Reading Niall Ferguson's Empire (Part 7)
Chapter 4 (-p.217).
How on earth did 900 British civil servants and 70,000 British soldiers manage to govern upwards of 250 million Indians? (p.163)
It is indeed one of the richer ironies of the Victorian value-system that the same navy that was deployed to abolish the slave trade was also active in expanding the narcotics trade. (p.166)
(T)he crucial development from the point of view of imperial rule was the construction of durable undersea cables. (p.168)
It is fashionable to allege that the British authorities did nothing to relieve the drought-induced famines of the period. But this is not so. (p.188 note)
This implies a view shallowly influenced by AK Sen.
In fact, we now know that this drain - the colonial burden as measured by the trade surplus of the colony - amounted to little more than 1 percent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1668 and 1930. (p.216)
I wonder why he use trade surplus as the measure of imperial drain of wealth. Why not taxation? Can we think it in terms of balance of trade accounting and mercantilism?