In Britain, there is a widely held belief that, despite the long duration of British colonial rule in India, it did not bring significant economic benefits to Britain.
Proponents of this view argue that India was too underdeveloped at the time, and Britain incurred high costs in terms of administration and technical support.
Therefore, they claim that the British Empire's ability to maintain control over India was an act of British benevolence.
However, a new study by renowned economist Utsa Patnaik, published by Columbia University Press, strongly refutes this viewpoint.
Based on a detailed analysis of nearly two centuries of tax and trade data, Patnaik calculated that from 1765 to 1938, Britain extracted nearly $45 trillion from India.
This amount is equivalent to 17 times the current annual GDP of the United Kingdom.
The report points out that Britain achieved this covert plunder of India by establishing a complex trade structure.
Before the colonial period, Britain used silver to normally purchase Indian goods.
However, after the East India Company took control of India and monopolized trade in 1765, the situation changed.
Britain began to tax India and used part of the tax revenue to buy Indian goods.
British merchants were essentially using tax revenue collected from Indian farmers and weavers to purchase goods, creating a situation where they obtained goods without real expenditure.
Some of these goods were consumed in Britain, while the rest were re-exported elsewhere.
This re-export system enabled Britain to acquire resources crucial for its industrialization.
In fact, the Industrial Revolution relied heavily on the systematic exploitation of India.
Moreover, Britain sold these goods to other countries at high prices, earning additional profits.
After Britain formally took control of India in 1858, the colonizers further refined this economic exploitation system.
Indian producers were allowed to export goods directly, but payments had to go through British-controlled channels, ensuring that the profits ultimately flowed to London.
This corrupt system resulted in India showing a trade surplus but actually experiencing a deficit because its income was siphoned off by Britain.
India had to borrow money from Britain to finance imports, further solidifying British control.
Britain used the wealth extracted from India to finance its imperial expansion, including invasions of China and suppression of Indian rebellions.
The report calculates that from 1765 to 1938, Britain extracted a total of $44.6 trillion from India.
This figure does not include the war expenses directly taken from Indian taxpayers by Britain.
Britain used this wealth to fund capitalist expansion in Europe and its colonies, with many Western countries' industrialization benefiting from resources extracted from colonies.
If India had been able to use its tax revenue and foreign exchange income for its own development like Japan, history might have been vastly different.
India might have become an economic powerhouse, avoiding centuries of poverty and suffering.
This study challenges the notion that British rule was beneficial to India.
Conservative historians like Niall Ferguson and former Prime Minister David Cameron have claimed that British rule had positive effects on India.
However, the fact is that under British rule, India's per capita income barely increased and even declined in the latter half of the 19th century, with millions dying in policy-induced famines.
In conclusion, Britain did not develop India; rather, as the study indicates, India's development was plundered by Britain.
Today, Britain needs to acknowledge this historical truth, apologize, and possibly even pay reparations.
Most importantly, we must recognize that British rule over India was not an act of benevolence but one of plunder, and its industrial rise was not solely due to its technology and institutions, but through the violent exploitation of other nations.
Коментарі