Who were the best rulers?

India's gdp was 3.6x larger in 1940 vs 1600. The % share is pure obfuscation; the reason their share shrank is because the European economies massively expanded.

Fuck forgot the image

Yes because despite having more of the wealth and population required to industrialise than European powers, they weren't able to because of the poor stewardship by the British. I say poor, but it was extremely effective at ensuring India's primary industries would supply Britain's manufacturing without competing with them.

>Europe was far ahead already by 1500
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Mughal_War_(1686%E2%80%931690)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A1cer_Quibir
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_expedition_(1541)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93Algerian_war_(1775%E2%80%931785)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Spanish_War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_expedition_(1519)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_expedition_(1516)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid%E2%80%93Portuguese_conflicts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_expedition_of_1807

They bearly fought before the 1700s

The portuguese and Spaniards never conquered those places, mentioning their victorys doesn't matter, they lost at the end.

They also lost at sea

12 to 4
And that's counting the 61 invasion of Goa

Any nation where the people are voluntarily becoming stateless : That's likely the place to be.

> wikipedia

did you ever consider the point was to show the best the natives managed/worst whites did

>Europe was far ahead already by 1500, that's how they got there and wrestled control of sea trade and the locals only got in through piracy.
Europe only managed to get into India by way of subversion and exploiting existing power rivalries.
The only thing Europeans were better at is deception.

asia had goods europeans really wanted. europe did not have goods asians really wanted.

>somehow acquired military superiority.
But they didn't though.
It's why they relied WHOLLY on subversion to take over.

They were primarily undermining the pity kingdom of India.
As they were incapable of taking them head on.
Why were the Euros so utterly inferior so as to rely on subversion rather than confrontation.

So the local pirates couldn't pull it off and contented themselves to table scraps while portuguese from half the world away ran the show. Okay.

holy shit read a fucking book.
the Portuguese were basically pirates in the indian ocean. they need the help of friendly pirates to survive

>In 1507 Timoji warned the Viceroy of the upcoming siege of Cannanore by Calicut forces and supplied the Portuguese St. Angelo Fort during the siege. In the end of 1507, when a Mamluk fleet under Amir Husain Al-Kurdi (named "Mirocem" by the Portuguese[2]) supplemented the Calicut forces, he became de Almeida's main informant. Soon after the Battle of Diu, Timoji met the Vijayanagara emperor Krishnadevaraya and offered him rich tribute. He then prompted the Portuguese to conquer Goa, the main port for the horse trade. The city had been conquered from Vijayanagar by the Bahmani Sultans in 1469, and passed to Bijapur. In late 1509, the remains of the Mamluk fleet defeated in the battle of Diu had taken refuge there.

>In 1510 the new governor Afonso de Albuquerque wanted to fight the Egyptian Mamluk Sultanate fleet in the Red Sea or return to Hormuz. However, Timoji convinced him that it would be easier to fight them in Goa, where they had sheltered after the Battle of Diu,[3] and also of the illness of the Sultan Yusuf Adil Shah and war between the Deccan sultanates.[3] So he invested in the capture of Goa to the Sultanate of Bijapur with the support of Timoji.[4]

>They regained the support of the native population, although frustrating the initial expectations of Timoji, who aspired to gain the city. Afonso de Albuquerque rewarded him by appointing him chief "Aguazil" of the city, an administrator and representative of the native people, as a knowing interpreter of the local customs.[3] He then made an agreement to lower yearly dues and started the first Portuguese mint in the East, after complaints from merchants and Timoji about the scarcity of currency.

>answer question
>why are you so fixated on answering the question
are you genuinely retarded?
in any case, the non-europeans did adapt multiple times, it's why there were multiple wars and rebellions.

that's not even remotely accurate. the mughals were known for being the textile producers. the british specifically targeted and dismantled that industry so they could utilize the technology in england and corner global trade.

It is. Even sugar the one that required the most processing was the first one taken over by westerners in their plantations in Brazil and the caribbean.

Not any better than central asia steppoids that had been playing divide and conquer for nearly 3000 years by then. Before the mughals it was other turks, before then huns, scythians, eventually the original indo aryans. It was long established there was a practice of incorporating them into the higher castes.

>forest people were grouped with the most despised castes
this bad because?

hello sirs please do the needful and look at india's population growth during that period

Because the famines during the British Raj were no different from those that happened before, except:
1) India's population was larger than ever before
2) During WW2, Japan's occupation of Burma cut off a major source of food for the Raj
3) The British instituted the Indian Famine Codes which reduced the intensity of each successive famine since they were established with the exception of those that happened during WW2

There was even a famine in Bengal a generation after the British left that killed a million and a half people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_famine_of_1974

>Before the British India made up 27% of the world gdp
>After they left it became 4% of the world gdp
Are you retarded? This doesn't mean India declined under the British. Do you know what a percentage is? This is middle school level math.

And supposedly India is our biggest producer of tech majors.

I thought Indians loved israelites. Why the antisemitic remark?

Did they kick your dog?

You hate them because you are anti-dog?

Yeah obviously the good angloids traveled thousands of miles overseas and spent countless money fighting wars just to build some railways that actually got india better with no profit for the nice humane brits, do you know how dumb you sound?

>with no profit for the nice humane brits

The administration was. The attraction of India for Britain was in trade, not in taxation. The East India tried making money off tax farming in the 1780s and it was a disaster. Much more profitable to buy Indian goods to sell elsewhere, and sell India manufactured goods from Britain in return.

One of the biggest things Gandhi complained about was that Indian industry had declined not because of taxes or government regulation, but because cheap British imports had flooded the market. Ironically, considering the fact that the world is now overrun with cheap Asian imports, it was considered one of the most harmful aspects of colonialism (by Gandhi, at least, but his whole economic policy was based on a sentimental attachment to cottage industries - hence the spinning wheel on the Indian flag)

And one of the reasons India's economy stagnated for forty years after independence was because one of the first things the new government did was throw up trade tariffs to protect inefficient local producers.

After the British took direct control of India in the 1850s the policy was to keep taxes low and expenses at a bare minimum, but even then the tiny colonial government still cost more than India's tax revenue in a lot of years and had to be bailed out by the mother country. The memes about Britain looting India's wealth are just that: memes.

[...]
>three men in a room, each 170 centimeters tall
>average height in the room: 170cms
>a man 186cm tall enters the room
>the three men who were already in the room are now 4cm below average height for the room
>they get angry at the tall guy for making them 4cm shorter
Indians are genuinely this retarded

>The attraction of India for Britain was in trade, not in taxation

>Not what your own graph tells lmao
In case you've forgotten, India gained independence in 1947. The trend of serious growth begins shortly after.

before.

Are you blind or simply pretending?