Read Book Online : http://www.archive.org/stream/industrialrevol00toyngoog#page/n6/mode/2up

Download pdf Book : http://ia700301.us.archive.org/28/items/industrialrevol00toyngoog/industrialrevol00toyngoog.pdf

This looks like an interesting little book ~ Toynbee was a raving socialist of course, but still... I always think that 'Industrial transformation ' is a better term than 'revolution' because the process certainly was not spontaneous and was the result of a number of factors converging over a period of more than 100 years. For example ,the demographic statistics on page 10 are quite astonishing. If you look at how the populations of what we now consider to be major British cities expanded (Manchester a mere 6000 in 1685 but nearly 400,000 people less than two centuries later !) one can glean some idea of how transformative this process was - mass urbanisation was the ultimate outcome of the Industrial revolution ( kick started, in the first place, by dramatic changes in agricultural practise and productivity, which had freed up the population from their archaic drudgery on the soil to move into the towns in search of greater opportunity). However, the more pertinent question one should ask within an international forum like the RBSI is "Why did the Industrial revolution occur in Britain ?" , "Why then ?".... why not some other part of the world at some other earlier period of time ? Why not India or China ? Both had vastly larger economies at the start of the 18th century than Britain (or indeed Europe full stop). Was it the case that European colonialism (fed by industrial expansion) retarded development elsewhere ? There is evidence to support both the 'yes' and 'no' answer to that last question. Interestingly, only yesterday, there was an extensive interview with Niall Ferguson carried in the British press, he argues that there were six main reasons why 'the West' became dominant during the 18th century: Competition between rival European powers, modern science, property rights, market economics and the protestant work etchic.... How right or wrong he is on this matter is open for debate. The full Ferguson article below: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/20/niall-ferguson-interview-civilization

I had not known that there were two Toynbees. The historian Toynbee we know was the nephew of the Toynbee who is the author of this book. I don't know who of the two Julian is accusing of being a Socialist. The senior Toynbee died at the age of 30 in 1880 and the book was published after his death by his students at Oxford from their lecture notes. A quick scrutiny of the book shows that the political economists of the time did not draw any correspondence between the Industrial revolution and the birth and the growth of the colonies. Secondly, Karl Marx was already a figure to reckon with and all those lectures which deal with Ricardo and Mill, Malthus and all but Karl Marx. Be that as it may, I tend to agree with Julian's opinion that Industrial transformation may a better word than Industrial revolution. At the same time I feel, any discussion of the same, if it does not include the colonies and need felt by the capitalists engaged in industrial production for the colonies as a captive market for their finished products, will be incomplete. Colonialism was not the result of only the territorial ambitions of the political masters which governed a country undergoing an "industrial transformation".

Shekhar ~ It was not an "accusation" it is a well established fact ! The Arnold Toynbee who's lectures comprise the book above was a well known early socialist and advocate of state intervention. As you point out, the OTHER Arnold Toynbee was his nephew. To give you something of the flavour of his thinking, here is Toynbee discussing the late-Victorian "middle classes" in 1883, shortly before his death: "We, the middle classes, have neglected you [ the working classes] - instead of justice we have offered charity, and instead of sympathy we have offered you hard and unreal advice; but I think we are changing... You have to forgive us, for we have wronged you; we have sinned against you grievously, not always knowingly, but if you will forgive us, we will serve you, we will devote our lives to your service." (A.Toynbee 'Progress and Poverty' from a lecture delivered in London, 18 Jan 1883) !!! Hardly representative of the prevailing laissez-faire attitudes of the time, I'm sure you would agree !!! As to your further points - there is some truth in them certainly - but - colonial 'captive' markets had very little to do with the processes that kick-started the 'revolution' in Britain from around 1770 onwards. Regards etc.

Please replace the word "accused" with "credited".!

The motivation behind and the incentive to produce is to be able to sell at a profit...and to sell large quantities of the same product would translate to greater profits. Where else would one find large markets then as now other than the colonies (then) and emerging markets (now). The story of the industrial revolution is directly interlinked with the markets of the colonies.

While I would agree with you RBSI, the 'captive' market theory belongs to a later time, from about the mid-19th century onwards - then they became very important - but, these markets were not a primary factor in the 'outbreak' of the 'revolution' itself. The advances made in technology and science that emerged in the late 18th century in Europe drove the entire process and made the development of a 'manufacturing base' possible to begin with, which later required ever larger markets . The colonies were of little consequence during this period (late 18th century), especially after the loss of America, when the whole impetus that drove colonial expansion was widely questioned in Britain. The Whigs thought colonial acquisition to be a tremendous waste of time, energy and money. They believed in trade without 'conquest'. It was during this period also, of course, that essentially private 'firms' like the EIC were increasingly subject to regulation and government control - much to their share-holders frustration. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened to global development if such thinking had won out and colonialism on the enormous scale that it later attained had not come into being. The bottom line on the 'Industrial revolution' is that by inventing and improving ingenious, labour-saving devices, especially hand and power driven machines Europe simply passed Asia and the rest of the world by. It seems to me to be that straight forward: more productive techniques translate into higher levels of economic prosperity/ activity and fuels ever greater expansion, whether the methods that Europeans used to consolidate this 'expansion' were justified or not is a seperate question.

It may not be an "unverifiable hypothesis" after all. Trade could have thrived and still provided the markets as it does today without the colonial structure. I would also tend to agree that the impulse and the impetus for advancement of science and technology came from within the European nations. The colonies perhaps only provided the romance and the pain (the former for the imperial gentry, the latter for the colonial subjects!)! A lot of water has flown under the London bridge and in the Ganges since then. Incidentally, concern for the poor is not the prerogative of the sociologists. Fabian Society was born after Sr Toynbee's death.

Shekhar ~ History is full of "ifs, buts and maybes " !! To believe that economic development through trade could have occured without 'colonisation' in the 19th century is perhaps unrealistic... but it certainly would have defused many tensions that exist in the world of today ! PS. You are quite right, 'concern for the poor' is not the perogative of sociologists and/or socilaists ~ they just imagine it to be.

The base or foundation of Industrial revolution was essentially on the back of capital accumulation through tri-continental slave trade (cotton cotton cotton) coupled with need to replace labor which was being lost to the new world through machines. The other factors do play a role for sure, but the above are the key foundations.

The "tri-continental" slave trade that Mr Sudershan refers to above - or the 'Atlantic system' as it is otherwise known- certainly played a part in the process of industrialisation in Europe, but, again, it was only a factor (if a rather unseemly factor ) in a more complex story and certainly not the "base" for the 'revolution'. It is not possible to claim (except for convenient political purposes) that any single one of these various factors was the defining, fundamental cause. One thing about the 'slave trade' and the rise of capitalism that is beyond dispute is that it helped to develop a 'global economy' ie. the concept of 'international trade' - which had existed for thousands of years but, during this period, sped up. The economic historian/ politician, Eric Williams, argued that slavery: "fertilized the entire productive system of the country [ie. Britain]..." and that "...the slave based Atlantic system provided [Britain] with opportunities for the division of labour and for the transformation of economic and social structures."(Williams 'Capitalism and Slavery',1944) Fine. But his rationale has drawn a great deal of criticism from other scholars. Many believe that his emphasis on slavery as a factor in European economic development has been greatly exaggerated and : "[reflects] the intellectual and moral ferment generated by the revolt against colonialism and the rise of new nations and the civil rights crusade"( Joseph Inikori). In other words, as a means by which to remind the smug, nostalgic British of the sufferings that their success was built upon. Others argue that the impact of the slave trade (that originally was driven by labour requirements for the sugar plantations of the West Indies and not "cotton, cotton, cotton", that came later and was largely based in what would become the United States) was marginal and the profits that it generated were relatively small. Certainly many traders made money, but many others did not and the planters and merchants and middle-men involved in the process (a fairly rough-and-ready crowd) , usually, were not "industrialists" who invested their money in British infrastructure but were simply men who spent their money - much like the 'nabobs' of a slightly later period - on the pursuit of prestige and the means by which to acquire status or political power. Still others point out (quite reasonably to my mind ) that the technological advances that drove the 'revolution' - the steam engine, iron smelting, power tools and so on and so on - were entirely perfected in Britain and had nothing to do with the 'slave trade'. So you must ask " Would industrialisation have occured without the slave trade?".... It seems, within academic circles, that the answer is "yes" but it might have happened more slowly. As Barbara Solow has said: " It would be hard to claim that the widening of the market owing to plantation profits was either necessary or sufficient for an Industrial Revolution, and equally hard to deny that it affected its magnitude and timing... Had all emigration to the Western Hemisphere been voluntary and none coerced, the British economy and its North American colonies would still have developed [just] more slowly."

Ok Julian, "Cotton, Sugarcane Cotton", then :-) BTW basic macro economics GDP = Consumer spending + Investment + Govt purchase. ;-)

@ Julian: " Since we got there first, we think we have the inside track on the modern condition, and our natural tendency is to universalize from our own experience. In fact however , our taste of the modern world has been highly distinctive, so much so that John Schrecker has seen fit to characterise the west as 'the most provincial of all great contemporary civilisations'...Never have westerners have to take other peoples' views of us seriously.Nor, like the reprersentatives of all other great cultures, have we been compelled to take fundamental stock of our own culture, deliberately dismantle large portions of it, and put it back togather again in order to survive.This circumstance has engendered what may be the ultimate paradox, namely that Westerners , who have done more than any other people to create the modern world, are in certain respects the least capable of comprehending it" ~ Paul A. Cohen, Discovering History of China

From 1400 most parts of Europe began to display steady economic growth, while the intellectual ferment of the renaissance provided some of the foundations of it's later scientific and industrial revolutions.The longer term significance of these developments have been exaggerated by what might be described as hindsight thinking: the belief that because of the dazzling success and extraordinary domination of Europe from the beginning of the 19th century , the roots of that success must date back rather longer than they actuaklly did. Japanese agriculture displayed a strong capacity for innovation long before the Meiji Restoration of 1868 with major improvement in crops and productivity helping to support a growing population.As Adam Smith points out that in the late 18th century China enjoyed a rather more developed and sophesticated market than Europe.The share of the Chinese harvest that was marketed over long distances was considerably higher than Europe on account of absence of feudalism.In Medieval Europe the serf was bound to the land and he could neither leave it nor dispose it, whereas the Chinese peasant was free provided he had the wherewithal to buy and sell land and it's produce. In 1800 China was as urbanised as Western Europe while 22% of Japan's population lived in cities compared to 12 % of western Europe.Western Europe did not enjoy a decisive advantage over china and Japan before 1800 in terms of capital stock or economic institutions,with plenty of Chinese companies being organised along joint stock lines. Even in technology in certain aspects like irrigation, textile weaving and dyeing, mediciine and porcelain manufacture the Europeans were behind.China had long used textile machines that differed in only one key detail from the spinning jenny and the flying shuttle which were to power Britain's textile led Industrial Revolution.China hd long been familiar with the steam engine and had developed various versions of it, compared with James Watt's subsequent invention, the piston needed to turn the wheel rather than the other way round. Once Britain embarked on it;s Industral revolution, invesment in capital and energy intensive processes rapidly raised productivity levels and created a virtuous circle of technology ,innovation and growth that was able to draw on an ever growing body of science in which Britain enjoyed a significant lead . Living standards in the core regions of China and and western Europe were roughly comparable in 1800 with Japan ahead while the figures of life expentancy and calorie intake were similar. The most advanced regions of China notably the Yangzi Delta were at par with western Europe in the 18th century. Industralisation was a result of contingent factors. Arounf 1800 the most heavily populated regions of the old world viz W Europe and China were finding it increasingly difficult to sustain rising populations.Food , fibre,fuel and building supplies were competing for reducing land and forests. Britain was able to break this land constraint. Britain discovered large quantities of accesible coal that helped ease growing shortage of wood and fuel the Industrial revolution.Second much more importantly colonisation of the New World Caribbean and North America was to provide huge tracts of land, a massive and cheap source of labour in the form of slaves and an abundant flow of food and raw materials. As pointed out by Sudershan the growth of Manchester would not have been possible without cheap and pletiful supplies of cotton from slave plantations. European industralisation was fafr from a endogenous process.The New World and discovery of coal in Britain removed the growing pressure on land.Colonisation provided Europe with other advantages. Rivalry over colonies as well as many intra-European wars helped to hone European nation states into veritable fighting machines and during the 19th century they emerged as major military powers.

Colonial trade provided fertile groud for innovations in both company organisation and systems of financing with the Dutch inventing joint-stock companies. Without the slave trade and colonisation Europe coukld never have made the break-through it did.In 1800 rather than being Euro-centric the global economy was ploycentric,economic power being shared between Asia, Europe and the Americas with China and India being the two largest economies.Now again the world is coming full circle.

Excellent Hukum!!

I believe that a lot of the official history of both the Industrial Revolution and the Agricultural Revolution is actually incorrect. Most people see this beginning in the 18th Century, and link it to coal, and turnips and three course rotation. There were actually earlier industrial and agricultural revolutions, and these actually got things under way well before the 18th Century. The really important earlier agricultural revolution was under way by about 1540 to 1580 and arose because of the privatisation of the church lands (circa 1/3rd of our farmland) when the monasteries were dissolved. This brought large areas of consolidated land tenures into the hands of large farmers and landowners. It was the peasants who were stuck with strips of land. Religion ceased to have such a hold on us in Britain. I wonder if this is a difference with India? In India I get the impression that religion plays a much more important role in everyday life, and that there is (or was) a greater feeling that change was not something that was important or to be welcomed. I might well be wrong here, and I would welcome an India perspective. I wonder also if the relative security that the English had encouraged them to invest and develop, knowing that they would be able to hang onto the rewards. It is only in the last 50 years that governments have taken to extracting the very last penny from us, and this has destroyed most enterprise here. The increasing abundance of food allowed the population to grow, and increased number of people available who had time free from the burden of subsistence farming who could engage in things like textile manufacturing, which yielded cash profits. The 17th Century saw much more effective systems of taxation to be developed, following Dutch models developed in the 80 Years War. This is something I am very interested in. One of my 8x gt grandfathers, Sir John Baber was the PR and front man at the Court of King Charles II for the consortium that bid in 1672 to run the taxation of Ireland led by Sir William Petty. Sir John's sons all ran various aspects of the taxation in Wales and Ireland, and my 7 x gt grandfather was Solicitor for the Excise in the year the Window Tax was introduced. (A highly cost effective way of improving the efficiency of tax assessments, and one that didn't need you to enter houses to count heaths.) In the last five years I have been reading hundreds of tax and treasury papers from the period, which are on line today. It is quite clear that capital was becoming available in very large amounts by this time. Some came from India, but probably only a small proportion of the total. Although slavery undoubtedly contributed, it wasn't until much later in the 18th Century. I actually believe that its contribution is exaggerated. Huge sums of money was sunk in West Indian plantations developing them. These plantations involved us in interminable wars with Spain and France. Slaves were originally taken to the West Indies because the Brits who were sent died even faster than the slaves did. It is very interesting to read the plantation letters from the 1680 to 1710 period. My window taxing 7 x gt grandfather was also Commissioner for Stores for Jamaica. The development of canals and toll roads in the UK also made a huge difference even before the steam engine came. It was a far longer and more gradual build up that writers like Toynbee realised. I had better stop now, or I will have written a book myself. Nick Balmer

Nick's narrative has touched upon several interesting hithertofore less explored topics and is a refreshing original perspective. We need to go much further back in time. (I will restrict myself to Britain here) In June 1348 the 'Black Death' crossed the English Channel,gaining it's first foothold in Melcombe Regis (now part of Weymouth in Dorset)Though the cult of the flaggelents never caught on in the British Isles the pattern of death and depopulation occurred much like elsewhere.Without harvesters or herdsmen to tend to them, crops rotted in fields while livestock strayed.Priests fled their stricked flocks.Parents carried their children to mass graves.An estimate puts the death toll at 20 million or more.In England 1/3rd of the population may have been wiped out in the 1st onslaught and subsequent recurrences brought the population down to 2 million by 1400. The result was a wages explosion for those among the labouring classes who survived.Workers became so scarce that they could demand and win large rises. Many farm-lands doubled their pay at a stroke,deserting their land-owners for better money elsewhere therby accelerating social changes already in progress as traditional relation-ships between the lord and vassal were eroded. Peasants asserted their rights more vocally than they had dared to do in feudal times. In France The uprising was suppressed by nobles who hunted down the rebellious labourers and shot them ! With the rise of the wool trade many landlords converted their fields into pasture and old farming communities were wiped out.Black death was a contributing scrouge that caused depopulation on a scale that is beyond imagination.It was not until 1600 that the continent recovered it's pre-Black death level. In the wake of this the Church holdings were forced to be privatised and Monastries were dissolved as described by Nick. Fast forward to the 17th century : Reform in taxation post the 80 years war was indeed a watershed. It released capital on an unprecedented scale.So indeed there were quite a lot of factors which led to the Industrial Revolution.It contributed far more wealth than agriculture had ever done - though often exacting a high price in individual misery. The harnessing of steam enabled more powerful and efficient machines to be applied to the production of coal and minerals and manufacture of textiles.Railways and steam-ships seemed to shrink time itself. Railways and machines brought great changes to the way people lived.Never before had so many people lived in towns. Their rapid expansion brought problems of in-adequate and overcrowded housing, diesease and unsurpassed opportunities for crime.The squalor of the slums of industrial towns stood in sharp contrast to the life of the very rich with their splendid houses and carriages. It ushered in a new lifestyle ,for railways and Omnibuses meant people could combine work in the town with a home life in suburbs.Middle class became far more influential.The advent of railways meant that people could buy food and manufactured goods produced afar and they in turn could travel with ease and with pleasure to see what lay beyond their own district.Railways and telegraph brought news to an increasingly literate public from distant lands.Piano music filled parlours, churches and chapels, music halls and taverns and people sought refuge in them from the upheavals of a changing world.

>> Religion ceased to have such a hold on us in Britain. I wonder if this is a difference with India? Which period are you talking of? Clearly not till the 20th century post the 1st world war mileu did the religion start fading away. Most of the colonialization was also coupled with a mission to convert and was on the back of spreading the light, which provided the justification (I guess even the English needed some moral defense in their own eyes) of piracy, loot and plunder. One of the chief achievements of 1857 was to stop the missionary activities.

The Industrial revolution touched upon all aspects life, so much so, that it may be futile to single out a few aspects such as the slave trade or the religious zeal to proselytise. Julian had suggested use of the word "transformation" in place of "revolution". On second thoughts, I think "revolution" describes the transformation better than a mere transformation. Man's inner world turned topsy turvy during the period just as its external world transformed. Things like religion persist rather than subsist out of sheer force of habit rather than conviction. The decline of religion that Nick spoke of having taken place in Europe, especially, Britain must be universal. In India, the seeds of reform based on the principles of equity were sown during the colonial period inspite of the resistance from religious orthodoxy within India and the tactic of divide and rule deployed by the imperial power. There should be no doubt that the imperial power was persuaded to "allow" industrialisation of a colony like India only when it suited their needs (mainly the two world wars that were fought also to carve up the world in the their own image). The fruits of the industrial revolution in Europe spread to other parts of the world no because the owners of capital wanted it, but because the spread of "ideas" could not limit the fruits only for the European capitalists and later the American. Toynbee's book offers insight into what was going on in the 18th century Europe at the ground level. One may wish to debunk him as a socialist, but it would be wrong to believe that capitalism has ultimately triumphed. It needs to survive a few more centuries as the Americans do everything in their power to undermine it. 2008 was a close shave with a few deep cuts.

Satyakam, I am talking of the 17th & 18th Century. I think Indian's took their religions much more seriously than the English took theirs. It was more important to them in setting the daily pattern of their lives. They devoted more effort into supporting their religious bodies and temples through alms etc. in the way we had in the Medieval Period. Our move from devoting so much time and resource towards religion and into other things played a part in getting our Industrial Revolution under way, for better or for worse. Conversion of Indian's was a policy that the Portuguese & Dutch promoted officially where they could. It wasn't official the English EIC Policy, and indeed the EIC came under a lot of pressure in early 19th Century because it wasn't letting in as many missionaries as wanted to go to India. The early 19th Century saw a religious revival in Britain, brought on by the excesses of an increasingly secular society in Hogarth's 18th Century Britain. Having attempted to sort out our godless parishes they wanted to convert the World. This was a personal rather than an official undertaking. A great many EIC Officials wanted to keep missionaries out of India specifically because they knew that the presence of Missionaries would inflame the situation. While there were churchmen in India, they were predominantly there to serve the EIC community. It was only after the UK Government took over the EIC in the 1830's that missionaries had free access to India. Here is some quite interesting evidence my 4 x gt uncle gave in the House of Lords in 1830. Question. "Is there not a great Number of Native Christians?" Answer; "There are about 10,000 in Malabar, and about 50,000 in Canara. Great Part of them are Descendants from Dutch, Danes, French, Portuguese, and the rest Converts, chiefly from low Castes, or Persons of high Caste who have lost Caste." With regard to the Native Christians, are there not some Native Christians who have been established from a remote Period? Yes; in the Provinces of Cochin and Travancore they may comprise about 100,000, Roman Catholics of Syrian Origin included. About 1,000 are to the Eastward of Cochin and Choughaut, in Malabar Proper; they are what are called Nestorians, or Syrian Christians. Are they an orderly well-regulated Race? They are, I believe, the best Subjects the Travancore and Cochin Rajahs have; they are the most industrious, moral and obedient, and many of them, I believe, opulent. Have you known any Instances of their emancipating Slaves they have acquired by Purchase? I have known only a very few Instances; they were, by way of Experiment, made by myself and Mr. Græme; I know of no other. Do you think the Christians an increasing Body? Not the Native Christians, except the Increase from the ordinary Course of Population. Not by Conversions? No such thing is known as a Convert by any of our English Missionaries. I have heard of such a thing indeed as a Person who has forfeited his Caste turning Christian, but otherwise it is a thing quite out of the Range of Possibility, and for a very good Reason: they lose their Civil Rights, that is, their Birthrights, immediately on becoming Converts. They are disowned by their Family, and in fact are looked upon as a degraded People. Nick Balmer

@ Satyakam :Missionary activity in India has been independent of the British Raj or even the EIC. Proselytisation has never been an instrument of state policy under the British unless you want to hold them responsible for promoting Educational istitutions which were Christian.Both I and scores of my ancestors have studied in Jesuit schools and Christian colleges and none of them converted because those institutions did not engage in proselytisation. The Dutch, Portuguese and the French engaged in that not the British.Predominant Christian population of India even today being of Catholic stock is enough testimony (Britain is decidedly Protestant save for northern Ireland) One of the triggers for the great Mutiny of 1857 was a rumour that cartridges greased in beef tallow and pig fat were being used in artillery.It was certainly not an uprising against forcible conversion or with sops and temptations.The opportunists from among both Muslims and Christians did convert as British star was on the ascendent.

Digvijay; the fact that we did not convert are a testament to Indian reslience rather than lack of effort on the part of the British. The EEIC (not so much as the formal Raj, since post 1857 they were scared to do much) was massively into conversions, with that being the primary goal of state power. I know this aspect is one of many that history books gloss over, but never the less is VERY well documented, by the EEIC themselves. You can find the references if you want. I will refer you to a extraordinarly outstanding book "operation red lotus" where in the initial chapters dealing with conditions for the 1857 Anglo-Indian war, the details of this activity are documented (with original references of course) It was the war of 1857 which made the British realize that they had to abandon that policy if they wished to continue the looting regime.

>> I am talking of the 17th & 18th Century. I think Indian's took their religions much more seriously than the English took theirs. Dear Nick -- Bollocks. Thanks and regards Satyakam

>> The Industrial revolution touched upon all aspects life, so much so, that it may be futile to single out a few aspects such as the slave trade or the religious zeal to proselytise I do not disagree that 1) The impact of the revolution was widespread 2) Multiple factors went to creating the revolution. Shekhar, in order to understand the cause and effect relationship of "what came first, the capital accumulation or the industrial rev" we are constrained to point out that capital accumulation was indeed the precursor to the revolution. It is quite clearly documented in timelines of GDP growth and times of revolution. Also we need to understand that many of the conditions which contributed to the Industrial revolution had indeed existed for a LONG TIME before the revolution happened. In fact in many cases most conditions were better expressed outside Europe and England at the end of 1700s. So if we see "what changed" the only significant change that we see is 1) Colonialization 2) Capital surplus based on trade control (as a result of 1) We are therefore left with no choice but to accept what is true.

@ Shekhar: i am afraid I do not agree with "Things like religion persist rather than subsist out of sheer force of habit rather than conviction." .......the decline of religion must be universal "......Most certainly religion does not become obsolete when a society modernises ,rather religion has to re-invent itself to adapt to the change in people's value syatems and thinking patterns. When products of mixed marriages/inter-religious marriages will abound in India as appears a reality as of today ,a hundred years from now conventional religions in their present forms will just not hold good and we will have to evolve something new. As rightly pointed out by Nick India has evolved differently.The greatest glue that binds this continent called India is decidedly religion.Raj brought about a lingua franca in the form of English, prior to that there was Urdu and before that Persian but in the North and Hyderabad strictly.There never was an inherent psyche among Indians about us neing a 'nation state' or a 'cililisation state' as has existed in China and Japan. The west has fought wars and experienced bloody conflicts in the form of witch-hunting and the deadly inquisition of the medieval period before it came to a level of understanding of Voltaire that " I may not agree to what you have to say but shall defend unto death your right to express your opinion". They have had a protracted struggle before they were able to divorce the clergy and the Church from the Executive and Legislature. Industrial revolution of Britain had a ripple effect on the rest of westernand the United states and later Japan.It became synonymous with modernisation.It changed the life-styles and thinking patterns. Capitalism fuelled individualism (I ,me myself) on an un-precedented scale.It was not for nothing that Socialism originated as an extreme reaction to it(That it has failed before our eyes is a different matter altogather) Nick:It is plain Hindus and muslims traditionally congregate in the evenings in temples and mosques while you chaps do in taverns and clubs. Religion of King Kong ( Confucious) is much stronger in China and an inhibiting factor in their modernisation in terms of political thinking despite their having experienced Buddhist invasion from India in the 1st century A.D.I am not suggesting that the Chinese are more religious than Indians but the teachings of Confucious with it's stress on the state being all powerful (earlier the emperor) is too ingrained among the Chinese. They believe in "the mandate of heaven". Natural calamities in the form of famine, earthquakes and devastating floods were the ONLY proof that the "mandate of heaven" stands withdrawn and they should struggle for A change of regime.In that sense Hinduism has never been at cross purposes with modernisation or the aspect of democracy. Industrial revolution is a thought process gentlemen more than machinisation it has changed and re-shaped, re-aligned the world and made us more urban and (arguably) urbane but decidedly modern.

>> There never was an inherent psyche among Indians about us neing a 'nation state' or a 'cililisation state' as has existed in China and Japan. Untrue, there has always been a concept of us being a nation and a civilizational state. From the earliest Veda's to Kalisdasa's work to later, India was always considered to be a Nation state. Even the Foreigners always referred to us as ONE India country. None of the writers from Greek times, to Al Beruni, to EEIC (which was named so in Mughal times) refers to India as anything but one Nation and civilization. For better or for worse, the concept of One India has existed and talked about in many texts as old as 3000 BCE.

...oh dear, how disappointing ~ I thought that this thread showed some promise... instead, upon returning home ... etc.etc.etc.etc.

Mr Sudershan (et al ) may refer to the concept of an 'India' as being 3000 or 6000 or 8000 years old etc (where does one stop ?)... but in the modern world this remains a "concept" that is disputed but respected... in a similair fashion the British race is not a "concept" (those 'bully-boy British etc) we likewise have an ancient, and extant, history - so it would be more helpful if you decided to consider the 'British' in a less conceptual manner. For most of these conceptualized "British" there understanding or empathy with India or Empire was and remains practically non-existent. The direct experience of Empire - its governing circles - was always limited to a fairly narrow elite; as you all know, the ICS, charged with the administration of a vast sub-continent never exceeded more than 1000 officials in number at any time in its existence. This elite, naturally, had always been drawn from the more privileged and exclusively educated classes in Britain - the British Empire was 'forged - so the mythology/propaganda always implied by a breed of 'stiff-upper lipped' Old Etonians (there is some truth in this!).... but - If an Englishman of more humble origin had any contact with the Empie at all, apart from drinking tea or a fondness for singing jingoistic songs in the music hall in the East End of London, it would probably have been as a member of the armed forces and even then under a sort of forced sufferance - in the "heat and the dust and the flies" and so on (bit different from rural Devon where he would have been recruited, don't you think?). At its root, "British Imperialism" was a fairly esoteric and abstract concept that reamained of primary concern only to those who benefited it most substanially. I don't think the plight of a Bengali peasant in 1900 made much difference or was of any concern to an un-employed London docker with a family to feed.

Julian; I understand the above. Consider it purely the constraint of language and space as well as a generic abstraction when I refer to the past historical dynamics as Indian or British. It certainly does not mean that all British citizens were complicit in acts of the Raj, or eager Colonizers. Similarly there have been many Indians who are blot on humanity, let alone our country, who fell over each other to help the British more help than they were looking for. I personally have family in UK as well as great friends of British extraction, and I am quite the same with them in person as I am here. So consider the points here, purely objective, and not personal, if I can be believed.

....I do not see that the 'British' (as in your conception) have anything to be 'complicit' in or 'apologise' for, Britain has become a pretty good resort destination these days... so on on that note "me ol' mate" ... Bugger Off ( don't worry, I use that sort of language with all my friends)...

Well Julian, your last statement (on whether the British as a entity have some thing to apologize for) would start yet another debate, however that is mostly not germane to the issue of capital accumulation and captive markets which made Industrial revolution feasible. :-) So yeah, for the moment I am buggering off, but as the Good Gov says "I will be back"

@ Satyakam: The EIC were a bunch of brigands.They were not here "to make the world safe for democracy" or had "the white man's burden" weighing heavily on their minds.For goodness sake India of the 17th and 18th centuries was not Africa. We were a refined people in parts with organised religion and living in cities.We were'nt wearing dead cat's fur to cover our loins like the Africans.Macaulay was stunned to find Logic, theology,trignometry,geometry,arithematic art, Persian, Urdu and Sanskrit being taught in Madarsas. Pls be mindful that the 19th century reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a madarsa product.Seventeen people of the Mughal household had published diwans to their credit. The EIC had rendered them toothless so they had little else than literature to express their merit in because the empire of the last Mughal was confined to the ramparts of the Red fort of Delhi. Such Brigands would engage in proselytisation is difficult to comprehend because it did not serve their purpose which was making quick money through plantations and acqiring new territories through military campaigns and then extracting their pound of flesh/ lion's share of the wealth from them but I shall read what you have suggested surely. As for the concept of the 'nation state' or 'civilisation state' always being strong in India it again escapes me.Are you referring to Bharat of yore? When we differed so greatly in terms of what we ate ,how we conversed, what we engaged in spare time in,while most were in subsistance agriculture from region to region and province to province just what do you think was the common running thread among us at that time ? If not religion than what? No civilisation is greater just because of it's antiquity.Mesopatamia was definitely older than us (remember Hammurabi and his codified laws?) where are they now ?Vedas are the oldest written records of humanity but they are about 3500 yrs old and that too is very difficult to establish because they have been handed over from generationto genearation by word of mouth as an oral tradition.The empires of the Gupta period never went beyond the Vindhyas , that of Ashoka the great never beyond northern Karnataka.Aurangzeb ruled over the largest territory until the British whose Indian empire included modern day Burma as well. We never had a Garibaldi or Kemal Pasha to unite us.Our struggle for independence is what sowed the seeds of nationalism.It is definitely a British legacy

@Nick :To put it bluntly, among the colonial powers Britain was the least of all the evils.Britain's former colonies were able to form for themselves a commonwealth and we engage in goodwill gestures like games to this day. We exchange high commisioners and not ambassadors between our capitals. This is in sharp contrast to France , Germany and Japan who cannot see eye to eye with their former colonies even today and were never forgiven by whom they plundered.Look India has had scores of invaders for thousands of years, the British were just one amongst them.All our invaders except the British settled in India and made it their home so with them there was only re-distribution of wealth and not plunder.Hence somewhere deep down inspite of the good effects of our colonial past most notably that we were able to unite ourselves into a nation and blossomed into a democracy and have remained one steadfastly ,in a sea of military dictatorships all around, is there a feeling of having been looted and plundered which manifests itself now and then.

@ Julian Well ,the influence of the proverbial stiff upper lip crust stands eroded even among the elites in Britain of today ,as you would acknowledge. The Etonians and those from Woolwich military academy Sandhurst do not exercise any major control on organisations of governance or the army in your country any more.It was from these hallowed bodies that the ICS and the rulers of the Raj were drawn. Indeed as you have pointed out correctly the reference to India as 'a jewel in the British crown' is today restricted to jingoistic singing of 'rule Brittania' in publichouses and suchlike.The majority even in times of the Raj could'nt care less about the misery of Her majesty's (Queen Victoria's) overseas subjects. Their immidiate concern was securing bread for the family on the dinner table. We have digressed from the topic here.The thread is of Britain's Industial revolution and how it impacted the world and fuelled Britain's imeperialistic ambitions in those times.Well the Industrial revolution's effect were cataclysmic and had a snowballing effect in western Europe,United States and later Japan. It changed the world forever in the 18th century in much the same way as Thomas Edison's incandescent bulbs in the 19th century and aviation in the 20th.The latter two flowed from the former only and were watershed developments of each century in my opinion.The invention of light means that we are now visible from space and after aviation the world would never be the same again. India is today among the ten most industralised countries in the world while we have been an independent nation for a mere 63 years and I'd say that is a huge stride towards progress, the world is still reaping the fruitof industralisation which Britain began.

...er, well not quite so actually Digvijay... most members of the present British government are public school/ Oxbridge (Cameron went to Eton as did several other leading ministers)

@ Satyakam :Maybe somewhere we have forgotton to mention the great contribution of Rani Laxmibai who refused to concede her kingdom of Jhansi to the EIC on a platter. She tied her adopted son to her waist and went on horseback leading her army in the battlefield to fight the Firanghee EIC.The story of her valour still suffuses teh like of me with new blood in our veins.But for her, the reins of power of India would never have passed in the hands of the British crown and they would have never pledged to safeguard the interests of the 'princes' as their own. The story of her bravery jolted Britain our of her reverie as they already had newspapers going at that time and the public was stunned to read about the injustice being perpetrated by Company officials which had forced a dowager Queen to adopt such an extreme step. @ Julian: Well then I stand corrected. There was a time when independent India's almost entire cabinet comprised of Bar-at-law's from London and other hallowed British educational institutions (most notably one of the colleges of Oxford) What heady days those were ! And today alas we have scum of the earth illiterate ministers in the provincial assemblies.I am of the firm belief that a nation ought to be ruled by the best of their lot and that "a child's education begins a hundres years before he is born" but then as they say "Each country has the government it deserves"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12507319 There are some questions a census cannot determine. Neither can majority decide all things. For example one cannot seek a referendum to decide whether ghosts and God exist or not. One needs analysis and awareness about facts as well as a sense of historicity of things (datedness of certain views, lifestyles and literary flourishes). The industrial revolution did deal a deathblow to religion. That it is taking a longer time to die is another matter. Prior to the advent of the Industrial Revolution and certainly during the time when it was making the big strides, there was a conflict between the Church (Religion) and the State in the whole of the Western world. Likewise, India too has had its share of such conflict not only between the (feudal) Sates and Religion, but between religions within the folds of the Indian society. Both, the State and Religion engage in the fight for power. (The State being far better organised and essentially secular has won so far. The supremacy of the State however, is under threat from Religion, to a great extent in the Islamic world and to a negligible extent in the Hindu and Christian worlds) The biggest fallout of the industrial revolution was the rise of science and technology (in leaps and bounds) and the rise of rationalism. The human society was always materialistic; therefore I will not lay the "blame" for a non-spiritualism and materialism at the door of the Industrial Revolution. Industrialisation of India, accelerated after the British left (who hindered it when the were here; promoting only what they thought was non-competing at that time and what they as the imperial power felt were obliged to do). The biggest gain of the Renaissance period for humanity is the realisation that we and we alone (Man) is the arbiter of the future of mankind. Intervention by God and Godmen is suerfluous, harmful and an insult to our intelligence.

@Digvijay -- given your views I strongly recommend the book "Op Red Lotus" I am sure you will both enjoy it a lot, and at the same time find it enriching. It should be in a book shop near you, you can find it easily and its not too expensive either. @Shekhar -- Industrial development being at variance with religion is ONLY true in the western context. As far as Indian context is concerned you can say that religion has lived a mutually beneficial relationship with science, with thoughts in religion driving science and vice versa. With perhaps the most recent example being the impact of Advaita on the development of quantum mechanics.

Well Shekhar I agree that the growth of rationalism was one of the outcomes of the Industrial Revolution. If you subscribe to the school of thought that "Religion is the opium of the masses" well the guys who set out to create a new world on that basis and also on the premise that " One who does not work, neither shall he eat" have failed.After 70 years of being told that religion and seeking refuge with an unseen POWER is pussilanimity and that 'profit is evil'God and Profit have made a comeback with a vengence in Russia. Britain was able to seperate the clergy from the state much prior to the industrial revolution. In the Islamic world the threat of the lethal combination of religion and state colluding with each other indeed looms large.What shall be the fate of the Arab states in turmoil demanding change is very difficult to predict. Every revolution there has led to even greater islamisation. Islam is a discipline more than a religion and is in every aspect of human life from personal hygine to politics which is a big hinderance in modernisation. This is certainly not to say that Islam is opposed to democracy but the shariat is a roadblock to evolving new systems of governance.The only predominantly Muslim country that is modern has jettisoned religion absolutely from matters of daily life which is Turkey.

@Digijay -- for you: “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”

... thank you for passing the 'census' article along, Shekhar. It makes for quite interesting reading. I note that 72% of the British population claim to be Christians - hmm - maybe so, but I am willing to wager that less than 10% of them can be found in Church on a Sunday morning !... the concept of a 'census' in and of itself is interesting - the first one in Britain was conducted in 1801 - right at the height of the 'industrial revolution'. Why ? Industrialisation meant an inevitable rise in the powers and "responsibilities" of the State and they needed to know who and where the people who comprised this State were exactly... Prior to the 18th century the central government (or court ) had very little idea over whom it was that they ruled... I agree to some extent with what you are trying (I think?) to say above ~ that Industrialisation leads to greater secularisation... something about the rigid organisation and harsh mechanical nature of industrialised societies does seem to suppress the human spirit.... Why do you think the British are constantly harking back to their archaic, mystical 'green and pleasant land' of the distant past... I think it is because that pre-industrial world of the plough and the soil lingers in our collective memory as a more spiritual era.

Digvijay, fortunately, I do not subscribe to the theory of religion as opium. Religion in the hands of some people though may get deployed as opium. That apart, Religion as we call it with a capital "R" arose some time after the thoughts were first propounded by their progenitors. I have no doubt in my mind that their motivation was to ameliorate the suffering of their brothers and sisters (I will not use the word mankind in that context), was a rebellion against the extant orthodoxy and hegemony of the State. I am in agreement with your observation about pusillanimity of thought and constrictive understanding of human nature and its enduring quality displayed by people who ventured out to refashion the world order based on their ideas. Yes, they failed that does not mean that the rest that stayed succeeded because of infallibility of their thinking or their actions. Human societies cannot be changed overnight. That is the lesson all must learn from the success of the Industrial revolution and capitalism in transforming the society, a job still unfinished. But it would be a folly to believe that the desire to "profit" is the abiding and imperishable economic virtue. We are going to revisit all that capitalism and religion stand for in the coming years as we face the issues of governance, belief and environment. All these will necessitate a fundamental change in human thinking about self, society and nature. I stand modified about the collusion of State and Religion but do strongly feel that in time to come, people generally would want to steer away from both. I guess where you come from is the utopia of "sanatan dharma". I have absolutely no quarrel with such an idea so long as it is left to the realm of the individual and not the society or the State as organised religion. What to believe and what to worship is an individual's choice, but that is something which the individual has to pursue within the confines of his individual space, not public space.

Re: Various remarks above by various people concerning British missionary activity in India. I think that this issue has been greatly over exaggerated. It must be remembered that these missionary characters operated in a private capacity - their activity was not encouraged or condoned by the EIC at the start of the 19th century and in fact the 'missionaries' were widely ridiculed and frowned upon by the British establishment in India as ridiculous interlopers and 'busy-bodies (the 'establishment' itself were a rather irreligious lot !). Having said that the desire to "convert the heathen" (which was itself an international manifestation of the sort of tub-thumping evangelicism that could be found in Britain at the time - except that there they were trying to convert the working classes who they felt were slipping into decadant 'modern' ways) certainly contributed to the atmosphere that initiated the mutiny of '57 - which as we have discussed previously, to my mind was very much a conservative back-lash seeking to maintain the status quo from 'alien' encroachment and even 'modernity' itself, rather than some sort of Marxist 'revolution' (as it seems to be portrayed in India today).... After '57 the British kept themselves to themselves and missionaries were told even more vigorously to "keep their mouths shut" (or should that be keep their bibles shut ?) and any Indians who subsequently converted did so because they moved in British circles or because Chrstianity offered an all-embrasive path free of the caste restrictions that are sanctioned in Hinduism . Of course the British in India tended to view themselves as a "superior" race - for a variety of reasons , mostly not justifiable - but they were products of their time and not ours -and acted accordingly. This extended to religion also - they felt that Christianity was a "superior" from of worship to any other and this arrogance infused all of their thinking to some extent, such as in the following quote by Charles Grant (who had been an advisor to Cornwallis and later became a Director of the EIC) circa 1800. I think the quote helps to illustarte how the British have been misunderstood to a good degree (both at the time and now) - most genuinely believed that they were in India to help improve/advance the society, while making a few quid on the side - it was their execution (no pun intended) of their ideas that was faulty: "In considering the affairs of the world as under the Supreme Disposer, and those distant territories [ ie. India] providentially put into our hands [ie. by God !]... it is not necessary to conclude that they were given to us, not merely that we might darw an annual profit from them, but that we might diffuse among their inhabitants, long sunk in darkness [ie. technological backwardness], vice [ie. "pagan" religion] and misery [ie.poverty], the light and benign influence of the truth [ie. Christianity] the blessings of a well-regulated society [ie. law and order + central administration] and the improvements and comforts of active industry ?... In every progressive step of this work, we shall also serve the original design with which we visited [interesting choice of word] India, that design still so important to our own conutry - the extension of commerce [ie. the development of a market economy]."

Hmmm religion arising with a capital R after the thoughts were first propounded by their progenitors....now that is a profound observation.Yes the different schools did branch out and evolve after the founders.But what about sanatan dharma ? We don't have any founder, no one holy book, no rites of passage and no strict do's and don'ts? Yes what you say about "they having arisen as a rebellion to prevailing orthrodoxy is true about Buddhism and Jainism all right.The Abrahmanic faiths of Judaism,Christianity and Islam have however had a different history and reasons of origin. But do religions really originate as a result of an oppressive state or does that lead to popular revolt ? Prosperity has got more to do with it in my opinion. "Daridra Narayan"...the more properous a society becomes the further it nmoves away from ritualism and religion.I too find people wearing their religion on their sleeve tiresome.Religion ought to be a private affair but then all religions want us to congregate and pray togather !! I would tend to agree with Julian that industralisation leads to greater secularisation and renders the society less ridden with superstitions but i cannot think of religion itself as a superstition sorry.Man made God or God made man is the issue we are in discussion about maybe ? :) @ Satyakam : I will surely read that. The quote about Africa is hilarious.

Yes and till such time that we are able to evolve something better than democracy we will have to be content with our systems of governance affording us the right to choose our new tormentors :)

Julian; no missionary activity in India initially was indeed severe and was shut down only after 1857. Also the missionary activity was closely linked with spread of English education to the point that the two were considered inseparable. And as your own statements show, for the EEIC, commerce, evangelization, colonialization were all inextricably linked. For the English of that period, there was no difference between any of these, their sense of identity pursaded them that they must 1) Lord over the world 2) Spread Xianty to their minions and use that as an additional tool for Empire building. BTW> Conversion in India does not remove Caste/Jaati because caste is not linked to Hinduism in the religious sense but a overlay of social structure on top of it. Heck even today the high caste Xians of Kerala (who were the first converts in 1600s) have seperate burial grounds. :-P

Re: above ~ I make no claim to have any great understanding of Hinduism and so my apologies for the technical error. Digvijay ~ I think that it was you, somewhere along the line, who was emphasising the importance of coal to the 'Industrial revolution/ transformation' ... I have just been reading an article that is related to this subject, which I pass along below. One never seems to think of coal as being an export commodity. Apparently it always has been. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Historical-Insights-into-the-Dark-Side-of-Coal.html

Thanks Julian for the article "The Dark Side of Coal". We in India oftne forget that in the world of imperialism of the 18th and 19 centuries and the first hald of the twentieth century, there were countries in Europe other than Britain. This article sort of corrects that and draws a parallel with "The Dark Side of Oil". Ummmm. Interesting, I say. When will the leading Nations of the world realise that their interests coincide with the interests of all occupants of this planet? It is never too late. It is no more "natural" that Nations look after their narrow interests of natural resources like coal and oil. The politics of "national self interest" must give way to more informed politics of global cooperation and accommodation even if it means throwing in of the towel by the powers that call themselves Gx.

God ! This discussion is still going on ?? it will take a while to catch up. All sides of the story here ! : )

RBSI, you don't know you unleash.

Many thanks Julian for sharing this article.I learnt about 'Colliers' and 'gasometre' and the composition of 'town gas' (gas + steam).I also learnt that D.H. Lawrence wrote 'Sea and Sardinia' . I remember him most for writing Lady Chatterley's Lover and you knowin teenage why we read such books ! To read about the Italian king wanting to become an emperor is also amusing.The 'grand old mother of Britain', Queen Victoria through her many children had alliances with most royal houses of the continent in pre 'Great war' Europe till the first world war harvested all monarchies in the continent. One of her daughters-in-law was the Grand Duchess as she was the Tsar's daughter.In matters of protocol, which are to this day most evolved in 'terribly class concious Britain' ( Britain is among very few countries where each class of society has a different accent)the queen was slighted by her daughter in law's titles so she called the PM of the day and expressed a desire to be made an empress as she ruled over an empire that had several luminaries and glitterati in the form of potentates, Maharajas and nawabs. The PM required a parliamentary seal of approval as constitutionally that was not possible without an amendment.An amendment was brought to the constitution and she was proclaimed the 'Queen Empress' Had the Italians divined coal in Ethiopia the world history would have been different. Or if the ,now abandoned, re-search on superconductors borne fruit? Nothing much has changed in the world. The allied powers of today invaded Iraq just for Oil.Iran stands alienated termed a 'rogue state'by the United States.saudi Arabia is an American protectorate for oil alone.All three combined have 60% of the world's known oil reserves.Siberia has huge oil deposits. Who knows which way the world would go the day middle-eastern hegemony over oil ends and so also of their real masters.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Sigh....

Digvijay ~ "Britain is among very few countries where each class of society has a different accent" ... hahaha, broadly speaking (no pun intended) you are quite right ! I had never quite thought about it along those lines... but it's true and remains so... the crystal-cut tones of the P.O.S.H. ('Port side out, starbourd side home') Englishman is still something of an international British brand... funnily enough, most colonial adminstrators had such an accent and so the myth that all Englishmen had similair accents spread... anybody who has ever visited Britain will apprecaite the reality !

Talking of accent (or lack of it), have you seen "King Speaks"? I waiting for it to be released in India.

Do you mean "The King's Speech" by any chance, Shekhar? ... No I have not, nor will I... I dislike the left-wing British media establishment launching thinly veiled assaults on the Monarchy... "You see, you see ! The King is but flesh ! He is just one of us ! Why, he even has a speech impediment !"... the man is unimportant, it's the institution that suffers...

Julian, the other day I was watching the final episode of "Got to Dance". Amazingly, the British Society is plural as was evidenced by the varied ethnicity of the contestants.

@ Julian ...we in Rajasthan can identify with Britain in that respect because ours is an awfully class concious society as well and I can tell a person's background by his accent and his style of speaking for so long as he speaks in one of the many languages of Rajasthan (languages not dialects because literature has been produced in them) The advent of Hindi ,which is decidedly a rather uncouth language in comparison ,swept away our culture with all it's refinement. America in comparison is a country where the truck driver and the president has the same accent. By the way is Cockney still spoken in east London?

...Can't say that I that ) know that one, Shekhar - but - you will often find a disproportionate number of ethinicities presented on British television programmes (especially the BBC) - its all part of an agenda that pushes "diversity"... Britain is becoming an increasingly multi-cultural society - and the consequences of this are quite hotly debated. One thing that the 'census' article that you flagged up this morning did not mention was that the forms that are sent to each and every household to count how many people dwell within Britaish borders have had to be printed in 60 different languages ! I know that India has umpteen hundred langauges and dialects, but it is a much bigger country and this is a relatively new phenomenon in Britain - of course there has always been immigration into the British Isles for thousands of years, but nothing approaching the scale that has been permitted since the 1950s. Currently about 10% of the 'official' British population are of non-British (ie non-caucasian) ethnic background. A large number of this percentage will be from the Indian sub-continent (as well as many other former colonial nations). 10% does not sound very much, but it increases year by year and is very noticeable in certain towns or cities (London is very cosmpoplitan - but then it always has been) because immigrant communities tend to stick together and form their own little districts. Mosques and temples are becoming a feature of the British urban skyline. I have no particular issue with immigration into the UK - many immigrants have made notable contributions to Britain in many different walks of life - but - it should remain at a level that is sustainable and that does not produce negative consequences for the indigenous British public (ie. in times of high un-employment it should be restricted) and that the immigrants are prepared to accept our customs and values and integrate into our society. It's funny to think that I probably see more Indians on a daily basis than Indians in India, 150 years ago , saw Englishmen in their entire lifetime !

Digvijay ~ There is a very interesting book by the historian David Cannadine called 'Ornamentalism' (not ' Orientalism ' by Edward Said !) that discusses the nature of 'class' in the British sense and its role and influence throughout the British Empire... and the consequences of the British social hierarchy on the countries that they colonised. I would recommend it if you are interested in the subject. Yes ~ you can still here cockney accents in the East End of London(though not the famous rhyming slang quite so much anymore).

I'd sure love to read this. Pray who are the publishers ?

I have been upstairs to retrieve it for you, Digvijay... "Ornamentalism: How the British saw their Empire" by David Cannadine (Penguin Books, 2001) I dare say that you can order a copy on the internet. Here is a review of the book by Prof PJ Marshall: http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Empire/reviews/marshall2.html

Many thanks it is a fairly recently written book. I shall place an order right away and thanks again for going upstairs to retrieve it for me. ~Cheers

Julian, census officers lost in translation! 60 languages? Declassing is the inevitable outcome of universal education, franchise, freedom of movement and expression and, of course globalisation and income opportunities that go with it. So the "class-act" is left for individuals to preserve. Then let the class be not in lording over others but in maintaining high standards in everything.