Jun 1st, 2005
Was the British Raj good for India?
I don’t know the answer and you don’t, either. I just want to point out that there are many wrong ways of looking at it. Two wrong reasons to oppose the British Rule are:
- “They did it for selfish reasons!” Excuse me? The question was not whether they wanted to help India. The question is what they ended up doing. So to say that the Railways and the modern system of government that they gave us do not count because they were done for selfish purposes, is fallacious. I especially don’t want to hear this from fellow Capitalists. We spend so much of our time groaning about how the evil Socialists don’t understand that intentions don’t translate into results. How do you think it sounds when you do the same thing?
- “India’s share of world GDP went from 22.6% in 1700 to 3.8% in 1952″ If you aren’t a subscriber to the fallacy of zero-sum thinking, what does this prove? This statistic has been used to argue that the British robbed India’s wealth. It is entirely possible that they did, but this statistic does not prove it. It so happens that the Western world was enjoying an Industrial revolution at that time. This revolution hit India late. This is the proximal reason why Britain ended up wealthier than India.
Was it Britain’s fault that India’s industrialisation took place late? Many people think so. But the policy they hold responsible for this looks suspiciously to me like… Free Trade.
Now I can understand how free trade in that specific instance would have led to the deindustrialization of India. The Britons had a comparative advantage in manufactured goods and we in agricultural commodities. But it is wrong to talk just of the unemployment among weavers, but not of the benefits to farmers from cheap clothes. A flood of cheap manufactured consumer goods must have brought some benefit to some people - after all they were getting something they valued at a lower price. Does this benefit cancel out the loss of some livelihoods? I wish someone would run the numbers. Besides, India didn’t just buy consumer goods from the British. We also bought machinery from them - machines which were used to set up textile mills in India by traders who earlier used to import finished cloth from Great Britain. So free trade policies ultimately resulted in the start of the reindustrialization of India. Would protecting the handloom weaver have resulted in the modernization of the textile industry faster? Protection didn’t work during Nehru’s time. What makes you think it would have worked in that bygone era?
So as I was saying, I would really like to read a criticism of the Raj that doesn’t reflexively assume that free trade was a bad thing. To what extent the did the British deviate from free trade policies? What other bad policies did they follow? The share of world GDP doesn’t tell me anything.
Actually, even if such criticism could be made, it would not automatically condemn the Raj. All governments are imperfect in some way. The right way to do the comparison is to look at what kind of rule we would have been under if the British had not ruled us. There, I am afraid we enter the realm of speculation.
The supporters of the Raj do indulge in the speculation, but then they go out and say things like:
- “The British delivered us from bad feudal rulers!” Really? All of Europe was under feudal rule till about 1600 or so. It was the spread of technologies like the printing press that made possible the widespread change in attitudes that led to the enlightenment. To be fair, the process was two-way - the attitudes in turn led to further technology advancements. It is simply unrealistic to assume that India would not have gotten the benefit of technology and this would not have led to changes in our political structure. Please note - I am not saying that it is unrealistic to conclude the same things after giving the matter some thought. Just don’t assume that the situation would have been the same for 250 years.
- “The British united us!” Um… that’s simply not true. As I’ve explained, political unity is one thing. The consciousness of ourselves as a common people is quite another. Political unity requires an army, transport and communications, the technology for which was simply not available before the industrial revolution. But the idea that we Indians have something in common has been in our consciousness for centuries. If an educated class had arisen in India, I’d be very surprised if a movement for unity had not arisen among them. Whether they would have succeeded or not is a different matter altogether.
The challenge then in understanding the benefits or harms from the Raj is in constructing an alternative history which is not completely imaginary. We should be able to say “If events unfolded in a slightly different way, then this would have happened.” I submit that the event that took place on January 14th, 1761 is the most promising place to start.
I could not recollect the significance of January 1761, and had to look it up to realize that the battle of Panipat took place that day. I agree that it was indeed one of the turning points in 18th century Indian history. I look forward to your post.
Btw, how about postal service and railways as benefits of British rule in India?
Good post. Very balanced. A few points from my side.
Post, railways etc were not patented by the Britishers. They would easily have come about without their presence, at least in some parts of India.
About the unification of India, in fact I will take away the little credit given to the Britishers. The princely states were kept separate, and that resulted in a lot of headache for Sardar Patel and co. If the Brits had truly unified India, there wouldn’t be a Kashmir problem, would there?
Another thing that bothers me is when I hear some Libertarians like Sauvik say that the Raj was an era of free trade. Come on, how can we oppose taxation on one hand and then call the Raj an era of free trade on the other? Most of the struggles were about excessive taxation, be it Bardoli or Kheda.
Yes, there is little material on the economic freedom, or the lack of it, during the Raj. That would be an interesting topic to research.
Of course, the Salt Act was blatantly anti-free-trade. It made salt manufacture a government monopoly and anybody else found making salt could be thrown in jail.
I don’t know how the British can be said to have practised even a deviant version of free trade. In textiles, they not only brought in cheaper clothes, but also put extra duties on Indian garment reaching the British market. I don’t have the references at hand now: it was one of the issues of the quarterly journal of the mythic society. And, what about the salt tax?:
http://www.rmoxham.freeserve.co.uk/salt%20starvation.htm
Yesterday I attended a talk on “The impact of British rule on Indian industries,” by Dr. Suryanath Kamat. His conclsion was that destruction of Indian industries was willful, rather than a natural consequence of competition with British industries.
Hi Ravikiran
Interesting post.
The question: “Was the British Raj Good for India” needs to be qualified: “compared to what?”
Obviously, it would have been better if India had been the big power in 1700 and never been colonized, but that wasn’t the case. On the other hand, if France had colonized India, they could have made a complete mess of the land. Here is an interesting post from Coyote Blog:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2004/10/french_vs_anglo.html
British Have done more good than bad.
a)They freed us of BARBARIAN MUSLIM rulers.If not for them major part of india would have been Islamicized.
b)They united us.Political unity after some decades leads to complete unity.
c)THEY HAVE NOT,EVEN IN THEIR DREAMS,tried to desroy our great cultural heritage.Look at Latin America ,whose culture and language were exterminated by spaniards.They(Brits) never laid their hands on any temple.It is surprising that you did not compare them with other imperial powers of that time.
d)They saved us from being a satellite state to Russia during Stalin’s regime.Russia with it’s immense power would have influenced us if not invaded us.At that point of time we were pathetic.
e)They have given us english,which engraved the ideas of free speech and democracy in our minds.Of course our love for peace also helped a great deal in attaining a working and stable democracy.
f)They invested heavily in railways.Look at the statistics and the amount ofnew railway lines we have added after our independence.It is just pathetic!!!!
g)Our distrust towards the Raj stems from the false impression that our society was educated and balanced as japanese etc.,.And we were stymied only by greedy brits.They were greedy,but they have given us or rather we have taken some good ideas from them.We had a largely back ward looking rural society with zero potential for development at that time.
h)They did not try to rub christianity on our heads.Look at Goa ,a portugese colony.It is largely a christian community with no resemblance to rest of the country.
Ravikiran,
Wonderfully put. Excellent read. I am going to trackback to my dead blog
>>It is simply unrealistic to assume that India would not have gotten the benefit of technology
I completely agree with this. A classic example is of the Kirloskars who began manufacturing ploughs with the blessings of the Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur.
I’m not a regular blogger. However after reading Ravikiran’s insightful views craftily analysing our country’s eventful past , I think I’ll blog more often.
Maybe India would not have been united (politically) as much as it is today without the British Raj. Maybe the industrial revolution would have reached us later. But even if that would have been true, it does not automatically show that we would have been poorer today. Even if we had politically united slowly or started on industrial revolution late we might have progressed faster after that. That is because, without the power of British-given beaurocracy socialism could not have spread its tentacles in India. One of the reason why so many African colonies got screwed by socialism was because socialist elites were left in charge of a huge Govt. machinary after British were gone. That has caused so much poverty that the political disunity and late start at industrialization would have been much better by comparison.
I think the analysis posted on the blog is very simplistic in my opinion.
The points are valid, but unless you dig down deep you can’t say for sure, especially when it comes to economics. My instinctive feeling (that might be biased) is that British rule didn’t allow free trade. There were a lot of unfair taxes on goods produced in India, and that kind of helped them to systematically kill the Indian industry. You know now that Indians can compete at the world level if the field is opened up.
The second most important aspect of colonisation is psychological. The author doesn’t take this into account. The British people drilled into our mentality that “white” is better or good. I think these things last for a longer time! e.g. Look at how brahmins over centuries oppressed the other castes. Brahmin population was just 2%, but even then they could do that. Why? Why the rest of the 90% people didn’t revolt. I think there is a psychological aspect to it, where they drilled into the masses that the other castes are inferior and suitable to do only certain things.
Just to think these subjugation in terms of strategy of retaining power and monopoly, the caste system, or the “White man’s burden” are masterstrokes.
-i
Let us think out a few scenarios:
1. India still under the British rule.
Would we have been similar to Hong Kong? Advanced but culturally diffused.. ?
2. India never under the British rule.
Would we have been under-developed and fallen wayside to capitalistic growth and post-industrial boom like some of the remote African countries?
3. Finally, the historically accurate scenario of being under British rule for 150 or so years..
Presently, we are plagued by problems of an underdeveloped nation while we are clearly developing technologically. We are leaders in respect to human resource outsourcing and have the largest democracy - two direct residual effects from the British Raj. We also have lost much resources to combatting terrorism and fighting wars with Pakistan - something that is also a direct fallout from the British rule. Is it possible for us, as Indians, to weigh the pros and cons in an unbiased manner? I think not.
Finally, I’d like to finish by saying that self-rule and freedom are what everyone years for and oppression (in the name of colonialization) is opposed to these fundamental rights any way one sees it. But then, we weren’t or aren’t a tolerant and respectful society in India, then why should anyone else be?
good discussion,
how do you make the blog run directly from apache?, i have to restart my blog from ssh every now and then ?
anon
Bhanu wrote:
e)They have given us english,which engraved the ideas of free speech and democracy in our minds.Of course our love for peace also helped a great deal in attaining a working and stable democracy.
I would like to differ with that opinion. My response is too long to be posted here. Therefore, I have written an article in my blog.
Some folks have speculated that India was/would’ve been technologically underdeveloped, were it not for the British. Here’s my post on that topic.
Very thought provoking post Ravi. Did you by any chance read Dilip’s Post on the Raj?
It is not enough for the pro-british lobby to prove that the british did “some or significant” good or for the opponents to claim that the british caused “some or substantial harm”. It is incumbent on either of the parties to show that the Brits did more good than harm ( or vice versa) to establish their respective veiwpoint. Otherwise,the argument will never get into a convergent mode.
My view is that the British did more good than harm and the net effect or legacy was beneficial to us.
Good discussion guys…
Just a couple of points. I support Free Trade and I am a Nationalist. If it turns out that the British did not follow free trade policies and India developed slowly as a result, it relieves me of the huge burden of cognitive dissonance. But I didn’t want my wishful thinking to be turned into theories. Besides, the standard theory that we’ve been taught tells us that it was free trade that caused the deindustrialization of India - and that standard theory makes sense - from the comparative advantage point of view I mean. So I just assumed that it was correct.
I am also particularly interested in the Kirloskar story and the points being raised by Quizman. Once again, the standard theory being taught to us is that industrialization, mechanization and education started only after the British took control. Even if true, it proves only correlation, not causation. I will however be very happy if it is proved false.
>Did you by any chance read Dilip’s Post on the Raj?
Yes. I agree with him. I think that we should learn from it and accept it. Or accept it and learn from it. Either way would be fine.
The points you have mentioned , Ravikiran, are largely valid ones, but like as someone said, some of them are way too simplistic.
First point is the quality of life people living at that time. Exploitation was absolute. Governance, though claimed to be unbias, was highly biased. Seperate laws for English & Indians. This set examples. Our system not only inherited modern system of government, but also this corrupt system.
This culture was setup right there under their faulty buerocratic system whos was supposed to be a civil “servant”, but slowly graduated to “officer”, as most of them were from ruling class.
Now this attitude has dug deep into our system. This is a british legacy.
Interesting debate. My views are that the British did more good than harm.
I strongly suspect India would have emerged the poorer and less developed, fragmented and politically in grave trouble without their influence. The British did not at first think themselves superior to us, but their great unprecedented successes in India led them to become arrogant.
If the British had remained a marginal power in the country or had no presence, we would have been the poorer for it. We would have been fragmented into several states- or a few superstates with underdeveloped political structure. Let’s also face the fact, they were more benevolent than any of those who ruled us in the past- medieval or ancient.
They did destroy our native industry and lead to people giving up useful trades and overcrowding the agricultural sector, but they also gave us a superior education system and were the first rulers who allowed us to speak and question freely. They did drain our resources and institue unfair practices like the salt tax- one among many. But it was the first time in our history that we weren’t ruled by the arbitrary wish of an emperor or rajah. The judicial and administrative system they instituted is also a first of its kind in the country and laudatory.
Its as simple as this- we are a huge and geographically and culturally disparate country- we needed an outsider to dispassionately unite us and rule us. I personally think it almost impossible for any of the native states to have united us into a whole and done an equally good or better job. There were too many vested and narrow interests.
There were no doubt brilliant rulers like Ranjit Singh and to some extent Tipu. But would they have had able successors to carry on the organisation and work- we know for a fact that Ranjit Singh didnt. The British didn’t always supply us with the best Governor Generals, but more often than not, they were able to rise to the task at hand.
Interesting post, especially the bit about Panipat. After you mentioned it, I thought about constructing an alternative history, based on a reversal at Panipat (which I agree is a better starting point than a reversal at Plassey or any other such event). After Panipat, European dominance in India was pretty much guaranteed, and Plassey and Arcot basically decided if it was British or French rule (another “what if”, possibly for another day).
So, let’s assume the Marathas won Panipat. They would have assumed supreme power on the subcontinent, defeating people like the Nizam and other Nawabs, and ruling from Puna. India would be a loose confederacy of Holkars, Gaekwads, Scindias etc. The principalities would together have been strong enough to repel a large-scale European take-over, but I think the resulting situation would have been a little too close to what ended up in China. There, Europeans basically maintained trading outposts around the edges of the country, and from there spread a cancer throughout Chinese society without accepting any Imperial responsibilities of keeping order, creating an educational system or maintaining a governance structure.
Also, they being Indians, I think rule by various Maratha princes would have devolved into one long stretch of infighting which would probably have resulted in under-development.
But of course, you never know. We might have ended up like the Japanese, who with a confident political establishment (and our guys could have had that confidence if they’d won at Panipat) were able to advance and compete on the West’s own terms.
Nice thought experiment. I’d be interested to know how you construct the alternative scenario.
For one thing, the British were much more gentlemanly than many others. I cannot imagine oursleves being ruled by the Japanese, German, Spanish, or even French. First of all, they would have done away with Mahatma Gandhi the moment he stepped into India.
Some people have argued in their comments that British united India politically. I don’t understand why that is supposed to be a good thing for Indian people. Europe is divided into small nations continously fighting against each other. Various empires came and went unleashing huge destruction in their wake. European went through Napoleanic wars, various uprisings, invasions, World I, World II, communist rule and so on. And inspite of all that on an average European nations are in much better situation compared to India in terms of economy. Most of the European nations have maintained their own language and not taken to English.
So, why do we think that integration of India and introduction of English is supposed to be good for India?
Some very relevant points have been articulately raised in the above discussion. The debate of whether a particular phase in Indian history was good for the nation can be never ending. The mere fact that so many different viewpoints have come up itself shows the complexity in reaching a definite answer.
The fact is that today our country is doing much better than it was doing a few decades ago. Added to that is the immense satisfaction and hope of analysts, statisticians and economists for the future of our great nation. It has been repeatedly highlighted that the world will become tripolar by 2040 with India as one of the major powers along with the US and China.
I think we can come close to the answer of Ravikiran’s question by concentrating on the present moment in the timeline of our country. If we do a good job today then positive justifications for our history and legacy will come automatically. Similarly the converse will also be true.
The more important question now could be whether we can seize the opportunities that lie ahead of us and ensure that India can make complete use of its vast potentials to prove all the realistic predictions right.
Analysis some what simplistic.Our societies are way backward when compared to european ones.Remaining disunited would have made us prey to terrorism,both left and right(Look at srilanka and Columbia).Chinese would have easily gobbled up fair part of these small ‘indpendent’ nations.We have a good amount of similiriaties.All of he have a common religion(Hinduism),we were one even during reign of Mughals and Mauryans.Now even europeans are tryin for unificaion through EU.The notion that we are part of a huge political entity gives us immense pride.More over sum is always more than its parts put together.
English exposed us to liberal ideas .You must note that almost all the elite congress(of those days) leaders had good english education here or abroad.
The question here is about ex-post evaluation of British rule. What we need to compare is the difference between our country, had there been no British rule vs. our current scenario post British rule. This question is different from the one which compares colonialism vs. no colonialism. I.e. was British rule better than Portuguese rule, vs. was British rule better than had we been independent and fighting throughout.
Before the British took over, there were atleast a few empires (Moghul and Maratha empire) which were significantly big to be countries themselves. India had enough mineral wealth (although the coal was of substandard quality compared to Europe). It is difficult to say, ex ante what would had happened if we were an independent country.
But we can say what would had happened if we were a Dutch (Indonesia) or a French colony (Francophone Africa).
All said, this is an excellent article and a wonderful question and thanks for that. And btw, I was led to this link through Amit Varma’s blog!
[...] ly interesting and a hugely analytical post regarding the Raj, or what it wasn’t. He successfully shatters the prevailing cliched arguments from both sides of [...]
I 100% agree with you and gr8 thx for putting all these thoughts in such a structured manner … but the free trade funda didn’t fit in .. this is because British Raj never encouraged ‘free’ trade in India. They actually indulged in ‘closed’ trade.
1. They allowed trade of agricultural goods only with Britain and not with other countries - this stifled competition among buyers which led to fall or exploitation of Indian farmers
2. By natural trade the comparative advantage slowly fades away (acc to the modern post-adam economics). Thus India as you rightly said would have industrialised and united into a nation without the British - and this industrialisation would have started in early 1900 and not in 1940 as it did. (Esp bcoz as we know today India has enuf minds so that it could have invented the steam engine even if no one wud have allowed tech transfer)
The argument that we would have industrialised earlier if the British had not been there - is a little too far-fetched. For much of our history, we have been a pretty insular entity ( or a heterogenous group of 500 entities). We never sought knowledge from beyond our boundaries, as we were so contended with ourselves. Let’s accept it. Industrial revolution started in Britain due to convergence of several factors and spread to the rest of the world. India, as a colony of the British was a direct beneficiary as technology transfer took place automatically.
Nice thread this is developing into and thanks a lot for Ravikiran for a well-written, thoughful post. But this is in response to the above comment that we had been an insular entity. I beg to differ. I had always thought that we had a great amount of trade going on between the various ‘entities’ that ruled the sub-continent and the ‘foreign’ nations - thereby enabling exchange of ideas and … whatever! So, I think it would be wrong to assume that if not for British, our industrial revolution would not have been possible at a much earlier time - it would definitely have been, but possibly via a different route.
Looking forward to more of the same by Ravikiran… Cheers!
Please checkout http://indiaupdates.blogspot.com. You can find good comments about happenings in India.
I’m deeply saddened by Bhanu’s sentence:
English exposed us to liberal ideas .You must note that almost all the elite congress(of those days) leaders had good english education here or abroad.
and Coolhead’s claim:For much of our history, we have been a pretty insular entity ( or a heterogenous group of 500 entities). We never sought knowledge from beyond our boundaries, as we were so contended with ourselves.
These are misinformed views. Unfortunately, these views have gained currency in the post-Macaulay era.
“But the policy they hold responsible for this looks suspiciously to me like… Free Trade. ”
Ok so prohibiting textile imports from India is Free trade, especially if produced by handlooms and if the ban is carried out by Adam Smith’s motherland.
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/colonial.html
Quizma,about the insularity, let me clarify. While trade took place between India and other countries, it was more due to the fact that the Europeans and Chinese travelled to India, and not because we ventured out. I haven’t seen, in any of the history books on the pre-British era, the name of a single Indian who travelled abroad and brought back “knowledge ” or “technology”. We can’t claim to have had the equivalents of Fa-Hien, , Ibn Batuta,etc.There is evidence, of course, that we exported our philosophies ( Buddhism,etc) through such travellers, but the reverse flow happened only when invaders reached our shores and settled down here..
Benefit of industrial revolution would have reached us eventually, but the British presence here catalysed the process. In our zeal to extol our own glory, let us not delude ourselves. In any case, past glory is not a guarantee for present or future prosperity.
Coolhead/ Bhanu Pratap
Firstly English brought liberal ideas, that will be news to macaluay himself, Englishmen never pride themselves on being liberals and the Victorian England was retrograde compared to rest of Europe. If anything they made Indians more prudish
And as far as “British presence here catalysed the process” of industrial revolution in India, it would be the joke of the day if it had not been uttered by an Indian. India is not a great industrial power today, name one country (or even region) that was ever a colony of an European power that went on to become an industrial power. None of the major Asian tigers Japan, China, South Korea was under European occupation. All of Africa was under European occupation, none of them have and in all probability ever will enter the industrial age till date.
Your comments on Indians not venturing out is even more comical, Ashokas monks took Buddhism all across Asia (including China), traders took Hinduism and other aspects of Indian culture to all of South East Asia including Indonesia. And on the other handsome of Varamihira’s Panchasiddhanta were based on Roman and Alexandrian theories which was brought to India by Indian scholars travelling abroad. Infact Indians were well aware of all the scientific developments happening in the world as testified by Al Barauni
I know you will not have read all this and you are the product of India’s distorians and not to blame, being a worshipper of Romila Thapar as you seem to be but here are some websites that can open your eyes if you wish to see
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/tks_essays_frameset.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_essays_frameset.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/sahistory.html
http://berclo.net/page00/00en-sea-history.html
Having said all this there is no doubt that Englishmen were humane colonists compared to either Delhi Sultanate or Spaniards or Japanese (and Mughals except for Akbar). They were more organised in terms of administrative abilities as compared to either the later Mughals or Marathas. And while they were not liberal by any stretch of imagination, atleast some of the colonial administrators tried to do good and respected India and Indians. However in the end analysis they reduced Indian economy to the same state as that of Africa, an resource exporter
This criticism of the British can apply to any colonial power…
Free trade…well, when one looks at the tax structure, various acts(Salt Act being the most prominent) and also the trade policies implemented, one would oppose this notion…..
Examine the situation more closely and look at the legacy of the Brits. Even the license Raj was a legacy of the brit era. Argreed, the successive Congress regimes only made things worse, but look at the beginning…..
All in all, I don’t see a single positive in the British Raj. They ruined our very thinking, they made us ashamed of being Indian (a malaise very common to us), they made us belive our legacy and culture was something to be looked down upon…..and nothing can take away pride as much as these…..
I know that the above para may attact fire, but think of it…..we look down on Indians who can’t speak English, we love embracing Western philosophy without ever bothering to delve into our own, much deeper philosophy etc. etc….
Before blaming Indians for this, read a book on Warren Hastings’ life. is letters contain the message clearly. His aim was to achieve these very objectives, through the systematic deismantling of all Indian systems, cultural and societal…..
If after all this, anyone can still say the Raj had positives, all I can do is smile at the ignorance that leads to that attitude….
CoM, your argument, as I understand it ,goes as follows :
- Many bad things happened during British rule- Blame the British for these.
- Some good things that happened, railways, legal system, etc during the British rule. Don’t give the credit to British. We would have got these, by ourselves, anyway.
A balanced outlook will be to accept the “good” and the “bad” that happened during the british rule and give them credit or apportion the blame as the case may be . Also, isolated examples of Indians venturing abroad or sporadic instances of technology transfer do not prove your point.
Coolhead your comments show that you are a typical unintellectual slave head with no understanding of elementary nuances of argument.
For all the more intelligent people on this discussion two points. I specifically questioned two things, one that industrial revolution in India was accelerated due to British colonisation and second that British brought something called “Liberal thinking into insular India”
Of course British brought in some very desirable features without which India would not have been what it is today, It brought in a government and legal system that has stood us in good stead, which one might say is lacking even in some of the more developed countries of the West. And as I mentioned in my later comment, they maintained a fairly humane and open system of governance which particularly stands out in comparison to other colonisers like Russia, Turkey and Japan ( in China 1936-45).
But it is only slaves like Coolhead who will be over impressed by British building railways, China was never colonised in recent times but it has a larger railway network. Every country in the world wether colonised or not has railways and telecom network (and internet) but I reiterate my challenge name one European colony that entered the industrial age and became a major industrial power during the course of colonial regime or even later , name one…
And if Coolhead can call India’s contribution to devlopment of world mathematics , medicine and science sporadic or regard Indian traders transporting to South East Asia (a region larger than Europe) all the culture, script and philosophy that it is known for then I can only shudder at the cold sting of Macaluay that has rendered this person completely inarticulate and unreceptive. No point in any further discussion. Have a nice bleach Cool and lick your white master’s whatever
CoM, from the profound to the profane - you certainly cover a wide range. My compliments. At least we agree on one thing now. That there’s no point in any further discussion..
Cool, you definately have the ability to drive the profound to profane, with your exasperating lack of reason and unmatchable intellectual cowardice. These extraordinary abilities could find many uses especially in ICICI bank call center, best luck there
I apologise to other participants for the profanity and resolve not to get worked over such matters in future
Having read most of the thread, CoM’s well reasoned arguments present an accurate and balanced opinion of both, the positive and negative fallouts of British Rule. That the perpetrator of an act of aggression be absolved for the involuntary positives of his act, not withstanding the fact that the negatives by far outweigh the positives, is a fallacious argument. That India was wronged by England through its act of aggression is unquestionable. The passage of time does nothing to undo this wrong.
Great discussion. The views expressed in all the threads add up to quite a balanced view.
My views on the topic are on my blog: http://www.ashishthakare.blogspot.com
An interesting thread!
I have a few comments on points I haven’t read so far.
Most of the commenters seem to focus on the actions of the British *government*, rather than the rest of its society. Note, that the major impact that Britain had on the rest of the world, including India, required *far* more than a domineering government. The networks of the industrial revolution were far more a civil affair than one of governmental policy. The government of Britain acted mostly to step out of the way, for a while.
This allowed the rest of British society the market freedoms needed to build up and maintain far stronger market networks around the world, mostly outside what became the 2nd British Empire*. It was these market networks, and the accompanying intellectual networks, and physical networks, that were the primary benefactors of India during the Raj.
It has also been noted by several commenters that Britain was far less restrictive of Indian political networks than almost any other asian government of the time was. Even in Thailand and Japan, the independent asian nations, there were only spurts of political freedom for building political networks that were greater than inside India. Freer domineering oligarchs in those countries? Granted. I believe that’s hardly what most Inidian commenters would have wanted for India.
(*Note: We here in the US had truncated the first British Empire. Their aristocrats who thought so little of lower-class merchants found employment in dominating the lands that Clive’s victory at Panipat opened to their ambitions. Thus, they weren’t inside the ‘home islands’ so often, fighting to keep their old social status. I’ve always felt this was one great contribution of India to the industrial revolution. The more Brit nobles there were in India, bashing people there, the fewer were fighting liberalization back in the ‘home islands’.)
Then, when the changes of the industrial revolution, including nascent Indian industrial operations, began to make other political majority ‘home islands’ groups unhappy enough, the British government once again leaned towards intervening in the economy. The first place they began their turn in policy decisively was in their 1895 imposition of a tax on those Indian cloth goods competing with ‘home island’ cloth produced inside Britain by British workers.
This was done, interestingly enough, by Randolph Churchill, Conservative Party Chancellor of the Exchequer, and father of Winston Churchill. He did it to keep British workers from opposing the continued existence of the Empire! This came from the father of the arch British Imperialist of the mid-20th Century, who was ejected from office in 1945, just in time to allow India to become independent.
It is the period from 1835 to 1895 that saw the growth of a legal structure for free trade in Britain and its Empire. It is the period from 1895 to 1955 that saw the near extermination of market freedoms in Britain. Indian commenters should note that the laws restricting market freedoms in India often were passed not too far in time from laws doing similar levels of damage in Britain, if in different areas of the economy.
A last point of irony and political interest. I was told, in 1973, by an elderly man who’d involved himself in the Congress Party as a youth, of the effects of the 1895 tax law, and subsequent measures. He noted that Congress was founded in 1885, and for 10 years had been divided between those who wannted to be like the US Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and wannabees for being similar to the 1970s Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. They didn’t have the one resource to be effective at either, Money!
Then, the growing Indian middle class saw the 1895 tax law. They knew that they were its targets. I was told that donations from such previous middle class supporters of the Empire more than doubled every 5 years from 1895 to 1945. Money is the grease of all politics. That’s not the only thing needed to build a political machine, but the machine can’t move without sliding past normal social frictions, and for that you need money, money, and more money. The 1895 tax law, and subsequent market interventions, made that thinkable for the Indian middle classes, who had money.
Still, the major effect of Britain in the world between 1835 and 1895 was to allow most of the networks of the continuing industrial revolution far greater scope for growth, through allowing the freedoms of action needed to build and maintian those industrial networks. For that, we can thank British society far more than British government that was then a far smaller part of that society. Even a confirmed buff of the American Revolution like me can admit that!
Regards,
Tom Billings
Corrector of Maladies has already highlighted most of the silly arguments.
The fact remains that by the time the British left, India that was one of the two richest countries of the world was poor and this happened under the stewardship of the British rulers.
The British rulers were brutal and excercised full control over India and hence the responsibility for impoverishment of India does fall on them. To call colonial rulers who built the Cellular Jails in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, massacred innocents in Jallianwalla Bagh, used one community to fight another community, broke agreements and several other brutalities ‘liberal’ is the height of comedy that has gone on here.
Somebody wondered why leftist movements were always at the forefront of struggles for liberation. Leftists are ideologically allergic to sectarianism. The act of ‘divide and rule’ doesn’t work for them. Unlike the mercantile, agricultural communities, leftists are one of the first to understand western capitalism and politics. Hence they are the ones who start out early. Moreover, the sectarians are always won over by small inducements and realise their political slavery much later. Look through the history of struggles against colonialism around the world and you will see this pattern. At best the leftists are defeated by the colonial power in cooperation with the sectarians but end up ceding power to the sectarians in return for their cooperation.
Another argument is that the British are better colonisers than say the French or the Portuguese. This overlooks the nature of colonialism. Colonialism aims to transfer wealth from the colonised country to the colonising country. Each colonial rule is unique depending on the kind of wealth that is to be transferred. I am not going to elaborate on this now.
Tom Billings, ‘free markets’ or ‘closed markets’ the priority is self-rule and sovereignity. A free market imposed under brutal conditions that allows the British to escape their class origins is of no consolation to Indians who were murdered and brutalised. Were Indians afforded the same opportunities? The answer is more or less no. Colonialism and imperialism is about control that can be used for self-gain and that passed into the hands of the British. So don’t look for ‘thank yous’ from Indians.
Again, in many parts of the country the railway networks were built with money that was directly contributed by the local rulers (for whom it was a matter of pride). I know of an instance where temple funds were used by the King to build an important rail line. The British were not interested in building these rail lines themselves because either they wouldn’t help in resource exploitation or because many British investors had lost their shirts in infrastructure projects (a fair enough warning for private investors in ‘infrastructure projects’).
PS: I am the guy who used to post as ‘yum yum’ and I have never posted on Yazadjal’s blog.
In response to:
………………………………………………..
K.Bhanu Prasad Says:
June 1st, 2005 at 10:06 pm
British Have done more good than bad.
c)THEY HAVE NOT,EVEN IN THEIR DREAMS,tried to desroy our great cultural heritage.
……………………………………………….
HAHA Are you for real?? most young student Indians in India today don’t even know that Nehru was the first prime minister of India, and that he helped develop the country!
The cultural heritage was untouched by the British, but it is the Western influence today that is slowly underpinning India’s heritage.
In his letter K.Bhanu Parsad said that British never laid their hands on any temple. It is true but you know did not let any person to go near the temples. The person was beaten with sticks if he go near a temple. So I tell you(K.Bhanu Parsad) that you are an Indian so do not go in favour of the British because they destroyed our cultural heritage. They weakened us poilitically s well as economically.
It is really alarming to see people speculating that we would not be a country or a technologically advanced country as we stand today without a foreign rule !!
Its preposterous to conceive the notion that without being subjected to atrocities and suppressive policies of Raj there would be no nationalist movement. People like Tilak , Bose , Sardar Patel would still be born. Remember, men are not creations of circumstances but circumstances are creations of men.
British Raj on the surface as you said has been helpful in few ways, but for the GDP going down the Raj was responsible too, please read the book
The men who Ruled India, it gives a complete idea of how the taxation system worked bfor and after British ruled India. The concept of “Free Trade” was twisted extraordinarily by the British “Free Trade” here means that Britishers who came as traders dont have to pay tax as opposed to native business people and such. Mir Sahib one of the Mughal rulers opposed exactly this and he made tax free for the natives too which led to the British usurping him with his son in law or son I dont remember exactly.
So please dont misuse the term “Free Trade”
There is two ways to analyze this question:
1) What would have happened had the East India Company and Britain never entered the subcontinent?
Causation is a funny thing. I suppose it’s impossible to state for certain what would have happend. I submit that the likely scenarios (in order of liklihood IMO) are
(a) colonization by another more brutal regime ie French or Japanese
(b) conquest by Persian/Afghan powers
(c) an internal destruction of the Mughal Empire and rule of Marathas or another internal faction.
(d) a resurgence of the Mughal powers
(e) continuous warfare between rival shifting states
(f) mutual assention of the States into a union. (This I give about a 0.00001% chance of actually having happened as it has happened, by my count, once in all of human history*).
Of these I see the emergence of a secular, united, democracy as either delayed in comparison to what actually happened, or forgone completely.
However some of the scenarios may have provided larger per capita incomes, but any reasonably accurate determination of which would require computers and econometric analysis that i can’t imagine exist.
2) What did the British “take” and what did they “give” us?
“take”:
On the one hand they took treasury wealth(jewels), taxes, and structered our economy as a periphery.
“give”
On the other hand they gave us a democracy, a canal system in Punjab, a railway network, common law, [Madras, New Delhi, Calcutta, Mumbai among other cities], English, Unity (despite your assertion to the contrary*), and deliverence from Feudal rule (also despite your assertion to the contrary**)
Between these it’s difficult to balance b/c despite the longer list I gave on the “give” side, the “periphery economy” argument may have had a greater cost in lives that we can imagine, which is to say that despite India’s many accomplishments in politics and economics recently, the enormous human costs (incurred historically as well as currently) of severe (per capita) impoverishment may outweigh the benefits.
It’s a toss up on this analysis.
* - Your assertion that they did not “give us unity” is dodgy in my opinion. Even you admit that they did give us unity, you simply also claim that we may have acheived it anyway. I dispute that based on the historical record that sovereign states rarely if ever in history have acquiesed their sovereignty without a fight or coercion to a larger unit (all I can think of is East and West Germany in 1989). Take the problems that the EU has had currently in integrating as an illustrative example.
** - Your assertion of the invalidity of the argument that “they delivered us from bad feudal rulers,” fails for the same logic. They simply did deliver us from feudalism, you only assert that we may have delivered ourselves had they not. Again, it may have happened, but if you consider the alternatives to British rule, what causal steps would have to play out in order for that to have happened? Think about how entrenched the feudal economics has been in Indian history, society, and most importantly religion.
one more thing: a question was raised about why (a) unity and (b) english were benefits to India.
(a) Unity while not neccesarily good for Europe is good for India b/c of the factual realities of (i) rivers and (ii) winters. In Europe, linguistic and national groups were generally allotteed periods of peace during winters b/c transporting armies accross large uncrossable riverways was difficult. In India, during the winters the rivers are crossable. Thus war is non-stop and expensive.
(b) English is not per se good for India. But, in factum, by coincidence of history America also speaks English and also is the largest importer of goods and services from the world. Additionally the success of the British in spreading English world wide has made it a widely used language. This gives India a tremendous advantage in providing the world with services and literature.
Anand says:”They simply did deliver us from feudalism, you only assert that we may have delivered ourselves had they not. ”
Really? haha!
Please take out the time to try and read up on Indian history again.
Too many comments to wade through but I would make this point: although starting conditions are important what a person or a country does thereafter becomes their responsibility.
An invader that leaves a country supremely enhanced/impoverished has had a significant initial effect on that country but in the years that follow the enhance/impoverished country can make choices and decisions that, over time, diminish those starting conditions. An India that embraced communism from 1947 onwards will be a different country today to one that embraced undiluted free-market economics.
Remember: Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were all affected by the Raj. Their positions today are very different. We cannot be responsible for all three different outcomes. In the end, Pakistan is where the Pakistanis put it, Bangladesh is where Bangladeshis put it and India is where Indians put it.
And the UK is where we put it.
GM
It is interesting to have a Briton on this discussion. He however seems to have got the feeling that the discussion on British rule is a post mortem. However in reality it is a very current discussion inasmuch as it influences the course of India’s current and future direction. To my mind, the question on Raj impacts the sub-continent roughly in these ways -
IT is about the relevance of the “White Man’s burden”, which might be very unpopular in the West today, is still very influential for many Indians as Gary would notice if he had read through all the posts.
What else do expect from the kind of crowd that blogs and has the time to wander around such places? English-speaking apers of the West who believe that ideas and solutions deviced for the West can be transplanted wholesale to India. I have seen better self-belief among people from lower middle-class.
Yum Yum says re: feudalism: “Really? haha! Please take out the time to try and read up on Indian history again. ”
It seems that what Yum Yum lacks in details, facts, logic, or substance, he more than makes up for in condescension, vagueness and a self-proclaimed superior knowledge of history.
Let me be more clear if I wasn’t before: Prior to British rule, a large part of Indian society, if not all of it lived under either the rule of the Mughal Empire, Sultans, or the Rajas. All of whom excersised a discretionary amount of power over their subjects. Additionally caste rolls were largely preserved. Post British rule, we have a system that legally doesn’t distinguish between castes (except for in an affirmative way), we have a democratic federation at every level. A large part of the reason we have this is b/c the British imposed a federated democracy on us. Although they did it in an appartheid manner when they ruled, they nevertheless imposed the system on us. Thus the British delivered us from feudalism.
Now I hope Yum Yum’s response contains some details (facts, reasons, arguments, etc) about why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Hopefully he doesn’t make his imbecility self-evident by responding with condescending laughter and a dismissive “go read history.”
Ananda,
You are arguing with me about something that I never discussed. In your response to me you have compared pre-British India to post-British India. I thought Ravikiran’s post was how the British affected India. One cannot give credit to the British for the directions that Indian leaders took after they departed this country. One has to look at how the British ruled India. So the British imposed a ‘federated democracy’? What you call federated democracy is a the organisation of colonial rule with its brutes, carpetbaggers and local knaves. But you are unable to recognise that.
It is difficult to summarise the history of British rule in India for you in a few paragraphs. Some work on your part will be needed. It is useless to give tidbits. My aim is to make you look out for information.
I will give some pointers. Try to find out about the taxation system under the British, how some warrior castes were converted into feudal landlord classes, how the recruitment to the Indian armed forces and police was conducted (e.g. Madras regiment, Sikh regiment, Maratha regiment etc), learn more about ‘divide and rule policy’ and so forth. The list is long. The details vast.
It seems you are angered by my response. But I was really amused by such literary diahrrhea about nothing. What you lack in knowledge you make up with verbosity and catchwords. It is the sign of a truly self-confident person.
As for the argument that if not the British then some more brutal regime would have colonised us. What if we were not colonised at all? What if the French weren’t successful because they were not brutal or divisive enough?
Here is an excerpt from Saed Naqvi’s article in the New Indian Express of July 1:
“……After the 1857 uprising, when news reached Britain that the “Hindoos†had “boiled alive an English girl in pure gheeâ€, retaliation was savage: 47 Indian soldiers in Peshawar were strapped to cannons and blown to smithereens. In Cawnpore, British officers made the “mutineers†lick the blood of their English victims, then shot them one by one. The great Times of London proclaimed: “every tree and gable-end in place should have its burden in the shape of the mutineers’ carcass.†Lt Kendal Coghill records: “We burnt every village and hanged all the villagers who had treated our fugitives badly until every tree was covered with scoundrels hanging from every branch.†One huge banyan tree was “decorated with 150 corpses …”
Yes, the British were nice colonisers.
Yum Yum,
Thank you for your response. I was not angered at your prior response, but somewhat dissapointed in your analysis. I thought i’d goad you a little to make you flush out your argument a little more. Make no mistake, I don’t ask you to post large tracts of Indian history. Rather, I would prefer if your assertions were supported by historical fact or trend. Let me respond to you by asking a few focused questions:
(1) My response you your last quote was responding solely to the issue of whether fudalism was ended by the British. I agree that they were not “nice colonizers” as that term itself is an oxymoron. But leaving aside issues of brutality, taxation, etc., and only focussing on the issue of Feudal economics: do you believe that prior to British rule that a system of feudalism dominated? After 1947 did this system still dominate the governance of the subcontinent?
(2) As to the alternatives of British rule, this is a realm of speculation. My earlier post set out a list of possible alternatives. What are the alternative possibilities that you would suggest would have occurred? Do you think that India would have been strong enough to withstand foreign invansion? Do you think that without foreign invasion it could have been unified? Before you answer that quesiton ask yourself 2 other questions (a) Has India at any prior time in history been unified through mutual assention without conquest? (b) How many sovereign states, in the history of the world, have peacefully forgone sovereignty to unite into a larger nation? (by my count only E. and W. Germany in 1989, and the 13 American colonies in 1789, in both cases the peoples were united by a common language, a feature which the Indian states have never had).
3) I agree that British rule had a tremendous economic cost on India, and that as a result a tremendous human cost on India and must be wieghed against any benefit the British conferred upon us. This was discussed in my original post.
4) Lastly, as to causal effects of our leaders post-1947 you are partially correct, I think in earlier posts I may have assumed that certain positive aspects of India, observable today, are attributable to the British. In actuallity they are attributable in large part to the Indian people (not just leaders). But I would argue that the legal, educational and political infrastructure left by the British certainly helped us.
Yum Yum, one more thing, your response need not assert historical facts in support of your position that the British were at times brutal in their rule. This point is not at issue. I concede that they were brutal. I hope that you would support assertions of the issues that are in questions which seem to be (a) would fedal economics still exist without British rule and (b) would India be united without British rule.
Also can you clarify the term “literary diarrhea”? I find it amusing but somewhat ambiguous.
“But leaving aside issues of brutality, taxation, etc., and only focussing on the issue of Feudal economics:”
How can anyone leave aside brutality and taxation from an analysis of feudalism (including feudal economics)? I am not here to teach anyone anything. In fact I am here to see if there are perspectives I have missed. To learn analysis, you will find better sources.
Would India have been unified without British colonialism? Why not? The British mischieviously tried to make sure that India was not united when they left. They partly succeeded. It is Sardar Patel’s tactics that made sure that many small kingdoms joined India. Many countries have united by themselves. Germany, Italy, Afghanistan etc. None of these countries were absolutely homogeneous at the time of unification. In fact they still are not. The unification of India might have been slower thats all. Ashoka once unified almost all of what is now India. It would not have been mpossible for a native Indian to do it. The impoverishment of India does not justify the costs of unification through British rule. I am not a statist. I am not seduced by visions of a powerful ruling over vast masses of land. I believe that people matter most. Their livelihoods, standards of living and well-being. Unified or not, Indians would have been far more prosperous and perhaps industrialised the way Europe did.
The example of brutality was just a postscript for those who were saying that the British were nicer. It was not directed at you.
There is a lot of information that would be needed to explain why you are wrong on many counts. If you are interested, read Indian history books by Bipin Chandra Pal, ‘Wealth and Poverty of Nations’ by David Landes, ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’ by Jared Diamond and ‘Locked in Place’ by Vivek Chibber.
I am not going to argue anymore.
Yum Yum: “I am not going to argue anymore.”
You’re stopping? Too bad. I actually considered our discourse a debate and not an argument. And I thought it was just getting good. Well I’ll have my say, and hopefully someone will pick up where you left off.
“How can anyone leave aside brutality and taxation from an analysis of feudalism”
Brutality and taxation can be left out of a discussion of feudalism b/c they speak to other issues. Feudalism, is a system of governance and societal organization. Thus bias in taxation can be present even as the the societal organization gets better. Moving from absolute and discretionary rule to a democratic and procedural system can occur despite unfairness in tax systems. This is what occurred in India. Similarly instances of brutality can occur even as societal organization changes for the better, in fact brutality almost always occurs as a result of societal change. (as a side note providing instances of brutality is unpersuasive as to the entire issue of whether the reigning government is bad or good. India has been a violent place from the battle of Kalinga to Gujarat in 2002.)
Yum Yum: “Would India have been unified without British colonialism? Why not? ”
Again you assert “why not” but the real question is how? You proceed from a base that India is unified today, and thus the natural course of history would have lead us here without colonialism. The evidence you provide is Italy, and Germany and Afghanistan. Italy’s unification was largely due to conquest by Napolean, Germany’s was due to conquest by Prussians. I am not familiar with Afghanistan’s. Comparing the diversity of Italy or Germany to that of India is beyond silly. These areas have atleast a common LANGUAGE. India does not even have that. You assert the example of Ashoka, who united through conquest. As did Aurangzeb. The problem is that when conquest is used to unify a multi-linguist, multi-cultural society is that some culture is always left disenfranchised and then look for a way to topple the conquerer, resulting in perpetual war. Thus rarely has India acheived long lasting unity. The benefit of the British conquest was that they unified, and then left. Thus while we can be disenfranchised, there is no-one to topple. This gives our unity a permanency that it hasn’t had before.
Yum Yum: “I am not a statist. I am not seduced by visions of a powerful ruling over vast masses of land. I believe that people matter most.”
Hey I’m with you on the idea that people matter most. But 2 things about unity help Indian people immensely.
(1) Economies of scale. You have to remember economies of scale. India’s current and future economic success depends greatly upon the economies of scale which are the benefits coferred by a united federation.
Much more importantly - (2) Reduction of War. Another benefit of unity is severe reduction of warfare. You mentioned Europe. Europe is now succesful, but they paid the price of nearly 1500 years of war and near total obliteration of itself three or four times. And this is with rivers and winters to prevent consant warfare. India may not have been so lucky. India without unity, could (and historically has) meant perpetual warfare.
Yum Yum: re Unity and Sardar Patel
Patel and Menon tied up the loose ends in convincing the Princely states to join a Indian greater polity, united by the Raj. Without the greater polity, it would be unlikely that the princely states would have assented to unity, in fact they would have nothing to join.
I wish to tell all my compatriates that we Indians belive in total falsehood as far as indian history is concerned.We do not have or apply simple common sense when it is about the history(lies) about our freedom struggle(if at all!) do not lable me ‘pro British’! but facts have to be realised some day is not it? I have done great amount of research about the British Raj which will soon be published! Did the British really robbed our wealth? if so what wealth ?how much? and how? no one can give even a vague answer that would touch the logic sense of a normal human.Every so called historian of India (British rule) are so insensitive to the Explosion of science during the last 150 years -about maritime history-about epidemics -advent of antibiotics- communication & media-audio&radio-telegraph telephone -ocean going vessels- canals- voyage time -bulk carriage - semicinductor -mineral history of India -etc etc -without any rationale they simply accuse that the British drained and robbed all our natural wealth -most commonly every Indian believes that by plundering KOHINOOR Diamond they have rendered us in total misery and poverty!
I will soon expose all these myths through my forthcomming book with evidences -all material- no heresay as our so called historians! anybody dare defy me!
Kesavan Chakravarthy
July13th 2005
[...] So what happened on January 14, 1761?
Remember, long long back I had asked Was the British Raj good for India? That post got me an astonishing 64 c [...]
3rd battle of Panipat.
Why?
Hey guys I do agree with all your comments. But its partly correct and
partly wrong. British Raj was actually not good for India because they
looted India a lot and they have most of the wealth from us, you will
realize this if you take a detailed history book not the school book and read about British Raj. I believe it would have been better if they ruled
alteast we wouldnt have had those F*****G politicians. Look at the city
of Hong Kong and Australia how beautiful and sytematic it is because of
British Raj. Some people might say because of English language in India
we are much forward but look at the countries like Germany,France, Japan
They dont know English but yet are developed countries. Now my final
conclusion is that we have been looted by British royally and also by all
other rulers like the afghans, French, Portugal the reason is that we dont
have unity. British werent as selfish as we are now. We think of ourselves
more than the society and country. We have a large population and its
impossible to dump in everyones mind that we need to change our attitude.
Hey guys I do agree with all your comments. But its partly correct and partly wrong. British Raj was actually not good for India because they looted India a lot and they have most of the wealth from us, you will realize this if you take a detailed history book not the school book and read about British Raj. I believe it would have been better if they ruled alteast we wouldnt have had those F*****G politicians. Look at the city of Hong Kong and Australia how beautiful and sytematic it is because of British Raj. Some people might say because of English language in India we are much forward but look at the countries like Germany,France, Japan They dont know English but yet are developed countries. Now my final conclusion is that we have been looted by British royally and also by all other rulers like the afghans, French, Portugal the reason is that we dont have unity. British werent as selfish as we are now. We think of ourselves more than the society and country. We have a large population and its impossible to dump in everyones mind that we need to change our attitude.
Kesavan.Chakravarthy
Hey dude goo that you do the research on British Raj however the things like railways, telecommunications, etc were started for their own purpose not for Indians not because they wanted to improve our country. In Andaman and Nicobar Islands they have made swimming pool and tennis court and hot water bathing facility and I have seen all these with my own eyes and they havent done all these to make the Indians life easier in Kala Pani and you should be knowing how they tortured Indians and well we wont realize that because they went through pain and not us. Britishers made our ancestors life miserable. Any comments from anyone is most welcome.
hey…
many thanx to all who have posted their comments here . I’ve got a feeling i’m gonna win my debate on the pros and cons of the raj .My own feelings-the brits gave us a lot , took something even greater , the net effect being thazt the “good and bad” consequences of the brits are overlapping . Frankly , for the sake of the freedom fighters i loathe the brits for setting their foot in inddia , but living in 2005 , i don’t give a damn . i’m more bothered with a dozen ideas on how to achieve Vision-India 2020
ps-it’s Dr APJ Abdul Kalam’s vision of a developed india by 2020 and even though deep down i know we wont succeed fully , we can do a lot by just trying.
hey…
many thanx to all who have posted their comments here . I’ve got a feeling i’m gonna win my debate on the pros and cons of the raj .My own feelings-the brits gave us a lot , took something even greater , the net effect being thazt the “good and bad” consequences of the brits are overlapping . Frankly , for the sake of the freedom fighters i loathe the brits for setting their foot in inddia , but living in 2005 , i don’t give a damn . i’m more bothered with a dozen ideas on how to achieve Vision-India 2020
ps-it’s Dr APJ Abdul Kalam’s vision of a developed india by 2020 and even though deep down i know we wont succeed fully , we can do a lot by just trying.
Hi.
A good way of looking at this is like imagining someone who comes to your home to discuss with your family some business deal.You see he sleeps in your home saying he is just here for some days to do business.
A couple of months later you see that some more people,the other persons colleagues,(including people with weapons and some gifts)come in.
Now they say business will continue…but they will need to use your kitchen,your rooms,youe home office,your computers,even your safes…and you have to do it..either take gifts or be ready to die.
Some members of the house(could be you, could be me) refuse to accept that, and some settle to lose their rights,their own home built by them.
What if they “gave “us english(excuse me for not starting this word with a capital letter)?What if they “brought” few industrial equipments,guns or for that matter railway engines?
The reason for my writing is simple……You can never understand what happened to someone else next door,or perhaps to your own country in past unless you try to extend the same situation to your daily life…imagine someone put a gun before your dad to say,hand over to us the keys of your office.
The bristish had NO RIGHT to rule the world.Why were people massacred in cold blood during their rule?Why did Jalianwala Bagh Tragedy happen?Would it have made a difference to your current opinion about the british rule in India if one of your family member,say your spouse, dad ,mom or grandparent had been killed in that tragedy?
Its said that charity begins at home.A corollary could be put yourself in someone else’s shoe…before commenting on the Nation as a whole about the “Was the british raj good for India?”, think its not a nation..its your home..you are a witness,you see your family members being asked for opinions at gun-point,or perhaps bribed for illicit purposes..or perhaps you are being persuaded to kill your own brother.
Think that it happened to you,it happened to me,in real,in this life..imagine for a couple of minutes and then write anything on “Was the british raj good for India?”
French take pride in speaking French,Spaniards in Spanish..Japanese in Japanese…they have their native language versions of Microsoft Windows….but unfortunately thats not our case.
It could be easier to reject this argument as one of emotion,but do think about the rule,about the killing,about the suffering in terms of something happening to your own brother,sister,mom or dad..and judge how much agony would that create for you.Think that way, and you have the answer.
Its not that I am a great patriot of India,but for sure, I definitely am,of my freedom,my family’s freedom,freedom of the people I live with,I work with.And I hate anyone who tries to assail that freedom.I would rather fight actively,by brain or by bullet to get that emancipation.
Regards,
J.
12 Aug 2005
It seems to me that the question needs to be asked in each region. For instance, educated Bengalis given to proclaiming the evils of British colonialism in this generation can be seen to have benefited Greatly. Policies and taxes Not Good for assorted rural or industrial groups, and the production of an Indian ‘middle class’, unfortunately, occurred in a manner that could separate it too far from those below, or for that matter, those above. I think the real question is one that was once asked in Commonwealth universities, of where would South Asia be had the British not arrived and in their nuttiness endeavoured to ‘rule’ an enormous, diverse, set of territories. One needs to consider the subcontinent as a French colony, as one contributor suggested, or as a horrible Belgian colony, as a Portuguese overseas dominion of forced labour, and yes, look to the liveliness of Latin America. Even the term of ‘British’ is an anomaly… as occurred elsewhere in the British Empire — Scots and Irish, often of quite modest backgrounds, ‘ran’ the place, the English merely ruled it.
Yahooooooooo ya nice people!
i agree with you, that the 3rd world state of india is accomplished by the britains.
but i’ve heard of you communism part in india, which seems to work very good.
so it was told to me by a german woman, who visits our class, with a girlfriend from lovely india.
they told us about your employeeless-rate of 6 percent and i must say in germany we got 20 percent of our people without a job.
so big up to yaself and peace.
The British conquered India not by using their Army but by deceit and treachery. They ruled by using various means of deception, intimidation, projecting themselves as saviours, reformists etc. They wanted the people to be thankful that they saved them from the anarchy, if they hadn’t come we would have been barbarians and they had civilized us and reformed our uncultured ways. They succeeded in their lies for 200 years and they have succeeded again after leaving for some to even think that there was good in their rule.
Thank you all for this discussion. Our school uses a themed approach to Humanities in the middle school (ages 11 - 14), and this year the theme is India, China and Japan. In my class the students are debating the pros and cons of the Indian experience of and legacy of British rule. Your comments will provide them insight that I, as a native of Maine in the US, cannot.
ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY DID THE BRITISH RAJ TAKE PLACE?? WHY DID THEY COME AND ENTER INDIA TO RULE???
> name one country (or even region) that was ever a colony of an European power that went on to become an industrial power.
An unfortunate statement! How about the United States and Canada? Both former British colonies and both now with respectable manufacturing capabilities. In the case of the US, we had to fight two wars with the Motherland, initial Rebellion and then War of 1812, but have been on good terms since mid-Nineteenth Century and have benefited greatly as I believe India has (if you will permit an opinion from a relatively unbiased outside observer). The Brits were a colonial power to be sure, with all the disparagements that go with such a system, but there is little doubt in my mind that they went about it in a more honest and gentlemanly manner than any other power the World has seen before or since, and gave more back to the land than any other would have. The Brits are great engineers, builders, and governors; and India will enjoy that legacy for many generations to come. In comparison my own land, the US, does not even begin to deal with other less fortunate countries in anything like such an honest manner. Anyone else, including most of India’s own princes, would have raped the country far worse and given back far less in substantial improvements and constructions than the British did. I think it is extremely significant that sixty years after their departure, Indians are still debating their impact and trying to fill their shoes, as the saying goes. To a visitor, much of India, especially in the cities, seems to be crumbling British ruin with little quality replacement even after decades. Even the Brits themselves, the National Trust (for historic structures) have said that some of the most beautifil British structures are not in their own country but in India. I mean to say, it seems to many of us watching as if Indians are still struggling in many ways to measure up, to equal or replace what the British built. I am tempted to think, from my own observations, that the British finally leaving, and the chaos that followed, was the worst aspect of the Raj. Believe it or not, there are many in the US who think the World would have been a better and more pleasant place if we had stayed British here too in America.
i think they were good enough exept for te little bit of harsh treatment the gave
think about the jallianwhala bagh treatment it was the worse any ways being given a chance i would travel to britain and treat the british the same way their ancestors treated us
why were high intellectual entities like subhash candra bose, bhagat singh, mahatma gandhi…… out n out anti british, dont u think these people wodnt have shed light on the aspect that uve looked upon. u sound a bit over optimistic n also like those typical british raj supporters along with a new peg of reasoning.
sending the replay that i wrote to a similar article by - mr karan thapar
first is the article then the replay - respond to me - yogibms@gmail.com
From Raj to Swaraj
(Karan Thapar – Sunday HT 17 July)
I suppose our dislike of British rule is understandable. What’s not is our lack of knowledge. Even less so our inability to understand the English language. Yet it seems the latter two have led astray the vast majority of critics of the prime ministers speech last week at oxford. This is why a set of sentiments which are perfectly unexceptional – if not undeniable – have become seemingly controversial. Although in all fairness I should add that the PM’s arguments could have benefited from the odd codicil or two and a little better balancing.
First lets see what the PM actually said:
“with the balance and perspective… of hindsight, it is possible for the Indian prime minister to assert that India’s experiences with the British had its beneficial consequences too.†Note the word too. It refers to the comments he made earlier in the speech about how “there is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire (have) a sound basis.†In particular quoting the historian Angus Maddison, he pointed out that India’s share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, when it was almost equal to Europe at 23.3%, to 3.8% in 1952.
At no point as the BJP erroneously claims, did the PM describe British rule as good governance. The closest he came to it was, in fact a long way off. Referring to as popular slogan of the British struggle ‘self governance is more precious than good governance’, he commented “the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance.†To conclude form this as BJP does, that Manmohan Singh was praising the Raj for its governance is, quite simply, to misunderstand his English. I’m afraid they have.
Now, let’s look at the facts. Can we deny our parliamentary democracy, independent judiciary, civil service, free press and the concept of equality of all despite caste or creed are British inherited or influenced? Can we dispute that they created the railways, the telegraph, the postal services, the army as well as our public schools and universities, our clubs and even our chota pegs? I dare no would deny that the English language that we speak – despite what we’ve done to it – is a gift from them. But what might amaze you is that the modern ‘re-discovery’ of our Sanskrit culture, including our Vedas, the Upanishads and the Manusmriti, is the work of British scholars such as Bloomfield, Burton, Carey, Colebrooke, Griffith, Monier-Williams, Rhys Davis and Wilkins.
And then there’s cricket. This dreadful game which I find a bore is, of course, a British invention. At it’s the concept of gentleman which, somewhat imperfectly, we aspire to.
Even Karl Marx, the original opponent of imperialism, praised the Raj, in essays published in 1853 in the New York Tribune; he believed British rule was essential for India’s liberation from feudalism and its translation into the modern world. To the Raj he gave the credit of India’s unity, the beginnings of a bourgeoisie and for breaking up the self-sufficient inertia of its dormant villages. The Raj was India’s shortcut to catch up with the world.
So where did Manmohan Singh go wrong? First of all, he didn’t. At least not really. However what he is guilty of is abbreviating the downside. He doffed his pugri to the economic ills of the British rule but appeared to ignore – or at least specify – its political pitfalls. The massacre at Jallianwalla and the Bengal Famine should have found mention. Their absence leaves critics to believe the atrocities they represent have been condoned. And perhaps this appraisal of the Raj – a sort of putting-in-perspective – should have been done on the home ground rather than the British soil and that too in thanks for an honorary doctorate. To me the occasion and timing don’t matter but I can see how they have mislead others.
Yet at the end of it all the Old Doc was right. 58 years after independence India must come to terms with its British past. That means acknowledging and accepting we benefited substantially from it, may be more than what we suffered, perhaps by a fair margin. Which is why it’s sad this attempt to grapple with the truth has brought forth a pack of howling ignoramuses. But they are part of our democracy. And they have a right to be heard.
Oh well, lets be British about it!
Heights of optimism
Response – From raj to swaraj – Karan Thapar - Sunday HT – July 17-05
Imagine a drunken driver knocks you down to taste the roads & you turn all blood. You are rushed to a hospital only to know that your anatomy is in a bad structure & you’ve lost a very important part of it, your leg!
Imagine in this state of mental and physical agony you go limping to that ruthless drunkard and then to surprise of rationalism – you thank that person for not killing you!!
Hard even to imagine – the illogical and absurd side of optimism.
This egregious dimensions of optimism is what displayed by our oxford educated prime minister and his supporter Mr Karan Thapar, who says the speech would be balanced if the PM could codicil arguments of the Jallianwala and the Bengal famine –
I question - Was that enough??
“The Raj had its beneficial consequences too†-
Despite of the word ‘too’; the mention of the word ‘grievances’ and the quote of the historian Angus Maddison which reflected the economic suffering of the country at large. Even if only these figures are taken as a basis – the downfall from 22.6% to 3.8% is too steep to call the invaders rule beneficial.
Good Governance?
How can he use the words “good governance†even if he does it partially and not entirely. If it was partly a good governance then how does one explain the Taxation Act which was passed to suppress the Indian entrepreneurs; the Education Act which stated the gurukuls illegal ……. The list goes on. Even if we site some rare examples of good governance was for their own ulterior motives.
“Even a stopped clock shows correct time twice a day.â€
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi -
Man Mohan Singh stated in his speech Mahatma Gandhi’s answer to the question “how far will u cut India from the empire?†which was (his answer) – “from the empire not at all. The emperorship should go and I would like to be equal partners with the british.†This lucidly states that Gandhiji was not a supporter of the empire and he wanted the emperorship to go – who has misunderstood English (or logic) Mr Thapar.
Facts - Independent Judiciary –
OK now let’s look at the true facts and not the handicapped ones. The fact is – if the then britishers wanted to rob my belongings, they would first legalise robbing and then go ahead. I may be exaggerating a bit in this example but the so called INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY is a result of such ideologies of the britishers.
Concept of equality -British inherited?
I am afraid if intellectuals like Man Mohan Singh and Mr Karan Thapar consider the “concept of equality†british inherited. My eyebrows were raised and my ‘how could they’ expression asked both the Oxford alumni – does their definition of equality include ‘Racism’. How can we forget the way we were treated worst than second grade citizens in our own country the first being the invaders and how our great prisoners shared their food with cockroaches and mice.
Railways - a british gift
Then came the thanks giving for the railways as a creation of the britishers. The famous argument by the british raj supporters, I not being one question them – would the country be deprived of the railways without the britishers? If we in the face of the great JRD TATA can introduce our pride the TATA Airlines (now the Indian Airlines) – was railway a distant dream?? If the britishers wouldn’t have suppressed Indian entrepreneurs with the illegal law of Taxation Act. How many Tata’s would the country have produced?
Schools and Universities – education system
Then the PM went on length talking about the schools, universities and the English language. These require a serious consideration. These schools and universities were built on the graveyards of our Gurukuls.
Now let’s glance through the ture facts â€