Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

A little known story

This story goes back to the 17th century perhaps. China was the only producer of tea. No one else on earth had the plant. And the British developed a taste for tea. They wanted more. It became a craze for them and unfortunately China charged for it in gold and silver.

Despite the plundering and pilferage of indian coffers by the then East India Company, the British needed more gold than they could afford to meet the tea demand back home. They came upon a crooked idea. They started feeding opium to the chinese villages near the borders. Soon the youth was addicted and wanting more. Thr chinese villages paid in chinese money and this in turn helped buy tea in china for the British. But the British needed more.

So they started paying cash to the farmers of Bihar and United Provinces (now called Uttar Pradesh or UP in short) in India for growing Opium. Unlike south India and Bengal, these states did not get enough rainfall for paddy cultivation and preferred to grow millets, which was a staple food for the masses. It was a cheap and robust crop that could withstand droughts as well, unlike wheat or rice. So the farmers started growing opium in place of millets. It was lucrative because of the cash incentive, but the grain market of India started running short of millets. The British were able to feed opium to China and get their favourite tea in return.

The British trained the masses to shift to rice and wheat as this was abundantly grown in the colonial empire. The public distribution system pumped in rice and wheat to the millet eating indian masses and though they were costlier, the masses had little choice.

Then came the famines. Drought. Poor monsoons. Milions of deaths in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. If India grew millets, this could have been avoided. And unlike millets, wheat and rice were sensitive to droughts. But the British ruined the millennium old traditional grains of India for the tea they loved.

Of course, later they stole the plant from China and grew it in Darjeeling, India. But the lost millet and the lost lives, all for the want of tea for the English fancy is a little spoken of story.

🙂 Hope you found this interesting. Since i came across a section for indian food, thought of writing this.
Top | New | Old
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
To be precise, this was carried out by the East India Company (with occasional military support from the government), but yes indicates what can happen when "free" trade is allowed to run rampant.

The Irish potato famine of the 19th century is another illustration of the risk of trying to exploit a single crop. Rich landowners rarely make good farmers.
WandererTony · 56-60, M
@SunshineGirl by suggesting being precise, i suspect you desired to shift the guilt from the nation to the business house.
Though technically correct, i see it as inaccurate. British East India Company was a British organisation that was too huge to be called a trading company within a decade of setting up base in India. Its interference in politics and administration clearly had the support of the Queens office else they could not have survived. The Queen took over the reins after the revolt of 1857, which shows that the interests were common and agreed upon.
In short, it was a British enterprise with british interests, british gains, and british ethics - or the lack of it.
🌷
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@WandererTony I have no such desire, history should be as objective and dispassionate as possible. This is simply my interpretation of the evidence which you are welcome to challenge. When we talk about "British interests", I think these were largely the interests of landowning and mercantile classes, as the disaster of the Irish potato famine (in which over a quarter of the population of Ireland died of starvation or emigrated), demonstrates. Economic and political reform from the mid 19th century onwards started a huge shift of power from private hands to something resembling a modern state. This was motivated by a combination of economics and ethics and yes, it was largely positive (including sowing the seeds for decolonisation).
AngelUnforgiven · 51-55, F
Wow that was a great read Thank you for this ❤ We learn something new everyday.

 
Post Comment