Author: Amit Mehta
Publication: Hindu Voice UK
Date:
URL: http://www.hinduvoice.co.uk/Issues/7/colonial.htm
To the vast majority of Hindus in the UK,
who are also vociferously proud of their Indian roots, the answer to the question
of whether the British Raj was good for India would be an immediate and resounding
'NO'. British rule is irrevocably associated with brutality, economic exploitation
and a 'divide and rule' policy that caused lasting schisms between sections
of Indian society that continue to haunt India today.
However, the idea that British rule was a
force for good, unpalatable as it may sound, is not uncommon in Britain. Read
right-of-centre newspapers and you will regularly find articles and columns
that glorify Britain's colonial past, giving the impression that Britain was
spreading the light of Western Civilisation to the dark corners of the world.
Furthermore, most British history books still do their best to highlight the
benefits that Britain brought to their numerous colonies and possessions,
rather than the countless miseries. Recently in an interview with the BBC,
Niall Ferguson, a British historian who has recently produced a six-part documentary
series for Channel 4, and also works in a research department at Oxford University,
said that British rule greatly benefited the ruled nations and people.
To be sure, many white Britons, perhaps even
the majority, think that the colonial era is not something to be proud of.
But at the same time it must be acknowledged that the idea of British rule
as benevolent is quite mainstream. In this light it is worth examining some
facts about the British Raj that are seldom discussed in the media.
History is never black and white. There are
benefits that come out of otherwise bad situations. In the case of India,
British rule certainly did have some benefits, such as development of previously
absent infrastructure. Of course, colonial historians such as Niall Ferguson
will be fast to point this out:
By the 1880s the British had invested £270 million in India, not much
less than one-fifth of their entire investment overseas.
But at what cost were these investments made?
The pro-colonial authors miss out or even cover-up some basic points about
the British Raj, which should be the foundation of any debate about the 'merits'
of colonialism,
The economic devastation of India under British
rule is discernible from the fact that India's share of world trade fell from
17% percent in 1800 (almost equal to America's share of world trade in 2000)
to less than 2%. It is a very telling fact that during British rule of India,
British per capita gross domestic product increased in real terms by 347 per
cent, Indian by a mere 14 per cent. But even more important are the famine
statistics of British-controlled India.
According to British records, one million
Indians died of famine between 1800 and 1825, 4 million between 1825 and 1850,
5 million between 1850 and 1875 and 15 million between 1875 and 1900. Thus
25 million Indians died in 100 years! Since Independence, although poverty
still exists, there have been no such mass famines, a record of which India
should be proud. Funnily enough, there is no mention of this by pro-colonial
authors. It is certainly a strange omission on their part and something they
should be ashamed of. Perhaps not surprising as it would make British investment
in India seem trivial and pointless by comparison. Any rational person would
rather avoid millions of deaths than have a few railway tracks built and some
land irrigated.
How did these famines occur? The main reason
was not bad weather or natural causes but rather the breaking up of India's
indigenous crop patterns. The British replaced food crops such as rice and
wheat and instead forced Indian farmers to produce jute, cotton, tea and oil
seeds, which they needed as raw materials for their home industries. The implication
of this in times of shortages was catastrophic, as the famine figures show.
Niall Ferguson also credits the British with
labouring to improve India's public health:
It was the British who introduced quinine as an anti-malarial prophylactic,
carried out public programmes of vaccination against smallpox - often in the
face of local resistance - and laboured to improve the urban water supplies
that were so often the bearers of cholera and other diseases.
Once again, there is some truth in this, but
also some omission, and some downright distortion. On the subject of smallpox
vaccination, it is well documented that before the British arrived, Indians
had a system of immunisation against smallpox, in which cowpox was used inoculate
against smallpox. The British doctor J Z Holwell wrote a book in 1767 describing
the system, accepting that it was safe and effective. European medicine did
not have any treatment against the disease at that time.
Inoculation against smallpox became a part
of Western medicine by 1840. No sooner did that happen that the British in
India banned the older method of vaccination, denouncing it as barbaric, without
making certain that sufficient number of inoculators in the new technique
existed. Smallpox in India became a greater scourge than before. This is not
the only example in which the British undermined and even banned indigenous
systems of knowledge, particularly medicine, creating dire consequences.
In making these points, I am not trying to
stir up bitterness amongst readers. As I have mentioned, even many white Britons
see colonialism as a dark part of their history, and refrain from glorifying
it or acting triumphant over it. I am simply trying to combat the smug, celebratory
version of Imperial history that is currently in vogue in some circles. This
article is dedicated to the millions men, women and children, of India as
well as other nations, who perished in unnecessary and avoidable famines during
the colonial era.
