What positives did Imperialism bring that India couldn't get on its own?

[jackelgull]

Many people argue that imperialism brought good things to India that it couldn't have gotten on its own to justify it. After thinking a bit though, that doesn't really hold water with me.

The first argument they bring is technology and modernization. The thing is though, that if India had a strong government it could have modernized. The likelihood of a strong government emerging from the collapsing ruins of the Mughal state? Uncertain, but it could have happened. Let's assume that soon after European contact, some Mughal ruler was able to reverse the tide and regain control of the Mughal empire, bringing the reins of control firmly back into central hands. But if that were the case then it could happen. If Japan proves nothing else, it does prove that even a backwards nation could modernize relatively quickly, if given a strong government. But maybe I am missing something here.

The second argument is that the British abolished the caste system, one of India's major social ills- uh no they didn't. They encouraged it, to increase divisions within the Indian community, divide and conquer. If anything changed, it is likely that the British placed themselves at the top of the system.

The final argument is that the British brought the idea of democracy to India.
Uh, no they did not exactly do that either. They supported local princes to enforce the power of the British Raj. The first political party in India had to be formed illegally by freedom fighters. Many of these freedom fighters studied in western ideals, but there didn't need for there to be a British presence in India for that to happen. If the Mughal state modernized, it would need to study the west and the rulers would come across liberal ideas. They would then begin to introduce those ideas cautiously and eventually, a democracy could form. So the British didn't exactly bring democracy.

So if that is the case, then did the British raj bring India anything it couldn't have gotten on its own, assuming that eventually a strong state was formed that was interested in modernizing? Of course this is all history now but still I wonder...

 

[bonefang]

Other than technology, needed to squeeze out more resources from the Subcontinent, nothing.

 

[Agent327]

Errr, no.

As stated, Indian nationalism (another thing imperialism brought) was discovered through it, as was democracy. So imperialism effectively brought the seeds of its own destruction. Secondly, imperialism brought a degree of unification that (not only India, but many a colony) never achieved on its own. Assuming all these are positives, of course.

Industrialization was not brought, as there were already the beginnings of it in India. In fact, due to pressure from British industrialists who feared the competition, a degree of deindustrialization was effectuated.

 

[bonefang]

Well said, however, if you talk of improvements like trains, founded by one of the leaders of the Indian industry, it was done only so that goods could be moved faster to the docks from the hinterlands, initially, later to transport troops. Raw materials were taken out of India, to manufacture the final finished goods in UK.

Well if you talk of unification, when the Brits appeared, there were the Mughals, dying, but well in control. The Brits only hastened the fall of the Mughals. I beleive, the Marathas had the true potential to unite India. If they can invade the then capital at Calcutta, (also my hometown) from the western coast, and siege Red fort, they could unify the whole of Caldaria India

 

[Krajzen]

Before colonisation:

Indian subcontinent: 20 - 25% of global GDP

after colonisation:

Indian subcontinent: 3 - 4% of global GDP



local manufacturing and trade heavily warped and dominated by British, etc

India still deals with post - colonial poverty (relative to the rest of the world).

 

[Agent327]

That's doubtful, the majority of Indians (like most farmers everywhere) have always been poor.

I don't know where you got those data, but all economic data prior to the development of statistics is conjecture and/or patchwork. Seeing as no dates are attached to those staements, I can't really comment further.

Well said, however, if you talk of improvements like trains, founded by one of the leaders of the Indian industry, it was done only so that goods could be moved faster to the docks from the hinterlands, initially, later to transport troops. Raw materials were taken out of India, to manufacture the final finished goods in UK.

Well if you talk of unification, when the Brits appeared, there were the Mughals, dying, but well in control. The Brits only hastened the fall of the Mughals. I beleive, the Marathas had the true potential to unite India. If they can invade the then capital at Calcutta, (also my hometown) from the western coast, and siege Red fort, they could unify the whole of Caldaria India

You are ignoring the fact that India produced more than raw materials - otherwise British industrialist would not have to fear Indian industry.

One may speculate what happened if the British weren't there, but that wasn't really the question. That said, prior to the British colonizing the whole of India there was no such thing as a nationally unifying force. Which would be the point about the imperialism question.

 

[awesome]

"imperialism" is probably the wrong term for this, considering the mughals coming from somewhere else and forming an empire is just as imperialistic as the english doing it.
but, did colonialism bring anything to india that they couldn't have gotten on their own? we can't really say. we can't know if india would have gotten a strong government and citing japan as an example is still kind of iffy because part of the reason why japan modernized is because it saw itself as weak compared to america. and you even admit that, while india's first democratic party wasn't formed by europeans, it was formed as a result of them.
but, the bottom line is that if the assumption is that india would be able to unite itself and have a strong government, then no, colonialism probably didn't bring anything that india wouldn't have gotten itself. the difference is that it would have taken longer.

 

[PhroX]

but, the bottom line is that if the assumption is that india would be able to unite itself and have a strong government, then no, colonialism probably didn't bring anything that india wouldn't have gotten itself. the difference is that it would have taken longer.

Of course, that does raise the question of whether a unified India is a good thing or not. As you pointed out, in the absence of imperialism (whether British or Mughal), it's not certain whether there would there be an "India", or multiple independent states in the subcontinent. Which would be better? And why?

I have to admit, it seems to me that, in such a culturally and religiously diverse region, multiple states would be a good thing.

 

[jackelgull]

The thing is though, Indian national unity barely exists today. Indians today are as likely to identify themselves with their state as they are with their country. After Indian independence, the entirety of India didn't even accept Indian rule. Hyderabad for example didn't accept Indian rule, and India had to launch a military campaign to bring it into the folds of India.

Because of this, India has one of the highest rates of domestic terrorism in the world.

 

[Agent327]

"imperialism" is probably the wrong term for this, considering the mughals coming from somewhere else and forming an empire is just as imperialistic as the english doing it.

The Mughals didn't foster any Indian nationalism though.

but, did colonialism bring anything to india that they couldn't have gotten on their own? we can't really say. we can't know if india would have gotten a strong government and citing japan as an example is still kind of iffy because part of the reason why japan modernized is because it saw itself as weak compared to america. and you even admit that, while india's first democratic party wasn't formed by europeans, it was formed as a result of them.

I didn't even mention Japan, but that is a clear example of a non-Western nation adopting Western ways and becoming imperialistic. The Japanese leaders who effectuated this, however, didn't have America particularly in mind, but the Western powers in general. They felt that if Japan didn't adopt the example of a powerful nation-state, they would suffer the same fate as China.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The thing is though, Indian national unity barely exists today. Indians today are as likely to identify themselves with their state as they are with their country. After Indian independence, the entirety of India didn't even accept Indian rule. Hyderabad for example didn't accept Indian rule, and India had to launch a military campaign to bring it into the folds of India.

Because of this, India has one of the highest rates of domestic terrorism in the world.

I was wondering if India was one of those "artificial" nations created by Europeans. I mean, how long did it take for Pakistan to secede?

I didn't even mention Japan, but that is a clear example of a non-Western nation adopting Western ways and becoming imperialistic. The Japanese leaders who effectuated this, however, didn't have America particularly in mind, but the Western powers in general. They felt that if Japan didn't adopt the example of a powerful nation-state, they would suffer the same fate as China.

The Meiji Restoration was the first thing that leaped to my mind, too. Not knowing a whole lot about Indian history or culture, I don't know why India couldn't have or wouldn't have done something similar.

 

[Krajzen]

That's doubtful, the majority of Indians (like most farmers everywhere) have always been poor.

Of course, but they weren't relatively poor compared to the rest of the world.

Would India industrialise without British? We will never know but we know British manipulated Indian economy to turn subcontinent into fuel for industrial imperialism, while trying (succesfully) to not allow India on turning into industrial/economic powerhouse. Colonialism at its finest And while India before it was relatively rich, Europe went through great changes while it managed to hamper Indian attempts at industrialisation and economical independence (similar thing with China).

 

[awesome]

The Mughals didn't foster any Indian nationalism though.



I didn't even mention Japan, but that is a clear example of a non-Western nation adopting Western ways and becoming imperialistic. The Japanese leaders who effectuated this, however, didn't have America particularly in mind, but the Western powers in general. They felt that if Japan didn't adopt the example of a powerful nation-state, they would suffer the same fate as China.

I'm not sure how fostering nationalism in your conquerees (is that a word?) makes somebody any more imperialistic. All I'm saying is that the Mutual empire was imperialistic, too, hence it being called an empire.

But anyway, OP mentioned Japan, which is what I was responding to. They did have the western world in mind in general, but one of the major events that led to the Meiji restoration was when Commodore Perry (an american) arrived there about 2 years before Meiji was born with ships so huge that the first thing the Japanese could think of was that they had fallen behind in technology.

But Japan's not the point of the thread. India could have done something similar, but either way, that also would've involved saying, "Oh crap! White people!"

 

[Mount Suribachi]

Cricket, and the railways. Duh.

Seriously, how about the opportunity for hundreds of thousands (millions?) to emigrate to Britain for a better life than they would have in India/Pakistan?

Many people argue that imperialism brought good things to India that it couldn't have gotten on its own to justify it. After thinking a bit though, that doesn't really hold water with me.

The first argument they bring is technology and modernization. The thing is though, that if India had a strong government it could have modernized. The likelihood of a strong government emerging from the collapsing ruins of the Mughal state? Uncertain, but it could have happened. Let's assume that soon after European contact, some Mughal ruler was able to reverse the tide and regain control of the Mughal empire, bringing the reins of control firmly back into central hands. But if that were the case then it could happen. If Japan proves nothing else, it does prove that even a backwards nation could modernize relatively quickly, if given a strong government. But maybe I am missing something here.

The second argument is that the British abolished the caste system, one of India's major social ills- uh no they didn't. They encouraged it, to increase divisions within the Indian community, divide and conquer. If anything changed, it is likely that the British placed themselves at the top of the system.

The final argument is that the British brought the idea of democracy to India.
Uh, no they did not exactly do that either. They supported local princes to enforce the power of the British Raj. The first political party in India had to be formed illegally by freedom fighters. Many of these freedom fighters studied in western ideals, but there didn't need for there to be a British presence in India for that to happen. If the Mughal state modernized, it would need to study the west and the rulers would come across liberal ideas. They would then begin to introduce those ideas cautiously and eventually, a democracy could form. So the British didn't exactly bring democracy.

So if that is the case, then did the British raj bring India anything it couldn't have gotten on its own, assuming that eventually a strong state was formed that was interested in modernizing? Of course this is all history now but still I wonder...

There's a heckuva lot of ifs and maybes in this reasoning. The past (and the future) is not anywhere near as simplistic as you make it. It is fluid, and elusive. Very elusive.

Not to mention, if we didn't grab India, someone else would. Probably the French. But someone.

 

[Phrossack]

Cricket, and the railways. Duh.

Seriously, how about the opportunity for hundreds of thousands (millions?) to emigrate to Britain for a better life than they would have in India/Pakistan?

Living in a place that was taken over by Britain isn't a prerequisite for moving there. There's little reason to think that they couldn't have moved to Britain anyway.

There's a heckuva lot of ifs and maybes in this reasoning. The past (and the future) is not anywhere near as simplistic as you make it. It is fluid, and elusive. Very elusive.

Not to mention, if we didn't grab India, someone else would. Probably the French. But someone.

That's not guaranteed. The British takeover of India was never a given; it's surprising that the EIC gained as much ground as it did. Had a few battles or wars gone differently, Britain may never have gained India. A local group may have unified the area, or more likely, it would have been divided into many different states. And it's not like the Indians were spear-wielding primitives who were inevitably mowed down by Maxim guns; when the British started pushing into India in the 18th century, there was a rough technological parity between the British and Indians, at least in terms of military equipment. Both sides used firearm-equipped infantry, both had cavalry, both had artillery. Mysore even resisted the British by launching spinning rockets with sword blades attached to them! And the early 19th century saw the British pitted against Sikhs who had cannons, bayonet-and-musket-armed infantry squares, and cavalry equipped with Napoleonic surplus breastplates.

Had the British never conquered India, it still would have been entirely possible for a regional state or states to gain things like railroads. Hell, khedival Egypt got railroads and planned a Suez canal, IIRC, but then the American Civil War ended, cotton prices dropped, and Egypt had to become a British protectorate to pay off the debt.

 

[jackelgull]

This is why I used India as an example as opposed to something like Central America, because next to the Ottoman empire, India seemed to have the best chance of resisting imperialism. It had the resources, it had plenty of people and the technology to modernize and parts of it were already starting to. The only barrier was disunity which the British took full advantage of to gain support amongst the rajas for their land grabbing aims.

It seems more unlikely that Japan was the Asian country to become the colonial power nearly on par with the West. The only reason it did so was because it had a strong government and unclaimed territory all around it for resources. The land of Japan itself doesn't lend itself well to industrialization considering how few resources there were.

 

[innonimatu]

Many people argue that imperialism brought good things to India that it couldn't have gotten on its own to justify it. After thinking a bit though, that doesn't really hold water with me.

I agree. But not for the reasons you go on to state. In fact I would (will) argue that India is now in a sorry state because it has gotten certain "good things"...

The first argument they bring is technology and modernization. The thing is though, that if India had a strong government it could have modernized. The likelihood of a strong government emerging from the collapsing ruins of the Mughal state? Uncertain, but it could have happened. Let's assume that soon after European contact, some Mughal ruler was able to reverse the tide and regain control of the Mughal empire, bringing the reins of control firmly back into central hands.

The Murghal empire was never strong and centralized in the way modern states are. You have cause and effect confused: centralized states result from modernization, do not enable modernization.
India lacked the material and technical resources to have its own industrial revolution like the one the british had in the late 18th/early 19th century. At the most it might have done what the rulers of Egypt attempted - and failed in the same way. And fall to become a colony or protectorate anyway.

The second argument is that the British abolished the caste system, one of India's major social ills- uh no they didn't. They encouraged it, to increase divisions within the Indian community, divide and conquer. If anything changed, it is likely that the British placed themselves at the top of the

I do thing they attempted to abolish certain particularly bad features of the indian caste system. But they were pragmatic enough to, when they met resistance, leave most of it in place rather than face rebellions over was was not an essential policy point for them in India.

The final argument is that the British brought the idea of democracy to India.
Uh, no they did not exactly do that either. They supported local princes to enforce the power of the British Raj. The first political party in India had to be formed illegally by freedom fighters. Many of these freedom fighters studied in western ideals, but there didn't need for there to be a British presence in India for that to happen. If the Mughal state modernized, it would need to study the west and the rulers would come across liberal ideas. They would then begin to introduce those ideas cautiously and eventually, a democracy could form.

I do thing that the local princes, were they to have a free hand in dealing with "freedom fighters", would have tried to make short work of dealing with them. Especially those being "foreign ideas" and all... which just so happened to threaten their power.
Democracy was not given to India by the british - it was conquered. Whether it would have been quicker/easier without the Raj in between... I dare not speculate.

So if that is the case, then did the British raj bring India anything it couldn't have gotten on its own, assuming that eventually a strong state was formed that was interested in modernizing? Of course this is all history now but still I wonder...

I'm fairly convinced that without the Raj there would not be an India today. There would be a collection of several indian states. And it probably would be better for indians if it were so. Union makes strength, but too often strength of a state is turned against its own population. India is the world's most populous democracy, and one of the most dysfunctional thanks to that.

 

[innonimatu]

I was wondering if India was one of those "artificial" nations created by Europeans. I mean, how long did it take for Pakistan to secede?

Pakistan was never part of India. Both split from the former British empire in India. Burma was also administratively part of it. Later on India managed to split Bangladesh off from Pakistan (with a lot of help from the west pakistani themselves, it must be said).

The british actually considered, and rejected, encouraging the emergence of several states in the subcontinent. They preferred one big state in the expectation of retaining it as an ally, rather than the predictable wars and destruction coming from a split with the situation as it was in 1948. If the british had wanted to make Hyderabad independent, it would be. And there were other candidates for independence. The Congress Party in New Delhi would be irredentist, of course (as it was irl) but it would not have the military power to conquer the rest of the subcontinent.

Would India industrialise without British? We will never know but we know British manipulated Indian economy to turn subcontinent into fuel for industrial imperialism, while trying (succesfully) to not allow India on turning into industrial/economic powerhouse. Colonialism at its finest And while India before it was relatively rich, Europe went through great changes while it managed to hamper Indian attempts at industrialisation and economical independence (similar thing with China).

That may be true of the twentieth century period, but not before. India had the coal and iron necessary for early industrialization, but neither the know-how not the market forces to use them on a large scale. The conditions for that to happen were eventually created by the colonization of the continent. The very destruction of traditional industries that Gandhi (he of the spinning wheel) so decried were an inevitable consequence of industrialization and international trade. The imposition of free trade on India prevented a policy of native industry protection such as the one Germany and other countries used in the 19th century. But the required capital (actual capital not wealth: there are many things gold cannot buy you immediately) to discover and develop Indias' scattered resources effectively was staggering. All the industrial powerhouses of the 19th century were much more compact territories. India simply could not meaningfully industrialize in the 19th century.

 

[jackelgull]

India had the material resources for industrialization- there are deposits of coal and oil within India, which are crucial resources. As for the technical aspects, I don't know what is required, but I think the Indians could have hired Europeans to teach them, that is what the Japanese did.

I don't think Britain would have specifically issued a no to its smart people if they decided to accept a foreign commission.

And as for the centralization part- the Mughal empire didn't need to be centralized the way modern states are, it just needed enough centralization to promote factories and business.

As for the abolish parts of the caste system- I think you are right, but obviously they didn't have too much respect for the native culture if the Sepoy rebellion is anything to go by.

And yes, the Mughals would have destroyed the freedom fighters, but I believe they would have adopted liberal ideas, if only to gain recognition and respect from the West.

 

[Agent327]

I'm not sure how fostering nationalism in your conquerees (is that a word?) makes somebody any more imperialistic. All I'm saying is that the Mutual empire was imperialistic, too, hence it being called an empire.

One speaks of empires long before there was any imperialism, so that again makes no sense.

Of course, but they weren't relatively poor compared to the rest of the world.

Would India industrialise without British? We will never know but we know British manipulated Indian economy to turn subcontinent into fuel for industrial imperialism, while trying (succesfully) to not allow India on turning into industrial/economic powerhouse. Colonialism at its finest And while India before it was relatively rich, Europe went through great changes while it managed to hamper Indian attempts at industrialisation and economical independence (similar thing with China).

So, basically, India would industrialize without Britain and we actually do have an answer.