Impoverishment of India during British Raj
Dear All:  Below, excerpts from a remarkable report from 1908 titled, “Why is England in India at all?“. In this report, written more than a century ago, Jabez Sutherland examines the extent to which the British Raj impoverished India.. Please read and share widely. I doubt any of our current text-books mention this aspect of “history”.
*** Excerpts from “Why is England in India at all?” by Jabez T Sutherland ***
What causes this awful and growing impoverishment of the Indian people? Said John Bright, “If a country be found possessing a most fertile soil, and capable of bearing every variety of production, and, notwithstanding, the people are in a state of extreme destitution and suffering, the chances are there is some fundamental error in the government of that country.”
One cause of India’s impoverishment is heavy taxation. Taxation in England and Scotland is high, so high that Englishmen and Scotchmen complain bitterly. But the people of India are taxed more than twice as heavily as the people of England and three times as heavily as those of Scotland. According to the latest statistics at hand, those of 1905, the annual average income per person in India is about $6.00, and the annual tax per person about $2.00. Think of taxing the American people to the extent of one-third their total income! Yet such taxation here, unbearable as it would be, would not create a tithe of the suffering that it does in India, because incomes here are so immensely larger than there. Here it would cause great hardship, there it creates starvation. Notice the single item of salt-taxation. Salt is an absolute necessity to the people, to the very poorest; they must have it or die. But the tax upon it which for many years they have been compelled to pay has been much greater than the cost value of the salt. Under this taxation the quantity of salt consumed has been reduced actually to one-half the quantity declared by medical authorities to be absolutely necessary for health. The mere suggestion in England of a tax on wheat sufficient to raise the price of bread by even a half-penny on the loaf, creates such a protest as to threaten the overthrow of ministries. Lately the salt-tax in India has been reduced, but it still remains well-nigh prohibitive to the poorer classes. With such facts as these before us, we do not wonder at Herbert Spencer’s indignant protest against the “grievous salt-monopoly” of the Indian Government, and “the pitiless taxation which wrings from poor ryob nearly half the products of the soil.”
Another cause of India’s impoverishment is the destruction of her manufactures, as the result of British rule. When the British first appeared on the scene, India was one of the richest countries of the world; indeed it was her great riches that attracted the British to her shores. The source of her wealth was largely her splendid manufactures. Her cotton goods, silk goods, shawls, muslins of Dacca, brocades of Ahmedabad, rugs, pottery of Scind, jewelry, metal work, lapidary work, were famed not only all over Asia but in all the leading markets of Northern Africa and of Europe. What has become of those manufactures? For the most part they are gone, destroyed. Hundreds of villages and towns of India in which they were carried on are now largely or wholly depopulated, and millions of the people who were supported by them have been scattered and driven back on the land, to share the already too scanty living of the poor ryot. What is the explanation? Great Britain wanted India’s markets. She could not find entrance for British manufactures so long as India was supplied with manufactures of her own. So those of India must be sacrificed. England had all power in her hands, and so she proceeded to pass tariff and excise laws that ruined the manufactures of India and secured the market for her own goods. India would have protected herself if she had been able, by enacting tariff laws favorable to Indian interests, but she had no power, she was at the mercy of her conqueror.
A third cause of India’s impoverishment is the enormous and wholly unnecessary cost of her government. Writers in discussing the financial situation in India have often pointed out the fact that her government is the most expensive in the world. Of course the reason why is plain: it is because it is a government carried on not by the people of the soil, but by men from a distant country. These foreigners, having all power in their own hands, including power to create such offices as they choose and to attach to them such salaries and pensions as they see fit, naturally do not err on the side of making the offices too few or the salaries and pensions too small. Nearly all the higher officials throughout India are British. To be sure, the Civil Service is nominally open to Indians. But it is hedged about with so many restrictions (among others, Indian young men being required to make the journey of seven thousand miles from India to London to take their examinations) that they are able for the most part to secure only the lowest and poorest places. The amount of money which the Indian people are required to pay as salaries to this great army of foreign civil servants and appointed higher officials, and then, later, as pensions for the same, after they have served a given number of years in India, is very large. That in three-fourths if not nine-tenths of the positions quite as good service could be obtained for the government at a fraction of the present cost, by employing educated and competent Indians, who much better understand the wants of the country, is quite true. But that would not serve the purpose of England, who wants these lucrative offices for her sons. Hence poor Indian ryots must sweat and go hungry, and if need be starve, that an ever-growing army of foreign officials may have large salaries and fat pensions. And of course much of the money paid for these salaries, and practically all paid for the pensions, goes permanently out of India.
Another burden upon the people of India which they ought not to be compelled to bear, and which does much to increase their poverty, is the enormously heavy military expenses of the government. I am not complaining of the maintenance of such an army as may be necessary for the defense of the country. But the Indian army is kept at a strength much beyond what the defense of the country requires. India is made a sort of general rendezvous and training camp for the Empire, from which soldiers may at any time be drawn for service in distant lands. If such an imperial training camp and rendezvous is needed, a part at least of the heavy expense of it ought to come out of the Imperial Treasury. But no, India is helpless, she can be compelled to pay it, she is compelled to pay it. Many English statesmen recognize this as wrong, and condemn it; yet it goes right on. Said the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman: “Justice demands that England should pay a portion of the cost of the great Indian army maintained in India for Imperial rather than Indian purposes. This has not yet been done, and famine-stricken India is being bled for the maintenance of England’s worldwide empire.” But there is still worse than this. Numerous wars and campaigns are carried on outside of India, the expenses of which, wholly or in part, India is compelled to bear. For such foreign wars and campaigns—campaigns and wars in which the Indian people had no concern, and for which they received no benefit, the aim of which was solely conquest and the extension of British power—India was required to pay during the last century the enormous total of more than $460,000,000. How many such burdens as these can the millions of India, who live on the average income of $6 a year, bear without being crushed?
Perhaps the greatest of all the causes of the impoverishment of the Indian people is the steady and enormous drain of wealth from India to England, which has been going on ever since the East India Company first set foot in the land, three hundred years ago, and is going on still with steadily increasing volume. England claims that India pays her no “tribute.” Technically, this is true; but, really, it is very far from true. In the form of salaries spent in England, pensions sent to England, interest drawn in England on investments made in India, business profits made in India and sent to England, and various kinds of exploitation carried on in India for England’s benefit, a vast stream of wealth (“tribute” in effect) is constantly pouring into England from India. Says Mr. R. C. Dutt, author of the Economic History of India (and there is no higher authority), “A sum reckoned at twenty millions of English money, or a hundred millions of American money [some other authorities put it much higher], which it should be borne in mind is equal to half the net revenues of India, is remitted annually from this country [India] to England, without a direct equivalent. Think of it! One-half of what we [in India] pay as taxes goes out of the country, and does not come back to the people. No other country on earth suffers like this at the present day; and no country on earth could bear such an annual drain without increasing impoverishment and repeated famines. We denounce ancient Rome for impoverishing Gaul and Egypt, Sicily and Palestine, to enrich herself. We denounce Spain for robbing the New World and the Netherlands to amass wealth. England is following exactly the same practice in India. Is it strange that she is converting India into a land of poverty and famine?”
*** End of Excerpts ***
And if you think Mr Sutherland is exaggerating, think again and take a brief tour of the points made in these posts: A Restorative Historical Account of Victorian Holocausts...  Also look at The Myth of a Benevolent “Rajâ€, The “truth†about a “benevolent Empireâ€
Loot – in search of East India Co. (excerpts) and Economic Exploitation and the Drain of Wealth during British “Raj†(recommended)
Sadly, most Indians still retain a very rose-tinted image of the “Raj” and such talk is heresy in most “educated” circles in India. Yet this is recorded history – and cannot be denied (indeed has not been denied). How long can the truth be hidden? Read the article in full here (its long but worth it) and please share this with friends and family – especially the younger ones. They remain our hope.
Hi,
you know, I’m very interested in Indian history (alas, I still cannot say that I’m free enough in it). And I often asked this question: Why?! What causes this awful and growing impoverishment of the Indian people?
Thanks for so useful text – there’re answers. I’ll read it and retell the main points for my site.
Sad fact is that in spite of knowing all these, some macaulay worshippers would soon start their ‘defense’ of British Raj.
Shantanu
Thx for This Wonderful Article and Links .. The Lord macaulay famous quote which was published and widespread in Net and according to your sources it was lie and myth , but this whole story was described in few lines in that quote
They just tried to suppress and looted us in every field in those 200 years
Regards
S
Here’s an interesting clip that I came across where a famous “classic liberal” icon argues the exact opposite, that studies have shown it cost Britain to maintain India as a colony:
http://youtu.be/4xeebU8VhmY?t=5m45s
I’m not sharing this video because I agree with Milton Friedman’s views (I don’t), but because it’s counter-intuitive to what I’ve read so far, and Friedman seems to be a hero to some Indian bloggers.
i do not blame the British for ruling us and making us poor.
we let them do it …. for 300 years.
let us blame ourselves.
nobody can rob me, only my weakness will allow it.
it is happening right now. the italian maid is looting us.
Thank you for bringing to our attention this very useful and important article. As for the iniquitous salt tax, against which Mahatma Ghandi fought for so long, your readers may be interested in “The Great Hedge of India”, by Roy Moxham, 2001. It is the little known story of a customs barrier 2,300 miles long, most of it made of 20-30 foot wide thorn hedge, and manned by 12,000 men, and took years to plant and grow. Its purpose was to stop local salt sellers transporting salt freely from one salt rich side of India to the other – salt poor, as they had done for thousands of years. But it also contains moving passages on what salt deprivation does to people, and how the salt tax must have resulted in widespread misery and death – mostly among the poorest of India’s people. The author researched the existence of this hedge on and off for 20 years, finding a few remaining pieces of it along its route.
Actually it was India’s Mughal rulers that first posted a salt tax, particularly in and around Bengal, but Clive of the East India Company upped it several times in order “that the profits might furnish himself and the other members of the [British ruling] Council with sufficient salaries, which they else had not.” These vast amounts of money were efficiently tabulated, and well known. (Ref: ‘Transactions of Hastings in India’, 1813-1823.
Re my quote from Hastings Transactions, that the British ‘needed’ income from the salt tax to improve their otherwise insufficient (!) salaries, it is ironic that ‘salary’ comes from the Latin ‘salarium’, which was given to Roman soldiers, then occupying Britain, to buy salt. (The salt tax in 18th-19th c. India produced vast revenues for the British – I have the figures should anyone be interested).
Brian: Fascinating…and thanks for sharing..
I had heard about the “Great Hedge” but have not read it yet..Perhaps I should.
And I would be v interested in the revenue figures re. salt tax.
Pl do share.
Thank you, once again.
There is a good introductory treatment of this topic here- http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/articles/moghul_3.pd- I’ve been looking for an updated treatment- one which focuses on British Crony Capitalism (i.e. Managing Agencies) and calculates dead-weight losses arising from their monopoly power, inefficiency and slackness. Britain did send us some good Civil Servants and Judges and so on- the real question, given that Britain was a trading nation, was whether we got high quality businessmen. The evidence is we didn’t- except some under-capitalized Scotsmen who were efficient but pretty clannish- basically, the box-wallahs operated like a caste keeping out energetic men and enjoying ‘that best of monopoly profits- a quiet life’.
Interestingly, on the issue of the over-valuation of the Rupee after the First World War, so far I have found Ambedkar to have been the most clued up (he was prepared to challenge not just orthodoxy but also Keynes’s work!) whereas the big Parsi or Marwari magnates don’t seem to have articulated the Indian case properly. This is surprising because one would have thought these Shroffs and Zarafs would understand the working of the ‘carry trade’ that Keynes had analysed. The truth is, not the British Raj per se, but the corrupt crony capitalism of the ‘Club & the Gymkhana’ hobbled Indian Industry.
I would have thought people like Dadhabhai Naoroji or (the Communist M.P) Saklatvala or Bhownarjee would have understood this aspect of Imperial Finance and entered a protest against what was happening. The fact that they don’t seem to have do so in any effectual manner suggests that the Market wasn’t operating in a transparent manner at all.
In my home state, we used to see grain brokers putting a shawl over their hands so that they could secretly signal each other and thus fix the market. Thus, though the producers were physically present and all the conditions for a ‘perfectly competitive market’ appeared in place, nevertheless a dead weight loss arising from Monopolistic practise had incidence on the productive element of society.
This is the real guilt not just of the British Raj, but of its successor. It is simply unbelievable that we have an economist for PM and that he goes along with a ‘first come’ policy on 2G.
One can excuse the Lords and ICS officers of the Raj because they were ‘gentlemen’ who could not soil their hands by grappling with Commercial issues. But how can we excuse this Govt?
Postscript on the Salt Tax: I am probably lowering the tone by mentioning Wikipedia, but there is a solid summary account of the salt tax there, with useful references, (I have checked them). By the way, Moxham in his Great Hedge of India book mentions that the pre-British colonialists, the Mughals, charged 5% salt tax to Hindus, and only 2.5% to Muslims! At least the British were equally nasty to everyone…
Vivek says that the British sent some good Judges, and Civil Servants, (I would add scholars and scientists), but perhaps not such high quality businessmen. Well, many of the businessmen Britain sent were brilliant at making huge sums of money and shipping it home! India was said to be a place where a bright young man could make his fortune by age 35, then retire back home in comfort. Indeed, the British Parliament on occasion became indignant at these excesses of luxury and impeached several high level officers, (including Clive – but he was acquitted).
Another note – forget not opium, over which the British rulers had a monopology, too. For a while profits from opium and salt provided the majority of colonial revenue, certainly in Bengal. (The opium was produced in the Bengal countryside and shipped to China where it was processed, some ending up in Queen Victoria’s country palace in Scotland as a ‘pick-me-up’ for members of the Royal Household).
P.S. to B. Shantanu. Fine, I will gather together some figures on salt tax revenues, with references. Probably take a week or so.
@Vivek
“Britain did send us some good Civil Servants and Judges and so on- the real question, ..”
Brian gets it right.
(“Well, many of the businessmen Britain sent were brilliant at making huge sums of money and shipping it home! India was said to be a place where a bright young man could make his fortune by age 35, then retire back home in comfort”)
This was the case for every brutish official including the ‘the great liberal gawd’ Macaulay. Read his bio( letters to his ‘sister’) or better Read Dr. Aich’s Lies with long legs.
good report, new view to think……….
British rule was the best thing that happened to this nation in thousands of years. All this agony of being ruled by ‘foreigners’ is utter nonsense. For many of the other rulers here were also foreigners.
What the British did that was foolish was that they gave the Indians English, their knowledge, and their social systems, which really improved the lower class Indians. The upper class wanted the British to quit, for otherwise all the lower classes would improve.
As to the lower class persons who improved, they did not acknowledge the British contribution to their improvement.
The fact is that no Indian wants another Indian to improve. That is the truth.
The poverty, starvation and famine and such things are basically connected to the callous attitude of Indians to other Indians. For seeing this in action, just go as a poor man to Delhi and clearly see the reality of Indian attitude to poor Indians.
The British brought in English (equal dignity, stature and right to articulation), technical skills, education for all, destruction of oppressive feudal lords and native kings, removed social restrictions on the lower classes, very good and corruption free administration and civil servants. Apart from Railways for all (not for the upper class), good road for all, good dressing standards for all (not just for the higher social classes), law and order (even the poor man could take his wife, daughter and sister around), and hundreds of other things.
As to the people who write ‘free’ India’s history, see what is the gigantic and perks they earns as salary, pension, and other perks they loot from the public coffers. It is these leeches that are looting the nation. Not the British.
@Ved from Victoria Institutions
Only one word to describe your post ‘tosh’, utter tosh. India was not a specific case here, they looted every country where they went.
@Ashish
The real looters of this nation are the government employees of the current day India. The amount they get as pay, pension, perks, commutation of pension, 13 months a year pay and much else is of the astronomical levels. Their children run off to English nations after telling the local people that the English ruined the nation. Add the amounts that these people are running of with. Also see the total amounts stacked away in the foreign banks. (An IAS officer’s salary is 1.25 Lakhs! Ah, Ah Ah, what a royal living, when the average common man here is living for less than 3000 per month!)
As to your word ‘tash’, I believe that is the only answer you can give. Mind you, if your housemaid or your servant learns good English she or he will improve. That is what you will be really afraid of. Not of the English. You want to be equal to the English, but you would love to use pejoratives to the people under you. You would not like to be equal with them.
At the end of the day, when the lower class complain that they have not improved, in spite of all promises to the contrary, you will tell them a fairy tale. ‘It is the British who has let you down!’
Come on man! People will develop under the British. Under people like you, they will go down.
@Ashish.
Ved’s complex and interesting post deserves a little more than ‘tosh’ to describe it. And saying that ‘they looted every country where they went’ is simply a truism, isn’t it? Surely ‘looting’ is the main point of colonialism, which is why nowadays we all disapprove of it. In those days and before, everyone was at it, the Mughals in India (12th century CE onwards), Genghis Khan in Asia, the Romans all over the place, the Normans who invaded Britain in 1066, more recently the Belgians, French and Portugese in Africa, the Dutch in Indonesia and India; and how about the particularly nasty Spanish occupation of South America? So, if everyone was at it, perhaps we can go on to decide who was the ‘least worst’. If you come up with a scale of horribleness, with utterly horrible at one end and a bit horrible at the other, perhaps we could say that the British occupation of India wasn’t at the very worst end – it had some redeeming features. And maybe one or two lasting benefits. But overall, of course, it was still wrong. If we were to do the same for Africa, the Belgians would probably come out at the utterly horrible end of the scale, given their treatment of the ‘Belgian’ Congo. I suppose I am just trying to put British rule of India in some kind of perspective, and disagreeing – as gently as I can – with your use of ‘tosh’.
@ Brian Champness
I would have to disagree with you about the general nature of British colonialism. For, when the people are English speakers, there is definitely a difference. It is beyond the purview of this discussion and is quite a deep matter.
As to the English coming to India to loot, it is not true, even though most school in England also might be teaching the same thing, since Multiculturalism is the going theme over there now.
East Indian Company came for trading. Not for looting. However, in Asian nations, traders are not on a higher social level as compared to the landlord classes. There is an issue of ‘respect’, ‘dignity’ and social precedence connected to this. The so-called ‘shopkeeper’ class nation that existed outside continental Europe was good in their profession, but in India they wanted a higher prestige. Otherwise they cant move around with their wares. The smallest landlord henchmen would molest them.
So, when the local feudal classes tried their taunting, the English instinctively showed their true grit, that was a common theme all over the world, even in Europe. For, it is a truth that even European nations had tried this with England for centuries. This grit is really connected to the English language.
I cant write more here. Google search for Refining India! Brutalising England.
The issue here is that of thinking that the English are like the Indians. It is not true. Not that the English are morally better, but that their language is more egalitarian. This part I am sure you wouldn’t understand.
@Ved
I am quite happy to modify my assertion about looting – slightly. Of course the East India Company came to trade, but many of its employees ended up looting, Clive himself being a conspicuous example. (I know little about what English schools are teaching now, being too old! From what I see of my grandchildren’s history exercises, however, it seems very thin).
Your comments about traders and respect are interesting, but you may care to note that Britain’s old 19th century enemy Napoleon of France dismissed us as ‘a nation of shopkeepers’.
Most interesting I find your argument that language determines the degree of egalitarianism. It would be equally possible to argue the other way round. The language of the English upper classes was very different to the language of the English working classes, (as we used to call them). These differences can be put down to education, or the lack of it, not the other way around. As William Dalrymple put it in ‘White Mughals’, the rigid English class system fitted well into the Indian caste system in the 1700s, in India. The English upper class rulers made friends with the Indian upper caste rulers, and so on down. (But the Victorians put a stop to all that). In that case class determined language, not the other way round.
As you say, perhaps this is not the place to have this conversation. Finally, it is mildly disappointing to see you write that I “wouldn’t understand” how the English are (or are not) like the Indians. It is the kind of sweeping generalisation that Assish above might make, based on little evidence. I was born in Calcutta in 1941, by the way.
Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful points; best wishes.
@Brian Champness
I couldn’t resist the temptation to reply. First about Clive. He was not a looter. Everything in India needs to be understood from another language software. The difference is in the language codes. You give a tip to a khakhi dressed driver is different from giving a tip to a khaki dressed policeman. The second is homage, and expected.
As to Clive, he wouldn’t be able to stop the barrage of homage that would come to him. Moreover, what came to him was from the higher classes.
As to the other English Civil Servants, well, they simply had to stay at the top. The lower level Indian subordinate would collect the toll, even the man on top tell him or not. What the English civil servant saw in India was a continuance of what was there for many years. However, they did change the set up and that could have caused terrible pain. For the persons and families on top would change or go down, with a vengeance.
Clive himself came back to remove corruption from the Civil Services.
As to the class system in England, it is a vestige of European class system, but then it wouldn’t work much in English. As to the Indian-returned English man, (possibly you also), they would bring in the Indian feudal codes into England. That could have disturbed the native English persons. Even Clive could have caused a repulsion, as if he belonged to a different higher class (the affliction of India).
As to you understanding India: It depends. If you know any of the Indian languages, you will understand. Even a simple sentence like Where are you going? can be said in different levels of indicant words.
Most Indian languages have at least 3 levels of You, He, She, His, Her, Hers etc. It creates a lot of complications. I term Indian languages as Feudal Languages. This issue is not at all connected to the class difference in English spoken dialects.
What disconcerts me is that current day English administrators over there in England have no inkling about this aspect, and its real menacing power over the social system. In fact, England may start rotting.
I hope I have not been too impolite and opinionated. For, these are not mere opinions, but fact.
Now that blatant racism is a not condoned, we have brown sahibs/sahibas who have taken the mantle of ‘White mans burden’.
@Ved,
Your assertions make no sense.
“First about Clive. He was not a looter.”, “I term Indian languages as Feudal Languages”,”East Indian Company came for trading. Not for looting.”
You make bland assertions without any proof. Your claims about Clive, East India Company, Indian languages are just figment of your racist imagination. You have not provided an iota of evidence to prove your case.
Fact 1. EIC came to loot, with the help of British Navy and army. Trade was just a pretext.
Fact 2: Indian GDP as a percentage of world GDP has come down from the 22.6% to 3.8% under your ‘benevolent
British’. That is complete impoverishment.
year 1700 1820 1890 1952
China 23.1 32.4 13.2 5.2
India 22.6 15.7 11.0 3.8
Europe 23.3 26.6 40.3 29.7
Fact 3.
“Although the British insisted that they rescued India from “timeless hunger” more than one official was
jolted when Indian Nationalists quoted from an 1878 study published in prestigious Journal Of Statistical
Society that contrasted 31 serious famines in 120 years of British rule against only 17 recorded famines in the entire 2 previous millennia.”
That is one serious famine in every 3.87 years. Indian politicians are corrupt al right, however there have been no serious famines in the 65+ years. No wonder we prefer Indian leader to the ‘benevolent white master’.
Fact 2: Indian GDP as a percentage of world GDP has come down from the 22.6% to 3.8% under your ‘benevolent British’. That is complete impoverishment.
year 1700 1820 1890 1952
China 23.1 32.4 13.2 5.2
India 22.6 15.7 11.0 3.8
Europe 23.3 26.6 40.3 29.7
Fact 3.
“Although the British insisted that they rescued India from “timeless hunger” more than one official was jolted when Indian Nationalists quoted from an 1878 study published in prestigious Journal Of Statistical Society that contrasted 31 serious famines in 120 years of British rule against only 17 recorded famines in the entire 2 previous millennia.”
That is one serious famine in every 3.87 years. Indian politicians are corrupt al right, however there have been no serious famines in the 65+ years. No wonder we prefer Indian leader to the ‘benevolent white master’.
I guess according to the resident apologist of British colonialists we feudal Hindus whose language itself is feudal deserve to die in millions. Spoke like true red neck.
I have been watching this discussion with interest and I think a few points are in order – mainly in response to Ved’s comments..
@Ved (#14): Please avoid making sweeping statements like these, “British rule was the best thing that happened to this nation in thousands of years” without any evidence, references or links. How can being ruled by an alien race be the “best thing” for any society? unless you believe in the theory of “White Man’s burden”?
Also “The upper class wanted the British to quit, for otherwise all the lower classes would improve” – funny you say that. Any evidence(s)?
and on what do you base this “fact”: The fact is that no Indian wants another Indian to improve. That is the truth.?
Regardless of what the British brought to India, the question needs to be asked – what was the cost? Was it worth it? Pl also look at this article: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2012/01/13/victorian-holocausts/ and the links at the end of excerpts in the post above.
The again at #18: East Indian Company came for trading. Not for looting.” Really?! Based on what? Do read this post https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/08/30/loot-east-india-company/ and respond on that thread if you care to discuss (but no bland assertions or sweeping generalisations please)
It seems to me that you have been deeply influence by Marxist interpretations of history (e.g. So, when the local feudal classes tried their taunting, the English instinctively showed their true grit,) It is hard to take you seriously if you are going to continue in this vein.
Pl point references to support your statement, otherwise hold your peace…
And I really do not have patience for these kind of statements…
Everything in India needs to be understood from another language software. and I term Indian languages as Feudal Languages.
So please desist otherwise I will be forced to delete your comments..
@Brian and Malvika: Thanks for engaging and continuing the discussion.
@B Shantanu
Very funny indeed. I thought of replying to the earlier comment after a few days. For time was the problem. Yet the silly threat of deleting my comments is quite laughable. And would be treated with the contempt it deserves.
I suppose it is better to write elsewhere, for this is the first time such words have come.
As to your ideas of India and the great kings, let me tell you that 99.9% of modern Indians wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an Indian king or feudal lord, in terms of association other than as lowly servants. Like the servants in the local rich man’s house claiming they have this and that in ‘their’ house!
For your information the lower caste females in Malabar and Travancore areas were not allowed to wear upper garments traditionally. Yet, when the British rule came to Malabar they could come out of this stifling oppression. And it is a common knowledge what was the attitude of the feudal classes, to these females. I need not elaborate.
In Travancore the issue continued, for the place continued to be ruled by the native king.
Again all this talk of India is, retrospectively speaking, only a British creation. Otherwise what is the link between a Tamilian and say a Maharashtrian? Or for that matter with the independent tribals of Andaman and Nicobar?
Just think of what would happen to a Indian who goes to an Indian police station. I need not tell you that he or she will be treated with the meanest of feudal words for You, He, She etc. unless he or she is from the higher class or a government official. If this is the freedom that you speak of, then there is not much that can be said.
When you people tell the lower classes to study Indian vernaculars, I would tell them to learn English, so that they can escape from the suppression of the upper person here. Be it his or her own boss, manager, landlord, the local police constable, the village officer or anything. It is my confirmed belief that the English rule was better than the rule of the native ruler. For example, in Malabar the minor hue of British rule (from Madras) was better than the rule of the Zamorin. For lower castes got the oppurtunity in a thousand years to sit and study in a classroom, and that too, English, which is actively denied to the lower classes by the new rulers of India.
It is possible that my comments would be deleted, even though they are devoid of expletives and profanity. You have the delete control with you, which you would use. But what would that prove?
@Ved (#23): 8 years of blogging has taught me great patience but it does get sorely tested sometimes…This is one such instance, I guess..
May I remind you that this is a personal blog? You are free to not read – and not respond to any post(s) here. However beyond a point I will not let irrelevant comments, bland assertions and sweeping statements on the threads…We may be reaching that point fast.
A few suggestions if you want to continue the discussion..
1] Pl provide facts and references when you make assertions
2] Pl post comments on relevant threads (e.g. there are numerous posts on the blog on “caste system” etc which may be more suitable for a specific discussion on caste (this post is about whether the British impoverished India or not)
3] Statements like these are obvious reason(s) to delete a comment:
99.9% of modern Indians wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an Indian king or feudal lord…
and to some extent, this
…it is a common knowledge what was the attitude of the feudal classes, to these females.
They fall in the category of wild assertions/sweeping generalisations – which I will not accept beyond a reasonable limit (and I have given you sufficient space, I think)
As for talk of India being a British creation, please do read a bit more widely. You may be surprised. On this blog, there is a post by Dr Swamy – Pl do read this. Also elsewhere a post by Dr Sankrant Sanu
Re. educational opportunities for the “lower castes”, please read up on Dharampal and his seminal work, The Beautiful Tree.
Once again, please limit your points to the impoverishment of India during British Raj. To search for other threads, use the Search box below or check the “Categories” drop-down menu.
Finally, abuse/profanity are not the only reason(s) I would exercise my editorial control on comments. Pl read my comments policy here in case you have not already done so:
https://satyameva-jayate.org/legal-disclaimer/
The above makes no sense whatsoever. What the hell is language codes?
I do however slightly agree with both Brian and Ved in that the British rule was not all bad. One important thing to remember is that we cannot judge an action (even a policy of state) in past with the morality of the present. As the civilization the world over has improved certain moral values have changed over the last 200 years. It is no longer cool to be an occupying/colonial power.
The region of present day India was reeling under the brutal rule of the Mughals which lasted 4 centuries. The British only ruled less than 100 years.
Of course the British looted India. That was the whole point but in the process inadvertently the people of India got to engage with the world and engagement with the west albeit a forced one yielded some positives as the west had already gone through its troubling period of struggle with religious extremism and had adapted rationalism following renaissance which had finally resulted in the industrial revolution.
The issue here is that when I am writing, what I have to deal with is the so-called ‘expert’ opinions that have flooded the history and other ‘expert’ books. When one writes factually, as such objectively, it is seen as ‘subjective’.
As to Language Codes, it is a observation of mine that languages are software or software application, each one of them having different designs with regard to human relationship, social structure, social intelligence, township and almost all other aspects of human beings. I have written two specific books on them, both online. I do not want to give their names here, for it might be a case of advertising.
As to whether the British really looted India, is another matter, altogether. When the East Indian officials got into power, and came to positions earlier occupied by the Indian feudal classes, for at least some time the ancient feudal machinery would have continued in the same manner.
It is like this: A relative of mine was a Sub registrar in Malabar. She was posted to Travancore area in 1970. As a Malabar officer, she was not used to taking bribes, being a continuation of the British created officialdom of Madras. However, in Travancore, the system, being a continuation of the native Monarchical system, was totally corrupt. No one seemed to find anything wrong in the bribes. When she refused to take bribe, it was a feature that was noticeable and much discussed. Yet, even though she did not take bribes, the system did not change. The document writers would collect the bribe amount from the clients, and would distribute among the various official functionaries. The Sub Registrars’ part, they would keep for themselves.
Same way, when the British youngsters, many of them as young as sixteen came into power, they may not be able to change the system overnight. Moreover they had come seeking adventure and fortune.
When Cive came back and saw the mess, he rectified the problem and made the Civil Service corruption free.
However, as to whether England did loot India is quite debatable. Looting is generally connected to plunder, as one would do if one were to break into a Temple and scoot with the treasure there. In my opinion British law and order protected not only material wealth, but even the virginity of many women, and also gave much protection to the lower class men to cordon off their wives from the un-block-able claims of the landlord and his henchmen.
As to taxation, the British at first couldn’t understand India. The fact that no Indian is safe under an Indian is the issue. The lower man will be crushed. This factor was much later put in words by (I think Lord Curzon): ‘Do not give power to any Indian over another India. It is sure to be misused.’ This is basically connected to the fact that when the indicant words for You, He, She etc. goes lowers, people become quite rude and callous to the subordinated person.
In Bengal, where the first experiments in taxation was done, I think a new kind of social system came up, with many layers of people over the exact land cultivator. It is just part of the Indian social machinery. Have people under you, and you become a leader to that extent. For the language demands that you be above some people, or less you are nothing. Now, how much of this tax really went to England is also debatable. For, in some cases, it is said that there were up to 50 levels of people above the actual cultivator.
Beyond all that, there is the question of: Did East India Company really grow rich with Indian administration? I remember reading that the Company was not making money due to the increased requirement for money to run the administration in India. Also that the director board had to seek loan from elsewhere. (I am not sure about this, for I do not have any records with me at the moment).
There was also the stringent orders from the Board of Directors to the officials in India not to indulge in any warfare in India, or to take over the rule of any land, for it was diversifying resources from the aim of running a trade. Also the focus of being a trading company was getting lost.
Moreover the immensity of money required to run a taken over place was depleting funds.
Now, if at all there was looting of tax, well, it is a fact that even in ancient and medieval India the landlords, the feudal classes, and the royalty were living on taxation. Yet, they never thought of using this money for improving the education of the common class, bring in technical knowledge to them, bring in law and order beyond the purview and control of the landlords, set up medical colleges and other professional colleges, find out the immensity of knowledge and information in such things as the Vedas, and other Sanskrit literature, built dams to facilitate agriculture and help the farmers, build other infrastructure that would later be available for common use. {There would naturally be exceptions, but then they would be just exceptions}. All that was done was the deal with contingency of the moment; that is, grandeur to display at the moment.
Now about English persons. They would not come near any Indian boss in terms of command and social elevation, for their plateau like language will not allow that. Yet, when one moves with them, even if they are quite racist, one would improve. It is not like working under an Indian feudal boss. Indian vernaculars will definitely bring in the issue of ‘keeping him in his place’ to the subordinate.
If the English tried to keep aloof from Indians, the question again is of which level of Indians? For, Indians are not one, but of different levels, compartmentalised by the differing levels of verbal usages associated with each level.
Now about Clive. Just a young boy of eighteen, came over the seas and within years took over the control of a huge land mass in a far off continent. Even the minute courage to go 100 meters into the sea is conspicuous by its absence in most Indian. Not because the children cant do it, but they are not allowed to do it, by their parents and society. I had faced this issue, when my young daughter went wading into the sea in Calicut beach, some of the people brought in a ‘life guard’ and simply had her shooed off the water. Not because she did not know swimming, but because her swimming in the sea seemed to provoke the others.
About the immensity of famines in the British times, that are usually brought up. Well, the truth of the matter would be that it might be a matter of someone caring notice it. The terror of current day Indian poverty, the mean behaviour of the Indian police, the bribes that are an everyday event in an Indian government office etc. are not at all noticed by Indians, as unusual. But if any British man comes here, it would be quite noticeable and seemingly horrible.
I have seen the terrible poverty in New Delhi, with the poor literally freezing to death in the unprotected and uninhabitable shelter they crowd into. No resident of Delhi is bothered by these sights. Yet, for an outsider, the scenes would be quite horrible. Famines were there in India, and the British administration did try to deal with it. Yet, ultimately it was the huge mass of Indian officials who would have to do the works. Would they care much for the plight of the suffering Indians?
I have seen the poor in Madras many years ago. The sentry at the rich man’s house was terribly ill-paid. The salary that they got wouldn’t even match a single day’s expense the boss would spend in a bar. When I queried as to why the salary couldn’t be more liberal, I was told if more salary was given, they would be less ‘respectful’. Well, that is the gist of the idea.
Now, even now, most of the terrible poverty of India can be removed by being a little more liberal to the lower class in terms of pay. Yet, it would create social issues. For the lower man is also used to the Indian communication systems. He would become more forceful, and that more developed personality wise, which wouldn’t do. For, his first attempt would be to act ‘oversmart’.
Now coming back to the ‘loot’. It is there everywhere on the Net, that the British looted the Indian forests. Well, the truth of the matter was that for the first time in history, they set up a department to protect the forest and its dwellers, from outsider’s encroachment.
I am told that current day India’s forest coverage is less than 15 % of what was there in 1947. For example, near to where I live now is the Wynad district. Some thirty five years back, the roads were mist covered and visibility low at 10 am in the morning. Now, at 10 am the place is burning hot, with all the trees plundered off and the tribal population out in the open with no land of their own. Their women and other wealth have been quite frankly used by the other ‘Indians’, especially the government officials, including that of the Tribal Welfare Department. The tribals, once an independent group, now are at the lowest level of the local vernacular words (Nee, Avan, Aval etc.)
Now another thing about British rule: A particular number of women folk were annually burnt to death in the name of Sati. Whether this action had any spiritual goodness is not known, but then from the materialistic point of view the action was quite horrendous. No Indian ruler did try to stop it, other than some like Aurangazeb. However, his kingdom depended on Hindu upper-class support. Moreover, I think Mugals all were entwined with the Hindu families with matrimonial connections. His orders were of no use. It was the youthful British collectors (some just teenagers) who were quite shocked by the ritualistic burning of the young women.
Raja Ram Mohan Roy had to run to England and get an order from the British Parliament to the East India Company to stop the burning. Even the Company was not daring to interfere with local customs. For this single daring on the part of the British Parliament, I am sure the grace of god will shower on the British Crown and its subjects.
What about the bringing of peace to a huge land mass, where continual warfare was the system of succesion.
There are other themes like that of the suppressing of the Thugges and Henry Sleeman.
Well, the issue of commenting on British rule in India needs to be tackled by first understanding the character of India that came into their hands; to rule and liberate, or to rule and destroy.
@Ved (#26): Before I respond to your specific points, a few requests to you & others:
1] Pl keep your comments short and to the point.
2] Pl make the slight effort to find the relevant threads instead of mixing up a number of issues in the same comment.
Separately, I note that you have not responded to any of the specific points I raised in my earlier comments, viz:
a] How can being ruled by an alien race be the “best thing†for any society?
b] Also The upper class wanted the British to quit, for otherwise all the lower classes would improve – funny you say that. Any evidence(s)?
c] and on what do you base this “factâ€: “The fact is that no Indian wants another Indian to improve. That is the truth“?
d] Regardless of what the British brought to India, the question needs to be asked – what was the cost? Was it worth it?
e] The again at #18: “East Indian Company came for trading. Not for looting.” Really?! Based on what?
Do read this post https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/08/30/loot-east-india-company/ and respond on that thread if you care to discuss (but no bland assertions or sweeping generalisations please)
If you want a debate/discussion, please do so properly. Now to my specific responses.
If you are arguing along these lines: “When one writes factually, as such objectively, it is seen as ‘subjective’“, please spare us the trouble.
And on what do you base this: As a Malabar officer, she was not used to taking bribes, being a continuation of the British created officialdom of Madras?
By your logic, Tamil Nadu should have been the least corrupt state in India.
As for bribes, corruption and British, please continue – if you wish – on this post (not here): https://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/10/20/max-mueller/
“In my opinion British law and order protected not only material wealth, but even the virginity of many women, and also gave much protection to the lower class men to cordon off their wives from the un-block-able claims of the landlord and his henchmen”
Evidence and references please.
On the behaviour of the East India Company, pl post on the “Loot” post mentioned in my comment #22 https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/08/30/loot-east-india-company/ not here.
As for generalisations about royalty in ancient India ignoring development and welfare, please cite references to support your contention -and not on this thread but on posts under Ancient/Medieval History please
And just to remind you, this thread is *not* about ancient/medieval kings did anything for the welfare of their subjects or not but whether the British impoverished India.
Do also read this detailed post regarding British contribution to the “welfare” of India: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/02/04/economic-exploitation-drain-of-wealth/
You may be surprised.
In addition, please read: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/10/20/max-mueller/
And this ie beyond funny: Now about English persons. They would not come near any Indian boss in terms of command and social elevation, for their plateau like language will not allow that. Yet, when one moves with them, even if they are quite racist, one would improve.
Really? Based on what? How long have you worked with an English person and/or an English Boss?
And please don’t compare/justify British Raj by citing the misrule by today’s leaders…
In any case, what are you doing about it? Are you involved in and/or supporting any political movements for reform?
Re. Sati: please give me solid references which I can use in a post I am thinking of writing.
As for where continual warfare was the system of succesion, evidence? Again, not here but on appropriate posts under the “Category” of Indian History (you may have to search for it, depending on what you are writing)
Please note that while I always welcome debate and discussion on the blog, I will not allow this space to be used for making sweeping statements, generalisations based on opinions and mixing up of issues etc.
If you continue in this vein (making such statements, assertions and “facts” – without citing *any* evidence – and mixing up things in your responses, you are veering dangerously close to a temporary ban.
I look forward to your response – on the appropriate threads and with references, links, data but I cannot allow you to continue in this manner. Your call.
***
@RC: The point is not whether British rule was *all bad* or not. As I noted before, the key question is what was the cost of this “rule” and colonial occupation of India?
@Ved
“Raja Ram Mohan Roy had to run to England and get an order from the British Parliament to the East India Company to stop the burning.”
why was ‘suttee’ ‘legalised’ in 1813???
@Ved
What’s your take on this , if we call your Beloved Relatives again to rule India . At least before leaving we will make sure they will take their belongings completely this time
Shantanu
I still confused why you still not deleted his comments which is not having any material evidence, and its indirectly hitting pride of india
Pankaj
@Shantanu #27,
Why is the British rule is singled out as “costly” and all negatives of it pointed out by you and other well meaning folks yet there is no critical analysis of the 400 year Mughal rule? The Mughal rule did not even have any benefit to India. During that rule Indian society regressed further and detached from the world even more than before. Yet it gets a pass and British rule gets all brickbats.
Indian state uses a legal structure based on the British Common law. It was only during the British rule that Indian scientists made their contribution in the world.
So why keep dwelling on the “cost”? The problems of present day India are due to mismanagement of Indian leaders. This dwelling on cost of the “Raj” makes people think that somehow the blame lies somewhere else.
RC: Re. “Why is the British rule is singled out as “costly†and all negatives of it pointed out by you and other well meaning folks yet there is no critical analysis of the 400 year Mughal rule?”: This is an excellent point. It has also forced me to think why this may be so..
At least part of the reason is the heavy indoctrination that happens at the school-level with a particularly rose-tinted history of the Mughals (see e.g.: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/09/02/shivaji-mughals/) and the emphasis on a “secular” interpretation of past…
The second reason may be lack of sufficient data and or references – although even when this is available (e.g. in the large scale destruction of temples and religious places), it is rarely mentioned in texts or mainstream media – for obvious reasons.
Re. the “benefits” from Mughal Rule, you are right, they may be hard to enumerate…Art, culture are two areas that come to mind readily…other than that, I am trying to think what else..
In any case, I think this may be a trigger for a separate post in itself. Thanks.
@B Shantanu (author)
I can answer everything that has been pointed out, with reasonable logic and evidence. However, I would require time for that. Next is would you allow such a long post here? To concede to your points, all one would require is a: I agree. But to disagree and to prove it, would require words and space, which I understand you wouldn’t allow.
As to posting on different pages, it wouldn’t be possible. For, when discussing the British rule and its manifold effects on everything here, it would be appropriate to write in the same place.
As to Writer Pankaj’s demand for deleting my posts, which he feels is pricking ‘India’s pride’, does it not smack of intolerance, which is a quality that is being claimed to be not in India’s cultural heritage. As to India’s pride, well India is current day India, born in 1947. India can be proud without the necessity of anyone’s acquiescence when the people here, the citizens get a decent behaviour from their governing class, and they are given the opportunity to improve quality wise.
As to discussing about Mugal rule, and their contributions to the people here, the same can be mentioned about so many other rulers here, including the Sultans of the Slave dynasty (Islamic rulers), and even about the Hindu kings. However, that is another topic altogether, as you say.
Personally I do not think that present day India is a continuation of the British rule, for there has been rapid change of people in the set up. The quality of people who were in the British systems are not the quality of the people in the current day Indian set up. Only the infrastructure and organisational set ups have continued. Everything is different.
I do not known whether I have stepped out of the strict parameters of writings allowed here. I do not want to feel a violators of rules in another person’s private blog site. Maybe I will write a long reply elsewhere and give a link here.
@Ved: Re. “Maybe I will write a long reply elsewhere and give a link here.“, yes, that would be the best option..
@Shantanu #31,
I agree with your point about lack of sufficient data and references. May be it is because not enough research is done in the matter?? and may be after someone like you shining a light on it might trigger some research to take place ?? However, pseudo-secular forces are a huge hindrance in any potential research on this topic.
@Ved (#14): Please avoid making sweeping statements like these, “British rule was the best thing that happened to this nation in thousands of years†without any evidence, references or links. How can being ruled by an alien race be the “best thing†for any society? unless you believe in the theory of “White Man’s burden�
MY VIEW: The question posed here to Ved is pertinent if he is making a categorical statemenst asking the rest of us to close our mind and believe in his thoughts. Ved may be looking at things differently. At the same time, I must say, the discussion should not be conducted with the idea of winning the side of the proposed party. It is good for all to break the conventional thinking at times. But I agree with the suggestion that Ved should put the ideas in a more digestible, coherent manner with evidences. There no denial that our subjugated Indian nation received some positive strokes by default from the English nation in the dock, which Ved is bringing to the fore, certainly in areas like introduction of modern science , medicine and technology, weaponry, military organisation, Government, Infrastructure like roads, railways, Systems and efficiency in implementation, rewards based on merits, Judiciary, higher education, accountable and far less corrupt administration and above all democratic values and adult franchise copied from the west and how it was far superior or helped Indians in improving the quality of life. Few have benefited all, as some benefits restricted to elite Indians and government servants. English as a common link language devoid of the local mind set has been an effective tool in the hands of the west for administering vast territories. English may benefited Indians also in overcoming our inhibitions and passed on various other benefits.
Touching one point I heard in the discussion, hello, famines are less in the , past 3 decades world over because of the technological breakthroughs in irrigation, power, highbred seeds, pesticides etc. not by the contribution and benevolence of our corrupt babus and politicians. Have no doubt about it. Other example, one billion mobile phones are possible because tech has astonomically advanced in the past few decades in the telecommunication field. Also due to governments less interest in running telephone lines in sharp contrast to years of waiting for a land line till after 40 years of azad. At the same time was non-existent in the 19 th centaury till Alexander Grahambell invented it. So these are not comparable parameters to prove the ruthlessness of colonial rulers.
We must watch out our own mind’s vulnerability to be swayed by patriotic emotions or indoctrination from some quarters for seeking truth. Why didn’t we have the shrewdness of the old company officials when they confronted us? All of us were not sadhus, some were pundits and traders too. The same divide and rule could have exported through foreign affair policy and reaped benefits. Who stopped us? The fact is that nationalism was not even at its infancy when all these happened.
It is also good to have some liberal thoughts of the modern west so we have this forum running ! They are not all bad in the sense all can florish. So my recipe is be open up to new ideas and also learn from the national characteristics of all progressed nations including the English and their colonised states like Hong kong, Singapore or Australia. All these progressed countries have one thing in common, they didn’t blame it on others, nor pour malice on their previous masters for all their ill fate.
The social systems prevalent in those days that allowed us to be under foreign rule is an interesting area of discussion. I would prefer such an act of service from nationalist intellectuals rather than spending the next thousand years nagging and living in guilt and complaining about the occupation. ’I am responsible’ is a good philosophy I learned from our Vedas. Do you agree?!!!
Dear Ved and RC
You people Really Wander About India’s Culture,Religion,and cast system , When you talk About Indian Culture and system one shouldn’t Forget about the western Thinkers Construction up on It ,As They had some biases and made some assumptions based on their culture while constructing theories about not only Indian culture but other colonised cultures as well.
For Ex There was an argument by a Dalit activist writer Kanchan Illia in his book “Buffalo Nationalism” that Hindus worship cows and not a buffalo because cows are fairer and buffaloes are dark in colour.and I am sensing same when I read your arguments on British helping Indian society , as you are repeating the same What Missionaries and western Thought about our society…
When You talk about Cast system and Satti in Indian Society , Did you ever thought How can be this existed in Indian Society from More than Thousand Years ???. I hope you People enough Intelligent to know that Without any Incentive This couldn’t be existed as there is ( in Hinduism )No central authority in Indian Society , No one can Teach and tell me What should i do and What i shouldn’t ,
I can Explain with you one example Say for a fisherman family..it only makes sense to bring a girl from another fisherman as she only knows how to cook fishes,may be to make fishing nets or even how to fish and other House hold related work in Fisherman House etc.So it increases the productivity of whole family and there by its prosperity.So it perfectly makes sense why family does not prefer… say a Brahmin girl/or any other even non-vegetarian girl…as its more of a burden on the family. Thats why a Kshatriya prefered Kshtriya,Brahmin preferd Brahmin or any other caste doing a specific job.
In current society these things doesn’t hold good any more and there by we are seeing the changes.and i bet with any one in next 50-100 years these cast system wont hold in Indian Society as people cant see any incentive on the same .
And the second about the Education and System in India:-
and If you think Its only the Brahman people are Educated and others are not , You are living in World Which is created by Western People ,
Below are some link Find it yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJCTAXb_BWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Xo1tRJNPg&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsXwJdaHZ8g
about British Giving India their Language English and their Social system to us , Think Incentive otherwise you cant understand this world , Why would someone give us English and Social system with out any incentive ??
As British has Forced us to learn English , when British come up with Indian Education Act at 1847 , Immediately They Banned All the Gurukul in India and They announced giving donation (DANA) is also illegal , and one more Interesting Fact is in East India company there is huge empty vacancy for post of clerk which they need to full fill . as they cant bring their people on silly salary
And third About British looting India ,Again you are making lot of Assumption ,
I hope you wont Disagree on me If i tell Before Muslim and British settled in India , India was called as Golden bird (Sone ki chidiya) and we all know Ancient India is Rich even in Vijaya nagar Empire(12 th century ) the Gold and Diamond was sold in every street , What had happened after British and Muslim came , Very interestingly Before British came India was ruled by Many kings and Kings Duty is just to Give Protection , Justice , Infrastructure to society by mere collecting Minimal Tax , As every job is systematically distributed to every Group of People , As education in given by Brahman and some Pandit and Vyshya people are Doing business as they use to be Entrepreneur , And shudra people are doing other Work like Farming,goldsmith etc etc , King never Interfere in people economics and these people seek King only for protection and justice , these people no need to take any license or permission to run any business and do any work , Even i heard if King Puts High tax People Use to Shift it to Near Kingdom where TAX is Minimal , So RAJA Force to do what People Want him to Do .But Once British came here they start Interfering people matter , they started license , permission to do any Work in the Society , As British Find a new way to loot they always comes up with funny law like today’s Govt. and started to loot Us , as we have one famous slogan “JAB RAJA BANE VYAPARI PRAJA BANE BHIKARI” As you will agree on me that British are businessman they came here to make Business in India , when Business man Become our Ruler , Then Our economy start sliding Unfortunately after 1947 Indians Started British Raj 2.0 .
So again my point is we cant make sweeping generalizations.Indian history / culture has not been studied scientifically ..yes noscientifically which is what natural sciences have done in other parts.Most of stories about India we have today are observations made by western travellers and missionaries in 15th-17th century.These were later picked up by renaissance thinkers and then Indian thinkers.
Thats why still people like Kanchan Illia are coming up with theories like Hindus worship cows and not buffalos because of their color.Also I think along with his taste for socialism, Nehru’s policies failed because of poor understanding of India unlike Gandhi.Along with his economic polcies, one must say his version of secularism also failed as communal voilences only increased after Independence.
But in last 25 years there seems to be some effort in that direction mainly by Ghent university,Belgium led by Balagangadhara who wrote a book “Heathens in his blindness” which sent ripples among western thinkers.These are few links of his talks which you may find interesting and useful,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agtihm1GiA8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oAq-kcJ3pk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eweuCMWsGPc
Sudeep
About the Cultural issues of India, it is not connected to the modern nation called India, and my ideas are not what the ‘Western people’ have built up. See this link: http://goo.gl/JN3r7
As to what the British really did in the geographical area currently known as India, see this link: http://goo.gl/rYfj6
I am doing this as per the suggestion that I refrain from posting long writings here.
A brief excerpt from IS THE ANGLOPHILE RIGHT A PRISONER OF THE WESTERN PARADIGM?:
..In 1750, India and China accounted for 75% of the world’s industrial production. Even till 1830, that is a mere 180 years ago, India and China accounted for 60% of the world’s industrial production. India produced better steel than Sheffield, built ships, produced vast amounts of textiles, dyes and a hundred other diverse commodities.
Paddy production in Chengalpattu (near the present Chennai) in 1760 to 1770 amounted to 5 to 6 tons per hectare, probably better than the output in modern India. Indian agricultural labourers earned higher real wages compared to labourers in England.
“Every village has a schoolâ€, Sir Thomas Munro. “There is hardly a village, great or small, throughout our territories, in which there is not at least one school, and in larger villages, more.†G L Prendergast, 1820. “There are 1,00,000 village schools in Bengal and Bihar aloneâ€. William Adam 1830. (The Legend of the Hundred Thousand Schools). Further reports to London from the local Collectors state that the duration of study varied between 5 to 15 years and all the four castes were represented amongst the students. Contrast this with England. The total number of schools, both private and public, in England, in 1801 was 3,363. The total number attending those schools was around 40,000 and “…the average length of school life rises on a favourable estimate from about 1 year in 1835 to about 2 years in 1851â€.
…
References:
[1] All the information, figures and quotes (not attributable to JAP) are taken from Dharampal’s Collected Writings in 5 volumes. These books can be downloaded from http://www.samanvaya.com/dharampal I strongly exhort everybody to put them on their reading lists (at least as the 101st!). They are certainly useful for paradigm shifts!
[2] Uttaramerur – please Google. The inscription and its translation is freely available in the Web.
[3] Also see http://www.ifih.org/uttaramerurinscription.htm
I come here to post again, as it was agreed that I post elsewhere and give a link here, due to the large number of words that come in.
I quote from the beginning of this post:
Said John Bright, “If a country be found possessing a most fertile soil, and capable of bearing every variety of production, and, notwithstanding, the people are in a state of extreme destitution and suffering, the chances are there is some fundamental error in the government of that country.â€
What is this error? It is not in the English government, but in something else in social landscape. I cant explain it here, for it would take too many words. So as mentioned earlier, you can find the explanation in this link: http://goo.gl/cEwfq
And as to Indian culture, you can find it in this link: http://goo.gl/1JEqI
Additional references (extensive quotes):
Brutalisation of India by the British, Part-I
Also check this link: Reinforcing the Foundations of Misery, Part-II by Rajnikant Puranik
Adding this here for the record: Remembering India’s Forgotten Holocaust by Rakesh Krishnan Simha, June 13, 2014 on how “British policies killed nearly 4 million Indians in the 1943-44 Bengal Famine”
href=”http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/20/britain-took-more-out-of-india”>Britain took more out of India than it put in – could China do the same to Britain?:
…A closer parallel is Bengal, the Indian province whose economy was destroyed by the technological strength of northern Britain in what the writer Jeremy Seabrook has called “the first great de-industrialisation of the modern world”.
For at least two centuries the handloom weavers of Bengal produced some of the world’s most desirable fabrics, especially the fine muslins, light as “woven air”, that were in such demand for dressmaking and so cheap that Britain’s own cloth manufacturers conspired to cut off the fingers of Bengali weavers and break their looms. Their import was ended, however, by the imposition of duties and a flood of cheap fabric – cheaper even than poorly paid Bengali artisans could provide – from the new steam mills of northern England and lowland Scotland that conquered the Indian as well the British market. India still grew cotton, but Bengal no longer spun or wove much of it. Weavers became beggars, while the population of Dhaka, which was once the great centre of muslin production, fell from several hundred thousand in 1760 to about 50,000 by the 1820s.
Tigers and leopards roamed the streets. Seabrook gives a memorable picture of dereliction: “The city of men had become a city of animals. Weavers’ dwellings were overgrown, the thatch alive with birds, snakes and insects, while roussettes – bats small and multi-coloured as butterflies – flew in and out of earth-mounds that had been homes; hunched vultures surveyed tracts of land in which the human voice was stilled. People lost the skill of their fingers, and only the roughest-made country cloth still found a market among the poorest.”
Subsequently, India became the exporter of raw materials and foodstuffs – raw cotton and jute, coal, opium, rice, spice and tea – rather than manufactured goods. British shareholders could also make money by investing in Indian infrastructure, principally the railways, where the Indian government attracted funds by guaranteeing returns on capital of 5% net per year. If the railway company couldn’t achieve that return on its own, then the government made up the shortfall from its revenues, which came from Indian and not British taxes. In the event, it was 20 years before the first lines earned more than 5% of their capital outlay, but that did nothing to inhibit their extravagant spending: a mile of Indian railway cost double the same distance in the equally difficult terrain of Canada and Australia.
It was a splendid racket for everyone, apart from the Indian taxpayer. In terms of a secure return, Indian railway shares offered twice as much as the British government’s own stock. Guaranteed railway shares absorbed up to a fifth of British portfolio investment in the 20 years to 1870 – the first line opened in 1853 – but only 1% of it originated in India. Most of the rest came from small shareholders with addresses in southern England: from bankers, barristers, spinsters, retired army officers and people known simply as “gentlemen”. Their holdings averaged only £1,500, but the total invested meant that India’s railways represented one of the 19th century’s largest flows of money between continents. India got an expansive railway system far in advance of any other Asian nation, but Britain retained its grip on the technology as the supplier of all its equipment, which meant once again that the profits were repatriated. The English economist William Thomas Thornton, who was secretary of public works at the India Office, described the guaranteed scheme in a phrase that became well known. It was, he said, “private enterprise at public risk”. When arguments began to be made for Indian independence, it was also evidence for the idea that Britain took more out of its most magnificent colony than it put in.
Colonialism no longer flies a flag or sends gunboats, but its underlying economic facts may not have changed very much. China is on its way to becoming the world’s most industrially powerful country, the position that Britain enjoyed when it crushed Bengal’s textile industry and built India’s railways. According to the trade deals announced this week between China and the UK, China will now build and operate Britain’s forthcoming high-speed railway. It will also build, own and operate the first in a new series of nuclear power stations. China needs ever-increasing supplies of food and raw material, and markets for its manufactures. Britain can’t supply the first, but it can supply titbits for China’s new rich – whisky, salmon, Jaguars – and allow Chinese engineers and technology to have charge of Britain’s most important new infrastructure.
David Cameron sees these developments in an interesting way – that Britain is “playing a part in the rise of China” by helping economic growth to lift millions of its citizens out of poverty. Perhaps this is his altruism coming out. Certainly no impoverished weaver in Bengal would have taken a similar view in 1800. “How pleased we are to have helped the British Empire by pointing thousands of England’s rural labourers towards the smoke of Manchester, where their power looms have made us redundant.” No, that doesn’t work.
* Jeremy Seabrook’s book is titled “The Song of the Shirt – Cheap Garments Across Centuries and Countries” and is published by Navayana in New Delhi (Jul ’14)
Excerpts from How a Nation Is Exploited – The British Empire in Burma by EA Blair (aka George Orwell!):
Following the recent troubles in India, we have asked our contributor, Mr E. A. Blair, whose investigations on ‘The Plight of the British Worker’ have already appeared in these pages, to tell us something of the unrest which has been fermenting in the sub-continent for some years, and which is threatening to spread to English Indo-China.
Mr E. A. Blair, who lived in Burma for some years, has written the following interesting article for us[1], which shows the methods the British Empire uses to milk dry her Asian colonies.
…
The government of all the Indian provinces under the control of the British Empire is of necessity despotic, because only the threat of force can subdue a population of several million subjects.
But this despotism is latent. It hides behind a mask of democracy.
…
Care is taken to avoid technical and industrial training. This rule, observed throughout India, aims to stop India from becoming an industrial country capable of competing with England.
…
Industrially speaking, India was deliberately kept in ignorance.
She only produces basic necessities, made by hand. The Indians would be incapable, for example, of making a motor-car, a rifle, a clock, an electric-light bulb etc. They would be incapable of building or sailing an ocean-going vessel.
At the same time they have learnt in their dealings with Westerners to depend on certain machine-made articles. So the products of English factories find an important outlet in a country incapable of manufacturing them herself.
Foreign competition is prevented by an insuperable barrier of prohibitive customs tariffs. And so the English factory-owners, with nothing to fear, control the markets absolutely and reap exorbitant profits.
…
British domination in India rests essentially on exchanging military protection for a commercial monopoly, but, as we have tried to show, the bargain is to the advantage of the English whose control reaches into every domain.
Placing this link here for the record: “Deindustrialization in 18th and 19th Century India:
Mughal Decline, Climate Shocks and British Industrial Ascent*” (pdf file) by David Clingingsmith and Jeffrey G. Williamson.. from which the concluding sentences:
…
India deindustrialized between 1760 and 1860, and two main epochs, with very different deindustrialization causes, distinguish that century. The first epoch ran from about 1760 to 1810 and was a direct result of poor climate conditions and an indirect result of the dissolution of the Mughal Empire. The deterioration in climate conditions lowered agricultural productivity, raised grain prices…
…
India thus lost ground to Britain in the world textile market during a period when most British production was still carried out using the cottage system. Additionally, the intersectoral terms of trade moved against textiles, encouraging a shift to agricultural commodity production.
…
India’s share of world industrial production fell faster than in any other part of the non-European world. During the second epoch, running from about 1810 to 1860, productivity advance resulting from the adoption of the factory system drove down the relative price of textiles world-wide, a trend that was magnified as a world transport revolution lowered the price of European textile imports even further everywhere in the periphery. Thus, while the productivity of Indian agriculture stopped its decline during this period, under the relative security of Company rule and reinforced by a secular fall in drought frequency, and while the rise in grain prices slowed down and then stabilized, the relative price of grain continued to rise.
Somewhat related: India archive reveals extent of ‘colonial loot’ in royal jewellery collection by David Pegg and Manisha Ganguly, 6th April 2023
Adding this here for the record: Illusions of empire: Amartya Sen on what British rule really did for India” by Amartya Sen, 29 June 2021, from his book, “Home in the World: A Memoir”