Anonymous 19-05-23 10:39:44 No. 17334
>Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society. The question, therefore, is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton. <England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.
Anonymous 19-05-23 10:43:35 No. 17335
>>17334 that spreading westernism across the world was historically progressive (correct)
don't overthink it, marx can be a bit callous but he's not saying 'india deserves it', just that it's inevitable
Anonymous 19-05-23 10:54:01 No. 17337
>>17335 I mean brits didn't really develop India tho
they were just extracting resources for free using local labor for peanuts. If they really cared about progress, literary rates in India would be on par with European nations when brits fucked off but it was below 8% in 1947. There was barely any capital. No industry. Dozen famines every decade and poverty made people even more retarded.
I think westernizing on their own like Japan would've been more fruitful
Anonymous 19-05-23 11:00:32 No. 17338
>>17337 Also they incited religious conflicts when mughals before them were pretty secular for Islamic rulers.
They didn't do anything to delegitimize caste system. Instead they took advantage of the caste system by giving administrative jobs to brahmins, making dalits do menial labor, turned sikhs into martial caste etc
Anonymous 19-05-23 11:17:55 No. 17344
>>17343 I'm aware but my point is China was never occupied like the Raj but that didn't stop them being victimised or allow them to really develop until the PRC.
India did try to align with the soviets but it didn't really work for various reasons.
Anonymous 19-05-23 11:23:23 No. 17345
>>17342 It's just Chinese rulers being Chinese rulers. They were staunchly opposed to any change.
India was politically unstable and every major ruler had a reformist attitude to one up their rivals. They would've followed ottoman empire if brits hadn't won the battle of plassey.
Anonymous 20-05-23 03:19:02 No. 17349
>>17348 Also it's worth noting that the Indian Subcontinent is fucking huge
Of course any noteworthy polity existing on it would be a massive empire
There are subdistricts of India that share the population number of a European nation-state