The War That Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan

[Easy-Kill]

Now that's a good argument. But even taking that into consideration, Great Britain was directly responsible for the lack of democracy in places such as India, and joining that to the fact that even within Great Britain itself only around 35% of the adult population could vote, it is still rather hard to consider early 20th century Britain as a "democratic power".

Now, it seems to me that we have two slightly different views on what constitutes democracy in early 20th Century Europe. Now, while I agree that the size of the electorate is important, In my opinion, the powers held by the elected representatives is more important. Now, as an example, the UK was the only great power (according to Hastings's Catastrophe) to debate the decision of whether to go to war in Parliament (or the national equivalent) and it certainly was not a clear cut case.

I doubt that either of us will reach a consensus on democratisation, but in my opinion the key indicator for democracy prior to acceptance of universal suffrage was the codification of rights and liberties of the people, codification of the rights (including freedom of speech) of an elected Parliament and the limitations to the absolute power of a non-elected head of state. These things were developed and integrated in British Society from the 13the century onwards; many of the rights established in the late 17th century (such as the bill of rights) are still regarded as the cornerstones to (British) democracy.

Judging British democracy by its lack of Universal Suffrage in a time, when in other nations, executive power was held by a few non-elected individuals is a little disingenuous from my perspective. Though, I am enjoying your views on this matter

 

[Sarmatia1871]

If we bring up one of the hundreds of famines in India, will your retort be that that was not the british State, but merely the BEIC?

Pretty much.

Part of the reason why the Herero and Nama genocides get so much attention is simply that Germans have been much better at confronting and writing about awful episodes in their national histories than the Brits have been, who are much more content to gloss over and forget things, or look elsewhere to confirm stereotypes of The Beastly Hun.

 

[Andrelvis]

Though, I am enjoying your views on this matter

Well, thanks

 

[joak]

Are you seriously suggesting that the famines were state sponsored?

No, I didn't mean to even imply that. What I responded to had you asserting that the British era famines were "natural occurrences" and "would have happened anyway." (I viewed the state sponsored part as a straw man thing and just ignored it, probably should have snipped it from the quote to be clearer.)

It was British indifference was instrumental in routinely turning bad harvest to famines, though. The British did not administer India for the welfare of the people of India. You see the same sort of indifference repeatedly when areas are under foreign rule. The most famous example is Ireland, where during the potato famine that killed millions food was being exported. For some reason, that sort of thing just doesn't happen to people who democratically rule themselves, which is why the less-than-masterful Indian government turned things around in this area.

Famines just plain stopped in British India and stopped after they left, with one arguable one in the '60s. (My "zero" number comes from Amartya Sen, FWIW, others count Bihar.) Even Bihar in the '60s had a few hundred dead, as opposed to millions dying during British rule. A severe drought in the '70s led to zero deaths.

To be clear, not only am I not saying they were state sponsered but even "indifference" doesn't necessarily mean indifference on the part of individuals. I'm sure a lot of British administrators really tried to do something, were really upset by the suffering, and honestly thought "they did everything within their power." They were wrong, though, as they were not really motivated to test their power or view the deaths as the number one problem to be solved.

 

[Easy-Kill]

No, I didn't mean to even imply that. What I responded to had you asserting that the British era famines were "natural occurrences" and "would have happened anyway." (I viewed the state sponsored part as a straw man thing and just ignored it, probably should have snipped it from the quote to be clearer.)

It was British indifference was instrumental in routinely turning bad harvest to famines, though. The British did not administer India for the welfare of the people of India. You see the same sort of indifference repeatedly when areas are under foreign rule. The most famous example is Ireland, where during the potato famine that killed millions food was being exported. For some reason, that sort of thing just doesn't happen to people who democratically rule themselves, which is why the less-than-masterful Indian government turned things around in this area.

Famines just plain stopped in British India and stopped after they left, with one arguable one in the '60s. (My "zero" number comes from Amartya Sen, FWIW, others count Bihar.) Even Bihar in the '60s had a few hundred dead, as opposed to millions dying during British rule. A severe drought in the '70s led to zero deaths.

To be clear, not only am I not saying they were state sponsered but even "indifference" doesn't necessarily mean indifference on the part of individuals. I'm sure a lot of British administrators really tried to do something, were really upset by the suffering, and honestly thought "they did everything within their power." They were wrong, though, as they were not really motivated to test their power or view the deaths as the number one problem to be solved.

I do not disagree with you at all. And you are right, the famine was not natural, but the product of a natural event and demographic and social engineering on the part of the British. That the famines were exacerbated by the actions of British administration is of course well acknowledged (despite what Sarmatia would like to believe). What I strongly disagree with is the consistent comparison between the state sponsored and applauded genocide of Germany and poor decision making and incompetence.

Also, we do not know whether a non-British administration would have produced better, nor do we know whether India would be such a successful and vibrant state without British India.