Any major devlopment in history did not happen in a single day in the light of the development of colonial rule in india , discuss this observation.
Answers
Answer:
British imperialism was more pragmatic than that of other colonial powers. Its motivation was
economic, not evangelical. There was none of the dedicated Christian fanaticism which the
Portuguese and Spanish demonstrated in Latin America and less enthusiasm for cultural diffusion
than the French (or the Americans) showed in their colonies. For this reason they westernized India
only to a limited degree.
British interests were of several kinds. At first the main purpose was to achieve a
monopolistic trading position. Later it was felt that a regime of free trade would make India a major
market for British goods and a source of raw materials, but British capitalists who invested in India,
or who sold banking or shipping service there, continued effectively to enjoy monopolistic
privileges. India also provided interesting and lucrative employment for a sizeable portion of the
British upper middle class, and the remittances they sent home made an appreciable contribution to
Britain's balance of payments and capacity to save. Finally, control of India was a key element in
the world power structure, in terms of geography, logistics and military manpower. The British
were not averse to Indian economic development if it increased their markets but refused to help in
areas where they felt there was conflict with their own economic interests or political security.
Hence, they refused to give protection to the Indian textile industry until its main competitor
became Japan rather than Manchester, and they did almost nothing to further technical education.
They introduced some British concepts of property, but did not push them too far when they met
vested interests.
The main changes which the British made in Indian society were at the top. They replaced
the wasteful warlord aristocracy by a bureaucratic-military establishment, carefully designed by
utilitarian technocrats, which was very efficient in maintaining law and order. The greater efficiency
of government permitted a substantial reduction in the fiscal burden, and a bigger share of the
national product was available for landlords, capitalists and the new professional classes. Some of
this upper class income was siphoned off to the UK, but the bulk was spent in India. However, the
pattern of consumption changed as the new upper class no longer kept harems and palaces, nor did
they wear fine muslins and damascened swords. This caused some painful readjustments in the
traditional handicraft sector.
English schools. New towns and urban amenities were created with segregated suburbs and housing
for them. Their habits were copied by the new professional elite of lawyers, doctors, teachers,
journalists and businessmen. Within this group, old caste barriers were eased and social mobility
increased.
The British educational effort was very limited. There were no major changes in village
society, in the caste system, the position of untouchables, the joint family system, or in production
techniques in agriculture.
British impact on economic and social development was, therefore, limited. There are three major alternatives which can be seriously considered. One
would have been the maintenance of indigenous rule with a few foreign enclaves, as in China.
Given the fissiparous forces in Indian society, it is likely that there would have been major civil
wars in China in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century
and the country would probably have split up. Without direct foreign interference with its
educational system, it is less likely that India would have developed a modernizing intelligentsia
than China because Indian society was less rational and more conservative, and the Chinese had a
much more homogeneous civilization around which to build their reactive nationalism. If this
situation had prevailed, population would certainly have grown less but the average standard of
living might possibly have been a little higher because of the bigger upper class, and the smaller
drain of resources abroad (1). Another alternative to British rule would have been conquest and
maintenance of power by some other West European country such as France or Holland. This
probably would not have produced results very different in economic terms from British rule. The
third hypothesis is perhaps the most intriguing, i.e. conquest by a European power, with earlier
accession to independence. If India had had self-government from the 1880s, after a century and a
quarter of British rule, it is likely that both income and population growth would have been
accelerated. There would have been a smaller drain of investible funds abroad, greater tariff
protection, more state enterprise and favours to local industry, more technical training - the sort of
things which happened after 1947.