The Colonization of foreign lands by whatever nation more often than not proves devastating to the colonized territory and people residing on it. The arrival of the British, a potent seafaring nation, on the Indian subcontinent marked an extensive period of exploitation that left the economy in a stagnant state. Starvation and poverty, illiteracy, agricultural decline, resource exploitation, wealth drain, trade inequity, infrastructural underdevelopment, feudalist land ownership, and the near-liquidation of artisans were among the outcomes of the Crown rule. However, this is not to say that positive outcomes were nonexistent, as the globalized nature of the sea empire allowed Indians to absorb Western ideas and political models like democracy, equality, and liberalism they went on to apply in the 20th century. Federal bureaucracy, an administrative apparatus, elections, laws, and political stability are positive concepts inalienably linked to the colonists. Thus, despite economic adverse effects, the British rule in India influenced the local population positively through the introduction of the federal bureaucracy, the tradition of elections, and Western values and ideas instrumental in liberating the country from the oppressive yoke of the monarchy in the preceding century.
The Negativity of the Colonial Legacy
Famine and Poverty
The general effect of the British colonial rule manifested itself through the pervasiveness of acute impoverishment. The matter is that economic exploitation introduced by the British, the failure of modern industries, the decadence of indigenous industries, wealth drain, high taxation rates, and the disruption of the agrarian structures resulted in uttermost poverty for social masses and precluded economic development (Pandey 2008:199). Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan (2013:4) confirmed low per-capita income of 230 rupees in the timeframe between 1947 and 1948. For people to receive two square meals per day was as good as impossible. Logically, it is a well-documented historical axiom that the better part of Indians were living on the brink of starvation during the extensive occupation spell, with an estimated 24 famines experienced in the course of the second half of the 19th century (Pandey 2008:199). Thus, for example, death toll following famines between 1876 and 1878 was placed at 35.000 people in Madras presidency alone. In the years between 1896 and 1897, another 45.000 residents died of starvation in Rajputana, Central Provinces, Gujarat, and Bombay. The deficit of irrigation facilities was huge contributing factors deciding the fates of many. Peasants were no more well fed than they were literate during the reign of their British overlord (Chopra, Puri, Das, and Pradhan 2003:143).
Poverty is the evidence of the Crown not having invested in the social welfare of the colony if only to maintain social satisfaction. Rather, poverty is a clear indication of region’s overutilization and the pragmatic interest of the British ruling elites and upper classes. Keeping Indians illiterate made them an easier nation to manipulate. Reading skills would have allowed ordinary people to read philosophical and political treatises on equality and other ideals of the liberal democracy while folklore works could have awakened their nationalist sentiments. Kotwal (2000:3) confirmed that largely illiterate rural population of India had already had politicians misguide, cheat, and trick them before. If so, India was a fertile ground for such manipulative rulers as the British most likely using illiteracy as a control mechanism.
Clear Agricultural Decline
Agricultural productive stagnation related directly to famine and poverty was obvious, as Indian farmers were still using wooden ploughs. By contrast, in Europe, agriculture used to undergo modernization through the application of manure and machinery at that point in time (Chopra, Puri, Das, and Pradhan 2003:143). The agriculture seemed stuck in the previous economic eras at the time. Interestingly, why the Indian economy at that point can be referred to as feudal is because of Zamindari system that deprived crop producers of their legal rights on the land. Although land revenue remained fixed, rent kept on rising, which forced producers to give their possession to subtenants for cultivation (Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan 2013:5).
Judging by this agricultural economic sabotage of the British colonists, an interesting inference suggests itself in the light of the argument. Obviously, the colonists did not need the agricultural industry developing at a rapid pace. Instead, they invested more in the production of exotic commodities like coffee and tea. While agriculture was, undeniably, important to the empire, the financial utility of coffee due to it being exclusive, popular, and in short supply justified logistical costs related to its delivery the way wheat found on the global market in abundance most likely could not. While wheat was a need to meet, the British had domestic production partially at least covering the demand, which cannot be said of exclusive goods like coffee or tea not cultivated in the insular European climate. Joliffe (2003) confirmed that tea became a crucial imperial commodity later even monopolized by the East India Company (cited in Pietikainen and Kelly-Holmes 2013:136). Such presumable mindset makes itself seen in industrialization trends and the development of specific industries described in what follows.
Infrastructural Underdevelopment
The industrialization of the colony began in the mid-19th century with railway expansion (Chopra, Puri, Das, and Pradhan 2003:144). If the British invested in road infrastructure, it was because they needed road to move goods and resources extracted from the region. Whatever the rationale, the construction of infrastructure was a positive result. However, not all researchers are equally upbeat about Indian progress in this regard. Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan (2013:4) suggested that infrastructural development in terms of electricity, the means of communication and transport, and other related aspects left much to be desired on the eve of secession. Overall, the process of the agrarian society transformation looked exploitative.
Monopolization and Its Dark Side
Chopra, Puri, Das, and Pradhan (2003:144) went on to note that industrialization saw coal mining and jute and textile mills established. As matters were in 1905, 206 textile mills were operating in India, with 200.000 people employed. As of 1906, 36 jute mills were said to be working and giving employment to 115.000 individuals. However, despite job generation, British capitalists monopolized coalmines, jute factories, and coffee and tea plantations. Indigenous capital went into no other sector but the textile industry (Chopra, Puri, Das, and Pradhan 2003:144). Bagchi (1982:80) defined the East India Company as having been a legal monopolist between 1757 and 1813. The capitalists from Britain, paid low salaries to the Indian workforce, exploited Indian resources at a lower cost, and stuffed their bulging pockets with banknotes (Chopra, Puri, Das, and Pradhan 2003:144). British seem to have turned India into a production base their utilized at will regardless of people’s needs and wishes. Thorpe S. and Thorpe E. (2009:106) suggested that the Crown stimulated the production of cash crops demanding that farmers not grow more than one specific crop like jute, cotton, oil seeds, or sugarcane since modern English industries needed specific raw materials. The authorities were increasing the production demand they placed upon farmers.
Targeting Indigenous Industries, Their Workforce, Provoked Pressure on Other Flagship Industries and Adverse Outcomes
Besides monopolization, the British were at pains to obliterate specific industries that posed no interest to their colonial empire in what came to be known as the process of deindustrialization. The local woolen and silk industries, spinning and weaving industries, glass, pottery, shipping, paper, glass, metals, tanning, oil pressing, and dying industries proved the most affected by British policies. The local handicraft industry found itself disordered for a variety of reasons. The introduction of the one-way free trade led to the inflow of overseas commodities. The East India Company along with its servants oppressed artisans by leaving them no alternative other than to sell commodities below the dominant wage. The buildup of prices on raw materials sent rising by the British policy of exporting raw materials was the case (Thorpe S. and Thorpe E. 2009:106).
The decline of handicraft industries resulted in a series of even more negative consequences of the British rule, such as the physical collapse and depopulation of cities and towns and a rise in unemployment owing to the lack of the growth of contemporary industries (Thorpe S. and Thorpe E. 2009:106). Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan (2013:3) confirmed that the bulk of population had resided in rural areas at the time of independence declaration. No more than 14% of the population lived in urban areas in 1948 while a remaining 86% were rural dwellers. The overcrowding of the agricultural sector by artisans who were losing the chance to pursue their trade put greater strain on land in the decades before independence (Thorpe S. and Thorpe E. 2009:106). The historians made a brilliant remark listing land exhaustion as an outcome of the British rule. Land overexploitation took its ultimate toll on the land that needed resting and lying fallow for some periods, yet it had to serve the breadwinning needs of artisans driven from their conventional trade. Indeed, the historians imply that the desolation of the handicraft industries led to the surplus of workforce that relocated to the agricultural sector already suffering from backwardness. The lack of technologies that could otherwise stimulate production output, if present, led to land overuse.
Presumable Entrepreneurship Discouragement
Monopolized plantations, seemingly, also received additional workforce that thereby left industries, in which Britons were not that interested. Overall, what the British seemed to be doing was liquidating the artisan class methodically and impoverishing the population artificially. It might be to restrain the accumulation of capital and the emergence of a powerful middle or upper class other than the British merchants with the potential of vying for regional power that the British suppressed commerce by Indians. Sharma (1991:45) referred to analysts claiming the British Government did not promote indigenous entrepreneurship in India, even less developed it.
Trade Monopolization, Inequity, and Wealth Drain
Apparently, interested more in exclusive tradable goods produced in India rather than handicraft, Britons obstructed the production of local goods flooding the large consumer market with their own analogues, which probably allowed India-bound cargo ships not to travel empty-bilged. However, the satiation of the surrogate British goods may not have been the case in equal proportions, as Thorpe S. and Thorpe E. (2009:105) suggested that the concept of the drain of wealth applied to colonial era India implied the unrequited excess of export over imports. What was happening was that Britons were transferring resources from the country, without bringing commodities or resources in return or supplying only a small part thereof. Such trade disproportion had its own reasons. Singh, Shrivastava, and Prasad (2003) stated that the royal government was exerting control on the foreign commerce of India, so that it might serve the colonial interests of the Crown. Masselos (2012:246) noted that the drain had become the principal economic critique of imperialism with time.
Pessimistic Summary
Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan (2013:3) best summarized the economic impact of the colonial rule. England that was one-twentieth the size of India and had the number of population that was one sixth as numerous was growing more prosperous with every passing day as of 1947. Conversely, with the advent of independence, the Indian economy was already colonial, semi-feudal, underdeveloped, including infrastructure-wise, stagnant, disintegrated, and depreciated. (Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan 2013:3-5).
Some Blessing in Disguise
Although the mentioned historians produce claims to the contrary, there are said to be proofs of literacy proliferation during the imperial rule (Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan 2013:3). While the pursuit of the educational policy was indecisive and education did not reach the broad masses, the English language together with western ideas had a positive effect on the society. A cohort of reformers, such as Swami Vivekananda, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar absorbed the Western ideas of democracy and liberalism only to employ them for reforming the religious and non-humanitarian practices of the country in their time. Some found in the works of Rousseau, Mill, Ruskin, and Locker, the ideas of nationalism, anti-imperialism, liberty, self-government, economic and social equality, human rights, and fraternity rooted in India via political parties, debates, and discussions in the press and on public platforms. English became the language of the educated unifying them and giving the awareness of their rights. Language knowledge allowed these people to travel to England and witness functional democratic mechanism and institutions (National Institute of Open Schooling n.d.:118-119).
It comes as no surprise that the Indian intelligentsia absorbed such progressive ideas, as the empire was a globalist world in miniature due to the interconnectivity and interaction of colonies, trade hubs, and metropolis, such as London, the epicenter of progressive ideas. However, it was not only though language and exposure to Western ideals and their proponents that Indians learnt about democratic ideals like equality. According to Stromquist (2014:448), the British were much of the view that they assisted Indian women a great deal by reforming their right to possess property and enforcing legislation terminating widow burning, child marriage, female infanticide, and polygamy. Still, sceptics insisted that some colonial era laws enhanced inequality. At the center of their discourse are the legalization of prostitution, the conjugal rights of men exercisable even in the event of wife fleeing, and the denial of female franchise.
Britons have also done much to arouse the national spirit (Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan 2013:3). Liberation from an overlord has often historically taken a concerted effort to implement. The spirit of nationalism is often a propulsive force galvanizing national movements into action; thus, Britons can take credits for awakening nationalism with their oppressive presence. The researchers were right to ascribe this fundamental positive result to the colonists. National Institute of Open Schooling (n.d.:119) noted that it was Western thinkers like Anni Besant and Max Mueller that encouraged vernacular literary works and languages to fill the national culture and legacy with pride.
Historians tend to attribute the choice of democracy during the country’s transitional period to the colonial ruler. Upon leaving the subcontinent, the British left a legacy of a strong central state behind, as they did the dominance of a powerful civil service, both having a very positive effect on democratization. Pan-Indian and well-trained federal bureaucracy was central to the provision of a structure of stability for the budding democracy (Bridges and Ho 2010:92). Apart from familiarizing Indians with rigorous law, a strong administration, and order situation, the colonial rulers granted political stability to the country (Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan 2013:3).
The experience of the region with regard to elections during the Raj era is also considered an essential positive outcome of colonialism. Furthermore, thanks to colonialism, the socialization of the elite into a Westminster Model mentality took place. Plenty of Indians associated with regime change in the mid-20th century received the British education and entertained sympathies or affinity for the British-style parliamentary governance (Bridges and Ho 2010:93). Lastly, it will only be fair to admit that, according to Jain, Uppal, Trehan, and Trehan (2013:3), the British still did have some positive effect on the economy. In a nutshell, they introduced capitalist enterprise, modernization, and agriculture modernization.
Conclusions
It stands to reason that the economic impact of the British colonists cannot but be negative, for the seizure or exploitation of the economic potential was a driving forces of the British traveling from thousands of miles away. In a word, the British left India semi-feudal, underdeveloped, stagnant, and even disintegrated. However, some hold that the colonial rule familiarized Indians with equality, liberalism, western political models of democracy, and a Western developmental vision, gave women more rights, although granting extra freedom to men, provided the country with the federal bureaucracy, the mechanism of elections, and even brought some important economic concepts like capitalist enterprise.
References
Bagchi, A.K., 1982. The political economy of underdevelopment. Australia: Cambridge University Press. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=jbVJRPzRgWMC&pg=PA79&dq=economic+impact+of+British+rule+in+India&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7otLRwILLAhUinXIKHcRhBTQQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=economic%20impact%20of%20British%20rule%20in%20India&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Bridges, B., and Ho, L. S. (eds.), 2010. Public governance in Asia and the limits of electoral democracy. Edward Elgar Publishing. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=UncTYB3LhjAC&pg=PA93&dq=positive+impact+of+british+colonialism+in+india&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi434T_t4TLAhVkcHIKHTkNApQ4ChDoAQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=positive%20impact%20of%20british%20colonialism%20in%20india&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Chopra, P.N., Puri, B.N., Das, M.N., and Pradhan, A.C., 2003. A Comprehensive History of India. Modern India, Vol. 3. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=RAON5AW4yUEC&pg=PA141&dq=economic+impact+of+British+rule+in+India&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7otLRwILLAhUinXIKHcRhBTQQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=economic%20impact%20of%20British%20rule%20in%20India&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Jain, T.R., Uppal, R., Trehan, M., and Trehan R., 2013. Indian economy. FK Publications. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=CFZNtijhaB8C&pg=PA3&dq=positive+impact+of+british+colonialism+in+india&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinvoD0toTLAhXI63IKHQg6BGEQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=positive%20impact%20of%20british%20colonialism%20in%20india&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Kotwal, N.C., 2000. Political and cultural heritage of Bhadarwah, Kishtwar, and Doda. N.C. Kotwal. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=G11uAAAAMAAJ&q=illiteracy+allows+rulers+to+keep+population+timid&dq=illiteracy+allows+rulers+to+keep+population+timid&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2jNPs3IjLAhWkqHIKHYoWADkQ6AEIGjA> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Masselos, J., 2012. “Indian national movement.” In R.S. Powers (ed.), Protest, power, and change. An encyclopedia of nonviolent action from ACT-UP to women’s suffrage, Routledge, pp.246-252. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=xmlWr4aAt4EC&pg=PA246&dq=economic+impact+of+British+rule+in+India&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7otLRwILLAhUinXIKHcRhBTQQ6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=economic%20impact%20of%20British%20rule%20in%20India&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
National Institute of Open Schooling, n.d. Impact of British rule on India: Economic, social, and cultural (1757-1857). National Institute of Open Schooling. Available through: Google Books <http://www.nios.ac.in/media/documents/secsocscicour/english/lesson-05.pdf> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Pandey, S.N., 2008. Economic History of Modern India (1757 to 1947). New Delhi: Readworthy Publications Pvt. Ltd. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=CDuggiQQ7_0C&pg=PA199&dq=economic+impact+of+British+rule+in+India&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7otLRwILLAhUinXIKHcRhBTQQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=economic%20impact%20of%20British%20rule%20in%20India&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Pietikainen, S., and Kelly-Holmes, H. eds., 2013. Multilingualism and the periphery. Oxford University Press. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=ASZpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&dq=British+colonist+were+mostly+interested+in+Indian+tea&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigw72G64jLAhVI_SwKHbeuBywQ6AEIPDAE#v=onepage&q=British%20colonist%20were%20mostly%20interested%20in%20Indian%20tea&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Sharma, P.K., 1991. Development banks and entrepreneurship promotion in India. Mittal Publications. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=BF-muPyG4jQC&pg=PA45&dq=positive+impact+of+british+colonialism+in+india&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinvoD0toTLAhXI63IKHQg6BGEQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=positive%20impact%20of%20british%20colonialism%20in%20india&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Singh, B.N., Shrivastava, M.P., and Prasad, N. eds., 2003. Economic reforms in India. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=BwqmI1pYEAgC&pg=PA135&dq=positive+impact+of+british+colonialism+in+india&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi434T_t4TLAhVkcHIKHTkNApQ4ChDoAQg3MAM#v=onepage&q=positive%20impact%20of%20british%20colonialism%20in%20india&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Stromquist, N.P., 2014. Women in the third world: An encyclopedia of contemporary issues. Routledge. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=VY9IAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA448&dq=positive+impact+of+british+colonialism+in+india&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi434T_t4TLAhVkcHIKHTkNApQ4ChDoAQhdMAg#v=onepage&q=positive%20impact%20of%20british%20colonialism%20in%20india&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
Thorpe, S., and Thorpe, E., 2009. The Pearson general studies manual 2009. India: Pearson Education India. Available through: Google Books <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=oAo1X2eagywC&pg=PA104&dq=economic+impact+of+British+rule+in+India&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7otLRwILLAhUinXIKHcRhBTQQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=economic%20impact%20of%20British%20rule%20in%20India&f=false> [Accessed 20 February 2016].
