History, asked by sobiaabbasi270, 8 months ago

write a brief note on social ,economic and administrative policies of British India after 1857

Answers

Answered by sushanthalva57682
1

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 muslims 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 Mughal 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.

Explanation:

Similar questions