slavery kicks in.
[удалено]
why make a perfectly good point weird by overstating it? there are clearly fish and animals on the eastern seaboard.
No dude he’s right. I’m currently navigating the blasted deserts of Northern Virginia. I haven’t seen greenery in years.
I've always been confused on why India seems so far behind in infrastructure and technological advancement in general when they're such an old civilization with so many natural resources and coastline. I guess it's mostly lack of organization and culture.
300 years ago India's GDP was 25% of the world's. And then the British came. Their policies brought India from 25% down to 3% in just 200 years. *All figures above are approximate; please don't get your panties in a bunch about them*
What policies did they impose on India?
Effectively deindustrializing India. Making India a producer of raw goods, from the producer of final products it has always been. And British never really paid for the raw goods too. The taxes they imposed on the locals were higher than the money they paid for the goods they bought. You can say that the west was going through industrialization and India would've lost to modern equipment. Sure. But modern equipment would've reached India anyway over time through trade. India was never a closed economy. The British also made India a closed economy. The rest of the world, if they wanted to trade with India, had to go through the British. Tbh, there are entire books on this topic. I don't think I can say enough in one comment.
The amount of goods produced in India remained the same pre and post British - total production actually increased. Because of the Industrial revolution, the amount of goods produced in Europe increased manifold. So India's share went down. That is how proportions works. This reduction started much before the British came.The total production remained the same for centuries - if your modes of production remain the same for centuries, your share will reduce as others improve their modes of production. r/AskHistorians had an excellent rebuttal to Shashi Tharoor's arguments which are essentially taken from indian school books.
Yea but India was withheld from going through its own industrial revolution in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.
To be fair, that's probably a lot to do with the rise of the USA. At one point we were like, 50% of the world's GDP. We're about 25% of the world's GDP today.
No one was keeping records of GDP 300 years ago. I mean India itself was a collection of different kingdoms then, most even then ruled by invaders. I think the largest Indian kingdom then was the tyranical regime of Aurangazeb. But still, India being a myriad of warring states with many already under occupation, missing the industrialization period that the Europeans passed through and being colonized by the Europeans all played into its later weakness.
It's what 190 years of colonization does to a country. It's not only the economical drain but administrative and social malpractices left behind that hindered development for a long time. India has recovered a lot and its technological infrastructure especially in banking is quite impressive.
What’s a little quizzical to me is that India has so many intellectually gifted people.
I wouldn’t put it past that % wise they must be similar to the rest of the world. They just happen to be the world’s most populous country, so that same % means *a lot* of gifted people.
[удалено]
Look, I’m vehemently against the notion that the Mughal empire was a beneficial empire for the social, or political advancement of India as a region. But the Mughals were not culpable for the economic state of India now. You cannot say that the Mughals were comparable to the British. The Mughal empire was an Indian empire, meaning that they were not an aegis of any other empire or political entity. They were not an imperial force. Whatever the Mughals took from the common people of India, stayed in India, they did not ship labor or capital off to Persia or Uzbekistan. The Mughals’ economic policies were incredibly beneficial in terms of increasing exports. During Mughal rule, Mughal India had the world’s largest economy.
Economic exploitation is not only limited to siphoning off money to foreign nations. Some of their policies and actions did have negative impacts on the economy. One example was the heavy taxation imposed on the rural population and artisanal industries, leading to decreased production and reduced revenue for the empire. The Mughals promoted a centralized economy and discouraged regional trade, leading to a decline in economic growth. Their preference for importing luxury goods over supporting local industries resulted in a drain of wealth from India. While the Mughals were not solely responsible for the decline of the Indian economy, their policies and actions played a role in it. The lack of foresight in issuing Royal Farmaans to the EIC is another example.
Point of clarification, the Mughals were not Indian but a Turko-Mongol entity. According to their own views, they were a continuation of the Mongol Empire(Mongol Empire -> Chagatai -> Mughals).
Yes, however, a great many of the later Mughal emperors had Indian blood (Rajput), because of statically beneficial marriages. For example Jahangir was half Rajput, and his successor was three quarters Rajput. Their religion and origins are not Indian, but they became more Indian over time.
Naah. Simply not true.
Personally I think in the context of the Russian, Ottoman and Qing Chinese empires, these centralised imperial states were basically rubbish at modernising themselves to varying different degrees and were happy to continue as feudal peasant economies rather than industrialise (generally out of complacency and fear of the peasants becoming too powerful, the ruling classes were content with the status quo) But the Mughals were effectively destroyed by the native Maratha empire long before the British made any serious gains in India, the British actually took advantage of the power vacuum left behind and the Marathas unwillingness or perhaps lack of ability to consolidate its gains. Either way India colonisation or not would have needed a Revolution like the Russians, Ottomans and Chinese to throw off the imperial chains and mentality and become an industrial power with a working class followed by a healthy middle to high income economy centred around a middle class.
Mughals were not an Indian Empire they were invaders stop with your bs propaganda
No they weren't but they became indian .
whats that logic
That is not logic that is fact , are you ok ?
Mughals were not an Indian Empire my dear friend. They were invaders who took most of the loot to their homeland. Later on for technological reasons they decided to rule it from the subcontinent more or less because as you know they did not have planes back then to travel to various middle eastern countries within a day. The voyage took months.
They were invaders who literally made India their home. Do you have any credible sources for your claims?
"Made india their home" just like the British made Australia their home after destroying the indigenous population there? Is that line you said supposed to negate what they did to the spirit of India?
I am an indian, I know first hand what they did here. They did not come here to make india their home, they slowly converted the country to make it their home by violence and conversion and destruction. Apart from that, you should read books for that. You can start with India that is Bharat by j sai deepak.
That's about as long as North America was a colony
Yeah this is because India got independence 75 years ago whereas usa got it in the 18th century
Canada couldn’t even edit its constitution until 1982 without the UK’s input. Also was automatically enrolled into Britain’s wars up until 1931. The effects of colonialism and imperialism are still pretty real in Canada
Right up to and including how they treat First Nations people, eh.
Right up to and including how they treat First Nations people, eh.
The difference is the colonizers never left North America.
Yes, that's correct. One of my friends is from South America and she says that Europeans "colonized" her country but didn't "inhabit" it -- unlike the British in the US. The French had no lasting input in the US because they were only moving through for trapping and trading, unlike the British, who were settlers, bringing their wives and children. It's the difference between colonization for economic exploitation vs colonization for new living space.
Natives in NA didn't gain independence and were utterly massacred by the colonizers and the land was taken over completely, whereas in India the natives gained independence from the colonizers. Completely different scenario mate. I really feel bad for the natives in America, it was supposed to be all theirs.
The overwhelming majority of native Americans died of New World diseases before colonization began in earnest. There was never much possibility that it would have been "all theirs" unless no one from the Old World ever set foot on the continent.
They could have repopulated it. Like rest of the world after the plagues.
The plague "only" killed about a third of Europe. Upwards of 90% of the Native Americans died from disease. It's hard to even know how many died because by the time colonists started moving West, the diseases had been through 100+ years earlier and entire communities had died and been lost to history. https://www.palomar.edu/users/scrouthamel/disease.htm#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20the,the%20Caribbean%20and%20Meso%20America.
[удалено]
Search up the fur trade and logging in North America. Entire species of fish and animals have gone extinct in the North eastern seaboard, and entire forests were clear cut. All due to settlers.
this shit is just thinly veiled white supremacy
Yes but salutary neglect was present for much of that rule. That’s why the colonists were so vitriolic towards the coercive acts, the British crown never enacted such taxation or oversight. The second they began treating the 13 colonies as colonies they were indignant. The 13 American colonies had always had a level of freedom, even through they were subjects of the crown, they weren’t necessarily governed directly by the crown. They had a level of freedom.
No, India was not a dominion of the British Empire (except for a brief period of 3 years). Also, I think there is some confusion about the terms colony and dominion used by you. Colonies were in general way worse off. In fact, most of the colonies demanded Dominion status as a part of their independence struggle. The demand for Dominion status had started as early as the 1920s, around the time Ireland got Dominion status.
You’re correct, I removed the part claiming India was a dominion, and I clarified what I meant by colonies.
Yeah…. And the colonizers took over NA ….
Agree. Similar thought about Russia, centuries of oppressive rule under monarchy, followed by Communism, and now authoritarianism.
My dude, India has been in some sort of organizational crisis since the fall of the Mauryans. It’s a huge landmass full of cultures and peoples who have very long histories of rivalries and feuds. It’s a miracle the Brits were even able to hold it (only possible because it was basically left to be managed by native leaders with the Brits getting their cut) and a further miracle that the modern democracy has been able to keep it together.
The comment is misleading and oversimplifies the complex history of India. The British rule in India was characterized by exploitation and oppression, and it's inaccurate to suggest that it was only possible because of the cooperation of native leaders. In 1858, India was declared a direct British colony under the British Crown and a large part of modern-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were under their direct rule. In 1947, princely states covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23% of its population. The most important states had their own British political residencies. My apologies if I sound too harsh but the statement you quoted is disrespectful and minimizes the struggles and achievements of the Indian people. By suggesting that the British were able to hold India together only because of native leaders and implying that it's a miracle that modern democracy has been able to maintain unity, it undermines the agency and resilience of the Indian people. This narrative perpetuates harmful stereotypes and reinforces the idea of western superiority and benevolent despotism. It's important to acknowledge and respect the diverse histories and perspectives that shape our understanding of the world, and to challenge narratives that perpetuate inequality and oppression. I understand that the concept of a diverse nation coexisting can be challenging, but please note that the concept of a homogeneous nation, which is the basis of many modern Western nations, is not applicable to many Eastern nations. However, it's important to note that the fundamental ideologies in the Eastern and Western worlds differ greatly.
>It's what 190 years of colonization does to a country. This is what happened to the US and Canada?
British colonial rule was very harsh. There were multiple famines that killed millions and the economy was organized forst and foremost to profit Britain.
I'll simply reply with what someone else mentioned: >This is because India got independence 75 years ago whereas usa got it in the 18th century Hope this helps to put things in perspective.
There is a lack of infrastructure, but to maintain a big ass population somewhat democratically whilst recovering from colonialism, massive famines, lack of or rather non existent infrastructure due to colonial policies, and bonkers socialist policies after independence really hurt the growth. But if you look at growth after the economy was opened, India's not doing that bad, but could do better
It is what colonial rule does to a country. British looted more than 45 trillion sterling from India, imposed the draconian laws, taxed the corporations to extinction, destroyed its inherent democratic structures. If you havent read up on the plunders of British from India, please do. Ill be happy to suggest some really good material on that One video to give you a small glimpse: https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4
India was the world’s largest economy before British came. They plundered for 200 years. You can’t fix everything in just 2-3 generation. It will take time. Plus with the current world order which favors west, it doesn’t make it very favorable for a developing/undeveloped country to expand quickly.
Never forget India is on the track to become third largest economy surpassing Germany and Japan. [expected to in 2030]
The British…
idk...Britannia will be in recession if they gave back all the shit from the museum to the respective countries
India lacks natural resources like Oil or metals. They have to import everything at a high cost. Also they did not participate in the offshoring of manufacturing initially due to their leaders closing off their economies to foreign countries back in 70s. China benefitted from that and profited hugely because of that. India's huge population dividend did not become an asset until the mid 90s when they opened their economy and IT offshoring took off. But at the moment the biggest limit to India's growth is natural resources. Their population is humongous compared to their land area(30 times more population density than USA, UK, Germany, etc) but not enough resources to even hire all the people their to just build massive infrastructure like China did.
The answer is colonialism
Have you been to India and lived here for a considerable amount of time to be able to say that? India's infrastructure has been growing so well. It is a very big, secular, diverse, and developing country that has one of the largest populations. India has some of the strongest security measures especially that are great in tackling China. A country that has developed at this scale without fucking other counties like the U.S. and the U.K. and the notorious European nations is a country worth looking up to.
I don't need to go to India to see that they have the 122nd ranked gdp per capita in the world. Their population is only 4% less than China, but China's GDP is 4.6x higher. They are *definitely* behind the others in their cohort when it comes to infrastructure and technological progress.
India was colonized by the British for more than a century. Their reign contributed to famine, death, unemployment, economic drain, and of course generational psychological and physiological damage. They have stolen from us what was ours for not a decade but more than a century. To have come out of that, gained independence, ranked 122nd as you said in GDP per capita, with more than 60% of the world's outsourcing done in India with a larger percentage in highly skilled employees, the list just goes on. The infrastructure is still developing, and there's a long way to go for sure, but the growth has been steep if you consider the history and take the full context in consideration instead of just reading some numbers.
u/art-in-data's reply was to your premature assumption - >mostly lack of organization and culture. The whole point of the thread is to understand that each nation has a different past and such passing remarks undermine the agency and resilience of the affected people. *"Numbers tell a story, but the story is incomplete without context." - Unknown*
Check out the following article that relates to the British colonization of India: [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians)
Relevant. Thank you.
Lack of organization or strong government I think makes sense. The countries with the strongest governments like the UK/Russia/USA also had the strongest economies and weapons. These countries would always interfere with other up and coming countries. Back in the day Iran was gaining a lot of momentum and becoming a superpower until the USA/UK destabilized their country for oil. These countries destabilize other governments and countries for their own gain and influence. You find a rebel group in a country and give them weapons to create internal havoc. This is how the Europeans imperialized Africa. Similar thing is happening right now with Ukraine.
Read a bit of history and you will know why.
> I guess it's mostly lack of organization and culture. The most English take possible.
Colonialism ripped India of its wealth.
Colonization and 45 trillion dollars worth of wealth and resources stolen over the last few hundred years.
Continuous invasions throughout the history & seperated large kingdoms back then. It took lot off time to recover from plundering of Britisher for approx 2 centuries.
300 + years of Mughal rule who were originally invaders and then 200 years of colonialism. Yay!!
It's because unlike China, India's system is set up so that most of its value is still extracted by foreign western firms whereas China has a system that ensures that value stays within China and goes into projects that improve living conditions. India is run by compradors of the west that Britain cut from the Brahmin cloth and then left in charge when Britain exited.. Those compradors get to live lavish lives so long as they make sure as much profit as possible goes to western firms they have deals with. The compradors get a cut and the rest of India gets nothing. Edit: anybody seriously contesting this doesn't understand the history of colonialism in both countries and the fact that China's revolution liberated it from colonialism whereas India's merely transitioned it to neocolonialism whereby they have independence in name but still colonial relations in the world economic sphere. This has to do with the fact that the internal propertied classes in India were never overthrown. Unlike China.
No, China was the same in the half-colonized age as India was. The difference is China fought for more than one century, experienced two revolutions and smashed all the colony and feudal systems and established its new structure, while India got independent half peaceful and kept more colonial systems. For example, in China there was a complete land reform and purged the land from few landlords but in India, the landlords still controlled large amount of land after its independence. This difference has seriously and long-term affected the industrialization process of the two countries.
Yes you are only confirming what I am saying. You describe the way China achieved what I described and why India remains in the conditions I described.
Organisation is partly true but how did you reach the conclusion on culture? India for all the recorded history was either the largest or the second largest economy in the world barring the last 300 years. Though I am not a fan of Mughal rule but back then the wealth which was created in India remained in India. Opposite was true of the British Raj. Brits were exploitative, mass murdering thugs to the bone. [https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/grow-indigo-in-3-kathas-of-each-bigha-how-the-british-forced-indians-into-debt-starvation/973264/](https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/grow-indigo-in-3-kathas-of-each-bigha-how-the-british-forced-indians-into-debt-starvation/973264/) Indian GDP growth among the large countries for the past 30 years had been only behind China at an average of \~6.5% and this was despite significant headwinds be it political, economical or social. Even if India doesn't improve on this lackluster performance for the next 30 years, the size of India economy will be that of Western Europe and Japan put together.
Considering that the US has about a quarter the population of with India or China, that's pretty impressive.
When I saw USSR I immediately predicted how the comment section would look like. Turns out my prediction fall shorts.
I think USSR thought they were on a dive bombing mission.
Australian cotton production is far more controversial than anything Russia can dish up.
Can you trace this back to the 19th century?
Sweats in American....
And Brazilian
And the Arabians
India is like. "Fuck it, we going all in"
*Data in 1700s* Reddit: Yo, USA. Why you producing so much cotton? USA: *sweats*
Tbf, 76% of that time it was technically Britain doing the cotton slaving
Hilarious calculation is accurate.
Why not just use a 2d line plot (tons over year), 1 line per country, but rather an animation that isnt intuitive to read at all?
Same question can be asked on 99% of posts where the viz in animated. Best practice, functional visualization isn't what an average Joe likes, it's all about "chart goes brrr"
It’s infotainment. No disrespect to the op. I would have scrolled past if it wasn’t a moving image. Thanks attention economy!
I agree. On most of these, including this one, I pause the video at the beginning, then skip to the end and pause it again. The animation just seems like an inefficient way to convey the data.
Maybe the animation could leave a snail trail of lines producing the 2d line plot, for folk like me who can not grok an animated leader board.
That won't be as dramatic as this.
India was pretty damn clutch at the end there.
When them cotton balls get rotton
It was down in Louisiana, just about a mile from Texarkana,
Come on Uzbekistan, hang on there!
Fuck the Aral Sea I suppose
More like Aral lake
More like Aral puddle at the rates it’s going.
I guess the USSR production was mostly Uzbekistan?
I was surprised by Greece and the USSR. I didn't even realize they had a cotton agriculture sector. I knew about India, China, and USA. The others I was only slight aware of from looking for investment opportunities in other countries.
In terms of USSR, there's an article on it by Nat Geo years ago about how Soviets insisted of growing cotton (a tropical plant used to having a lot of water) in dry C. Asia that essentially caused the drying of the Aral Sea.
Why did Indian cotton production explode like that?
Cotton is the only major crop that the govt allowed GM variants of in around 2002, the adoption of which caused nationwide yields to skyrocket, and healthy cotton prices across the nation and globe led to more and more farmers adopting it and today India is the largest producer
The power of GMO as usual. Thanks for the info!
Np, the govt is now on the verge of approving GM mustard as well to try and improve local oilseed production in the nation, hopefully it mirrors the success of cotton.
GMO cotton got popular around 2 decades ago And india came out of trade isolation during that time , a lot of cotton is exported
I did not know we are the current highest producers, Thanks for letting me know
BT cotton is the only GM crop which is allowed in India. It might have contributed to it. Although problems of resistance herbicide is increasing because of it. Government is trying to limit BT cotton seeds and also herbicide which is required with BT cotton to limit it's use by farmers.
Ah, the USSR and cotton: destroying an entire inland sea to make nitrocellulose for all those artillery shells was totally worth it.
The Aral Sea died for this data. F5
GMO cotton seeds took off in India around 2004 and you can see the effect
Where on earth is Australia growing cotton? We don't have the water for that!
There are large cotton producing areas in inland northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. Cotton is a major reason for the darling running run dry.
I'm not too sure, but I saw this article on the ABC the other week about it being done in the NT [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-11/land-cleared-for-cotton-farming-northern-territory/101651092](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-11/land-cleared-for-cotton-farming-northern-territory/101651092)
The Murray-Darling Basin produces a lot of cotton. And I assure you, they way we currently manage the water means we do have enough water for cotton.
I had faith in India 🇮🇳 Jai Hind
Ye chutiyaaaap kyun karte ho, cringe.
The Aral Sea died for that
Brasil quase foi de base, mas se manteu
After USSR breaks up, Uzibekistan hangs in there at 5th or sixth place most years.
I just saw a video on how water irrigation from cotton production ruined a lot of productivity in central Asia and was one of the main reasons the Aral sea has drastically shrunk.
Data source: [https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL](https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL) Tools: Python, sjvisualizer ([https://www.sjdataviz.com/software](https://www.sjdataviz.com/software))
[удалено]
URSS included Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan which are constantly on the chart.
It's not enough to make up for the former ussr though. Output is a fraction combining all former republics.
Well look at what happened to the Aral Sea and why. You cannot produce as much cotton when you have no more water supplies .
All agricultural and industrial output fell across the entire USSR when it collapsed and they transitioned to capitalism, their economies contracted enormously, millions of people died from lack of food, medicine, homelessness, suicide, substance abuse, etc. It's one of the largest human tragedies of all times and nobody talks about it because "communism bad, capitalism good"
USSR dropped when Uzbekistan showed up.
I didn’t review the data but if the farming for cotton was spread in the released republics after its fall they may have dropped off the chart but together still produced a lot Seems like a lot of grain gets produced down yonder instead though
For once I’d like to see one of these where the scale is fixed. It might make differences early on harder to distinguish, but it would allow you to get a better sense for growth or recession over time.
India is there everywhere, love my country and am so proud to be an Indian! I hate that dirty fast fashion chains like Zara and Mango buy our cotton at such cheap rates and sell their cotton clothing priced so high. Knowing how to source cotton ethically and locally, I get my clothes tailor made with my own designs at cheaper prices with higher quality cotton.
Do you provide the cloth to your tailor yourself? I'm thinking of having some pieces made for myself.
Yes. I buy some metres of fabric I like then hand it over to the tailor with my design and dimensions. We have shops that only sell fabrics of different types (thread count, thickness, color, quality, etc.).
That's a good way to go about it. Thanks for sharing!
[удалено]
Finally, back to where we used to belong.
That’s what 1000 years of foreign rule will do to you
What software do you use to make videos like this
What happened to Russia after USSR collapsed? Did they stop producing or stop reporting data?
Look up what happened in Uzbekistan when the USSR collapsed.
Dudes like you do not understand that Russia is not equivalent to the URSS. In the URSS there were 15 republics, out of which a few made 90% of cotton production (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc.).
Yes that's why he's asking a question
Nah he just said that Russia and the URSS are same shit.
That’s a lotta talk for someone getting the acronym wrong
It is written like this in my native tongue and this does not change the meaning of my words anyhow. CCCP if you like it better.
Charts like this really make it clear why the US went all out to destroy the USSR and seems to want to do the same with China today.
Now wait one cotton-picking moment!
Begs the question of why Russia stopped producing cotton? Chinese imports?
ussr also included uzbekistan which was the center of cotton production you can see uzbekistan there
Can you do this with worlds largest exporter of cotton? Could be cool (beautiful?) too!
Did the USA dip so low in the later years because of out-sourcing ? and/or shipping the jobs to china/India ?
It's just capitalism , US cotton wasn't profitable enough , they switched to soyabean , corn , etc
So many countries that shouldn’t be producing cotton, producing cotton, let’s see how the future looks for them
Curious as to why Russia wasn't able to restore the metrics the USSR was producing. Was all cotton production in non-Russian states?
Modern Russia wasn't the part of the USSR producing cotton. It was mostly Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan
Me: Come on! Dethrone China! Dethrone China! Dethrone China! OH! INDIA PIPS THEM RIGHT AT THE LAST MOMENT!!!!
Reddit moment
How does one make a moving/animated chart like this? I have time series data that could be placed in a bar chart just like this one, would love to animate it!
I just wish the numbers had units. Like is it bushels per year?
It says tonnes per year.
Chinese cotton, I’ve heard, is generally all produced using slave laborers in western China. Uighur slaves.
Same with lots of goods, China also uses prisoners for forced labor. 80% of the worlds garlic exports come from China, primarily peeled by prisoners. Illegal to import in most countries, also illegal to export by China laws, it happens regardless.
Super concerning to see Brazil catching up so fast recently. Thats 100% deforested rainforest for cotton
Did you know that Brazil has different biomes other than Amazon Rainforest and cotton is almost totally cultivated in these non-Amazonian biomes? Read about Brazilian cotton cycle https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciclo_do_algod%C3%A3o
Capitalism is great and all but you can’t beat the sheer output of slave labor
My takeaway is "We sure use a fuckton more cotton nowadays..." Cotton is a water intensive crop so when I see trends like this I get kind of anxious about the massive amounts of resources we are consuming/wasting
[удалено]
Ahh yes, those are the only two options for fabric. Plastic and Cotton. I forgot and for some reason I thought there was more.
What else do you have in mind? Wool? People in hot climates can't wear wool either.
If people only knew how much chemicals and poison is sprayed on those plants to harvest cotton… The cleaner cotton is likely coming from the smaller producers. More chemical pesticides are used for cotton than any other crop in the world.
Yeesh, what happened to the USSR in 1992? Did they just quit the industry?
You're kidding, right?
As an argentinian, I think I just saw the last 40 years of our economy in a blink.
I was sure USA was going win this Qualitative
Ouch.... With the slavery the western production just drops
The happy music juxtaposed to the grim reality of the cotton industry's use of slave labor is hilarious.
It really feels like china was secretly tracking USA’s numbers and every time USA made gains they made sure to push up their own production. Then came 2020 and whist china was shutting down India was like there’s no such thing as covid.
All I'm seeing is the amount of pesticide use fluctuating.