Just how much did the British 'loot' India?
I read a book about the British Empire by one of its own historians, Niall Ferguson. It's been a long time since I wrote about a book in this space, but this one is interesting enough.
Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World is interesting because it often takes a sympathetic view of colonialism. Ferguson has raised many a controversy for this stand. Consider, for example, this passage:
Indian nationalists [complained] that the wealth of India was being drained into the pockets of foreigners... As measured by the trade surplus of the colony, [this drain] amounted to little more than 1 per cent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930.
Ferguson compares this with what the Dutch did to their Asian colonies and says they took away 7-10% of Indonesian NDP. He also quotes the investment figures made by the British in India: £270 million in 1880, reaching £400 million by 1914. He draws our attention to India's present-day 'elite schools, universities, civil service, army, press and parliamentary system,' all of which have 'discernibly British models.'
Ferguson avers that the British should not be faulted for colonialism and says that they were, by far, the most benevolent colonialists. Other European countries fared far worse when it came to exploiting their colonies in Asia and Africa. Even Japan has a terrible record in China and Korea, as was witnessed in Rape of Nanking.
In another passage, Ferguson brings out the mildness and civilisation of the British by quoting Adolf Hitler, who had a different opinion on dealing with Indian nationalism:
'Shoot Gandhi, and if that does not suffice to reduce them to submission, shoot a dozen leading members of Congress; and if that does not suffice, shoot 200 and so on until order is established.'
The British Empire, according to Ferguson, dissolved not because of nationalistic movements of India or its other colonies, but because the Empire itself was weakened by its fight with other imperialist powers. While that may be debatable, there is no doubt that the Second World War was a severe drain on England's coffers and hastened its exit from India.
To be fair, Empire is not altogether condoning of colonialism or oppression of human rights. Ferguson makes it clear that it was evil of the British and other Europeans to have done it. But as I noted earlier, Ferguson's tone is mostly that of a sympathetic observer. It is as if he has set out to give the British more credit than typical history books do.
At schools in India, we learnt our history with strong undertones of nationalism. Having a book like Ferguson's can temper our learning and show us a different perspective.
Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. Penguin. 2003.
Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World is interesting because it often takes a sympathetic view of colonialism. Ferguson has raised many a controversy for this stand. Consider, for example, this passage:
Indian nationalists [complained] that the wealth of India was being drained into the pockets of foreigners... As measured by the trade surplus of the colony, [this drain] amounted to little more than 1 per cent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930.
Ferguson compares this with what the Dutch did to their Asian colonies and says they took away 7-10% of Indonesian NDP. He also quotes the investment figures made by the British in India: £270 million in 1880, reaching £400 million by 1914. He draws our attention to India's present-day 'elite schools, universities, civil service, army, press and parliamentary system,' all of which have 'discernibly British models.'
Ferguson avers that the British should not be faulted for colonialism and says that they were, by far, the most benevolent colonialists. Other European countries fared far worse when it came to exploiting their colonies in Asia and Africa. Even Japan has a terrible record in China and Korea, as was witnessed in Rape of Nanking.
In another passage, Ferguson brings out the mildness and civilisation of the British by quoting Adolf Hitler, who had a different opinion on dealing with Indian nationalism:
'Shoot Gandhi, and if that does not suffice to reduce them to submission, shoot a dozen leading members of Congress; and if that does not suffice, shoot 200 and so on until order is established.'
The British Empire, according to Ferguson, dissolved not because of nationalistic movements of India or its other colonies, but because the Empire itself was weakened by its fight with other imperialist powers. While that may be debatable, there is no doubt that the Second World War was a severe drain on England's coffers and hastened its exit from India.
To be fair, Empire is not altogether condoning of colonialism or oppression of human rights. Ferguson makes it clear that it was evil of the British and other Europeans to have done it. But as I noted earlier, Ferguson's tone is mostly that of a sympathetic observer. It is as if he has set out to give the British more credit than typical history books do.
At schools in India, we learnt our history with strong undertones of nationalism. Having a book like Ferguson's can temper our learning and show us a different perspective.
Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. Penguin. 2003.