British India..was it good or bad?

[roadrunner]

I was having a read of this on bbc and came across comments such as

"The Great British Empire is indeed a lesson in history. One can learn from what they did right and wrong. The question, then, is, does the good outweigh the bad? I cannot speak for all the former colonies. I believe that the imperialism was a blessing in disguise. Sure, the conflict and turmoil is forever written in the history books, but the good was really good. The British came when the Mogul Empire was on its declination path. They brought law and order, and most importantly, technology with them. I do not believe that the vast lengths of Railway lines in the Indian subcontinent would have been possible without the colonization. This is just one of the many reasons why the British Empire did more good than bad."

The other side of the coin

"UK was a terrorist of the 18th century who wielded the biggest gun. The majority of Asian economies were ready to enter the industrialisation stage of their economy, right before the UK entered the picture. What happened was majority of the world under UK rule stopped developing economically with 0% economic growth. How can any idiot presumably think UK added any value by destroying these economies?"

Was wondering what your opinions are, and which comment was written by the subcontinental? Feel free to talk about the Empire generally.

 

[Flintlock]

It was mixed...the Raj did different things in different eras, and was good in some ways and bad in others....

Depends on which way you look at it.

 

[roadrunner]

It was mixed...the Raj did different things in different eras, and was good in some ways and bad in others....

Depends on which way you look at it.

Care to elaborate with some examples?

 

[salman nedian]

The British rule was good in a sense that they kept us disciplined like we all know the streets of Karachi were daily washed during the British rule, Hyderabad was known as “City of Perfumes”.

But we were slaves then so to me that hides all the goods of that era.

 

[roadrunner]

The British rule was good in a sense that they kept us disciplined like we all know the streets of Karachi were daily washed during the British rule, Hyderabad was known as “City of Perfumes”.

But we were slaves then so to me that hides all the goods of that era.

So having a whip to your back or a gun to your head (or are you suggesting they paid a salary to clean the streets?), ordering you to wash the street would be considered a good thing in your opinion? Cheap, free, unfair labour, the exploitation of workers?

 

[niaz]

Hon Members,

Since I was born during the Raj ( 1943) I have had occasion to discuss this matter in great lenght with many people including my grand father. Two things are correct:

1. No criticism of the Raj was tolerated and every "gora' was treated with respect. British have an inbred sense of justice. Thus as long as the other party was not European; you will get justice done. This also meant that police was less corrupt and roads and other infracstructure services well maintained and that most promotions were merit based.

2. British basically took over from the Marathas and Sikhs. Maratha military governor determined how much "Chowth" or one fourth was, regardless of the fact that you die of hunger if you pay what was demanded; you had to pay your taxes or face the dire consequence. A truly blood sucking system.

In Punjab, the ruling class were the 'Misls'. There were twelve Misls in the Sikh Army and the tax system was also more or less arbitrary. Ranjit Singh had some Muslims in his Govt. ( Faqir Azizuddin was his Foreign Minister), however after Ranjit's death in 1839, Administration was really awful with all the Sikh/ Khalsa generals grabbing whatever they could arbitrarily. British Raj therefore ended lawlessness and provided relief to the common man. Dug canals, built roads and the railways and provided educational institutions where the standard was nearly at par with Britain. British rewarded the loyalists and eliminated the opponents ruthlessly. For joe public, the Raj was therefore better than Sikh or Maratha domination.

My memory goes back to 1950, nearly all the old timers rememberd British Raj fondly. However, my father's generation, mainly those born after the first world war, had never seen or rememberd the pre British Times. This generation was anti British and would prefer death to the foreign domination.

My late father used to remark that no doubt both the moral and cultural values declined after the independence, it was a small price to pay for Freedom.

 

[roadrunner]

and provided educational institutions where the standard was nearly at par with Britain.

Thanks for the reply. This stood out first of all from your recollection. By saying the standard of some of the educational institutions was on par with Britain I have no doubts is true to a degree (for a start education had to be provided to the British elite that had vacationed/moved to British India on work grounds). However isn't the statement ignoring the actual reality that faced the common subcontinental (ignoring the 1% elite). Literacy figures are shown in the following table. Bengal was considered developed in India, had only a 14% male literacy and 1% female literacy figure.

http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=literacysw2.jpg

Industrialized countries such as Britain, France, America and so on had reached universal literacy a long time before. The question remains would the subcontinent have progressed towards industrialization had the British not arrived following the decline of the Moghals? If it were to have become industrialized, the literacy figures would probably have been as high as 100% in some areas of the subcontinent. You agree or disagree with this?

On the subject of post Ranjit Singh and the other Sikhs occupying parts of Pakistan, wasn't the end of Ranjit Singh's reign also the end of the Sikh Empire in Pakistan? ie..the British moved in from 1850 onwards? It's not to say Ranjit Singh ruled Punjab well, he did seem like a war mongering fool, but the British Raj I'm not sure did much in the way of positive development in Punjab following on from Ranjit Singh. Or do you know differently?

 

[Flintlock]

Once the British had consolidated their rule, they had an aggressive policy of "anglicizing" and "christianizing" the natives, and they destroyed all the vernacular education systems.

They replaced these with Convents that were accessible to only a tiny elite.

 

[roadrunner]

Once the British had consolidated their rule, they had an aggressive policy of "anglicizing" and "christianizing" the natives, and they destroyed all the vernacular education systems.

I do agree that the vernacular education system was being replaced for the elite (to provide Indians who were "anglicized" in outlook" and able to communicate with the people). I don't think the "christianizing" of the natives was important though. Simply the British didn't care about religion so long as there was no uprising. If there was an attempt to chistianize then this probably cause an uprising.

They replaced these with Convents that were accessible to only a tiny elite.

A link?

 

[niaz]

Dear Road Runner,

Firstly the literacy rate: We are discussing whether British Raj was good or bad. There are no literacy figures before the Raj. To compare one really requires the comparison before and after. Before the Marathas it was the Moghul rule. Moghul rule was strictly fuedal. The country mostly agrarian and land divide to the Grandees of the empire in return for providing a fixed amount of soldiers for the royal army. Also remember that we are discussing the entire population, not the Muslims only. I don't see any attempts by any Moghul Emperor to set up educational institutions as the British did. Actually in nearly all of the Islamic history, only two institutions were set up by the government. First was the Jamia Al Azhar ( set up by the Ismaili Caliph Almoiz in 969 - actually by his Commander Al Jawahar) and the second the famous Dar ul Uloom Nizamiah by Nizamul Mulk Toosi, grand vazir of the Saljuqi sultan Malik Shah circa 1080. There have been many great muslim scholars but mostly because they had a great desire to learn on their own, but no formal educational institutions.

British left, what is now India, an industrialised country; regrettably not Pakistan. It is only speculation as to what would have happened if there was no Raj in India regarding Industrialization. Mughals, Marathas and the Sikhs, all had agrarian econmies and income from the trade and land revenue.
Your guess is as good as mine as to what would have been, if there were no British Raj. One thing is certain, most of the India would have beeen under the Maratha rule.

 

[roadrunner]

Dear Road Runner,

Firstly the literacy rate: We are discussing whether British Raj was good or bad. There are no literacy figures before the Raj. To compare one really requires the comparison before and after. Before the Marathas it was the Moghul rule. Moghul rule was strictly fuedal. The country mostly agrarian and land divide to the Grandees of the empire in return for providing a fixed amount of soldiers for the royal army. Also remember that we are discussing the entire population, not the Muslims only. I don't see any attempts by any Moghul Emperor to set up educational institutions as the British did. Actually in nearly all of the Islamic history, only two institutions were set up by the government. First was the Jamia Al Azhar ( set up by the Ismaili Caliph Almoiz in 969 - actually by his Commander Al Jawahar) and the second the famous Dar ul Uloom Nizamiah by Nizamul Mulk Toosi, grand vazir of the Saljuqi sultan Malik Shah circa 1080. There have been many great muslim scholars but mostly because they had a great desire to learn on their own, but no formal educational institutions.

Whilst it's true that no censuses were carried out to determine Mughal Empire literacy like that occurring by the British, one can look at other indicators. Here are two indicators of literacy, tell me what you think of them..

Indicator 1
Firstly, one can compare India's growth from 1911-1950 and 1950-1990. Literacy was 7% in 1911 moving to 11% in 1950, moving to around 50% by 1990. So a 4% increase becomes a 40% increase after independence. What about this as a marker for what the literacy rates should have been?

The next question is do we know what caused the low literacy rate (7%) in the 1910s in India? Was literacy higher during Mughal or pre-Mughal period, the answer is unknown. All that one can deduce is that the literacy growth rates were lower than what they should have been. Was this inefficiency of the way things were run in British India?

Indicator 2
The Princely States spent more money than British India on human capital (education spending doesn't seem to be present).

http://img511.imageshack.us/my.php?image=britindvz4.jpg

FU = undeveloped countries (like Brazil).

If princely staes could spend more, then surely British India could have spent more, don't you think?

And The Mughals were just another bunch of foreign invaders to me serving their own interests. Though from what I know of them, the economy share of the subcontinent was around 17% under Mughal times..this is a wiki link though..Do you agree that the economy of the Mughals was one of the stronger world economies?

British left, what is now India, an industrialised country; regrettably not Pakistan. It is only speculation as to what would have happened if there was no Raj in India regarding Industrialization. Mughals, Marathas and the Sikhs, all had agrarian econmies and income from the trade and land revenue.
Your guess is as good as mine as to what would have been, if there were no British Raj. One thing is certain, most of the India would have beeen under the Maratha rule.

I don't think that India was left industrialized. There was some move towards industrialization, jute mill creation in Bengal for example. But wasn't trade stifled by raising duties on exports/imports from the subcontinent? This then caused many industries in British India to disappear. You could argue it was slightly industrialized, and clearly left much more industrialized than Pakistan, which was only a raw materials producer.

Why is it certain the Marathas would be ruling India? What's your evidence for this?

 

[HK-47]

the darkest side of me thinks they all turned our most beautiful women(especially Muslim women) into whores.

 

[Flintlock]

I don't think that India was left industrialized. There was some move towards industrialization, jute mill creation in Bengal for example. But wasn't trade stifled by raising duties on exports/imports from the subcontinent? This then caused many industries in British India to disappear. You could argue it was slightly industrialized, and clearly left much more industrialized than Pakistan, which was only a raw materials producer.
Why is it certain the Marathas would be ruling India? What's your evidence for this?

As far as industrialization is concerned, Karachi and Lahore were great cultural and industrial centers. I think the region of Punjab and Sindh were pretty much on par with the rest of British India.

Infact, Lahore was probably one of the most, if not one of the most, prominent citiy after Delhi.

The other Parts of what is now Pakistan, like Balochistan and NWFP were simply treated as buffer zones with Afghanistan, with very little human development in these regions. The people here were also backward compared to the rest of the provinces.

Also, the industries in Bengal, Bombay, Madras etc. weren't due to the blessings of the British. These were all local entrepreneurs who managed to open factories despite the exploitative policies.

As far as the Marathas were concerned, they were ruling most of central India upto Delhi till the British came. They had been seriously weakened by the Afghans in the 3rd Battle of Panipat, which allowed the British to slowly annex their territories by successive attacks.

It can be argued that if the British had not come, the Marathas would have been ruling most of Central and Western India, and western Punjab and Sindh in Pakistan under the Peshwas.

 

[roadrunner]

As far as industrialization is concerned, Karachi and Lahore were great cultural and industrial centers. I think the region of Punjab and Sindh were pretty much on par with the rest of British India.

Infact, Lahore was probably one of the most, if not one of the most, prominent citiy after Delhi.

No, I don't think so. Lahore might have had some development but not that much. Karachi didn't have much. I can only find this quoe or now from "Inheritance of Empire, Britain India and the balance of power in asia" by Martin Wainwright.

"But Pakistan possessed no strategic industries and could not serve as a manufacturing base for military supplies as India had done during the second world war"

Basically, Pakistan was a raw materials producer that supplied some of the Indian industries with cotton etc. The processing was done within India.

The other Parts of what is now Pakistan, like Balochistan and NWFP were simply treated as buffer zones with Afghanistan, with very little human development in these regions. The people here were also backward compared to the rest of the provinces.

BS. The people in Balochistan and NWFP fought against colonialism. If that is backward, then you have an odd definition of what is forward-looking I'm sure too

Also, the industries in Bengal, Bombay, Madras etc. weren't due to the blessings of the British. These were all local entrepreneurs who managed to open factories despite the exploitative policies.

No way. Bengal's industrialization took place under direct rule of the British. The jute mills as one example were government owned.

As far as the Marathas were concerned, they were ruling most of central India upto Delhi till the British came. They had been seriously weakened by the Afghans in the 3rd Battle of Panipat, which allowed the British to slowly annex their territories by successive attacks.

It can be argued that if the British had not come, the Marathas would have been ruling most of Central and Western India, and western Punjab and Sindh in Pakistan under the Peshwas.

Disagree..If the Afghans were able to inflict such damage on the Marathas at Panipat, I think they whole of what is now Pakistan would have come under their kingdom.

 

[Flintlock]

No, I don't think so. Lahore might have had some development but not that much. Karachi didn't have much.

Let us not forget that the British gave modern institutions to these cities, and established the modern bureaucracy, modern city planning etc. etc. The Lahore under the British was probably much more modern than the one under a hypothetical native ruler.

BS. The people in those areas fought against colonialism. If that is backward, then you have an odd definition of what is forward-looking I'm sure too

They fought well because it was in their culture to fight, not because they had any modern ideas of nationhood.

No way. Bengal's industrialization took place under direct rule of the British. The jute mills as one example were government owned.

Ah, the just mills were factories operated by the company, and the profits left India to reach Britain. They never resulted in any prosperity for the locals.
On the other hand, the first Indian enterpreneurs in Bombay made steel and steel products, ships, agricultural equipment essentially at their own merit.

Disagree..If the Afghans were able to inflict such damage on the Marathas at Panipat, I think they whole of what is now Pakistan would have come under their kingdom.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
The Marathas were still a major power after the Panipat defeat. That defeat simply restricted their expansion further West.

It is arguable that they would have remained in control of most of India for a long time, considering that they had modernized the military tactics to a great extent, and also commanded a large navy.

Also, the practice of giving regional autonomy to the various chieftains would have ensured that the empire remained intact for a long time.

Of course, the Afghans, being the quintessential warriors, could have defeated them eventually....but then we really can't predict such things can we.