The 300 year colonial adventure is over at last, which is why Britain is in political crisis.
Excerpt: The great British adventure – three centuries spent pillaging the labour, wealth and resources of other countries - is over. We cannot accept this, and seek gleeful revenge on a government which can no longer insulate us from reality.
About the Author: George Monbiot
BIO
here
ARCHIVES
here
Posted June 17, 2009 By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 9th June 2009.
Why now? It's not as if this is the first time...here
Wapedia v Wiki:
Presidencies and provinces of British India (1/2)
Here's Just for Starters..."British India"
Provinces of India, earlier Presidencies of British India, still earlier, Presidency towns, and collectively British India, were the administrative units of the British Empire in India. Together, they consisted of territory on the Indian subcontinent that was under the tenancy or the sovereignty of either the English East India Company or the British Crown between 1612 and 1947. The term "British India" has also been used secondarily as a shortened form for "the British nation in India." [1]
Contents:
1. British India
2. Presidency towns (1600-1765)
3. Presidencies of British India (1765-1858)
4. Provinces of India (1858-1947)
5. See also
6. Notes
7. References
8. Further reading
9. External links
1. British India
Colonial India
Portuguese India 510-1961
Dutch India 1605-1825
Danish India 1696-1869
French India 1759-1954
British Empire in India
East India Company 1612-1757
Company rule in India1757-1857
British Raj 1858-1947
British rule in Burma1826-1948
British India 1612-1947
Princely states 1765-1947
Partition of India 1947
A Mezzotint engraving of Fort St. William, Calcutta, which formed the Bengal Presidency in British India 1735.
===============================================
OUTSOURCING UNREST Posted June 17, 2009
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 9th June 2009
Why now? It’s not as if this is the first time our representatives have been caught out. The history of governments in all countries is the history of scandal, as those who rise to the top are generally the most ambitious, ruthless and unscrupulous people politics can produce. Pushing their own interests to the limit, they teeter perennially on the brink of disgrace, except when they fly clean over the edge. So why does the current ballyhoo threaten to destroy not only the government but also our antediluvian political system?
The past 15 years have produced the cash-for-questions racket, the Hinduja and Ecclestone affairs, the lies and fabrications which led to the invasion of Iraq, the forced abandonment of the BAE corruption probe, the cash-for-honours caper and the cash-for-amendments scandal. By comparison to the outright subversion of the functions of government in some of these cases, the expenses scandal is small beer. Any one of them should have prompted the sweeping political reforms we are now debating. But they didn’t.
The expenses scandal, by contrast, could kill the Labour party. It might also force politicians of all parties to address our injust voting system, the unelected House of Lords, the excessive power of the executive, the legalised blackmail used by the whips and a score of further anachronisms and injustices. Why is it different?
I believe that the current political crisis has little to do with the expenses scandal, still less to do with Gordon Brown’s leadership. It arises because our economic system can no longer extract wealth from other nations. For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances.
The social unrest which might have transformed our politics was instead outsourced to our colonies and unwilling trading partners. The rebellions in Ireland, India, China, the Caribbean, Egypt, South Africa, Malaya, Kenya, Iran and other places we subjugated were the price of political peace in Britain. Following decolonisation, our plunder of other nations was sustained by the banks. Now, for the first time in three centuries, they can no longer deliver, and we must at last confront our problems.
There will probably never be a full account of the robbery this country organised, but there are a few snapshots. In his book Capitalism and Colonial Production, Hamza Alavi estimates that the resource flow from India to Britain between 1793 and 1803 was in the order of £2m a year, the equivalent of many billions today. The economic drain from India, he notes, “has not only been a major factor in India’s impoverishment … it has also been a very significant factor in the Industrial Revolution in Britain.”(1) As Ralph Davis observes in The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade, from the 1760s onwards India’s wealth “bought the national debt back from the Dutch and others … leaving Britain nearly free from overseas indebtedness when it came to face the great French wars from 1793.”(2)
In France, by contrast, as Eric Hobsbawn notes in The Age of Revolution, “the financial troubles of the monarchy brought matters to a head.” In 1788, half of France’s national expenditure was used to service its debt: “the American War and its debt broke the back of the monarchy”(3).
Even as the French were overthrowing the ancien regime, Britain’s landed classes were able to strengthen their economic power, seizing common property from the country’s poor by means of enclosure. Partly as a result of remittances from India and the Caribbean, the economy was booming and the state had the funds to ride out political crises. Later, after smashing India’s own industrial capacity, Britain forced that country to become a major export market for our manufactured goods, sustaining industrial employment here (and avoiding social unrest) long after our products and processes became uncompetitive.
Colonial plunder permitted the British state to balance its resource deficits as well. For some 200 years a river of food flowed into this country from places like Ireland, India and the Caribbean. In The Blood Never Dried, John Newsinger reveals that in 1748 Jamaica alone sent 17,400 tons of sugar to Britain; by 1815 this had risen to 73,800 tons(4). It was all produced by stolen labour.
Just as grain was sucked out of Ireland at the height of its great famine, so Britain continued to drain India of food during its catastrophic hungers. In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis shows that Indian wheat exports to the UK doubled between 1876 and 1877 as subsistence there collapsed(5). Several million Indians died of starvation. In the North Western provinces the famine was wholly engineered by British policy, as their surplus production was exported to offset poor English harvests in 1876 and 1877(6).
Britain, in other words, outsourced famine as well as social unrest. There was terrible poverty in this country in the second half of the 19th Century, but not mass starvation. The bad harvest of 1788 helped precipitate the French Revolution, but the British state avoided such hazards. Others died on our behalf.
In the late 19th Century, Davis shows, Britain’s vast deficits with the United States, Germany and its white Dominions were balanced by huge annual surpluses with India and (as a result of the opium trade) China. For a generation “the starving Indian and Chinese peasantries … braced the entire system of international settlements, allowing England’s continued financial supremacy to temporarily co-exist with its relative industrial decline.”(7) Britain’s trade surpluses with India allowed the City to become the world’s financial capital.
Its role in British colonisation was not a passive one. The bankruptcy and subsequent British takeover of Egypt in 1882 was hastened by a loan from Rothschild’s bank whose execution, Newsinger records, amounted to “fraud on a massive scale”(8). Jardine Matheson, once the biggest narco-trafficking outfit in world history (it dominated the Chinese opium trade), later formed a major investment bank, Jardine Fleming. It was taken over by JP Morgan Chase in 2000.
We lost our colonies, but the plunder has continued by other means. As Joseph Stiglitz shows in Globalisation and its Discontents, the capital liberalisation forced on Asian economies by the IMF permitted northern traders to loot hundreds of billions of dollars, precipitating the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98(9). Poorer nations have also been strong-armed into a series of amazingly one-sided treaties and commitments, such as Trade Related Investment Measures, bilateral investment agreements and the EU’s Economic Partnership Agreements(10). If you have ever wondered how a small, densely-populated country which produces very little supports itself, I would urge you to study these asymmetric arrangements.
But now, as John Lanchester demonstrates in his fascinating essay in the London Review of Books, the City could be fatally wounded(11). The nation which relied on financial services may take generations to recover from their collapse. The great British adventure – three centuries spent pillaging the labour, wealth and resources of other countries - is over. We cannot accept this, and seek gleeful revenge on a government which can no longer insulate us from reality.
monbiot dot com here
References:
1. Hamza Alavi, 1982. Capitalism and Colonial Production, pp 62-63. Croom Helm, London.
2. Ralph Davis, 1979. The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade,pp 55-56. Leicester University Press.
3. Eric Hobsbawm, 1962. The Age of Revolution, p78. Abacus, London.
4. John Newsinger, 2006. The Blood Never Dried, p14. Bookmarks, London.
5. Mike Davis, 2001. Late Victorian Holocausts, p27. Verso, London.
6. ibid, p51.
7. ibid, p297
8. John Newsinger, ibid, p86.
9. Joseph Stiglitz, 2002. Globalization and its Discontents. Allen Lane, London. First published in 2002 by W.W. Norton, New York.
10. See for example Myriam Vander Stichele, 24th October 2008. The facilitating framework for free investment and capital. Draft Briefing Paper. The Corner House. here
11. John Lanchester, 28th May 2009. It’s Finished. London Review of Books. here
No comments:
Post a Comment