Negative Outcomes Of The British Rule In India

Imperialism is simply defined as the act of a powerful country expanding its power and rule by acquiring inhabited territories and subjecting them to its own rule. Perhaps one of the best examples of imperialism is that of the massive British Empire in which the “sun never set. ” The “jewel in the crown” of this empire though, was India, one of the most valuable colonies of the largest empire in the history of the world. The British Rule in India started out simply as a global trading company — the East India Company — that grew and grew to eventually controlling much of South Asia for more than 200 years. While the British Rule in India was massive indeed, it is important to evaluate the true impact of this rule in order to completely understand the topic. Although imperialism has been able to do good for some of the countries subject to it, the same can simply not be said for India. Although the British Rule in India did help to advance India and its citizens in a few ways, in the end, their rule was one that was fueled by self-interest and a thirst for dominance that ultimately left behind a legacy of little good but much harm for India.

One of the major negatives of the British Rule in India, is the destruction of the Indian economy during the rule. Ultimately for Britain, India was simply a way to make profit. These methods of making profit though often brought with them damages to India’s own economy. During the British Rule, instead of going through a period of industrialization like that in many other countries, India instead went through a deindustrialization. In fact, as claimed by Jeffrey G. Williamson of Harvard University, India’s share of the world economy decreased from about 28% before the British rule to under 2% after the rule. A major cause of such economic decline is the tax that many of the subjects of the rule were forced to pay. Villagers were subject to pay almost 54% in tax during the rule, compared to only about 27% before it, meaning that ¾ of the entire population of India had to pay double the amount of tax during the British Rule. A significant portion of the tax revenue though was ultimately sent to Britain for its own purposes, with India receiving little to no compensation, as said by Ferguson Niall. One of the biggest exports of India before the rule was its manufactured goods, largely textiles. Due to economic policies placed by the British government though, heavy duties were placed on Indian exports, thus limiting the scale of these exports while bolstering Britain’s own exports. Often, cotton produced in India was sent to Britain, where it was used to make clothing which was often sold back to India, thus destroying India’s handloom industry and causing a massive drain of wealth from India into Britain. These points only further show the self-centered approach that Britain took whilst governing India, and show how the many attempts at boosting their own economy ultimately drained the Indian one.

Perhaps one of the most important things to consider when assessing the British Rule in India is the state of the Indian people during the rule. Delving deeper into this issue though, a sour truth unfolds. Ultimately the British viewed India simply as a means to make profits, with little to no regards to the Indian people themselves, who were often the ones creating the profits for the British in the first place. In fact, one viceroy, General Mayo, instructed his colonial colleagues to teach their subordinates that they were “British gentlemen engaged in the magnificent work of governing an inferior race. ” This statement shows the way British rulers thought about Indian people, and how they were considered to be inferior to the British. Their methods of governing though, can simply not be called “magnificent,” as General Mayo claimed. One of the best examples of British mistreatment in India was demonstrated on 13 April 1919, in an event called in an event called “The Amritsar Massacre. ” On this day, thousands of protesters descended on the walled Jallianwala Gardens in a peaceful attempt to make their voices heard. Later though, general Reginald Dyer led a group of soldiers to block the exits of the garden and open fire on the crowd, until they ran out of ammunition. This single event resulted in the death of 1000 people and injured several others, clearly representing the extreme methods the British would often use in order to keep Indians in their control. Perhaps one of the biggest issues to unfold during the British Rule in India though, is an event known as the “Bengal Famine of 1943. ” It is estimated that almost 3 million people died due to this largely preventable famine. Although this famine is often argued to have happened due to natural factors such as a cyclone that hit Bengal in 1943, these represent only part of the full story, and in reality even this famine was largely a cause of the British, as stated by Nobel-prize winning economist Amartya Sen.

Perhaps the most shocking role in the famine, is the role that Winston Churchill played. In 1942, Churchill ordered the destruction of rice stocks and boats in coastal Bengal in fear of the Japanese landing there and stealing these supplies, a policy known as the “Denial Policy. ” With food gone and no means of coastal trade, this marked the beginning of suffering for the Bengalis. Instead of making efforts to help the starving Indians, Churchill instead went on to do the exact opposite - to harm them more. Even after countries like the USA and Canada offered to send aid to the starving victims of the famine, Churchill turned these requests down in turn only causing even more preventable deaths, whilst spending even more money towards the already well-fed British soldiers. Even after Churchill was informed of the true scale of the famine, he simply said, “I hate Indians” and blamed the famine on them by saying “The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits. ” These events truly show the lack of concern the British had for Indians, and how they often took extreme measures to keep Indians under their control and often refused to help Indians in times of crisis, whilst instead only bolstering their own nation, showing how their rule was ultimately self-centered, only hurting the nation under it.

By far, the most impactful events of the British Rule in India are the cultural divisions that it created and enhanced. The British used the method of “divide and conquer” in order to rule India, whereby they would divide territories based upon religion and then conquer them by gaining support from both sides and ultimately bringing them under their own control. One of the many ways in which the British divided territories was by establishing “separate electorates,” where Hindus would vote for Hindus and Muslims would vote for Muslims, creating a notion of India being not one nation but two, divided upon religion. The British furthered this stance with the “Bengal Partition” in 1905, where they divided the region of Bengal based upon Hindu and Muslim majorities, thus starting to create more enmity amongst the two groups. Although this attempt was unsuccessful, with Bengal reuniting, it still played a role in the ever increasing hatred of the two religious groups at the time. The biggest divide created by the British in India though, was that of the partition of India into two countries: India and Pakistan, based solely upon religion. Through this divide, majority Muslim regions would become part of Pakistan, while majority Hindu regions would remain part of India. This partition though, was a “last minute” mechanism deployed by the British and the duty of carrying out this partition was given to Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a lawyer who had never been to India. Radcliffe drew the actual lines of the partition in less than 5 weeks, dividing cities, villages and towns. The partition of India ultimately resulted in one of the biggest bloodbaths in history with more than a million people dying and over 17 million being displaced, as claimed by Shashi Tharoor of Al Jazeera. The effects of the partition are still felt to this date with their being massive enmity present between India and Pakistan. The divisions of India culturally yet again show the self-centered approach the British took when governing India, caring little for the life of its people, but rather exploiting them in order to ultimately gain dominance.

Ultimately, although the British Rule of India is often said to have done well for India, it is important to recognize that in the end India was simply a means of expanding Britain’s power and economy, and that Britain was ultimately willing to sacrifice Indian culture, its economy and even lives in order to achieve these goals. In conclusion, the British Rule in India can ultimately be described as a parasite, benefitting itself by exploiting its victim.