The British are given too much credit for things they never did. As for doing good in India, even under the Mughal empire, India is estimated to have a share of 30% of world GDP until the 18th century.
When the British left in 1947, that share was less than 1%. The Brits de-industrialized India, used Indian raw materials and taxes to fuel their own industrial revolution and used India as a captive market to hawk their finished goods under an absolute monopoly.
I know, I know. You might point to the railways, English education, civil service etc. as the 'good ' they did.
The railways were first added in the mid 19th century, and the Brits expanded them only when rail saved their arses in the first war of independence of 1857.
The Education they imparted was a colonial project to wipe out and subjugate the local natives, and give them enough English to serve as clerks in running the Empire. Educational institutes of any lasting value were started by local Hindu & Muslim reformers and intellectuals.
So please save this orientalist reading of history for yourself. We Indians don't have anything to be thankful to the British. Good riddance to them. Hope we never see their sorry faces again.
When it comes to world-spanning Empires, the British were one of the more benevolent -- and this especially applies for India. It's worth noting that the most powerful British Empire builders like Cecil Rhodes were planning for Indian swaraj decades before it became a popular idea among Indians.
Hindu culture was not going anywhere, it desperately needed an injection of rationality and a forced demonstration of good government. India is on a very good path now and it owes most of that to the British. The British used raw force to reform Indian culture away from degenerate, irrational religious fatalism toward a progressive, modern approach to life.
Anyway Indian culture today is unrecognizable compared to pre-British India. The most important part of culture is the approach to law, property, government, and individual rights, and these are the fruits of the British Empire in India. Underestimating these crucial factors is very easy now that you are reaping their benefits. India today would look like Somalia if it wasn't for the Empire.
In 19th century India the British really did reform the savages. They ended wife burning, vigilante decapitations, cannibalism, among other savage but accepted cultural norms. They significantly curtailed the systematic corruption, clarified property rights, introduced representative government, paved the way for social mobility, and are really solely responsible for the slow turning away from pernicious Hindu mysticism -- which is the bane of civilization. Hindu mysticism is really the most damaging kind of irrational religiosity on Earth and causes tremendous suffering and poverty.
The Brits were surprisingly generous given their global hegemony. It is easy to argue that the American Empire is more exploitative and uncaring with respect to their colonies: and the American Empire is less powerful today thanks to the liberalizing influence of the British who themselves foresaw independence for every colony, often before the colonies did. The positive effects of Rhodesian foreign policy should not be underestimated.
It's popular to hate Empires but there really is nothing romantic about cannibalism, institutionalized irrationality, rigid caste systems and all the other savage cultural features of many parts of the world before the age of sail. For all the faults of the British, we often forget just how good England and her colonies had life in comparison to the alternatives.
While it is true that India tolerated a variety of cultural norms amongst its many people before the British, practices like those you mention were fringe practices and by no means mainstream. It was Indian reformers like Ram Mohan Roy who asked for British for help in removing them. The British being the much stronger party do deserve credit for heeding these demands, but in relation to the widespread damage Indian industry suffered under them, these were things that made for good press rather than something that bought about a systematic positive change. It was only after the 1857 war/mutiny fought by the Indians which ended the 257 year old East India Company that Indians were given greater share and responsibility in self governance. Not doing that would have been a fundamentally unstable government system. This very limited civil governmant participation is what eventually grew to a movement which led to independance. You only need to read the writings of Lord Curzon to see that the British never intended to leave India and on the contrary wanted to expand their control over China and Japan as well.
The British don't deserve the sole or even major credit for the cultural changes you talk about. Reformers like Rajaram Mohan Roy, Vivekananda, Gandhi, Ambedkar deserve most of the credit. Cultural changes can not simply be forced by external forces. The British just wanted to organize the Indian society the way they idealized so that they could reap the surplus.
The India of today would be unrecognizable from British India. Many former British colonies in Africa continue to be only slightly better than Somalia. You are giving the Raj too much credit.
>India's per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857, although it had increased to $618 by 1947
I'm not sure whose dollars those are... but it certainly doesn't sound like the Mughal empire ever controlled anything remotely approaching 30% of world GDP. Here's how the British won India, for reference:
these early wins were against muslim rulers who did not have that much support of their majority populace because of taxation issues and also suffered from lost revenues due to the new trade routes.
the hardest wars were against the hindu/sikh rulers - marattas, rajputs and sikhs who were not subdued until 1850s with great effort.
The difference is that the British, instead of killing the "lower races", sought to reform them with what history indicates was a genuine sense of altruism among British Empire-builders.
Hitler put the minorities in gas chambers.
England invited minorities to Oxford and taught them everything they knew.
> The difference is that the British, instead of killing the "lower races", sought to reform them with what history indicates was a genuine sense of altruism among British Empire-builders.
The Empire understood that collaborative local elites were beneficial for the plundering of the colonies, and where necessary, it invested in them. That's all.
You can find cynical explanation for every act of altruism if you want to. Bottom line is there were plenty of powerful British idealists and humanists with a vision for the world who acted to help the colonies at Imperial expense.
