As I wrote recently, I just finished reading Freedom At Midnight, an amazing account of all events that occurred in 1947 and 1948 in India and in the UK that led to India’s independence and partition.
As I was discussing the book, and a fortiori the independence, the partition and its aftermath, with Ritu, an Indian girl friend that arrived in the U.S. about 15 years ago (… i think …), we came to discuss the colonization of India in general, and I dared to say that it was a good thing. No need to say I faced a fierce resistance!
So now, two weeks later, it might be a good time to verify my point ;)
So first, what’s my point anyway ? India is on its way to become a super power - or has already become one actually in certain areas. So to clarify my point further, I meant that colonization helped India get on the modernization track. My point would become: thanks to the British rulers, India got equipped with the “tools” (infrastructure, mindset, education, ?) that enabled its development to its current state.
Then, what defines a developed country ? A developed country is a country where the tertiary (insurance and banking services, content & media, leisure and tourism, consulting, business services,…) and quaternary (information generation, consultation, education, R&D) industry sectors dominate (bring GDP, employ people).
Is India a developed country ? Of course not (yet). India is in the category of the developing countries. And as India’s economy is already complex, well functioning and booming, it is considered to be in the sub-category of the newly industrialized countries (China, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Thailand, …). Within that top of the class club, India also stands in the Big Emerging Markets because of its economic potential.
However, looking at the tertiary and quaternary industry sectors, how does India compare to other countries ? Everyone knows the Indian movie industry is the largest in the world (productions and tickets sales). You might know that the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange of India are respectively the 10th and 11th busiest in the world, counting together for $3.07 trillion in 2007. But amongst the 9 first stock exchanges, only 2 are not from developed countries, both in China (Shanghai and Hong Kong), and Hong Kong has been British until 1997. The services sector places India at the fifteenth position worldwide. Some groups are worldwide giants - to name a few: Tata (material, automotive, construction, communication,…) will generate way over $30 billions in 2008 and employs 290,000 workers ; ArcelorMittal (steel) weighs over $105 billions and employs 320K people ; the Indian Railways employ over 1.4M people (!!!). The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) count among the best engineering and management colleges worldwide.
To summarize, India is about to be a developed country. India counts for its services, education, transport system, industries, financial services. Nothing new so far. That’s for the current status of India.
Now for the second part of this article, I will investigate to find out if the United Kingdom is involved in those achievements, and if so, how ?
Please comment to give your own opinion !
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed
or receive my posts by email !
I think u r right.Many people around d world don’t think that potential power of india.they should be learn that india is not now a poor country.
Well I agree in some way… We can’t say the same about French colonies in Africa! In some way the British did a “good” job.
Your assessment of India now or at colonial era are wrong, misleading and lack realistic perception. India does not have the potential of becoming a superpower in the short as well as long term. Its demographic, social and psychic structure is inherently fragmentative. That alone is reason enough that India, unlike China, will always remain a mediocre country, poor,weak andburdened with unimaginable explosion of over-population bursting at the seams.It is naive and foolish of those Indians and foreigners who attribute highfallutin qualities to this essentially very ordinary country. It has always muddled through and got by somehow, and shall always continue to do so.
Well, as they say “there is nothing absolute good or bad”. To that extent I agree that British coloniesm did some good things for India. However I would want to debate the notion that had British not been there, India would not have seen ay of that development.
To assess that I can only think of comparing various colonies (British or otherwise). What appears a general trend is that the colonies usually lack in the development (barring a few exceptions e.g. Hong Kong). I guess no country would want to leg behind for a long period, unless restricted by an external force.
Secondly, in pockets India was already employing new technology (Tipu Sultan’s rockets) as well as expanding its infrastructure. And going by history I would assume that rest of India would have caught up, though may be a bit late.
However, as India was fragmented when British came and left, so I am not sure if India would have been as large country as it is today or a bunch of smaller countries.
From that I conclude that the biggest benefit that British colonization had for India was to bring it together. Rest of the changes would have come sooner or later in any case.