Ideas and tips on any subject: Profitable wars

War and human history are intimately related and there will not be a single event in the history of any human society without a war. Today we shall be considering economics of war. You may wonder what I mean by that; as we know that all activities of human society are controlled by one element and that is economics. Per se, even a war cannot be considered without its economics. In consequence automatically factors like profit and loss or even, come up to explain the exact results of the war. I mean to say, a war is either profitable, loosing or even. Even means neither profit nor loss. When the wars are profitable the kingdom who wedges the war on other kingdom prospers; when looses the war, it declines. When the war is even, usually they have negotiation to settle the issues that caused the war. For example, Viet Nam war was a losing war for Americans. Other aspect concerning a war is; how to finance the war. Napoleon had said that, an army walks on its stomach. This was other way to suggest that a war is an expensive bargain. In this we find after studying many examples of wars that the finance of a war is a very important issue. A well-financed war is seldom at loss. Almost all the losing wars are found to be not well financed. One example is that of war at Panipat wedged between Abdally of Afghanistan and the Marathas of Maharashtra. Marathas lost the war to Abdally and by record, one can say that it was end of the Maratha supremacy in India. That war was very expensive and it was a big problem for the Sadashivrao the commander of the Maratha army to arrange the finance. The local moneylenders from Delhi did not give money to Sadashivrao at the request of the East India Company. He offered the expensive ornaments he was carrying to them as surety but even after that they refused him the credit. As a result Sadashivrao had to hire services of local inexpensive garrison made of untrained and ill experienced combatant. They were fighting against the well-prepared and experienced forces of the Afghan king and the result was evident, Marathas lost the war. It is said that if the Maratha army had proper finance they would hire services of the best Maratha soldiers from nearby Maratha kingdoms and the results would have been otherwise! In many wars fought all over the world we find that many coalitions amongst the groups are essentially based on the finance and not on any other principle such as nationalism, patriotism and self-respect.

When I was studying economics of East India Company, who subdued all Indian kings and finally took over the seat of power in India very honorably by the expressed consent of defeated kings, I find that almost all the wars played by this company were not financed by any money from England but that they were financed by Indian money lenders! Not only that but the army who fought for the Company were mostly Indian soldiers, well paid out of the borrowed money from the Indian Money lenders and as a result they were winning everywhere. East India Company was very well known to Indian moneylenders for prompt repayments and without any hassles. Other Indian rulers were at times very nasty and dangerous with these moneylenders on losing the war. Some Muslim rulers were so bad that they would even kill the moneylender on his demanding the interest on the loan they had taken to finance the war. Many kings would either avoid or delay payments; all these things had made Indian financiers weary of Indian Kings both Hindu and Muslims. We know the event of Shivaji, The founder of the Maratha dynasty, having looted Surat city; that was because moneylenders from that place refused him finance for the war! Those moneylenders were not sure of his creditability! Shivaji could not convince them of his good intentions may be due to lack of relationship. For them nation and freedom were not the concern, they were merely interested in return, whoever paid them well, they favored! May be the concept of freedom, and patriotism of Shivaji, was not understood by them due to ambiguity. Some historians say the concept of nationality and “to be proud of your nation” were absent; probably they were introduced in our people after we learned western ideologies! Moreover, Shivaji was an alien king to the Gujarati traders who had very good rapport with then ruler of Gujarat who was brother-in-law of Aurangajeb! Concept of freedom from foreign rule was also not well understood by those people from Surat and all these things caused non co-operation from these moneylenders. The concept of India as one nation was also not known to these lenders, because all these modern ideas were introduced in our people only after the British taught us the western concept of nationalism, patriotism and political freedom. Even though, Shivaj had thought of it independently and that means, he was ahead of the people of his times. Until that time India was only a geographic entity and had no political connotation. One other reasoning proposed is that these moneylenders were confident that this Shivaji will not be able to succeed against the Mogul rulers and so they refused the money. Finally, Shivaji attacked Surat, looted it; and that gave birth to the permanent animosity amongst the Gujaratis and the Maharashtriyan until today! Shivaji could finance many battles with that money and finally built his kingdom! It is believed that most of the skirmishes done by Maratha warriors were profitable wars; each one earned fabulous wealth making Shivaji a worthy conqueror in the end. Some Maratha kings would prefer to give away portion of land to the moneylenders as against the interest and the principal amount; those lands were very uncomfortable to the lenders because those lands were either far away or not suitable to hold. All these things were not done by the Company and therefore, most of the lenders were very happy with the Company. I can say with some confidence that this was one very important reason for the success of this East India Company in India; they were honest with the moneylenders! In Calcutta, it is seen that there were competitions amongst the lenders to finance the Company! A large part of the loot Company army would do after the conquest was used to repay the loan and interest. The policy of the Company was simple, they held the rule so that they could tax the people and make profits for the posterity; the markets of that land now belonged to them and so they can recover by doing business in that market. British view point was very far reaching. The moneylenders had no disapproval to that looting as they knew the return of the loan is done out of that loot! Many a times they recommended looting their opponents in the conquered region! Economics of war was different in those days; it was more guided by above given views of return and repayment of loan, since the concept of economics was very different in those days. Nation, patriotism all these ideas were alien to those money lenders. All wars were considered as private wars and theory of national war was not known. Conquests were more or less similar to buccaneering. Wars financed by the country to enslave itself were a very surprising and astonishing findings, I had made during the study. One more interesting fact that became very clear to me was that, even army who fought to subdue local rulers were made of local mercenaries. Most of them were fighting on contract with the Company. Company paid them well and also allowed them to loot the conquered province freely. That way the mercenaries were doubly compensated. All these policies of the Company made the wars very profitable! The Company on winning the country changed its attitude towards the mercenaries who were prone to do the looting everywhere, they were declared criminal tribes and banished them! Indian kings hired Soldiers or Sipoys on meager salaries, one record shows that East India Company paid a Sipoys only rupees 18 per month while the European officer drew 1800/- Rupees per month. India was drained of its wealth gradually. One more interesting thing to be noted is that the local rulers were paying only Rs. 4/- to their soldiers while for the same work British paid 18/- rupees! One can understand why the Company was winning all over. During those days price of gold per tola was only 15/- rs! I studied other wars financed by the warring party by its own money; they were found to be less profitable particularly, if they were fought by the army of the same party and not hired local mercenaries. In many such self-financed wars the defeat was terminating the kingdom permanently. When local mercenaries fought, only those who survived, were paid and the rest who died had fought for free! This made war finance all the more profitable. As for salaried soldiers, even after death some payments were made and that added to the cost of the war.

I concluded after my study that the grand success of the British in India can be attributed to this policy. Today wars are not financed that way and so they are becoming very expensive. Wars are no more profitable to the winner and so they are talking of peaceful negotiations to settle the issues. Nevertheless, we are going to keep army and other forces, since that is the need of the situation. A new concept of war called economic wars and economic aggression are developed by countries like US to hold sway over the world. In this new concept MNC are important to work as armies of that government. World Bank and IMF are other handy tools to support the MNCs. These concepts of economic empire are mooted by US. Presently what we see going on in the world is connected with this activity. Profitability of economic wars is dubious. In conventional wars two parties are clearly demarcated whereas in this economic war that is not possible. To make it possible we often see that all US, MNCs insist on governmental protection to their entry in an alien country by making various so-called international obligations compulsory (structural adjustments, Conditionalities) on that country to which, US based MNCs want to loot by trade agreements. Utilizing local laws to protect US interests; it is somewhat similar to using local mercenaries to fight local power! The British formula in modifies form! Recently a unique war affair has been noticed and that is between Saudi Arabia and US. I have discussed it in my article “Saudi designs in Pakistan to fool US”. This war affair is unique in the sense; it does not kill people or financially destroy them or even does not destroy property. This war affair devastates minds of the opponent party. We may call it psychical war; Saudi diplomats are fighting this war via Pakistan with US for many years. Involving US forces and war equipment in fighting so called AlQaeda insurgents. I consider this is by far the most remarkably efficient method of war to finish the opponent. Such wars will be always profitable since the monetary involvement is at the minimal and risk of causality and loss of property is nil. This war affair is based on the principle that human activities are guided and monitored by the minds and if the mind is weak the activity is weak and so can be overcome. Warring nation equipped with the best arsenal and other paraphernalia but not mentally prepared to war can be defeated by other nation with lesser quality arsenal and paraphernalia but fully geared to fight. That means the fight is at the mental level; more important than actual physical fight. In the example of Saudi versus US we see Saudi initiating it on US without US knowing about it. A perfect example of psychical (mental) war.

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,

ashokkothare@gmail.com

You are invited to visit my other blogs

Ashok Kothare, http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com/ for stories

I reckon, http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/ for philosophy