baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (11/25/85)
In article <101800012@uiucdcs> reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >Changing the topic, has it ever been established that the British plundered >India? Does anybody have figures representing the rate of growth in India >for a substantial period before the British arrived in India, and the rate >of growth during the British rule? If the British did plunder India, what >did they plunder and howmuch? > >I have'nt seen a detailed study of these issues, but what I have seen >suggests that India progressed faster during the British rule than before it. I have no figures at hand about the "rate of growth" that Reddy talks about, but it would seem to be a reasonable conjecture that the conventional macroeconomic "rate of growth" figures would be higher during British rule than before the arrival of the British. However, I feel that Reddy is jumping to conclusions when he equates "rate of growth" with "national progress" in his second paragraph. When an industrial economy such as post-industrial revolution England's encounters a predominantly agricultural, settled economy such as that of pre-British India, the industrial power tends to play a predatory or colonising role, while the pre-industrial economy plays the role of victim or colony. The result is the enrichment of the industrial power, and impoverishment of the people of the "colony". The industrial power doesn't have to be foreign, nor do their stated intentions to exploit the colony (though both conditions are satisfied in the case of the 18th century British East India Company). Colonizing conditions can also be the result of misguided national economic policies. Consider the rural impoverishment and the urban overcrowding prevalent in the Third World today. This is the result of an industrialized sector of the country (which may be the private sector, or a national government bent on massive industrialization, playing the role of the "colonising" power), growing at the expense of the bulk of the economy which remains rural and pre-industrial (playing the role of the "colonised" power). In all these cases, quantitative measures of "economic status" such as GNP, investment rates etc. show growth, sometimes impressive. But these figures do not reflect the reality of the quality of life of the people, as judged by their access to basic amenities of life, purchasing power, their mental outlook, hopes for the future, etc. In fact, the macro-figures and the quality of life of the people tend often to run in opposite directions. For "neutral" (i.e., non-Indian) examples, only look at Mexico or Brazil, or to be really dramatic, look at Ethiopia (which has the added complicating factor of civil war, to be fair). "India was better off during British Raj than during independence"/"the British did more good than harm in India: witness the economic growth during the british era", etc. are popular refrains heard in the West and echoed by a number of misguided Indians. It is true that we Indians do display an avoidable tendency to "blame it on the Brits", as a substitute to taking an objective look at our national shortcomings. But succumbing to the opposite myth is not the answer. To say that British rule in India directly caused national progress (ignoring the secondary effects of rise of Indian nationalism and native capitalists) is not only demoralizing to our national spirit (since it suggests that India had to "wait until the Brits came along" to make "progress"), but is just plain WRONG. A couple of convincing (to me) studies that analyze the economic problems of third world nations are E.F. Schumacher's (what else?) famous "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people mattered" (Harper and Row, 1973) and Gunnar Myrdal's "Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations" (Random House, 1971). Both spend a good deal of space on India's economy, and point out the irrelevance of conventional macroeconomic measures to the Indian (and similar) situation(s). --Bapa Rao.
varikoot@psuvax1.UUCP (Ashok P. Varikooty) (12/02/85)
More reply on the following by Mr. Reddy > > The plunder of India & its impoverishment by British colonizers was > > no boon to Indians, Muslim or non-muslim. > > /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.nlang.india */ > > > Changing the topic, has it ever been established that the British plundered > India? Does anybody have figures representing the rate of growth in India > for a substantial period before the British arrived in India, and the rate > of growth during the British rule? If the British did plunder India, what > did they plunder and howmuch? > I have'nt seen a detailed study of these issues, but what I have seen > suggests that India progressed faster during the British rule than before it. Mr. Reddy's statements above are so asinine and misinformed that I am compelled to make further statements on the subject. PLUNDER The plunder of India was so enormous that even the Secretary of State for India in 1875 said that "as India must be bled, the bleeding should be done judiciously." (from Digby. Williams ' "Prosperous" British India.' ) The following comments from Macaulay's Lord Clive describing Clives' gains are also illustrative " We may safely affirm that no Englishman who started with nothing has ever in any line of life created such a fortune at the early age of 34 ! But the takings of Clive either for himself or for the government were trifling compared to the wholesale robbery and spoilation, following his departure when Bengal was surrendered a hapless prey to a myriad of greedy officials. These officials were absolute, irresponsible and rapacious and they emptied the private hoards. Enormous fortunes were thus rapidly accumulated at Calcutta while thirty million human beings were reduced to the extremity of wretchedness. The Roman proconsul ... the Spanish viceroy ... were now outdone." EXTENT OF PLUNDER Digby noted estimates made of the extent of plunder between the Battle of Plassey and Waterloo was between 500,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 pounds. K.T. Shah and K.J.Khambatta (from R. Dutt 'India Today' ) have estimated that in the 20th century the British had appropriated annually under one title or another over 10% of India's gross national income. This when India was under the rule of the crown and the British had started developing some "conscience". The rapacity of a privately held East India Company before the crown rule can only be higher. BEFORE THE BRITISH The following quote from Vera Anstey's 'The Economic Development of India' " .. up to the eighteenth century the economic condition of India was relatively advanced and Indian methods of production and of idustrial and commercial organization could stand comparision with those in vogue in any other part of the world...... A country which has manufactured and exported the finest muslins.. at a time when the ancestors of the British were living an extremely primitive life, has failed to take part in the economic revolution initiated by the descendants of those same wild barbarians." THE PERFIDIOUS INDIRECT EFFECT There was a systematic neglect of education, health and welfare of the subjects. The literacy rate, the average life expectancy and the level of starvation deaths have significantly changed for better (though not sufficiently) after the independence. These are the figures as I recall Pre independence Post independence Literacy 10% 30% Life Expectancy 32 years 52 years WHO WERE BETTER OFF UNDER THE BRITISH? To quote J.Nehru from his 'The Discovery of India' "British rule thus consolidated itself by creating new classes and vested interests who were tied up with that rule and whose priveleges depended on it's continuance. There were the zamindars and the princes...." J.Dass in his 'Maharaja' gives an instance of a Raja who spent more on the "wedding" of his dog in a single day than he annually spent on his subjects and he could go unquestioned for this unconscionable act. While the existing rulers are not exactly a paragon of virtue they atleast donot have a "judicious" bleeding of India as their objective. They are at least partially responsive to the ruled. The days of extravagant "weddings" for dogs are over. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (12/06/85)
A number of responses to Uday Reddy's article have pointed out the
tremendous improvements in the Indian quality of life after independence,
compared to that before independence, and have used this to argue that
India was not better off for the British.
Without for a moment denying the rapacity of the British colonists, it seems
to me that this argument has a somewhat confused notion of "better off".
The question to ask is, "better off compared to what?". The only reasonable
way to speculate on an answer to that, it seems to me, is to consider the
state of affairs on the subcontinent just before the British took over,
somehow extrapolate that to the present day assuming that the British never
had taken over, and compare that to how things actually are. Any
differences between the two, it might then be argued, would have been due
to British influences, and we could debate whether these influences were
good or bad.
--
Saumya Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook
uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray
arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet