
Before the East India Company - benbreen
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/east-india-company
======
NeedMoreTea
Timely, I'll add it to my reading list. I've just (yesterday) finished "The
Corporation that Changed the World"[1], that combines history of EIC and
current (well, 2006) corporations and globalisation. It jumps about a fair bit
(intentionally), as he draws lessons from the now mostly repealed regulations
to stop EIC happening again, but well worth a read overall. Not afraid to dig
into history of an utterly out of control corporation. A darker rendering than
others I have seen with some surprises. Might have been even more interesting
had he published a year after the 08 banking crisis.

We've failed to remember Adam Smith's take on the corporation into modernity,
just the Wealth of Nations. One for me to dig into further, as his actual
views on companies don't seem to match up with what we think he thought. :)

There were calls to wind EIC in, or wind it up going all the way back to the
1610s, and to give India back almost from the moment they arrived. Which
continued constantly until it was finally forcibly wound up. All those dodgy
stock splits, Theranos and Enron type frauds, countries wondering how to tame
the out of control tech titan? EIC got there first. Just as willing to defraud
Britain as anywhere else. As the first English joint stock company. As a near
independent sovereign corporate with powers of justice, war and currency.

Ain't nothing new then.

[1]
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/844131.The_Corporation_T...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/844131.The_Corporation_That_Changed_the_World)

~~~
29athrowaway
Imagine a company like Google had an army that invaded countries that would
not deregulate privacy. That would be a modern equivalent to the HEIC. It
would suck.

~~~
btown
The Murdochs’ News Corp is arguably in that position already, albeit with the
one extra step of needing to lobby politicians whose constituents are already
in its thrall.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=murdoch+iraq](https://www.google.com/search?q=murdoch+iraq)

~~~
29athrowaway
United Fruit Company (present day Chiquita) has done messed up things.

------
OJFord
> In the course of this, in what seemed to many of its wisest minds an act of
> willful self-harm, the English had unilaterally cut themselves off from the
> most powerful institution in Europe, so turning themselves in the eyes of
> many Europeans into something of a pariah nation. As a result, isolated from
> their baffled neighbors, the English were forced to scour the globe for new
> markets and commercial openings further afield. This they did with a
> piratical enthusiasm.

Cor, perhaps it was deliberate, but I was so sure this was leading up to a
comment on the current political climate.

------
gumby
My wife and I used to debate which were the most important inventions in
history but both of us agreed that the joint stock corporation was in the top
5 along with the wheel, gear, and control of fire.

~~~
saagarjha
A gear is equivalent to a wheel with a large coefficient of friction. Is there
a particular reason you consider it to be a separate invention?

~~~
55555
invention (n): the action of inventing something, typically a process or
device.

device (n): a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose

The purpose is different.

~~~
saagarjha
Sure; I'm arguing that the leap necessary between wheels and gears isn't
really all that huge. A gear is basically just a wheel–regardless of whether
you think it's a separate invention or not it's not really that impressive as
going from nothing to the wheel.

~~~
beambot
Gears provide mechanical advantage -- i.e. gear ratio.

~~~
saagarjha
So do two wheels of different sizes.

------
rramadass
For a more honest perspective, see;

 _" Empire in Asia: How We Came by It. A Book of Confessions"_ by W.M.Torrens

[https://archive.org/details/empireinasiahow00torrgoog/page/n...](https://archive.org/details/empireinasiahow00torrgoog/page/n11)

~~~
peteretep
For more honest than what, exactly? Did you read the linked article? Your
comment sounds like reactionary nationalism

~~~
rramadass
Hmm... You seem to be triggered by my dismissal of Dalrymple. And yes, i have
read the article (and a even better excerpt in The Guardian earlier).

The problem i have is that, he is too far removed from that time and too much
inclined to keep things "nice" rather than calling a spade a spade. You cannot
look at the actions of the EIC from a purely mercantile viewpoint. You have to
acknowledge the inherent racism and rampant thievery with a complete absence
of ethics/morals which were disguised under the garb of "Trade" and
"Civilization". There is a reason for the existence of the phrase "Perfidious
Albion" to describe British treachery over the ages.

William McCullagh Torrens was an enlightened Irish Politician of the 19th
century when India was still suffering under Colonialism. He wrote in detail
about how the Indian Kings/Nawabs were lied to, duped and fleeced of their
wealth and power via promises made but never kept. There was absolutely no
regard for the common man's life. He writes (page 7);

 _" Our duty is not to judge others, but ourselves; to beware of covetousness
and of being betrayed into passive complicity by unpardonable laziness to
seek, or still more despicable cowardice to own, the truth ... We are
accountable, as a free-speaking and freely represented people, for all that
may hereafter be done in our name; and if upon investigation, which with
honour and in conscience we are not at liberty to elude, we are convinced ...
that a great debt of reparation is due to India by this country, we are bound
to use every just and fair occasion to press for restitution..."_

In this age of expediency, no British Historian/Journalist would ever utter
such a thing. I highly recommend going through the Torrens book.

------
iamsb
I recommend reading this book as a supplement.
[https://www.amazon.in/Inglorious-Empire-What-British-
India/d...](https://www.amazon.in/Inglorious-Empire-What-British-
India/dp/1849048088)

------
amriksohata
India was one of the richest countries in the world, if not the richest before
the East India company and Islamic, Dutch and British invasions. It used clay
pots, not plastics and its population of 200 milloin plus had plenty of
fertile land to develop agriculture and cotton - the oil of the time. It was
the land that gave the world yoga, Ayurveda and the numerical system. Not to
mention Indian food. Britain called it the jewel in the crown for this reason,
no other country gave it more wealth than India. You could argue that the
British are incredibly innefficient in one regard that they survived it's
meagre population of 10 million people off the back of this and made them
wealthy whilst making a larger country impoverished. India didn't need the
industrial revolution, Britain did. India had natural leaf plates, Britain's
and west gave it an industry that it now has to rely on which is driven by
coal production and climate change driving industries. What a mess

~~~
nextos
No idea why this is getting downvoted, as it presents a historically correct
fact. India's GDP % before the British invasion was huge:

[https://www.quora.com/How-much-was-Indias-GDP-before-the-
Bri...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-was-Indias-GDP-before-the-British-rule)

~~~
dahdum
Probably because it’s a bit misleading as your link shows. GDP per capita was
low everywhere, barely above subsistence. Their % dropped when others started
growing rapidly.

~~~
jolotriage
Nope, India/China's GDP dropped upon invasion and decimation of trade routes
by the Western countries with the GDP gain.

People underestimate how key the US was to the opium trade in China. The US
was a bigger trader than the UK/Germany/France combined at one point.

~~~
dahdum
The data linked doesn’t indicate that was the primary reason, there is a small
dip in GDP per capita (-10%?) for India/China but it was basically flat.

Looks like before industrialization the richest countries were only moderately
better off. Once it began to take off that gap became enormous.

~~~
jolotriage
Yes the data linked is limited in scope.

------
shripadk
I'll stick this here for anyone wanting to know the real history of EIC and
not some fancy, all-so-rosy version presented by EIC apologists. As a constant
reminder of the atrocities, plunder, destruction of culture and tradition
carried by EIC in the garb of "Industrialization" and establishing "Democracy"
for which Britain has never apologized:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4)

~~~
rramadass
Read also the book;

 _" Empire in Asia: How We Came by It. A Book of Confessions"_ by W.M.Torrens
for a hard-hitting look at what the British actually did in India

[https://archive.org/details/empireinasiahow00torrgoog/page/n...](https://archive.org/details/empireinasiahow00torrgoog/page/n11)

------
lkrubner
For a more general overview of world trade during the early modern era, I
recommend Fernand Braudel:

[https://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-
Capitali...](https://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-
Capitalism-15th-18th/dp/0060150912/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?keywords=fernand+braudel+civilization+and+capitalism&qid=1569737710&s=gateway&sprefix=fernand+&sr=8-4)

