British Colonialism in India: Was It a Better Alternative?

Introduction: The Question of Colonialism in India

This paper examines the history of British colonization in India from its origins in the mid-eighteenth century through to the present day. Specifically, it addresses whether colonialism was a better alternative for India. When the British first began colonizing India in the mid-1750s, the country was ruled by emperors and other leaders who tried to resist British imperialism but could not overcome the power of the British military. The British occupied Delhi in 1803, and the country remained under British control until the twentieth century. Since independence, India has made great strides in many areas, including its economy and technology, which have helped the nation grow stronger and more successful.

India Before and Under British Rule

While the British took effective control of India in the early nineteenth century, it was not until the Rebellion of 1857 that British rule became formalized. In actuality, India was relatively prosperous and successful before English colonization. The country was growing agriculturally and economically, and it was not until after the British took over that some of the legendary famines of Bengal and northern India occurred. As historians Bose and Jalal observe, "Overall, a favourable land-labour ratio had enabled highly mobile peasant and tribal labour to negotiate reasonable terms with controllers of land" (Bose and Jalal 43). Essentially, India was becoming financially and politically strong when the English arrived, and the British exploited that foundation to their own advantage.

Bose and Jalal continue: "European dominance over external trade and shipping, and hence over long distance cash flows, as well as their slight edge in military technology, contributed to the wrecking of the eighteenth-century Indian regional state system" (Bose and Jalal 46). Therefore, while India was certainly not on the level of Great Britain or the United States at the time, it had a viable economy, successful agriculture, and was on the brink of becoming a more powerful and successful nation. Under British rule, India was reduced to the status of a developing country that sometimes struggled to feed its own people and had no meaningful political autonomy.

All of that changed in 1947, when India and Pakistan were granted independence. During the colonial period, the British sought to control society, religion, and broad aspects of Indian life. As scholar Vinay Lal notes, "Certain Indian social or religious practices that the British found to be abhorrent were outlawed, such as sati in 1829, and an ethic of 'improvement' was said to dictate British social policies" (Lal). This heavy-handed governance contributed to the Rebellion of 1857 and illustrates how strictly the British ruled India and how deeply they influenced whole generations of Indians. They used military force to keep the population in check, and their policies fueled the growth of many independence movements by the early twentieth century, including the movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, who dedicated his adult life to the struggle for Indian self-rule.

Advantages and Social Costs of British Colonialism

There were, of course, some advantages to British rule. Lal notes, "Though the Indian languages were well developed before the arrival of the British in India, the standardization of these languages, and the creation of the first grammars and dictionaries, was achieved under British rule" (Lal). While such contributions were real, they came at a steep price. In British India, Indians were treated as second-class citizens living in an underdeveloped country with few modern conveniences. When independence finally came in 1947, the terms of the agreement also created Pakistan, producing divisions between communities that have never fully healed.

Conclusion: Was India Better Off Under British Rule?

Was India better off under English rule? Not really. Although the political scene in India is still far from stable, India is striving to maintain a democracy and govern itself, rather than surrendering that authority to outside powers. In addition, the culture and society of India are growing stronger — something the British actively discouraged. However, the British did leave behind one legacy that continues to plague the region. They were the architects of the partition that created Pakistan, and Pakistan continues to be a destabilizing force in the region — harboring extremists and maintaining a government that has at times been dictatorial and even violent. In that respect, the entire region is not better off, and the rift between Pakistan and India carries the risk of nuclear escalation, endangering the wider world. In many cases, colonialism has been defended on the grounds that colonized peoples lacked the economic and social foundations to govern themselves. This was never truly the case in India, and the country will continue to grow and prosper as it modernizes and takes its place in the twenty-first century.

In conclusion, India's experience under British colonization left it far behind in technology and modern development by the time independence was achieved. The most enduring problem of independence has been the rift between India and Pakistan, which has led to nuclear proliferation in the region and ongoing instability between the two countries that persists to this day. There have been many successes since India gained independence, and overall, it has been far better for the country to govern itself and build a democracy — even though that path has brought its own political unrest and hardship.

References

Bose, Sugata, and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Lal, Vinay. "British India." University of California Los Angeles, 2005. 15 Feb. 2008. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/BrIndia.html