How a Debate Was Won in London Against British Colonisation of India,

by Shashi Tharoor

(Dr. Shashi Tharoor is a two-time MP from Thiruvananthapuram, the Chairman of the

 Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, the former Union Minister of 

State for External Affairs and Human Resource Development and the former UN 

Under-Secretary-General. He has written 14 books, including, most recently, 

Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century.)  

Last week, on the very day that Scotland was deciding its future, six of us gathered in

 London to debate the past. 

To commemorate the 400th anniversary of the British presence in India -- King James I's 

envoy, Sir Thomas Roe, arrived at the court of Emperor Jehangir in 1614 -- the

 Indo-British heritage Trust held a debate, in the chamber of the UK Supreme Court, 

on the motion "This House believes that the Indian subcontinent benefited more than 

it lost from the experience of British colonialism." Needless to say, I spoke against, 

alongside two Indophile Brits, authors William Dalrymple and Nick Robins. The proposers

 were Pakistan's Niloufer Bakhtyar, an editor, Martin Bell, former BBC war correspondent,

 and Kwasi Kwarteng, a Conservative Party MP of African descent. 

It was a lively affair. As the debate began, its Chair, Labour MP Keith Vaz, called for an

 initial vote, which went 35 to 28 for the motion. When it was over, voting took place 

again, and the needle had moved dramatically: 26 to 42 against. 

The anti-colonialists had carried the day.

Why was our case so compelling? At the beginning of the 18th century India's share of

 the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time we won

 independence, it had dropped to less than 4%. The reason was simple: India was 

governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by its

 depredations in India.

Britain's Industrial Revolution was built on the de-industrialisation of India - the destruction

 of Indian textiles and their replacement by manufacturing in England, using Indian raw

 material and exporting the finished products back to India and the rest of the world. 

The handloom weavers of Bengal had produced and exported some of the world's most

 desirable fabrics, especially cheap but fine muslins, some light as "woven air". 

Britain's response was to cut off the thumbs of Bengali weavers, break their looms and

 impose duties and tariffs on Indian cloth, while flooding India and the world with 

cheaper fabric from the new satanic steam mills of Britain. Weavers became

 beggars, manufacturing collapsed; the population of Dhaka, which was once the 

great centre of muslin production, fell by 90%. So instead of a great exporter of finished

 products, India became an importer of British ones, while its share of world exports

 fell from 27% to 2%. 
Colonialists like Robert Clive bought their "rotten boroughs" in England with the 

proceeds of their loot in India (loot, by the way, was a word they took into their 

dictionaries as well as their habits), while publicly marvelling at their own self-restraint

 in not stealing even more than they did. And the British had the gall to call him

 "Clive of India", as if he belonged to the country, when all he really did was to

 ensure that much of the country belonged to him.

By the end of the 19th century, India was Britain's biggest cash-cow, the world's

 biggest purchaser of British exports and the source of highly paid employment 

for British civil servants - all at India's own expense. We literally paid for our

 own oppression.

As Britain ruthlessly exploited India, between 15 and 29 million Indians died 

tragically unnecessary deaths from starvation. The last large-scale famine to take

 place in India was under British rule; none has taken place since, since free

 democracies don't let their people starve to death. Some four million Bengalis 

died in the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 after Winston Churchill deliberately 

ordered the diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied

 British soldiers and European stockpiles. "The starvation

 of anyway underfed Bengalis is less serious" than that of "sturdy Greeks", 

he argued.

 When officers of conscience pointed out in a telegram to the Prime Minister the

 scale of the tragedy caused by his decisions, Churchill's only response was

 to ask peevishly "why hasn't Gandhi died yet?"

British imperialism had long justified itself with the pretence that it was enlightened 

despotism, conducted for the benefit of the governed. Churchill's inhumane conduct 

in 1943 gave the lie to this myth. But it had been battered for two centuries already: 

British imperialism had triumphed not just by conquest and deception on a grand 

scale but by blowing rebels to bits from the mouths of cannons, massacring 
unarmed protestors at Jallianwallah Bagh and upholding iniquity thru 
institutionalised racism.

 Whereas as late as the 1940s it was possible for a black African to say with pride,

 "moi, je suis francais", no Indian in the colonial era was ever allowed to feel British;

 he was always a subject, never a citizen.

What are the arguments FOR British colonialism benefiting the subcontinent? It is often

 claimed that the British bequeathed India its political unity. But India had enjoyed cultural

 and geographical unity throughout the ages, going back to Emperor Ashoka in the 

3rd century BC and Adi Shankara travelling from Kerala to Kashmir and from Dwarka 

to Puri in the 7th century AD, establishing his temples everywhere. As a result, the

 yearning for political unity existed throughout; warriors and kings tried to dominate the

 entire subcontinent, usually unsuccessfully. But with modern transport and communications,

 national unity would have been fulfilled without colonial rule, just as in equally fragmented

 19th century Italy. And what political unity can we celebrate when the horrors of Partition

 (1 million dead, 13 million displaced, billions of rupees of property destroyed) were the

 direct result of deliberate British policies of "divide and rule" that fomented religious

 antagonisms? 

The construction of the Indian Railways is often pointed to as benefit of British rule,

 ignoring the obvious fact that many countries have built railways without having to

 be colonized to do so. Nor were the railways laid to serve the Indian public. 

They were intended to help the British get around, and above all to carry Indian

 raw materials to the ports to be shipped to Britain. The movement of people was 

incidental except when it served colonial interests; no effort was made to ensure

 that supply matched demand for mass transport.

In fact the Indian Railways were a big British colonial scam. British shareholders made 

absurd amounts of money by investing in the railways, where the government guaranteed

 extravagant returns on capital, paid for by Indian taxes. Thanks to British rapacity, 
a mile of Indian railways cost double that of a mile in Canada and Australia.

It was a splendid racket for the British, who made all the profits, controlled the technology

 and supplied all the equipment, which meant once again that the benefits went out of India.

 It was a scheme described at the time as "private enterprise at public risk". Private British

 enterprise, public Indian risk.

The English language comes next on the credit list. It too was not a deliberate gift

 but an instrument of colonialism. As Macaulay explained the purpose of English

 education: "We must do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between 

us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indians in blood and 
colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect." The language
 was taught to a few to serve as intermediaries between the rulers and the ruled. 
That we seized the English language and turned it into an instrument for our own
 liberation was to our credit, not by British design.

The day we defeated the motion, Scottish voters rejected the proposal to leave the 

United Kingdom. But it's often forgotten what cemented the Union in the first place:

 the loaves and fishes available to Scots from participation in the exploits of the East

 India Company. Before 1707 the Scots had tried to colonize various parts of the world, 

but all had failed. After Union with England, a disproportionate number of Scots was

 employed in the Indian colonial enterprise, as soldiers, sailors, merchants, agents and

 employees. Earnings from colonialism in India pulled Scotland out of poverty and

 helped make it prosperous. With India gone, no wonder the bonds are loosening...

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the

 author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity

 of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The 

information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV 

and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. 

http://www.ndtv.com/article/opinion/how-a-debate-was-won-in-london-against-british-colonisation-of-india-by-shashi-tharoor-596716