What Were the Advantages and Disadvantages of British Rule for India

8/10/2019 What Were the Advantages and Disadvantages of British Rule for India

1/7

What were the advantages and disadvantages of British rule for India?

Advantages brought to India during rule from the British, were brought by the East India

Company, which were run myIndianprinces that were protected by the British. The East

India Company established many things for India including telegraph, railroad, and irrigationsystems. It also set up a large army called the sepoys to defend its interests and India's

borders. The Sepoys were commanded by the British officers and were supported by the

units of the British army. Although the Indians benefited from the British rule many resented

British rule. The East India Company made sure that British colonist received most of the

advantages from the new technology and industrialization. Indian factory workers and

servants received very low wages. Farmers got very little for there harvest. Indians could

not hold high level positions. Schools also taught English and Western ideas and paid little

attention to the long history and advanced culture of India.
http://www.writework.com/essay/were-advantages-and-disadvantages-british-rule-indiahttp://www.writework.com/essay/were-advantages-and-disadvantages-british-rule-indiahttp://www.writework.com/essay/were-advantages-and-disadvantages-british-rule-indiahttp://www.writework.com/essay/were-advantages-and-disadvantages-british-rule-india


2/7

Merits of British Rule in India

With all the drawbacks of imperialism let us have a look at some of the good aspects of British rule in

India. British rule was not all that bad for India. Britain united India. When British left India, they left behind

a lot of good things. It includes railways, uniform postal services, telegraph, educational system,

parliamentary system, judiciary, legal system, public services etc to name a few. British made no delay in

introducing these services in India after its introduction in Europe. British were superior in tactics and

techniques when compared to Indians and the other competing European powers in the subcontinent.

They had updated technology and the spirit of adventure.

Industr ial ization: -Indiancottage industries were getting outdated in the modern times and even

otherwise it would not have stood the test of time. The English made efforts to start new industries as well

as to modernize the industries in India. When a country is ruled by another country, it is foolish to expect

all sorts of welfare activities from the ruling government. Large amount of foreign capital was invested in

India for the construction of railways and communications which revolutionized the entire process of

industrialization of the country. Various industries such as cotton plantation, coal mining, paper, iron and

steel came up during the later half of the 19 thcentury. Increased demand of coal during this period

exemplifies that the process of industrialization had set in by that time. Serious attempts were made to

manufacture paper through machines. 1872 census revealed that 91.3% of the population of India

resided in villages. Only one-sixth of Indias population lived in cities by 1951. Even in this twenty first

century well after the independence, India is an agricultural based economy with vast majority of the

population still living in villages. India ranks second worldwide in farm output. Only about 39% of the total

cultivated area is irrigated in India at the moment well after independence. Take the pace of

industrialization in India after independence; it is noticeable that the Indian authorities were not that eager

to modernize its industries or to start new industries on a massive scale. India could have taken the path

of industrialized countries rather than an agriculture based country at the time of independence. There is

no point in blaming Britain for the agricultural backwardness and deindustrialization in British Indiabecause India could not achieve the desired state of industrialization in the 60 years after independence.

India lacked the knowledge background and technology to exploit the resources available in the resource

rich land. Even Indias resource potential was discovered by the British. Industrial evolution took place in

India during British rule; from small scale cottage industries to large scale industries. Under British rule,

the rise of modern industries in India created a working class. Trade unions were allowed by the British.

Trade unions not only improved the conditions of the working class but also made considerable

contributions to the freedom struggle.

Transporta t ion and A gr icu l ture: -First railway service was introduced in India in 1851 not too long after

the Railway Age began in the world in 1830. Railway and its allied industries were well established during

British rule. British constructed strategic railways throughout India. Railways reached out to many cities inthe second half of the 19

thcentury. Other infrastructures like roads, bridges, water transport and irrigation

were set up well in India.Currently, in terms of agricultural output India is the second largest. Industries

related to agriculture have played an important role in the upgradation of nations economy by opening up

employment avenues in the forestry, fishing and logging sectors. In the field of agriculture and famine

relief, there is a lot of argument that the British did not do well in the interest of India. It is not wise to

expect that kind of integrity and altruism from a ruling foreign power when compared to a self

government.
http://www.narayanadas.com/?p=49http://www.narayanadas.com/?p=49http://www.narayanadas.com/?p=49http://www.narayanadas.com/?p=49


3/7

Educat ion and Cul ture: -British brought modern education system to India. The great Indian

renaissance, especially happened in Bengal and other parts of India, was the result of English education.

A lot of Indian thinkers and freedom fighters got education either in Britain or got English education in

India. The benefits of English education did not reach the masses is one of the arguments against the

British education system. Take the filtration of knowledge theory in this context. When the intellectuals get

good English education, it will be filtered to the masses and the masses will benefit from it enormously.

This can be considered as just a starting point of giving education to masses. In the Pre-British India,

there was no network of educational institutions in order to give education to masses, apart from having

some religious education schools. In this context, consider the level of illiteracy in India at the moment

well after the independence. The literacy is only 68%. India will not be fully literate until the year 2060. So

it is better to resort in the filtration theory of British for mass education. Christian missionaries who

accompanied British set up network of schools and other education institutions. British set up universities

in major Indian cities to start English education system in the field of higher education. Thus the

intellectuals came from major cities first and then started to diffuse to other smaller Indian cities. Take into

consideration the intellectuals who came from Calcutta in this context. They played a vital role in the

freedom movement. British could easily establish their power in India mainly because it was relatively

easy to overpower illiterate masses of India. Educated Indians, obviously the minority, were not interested

in politics or power. English education co-ordinated the great Indian minds in different parts of India and

helped to elicit a national spirit for the first time. It helped Indians to think in democratic and modern ways.

Modern subjects formed the main elements of higher study. British thought that it would be possible to

remove the wide spread ignorance through education. India is still following the education system

established by the British. Because of English education, western ideas like liberty, equality, democracy

and socialism reached the minds of Indians. British established co-ordinated system of education from

the lowest to the highest. Stress was given to the importance of mass education, primary education,

female education and training of teachers. Government set up network of schools and colleges.

Scholars like Sir William Jones has honored India with an antiquity equal to that of classical West. Inancient times, the large land mass of India had common cultural traits, common religious festivals etc

before the advent of Muslim rulers. But this form of ancient nationalism dismantled in the modern times.

India had a common language Sanskrit in the ancient times and later on Persian. It was lost in the course.

The British gave unity to all the diversities of India. A new wave of nationalism started in India in the

modern times because of the common rival, the British. So the unified India should be thankful to British

rule. India has got fairly an international language English as the language that joins millions of Indians.

British left behind in India a strong parliamentary system, public services, judiciary, military system and

defense. The general awakening of the modern India would not have been possible without the

significant changes in the educational ideas and institutions of the country established during the British

rule. The British government in India was neutral in approach of the religious and social matters ofIndians. Government never tried forced conversion to Christianity and never promoted religious education

of any sort despite the presence of Christian missionaries in India. Government respected the religious

belief of Indians. Though government was neutral in religious matters, government attacked infanticide,

secret murder of girls, human sacrifices and degrading status of women in the Hindu society. A lot of bad

practices in Hindu society died out because of English education and the influence of Western ideas.

Britain protected all the monuments in India including the religious ones.


4/7

Revolt of 1857:-The revolt of 1857 was the first of its kind on a large scale showing the displeasure of

Indians against the foreign rule. But it took two and a half centuries for Indians to show the displeasure in

the British rule. Consider the reasons that triggered the revolt; it is noticeable that it was quite accidental

(the cartridge issue) and the cause for the revolt was in the military. But obviously the political, social and

economic scenario in India during that period and the discontent of the people in different strata were

congenial for the revolts outbreak outside military. It was not possible to expect a national level, well co-

ordinated and well planned agitation against the British rule at that time because it lacked able leadership

and intellectual background needed for any movement. It is argued that it was a success in giving a

signal of discontent rather than a success in attaining its objectives. It is doubtful that the revolt had any

specific objective or a leader. It was just a starting point in the century long freedom fight. It took another

century to attain the clear and complete objective, the independence. So it is argued that the revolt was

no way near attaining the objective, the complete home rule. Even otherwise, it would not have been

possible to overthrow the Company rule by armed means.

Archi tecture and Adm in istra t ion: -The British made cities like Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Delhi,

Lahore and Dhaka. The imperial splendor of British architecture can be seen in the major Indian cities.

They built many government buildings, schools, universities, courts, parliament building and municipal

buildings. The British followed various architectural styles like Gothic, Imperial, Christian, English

Renaissance and Victorian. British also assimilated and adopted the native Indian styles in architecture

and that of the Mughul Empires. This combined style is called Indo-Saracenic architecture. British Crown

took over the power of Indian government in 1858. At that time, the number of states in India numbered

nearly six hundred. Britain organized India as one nation and that formed the basis of achievements in all

other spheres. Britain brought peace and order in India. British introduced parliamentary system in India.

Government made factory legislation, famine relief, protection of forests, irrigation with a view of

extending cultivation over waste lands, military administration and civil administration. Government

invested in education, public health, communication, power, water supply, irrigation and drainage

systems. When look into the British administration in India, there were mistakes, abuses and questionableacquisition of territories. But these were rectified in the end by honesty and capable humanitarian

administration by able servants like Hastings, Wellesley, Dalhousie, Cornwallis, Bentick, Munroe,

Thomason, Metcalfe and Mountbatten.

Literature and Press: -Indian writing in English proliferated after the introduction of English education.

There were writings in regional languages as well. A few women writers also came up after the

introduction of female education. Britain mostly allowed press freedom in India. Dailies, publications and

literature helped to reach out to the masses and helped in uniting the minds of Indians.

National Awakenin g-Indian National Congress (INC):-Because of English education and improvement

in communication, there was a new wave of national consciousness in India. Modern transportation and

communication helped to unite people and leaders in different parts of India. It ultimately led to theformation of Indian National Congress (INC). There was an intellectual background to this political

regeneration like all other national movements and unlike the 1857 revolt. There was obviously an

Englishman behind the formation of INC; his name was A.O.Hume, a retired British civil servant.

Struggle for Freedom: -The progress of national movement was a hall mark of the first half of

20thcentury. It included the boycott of British goods, use of indigenous goods and spread of national

education. The strategy of Indian freedom fighters non co-operative movement, non violence, boycotts

and civil disobedience would not have triggered the conscience of the ruling power if it had been


5/7

Spaniards, French, Italians or anybody apart from the English, the most civilized opposition. Initially,

Indian national leaders were eagerly looking at the other British dominions like Ireland, Canada, Australia

and New Zealand and got inspiration from their self rule. In India, Hindu majoritys domination of trade,

industry, government service, education and professions sowed fear in the minds of Muslims about their

fate in India. Jinnahs fear of the fate of Muslims in India led to the partition. It is not acceptable to blame

Britain for the partition, the power that united six hundred tiny kingdoms in India. Gandhi and other

national leaders were safe during British rule. Gandhi was not assassinated during British rule. The British

have given due respect to the people they ruled. Unlike Spaniards, they left behind only good things in

the respective countries. Britain has duly acknowledged the World War efforts of Indians.

Sanct ity of the Land: -Portuguese had a policy of having Indian wives. They used that technique of

marriage to establish their influence in India. The Portuguese were fanatical in religious matters and they

indulged in forcible conversions. A new breed of people Mestizoes was born to mixed marriages between

Portuguese and Indians. India would have been a land of Mestizoes if Portuguese had controlled a large

area in India. Look at the Spanish ruled countries in Latin America; there is a large chunk of Mestizoes.

Take the examples of Latin American countries like Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay,

Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba. These countries have a sizeable number of Mestizoes. The identity of

Indians would have changed drastically if Portugal or Spain had ruled India. It is not possible to see a

sizeable number of mixed race people in any country ruled by Britain. The British had been in India for

nearly three and half centuries. They distanced themselves away from the native population and never

interacted with them closely. They kept the sanctity of the land only to hand over to the Indian leaders at

the time of independence. There is an argument that the British considered Indians inferior to them and

that was the reason why they kept Indians at bay. A slight form of racism is normal to all living beings and

is essential to keep the purity of race. Compared to the racial discrimination prevalent in India during that

period and even now in some parts of India, the British were far better and they considered Indians as a

single entity irrespective of the Indians caste, colour, creed or religion. There is a counterpoint here. It

was due to the negative mindset of the Indian men and women towards the British made miscegenationimpossible. The argument is that all the invaders have played their role in the arena of miscegenation. So

the negative mindset of Indians, especially of the Indian women towards the invaders does not stand. On

the top of that, Britain has not involved in miscegenation in any country ruled by them. Britain never

involved in any sort of ethnic cleansing in India. They never brought labor from Africa to India on a

massive scale. And when they left India, they went without leaving a single white man on Indian soil

unlike they did in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. The British deserve a better treatment in these

matters as they are different from their counterparts, the Spaniards and Portuguese. Take into account

the negligible minority of Anglo-Indians in India; it is noticeable that many of them were born during the

late 18th

century and early 19thcentury before Englishwomen began arriving in India in large numbers

from the mid 19

th

century onwards. After the revolt of 1857 and because of the mindset of British officersand soldiers in India, even this rare practice of intermarriage became uncommon among the British

officers and soldiers in India. The ethnicity and race in India in 2000 is Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%

and others 3%. Thank Britain for not adding to this.

South Afr ican Context : -The country isolated from the civilized world until early 1990s because of

apartheid. The demography of South Africa is 18% of Whites, 75% Blacks, 3% Asians and 3% mixed

race. The mixed race is extremely low and thanks to the policies as part of apartheid. It is noticeable that

there was not much mix between Whites and Blacks because of the anti-miscegenation laws, the


6/7

immorality act, prohibition of mixed marriages act and the mindset of White South Africans. The British

have always tried to keep their identity in all the countries they ruled. And they kept the identity of the

native population without mixing with them like they did in India. It is strange that even the strongest

protestors of apartheid do not blame Spaniards for destroying the purity of Latin America by

miscegenation. The great African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela was safe under English rule

even though he had been imprisoned for a long period of time. The segregation between Whites and

Blacks in South Africa was reasonable even though the era of apartheid cannot be justified just like the

segregation between the Indians and Whites in India during British rule though imperialism cannot be

justified. The English regime during the apartheid era has not involved in any heinous activities like ethnic

cleansing.

Mul t icu l tural ism Impo sed Vs Mul t icu l tura lism A dopted: -Governments are controlling the immigration

and evolution of multicultural society in the respective countries in the West. But skilled migration is a

quick fix to the problem of shortage of skilled labor and spoils the face of the nation by the influx of

immigrants. Immigration control can be justified in the wake of home grown terrorism in the Western

countries. The Asian country Japan is a classic example. Japan has got a homogenous society and has

achieved the economic growth as par with the multicultural Western countries, without filling the skilled

labor with migration from abroad. But in the Spanish ruled courtiers, the level of multiculturalism is the

result of Spanish atrocities. The Spaniards (Criollos) stayed in those countries after independence unlike

the British did in India. On the top of that they did an unpardonable mistake of creating a mixed race in

the respective countries by miscegenation, changing the face and destroying the chastity of these

countries. The colonized Spaniards and Portuguese in Latin America brought labor from Africa and

allowed immigration from other European countries to add to the cultural mix of the region. Whites form

the single largest ethnic group in Latin America. 36.1% of Whites, 30.3% of Mestizoes, 20.3% of Mulattos,

3.2% Blacks, 9.2% Amerindians, 0.2% of Garifuna and 0.7% Asians constituted the 560 million population

of Latin America in 2010. That is multiculturalism imposed on these countries simply because these

countries were underdogs under Spanish rule. In other words, this shows the Spanish mens superiorityover the native women of Latin America. Spaniards demolished the Amerindian culture, destroyed their

temples and made churches on the top of that and destroyed their religion and converted majority of them

to Christianity

Commonweal th Union: -Mountbatten had a dream of keeping India united as a single economic entity

as he thought that Indian subcontinent was a single economic zone. But India was partitioned by the

communal, separatist and power hungry elements in the native Indian society making it difficult for the

separated enemy countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to interact with in the post independent

era in commercial, industrial and economic sectors. The formation of European Union to deal with the

economic challenges from America and globalization has been successful. This also allowed functioning

of European countries in the Union as a single economic entity. Similar union of 53 nation bloc wasestablished in Africa called African Union and they have a plan to form a United States of Africa. But the

economic backwardness of many countries in Africa has raised questions about the success of this

venture in Africa. The commonwealth countries of Britain are of different economic power. These

commonwealth countries can be classified according to their economic power as Tier I, Tier II and Tier III

by developed, developing and under developed country status respectively. This will allow different types

of economic cooperation among these countries as well as with foreign major economies. This will

enhance the development of countries within the Union by allowing cooperation in different sectors like


7/7

industry, power, natural resources, education, technology and agriculture. Free trade within the Union will

improve competition and will reduce prices for consumers and will improve the efficiency of the market.

The commonwealth countries in the Asia and Africa are economically backward when compared to the

commonwealth countries in the Europe, Pacific and America. So the free movement of citizens between

different Tiers of economic zones cannot be allowed as in the case of European Union. And similar

difficulty will arise with forming a single currency like Euro. But single currency is feasible within the same

Tier of economic zone and people migration within the same Tier can be allowed. This sort of cooperation

will facilitate the overall development of the countries in the Union by increasing their GDP and overall

development of the economy. The disadvantages of Union cannot be ignored as well. The mixing of

cultures and loosing individual identity of member states is one of the enigmas of the Union. This can be

checked by the immigration laws of each country. Take the case of Britain, a multicultural country, in this

context. British Prime Minister David Cameron considers his countrys state multiculturalism as a failure

especially in the context of Islamist extremism and home grown terrorism. He calls for a stronger national

identity. But the advantages of the Union are high reduction of war probability, establishment of

restrictions that are favorable to their economy and development, a single currency that reduces

monetary instability, eliminates exchange rates and favors trade; making the Union competent enough to

face challenges from other major economies. It will really bring back one of the major benefits, economic

integration, of the old British rule for the countries of the Commonwealth.

What Were the Advantages and Disadvantages of British Rule for India

Documents

Transcript of What Were the Advantages and Disadvantages of British Rule for India