History, asked by tejarorasimran2490, 1 year ago

what are the impact of colonialism on peasants and craftsman

Answers

Answered by krishnagond671
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 .

Similar questions