-SANGAVI (CONTRIBUTOR)
India was under colonial rule for two hundred years. To understand better exactly how long a span of two hundred years is, America fought its very first war as a country roughly those many years ago; and two hundred years is more than enough time for even a country as bound by social traditions as India to end up with more than just a British footprint.
The economic impact of the British Raj has been a matter of debate ever since India gained independence. To analyse this, we have to dissect the British-induced changes in the country. Before the British invasion, India had a premier standing in the global trade as exporters of manufactured goods and exquisite textiles. The colonial rule forced India to become an exporter of raw material. It’s no secret that this move was governed by Britain’s selfish need to feed its way to industrialization. An increase in the number of established mills in Britain quite directly meant an increase in the need for raw materials. Eventually, this raised the standard of living in Britain significantly. However, it exerted pressure on India’s resources, human as well as physical to match up to the standards Britain couldn’t have met on its own.
India was, and still is, an agricultural country. The burden on lands to produce industry-standard crops and the burden on landowners to optimize harvesting impacted our society in ways more than one. British policies induced recklessness in landowners and moneylenders, which in turn cast its shadow upon their dynamic with the working class. India was a victim of regional and social divide even pre-Colonial rule; we were never all-prosperous for all of us. However, the British Raj went a long way in worsening the situation. A greater sense of authority towards the cause of production and profits was instilled into the minds of the landowner, who then used their means to ensure the same. This meant cruel treatment of the peasants and artisans, whose standard of living and independence from the British and the landowner is known to have decreased greatly. Eventually, the business class and the landowners merged themselves with the capitalist idea of profits that was taking form in Britain then. The cost of labour decreased with the advent of machines, and the labour class was then silently transferred to another class of citizens.
We must also take into account what the dependence of India’s economy towards agriculture meant. Agriculture, due to its contingence on limited resources like land, cannot be developed infinitely. This meant that there is a set, and easy-to-reach optimal level, breaking beyond which is impossible. Once India produced to its maximum capacity, not only did it mean stagnation for its workers but it also meant that welfare was on a decline. India had, by now, lost its lead in the global trade game due to a two-fold reason. For one, we had lost the workers in other industries to the pressure of increased agricultural production. Beyond that, the West now had machinery and mills as leverage, and India had failed to catch up. Thus, the climbing up of the West and scaling down of India – both happened together between the years of 1860 and 1920.
However, it would be unfair to say that all of India suffered in the dark gloom of agricultural setbacks. Albeit for selfish reasons, the British advanced cities like the then Bombay and Delhi to match them up with the standards of cities abroad. They also gave us the railways, habitable hill stations, a unified legal code, and currencies. However, the exact economic benefit of these developments is difficult to put a finger on.
It can safely be said that the economic growth that took place under the British Raj, did not improve standards of living, but led to an increase in population. This growth is termed as Malthusian growth and is known to happen in regions just before industrialization strikes. India was a land of 155 million people in 1750, and a land of over twice as many (355 million) in 1947. Living standards rise briefly, post which they are dedicated to ensuring the subsistence of the population increases that happens by the virtue of this very growth.
It is also an irrefutable truth that India has always had a divide, and people within the society have functioned as subclasses with contrasting lives. There has always been the picture of a brown peasant sweating in the fields struggling to make ends meet, and a wheatish man living a life of luxury based on the plight of the hardworking man. This difference was aggravated during the colonial period when most of our people were pitched against each other for subsistence. However, it would be a lie to say that our own economic policies post Independence has not furthered the divide. The balance of economic favours in India is still, in fact now much more so, tilted in the favour of those whose surnames happen to be names of conglomerates and multinational companies. The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft of 2020 is another testament to this. The COVID-19 pandemic has also brought to light, with more fervour than ever before, how less the once Golden Bird seems to care about those who sweat and build, with migrant labourers having to either walk back home or carelessly being put on trains. Small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures are suffering. Food is short, and the little that we agree to provide is contingent on the availability of official documents. India must decide to give back to its people now.
REFERENCES :
- Worstall, Tim (2017). Forbes [online]. Available at : https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/08/15/the-british-left-india-richer-than-they-found-it-unfortunately-it-was-malthusian-growth/#2d2d279a5a8f
- Kwatra, Nikita (2018). Livemint [online]. Available at : https://www.livemint.com/Politics/sg0ZDsmKPz1Ht7wbDGJE5N/Income-inequality-in-India-Is-the-British-Raj-to-blame.html
- Kanisetti, Anirudh (2017). Indian National Interest [online]. Available at :
https://nationalinterest.in/how-india-became-poor-6963ef2fc495
