Princely States of India; the Straits Settlements and Singapore (original) (raw)

Princely States & Protectorates of British India

Sikh Punjab, 1816-1820

Kishore Singh

1820-1822

Golab Singh

Jammu,
1822-1856

Kashmir,
1846-1856

British Control, 1857-1948

Ranbir Singh

1857-1885

Pratap Singh

1885-1889,
d.1925

British rule, 1889-1898

Pratap Singh

restored,
1898-1925

Hari Singh

1925-1948,
d. 1961

Ceded to India,
invaded by Pakistan,
de facto Partition,
1948-present

Travancore
Marthanda Varma	1729-1758
defeats Dutch, 1741
Kartika Tirunal Rama Varma	1758-1798
British Control, 1795-1948
Balarama Varma	1798-1810
Gouri Laksmi Bai	1810-1815
Gouri Parvati Bai	1815-1829
Swati Tirunal	1829-1847
Utram Tirunal Marthanda Varma	1847-1860
Ayilam Tirunal	1860-1880
Rama Varma Tirunal Rama Varma	1880-1885
Sri Mulam Tirunal Rama Varma	1885-1924
Setu Laksmi Bai	1924-1931
Sri Chitra Tirunal Balarama Varma	1931-1949
Ceded to India, 1949

Moghul Rule, 1526-1751

Ranoji

at Ujjain,
1726-1745

Jayappa

1745-1755

Jankoji I

1755-1761

Madhava Rao I

1761-1780,
d.1794

To Great Britain

1780

Madhava Rao I

1780-1794

Daulat Rao

1794-1827

Jankoji Rao II

1827-1843

To Great Britain

1843

Jayaji Rao

1843-1858,
d.1886

To Great Britain

1858-1948

Madhava Rao II

1886-1925

Jivaji Rao

1925-1948

Ceded to India, 1948

Portugal, 1502-1669

Unni Rama Koil I

c.1500-1503

Unni Rama Koil II

1503-1537

Vira Kerala Varma I

1537-1565

Kesara Rama Varma II

1565-1601

Vira Kerala Varma II

1601-1615

Ravi Varma I

1615-1624

Vira Kerala Varma III

1624-1637

Goda Varma I

1637-1645

Vira Rayira Varma

1645-1646

Vira Kerala Varma IV

1646-1650

Rama Varma I

1650-1656

Gangadhara Lakshmi

1656-1658

Rama Varma II

1658-1662

Goda Varma II

1662-1663

Vira Kerala Varma V

1663-1687

Dutch Control, 1669-1795

Rama Varma III

1687-1693

Ravi Varma II

1693-1697

Rama Varma IV

1697-1701

Rama Varma V

1701-1721

Ravi Varma III

1721-1731

Rama Varma VI

1731-1746

Kerala Varma I

1746-1749

Rama Varma VII

1749-1760

Kerala Varma II

1760-1775

Rama Varma VIII

1775-1790

British Control, 1795-1948

Rama Varma Saktan Tampuran

1790-1805

Rama Varma IX

1805-1809

Kerala Varma III

1809-1828

Rama Varma X

1828-1837

Rama Varma XI

1837-1844

Rama Varma XII

1844-1851

Kerala Varma IV

1851-1853

Ravi Varma IV

1853-1864

Rama Varma XIII

1864-1888

Kerala Varma V

1888-1895

Rama Varma XIV

1895-1914

Rama Varma XV

1914-1932

Rama Varma XVI

1932-1941

Kerala Varma VI

1941-1943

Ravi Varma V

1943-1946

Kerala Varma VII

1946-1948

Rama Varma XVII

1948-1949

Ceded to India, 1948

Ghaznavids, 999-1148, Ghurids, 1148-1213; Khwarazm Shahs, 1213-1220; Mongols, 1221-1332; Timurids, 1379-c.1472; Pakhli, c.1472-1703; local Karlugh Turk Walis, 1703-c.1790; Afghanistan, c.1790-c.1800

Hindwal

Nawwab Khan

?-1818

Payenda Khan

1818-1840

Jahandad Khan

1840-?

Muhammad Akram Khan

1868-1907

Zaman Khan

1907-1936

Muhammad Farid Khan

1936-1969

Ceded to Pakistan, 1948

Moghul Rule, 1526-1802

Sadiq Mohammed I

1739-1746

Mohammed Bahawal I

1746-1749

Mubarrak

1749-1772

Mohammed Bahawal II

1772-1809

Sadiq Mohammed II

1809-1825

Mohammed Bahawal III

1825-1852

Sadiq Mohammed III

1852-1853

Fateh Mohammed

1853-1858

Mohammed Bahawal IV

1858-1866

Sadiq Mohammed IV

1866-1899

Mohammed Bahawal V

1899-1906/1907

Sadiq Mohammed V

1906/1907-1955,
d.1966

Ceded to Pakistan, 1948; direct rule, 1955

Timurids, 1399-1413; to Delhi, 1413-1526

Bairi Singh I

1436-c.1448

Chachigdeva II

c.1448-1467

Devidas

1467-1496

Jait Singh II

1496-1528

to the Moghuls, 1526-1818

Karan Singh II

1528

Lunkaran

1528-1550

Malladeva

1550-1561

Har Raja

1561-1577

Bhima

1577-1613

Kalyandas

1613-1650

Manohardas

1650

Sabal Singh

1650-1661

Amar Singh

1661-1702

Jaswant Singh

1702-1707

Budh Singh

1707-1721

Tej Singh

1721-1722

Sawai Singh

1722

Akhai Singh

1722-1762

Mulraja II

1762-1819

To Great Britain

1818-1948

Gaja Singh

1819-1846

Ranjit Singh

1846-1864

Bairi Singh II

1864-1891

Salivahan II

1891-1914

Jawahir Singh

1914-1949

Girdhar Singh

1949

Ceded to India, 1949

Bundi

Mokund Singh

1656-1658

Jagat Singh

1658-1669

Kishor Singh I

1669-1685

Ram Singh I

1685-1707

Bhim Singh I

1707-1720

Arjun Singh

1720-1724

Durjan Sal

1724-1756

Ajit Singh

1756-1759

Chhatar Sal I

1759-1766

Guman Singh

1766-1771

Umaid Singh

1771-1819

Kishor Singh II

1819-1828

Ram Singh II

1828-1866

Chhatar Sal II

1866-1889

Umaid Singh II Bahadur

1889-1940

Bhim Singh II

1940-1949,
d.1991

Ceded to India, 1947

Maratha War, 1817-1818

Wazir ud-Dawla Muhammad Khan

1834-1864

Muhammad 'Ali Khan

1864-1867,
d.1895

Muhammad Ibrahim 'Ali Khan

1867-1930

Muhammad Sa'adat 'Ali Khan

1930-1947

Ceded to India, 1947

Muhammad Faruq 'Ali Khan

1947-1948

Muhammad Isma'il 'Ali Khan

1948-1949,
d.1974

Delhi, c.1314-c.1326

Sisodia

Hammir I

c.1326-c.1364

Kshetra Singh

c.1364-c.1382

Laksha Singh

c.1382-c.1420

Mokala

c.1420-1433

Kumbhakarna

1433-1468

Udaya Karan

1468-1473

Rayamalla

1473-1509

Sangrama Singh I

1509-1528

Ratna Singh II

1528-1532

Vikramaditya I

1532-1535

Ranbir

1535-1537

Udaya Singh

1537-1572

Pratap Singh I

1572-1597

Amar Singh I

1597-1620

Karan Singh II

1620-1628

Jagat Singh I

1628-1652

Raja Singh I

1652-1680

Jaya Singh

1680-1699

Amar Singh II

1699-1711

Sangrama Singh II

1711-1734

Jagat Singh II

1734-1752

Pratap Singh II

1752-1754

Raja Singh II

1754-1761

Ari Singh II

1761-1773

Hammir II

1773-1778

Bhim Singh

1778-1828

Jawan Singh

1828-1838

Sardar Singh

1838-1842

Sarup Singh

1842-1861

Sambhu

1861-1874

Sujjan Singh

1874-1884

Fateh Singh

1884-1930

Bhopal Singh

1930-1949

Ceded to India, 1948

Moghuls, 1573-1734

Pilaji Rao

1721-1732

Damaji Rao

1732-1768

Govind Rao

1768-1771,
1793-1800

Sayaji Rao I

1771-1789

Manaji Rao

1789-1793

Anand Rao

1800-1818

Sayaji Rao II

1818-1847

Ganpat Rao

1847-1856

Khande Rao

1856-1870

Malhar Rao

1870-1875

Sayaji Rao III

1875-1939

Pratap Singh

1939-1948

Ceded to India, 1948

Manavadar, Babi
Diler Khanji Salabat	1733-1760
Sardar Nathu Khanji	1760-?
Ghazanfar Khanji Nathu
British control, 1818
Kamal ud-din Khanji
Zorawar Khanji Kamal	?-1882
Ghazanfar Khanji Zorawar	1882-1888
Fateh ud-din Khanji Ghazanfar	1888-1918
Ghulam Moin ud-din Khanji Fateh	1918-1947,d.2003
Fatima Siddiqa Begum Sahiba	Regent,1918-1931
Ceded to India, 1947

Indore, Holkar
Malhar Rao I	1728-1764
Malle Rao	1764-1766
Ahalya Bai	1765-1795
Tukoji	1795-1798
Jaswant Rao I	1798-1811
Malhar Rao II	1811-1834
Hari Rao	1834-1843
Tukoji Rao II	1843-1886
Sivaji Rao	1886-1903
Tukoji Rao III	1903-1926
Jaswant Rao II	1926-1948
Ceded to India, 1948

Orchha

Bhagwan Rao

1626-1656

Subha Karan

1656-1683

Dalpat Singh

1683-1706

Ramachandra Singh

1706-1733

Indrajit Singh

1733-1762

Shatrujit Singh

1762-1801

Parichhat Singh

Raja,
1801-1839

Bijai Singh Bahadur

1839-1857

Bhawani Singh Bahadur

1857-1865,
Maharaja,
1865-1901

Govind Singh

1901-1950,
d.1951

Ceded to India, 1947

Moghuls, 1597-1618

Baghela

Vikramaditya

Raja,
1618-1630

Amar Singh

1630-1643

Anup Singh

1643-1660

Bhav Singh

1660-1690

Anirudh Singh

1690-1700

Avdhut Singh

1700-1755

Ajit Singh

1755-1809

Jai Singh Deo

1809-1835

British control, 1812-1947

Vishwanath Singh

1835-1843

Raghuraj Singh

Maharajah,
1843-1880

Venkat Raman Ramanuj Prasad Singh

1880-1918

Gholab Singh

1918-1946,
d.1950

Martand Singh

1946-1950,
d.1995

Ceded to India, 1947

The information here is entirely from Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. See also Hyderabad, Sikkim, & Mysore, which are Princely States that are historically significant enough that they are included on the main page for India.

Legally, there is no reason why the Princely States should have surrendered to India or Pakistan. Most realized, however, that, apart from nationalistic appeals, it was a matter of force. Indeed, Princes who tried to remain independent ended up annexed by force -- with the sole exception of Sikkim. That the Hindu Prince of Muslim Kashmir wished to go to India, or the Muslim Nizam of Hindu Hyderabad wished to go with Pakistan (or be independent), resulted in the invasion Kashmir by Pakistan and of Hyderabad by India. While little bitterness lingers over this treatment of Hyderabad, one war after another, and a continuing campaign of Terrorism, has been fought over the de facto partition of Kashmir.

India pensioned off the Princes, who often simply continued living in their palaces, much as they had under the British. Eventually, Indira Gandhi simply cut off their Government support.

Index of Princely States & Protectorates of British India

British Emperors of India

The Sun Never Set on the British Empire

Sangoku Index

Philosophy of History

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2010 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Malacca

Mahmud Shâh

1488-1528

Afonso de Albuquerque conquers Malacca, 1511; Portuguese Malacca, 1511-1641

Sultans of Johor/Johore;
Malacca-Johor Dynasty

Alauddin Riayat Shah II

1528-1564

Muzaffar Shah II

1564-1570

Abdul Jalil Shah I

1570-1571

Ali Jalla Abdul Jalil Shah II

1571-1597

Alauddin Riayat Shah III

1597-1615

Abdullah Ma'ayat Shah

1615-1623

Abdul Jalil Shah III

1623-1677

Dutch Malacca, 1641-1824

Ibrahim Shah

1677-1685

Mahmud Shah II

1685-1699

Bendahara Dynasty

Abdul Jalil IV (Bendahara Abdul Jalil)

1699-1720

Malacca-Johor Dynasty

Abdul Jalil Rahmat Shah (Raja Kecil)

1718-1722

Bendahara Dynasty

Sulaiman Badrul Alam Shah

1722-1760

Abdul Jalil Muazzam Shah

1760-1761

Ahmad Riayat Shah

1761-1761

Mahmud Shah III

1761-1812

Abdul Rahman Muazzam Shah

1812-1819

Hussein Shah (Tengku Long)

1819-1835

cedes Singapore to East India Company, 1826

Ali

1835-1877

Temenggong Dynasty

Raja Temenggung Tun Ibrahim

1855-1862

Abu Bakar

1862-1895

Ibrahim

1895-1959

Ismail

1959-1981

Mahmud Iskandar Al-Haj

1981-2010

Ibrahim Ismail

2010-present

The Straits Settlements $10 currency note from 1930 recaptures a vanished era of colonialism. The languages on the note are English, Chinese, and Malay. The unit of the currency, the dollar, reflects the use of the Spanish silver dollars brought to the Philippines from Mexico over the course of the life of the Spanish colonial empire. These coins became the basis of the modern currencies of China, Japan, and elsewhere in the Far East, although, as elsewhere, the silver is long gone.

The origin of the Straits Settlements goes back to Sir Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles (1781�1826). Already familiar with Indonesia from British actions there during the Napoleonic Wars (when the Netherlands was occupied by France), Raffles was appointed Governor-General of British possessions in Indonesia and took up residency in Bencoolen (Bengkulu), on Sumatra, in 1818. He established a presence at Singapore, ("lion city"), in 1819. The Dutch considered this part of their sphere of influence, but things got sorted out in a treaty in 1824. Bencoolen was swaped for Dutch interests on the Malay Peninsula. In 1826, the Sultan of Johor ceded any claims to Singapore and the other British possessions that in the same year were organized as the Straits Settlements -- named after the Malacca Strait between Sumatra and Malaya, which was the natural sea lane between India and the South China Sea. The Settlements were at first under the authority of the East India Company. When the Company was abolished, they were briefly under the India Office but then were made an independent Crown Colony under the Colonial Office. This arrangement continued from 1867 to 1946, when the Straits Settlements as such was abolished and its constituents reorganized.

The principal constituents of the Straits Settlements were Singapore, Malacca, Penang (Prince of Wales Island), and the Dindings, which were ceded by the Sultan of Perak in 1874 but subsequently administered by him. Additional territories were the Province Wellesley, opposite Penang, ceded to the East India Company in 1798 by the Sultan of Kedah (and subsequently under the jurisdiction of Penang); Christmas Island, annexed by Britain in 1888, attached to Singapore in 1946, and then transfered to Australia in 1957; and Labuan, off the coast of Borneo, which was ceded to Britain by the Sultan of Brunei in 1846, incorportated into the Straits Settlements in 1906, joined to British North Borneo in 1946, and then became a part of Sabah (Malaysia) in 1963.

Readers of the Sherlock Holmes story, The Hound of the Baskervilles [1901-1902], will remember how things began with Dr. Mortimer forgetfully leaving his walking stick at 221B Baker Street. Holmes and Watson speculate on his identity by examining the stick. They say that it is of the kind called a "Penang lawyer," which meant that it had been made from an East Asiatic palm, and/or that it had been hollowed out and filled with lead, so that it might be used as a weapon. It was not unusual in the London of the 1890's that someone might be equipped in this way. However, today in both America and Britain this would be illegal, regarded in America as a "concealed weapon" and in Britain, where self-defense has been effectively outlawed, as a weapon at all.

The hinterland of Malay consisted of native states, such as Johore, under the Protection of Britain, and thus were the equivalent of the Princely States in India. They survive until today as part of Malaysia.

Malaya became a focus of world history with the Japanese invasion in 1941. In the post-World War I Naval Treaties, Britain had agreed with Japan to withdraw forces from the Pacific to Singapore, which then would become the hub of British defense in the area. Almost immediately a grave miscalculation was made. It was not believed that an invader could come down through the Malay jungle and attack Singapore from the mainland side. The guns put in place to defend the city thus could only point out to sea. Since the Japanese did come down the Malay Peninsula through the jungle, the whole defense strategy for Singapore collapsed.

However, even if this miscalculation has not occurred, by 1941 Britain was in no position to properly defend Singapore or any of the rest of South-East Asia. There were certainly enough troops available, some of whom simply landed to be immediately surrendered to the Japanese; but a real defense could not be mounted without aircraft, and neither Britain nor the United States had anything like what was needed for even a minimal contest against the Japanese. The matériel for war, whether planes, tanks (which, again, were thought to be useless in Malaya), or other proper weapons were not available at the time. Shortly after the War began, the British sent out the battlecruiser Repulse and the new battleship Prince of Wales in a show of force; but on 10 December 1941, the Japanese simply sank both of them with long range torpedo bombers flying out of Saigon. This was another miscalculation. Despite the role of aircraft in their own sinking of the German battleship Bismark, the British had not yet appreciated how vulnerable unescorted ships were at sea to air attack. It was a lesson everyone learned quickly, but the fiasco did its part to demonstrate, not just how vulnerable the battleships would be, but how vulerable Singapore would be.

Nevertheless, what the British could not know was how close to the edge the enemy was. The Japanese always ran their operations on a shoestring, and the brilliant General Yamashita, heavily outnumbered (!), got the British to surrender Singapore with a considerable element of bluff. Their behavior was then, of course, disgraceful. Prisoners were murdered and worked to death; local Chinese were massacred; and while British prestige had been taken down several rungs, or perhaps even punctured altogether, the Japanese soon demonstrated that there were worse things in the world than British colonialism.

While Singapore failed in its strategic role when the day of reckoning came, the fault was not in its conception or its possession, just in the declining and beleaguered power of Britain to properly supply its defense needs (as well as that troubling misconception about the jungle, whose proper lessons the British would learn in Burma). Otherwise, the strategy of the British was generally vindicated, as Singapore was simply one in a string of strategic bases that secured British communication and trade from Europe to India and China. One of the earliest and most remarkable of these, captured in 1704, was Gibraltar, which commanded and still commands the Strait of Gibraltar at the mouth of Mediterranean Sea. Next was Malta, captured from the French in 1800. The value of these possessions, already considerable, was vastly magnified once Britain acquired its share in the Suez Canal (1875), and then occupied Cyrpus (1875) and finally Egypt itself (1882) to protect its interests. A base in Aden had earlier been acquired (1839) with a view to securing communications with India, and this now became of greater value as the route to India through the Canal became the most important commercial and strategic highway in the entire British Empire.

The whole British system of bases begins to look like the arrangements of Antigonus II Gonatas, King of Macedonia, to exercise control over Greece with the small strategic possessions of Corinth, Chalcis, and Demetrias. These came to be called the "Fetters of Greece," and it is not difficult to imagine other powers viewing British bases with similar metaphor and dismay. The meaning of any such possessions, however, was of course dependent on the existence of the Navy to use them and protect them. In 1941, although Britain still had the largest Navy in the world, it was not large enough for its needs, let alone conceived or built with an eye to the strategic, operational, and tactical requirements of the Pacific War -- where few, indeed, understood those requirements until the harsh lessons of battle emerged in the War itself.

Yet, after a fashion, in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, Britain had surrendered its strategic needs, which were for a Three Ocean Navy, by accepting parity with the United States Navy, which only had two Oceans to defend. The previous rule was the "two power standard," according to which the Royal Navy should have been as large as the U.S. and Japanese fleets combined. As it happened, neither Allied Navy was ready for World War II; but it is also questionable whether Britain even had the economic resources to have kept up the kind of Navy it needed after World War I. It certainly didn't have the will -- and, to be sure, groups of new battleships would have been wasted anyway, if they all just would have been sunk like the Repulse and the Prince of Wales. The British, who had developed the first aircraft carriers, still had only the dimmest idea how dominant they would become in the Pacific War. Nobody else did either, not even the Japanese.

Singapore may have failed in part because it had never previously been tested. The British had frequently defended Gibraltar and had fought in Egypt against the Turks in World War I and then the Italians and Germans in World War II. For all its strategic significance, Singapore had simply never been the focus of any war, and any problems with its defense plans were only to be found out when it was too late to do much about it. All this in its own way was a tribute to the Pax Britannica, but such previous success was cold comfort when the Japanese were able to fathom and exploit every weakness.

With Britain now long gone from India, the Middle East, Malaya, Indonesia, and the Far East, the strategic role of Singapore and its like nevertheless continues in the particular form of the Indian Ocean Atoll of Diego Garcia, now formally part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. This is used as an air and naval base, perhaps only secondarily by Britain, but most importantly by the United States. The American military in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan is heavily dependent on Diego Garcia for logistical staging, and from which bombers can fly missions directly into these theatres. The operations at Diego Garcia are shrouded in such secrecy that in 1966 the British deported all the civilian inhabitants of the place. Anti-war protests and rumors, concerning all American practices in recent wars (e.g. treatment of prisoners, kinds of munitions used, etc.), are thus rife over Diego Garcia, although, of course, protestors have no chance of demonstrating on site or interfering in its operations. To the Left, Diego Garcia is thus a modern "Fetter" employed by American "Imperialism" to oppress the world, even if the atoll is nominally under British sovereignty.

After the World War II, the British put down a Communist insurgency in Malaya. This gave the French and the Americans some confidence that that same could be done in Vietnam, but the wrong lessons seem to have been learned, and the enemy proved to be of a very different caliber.

In 1946 the Straits Settlements colony was broken up. Singapore became a Crown Colony in its own right, and the other posessions were merged with Malaya. The Federation of Malaya became independent in 1957. Self-government came to Singapore in 1959. Independence in 1963 for Singapore was in the form of joining the union of Malaysia, which combined the Federation of Malaya and with other British possessions in Borneo. This was not a happy business for Singapore, where there were riots between Chinese and Malays, even as Malaysia undertook to discriminate against ethnic Chinese. The Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, had doubts that Singapore could go it alone; but the city was nevertheless cut loose in 1965. Little did anyone know what would come of Singapore.

What happened was that little Singapore became one of the "Four Tigers" of East Asia -- an economic powerhouse along with Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea. In 1959, the annual per capita income of Singapore was 400,notmuchbetterthanmostoftheThirdWorld.By2012,itwas400, not much better than most of the Third World. By 2012, it was 400,notmuchbetterthanmostoftheThirdWorld.By2012,itwas50,000. According to The Economist Pocket World In Figures for 2008, Singapore was actually the 43rd largest economy in the world, ahead of states like Chile, Hungary, and New Zealand. In per capita GDP, it was 31st, ahead of Spain and Hong Kong, although now just behind New Zealand. All this was thanks to the direction of Lee Kuan Yew, whose rule came awfully close to a dictatorship. Yet with his retirement, a more or less democratic government seems to have been left functioning. But this is a no nonsense place. Singapore has been called "Disneyland with the death penalty." As in Malaysia, drug offenses can be punished with death -- although one wonders if use by locals is winked at as it often is in Malaysia.

For a while, the success of Singapore entered international discourse as representing an "Asian Way" of doing capitalism, with considerable more government control, in an authoritarian (or moralistic) regime, than was favored in Anglo-American liberalism. The slow growth and persistent unemployment of the early 90's in the United States seemed to lend some credence to the new ideology. However, in the late 90's, the "dot.com" boom sparked the U.S. economy in rapid expansion, while a severe recession hit many of the East Asian states. Suddenly, the Singapore model seemed more representative of "crony capitalism," which was actually a polite way of identifying the corruption and collusion that existed between business and government. As Adam Smith himself could have said, this collusion was little less than a conspiracy against the consumer, and the "Asian Way" was rather abruptly exploded as an appealing alternative to the neo-liberal economics of the 1980's. Nevertheless, the Four Tigers had represented real economic growth and progress, which continued in more sober form after the recession. The true key of their success was the rejection of a Keynesian, let alone a Stalinist, model of economic development. Instead, the truth of Say's Law was appreciated and capital accumulation was not only encouraged but sometimes legally mandated -- in Singapore itself, everyone was required by law to save at least a certain percentage of their income -- which then could be loaned and invested by the banks. This was Keynesian heresy, where the best thing to do with income is spend it. Of course, Say's Law had already been demonstrated in Japan, where no one ever had to tell the Japanese to both work hard and save their money. Getting the Japanese to actually buy consumer products has been a long struggle, although it is now no problem for the young -- generating its own problems.

It is remarkable that in the modern world it is still possible for a modest city state to possess an economy equal to or greater than that of many substantial nation states. This is familiar from history, when a place like Venice might be more powerful than several kingdoms combined; but one might have thought that the possibility of such places was already passing when Charles VIII of France invaded Italy in 1494. Au contraire. The Tigers have revived the phenomenon all over again.

The Sun Never Set on the British Empire

Perifrancia Index

Perigoku Index

Philosophy of History

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2011, 2013, 2021 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved