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 my Indian princes that were protected by the British. The East
India Company established many things for India including telegraph, railroad, and irrigation
systems. 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.

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.
Industrialization: - Indian cottage industries were getting outdated in the modern times and even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
th

steel came up during the later half of the 19 century. 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 India
because 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.
Transportation and Agriculture: - 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 in
th

the second half of the 19 century. 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.

Education and Culture: - 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. In
ancient 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 of
Indians. 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.

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 coordinated 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.
Architecture and Administration: - 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 questionable
acquisition 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 Awakening-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 the
formation 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
th

20 century. 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

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.
Sanctity 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 miscegenation
impossible. 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
th

th

late 18 century and early 19 century before Englishwomen began arriving in India in large numbers
th

from the mid 19 century onwards. After the revolt of 1857 and because of the mindset of British officers
and 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 African 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

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.
Multiculturalism Imposed Vs Multiculturalism Adopted: - 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 superiority
over 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
Commonwealth 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 was
established 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

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.