Question

Define colonialism and it's developmental impact on Indian polical political economy

Answer 1

Brainly.in

Secondary SchoolSociology 5 points


Define colonialism and discuss its developmental impact on indian political economy in 500 words
Advertisement

Ask for details FollowReport by Arun196 19.03.2018
Answers
suman167
suman167Ambitious
Colonialism, as a historical phenomenon of territorial expansion, is intimately connected with the rise and growth of the modern capitalist world system.

So it is entwined with history, economics, politics, etc., of the modern capitalist society.

Colonialism is a complex phenomenon of capitalist expansion.

In a narrow sense, colonialism refers to the process of control of supplies of raw materials, mineral resources, and markets in underdeveloped and pre-­capitalist regions. Such narrow definition of colonialism overlooks a vital aspect of colonialism relating to political activity and the drive for dominance over the daily lives of the people of colonies.

In a modern sense, colonialism is a general description of the state of subjection—political, economic, intellectual—of a non-European society as a result of the process of colonial organisation. Colonialism deprives a society of its freedom and its earth and, above all, it leaves its people intellectually and morally disoriented.

Colonialism, as a historical pheno­menon, refers to foreign domination which implies that the colonised area is regulated in a manner known as ‘unequal exchange’. Colonised societies are intended to serve the interests of the ruling country. Thus, by colonialism, we mean a system of political and social relations between two countries—of which one is the ruler and the other is its colony.

So colonialism refers to foreign domination in social, economic, and political policies of the colony countries. Obviously, the destiny of the colony is governed by the policies of the foreign country so as to sub-serve the interests of the ruling country.

The economic and social development of a colonial country is completely subordinated to the ruling country. Colonial economy is stripped off all independent economic decisions. The development of agricultural, utilisation of the country’s vast natural resources, its industrial and tariff policies, trading relations with foreign countries, and so on are left into the hands of the ruling country.

In summary, economic policies of colonies conform to the interests of the rulers and not of the subjects. Obviously, this unequal relationship between these countries results in a state of underdevelopment of the colony. India was the largest colonial possession of Britain. She was able to exploit India for nearly 200 years—1757 to 1947.
I HOPE THIS MAY HELP U

Answer 2

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. It seems likely that there was some increase in productive investment which must have been near zero in Moghul India: government itself carried out productive investment in railways and irrigation and as a result there was a growth in both agricultural and
industrial output. The new elite established a Western life-style using the English language and 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.
As far as the mass of the population were concerned, colonial rule brought few significant changes. 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. Total output and population increased substantially but the gain in per capita output was small or negligible.
It is interesting to speculate about India's potential economic fate if it had not had two centuries of British rule. 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.