Economic Dimension of Hindutva, Part 2
The economic history of India under British colonial rule (British Raj) remains a subject of significant debate, especially when viewed through the lens of a nationalist perspective. Nationalists have long argued that British colonialism destroyed or severely deformed a flourishing pre-colonial Indian economy, which had been progressing smoothly before the onset of British rule in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Their critique challenges the notion that India’s economy was primitive when the British arrived. Instead, nationalists contend that British colonization not only disrupted the high level of development India had already achieved but also replaced indigenous sources of economic growth with imperial structures that disadvantaged Indian entrepreneurs.
Disruption of India’s Economic System
According to nationalist thought, British rule was a destructive force, particularly for Indian industry and agriculture. The arrival of the British saw a transformation of the Indian economy, not just politically but structurally. Before colonization, India had a thriving economy with established trade networks, skilled craftsmanship, and a rich agricultural base. However, nationalists argue that British policies systematically undermined these indigenous systems. The imposition of international competition on traditional crafts and the forced commercialization of agriculture stripped India of its traditional sources of economic power, replacing them with colonial networks that primarily served the British Empire’s interests.
In particular, the growth of industrialism in Britain turned colonial India into a dependent market for British manufactured goods and a supplier of cheap agricultural and raw materials. Indian artisans, once famous for their intricate handmade products, were displaced by machine-made goods from Britain. As a result, Indian producers had to limit their output to low-value goods that were not viable for import due to high transport costs. This transformation had long-lasting negative effects on the local economy and the livelihood of millions of Indians.
The Role of Military and Infrastructure
Nationalists also emphasize the subjugation of India’s military to British needs, which were primarily designed to safeguard the empire’s interests rather than to protect the Indian populace. Furthermore, while the British often touted the creation of a vast railway network as a symbol of their modernization efforts, nationalists argue that its true purpose was to facilitate the movement of troops and resources to support the British economy, not to build an infrastructure for Indian development.
A key argument often presented by nationalists is India’s trade imbalance with Britain. While India consistently generated a surplus in the trade of goods globally, it faced a significant deficit in its dealings with Britain. This deficit, when combined with the financial obligations imposed by British policies – such as interest payments and debt repayments – left India economically drained and dependent on British financial structures.
The Counter-Narrative: British Supporters
On the other hand, critics of the nationalist viewpoint, particularly those sympathetic to British colonial rule, argue that the changes in India’s economy under British control were more complex than the nationalists suggest. They acknowledge that the Indian economy underwent significant transformation but emphasize that many of these changes were driven by internal factors that predated British rule. The Indian economy, they argue, was already marked by commercialization and unequal social structures even before the British arrived.
British proponents claim that Indian values, traditions, and cultural practices acted as significant barriers to economic development. They point out that the Indian subcontinent lacked a sufficient entrepreneurial spirit and that Indian capitalists were reluctant to take risks, which hindered the country’s ability to industrialize. This lack of entrepreneurship, combined with an inadequate workforce and traditional values, allegedly stymied India’s progress.
The Marxist Perspective
Karl Marx, in his writings on British rule in India, provides a harsh critique of the colonial impact. He argues that British colonialism devastated Indian industries, particularly the textile sector. He describes the drastic decline of Indian cities known for their fabrics, such as Dhaka, where the population fell sharply as British imports flooded the market. The rise of English steam-powered machinery and modern science further disconnected Indian agriculture and crafts, leading to widespread impoverishment.
Marx also believed that the development of a railway system by the British could serve as a precursor to broader industrialization in India, which would eventually dismantle the rigid caste system and promote social mobility. However, later scholarship, particularly from historian Rothermund, revises this view, arguing that the railway system did not catalyze industrialization in India. The British constructed the infrastructure using their own materials and labor, and it served British interests more than India’s development.
British Views on Economic Modernization
While many nationalist thinkers emphasize the negative effects of British rule on India’s economy, some British figures like Sir Percival Griffiths argue that British colonialism had positive effects in terms of modernization. Griffiths pointed to the political unity enforced by British rule, the efficiency of colonial administration, and the establishment of key infrastructure such as irrigation systems and railways. In this view, British rule laid the groundwork for India’s modernization, despite the exploitation that accompanied it.
Interestingly, some Indian entrepreneurs saw the British East India Company as an opportunity to strengthen the regional economy. By establishing law and order, the British created a stable framework in which some Indian businesses could flourish. These entrepreneurs saw British rule as a means to foster the necessary conditions for economic growth in certain sectors.
Final Thoughts
The debate over the economic legacy of British rule in India remains contentious. Nationalists argue that British colonialism disrupted a thriving economy and deprived India of its economic autonomy, leading to centuries of exploitation and stagnation. On the other hand, critics of this view highlight the complexities of the Indian economy, suggesting that internal factors, including cultural and social structures, were just as influential in shaping India’s economic fate.
Ultimately, the legacy of British colonialism in India’s economic development is multifaceted, with both negative and positive aspects. The true impact of this period is best understood through a nuanced exploration of the various economic, social, and political factors that shaped India’s trajectory under British rule.
Do you think the British Raj primarily helped or hindered India’s economic development? In your opinion, what is the most significant long-term economic impact of British rule on India? How would Savarkar feel about the British Raj’s effect on India’s economy? Share your insights in the comments below!
Sources:
DUTT, Palme R. 1951. Indien Heute. Dietz Verlag Berlin
ROTHERMUND, Dietmar. 1985. Indiens wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Von der Kolonialherrschaft bis zur Gegenwart. Schöningh (UTB): Paderborn.
ROY, Tirthankar. 2000. The Economic History of India 1857-1947. Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
TOMLINSON, B. R. 1993. The Economy of Modern India 1860-1970. The New Cambridge History of India. III. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Leave a Reply