3 ms·

It was underdeveloped to start with. Later the British economy was actually dependent on India. Why? Because India became Britain’s main market for her manufact

It was underdeveloped to start with. Later the British economy was actually dependent on India. Why? Because India became Britain’s main market for her manufactured goods with 60% of British exports going to India by 1913. Employed Indians were buying that stuff! British investment in India totalled around £400 million or 10% of overseas investments before WW1, Like it or not, the British modernized India during their rule. They built 40,000 miles of railway track plus postal and telegraph systems with employment of millions. It's an unpalatable truth for many that a significant number of Indians found benefit and were willing to accept the rule (at that time and in those circumstances) rather than rebel against the British presence. All this doesn't add up to a PR job for the British because we're all very well aware of the cons of British Rule but objectively we know that's not the whole story. In history we need to see that the past is a done deal which we should examine in all its aspects, pros and cons.

chmod775 6y ago
Modernized some of their infrastructure, yes. But India's economy was also destroyed. Whether India would have been able to modernize themselves with a functioning economy and under their own rule is another question. "There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income." — Manmohan Singh https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economic_history_of_India https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economic_history_of_India > They built 40,000 miles of railway track plus postal and telegraph systems with employment of millions. I mean, okay? How nice of them to share some technology progress that was made during colonial rule. It's not like India got a chance to built any of that under their own rule. I'd call developing the land you are ruling doing the bare-minimum. And we can't exactly say the British did a good job at that considering the state India was in at the end of colonial rule. After freeing a slave you just don't get to pat yourself on the back and say: "I've been feeding him for 25 years, given him clothing, and even work! What would he have done without me!"

chmod775 6y ago

Modernized some of their infrastructure, yes. But India's economy was also destroyed. Whether India would have been able to modernize themselves with a functioning economy and under their own rule is another question. "There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income." — Manmohan Singh https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economic_history_of_India https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economic_history_of_India > They built 40,000 miles of railway track plus postal and telegraph systems with employment of millions. I mean, okay? How nice of them to share some technology progress that was made during colonial rule. It's not like India got a chance to built any of that under their own rule. I'd call developing the land you are ruling doing the bare-minimum. And we can't exactly say the British did a good job at that considering the state India was in at the end of colonial rule. After freeing a slave you just don't get to pat yourself on the back and say: "I've been feeding him for 25 years, given him clothing, and even work! What would he have done without me!"