British colonialism, in fact, did not enter the body politic in India till the arrival of the Indian Railways
British rule in India meant many things to many. There are today, clearly two schools of thought on the nature of colonial rule — the admirers’ school and the critics’ school. The admirers argue that “Despite 200 hundred years of British rule, India remained incredibly poor.” But the critics of British rule on the other hand seem to suggest that “It is because of the two hundred years of British rule, India remained incredibly poor”. Further, the critics’ contention is that India has been a rich country with poor people. It is the British policies that made them poor.
While the apologists to the British rule show its rosy side by highlighting the fact that political unity was the first gift of the British. Others include introduction of a viable administrative system, effective police and judiciary, systematic land surveys and revenue system, transport revolution through Railways, Posts and Telegraph, introduction of English education, and eradication of social evils like the Sati, female infanticide, problem of thugs and the like.
But the critics often quote a number of economic innovations that the British introduced, the ruin of rural industries leading to deindustrialisation, frequent famines and many more to substantiate their arguments.
Perpetuating Colonialism
For them, the so-called modernising efforts were peripheral, accidental, unintentional, and they were the only means to perpetuate colonialism in an effective manner. India was subjected to British colonial rule for more than two centuries during which period Indian interests were subordinated to the British economic interests. The introduction of railways, commercialisation of agriculture, capital-oriented industry, changes in land tenurial structures, capital-oriented industries, foreign capital, trade policies, etc, were all to serve the cause of the British.
The good quality cotton from Khandesh and Berar was taken to feed the hungry mills in Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool and Lancashire. Machine-made cloth flooded the captured markets in India. The broadcloth, “Glasgow Dhotis” which the peasants wore in India thus came from Britain. Such imports spelt doom to indigenous textile manufacturing. As a result, the village looms were made to go silent.
While the industrial revolution heralded Britain, it was de-industrialisation that India was gifted with. England extracted a large tribute from India. It is estimated that 4% to 8% of its national income was taken away by the British year after year at various stages of its rule till about 1914 when World War I broke out. That amount was nearly two-thirds of the surplus that can set any country on to the path of capitalist growth. Their industrial revolution obviously synchronised with their occupation of India starting with the infamous Battle of Plassey (in 1757).
Exploiting Railways
The mind of the British government in introducing the Railway network at a break-neck speed in India is made clear by Lord Dalhousie in his celebrated minutes of 16 April 1853, when he declared his two-pronged policy of using the railways firstly, to carry Indian agricultural raw materials from the hinterland to the nearest ports to be shipped to Britain cheaply, quickly and safely. The second advantage, he cited was to transport the finished British goods from the ports to be dumped even in remote Indian markets. It may be pointed out that British colonialism, in fact, did not enter the body politic in India till the arrival of the Indian Railways.
At the height of the freedom movement, Indian national leaders lamented that “every mile of rail the British laid, added a fresh nail to the coffin of the Indian economy”. However, the admirers of British rule viewed Dalhousie’s railways as an “engine for social advancement in India!”. They also hailed railways for making transport cheaper, quicker and safer.
Indian agriculture was made to go commercial as the cultivation of cash crops replaced food crops. Market forces took away peasant autonomy. Peasant indebtedness became the order of the day. Landlords and moneylenders, with the blessings of the government, had a field day in hastening the process of depeasantisation.
Siphoning off Resources
The nature of British trade policies was primarily aimed at siphoning off Indian resources for their economic benefit. It was not the finished product that was exported from India, but the very raw materials. If oil is exported, the oil expelling industry would prosper, and the oil cake would be available as manure, but these are denied when the kernel itself is exported. The village Ghani was thrown out of work. Free trade policies helped indiscriminate export of foodgrains like wheat and rice to the ‘industrial mother country’ even at a time when people in India were dying like flies due to severe famines and scarcities. This was the period when “development of underdevelopment” took place in India.
Today when the country is celebrating its 77th Independence Day, it is time to ponder over the nature of the colonial rule perpetuated by the British in India. There is every need to tell the world that the present-day prosperity of Britain is obviously due to the systematic economic exploitation of India. Present-day youth in schools and colleges not only in India but even in Britain should be taught lessons about how colonialism was perpetuated and how India was subjugated under British rule. This will go a long way in making the young realise how unjust colonialism has been and how it should be despised.