Book Review - Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not by P. Parthasarathi

I love a good bit of revisionist history, especially if it helps me understand something where my knowledge is relatively limited before now.

But (and it's a big but) revisionist arguments need to be very strongly supported by evidence, with at least the main points adequately and clearly explained, and the main possible objections that support the current view discussed.

Photo by me, of my copy of the book

I bought this book because I find that history is best understood by taking a global view and then diving down into the fine detail. Being able to relate what was happening in different parts of the world at the same time can be very illuminating. It can be even more useful when the author is writing from a cultural background other than the standard Western Anglo or Euro-centric one.

But I found this book immensely frustrating to read, and came close to putting it down (or throwing it at the wall) on several occasions.

The author is of Indian origin, and teaches at Boston College in the United States. He is clearly incredibly knowledgeable about some aspects of his topic. In particular, his understanding of the Indian textile industry in pre-colonial India is obviously very deep.

This is the first problem. The whole of the first half of the book is a love letter to the Indian cotton trade. It makes the argument that the English Industrial Revolution was entirely spurred by a desire by English weavers to set up a domestic industry to match the quality of Indian textiles.

Where I first started to have doubts about the book was when it stated (on page 32) that by 1789, cotton accounted for 20-40% of French domestic consumption (depending on social class). French clothing of that period is something I know a bit about. If Indian cotton was so superior in practical usefulness and durability. then it would be included in military uniforms in large quantity. Instead, of all the replica uniforms I make, the only item calling for cotton cloth (in this case muslin) is officer's socks. Our re-enactment group had a big purge of cotton replicas a few years ago, because it may be cheap and plentiful nowadays, but at the time the French army just didn't use the stuff.

The book also dismisses with a brief hand-wave the pre-existing English wool, linen and hemp weaving industries. Again, if Indian cotton was so good, why didn't it replace linen for sailcloth until cotton became a staple crop in the United States much later on ? After all, the Royal Navy had to buy in hundreds of tons of sailcloth every year.

Something the book does address well is to dispel the myth that India was technologically backward before the English took over. I'm happy with that pert, because when the author quotes data related to India it's generally good quality. It's just that he has far less comparative data for Europe. This was a time when European governments were obsessive about record keeping, and the author tends to rely on broad-brush statements with limited supporting data, which we've already seen is a problem.

The author successfully shows that Europe and India were at a comparative level of technological development, and that social factors operated to give similar results (although in different ways) prior to colonisation. He then draws a convincing picture of the way the Raj broke down the court sponsorship system that encouraged Indian commerce and education.

What the author fails, in my opinion, to show is how an Indian society that was the equal of Europe economically and technologically fell so decisively and rapidly to European conquest. There are several claims in the book that Indian shipwrights were the equal of European ones, but no explanation of why, then, they failed to build ships of the line or equivalent ocean going inter-continental merchant ships. Likewise with gunsmithing; no explanation of why a claimed superior industry couldn't match the English and French.

While the book mentions the trans-Atlantic slave trade (mostly in the context of the cotton cloth traded with African rulers in exchange for slaves), there is virtually nothing about the wealth of gold and silver coming from South and Central America via Spain.

My own personal suspicion is that the reason Europe grew rich was primarily as a result of military ruthlessness, confidence bordering on arrogance, and an ability to exploit local divisions.

India had a vibrant warrior culture, and the rulers raised vast armies, but based on the descriptions of battles like Plassey, Assaye and Seringapatam, most of their troops were untrained levies whose main job was to cheer on the warrior elite. They were no match for disciplined European armies which had been formed to stave off waves of effective invaders culminating with the Ottoman Turks. It's the difference between warriors and soldiers.

As the Spanish demonstrated in Mexico, when one side comes from a background of war to the death and the other side views wars as a ceremony, the winning side is the ruthless one that doesn't worry about ethics.

In summary, I found this book frustrating and flawed. As an examination of the economy and society of India immediately prior to colonisation it's detailed and useful.

Although claiming to talk about Asia was a whole, it only deals with China and Japan more briefly and very much focuses on India. The author's understanding of European industry and what led to the Industrial Revolution is not bad, but not at the level I feel is needed to support this book.

But it's primary argument appears to be just "English bad" and blaming European state support for industry rather than explaining exactly why the European powers were so rapidly able to expand to global dominance. The book just feels like a missed opportunity, which saddens me.

Published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press. 365 pages with plates. ISBN 978-0-521-16824-3