The “truth” about a “benevolent Empire”
Varnam posted this great entry on “The Benevolent Empire” earlier this week which mentions how British rule ended up with an impoverished India (emphasis mine):
When Clive of India came to Bengal, he described it in a way all visitors of the time did – as “extensive, populous and as rich as the city of London.” It was a place of such “richness and abundance” that “neither war, pestilence nor oppression could destroy” it.
But within a century of British occupation, the population of its largest city, Calcutta, fell from 150,000 to 30,000 as its industries were wrecked in the interests of the mother country. By the time the British left, Calcutta was one of the poorest places in the world.
Reminded me of Loot and another post I had written many months ago on Economic Exploitation and the Drain of Wealth during British Raj
Related Posts:
Loot – in search of East India Co. (excerpts)
The British at least gave us trains, telegraphs, civil services, courts, schools-colleges etc. in return. The muslims gave us nothing…oh please don’t remind Taj Mahal, I ( like Mr. Naipaul ) find it very wasteful and decadent
@Jagmohan: I dont think we should give the british credit for the train services, telegraphs etc. It is what they like to talk about to justify the occupation. Moreover, what reason is there to believe we would not have built it ourselves and built those better had they not come?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Church_of_England_head_lauds_British_Raj/articleshow/2569688.cms
The above news report proves that there are still those who believe that colonization of India was a Mother Teresa act by the British.
@Nandan: I took a look at the comments by fellow indians on that website. I am just dumbfounded that the majority actually support the comments by the head of church of england. The british killed, looted and enslaved indians. But but but they are “caring colonizers.” I cannot take any ounce of their moral stance today on human rights issues and minority issues. Just a bunch of hypocrites.
@Prakash:
A section of the society in India benefited from the English rule. They held high positions and amassed wealth. Some of these people were lucky to maintain their high status even after independence. But many could not. They were not happy about India getting independence. Their unhappiness was passed on to the next generation by these people. They were led to believe that if the British had not left India, thier lot would have been better. These are the people who claim that British rule was a blessing in disguise.
We must forgive their ignorance and move on.
India was a rich country before the foreigners came to India. We had trade relations with far off countries in other continents. There is no doubt in my mind that India would have developed tremendously even without British doing it for us since we were not living in isolation. I feel that Indians would have developed better and retained thier culture in its original glory if there was no intervention.
But there are always two opinions about anything.
“The British at least gave us trains, telegraphs, civil services, courts, schools-colleges etc. in return. The muslims gave us nothing”
Thia is because -
Britishers – wanted to loot the country and built the “infrastructure” ONLY to live and loot the riches. Looting a country is not an overnight affair. They built some infrastructure inside the country [telegraph, 'good' education (to minimal group - 5% literacy by 1905 starting from recorded 95%+ literacy) etc.] to make their ‘life’ possible till the whole riches can be looted. The rest of the infrastructure [trains, communication etc] for the exclusive purpose of, again, looting the country. We got benefitted from these ONLY because they didn’t put in any more money to dismantle what they built when they left the country. Instead they created Pakistan to ensure a perpetual conflict. [With reference to partition, Sardar Patel said to the effect of - give me the authority over Britain for 1 week and I'll make them fight amongst themselves for perpetuity].
Muslims – They came to rule us and hence left the money inside the country that they were (and wanted to perpetually) ruling. They granted us Pakistan, Bangladesh and an enormous number of muslims following premitive arabic culture.
===============
Take a look at this site listing Hinduism Websites.
Hinduism Resources: http://hinduismresources.blogspot.com/
It has list of websites related to Hinduism. If you like it, then please forward that link to all your friends and people who are interested in learning about Hinduism.
===============
Jagmohan, Prakash, Nandan and Bhishma: Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My position on this is: who knows what would have happened if history had not turned out the way it did…
The main point is that there was a “cost” to all the “benefits” that people associate with the British Raj…and we need to bear that in mind before singing peans in praise of the Empire…
The British Raj looks “benevolent” only in contrast to the nightmare of muslim rule.
Here is an excerpt from the diary of a British officer itself :
If the British had brought progress by railway and telegraph they had also brought harsh laws and crippling taxes. Justice was mostly a mockery : the village police , paid a starvation wage of four shillings monthly, openly gave their allegiance to roving bands of robbers. To reduce litigation to the minimum , John Company ordained that even a coolie must present his plea over a shilling stamp before consulting an attorney. Torture lighted matches between the fingers, the arms tied behind the back and screwed together with a Spanish windlass was the recognized mode of extracting confessions.
Taxes were a cynical outrage. A man could not travel twenty miles without paying toll at a river ferry, farmed out by the company to private speculators. Land Tax, often demanded before the crop was raised, was made in quarterly installments; beyond sunset on a specific date the Collector could refuse to accept it. A shortage of sixpence in the amount and the defaulters property was forfeit for auction. Salt was heavily taxed for laborers who earned three-farthings a day; also taxed were opium , saltpeter and all fermented juices. The annual rent for an acre of land was 3s., yet the produce of that acre rarely averaged 8s. in value. For two months each year most laborers or heathens as the official documents styled all Indians could not purchase rice. They existed n roots or on bread made from a coarse flour of ground mango stones. Salt was grubbed from the alkali of burnt vegetable ash.
Please check http://www.portraitofindia.com
Please check section on EIC/MNC
I almost missed this…
Do read Indian Realist on The Empire Strikes Back
Share your thoughts below.
Subscribe to the Weekly Newsletter
Support
Archives
Join the Community
Recent Comments
Categories
Do Not Copy
Recent Posts
Most Commented
.
Search
Most Viewed (since Dec '09)
.