The World History Rewritten

History of India

The same as China, India has extremely large share of the World population. For the whole history (except XVIIIth and XIXth centuries, when here was a demographic explosion in Europe) 1/4 of the World population lived in India subcontinent - i.e. on the territory of today’s India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (Ceylon).

Speaking about the history of India (the same as about history of China before) I will try to show you that it is not so different form European history, and historical processes and laws are basically the same.

Indus Valley Civilization (also called Harappa & Mohenjo Daro Civilization after the contemporary names of two biggest cities discovered by archeologists) was the oldest civilization of India subcontinent. The script used in Indus Valley is still not deciphered, so all knowledge we have about Harappa & Mohenjo Daro civilization comes from archeological digging. The start of Indus Valley culture is dated on more or less 2800 BC (so it is almost as old as the Egyptian Civilization) and the end came in XVIIIth century BC, when Indus Valley was conquered by Aryan tribes.

I have said that cities of Harappa & Mohenjo Daro civilization were probably populistic merchant republics or oligarchies (or at least two or three biggest cities: Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Lothal). But because we can’t read the Indus Script, and there was almost no information about Indus Valley civilization from other sources, it is only a hypothesis based on very weak premises:

• Archeologist discovered a very advanced canalization systems in major Indus Valley cities. Usually it is a signal that a city is ruled by some kind of populistic government (like in Sumeria, Ancient Greece or Roman Empire), which needs a popularity among citizens (opposite to the feudal states, where monarchs usually have a little or no interested in comfort of people living in cities).
• There were many quite rich houses in cities, which suggest that there was a strong class of merchants here.
• Crisis after the fall of Indus Valley civilization was very deep, as after the fall of populistic civilization, and the Indus Valley civilization was almost completely destroyed by Aryans. In case of populistic civilization economic expansion last longer but the fall is deeper and barbarians invaders are too numerous to be absorbed by invaded country (as usually happens when the feudal country is invaded).
  

There are also several “low-weight” evidences, for example a popularity of seals among Indus Valley people may suggest a very strong trade exchange typical for populistic civilizations. But these evidences are weak.

Besides the trade with Mesopotamia, merchants of Indus Valley traded with the tribes of Ganges Valley and probably with the west coast of India peninsula. Expansion of Indus Valley Civilization, I have marked with a brown arrow on my first map on Maps page was probably a trade expansion and a diffusion of Indus Valley technology (like Sumerian expansion in Mesopotamia or Phoenician colonization), not the military expansion.

The reason for fall of the Harappa & Mohenjo Daro civilization were probably combined crises in Mesopotamia (the fall of the Sumer city-states and thus the shrinking demand for India export) and the local crisis in India, when the trade of Indus civilization spread over too large territory, and the diffusion powers outweighed the profits from expansion. Trade contacts with Mesopotamia was broken after the fall of Hammurabi’s Empire (called Old-Babylonian Empire).

Decomposed civilization of Indus Valley was Invaded by barbarian Indo-European tribes of Aryans, who probably (around 2000 BC) first wandered from the north Black Sea coast to the territory of today’s Iran (which was named from Aryans), Northern Mesopotamia (see ancient state of Mitanni formed by Indo-Europeans here) and Afghanistan, and then at the beginning of the second Millennium BC invaded Indus Valley thorough the Khyber Pass. Aryans although barbaric had an advantage of better bronze weapons and the technology of chariot. Aryan's conquest was rather a process than an immediate event (similarly as with Germanic invasion of Roman Empire).

The most important observation about India subcontinent is its relative geographic isolation. From the east and west sides India peninsula is surrounded by Indian Ocean. From the North a Himalayan Mountains and Tibetan Plateau give India a natural “Great Wall”, much better than Chinese, because almost impassable. Even Afghanistan and Burma borders are protected with mountains and deserts and with mountains and jungles respectively. Almost only one land gate into India is a Khyber Pass between Indus Valley and Afghanistan. Therefore is not strange that (before the European colonization) India was successfully invaded only three times in a 4500 years long history (of course external empires conquered Indus Valley several times, but the rest of the India stayed independent.)

Here is a schematic map of India subcontinent

On the map I have marked the most important trade routes in India. Please note that the Indus Valley and Ganges Valley are the natural backbone for a great state, so most of the Indian empires were founded here. But opposite than in China where in the valleys of rivers Huang He and Yangtzee were the home for approximate 2/3 of Chinese population, in the valleys of rivers Indus and Ganges in India lived about 1/2 of subcontinent population, and both rivers were not joined with a canal like in China – so there was no stable foundation for a great country in India, and the history of peninsula was for the most time a history of feudal fragmentation.
Note also that:

• Indus and Ganges Valley are separated by Thar Desert (created by prehistoric farmers who overexploited the land).
• Deccan peninsula was relatively isolated from the valleys of two great rivers with jungles and mountain ranges (ex. with Vindhya Range). The easiest way into Deccan Plateau is from the east coast of subcontinent.
• Trade backbone of Indus Valley and Ganges Valley, although not so strong to be a base for stable empire, had very strong influence on the economy of the other parts of subcontinent and hampered the emergence of stable local trade centers (and thus stable countries) in the South India. So borders of Southern India states were very mutable.

Because of this relative isolation, internal economic cycles were usually more important for India states than external economic cycles.

Short Chronology of India

Schematic India Chronology

The capital of Mauryans and Guptas was the city of Pataliputra in Magadha. The capital of Delhi Sulatanate and Mughal (Mogul) Empire was the city of Delhi.

After the fall of Indus Valley civilization, Aryan states armed with higher technology step-by-step conquered the local tribes of Ganges Valley and colonized neighbouring lands burning jungles and starting the agriculture. We have very little data about this period and our knowledge comes mainly from religious texts and eposes like Rig Veda, Mahabharata or Ramayana. Probably the whole process (at least since 1000 BC) resembled German colonization and expansion in Central and Northern Europe in Xth-XIVth centuries AD – serious wars with local states when economic conditions were worse, and quite peaceful colonization carried out by people with higher technology when economic conditions were better.

To the top

• Brahmins – class of priests, one of two ruling classes.
• Kshatriyas — class of warriors, second of the two ruling classes
• Vaishyas — class of plebeians: farmers, peasants, merchants, craftsmen
• Shudras — the lowest social class of dependent people

The second element of feudal structure was a system of Castes. Every social class divided into many castes which represents specializations or a professions (like: bard, scribe, chariot driver, etc.). There was a thousands of castes. In many ways castes resembled craft unions or guilds from medieval Europe. Below of cast system were Untouchable – people who had the most disliked professions.

This system was very flexible. In periods of rather free-market oriented feudal economy allows easier social mobility: people could change cast easier than social class, and casts could advance (or go down) in social hierarchy of classes. On the other hand in periods of protectionism, system could limit social mobility: people had problems to change class or cast, and stable system of castes helped to protects monopolies in different crafts or professions.

One final element of all India religious doctrines I want to mention here is an idea of Reincarnation (also present in some other cultures). After the death, the “soul” of living being is reborn again in another living being. When a human is honest, obedient and lives according to its role in a social hierarchy, will be reborn as a person of higher caste or social class. On the other hand human who make crimes, is insubordinate (or outright acts against the social hierarchy), will be reborn in lower caste, social class or even as an animal. This way the idea of reincarnation had the same social, and political impact as the idea of heaven, purgatory and hell in Christian tradition — helped to preserve the feudal hierarchy.

Chandragupta had an advisor, wise man known as a Kautilya (or Chanakya). We can say that Kautilya was a kind of Cardinal Richelieu for Chandragupta. And the same as Richelieu, he wrote a book explaining secret methods o making politics, called Arthashastra. Book promotes Machiavellian methods of making politics, so Kautilya (Chanakya) is sometimes called an “Indian Machiavelli”.

Political disunity also stimulated knowledge about the mechanisms of politics (as an anecdote: the game of chess was invented these times as strategical-political game for 4 players). India thinkers also formulated the basic rule of alliance in war: a country on the opposite side of our enemy is our natural ally and next country in this chain is our enemy natural ally. So when we have a layer-cake of states: A-B-C-D-E-F. States A, C and E form one alliance and states B, D plus F form another alliance.

One of the effect of this sexual freedom was the Kamasutra, probably the most famous treaty about sex and art of love in history. Kamasutra (book devoted to the god of love, Kama) was very popular among merchants, nobles, and city-dwellers of India these times. It is useful to mention here that there is a similar treaty about sex in Chinese culture, but opposite than Kamasutra in India it was written only for the Chinese Emperor and his court — as most of the Chinese knowledge it was not popularized among people outside the court. Of course, sexual freedom in India these times was not so great as today (when discoveries in medicine created demand for ideologies that slow population growth), and generally was limited to city-dwellers (the same as sexual freedom in Renaissance).

Another important factor that slows the population growth is education of people, especially education of woman. And third brake slowing the population growth is some economic pressure promoting smaller families (but not too strong, see point 2. below). Now is a good moment to say a word of two about demographic mechanisms and reasons for demographic explosions.

Well, rise and fall cycle of feudal state is little more complicated than I stated before - this theory has levels. But before I say more, a few definitions:

1. How to say, when feudal state has free-market oriented economy, and when government-regulated economy?

Actually, most of the time economy of feudal state is some mix of both models. Taxes are collected concurrently in money and in goods, monarch has only a fraction of whole land, many land manors are allodiums (land the property of feudal is inherited by sons). Monarchs could behave as a boss of a mob (mafia) and steal the land of his political opponents, or as a leader of a nation who generally respects traditions and laws of the country.

2. When writing about crisis of feudal state, we have to remember that there are a few types of crises:

• economic crisis - when income shrinks
• political crisis - when feudal faction fights with each other
• institutional crisis - when institution of the country decompose (army and officials are underpaid, courts and administrations become more and more corrupted)
• ideology crisis - when old ideology decompose and new ideologies emerge
• diffusion crisis - when resources leak from higher developed to less developed regions (although the economy of state as a whole may still grow).
• polarization crisis - when the economic and political power of middle-income feudals (and cities) decrease. Again, the whole economy of a country may still grow, but the political institutions start to decompose.

Some of this crises will be independent of each other, other crises will start with some latency one after another (ex. polarization crisis as an effect of the diffusion crisis). Moreover, until XVIIIth century we have very little data to analyze economic processes. So please forgive me when I sometimes speak about crisis not saying what kind of crisis (of mentioned above) I have on mind.

When profitability of large-scale economic activities (first long range trade, then wars and external expansion) exceeds profitability of small-scale enterprises, feudal country unites. And opposite, when small-scale economic activities (local protectionism) becomes more profitable than large enterprises (external wars appears to be too costly, profitability of long-range trade decrease), the country disunites. But as you can easily see from the picture above, economic processes responsible for these political changes usually started many years before (and changes in ideologies shortly thereafter) - when marginal profitability of large scale enterprises exceeded the marginal profitability of small-scale enterprises (reunity) and vice versa (decomposition).

Of course we should analyze the average profitability and marginal profitability for ruling and privileged classes of feudal country - i.e. for nobles, priests, state officials. Great mass of ruled plebeians with no political rights have almost no influence on the politics of feudal state.

1. When a feudal country is fragmented, competition is stronger and technology development is faster. F
2. New technologies stimulate the economic growth that increases the volume of trade. F
3. And after some time, it appears that only way to explore the benefits of scale that new technologies brought (and to consume all fruits of trade) is to unite the country - because this lowers the negative effect that wars, road robberies, different taxes, monetary and measures systems, etc. have on economy. F/R
4. So country is united by the strongest feudal domain. R
5. United country have greater military power, so relative profitability of expansive wars (comparing with other kinds of economic activities) increase. R/W
6. Country conquers weaker neighbouring states. Technology development slows. W
7. Diffusion powers and logistic problems connected with expansion (as described by Paul Kennedy) starts to decompose the country. W/D
8. Large scale enterprises (wars, long range trade) become less profitable, and local feudals protecting economic interests of local communities in their domains (for example against high taxes and tributes collected by monarch) grow in power, gaining more and more political clients. Monarch's authority declines. D
9. Finally country is divided between the sons of monarch or maybe an alliance of big feudals defeats the monarch (or overpowers him, limiting his authority). D/F
10. And another period of feudal fragmentation starts. F

Of course this schema is very simple, and actually could be modified by some external factors (like external economic cycles, expansion of external states, etc.). Also shift/latency between cycles of private sector (blue waves) and cycles of government sector (black waves) may vary. But generally we can say that there are only two basic reasons for economic cycles here:

1. Political decisions of governments (our monarch and monarchs of external countries) - wars, economic policy.
2. Shifts of trade routes launched by geographic discoveries - like Vasco da Gama’s journey.

After the decline of Gupta Empire feudal states of Southern India grew in power. There was several local empires these times on Dravidian South. Probably the most important one was the Chola Empire (IXth - XIIIth century), which span over whole Eastern Coast of Deccan peninsula and controlled the trade along the coast and with interior of Deccan. It was the normal process: when the power of core countries (high developed) declines, former “emerging-markets” (middle-income countries) come into the scene.

At the beginning of XIIIth century Northern India was invaded by Muslims (Turko-Afgan rulers). Who founded the Delhi Sultanate with the capital in city of Delhi where the most important trade routes of North crossed (to Indus Valley, to Ganges Valley and trade route to China, Middle East and Europe thorough Khyber Pass). Controlling the most important city of India (Delhi) Muslim sultans could start to conquer the weaker neigbouring states, step-by-step reuniting most of India.

Muslim conquerors were relatively small elite in India - some historians estimate that they were only about 10% of India population. Well, elites that rule feudal countries (i.e. have political rights) are relatively small - usually about 5% (maximum 10%) of whole population. So, relatively small number of invaders can easily dominate a large country. They must only defeat old elites (native nobles) and take their place. Subordinate people with no political rights, even if they do not like new rulers, usually have not enough economic strength and resources (weaponry, leaders, organization) to fight against invaders. Especially when invaders do not exploit them so intensive as old elites (as it is usually the case).

As a rule of thumb: When invaders are about 5% of the population of conquered country, they will be assimilated by the local culture (like for example Normans in Anglo-Saxon England or Mongols in China). When invaders are about 10% of whole population, both cultures could exist independently for long time (like Muslims and Hindu in India). When percentage of invaders is higher (maybe 20% of population) like in case of Aryan invasion, the culture of invaders will dominate the conquered country. India is a good example here, because percentage of Muslims was different in different regions: highest in Indus Valley and intensively colonized Bengal, average in Ganges Valley and Northern Deccan, and lowest in Southern Deccan and in Rajputana region (east from Thar Desert - which was for long the center of resistance against Muslim rulers).

Good example here are long wars between Hindu Vijayanagara empire (located more or less in central and southern regions of Deccan plateau) and Muslim Bahmani Sultanate (east regions of Deccan) at the turn of XIV and XV centuries. Strong competition caused Deccan states to develop new technologies and to adopt technologies from Europeans — who were present in India since Vasco da Gama journey (1498). For Example India armies were using canons comparable with these used in Europe in XVth century. Generally technology gap between India and Europe was smaller than technology gap between Europe and China.

Especially intensive modernization (capital-organized production of craftsmen, rulers supporting local traders, etc.) we can observe in XVIIIth century in Travancore, a small Kingdom in Kerala. Sooner or later Travancore could probably evolved into a populistic state - a kind of “India Netherlands”, but European colonization stopped this process. Travancore was incorporated into the British Empire.

But Europeans have an important military advantage - ships with canons on board. Portuguese defeated Arabians and monopolized the maritime trade in Indian Ocean. Additional money they got as intermediaries in maritime trade in India Ocean were used to finance import to Europe (extremely profitable because of very high prices of Indian goods in Europe). It is the classic strategy of rich countries in international trade exchange: to monopolize trade and financial services (as you recall Arabians did the same a few centuries earlier). Another tactics to avoid the negative trade balance was to bribe local India feudals with gifts to get privileged (monopolistic) trade position in their domains. According to the theory of monopoly: a market player with monopolistic position could dictate prices and therefore buy and sell goods at better prices (comparing with the prices of these goods in competitive, free market).

In meanwhile - i.e. in XVIth and XVIIth century - North of India (and periodically the South) was united by emperors of the Mughal (or Mogul) Empire.

Maratha expansion was the example of very simple (but important) economic mechanism: The end of XVIIth and the beginning of XVIIIth centuries was the age of economic protectionism for most of the European countries (especially for these powers which were in decline as Portugal). When the core countries introduce the protectionist economic policy - price manipulation taking advantage monopolistic position, higher tools, lower demand for import, etc. - the trade with core countries (vertical trade) become less profitable for middle-income “emerging markets”. In consequence a trade with other middle-income countries (horizontal trade) become relative more profitable than the vertical trade (exchanging labour-intensive goods for capital-intensive goods).

Middle-income countries could federate peacefully or be conquered by the strongest of them - and then conqueror may bank on support of local GPIs interested in horizontal trade. United middle-income countries has also the better negotiation position when negotiating with diplomats or traders from core countries (traders from core countries could no longer use conflicts and competition between middle-income countries to win trade privileges). Such united political organism may continue expansion on territories of low and high-income countries if the wars appear more profitable for its elites than trade. This mechanism is quite universal, so also explains barbarian expansions or formation of G20 alliance in WTO negotiations for example (early XXIth century).

• 1763 - End of Seven Years’ War - BBritish finally defeated French in India and get the control over Bengal (and thus over the Ganges Valley export) - serious colonization started.
• 1857 - Indian Mutiny (Sepoy Mutiny)

1. Feudal fragmentation of India - there wasn’t one centralized state in India but a hundreds of independent states and domains. Other large feudal countries, which were underdeveloped but united (like China, Japan, Turkey or Persia), were not conquered by European powers.
   
2. England was a democratic country - so it was highly effective, and used some classical tactics of democratic country: extensive use of diplomacy, extensive use of alliances, step by step expansion, use of divide et impera tactics, waging only these wars which were really profitable or unavoidable, financing feudal opposition in domains of troublesome rulers, bribing local courts with easy credit, etc.

This mosaic organization of British colonies in India is responsible for federal structure of modern India, and therefore for the very short duration of populistic system (1947-1997, only 50 years!). Moreover populistic system in India had the form of quasi-democracy - in federal country politicians have to negotiate and accept local autonomies, which always promote the democratic or democratic-like forms of polity (political system). In many ways India of the second half of XXth century resembled the USA of the first half of XIXth century: in both countries states with higher political systems (like Kerala or Rhode Island) and less developed populistic states coexist together.

• Trade exchange between India and England was very profitable also for India elites, and import of British technologies accelerated the economic growth in India.
• The British (the same as the Romans) respected local beliefs, local customs, traditions, hierarchies. Often kept local administrations, local rulers, and elites. Also respected some local autonomies.

Of course British tolerance had its limits, and sometimes serious conflicts arose. Good example here could be conflict around the custom of sati. In some regions of India, according to this custom, widows should burn themselves on their husbands funeral pyre. In 1829 William Bentinck, Governor-General of East India Company delegalized sati.

It was a very cruel custom, but as you remember, there was periods in the history of India (early medieval times for example when Buddhism dominated) when Indians were much more civilized and more humanistic and freedom-oriented than Europeans - there is nothing like “stable nature of civilizations” or cultures. Cultures and civilizations are changing continuously. Moreover, originally sati was rather an option for women who really did not want to live after the death of his beloved husband and was very rare. Then in British times custom of sati warped, and women were forced to burn themselves, often by relatives who simply want to get their husband’s property.

The reason for crisis was trade with England and rules of economic game introduced by the British - much more liberal and free-market oriented than before. Therefore many traditional enterprises (ex. some traditional crafts, some small feudal real estates) started to decline and some groups of people start to pauperize. Other groups while still rich (ex. priests) lost some of their economic power. So ironically, British Governor-General fought with the side-effect of economic process that was started by the British themselves (but his solution was correct: economic process was unstoppable, only thing British administration could do, was to introduce the law protecting weaker ones from some negative effects of the process and from being abused by stronger ones).

How works the economic mechanisms that is responsible for clash of civilizations, as described by Samuel P. Huntington? Generally, when a country modernize, some branches of its economy expands but other traditional branches decline. Therefore some group of people get rich, while other pauperize (or become relatively poorer and less important than before). The most important are two streams:

• Stream of people with low income who get rich because of modernization and join the elites (upward stream).
• Stream of people with middle income who pauperize and thus are afraid that they will be excluded from elites (downward stream).
  

When the upward stream is stronger than downward stream, people will support the modernization — advocates of modernizations overrule defenders of tradition, and dominate elites that are responsible for creating and promoting ideologies.

And opposite, when downward stream is stronger than upward stream, people will be against the modernization — defenders of tradition (like fanatic priests) will get more followers, and the ideologies postponing the modernization will be stronger. And thus we can observe the “clash of civilizations”.

Best way to prevent such conflicts is to support upward stream. For example by promoting economic and social advance of poor people strengthen this way pro-modernization elites. We should remember that the strongest base for opposition against modernization are not the poor people but members of traditional elites (ex. middle-income feudals, priests) who are losing their status. The true reason for conflict is not the poverty, although “the fight with poverty” could make any of the sides of the conflict stronger, because increases the number of its political clients. Opposite than in democratic system, in feudal system (and most times in populistic system) poor people do not represent their interests but are political clients of other GPIs.

Conquest of India by East India Company also has some negative aspects:

• Taxes from conquered India states were used to finance British import from India (protecting this way England from negative trade balance), not for local needs. Some percentage of this money were appropriated (i.e. stolen)  by East India Company officials.
• Officials of the Company quickly got very rich and use their wealth to buy their political power in England (the same way as it happened in Ancient Rome in IInd century BC), but fortunately British democracy did not decompose, maybe because British colonies were smaller (comparing their population with the population of the empire core) than Roman colonies.
• When India was fragmented, the British could win conflicts between different feudal domains to rule India at relatively low cost. When subcontinent was united, India nation began to form (and national opposition against British rule), so divide et impera tactics became less effective.
• East India Company was a private firm oriented to maximize its profits, so officials of the company often forgot that you cannot rule people using only military force and administration, and that the economic effectiveness cannot be the only criteria of government (especially when government represented British economic interest rather than India’s  interests). They tend to forget about other ways to support government: promotion of ideologies and elites that might support British rule.
  

• Many Sepoys and supporters of the rebellion, especially in the North, were the former Muslim nobles, who were losing their privileged political position and economic status under the East India Company rule.
• British officers and officials treated them as “primitive natives” (or like low-skill labour workers) not as soldiers, who are a kind of elite in feudal nation, and are used to be treated with some respect. Soldiers were even tortured to introduce military discipline. They have no chance to get a promotion, and were enlisted without care.
• Company officials forgot to educate Sepoys - so gossip can span very quickly. Company officials also did not understand local customs.
• The British also forgot to support pro-British elites that could be some counterbalance for opposition among Sepoys (so there was nobody to promote pro-British ideologies among Indians).

These mistakes cost lives of many British civilians in India. Shock of mutiny was the main reason for introducing British Empire administration in place of East India Company administration. In other words company administration (profit-oriented) was exchanged for government administration (oriented on political solutions). That probably slowed down India modernization, but made the modernization process more acceptable for Indians (or to be precise for Indian elites), and thus much safer for the British, who no longer had to fear of a rebellion.

In 1840 British military expedition tried to conquer Afghanistan. But the British had a bad luck - just a moment before Afghanistan political system changed to populistic and British expedition was completely destroyed (only one man returned to India). Afghanistan was the first populistic country in Asia in modern times - it is nothing strange Afghanistan is just a bunch of trade routes between mountain ranges. But British conquest of India shifted the traditional trade routes (so the importance of Afghanistan trade routes declined), and thus the economic and political development of Afghanistan slowed down. Better political system not always guarantee fast development.

• India was exploited, income from taxes was taken by British administration.
• Many traditional enterprises bankrupted - their production appeared to be obsolete, and cannot stand the competition of manufactured goods from England.
• India had to accept rules of trade that were beneficent for Britain. Every country is like a great corporation and always promotes its own production and its own trade (or its own capital). India had no chance to do that: had to accept prices for exported and imported goods enforced by the British.

But also many positives:

• India imported British technologies, which accelerated India’s modernization.
• British administration invested in infrastructure (like railroads).
• Volume of trade, both internal and external, increased (and thus extra wealth that come from trade).
• India had been united, and thus avoided wars and chaos that will be the unavoidable effect of feudal fragmentation and then the expansion of local populistic states.

Generally, net effect of British rule for India was positive. Of course India was exploited by England and united India with national, wise government might develop faster and get better prices in international trade. But key words here are “wise” and “united”.

Administration and ruling elites of feudal state are interested in exploitation of common people, so feudal government cannot be “wise”, and will never represent interests of the whole nation but only interest of a narrow feudal elite. So, without British rule common people would be exploited too but by the local feudals. Foreign occupation by democratic country is always more beneficial for feudal country than the rule of local (national) feudals. Comparison of foreign democratic occupation and local populistic government gives more ambiguous results.

• Indians were about 200 behind the Europeans in technology, so If there was no Europe at all, industrial revolution in India probably would start at the end of XXth century.
• If India was united feudal country (optimistic but unreal scenario), still would develop slower. Simple example: first railroad was built in India in 1850, first railroad in China was built in 1876 (remember please that, because of terrain, it is easier to built railroad in China than in India). Moreover, populistic system of India would be more brute and expansionistic than, quasi-democratic populistic system that was introduced when the British retreated from India in 1947.