It is often now forgotten that much of what is referred to as 'The British Empire' was just private enterprise (veering into freebooting) flying a flag of convenience. My (admittedly narrow) understanding is that other European colonial enterprises were far more closely tied to and administered by the governments in question.
On another point: "Eventually they created the East India College to help educate the clerks, teaching all the essentials - “On the curriculum: history, the classics, law – and Hindustani, Sanskrit, Persian and Telugu.”": that is a pretty intense curriculum, even accounting for the leg-up afforded by the far broader state of classical education back then - I can't imagine too many modern students not being intimidated by it.
> My (admittedly narrow) understanding is that other European colonial enterprises were far more closely tied to and administered by the governments in question
Depends which government - the Spanish and to a lesser degree the French yes, but for instance the Dutch used a structure pretty close to the British one, with the East India (VOC) company and West India company (WIC).
Right. Corporations and governments are 2 totally different things, not 2 wings of the same bird. We haven't always lived in a fascist governance structure, where corporations and governments work together to exploit individuals, via education, law, religion, media, etc. /s
> Corporations and governments are 2 totally different things
Are they, though? There are points well short of fascism where they exhibit significant similarity and cooperation. The idea of government as the remedy to every problem created by corporations is as overly simplistic as the idea of government ruining everything that corporations create. Either can be oppressive. Either can be beneficial. Some level of cooperation between the two can even be a good thing, as e.g. when corporations were first created to do things that were too expensive for one and too risky for the other. The similarities between organizations of similar size - also including churches, universities, and so on - overwhelm their differences. I would say corporations and governments are two wings of the same bird, and should remain that way, if the body in between is to be a healthy economy as part of a healthy society.
P.S. Yes, I'm well aware that the two exist for different purposes and answer to different kinds of authority. Don't even bother. The point is that their structure, behavior, and actual effect on society are not so dissimilar as you make them out to be.
I think you missed the /s at the end of my comment! We agree, they are similar - but disagree where you say things should remain that way. They should not.
From my perspective, there is no moral foundation for the existence of any governance system, except self-governance. Governance should NOT have a monopoly on force, they cannot legalise taxation, or the initiation of attacks on individuals, or license people/businesses, etc. These actions are possible on account of governmental force (in the form of police and military) it is not a moral right.
> there is no moral foundation for the existence of any governance system, except self-governance
"Self governance" is just another word for anarchy, which leads inevitably (and often quickly) back into autocracy. No thanks. Not even worth engaging with further.
The options are anarchy (or accepting personal responsibility for one's life) or immoral governance by force; aka slavery (to those who are able to take personal responsibility); aka pretending it is possible to abdicate one's personal rights to some ficticious entity called government. Self governance is really just the start of one's life as an adult.
I would be surprised if all the four languages were taught to everyone - one would expect Hindustani/Persian to be more useful in the North and Telegu would have been more useful in the South. Sanskrit being a mother language is generally useful.
You lost me there in calling Sankrit the mother language. Telugu has a different lineage and Sankrit is alien to Indian Sub-continent. Please stop using HN to subtly push your agenda.
True. But of all South Indian languages, Telugu shows the most Sanskrit influence.
> Sankrit is alien to Indian Sub-continent
This is a bizzare assertion. Classical Sanskrit was developed in India. That is likely true of even archaic forms of Sanskrit and the Prakrit substrate.
Words from Sanskrit can be found not only in several Indian languages but even in some south east asian languages. I speak four languages out of which three have words from Sanskrit. Learn a bit before alleging things.
Yes on reflection, having spent 30 years on and off trying to teach myself just Sanskrit despite benefit of classical education, I reached the same conclusion!
> It is often now forgotten that much of what is referred to as 'The British Empire' was just private enterprise (veering into freebooting) flying a flag of convenience.
At the beginning sure, but the monarchy took over and controlled it to milk its worth (1). The Regulating Act in 1773 was step 1, followed by Pitt’s India Act in 1784 (2):
> the act provided for the appointment of a Board of Control, and provided for a joint government of British India by the Company and the Crown with the government holding the ultimate authority
Either way, given how monarchy and democracy progressed, I find it ridiculous how often this false “separation” of the East India Company and the British Empire is bought up.
Not even at the beginning. It’s laughable to intimate that a Crown monopoly and something exclusively owned by members of Parliament is anything but state-owned enterprise. The Company even struggled for the first half of the 17th century until Parliament pursued more heavy-handed mercantilism after the English Civil War.
The author writes: “one of the exemplars of administration that found success was the British East India Company. They ruled over an empire, created an empire in point of fact, and seemed to only be dislodged through the Queen’s velvet glove smacking them on the head, dissolving it in 1874 by government decree.”
This take is painfully revisionist. The Company was already suffering rot by the late 1700s culminating in the impeachment of Warren Hastings and later the revocation of its monopoly in 1813 (when Britain turned to more “liberal” economic policy). People like Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and Edmund Burke throughly condemned a corrupt political system that kept this zombie entity alive.
For a more realistic overview, especially on the intimate links between government and the Company, I recommend Nick Robins’ The Corporation that Ruled the World and Priya Satia’s Empire of Guns.
if you are going to "get real" about Imperialist administration, I think you have to give a bit of credit to concepts of Crown Law versus the bloodbath/disease fest of South America. Are both British world imperialism and South American conquest unacceptable in today's world without question? yes .. are today's capital markets an attempt at recreating the best of these trading empires without the negatives, probably yes. Was there a difference in how these trading empires were conducted, versus raw pillaging under Roman Catholic blessing? yes
On another point: "Eventually they created the East India College to help educate the clerks, teaching all the essentials - “On the curriculum: history, the classics, law – and Hindustani, Sanskrit, Persian and Telugu.”": that is a pretty intense curriculum, even accounting for the leg-up afforded by the far broader state of classical education back then - I can't imagine too many modern students not being intimidated by it.