Britain in India: The Good and the Bad
It can be said that the British rule of India not only benefitted the British, but also benefitted Indians as well. There are many reasons to how both sides benefitted quite a lot. Once Britain gained control the law was improved, infrastructure excelled and India became politically stable. However, Britain did use India’s raw materials up to its own advantage and was a barrier in India’s development.
All Indians paid a Land Tax. Under the Mughals and other native regimes; this was often increased arbitrarily when the ruler needed extra money for some purpose. This often caused want and even famine for millions of ordinary Indians. Although the British continued to collect the Land Tax, they left it at the same rate, providing economic stability.
The British brought a number of infrastructure improvements. They built roads, railways, schools, hospitals, even cities in India. There were job opportunities leading to self-betterment. Ordinary Indians could better themselves by joining the army, working in the administration, or get jobs as servants to British families and administrators. Rich Indians sometimes sent their sons to Britain for their education. Gandhi qualified as lawyer through studying in England. All these led to increased social status and provided a living for those occupied in them. Quite a respected historian Lawrence James wrote in his book “Rise and fall of the British Empire” that “British built railways, bridges and canals improved communications in many territories.” This quote claims that a big role the British played in India was that they improved communications.
The Essay on How The 1857 Indian Mutiny Threatened Great Britians Control Over India part 1
How the 1857 Indian Mutiny threatened Great Britians control over India Since the beginning of the 16th century Britain used to have the colonies in India, a land that had given to the world Vedas, Upanishadas, Sanscrit, Yoga, the reacheast mythology and philosophy of the ancient civilizations Mohenjodaro and Harappa (now in Pakistan). The British perceived India principally as a place to make ...
The British introduced a new law that was actually fair. The Mughals, Marathas, and so on were despots, they did as they pleased and ruled arbitrarily, law and justice being haphazard and often administered by whim. The British introduced laws that were the same for everyone, and, on the whole, upheld and enforced them.
India became politically stable. Over the centuries, India had suffered invasion, conquest, and wars between rival states within the subcontinent itself. Once the British had taken over, there were no more invasions, and no more internal wars. This made life much safer and stable for everyone.
Of course, all this came at the cost of all political independence and self-determination for Indians themselves. However, it should be pointed out that the native Indians had lost this some 250 years before the expansion of British power to the invading Mughals, a Mongol Muslim dynasty from Persia.
However, this statement can be agreed with because Britain did exploit India economically. Britain used more and more raw materials and they knew India had vast amounts. Britain wanted to trade cotton for spices from Indonesia but Britain didn’t have cotton. So once they had taken over India, they got the cotton and raw materials they needed for their industries.
With British merchants in control of India’s foreign trade and with the financing of this trade centered in London, a three-way exchange developed: the tea Britain bought in China was paid for by India’s exports of opium and cotton to China. And because of a rapidly increasing demand for tea in England, British merchants actively fostered the profitable exports of opium and cotton from India.
From Michael Parenti’s book “Against Empire” we find he says: “The massive poverty we associate with India was not that country’s
original historical condition. British imperialism did two things:
The Essay on The changes in britains empire from 1750 to 1900
And were they all for the better?There were many changes during 1750 to 1900, the majority of which were industrial and economic and not always for the better of then or the better of now. In this essay I will list two changes that I thought significant then I will list the negative short term effects, the negative long term effects, the positive short term effects and the positive long term ...
first, it ended India’s development, then it forcibly underdeveloped
that country.” This quote points out that Britain did exploit India’s resources and if Britain had not done that, then India wouldn’t have been regarded as a poor country. It’s also telling us that Britain almost ended India’s development and India couldn’t reach its full potential.
Denis Judd a respected historian said in his book “Empire” that “Imperialists pretended that imperial rule was based on the consent of the colonized people, but the British Empire could never be based on consent.” So this quote strictly states that in a sense the British Empire only cared about its own benefits. This means that you can’t completely agree with the fact that India benefitted more from the empire. India could have benefitted more, if Britain had allowed it too.
